Congratulations to Father Weinandy! I worked with him on a book that Our Sunday Visitor published called "Jesus the Christ."
From U.S. Catholic Bishops - Office of Communications:
"Father Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., of the Faculty of Theology, Oxford University, has been named Executive Director of the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
He will succeed Msgr. John Strynkowski who has held the post since 2001.
The appointment, which is effective January 1, 2005, was announced by Msgr. William Fay, USCCB General Secretary.
'Father Weinandy is a leading scholar in the Church today, and a prolific writer, at both the academic and popular levels,' Msgr. Fay said. 'He is held in the highest esteem by his colleagues and the students who have taken his courses in this country and abroad. He has inspired numerous people through the days of recollection, retreats and parish missions he has conducted in the United States, Canada, Ireland, England and Scotland. I am confident that his work with the Bishops' Conference will make an enormous contribution to the life of the Church in our country.'
'I also want to pay tribute to the dedicated service and accomplishments of Msgr. Strynkowski,' Msgr. Fay continued. 'The USCCB will remain in his debt for many years to come.'"
Friday, February 27, 2004
A New Era?
Passion of Christ the top movie, radio stations dropping Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge, partial birth abortions banned...could it be that we are entering a new era?
Of course at the same time we see Rosie O'Donnell and her "wife" appearing on the courthouse steps splashed all over television...
Of course at the same time we see Rosie O'Donnell and her "wife" appearing on the courthouse steps splashed all over television...
Thursday, February 26, 2004
A Post on the Beginning of The Passion of the Christ
I've posted some comments about the beginning of the movie, along with the Gospel accounts and Anne Catherine Emmerich's account for your enrichment. They are over here.
The Passion of the Christ
I have two sets of comments about the film, one is in the Lenten Meditations to the right, the other is below under "It is as it was."
Do You Recognize This Jesus?
Ken Woodward's comments on The Passion from Op-Ed Contributor: Do You Recognize This Jesus?:
"Most Americans worship in churches where the bloodied body of Jesus is absent from sanctuary crosses or else styled in ways so abstract that there is no hint of suffering. In sermons, too, the emphasis all too often is on the smoothly therapeutic: what Jesus can do for me.
More than 60 years ago, H. Richard Neibuhr summarized the creed of an easygoing American Christianity that has in our time triumphantly come to pass: 'A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment though the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.' Despite its muscular excess, Mr. Gibson's symbol-laden film is a welcome repudiation of all that.
'The Passion of the Christ' is violent -- no question. Although Mel Gibson the believer identifies with a traditionalist movement that rejects Vatican Council II, Mel Gibson the artist here displays a thoroughly Catholic sensibility, one that since the Middle Ages has emphasized Jesus as the suffering savior crowned with thorns. Martin Luther, too, would have recognized in this film his own theology of the cross."
"Most Americans worship in churches where the bloodied body of Jesus is absent from sanctuary crosses or else styled in ways so abstract that there is no hint of suffering. In sermons, too, the emphasis all too often is on the smoothly therapeutic: what Jesus can do for me.
More than 60 years ago, H. Richard Neibuhr summarized the creed of an easygoing American Christianity that has in our time triumphantly come to pass: 'A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment though the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.' Despite its muscular excess, Mr. Gibson's symbol-laden film is a welcome repudiation of all that.
'The Passion of the Christ' is violent -- no question. Although Mel Gibson the believer identifies with a traditionalist movement that rejects Vatican Council II, Mel Gibson the artist here displays a thoroughly Catholic sensibility, one that since the Middle Ages has emphasized Jesus as the suffering savior crowned with thorns. Martin Luther, too, would have recognized in this film his own theology of the cross."
It is, as it was
Well, I saw it. Overall I liked it.
I thought it did a great job in portraying the cultic action of the Jewish priesthood offering the "lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". God is the supreme actor in the Passion as Jesus reminds Pilate, and I did hear what Jesus says to Pilate (that is from the Scripture) in a way that I never heard before..."what do we do with the power that God has given us?"
I've heard a ton of talk about the movie since I've seen it. Rabbi Marc Gelman liked it and thought it resurrected a "real" portrayal of the roots of Christianity in a day when religion is often portrayed in a cartoonish way.
Other rabbi's have condemned it, one saying that all the Jews had "bad teeth." Since everyone in the movie was either a Jew or Roman and Jesus had great teeth, I'm not sure what movie he saw.
But perhaps that is the point about a movie like this, we see what we want to...we go to it looking for confirmation of our preheld views.
Some things that I liked in particular were:
Seeing the Passion from the view of the Blessed Virgin Mary...
Seeing the Eucharist from the view of John...
The interspersing of scenes that in someway made the gave additional interpretation to the events that were taking place.
Overall the movie serves as an excellent meditation on Christ's passion and it's lack of focus on the resurection (only hinted at) gives the viewer a way to apply the passion of Christ to their daily life.
Things that I think were weak:
The opening Garden scene I thought was poorly done. The focus was on the devil (another weakness...), the apostles after being told to stay awake--literally wake up and do watch Jesus (they don't in Scripture--rather they go back to sleep), and Jesus is never sent an angel to strengthen him. I know that some aspects of Anne Catherine Emmerich's vision has supplied this scene, but even her vision is more intersting as the devil displays before Christ all the misinterpretations of his message and the futility of his suffering on the mass of the future humanity--this could have placed the whole passion in context).
I thought there could have been more focus on the cultic action of the Temple and tied that in with Jesus' passion and the hostility of the Jewish priests.
I would have like to have seen the "darkness" that overtakes the whole land to be more eerie than just an impending thunderstorm.
But overall, here is a Passion of Christ that portrays Christ as a man not a wimp, as someone entering a battle and fighting it courageously until it is finished.
I thought it did a great job in portraying the cultic action of the Jewish priesthood offering the "lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". God is the supreme actor in the Passion as Jesus reminds Pilate, and I did hear what Jesus says to Pilate (that is from the Scripture) in a way that I never heard before..."what do we do with the power that God has given us?"
I've heard a ton of talk about the movie since I've seen it. Rabbi Marc Gelman liked it and thought it resurrected a "real" portrayal of the roots of Christianity in a day when religion is often portrayed in a cartoonish way.
Other rabbi's have condemned it, one saying that all the Jews had "bad teeth." Since everyone in the movie was either a Jew or Roman and Jesus had great teeth, I'm not sure what movie he saw.
But perhaps that is the point about a movie like this, we see what we want to...we go to it looking for confirmation of our preheld views.
Some things that I liked in particular were:
Seeing the Passion from the view of the Blessed Virgin Mary...
Seeing the Eucharist from the view of John...
The interspersing of scenes that in someway made the gave additional interpretation to the events that were taking place.
Overall the movie serves as an excellent meditation on Christ's passion and it's lack of focus on the resurection (only hinted at) gives the viewer a way to apply the passion of Christ to their daily life.
Things that I think were weak:
The opening Garden scene I thought was poorly done. The focus was on the devil (another weakness...), the apostles after being told to stay awake--literally wake up and do watch Jesus (they don't in Scripture--rather they go back to sleep), and Jesus is never sent an angel to strengthen him. I know that some aspects of Anne Catherine Emmerich's vision has supplied this scene, but even her vision is more intersting as the devil displays before Christ all the misinterpretations of his message and the futility of his suffering on the mass of the future humanity--this could have placed the whole passion in context).
I thought there could have been more focus on the cultic action of the Temple and tied that in with Jesus' passion and the hostility of the Jewish priests.
I would have like to have seen the "darkness" that overtakes the whole land to be more eerie than just an impending thunderstorm.
But overall, here is a Passion of Christ that portrays Christ as a man not a wimp, as someone entering a battle and fighting it courageously until it is finished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)