What do you do for an encore if you’ve made The Passion of the Christ?
I read one interview where Mel Gibson talked about making a film version of the books of Maccabees. (Lotsa blood n’ gut in that saga.)
But now a British magazine is reporting that Mel’s next film is slated to be about
Specifically: It is reported to be an adaption of the novel Stealing from Angels, which came out late last year. The novel is a fictionalized account of a man from New York who gets swept up in European intrigue and comes into contact with the Third Secret and the assassination attempt on John Paul II’s life back in 1981 (presumably the novel is set back then).
In-teresting. Could be a good movie. Mel might still changes his plans, though, (or the report might be wrong) but this sounds like it could be both right up his alley and a commercial success (though not on the same level as TPOTC).
GET THE STORY. (Cowboy hat tip to the reader who sent this.)
Want spoilers for the movie?
GET THE BOOK. (Caveat emptor: I haven’t read it.)
From Amazon.Com’s “product description”:
“I thought about the files I had read in London. The Vatican had assisted the Nazis. They believed that communism was a greater threat than any Adolph Hitler posed.”
This is apparetly an excerpt from the book.
Spew!
Mel, how could you?! Was Pius XII not “tradtional” enough for you?
*Sigh*
Hey y’all, I thought I knew this, someone asked me at RCIA, but now that they asked, I am not sure, and can’t find the infor anywhere.
Is Mel’s church in communion with the Pope?
Is it an indult sect, or what?
Thanks.
I dunno, I think Eric could be jumping the gun a little bit here. One sentence, quoted completely out of context? For all I know, it could be from the villain’s monologue laying out his EVIL MASTER PLAN, or his monologue trying to SEDUCE THE HERO TO THE DARK SIDE, or whatever. Or, take another example: Tim Powers’s incredibly cool thriller DECLARE (read it now!), which involves spies, commies, lapsed Catholic heroes who rediscover their faith, and djinns (as in “mentally and morally retarded angels of Islamic legend”). You could cherry-pick some quotes outta that one that would make the author look pretty anti-Catholic, yet it’s easily the most overtly Catholic book Powers has written.
The author also wrote another book called “Immaculate Heart” which seems to be liked by people who like the Da Vinci code. There is just about zero info about the author or his books that I have been able to find. I just hope that the movie won’t have Fr. Gruner’s view of things.
Stealing from Angels
I am not quite sure how to take this news. [via Jimmy Akin] Fittingly, just ten days after the death…
Jon:
Mel Gibson is not a Catholic.
And this is according to his should-be bishop, Roger Cardinal Mahoney:
“Leonel M: Mel Gibson’s upcoming movie ‘The Passion of the Christ’ has had more than its share of headlines for the last year or more. But what is the relationship of Gibson’s church near Malibu to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles? Is it part of a schismatic group?
Cardinal: I know nothing about the Church in Malibu. It is certainly not in communion with the Universal Catholic Church nor the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
I have never met Mr. Gibson, and he does not participate in any parish of this Archdiocese. He, apparently, has chosen to live apart from the communion of the Catholic Church. I pray for him.
The Holy Spirit is promised to the Church, as well as the presence of Jesus: ‘Behold, I am with you all days until the end of the world.’ Those words were spoken to the Church, not to an individual in any century.
Moderator: We have several related questions about Mel Gibson; I’ll try to summarize them. Many people have the impression that Mel Gibson is — for lack of a better word — a ‘regular’ Catholic. Could you briefly explain the Catholic traditionalist movement?
Cardinal: Actually, there is no such thing as the ‘Catholic traditionalist, modernist, movement.’ Either one is in full communion with the Catholic Church, in unity with the Successor of Peter, or not. One cannot pick and choose which Pope to follow, especially dead ones, or which teaching to follow — and then set aside the rest. Such people may be very nice people, but that doesn’t make them ‘Catholic’ in the true sense.
Even the media is beginning ‘to get it’ about these groups. We must give full assent to the Creed and all that the Church teaches.
Moderator: So if Mel Gibson does not accept the Church’s teachings as outlined in Vatican II documents, he’s ‘not Catholic in the true sense’?
Cardinal: The Sixteen Documents of the Second Vatican Council constitute the accurate, authentic teaching of the Church. Those teachings are now contained in the Catechism of the Church. If one chooses to set aside any of those, then they choose to separate themselves from the unity of the Church. Keep in mind that the first temptation of Adam and Eve was precisely this: Satan told them, ‘you will be like gods, choosing good and evil.’ Wrong.”
The full transcript can be read here: http://www.recongress.org/chat2004.htm
Ironic though it be, His Eminence is actually right for a change.
“The Sixteen Documents of the Second Vatican Council constitute the accurate, authentic teaching of the Church. Those teachings are now contained in the Catechism of the Church. If one chooses to set aside any of those, then they choose to separate themselves from the unity of the Church.”
Actually, and I’m hoping Jimmy can clarify, wouldn’t the Code of Canon Law be a bigger determinant of who/what consitutes being in union with the Catholic Church? Can’t Masses held at independent chapels be illicit yet valid, depending on the standing of the celibrant?
I’ve heard both sides of Mel Gibson’s status, nearly all of it hearsay. In essence, Jon, the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
“The Sixteen Documents of the Second Vatican Council constitute the accurate, authentic teaching of the Church. Those teachings are now contained in the Catechism of the Church. If one chooses to set aside any of those, then they choose to separate themselves from the unity of the Church.”
Actually, and I’m hoping Jimmy can clarify, wouldn’t the Code of Canon Law be a bigger determinant of who/what consitutes being in union with the Catholic Church? Can’t Masses held at independent chapels be illicit yet valid, depending on the standing of the celibrant?
I’ve heard both sides of Mel Gibson’s status, nearly all of it hearsay. In essence, Jon, the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
Perhaps this is as good a place as any to ask the following question:
Considering the fact that none of the documents issued by the second Vatican Council dogmatically defined any issue of faith, and are thus not infallible, couldn’t one obey them but still disagree with them or criticize them?
If you look at past councils — even ecumencial ones — you will find poor pastoral decisions from time to time.
Tim Powers’ Declare is incredible. Read it, y’all!
>>>”Considering the fact that none of the documents issued by the second Vatican Council dogmatically defined any issue of faith, and are thus not infallible, couldn’t one obey them but still disagree with them or criticize them?”
First, something does not need to be taught by the Supreme Extraordinary Magisterium to be infallible (ie, it doesn’t have to be attached to an “Anathema Sit”). The Supreme Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, and this was the level of the Second Vatican Council.
The Second Vatican Council did deal with some development of doctrine (explicitly stating so in Dignitatis Humanae). While these developments were not issued by the Supreme Extraordinary Magisterium, they are nonetheless infallible.
The pastoral norms established by the Council are also infallible. Infallibility simply means that they will not be opposed to the faith or morals of the Church. It does not mean they were the best pastoral norms to establish. So yes, one could propose a different pastoral path than that envisaged by the council, so long as he acknowledges the pastoral norms are fully legitimate and orthodox, and does not disparage them. One must also be careful not to reject the doctrinal principles underlying pastoral norms.
For example, if you think the Roman Church should retain an exclusively Latin Liturgy, you can disagree with the council on that point, so long as you recognize the legitimacy of a vernacular Liturgy, and obey the Liturgical law of the Church.
Does anyone actually know where Mel attends church? Does anyone know what Mel believes about Vatican II?
Mel’s next movie should be about the Battle of Lepanto.
Well, while His Eminence may be correct regarding Mr. Gibson’s “objective” relationship to the Church, I will defer to Mr. Caviezel for a better informed assessment of his “subjective” relationship. Of course, let us join Cardinal Mahoney in praying for Mel’s full communion. Jim Caviezel’s words here certainly give me hope. (the following is from John Allen’s NCR Word from Rome, 3-19-04)
Caviezel defended Gibson’s attitude towards Rome, the subject of much curiosity given the Australian superstar’s traditionalist leanings. “Mel Gibson is very, very Roman Catholic,” Caviezel said. “This man grew up in a Tridentine family, and was treated horribly by people who were Catholic. When you live in Alabama and you’re black, and you get treated horribly by others and judged unfairly because of the color of your skin, how open are you? Even though you’re trying, how open are you?” …
He said he never spoke with Mel Gibson about the pope or the institutional Catholic church. Nevertheless, he issued a ringing defense of Gibson’s Catholicism.
“Whatever is leading Mel Gibson is something very holy,” Caviezel said. “I don’t know any Roman Catholic who would take on the world like he has. But whatever you’ve heard, if you don’t like it, pray for his complete conversion.
“I can’t believe he had the strength to do what he has done. I know he loves Our Lady very, very, very much. I know he believes in the Seat of Peter, absolutely. The rest takes care of itself through prayer.”
Jason,
I have a hard time understanding the infallibility of a Council quite as broadly as you or Cdl. Mahoney.
For instance, Canons 78 and 79 of Lateran IV — an ecumenical council — required Jews and Moslems to wear special clothing to distinguish them from Christians. Wasn’t that a totally awful “pastoral” decision? Couldn’t some of V II’s pastoral decisions also be misguided? While we certainly must obey the decisions of the Church, such pastoral decisions ought to be open to criticism.
“For example, if you think the Roman Church should retain an exclusively Latin Liturgy, you can disagree with the council on that point, so long as you recognize the legitimacy of a vernacular Liturgy, and obey the Liturgical law of the Church.”
I would agree with this statement.
Second Thoughts About Mel’s Take On Fatima.
Two days ago I expressed my pleasure at Mel Gibson buying the rights to “Stealing From Angels”, a novel dealing with the third prophesy of Fatima. I had some unexpressed concerns, particularly regarding comparisons of the novel to those of Dan Brown …
Does anyone know WHERE Mel Gibson’s church in Malibu is? Or the name? I’d like to check it out for myself. Thanks!