On Monday, at a Dublin preview for invited guests, mainly clergy, The Irish Times brought a group along to get their views on Mel Gibson's new film The Passion of the Christ – this is what they had to say afterwards to Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent.
Dr Yaakov Pearlman The Chief Rabbi of Ireland:
"On the positive side; it was the first time I had heard Aramaic spoken. It is a language I had studied. That was fascinating, and quite accurate.
"The film was one of the bloodiest and most gory I've seen. It was torturous, continuously. It didn't let up. I admit I had to close my eyes several times. The cruelty was beyond human capacity. Normally a person would not have survived two to three minutes [of such scourging].
"Jews were portrayed as blood-thirsty, evil, barbaric and as having betrayed and informed on Jesus. In the early 1960s the Second Vatican Council pronounced, absolving Jews of any responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. It denounced anti-Semitism. This applied to all Jews of the past and today. It was a major initiative. It was pretty obvious that the crucifixion and the blame attached to Jews fuelled anti-Semitism in Europe throughout the pre-Hitler period, leading to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust.
"This film undermines that Vatican II initiative and I am afraid it will open up old wounds and influence or ignite the anti-Semitism which is growing across Europe today. It will aggravate it, and deal a serious blow to the Vatican II pronouncements. Where people who are not particularly learned are concerned, it will promote doubts. Jews are portrayed as caricatures.
"I would expect the Catholic authorities should comment on the film and have it denounced as anti-Semitic. It would be important to restate the Vatican II position and to clarify what exactly is the situation where the church is concerned about it [the film]. The film is going back to the way the Gospel was understood, not as it is today. I definitely recommend the Catholic Church come out and restate its position. It would do a lot to calm down possible anti-Semitism. For the Jewish community across the world, it is unfortunate. People have to stand up and respond that they will not stand for anti-Semitism."
Father Joseph Coyne, Parish Priest, Lucan, Co Dublin:
"I was not very engaged with this film or with the personality of Jesus as portrayed. Or the constant violence. It was incessant and put me off. After the scourging I disengaged. I was just not drawn in. It was not a real experience for me. It was wooden, monochrome, possibly because it had just one theological adviser/Aramaic and Latin translator, which was surprising. One theological adviser . . . and all those hairstylists in the credits at the end!
"There was no subtlety in the presentation. I didn't notice any anti-Semitism as such, everything just followed in a certain way. One high priest was portrayed and was going to stay that way with no indication of doubt. Which was simple, if one understood the complexity of the Jewish people at the time, between their leadership, the Pharisees, and so on.
"The film had a fundamentalist outlook, giving a stark presentation for someone who didn't know anything [about Jesus]."
Rev Dr Trevor Morrow, former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland:
"It was quite powerful and deeply emotional. I was profoundly affected and moved to tears twice by scenes interpolated from the earlier life of Jesus.
"It was really a sermon preached by Mel Gibson out of the angst of a converted alcoholic who wanted to tell the story of how Jesus had changed his life.
"People can respond on an individual level, and I don't care which door people come in.
"It must seem odd to the contemporary world that central to a Christian understanding of reality is the crucifixion of a Jew.
"To the post-modern sensibility it must seem all very weird. I would hope it [the film] would lead to something positive. This would probably be dependent on the baggage people bring to the movie.
"As a gentile I didn't feel it was even remotely anti-Semitic. If there were elements that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic then the same criticism can be made of the Gospels.
"But it was the most violent film I have ever seen. Was that level of gore necessary? If it is not necessary for the Gospel stories to be told, why is it necessary for a film maker? It is significant that in the gospel narratives there is no gore whatever. Mark says simply 'they crucified him'. No focus on blood, pain, etc.
"I know if you are into cinema you evoke emotions by such means, affronting the sensitivities by showing it as it was.
"But it seems to me the Gospels don't tell it like that. In conservative Catholic circles of course there is great emphasis on the nature of suffering, and its intensity and extent.
"And we could have done without some of the special effects, which made it look like Harry Potter at times. For those of us from a Christian tradition there is a level of prior understanding we bring to the package, but I wonder what will be the reaction in the secular context where the film will be seen?
"Its overall impact is awesome, exhilarating beyond measure. I would encourage people to see it. Of course I have a vested interest in it being discussed."
Dr Sean Freyne, Erasmus professor of theology at Trinity College Dublin and director of the Programme for Mediterranean and Near Eastern Studies:
"I didn't like it overall. Gibson has put together the four Gospel accounts and cherry-picked. His problem - and the film has given rise to anti-Semitism concerns - is that he failed to recognise the different perspectives of the different evangelists in the film, and to recognise the certain biases in these sources, e.g. where Jewish implication [in the crucifixion of Jesus] and Roman exoneration were concerned.
"They [the evangelists] wanted to make the Gospels acceptable in Roman eyes. What he did is quite dangerous, and the film therefore doesn't capture the real Jesus, who was a martyr figure who refused to acknowledge imperial rule but not by violence. Rome saw him as a threat.
"As this context is absent, Gibson runs the risk of distortion and of conveying anti-Semitic undertones.
"I was watching for anti-Semitism but did not notice any overtly. However I didn't like the emphasis on the Jewish business [to Pilate's advantage]. The Pilate of Luke is so different from that of Josephus [the historian] who presents him as ruthless with the Jews. The Gospels may be reliable historically to some extent but they are heavily coloured by prior theological reflection. John especially.
"They were written from the perspective of the Risen One, where Death, Resurrection, and Pentecost are all rolled into one. They were written from a very strong Christian perspective, but there is a detachment from the gory details.
"There's such a lack of subtlety in the film, which also reflects a particular type of Catholic piety, of a statue weeping blood, precious blood, Sacred Heart, variety. It is a reversion to that particular type of Catholic spirituality."
Geoffrey Phillips:
None of Geoffrey Phillips' family survived the Holocaust. He was one of the first Jewish children to be taken out of Germany in 1938 following the international Kindertransport (child transport) campaign launch in December that year. It followed Kristalnacht a month beforehand, when the Nazis burned synagogues all over Germany and the male heads of Jewish households were arrested.
He has been living in Ireland since 1950.
"It is pretty powerful. All stops are out. And it has anti-Semitic undertones, which are quite gratuitous. There's the high priest at the crucifixion, which didn't and wouldn't have happened. And the figure of Barabbas.
"He is presented as the worst caricature of the stereotypical Jew. Why go out of your way to portray him like that? It is totally unnecessary.
"I would have expected Jesus to be played as a charismatic figure, but he was very flat and not charismatic at all in this film, whether that is deliberate or not. He/they are all shadowy figures.
"I expected someone who would have come over as a more gripping character - another poor Jew suffering for his principles - but he is just completely passive. I'd say he will be something of a disappointment to believers.
"The film only displays one side of his character, that which has no control over his fortune and any other powers towards his own ends. Jesus's salvific powers are totally absent.
"For someone who is reputedly the Son of God there is very little evidence presented.
"The film certainly glorifies violence and, even allowing for the fact that ancient Judea under the Romans was a violent place, that too is out of context.
"It is not the sort of picture I would have expected someone to make about the life of Jesus and I know the concerns about it from some Jewish organisations. But I don't think it will make much difference, one way or another. They won't be throwing stones through my window because of it."
Suzi Diamond:
Mrs Suzi Diamond and her brother, who have been living in Ireland since 1947, survived the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp as did their mother, who then died of TB soon after liberation in 1945. What became of their father was never established.
"The film had a lot of horrific scenes which could have been toned down. I wonder who will go to see it. If there are any anti-Semitic tendencies there it will be like putting a match to them.
"I can hear those 'we killed your Lord' undertones from another age. I wonder what will go through people's minds when they leave the cinema after seeing it, especially in the climate that is growing now where anti-Jewish feeling is concerned. It could stoke it up.
"It's mainly the horrific parts that are concentrated on. And the high priests saying 'crucify him', will that remain in people's minds when they come away? Those are the sort of images people remember. That's what would worry me with such a lot going on in Israel.
"Will it lead to a wider uproar by people around the world with a lot of Jewish people thinking it could cause a lot of children to throw stones? Its actual facts are not correct. And in a film like that the facts have to be right. It is the sort of film people will remember and believe. He [Mel Gibson] should have got them completely correct. He went overboard. He should have remembered that less is more.
"All those soldiers jeering and laughing. I don't think people could be so blood-thirsty. If people start telling their friends about it they won't go. The religious will go, but I don't think the ordinary people will want to see it."