Christ's last temptation

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I would like the opinion of the Catholics in this forum about the movie "Christ's last temptation". I don't know the exact title in English; in Spanish it is called "La zltima tentacisn de Cristo".

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 17, 2000

Answers

Hello, Enrique.
I cannot give you a personal opinion about "The Last Temptation of Christ," because I have not seen the movie. I have not seen it because people whom I trust have advised everyone against seeing it. According to them, it is blasphemous garbage (blasfemia y basura).

Thought released in 1989 (and now being shown on cable TV), it is based on a book written years before that. If I recall correctly, the writer, Nikos Kazantzakis, was excommunicated from the Greek Orthodox Church. The director of the movie, Martin Scorsese, is a very troubled ex-Catholic. I remember reading that the movie is long and boring (over 2.5 hours) and that it is VERY dangerous to one's spiritual health, because it will implant anti-Jesus images in your mind that will remain there as long as you live.

Here is a short commentary (with no copyright) from a priest who can be trusted. He appears on EWTN ...

A COMMENTARY ON THE "LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST" by Fr. John Trigilio

There is an enormous impact on a person's spirituality whenever you deal with Christology. The movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ" I found distasteful and a piece of bad cinema, not to mention offensive to ordinary Christians. I found Scorsese's interpretation blasphemous and pandering to sensationalism. The book which is the core of the movie plot, I found DANGEROUS. It is perilous because it veils heresy with the appearances of "spirituality." Someone not well versed in the complex intricacies of Christology and Soteriology could honestly and inadvertently be deceived into accepting FALSE notions about Our Divine Lord.

"The Father's Son" by Rev. James T. O'Connor (1984) and especially "The Consciousness of Christ" by Rev. William G. Most (1980) are INDISPENSABLE sources of orthodox doctrine & dogma regarding Jesus Christ. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) solemnly and infallibly taught that in Jesus Christ, the God-Man, there is one Divine Person with two natures, human and Divine in such a way that they both are unconfused, unchanged undivided and inseparable. This Chalcedonian formula of one Divine Person and two natures, human and Divine, enhanced and elaborated the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed when it says "True God and true man." The operative thing here is that Jesus' humanity DID NOT EXIST OF ITSELF AS A HUMAN PERSON, but exists as being assumed into the eternal Person of the Son of God. (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, MYSTERIUM FILII DEI, "Declaration for Safeguarding Belief in the Mysteries of the Incarnation and of the Most Holy Trinity Against Some recent Errors", 1972, AAS 64). Both the book and the movie imply that Jesus was a human person or at least that He had a human person in conjunction with His Divine Person. Chalcedon teaches that He did have a totally and complete human nature and a totally and complete Divine Nature, BUT He was ONE Divine Person. While He has a human free will and a human rational intellect in His human nature, He also has the omnipotent Divine Will and the omniscient Divine Intellect in His Divine Nature. Both wills and both intellects are UNITED in the one Person. There is a union and a conformity of His human will to the Divine Will because of the Grace of the Hypostatic Union.

Sin is the rejection of the Will of God. Jesus COULD not sin even in His human nature because that would mean He would be able to contradict His Divine Will and would thus be contradicting His very SELF, the Second Person of the Trinity. That is illogical and impossible. Jesus was and is impeccable. It is NOT His alleged vulnerability to sin (susceptibility to temptation) which makes Him like us, but in that He shares our human nature, intellect and will. He does not share our person. He is not a human person. A human person is incapable of redeeming the whole human race. Only a Divine Person can effect redemption and salvation.

"One like us in all things, except sin," says St. Paul. The expression, "EXCEPT SIN," includes the effects of sin, namely concupiscence. He had NO weakened will and NO darkened intellect in His human nature. His human will was always in conformity to His Divine Will. Ergo, Jesus could not be tempted internally by the world, the flesh and the Devil, as you and I can. He was EXTERNALLY tempted in the desert by Satan but there was never a possibility that this could even remotely have an effect, as Satan was attempting to tempt a Divine Person. This is the key.

Christ has in modern terms, one center of consciousness, i.e., one Person. He is not schizophrenic nor does He have multiple personalities. The fact that He does not possess a human "person" does not detract from His human nature for the human nature is still guided and controlled by a Person which happens to be Divine. In lacking a human person and in being only a Divine Person, then the human words spoken via the human nature of Christ are still considered as coming from the Divine Person. Consequently, Jesus uses His human nature to say, "Lazarus, come out," and His Divine Nature raises Lazarus from the dead but it is the ONE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST WHO PERFORMED THAT MIRACLE.

The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431) could legitimately invoke the title "THEOTOKOS" (Mother of God) for the Virgin Mary rather than limiting her to "CHRISTOTOKOS" (Mother of Christ) as was espoused by Nestorius. They could do so ONLY because although Mary gave Jesus ONLY His human nature, she gave birth to the whole Jesus Christ, a Divine Person with a pre-existent Divine Nature and a created human nature. This concept precludes the "hero" worship of Jesus. He was NOT a hero. A hero is a person just like us who conquered adversity before anyone else and leads by example. Columbus discovers America and yet that could have been done by someone else. The astronauts who landed on the moon did it first, but it can be replicated now. What Jesus did on the Cross was SINGULAR and UNIQUE. NO ONE, before or after Christ can replicate salvation by their death as did Christ. His Sacrifice was infinite and unrepeatable. He is Savior and Redeemer; He is not a hero for no one can duplicate what He did. His own statement, "I am the WAY," denotes that He is not a hero who merely SHOWS the WAY (the means). He says explicitly that He IS the WAY.

The book and the movie create a gross distortion of the Hypostatic Union. On an emotional level, we sinners can "feel" encouraged by a Jesus Who endures what we endure and Who is successful in His goal to remain faithful to the Father. Yet, Jesus is NOT a "role model." He IS the Savior and he IS the Redeemer. As a Divine Person, His death has infinite value. As a Divine Person, He can redeem the whole human race. As a Divine Person, He can be the singular WAY to the Father. To appeal to our emotional cravings for a "vulnerable" Christ is a great disservice to Salvation History and is completely heterodox in concept. The compassion, mercy, and forgiveness of Jesus were certainly displayed through His human nature, but they ultimately emanated from His Divine Person. God has compassion, mercy and forgiveness. The book and the movie portray a Christ Who is identifiable with us. The object is NOT to make Him more like us, but that we should become more like Him. We can never fully emulate Christ, but we can be "perfected" as our heavenly Father is "perfect."

------------------------------------------------------
Adios. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 17, 2000.

I saw this film, or at least most of it (missed the beginning few scenes). It wasn't bad, it just wasn't worth watching. It's an off- beat depiction of Christ, & I personally didn't find it offensive. I just think it's a mediocre film.

Martin Scorcese has made some really excellent films, "Raging Bull," "Taxi Driver," "Casino," "Good Fellas," etc. I say, go rent any one of those instead.

-- I saw it so you (don't@have.to), February 17, 2000.


Enrique,

I actually liked the *concept* of Jesus wanting to drop his burden and lead a normal life, and bet that it was a good book to read. Unfortuanately, Hollywood produced it, with predictable (bad) results. As funny as this may sound, although I thought the movie itself profane, it *did* give me an appreciation for what Christ must have suffered, knowing his fate and its inevitability but *wishing* that it didn't have to be so, so I guess it was worth seeing. The character portrayal (especially Judas) was what angered me the most in it though, it did NOT seem to be a movie made by Christians.

God bless,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 18, 2000.


The Last Temptation of Christ, like Monty Python's Life of Brian, is one of many off-beat Jesus films that the Church attempted to ban instead of refute. This kind of censorship does not win any converts; the public arguments about Life of Brian in the UK was embarrassing to watch.

The whole point of the film (however unorthodox) was that Christ had some degree of free will, and therefore chose to fulfil his destiny rather than have it forced upon him. If anything, it is a reworking of Christ's walk in the wilderness, and Scorcese's point was that these temptations had to be real in order for Christ's refusal to have any meaning.

Luke 23:35

The people stood there watching while the Jewish leaders jeered at him: "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Messiah whom God has chosen!"

Christ could have saved himself (and led a life with Mary Magdalene - the real controversy was that the temptation was sexual), but chose to accept what had been asked of him.

It reminded me of Paradise Lost where God asks for someone to come forward and intercede on Man's behalf. Christ chooses to do so, and is rewarded. Satan chooses not to, but resents Christ's "promotion" and rebels in disgust. One of the intriguing things about Paradise Lost is that the roles of Satan and Christ are potentially interchangable; Satan's pride not only makes him rebel against God, but also prevents him from interceding for a "race of upstart beings". It is as if God is drafting a play and inviting people to choose their parts. Satan could have been the Messiah, but chose not to be.

Anyway, I don't believe this film is evil. I have never seen an orthodox film about Christ; all of them are based on a director's personal vision of Jesus, and The Last Temptation is no exception. (My favourite one was directed by a communist!)

Christians have a strange attitude towards films anyway (see the post about The Beach). I keep coming across "Christian" interprations of The Matrix, and they are quite hilarious.

-- Matthew (matthewpope@aol.com), February 19, 2000.


Dear Matthew,
You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you are unwilling to write carefully.
You wrote, "The Last Temptation of Christ, like Monty Python's Life of Brian, is one of many off-beat Jesus films that the Church attempted to ban instead of refute. This kind of censorship does not win any converts ..."
When you speak of "the Church," I assume that you mean the Catholic Church, since this is a Catholic Internet site. Therefore you are wrong, because you cannot cite a single instance of the Catholic Church (pope and bishops in union with him) making an effort to "ban" these films. What individual Catholics did, however, was to picket and protest (by letters, etc.), so that they may raise the consciousness of the public as to the blasphemous nature of the films. Catholics are well-aware and observant of the free-speech rights of the makers and showers of the films. There is no "censorship" involved here. Rather there is error on your part -- either due to bigotry or extreme ignorance or both.

You further erred in stating that "Christians have a strange attitude towards films anyway (see the post about The Beach)." In fact, Christians' attitudes are not "strange," but perfectly wholesome and normal. A more careful, non-insulting effort on your part would have been to write something like, "I do not understand [or I disagree with] Christians' approach to commenting on feature films."

Please try to show some restraint and respect.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 19, 2000.


Matthew, you said,

"I keep coming across "Christian" interprations of The Matrix, and they are quite hilarious. "

Either hilarious or frightening. Since that movie came out I have had a number of people telling me how it was really a Christian theme and plugged in characters for each movie role, and then rather than saying how the movie differed from the Bible, tended interpret it as if the Bible didn't coincide with the movie! Strange days.

Enrique,

Did you see "La zltima tentacisn de Cristo"? If so, what was your opinion of it?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 20, 2000.


Dear Enrique, I just finished reading the site on "The Beach" and now I find this one. What is happening here? Why all the anger? In answer to your question Enrique, the movie was garbage--it had a poor plot and the whole thing was done poorly. It was made to make people think and to cause shock. The Beach is not one of Leonardo's best by far, but to call it anti-catholic is a bit extreme. Movies are for entertainment only--they are not religion lessons. If you want to find out about Catholic doctrine or religious matters, go to church or ask a priest--not a Hollywood director. The best way to get rid of garbage from Hollywood is just not to patronize it. When they don't make money, they'll make a different kind of movie. Telling people it is dangerous for their soul to view such things is drivvel. If a persons faith is so shaky that it is forever damaged by viewing a film, they were in trouble anyhow. Free will is about having CHOICE!--not having people make the choice for you. Being exposed to the seemier side of life doesn't warp you, if you've got half a mind in the first place, it makes you think and reject thoughts and ideas that are wrong. When I was in high school, it was forbidden to wear sleeveless dresses or blouses to a school dance as it would be a temptation and occassion to sin. Really? Somebody else's dirty mind was hard at work there. If you are looking for smut, you will find it. It doesn't take too much of a stretch to make The Lion King into something dirty too--and not because Elton John wrote the music.Lighten up. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), February 21, 2000.

Thank you all, kind people. After reading the different posts about the movie in question, I came to the conclusion that it is not worth spending my time and my money on it. I think I should do this more often. Ask for advice from people who knows. thanks, again.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.


Fist of all i apologize to write my opinion in spanish, for me is more comfortable. thks.

Veo que las personas que dieron su opinion hablan de blasfemias, de que Cristo es y sera una persona intachable y estoy totalmente de acuerdo y creo que como Cristo no hay dos y para mi el es un ser fuera de lo comun. Yo siento que la pelicula The Last Temptation Of Christ no habla de Cristo en si... la biblia dice que tratemos de ser perfectos como vuestro padre lo es, si dice eso la biblia quiere decir que la perfeccion se puede lograr, en la pelicula a Jesus lo ponen en revelion contra lo que quiere hacer y lo que debe hacer, si han visto la pelicula han de recordar la escena donde apedrean a Maria Magdalena y Jesus la defiende, posteriormente Judas le hace una pregunta a Jesus, como pudo el actuar asi delante de la gente defendiendola hablando de quien no ha pecado que tire la primera piedra? acaso no sentias coraje por ello - le dice judas, y Jesus le responde que porsupuesto tenia coraje y sentia ganas de matarlos pero otra fuerza superior me hizo actuar de otra forma... esta escena a mi se me grabo mucho en lo personal y pienso asi somos todos. lo dejo de refleccion, en vez de estar pensando en que si a cristo lo crucificaron asi o asa, o que paso en esos tiempos?, si como la biblia lo cuenta es cierto o no, haya pasado como haya pasado la idea es que creamos en el para llegar al padre, de ahi en fuera si lo consideran ofensivo, blasfemico, etc. pues es ya cada quien. Pero en mi opinion personal la pelicula es mas que nada una refleccion para los pecadores como nosotros para ser perfectos como Dios lo es.

-- Ana Hernandez (lrdccms@todito.com), November 10, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ