Beautiful thoughts written beautifully.  Thank you!

We are all sinners!  The closer we get to Christ the harder satan works to keep us away from him!  We should pray for him not - shun him!!  (and hope someone is praying for us!)

What a wonderful message; we are not here to judge, but to seek to love our neighbor unconditionally

Mel Gibson is crazy. It played well in Hollywood for a long time. It was part of his on-screen appeal. That he can’t lead a quiet life off-screen shouldn’t surprise. Too over the top for my tastes for a long time now.

This is a really great reflective piece. There is a tension that Ms. Lopez does not delve into here that bears commenting on-as Catholics or as Christians we know intellectually and on a gut level that following Christ ought to make a difference over time in our behavior.  We have expectations of people who ‘get it.’ We have expectations of priests, bishops, leaders and societal examples. We have expectations of one another and of ourselves. And as a spectator society we have made living the integrated moral life a reality show- where we regularly assess the choices and actions in a given moment of others as selective details are fed to us by the media. On the one hand it keeps us aware of what holiness is, and that it is often different than what we and others who might seem to have it ‘all’ are actually doing. But I especially appreciate that in this post Ms. Lopez reminds us that always first and foremost for the professing believer is the Really REAL- for those of us who are insignificant in the eyes of the world and for the ‘mighty who have fallen’- in the Infinite Ocean of Christ’s Mercy, forgiveness and love.

A well written and thoughtful piece. Please note, however, that St. Edward’s - the church once favored by the Kennedys - is in Palm Beach, not West Palm Beach.

Amen, sister!

We are all sinners, and are called to love our neighbor unconditionally, however grave a sinner he may be. Still, I have to wonder: Would an article like this get warm comments like the ones above if the subject were, say, Nancy Pelosi? Or Imam Faisal? Are we readier to embrace Mel, warts and all, because he is one of “us”? Because he made a movie about our faith? Because the “right” people hate him? Are we quicker to judge the faults of some and not others as a matter of convenience?

Great peice! I don’t think Mel Gibson is crazy.  I truly believe that he is being deeping and terribly attacked by the demons who want him to fall because of his faith, his personal action to bring our faith to life and his example of being a family man. 

He is falling because of his faith.  He needs deep prayer for help to defeat these demons!! Not scorn… thank you

You go, girl! Seriously, our attitude toward celebrities parallels the attitude toward women that feminists cite as the underlying problem with men: we objectify them, we turn them into consumer goods, tasty little snacks, sweet or salty, depending on OUR mood, not on their reality. I think that any celebrity deserves to be judged as a craftsman/artist by the work he/she puts before the public and otherwise LEFT ALONE, unless we want to pray for them in thanks for their efforts. One thing I love about following opera - you hardly ever hear about them, you only hear them.

Absolutely excellent article!

I definitely don’t think anyone here is better than Mel Gibson. Clearly, by just about any measure, Mel Gibson is better than 99.999% of us (I’m leaving open the possibility that Mother Theresa reads this blog): Mel is better looking, more creative and a better artist, founded an orthodox Catholic Parish (something most of us here haven’t done), and he probably handled his success better than just about anyone here would have done under his same circumstances. Besides, every once in a while, the Church needs her crazies. We could use more like him.

Besides, every once in a while, the Church needs her crazies. We could use more like him.

Including crazies who knock out their girlfriend’s teeth?

I’ve been thinking about the same subject recently.  I couldn’t have said it better myself.  Well done, Kathryn!

Good comedy.

Defending a nutter.

“Including crazies who knock out their girlfriend’s teeth?”

Eek! Did Mel do that? I hadn’t heard that! :-O

I was unaware that Catholic doctrine holds that the natural gifts of women are requisite to the beleiver’s salvation—-can you direct me to a scriptural basis for this position?

SenyorDave and some guy: In case you weren’t sure, victor is joking.

So bottom line is, make a movie about Jesus and no amount of violent and verbal abuse you perpetrate gets in the way of your sainthood. But suggest that it’s not U.S. law that should determine whether a set of barely developed cells constitute a human being and you’re going to hell. Got it.

No, beejeez, I don’t think you do get it.

“beejeez” and “no one”,

I think you’re missing the point. The author made a few points about Mel Gibson, and I’ll add a few along the same lines which I think she would more-or-less agree with:

1) People seem to expect him to be perfect because he made “a movie about Jesus,” when he is obviously still going to be a sinful human being. This is true of all people who try to do good: they will also do some evil.

2) We spend too much time watching celebrities lives, and judging their actions. This is true of celebrities other than Mel (and in my opinion, sometimes it may be even more damaging and offensive). The media and its viewers are cruel to Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan as well.

3) I don’t agree with much anything Spears or Lohan does, and I don’t agree with the stuff Gibson’s done that has upset everyone, but that doesn’t give us the right to be smug and feel all superior, and watch shows that tear them down.

4) Mel’s behavior has been troubling, but then I’m sure lots of us would look awful if our every sin was laid out before the world. Further, no one suggested that Mel should or would be considered for Sainthood on his current troubled path, but that doesn’t mean we don’t hope and pray for his salvation.

5) Politicians have a different job. They work for us, and their job is to enact good laws, so we have a duty to be upset and complain when they do not enact good laws.

6) Both Pelosi and Gibson should be denied communion if they have shown that they are in a state of sin and have not repented. Pelosi has made it her POSITION to be unrepentant, and it is our duty to know her political positions, since she is working for us. Gibson has possibly made a similarly sinful position clear by living with his girlfriend, but his current situation is unclear, and it isn’t really up to us to find out.

Jack,
Must you assume the worst? I get that her wording makes it sound like what you say, but I think in the context, we can assume that she meant that Mary’s “natural gifts as a woman” were used to play an important role in our salvation, and by bringing about our salvation in this way, God showed the value and goodness of a woman’s body, and the role of mother that it allows.

Jesus blessed all men by becoming a man, and he blessed all women by coming to the world through a woman.

Nathan Cushman, I don’t disagree with most of what you say ... esp. that politicians and celebrities do have different job descriptions, and it is our duty to judge our politicians’ performance in a way that it is not our duty to judge celebrities’ souls. This raises two points:
1) If the article had started off “News flash: Lindsay Lohan is a sinner,” would the combox have brimmed with such love and forgiveness?
2) As important as it may be to judge our politicians’ performance, doesn’t that make it even more important to emphasize that we love them unconditionally and not judge their souls?
I agree that canon law should be followed and Pelosi, Biden etc. barred from communion (after being contacted by their bishops, given a chance to repent, etc.). But I notice that a lot of people are willing to give Gibson the benefit of all sorts of doubts they would not give to the likes of Pelosi. Would an article about Pelosi get reactions like “The devil is after Nancy Pelosi because of her power, we should pray for her”?

Lindsay Lohan, for me, can do no wrong after “Herbie: Fully Loaded”. But more to the point: I think in Pelosi’s case the scandal to the Church is greater as she’s the one actually writing our laws, rather than just an (albeit very good-looking, highly-talented) entertainer and artist. Whatever Gibson’s failings are, they don’t influence public policy.

Mel Gibson: Not as bad as Nancy Pelosi. Is that it victor? What does scandal have to do with whether Mel’s or Nancy’s failings are due to being at the top of Satan’s hit list, or who does or doesn’t warrant our unconditional love?

Mel Gibson isn’t as bad for America (or the Church) as Nancy Pelosi. I think that’s it. Maybe? Anyhoo—I don’t think Nancy Pelosi’s been on Satan’s hit list since 1987 (unless, like all rockers, he enjoys revisiting his greatest hits from time to time, for old time’s sake).

Both deserve God’s unconditional love, of course (or, I should say, like all humans, neither one deserves it. God freely gives His unconditional love to both of them. What they do with it is up to them). And if I thought we embodied humans were actually capable of love without any conditions (and if we were, we’d be God), then I’d say that they both deserved that, too, though through no merit of their own.

Pelosi may do more damage to civil society, but is she a bigger scandal? Despite wrapping herself in the mantle of a devout church-going grandmother, she isn’t nearly as identified with Catholicism as Gibson. With all the Catholic hue and cry against her, I think everyone paying attention knows she’s at odds with the Church. I wonder what sort of reception the article would have gotten had it started “News flash: Tiger Woods is a sinner”?

Pelosi is a bigger occasion for scandal than Gibson; “scandal” understood as “a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin” and not as “what makes the front page of the NY Post”.

The laws passed or upheld (or amendments blocked which would have mitigated or reduced spiritually ruinous actions) under her tenure have occasioned far more sin in the American people (and in Catholics) than Mel’s fall from grace. This should be obvious: ~1,500,000 abortions last year vs. how many copycat “Mel”-lings have there been? One? None?

I didn’t see Passion of the Christ (or any of the Mad Max movies) and indeed Mel Gibson’s career is not one that I have followed. But I will say that when you strip away the musings about the disordered nature of celebrity culture (the public’s complicity) and the universal human truth of original sin (Mel’s complicity), you are left with a very stark and simple textbook case of advanced alcoholism. Whatever other demons have him in their grip, Mel Gibson’s is an absolutely classic case of addiction. Anyone who doesn’t “get” that doesn’t get Mel. And anyone who feels that pleasant little twinge of schadenfreude really ought to reflect on the fact that in this country alone, there are millions of alcoholics, millions more undiagnosed, and that the human toll of addiction on the addicts, their families, and society at large is a tragedy.