The moral politics of suffering

‘‘The Passion’’ is a term that refers to the suffering and death of Jesus. None of the details in the film of the torture inflicted on Jesus are a figment of Gibson’s imagination. These are all historical facts mentioned in the Bible.

People have expressed a fear that the film could incite anti-Jew sentiments. They forget that Jesus himself was a Jew, so were his Apostles, Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. When the perpetrators of injustice and the sufferer are all Jews, where is the question of anti-Jew feelings? In fact, at one point in the film, some Jews are shown protesting against Jesus’ trial proceedings. This is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Perhaps Gibson included this scene to pre-empt this very criticism.

Some people have said that the cruelty of the Roman soldiers in the film could turn people against Romans. This is an irrelevant argument. Who thinks of Italians as Romans these days? Besides, there are numerous films about Hitler’s atrocities against Jews. Surely there’s no likelihood of such films inciting anti-Christian feelings because Hitler happened to be a Christian.

People who’ve seen the film have asked me, ‘‘Why did Jesus suffer?’’ He suffered because He stood for people who were oppressed and marginalised, He stood for freedom, truth and justice, for peace and harmony among all people. But this vision of a new world threatened the beneficiaries of an exploitative and oppressive system.

Could Jesus have overpowered his persecutors? Yes. After all, this was the same Jesus who had earlier multiplied bread and fish, calmed the sea, given sight to the blind and raised the dead to life. There is a lesson in His refusal to use his power in the face of the brutality perpetrated on Him in His last hours. Though divine by nature He emptied Himself and became similar to us in everything but sin. He showed thereby what human beings can be in the face of the most unjust treatment. Jesus taught us through the Passion that love can transcend sin in all its ugliness and extend forgiveness to bring about reconciliation. I think that’s the message Gibson wants to convey.

When He was struck on His face Jesus protested, ‘‘If there is something wrong in what I said, point it out, but if there is no offence in it, why do you strike me?’’ But He did not turn violent. He demonstrated that there is only one effective solution to violence: non-violence. The same non-violence which Mahatma Gandhi lived by and which prompted him to fast in reparation for what others had done.

Shall we learn from Jesus’ example? His miracles were an indicator of His power over nature. People acclaimed Him as Messiah. But the Passion most effectively conveyed that He is love. His total dependence on others in his hours of suffering, His weakness and misery were the necessary background against which the revelation of God as love could stand out.

He had said at a time when he was totally helpless in the presence of Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers: ‘‘Yes I am a King … I came into the world to bear witness to the truth but my kingdom is not of this world.’’ His claim for kingship in such a situation was indeed significant. For He would reign not over lands but in the hearts of men and women who would give their lives for Him.

(Vincent M. Concessao is the Archbishop of the Catholic Archdiocese of Delhi)