Readers are invited to submit letters to The Guardian.
Letters may be e-mailed to guardian@cpa.org.au.
Letters of 300-400 words are preferred.

Letters to the Editor:

The Passion of the Christ

I was very interested to read Andrew Jackson's review of the 
film The Passion of the Christ (The Guardian 
5/3/04). Although I have not seen the film, Andrew's review 
suggests questions which are important altogether apart from its 
artistic merits and its entertainment value.

We have to say that the film will be a great success after the 
publicity it has received. Religious fundamentalists, sadists and 
masochists, as well as many churchgoers of different 
denominations will flock to see it. To think of such a film as a 
purely religious phenomenon in the present world situation and in 
the present situation in Australia would be a mistake.

Two points made by Andrew, I think, call for some comment.

First, The Passion has been commended by Pope Paul II. The 
present Pope's political alignment is well known. He has shocked 
liberal and democratic people all over the world by his 
beatification of Stepinac, the Croatian archbishop and later 
Cardinal who welcomed Hitler into Croatia.

He has put Stepinac on an unstoppable road to canonisation, he 
was on the side of Pinochet in Chile and strongly condemned 
Liberation Theology.

Another comment by Andrew Jackson struck me with greater force. 
He states "Mel Gibson is affiliated to Opus Dei". The film must, 
in the light of this be taken more seriously — not just as a 
sure-fire pot-boiler to appeal to a particular audience, but as 
having a reactionary political motive.

Opus Dei is a religious organisation within the Catholic Church 
founded by a Spanish priest Jose Maria Escriva. Even while still 
studying for the priesthood he was noted for his extreme piety 
and his morbid use of physical mortification (e.g. self-
flagellation to an extreme extent).

The organisation of Opus Dei grew very slowly at first, but 
during the Franco regime in Spain, Escriva played a prominent 
part in organising education, particularly tertiary education.

Escriva developed, after the Second World War, an organisation, 
operating largely but not entirely in secret, which grew rapidly 
in numbers and wealth.

In 1992, when Escriva was beatified by Pope Paul II, it had 
80,000 members.

Although the Pope beatified Escriva, he did not seem to think of 
honouring Archbishop Romero and the six Jesuit priests murdered 
in Nicaragua, men whose martyrdom could not be disputed.

Opus Dei operates in Australia, and it is highly probable that it 
has members and certain that it has friends in Australian 
parliaments and in other influential positions, particularly ones 
associated with education.

Opus Dei might remind some of us of Santamaria's National Civic 
Council but there are three important differences:

(a) Opus Dei concentrates more on people who can or may be able 
to exert influence;

(b) it has the whole-hearted support of the Pope and almost 
certainly exerts considerable influence over him;

(c) it is a much more closely organised and harshly disciplined 
organisation than Santamaria's was and it seems, without any 
human feelings.

The part played by Opus Dei in recent history is extremely 
complex and hard to uncover. A very good attempt at this task was 
made by Robert Hutchison in his book Their Kingdom Come 
(Doubleday 1997).

One feature of their work of some significance today is the 
Pope's concern about the advance of Islam in the religious field 
— talk of a crusade may be premature — but not if Opus Dei has 
its way.

There is one further aspect of The Passion of the Christ 
which must cause serious concern to many Australians, namely, 
is the film anti-semitic? Presumably it will be claimed that it 
is not, but this is no reassurance to many.

Any account of the crucifixion based on the New Testament story 
can be used in anti-semitic propaganda and I cannot see how this 
could be avoided without distorting the story told in the Gospels 
and echoed in the Acts of the Apostles and one or two of the 
Epistles.

In the Gospels, Christ celebrated the Passover just prior to his 
arrest and execution. In the old Czarist empire Jews celebrated 
the Passover, but never without the fear of a pogrom incited by 
gruesome Easter sermons about the crucifixion and often by more 
direct incitement to avenge the death of Jesus.

Tom Gill
Carlingford, NSW 

The winds of change only occasionally blow with gale force, 
mainly they blow steadily (slowly) but consistently. And it is 
this slowness that deceives many people.

The vast majority of the world's people are at the moment 
confused, bewildered and worried.

Readers of The Guardian are worried too — and rightly so. 
When you have men of unstable mind in charge of thousands of 
nuclear weapons it is something to be worried about. But they are 
not confused or bewildered. They are fully aware of what is 
happening and who is responsible.

First, The Guardian keeps them fully informed of the truth 
and is a counter to the lies and propaganda that spews forth 
daily from the capitalist media. We are fortunate that we have 
such a paper and we must make sure that it continues.

We are living in momentous times. The capitalist system is 
steadily but surely collapsing. The stench of corruption and 
rotten decay fills the air as the crisis of capitalism worsens 
day by day and the capitalists and their political lackeys 
flounder around with no idea at all of how to solve the problems 
their system creates.

The system is dying and they are dying with it and wish to take 
us with them. No thanks! Socialism is waiting in the wings and 
life and construction beckons! Forward the Communist Party and 
socialism!

Bert Appleton
Killcare Heights, NSW 

David Matters' letter (The Guardian 10/3/04) 
criticising Sitaram Yechury's speech on socialism, amounts to no 
more than an objection to people thinking with their heads.

Long before Marx and Engels arrived on the scene, working class 
and other oppressed people had dreamed of a better life. Dreaming 
is done inside the head, but it was prompted by the terrible 
material conditions they lived under.

Utopian socialists too were appalled at the oppressive and 
deprived material conditions the lower classes had to endure. 
They also did a bit of cogitating. Seeing the disgusting way 
capitalists treated workers, they tried encouraging the 
capitalists to improve their ways. Of course, their schemes were 
not successful, because in their analysis of the world they 
latched on to the wrong bits of it as the keys to change.

By the time Marx and Engels appeared on the earth, we had a bit 
more knowledge about how it worked. Marx and Engels themselves 
studied their surrounds and came up with some very helpful 
insights, putting them together into a theory about how society 
works.

They also put their heads together and conceived in their minds 
the direction society is going to take, especially what comes 
next after capitalism. Having come to that conclusion, they did a 
bit more thinking about what was needed to help the working class 
take society in that direction.

When the first socialist society was established, it was only 
because people had first conceived it in their minds and decided 
they would take the steps recommended by Marx and Engels (and 
later Lenin) to bring it about.

Capitalism as a social system wasn't conceived in the human mind. 
The inhabitants of feudal society didn't sit down and think, 
"well, what'll it be next, capitalism or barbarism?"

Capitalism was another exploitative system. Socialism abolished 
exploitation — something new — so it had to be planned for, 
organised for, and fought for.

Yechury's right. Socialism was not a spontaneously evolved mode 
of production. It was "the first grand effort of mankind to 
transform a vision into reality."

David Matters needs to rethink. Analysing the world, then making 
plans (in your head) to change it is not "anti-Leninist". It's 
the very essence of the Marxist theory of knowledge.

Eddie Clynes
Woodford, NSW