c. 2005 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) When Mel Gibson unveiled his controversial “The Passion of the Christ” last year, some critics thought parts of it were too violent, too gory or just downright creepy.

Take the grotesque hairy baby cradled by Gibson’s androgynous Satan figure during the scourging of Jesus _ where is that in the Bible? Or the maggot-infested donkey skull that confronts Jesus’ betrayer, Judas Iscariot. What’s up with that?

A young Catholic priest who consulted with Gibson on the film now has some answers in a new book, “Inside the Passion” (Ascension Press, $19.95), an authorized behind-the-scenes guide to Gibson’s theology and artistic choices.

The Rev. John Bartunek, a Cleveland-born priest who is currently studying in Rome, said every part of the movie was aimed at helping the viewer grasp the enormity of suffering that Jesus endured in his last hours.

“He wanted to show what it was really like because it (the crucifixion) had been sugar-coated,” Bartunek said in an interview. “He did us an incredible favor. … Twenty centuries later we have forgotten what it was like.”

Bartunek, 37, literally wandered onto the “Passion” set in Italy and got to know Gibson. He became one of a half-dozen priests who worked with Gibson on the film, although he refuses to take credit for anything in the final cut.

Bartunek’s book also sheds light on the influence of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, a 19th century mystic who served as Gibson’s muse. Emmerich is best-known for her grizzly visions of Jesus’ suffering, but Jews say her writings were anti-Semitic because they seemed to blame Jews for Jesus’ death.

For example, a scene that features an arrested Jesus dangling off a bridge came from Emmerich’s visions, not the Gospels. So too the bloodthirsty guards who became “inebriated” with rage during Jesus’ flogging, Bartunek said.

“What Anne Catherine added was very concrete, specific, almost stage direction,” Bartunek said.

Another scene in which Jesus’ cross is flipped over but the crucified Christ is spared from hitting the ground came from a 17th century Spanish nun, Mary of Agreda, Bartunek said. Such details are not found in the Bible.

Bartunek called the charges of anti-Semitism lobbed against Emmerich and Gibson “understandable … but unfounded.” In the book, he compares Jewish reaction to the film to “the sting you feel when a family member commits a crime.”

“If you look at things that could be taken as anti-Semitic, you can find them anywhere,” he said. “The same people who criticize Anne Catherine for being anti-Semitic also criticize the New Testament for being anti-Semitic.”

Bartunek’s other thoughts on the film:

_ On why the hairy baby and the donkey skull were used to show the ugliness of evil: “It shows evil, and we don’t like to talk about evil or call things evil. But evil is creepy, it’s disturbing, it’s distorting,” he said.

_ On whether Gibson erred by having Jesus address the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, in Latin, when he probably spoke Greek or Aramaic: “Jesus wanted to make sure Pilate fully understood him. Pilate knows Aramaic, but it’s not his mother tongue. If Jesus addresses him in Latin, there is no communication problem,” he wrote.

_ On why Gibson emphasized Jesus’ suffering over his resurrection on Easter Sunday: “The resurrection gives us hope, but in day-to-day life, we have to carry our crosses, and to see that Christ knows what that’s about, that he carries his own cross and is with us there, that’s what we need. That’s the real sign of God’s love,” he said.

MO/PH END ECKSTROM