For the past several months, there has been a firestorm of criticism, as well as acclamation, for Mel Gibson and his recent movie release, “The Passion of the Christ.”

And after seeing the film last weekend, I can understand why people have been so shocked by the violence and brutality it depicted. It was so graphic, disturbing and horrible that several times I wanted to leave the theater and forget the whole thing.Nobody enjoys watching such ghastly and appalling scenes. And that was exactly Mel Gibson’s purpose in making the film the way he did.

For too many people, Lent has been a time of passive acceptance of what Jesus suffered. Church, fasting, the Stations of the Cross and Lenten sacrifices all serve as reminders that Jesus endured immense pain and suffering, and did it all for us. But after years of the same regimen, an eye-opening reality check definitely is warranted.

Previous biblical films have not done justice to the ferocity of the scourging and the sorrow of the crucifixion, but perhaps just as important, previous biblical films have not been box office hits.

For those of you who have never made The Stations of the Cross, I’ll clue you in to an obvious irony: It is a non-cinematic meditation of the exact same story.

Why then, aside from the violence, is this film so controversial? I can’t help but think it’s because “The Passion” is going to be an epic film in the mainstream market, and you know how excited those secularists get when anything remotely religious is promoted to the general public. That is, of course, unless it is fictional or slanderous.

“The Passion of the Christ,” however, is a deeply religious film that appeals to a large percentage of Americans – a scary thought to people like Andy Rooney of 60 Minutes, who called Gibson a “wacko” and a “nutcase.”

What it all comes down to is standards, which are inherent to religion, because along with standards comes judgments; judgments about behavior, lifestyles and all the things we’re told have become socially acceptable in the past 50 years.

I’m not cynical and I’m not being a prude, but I do believe that not all change is reform, and just because we’ve moved the margin of acceptance doesn’t necessarily mean something is right.

Think about it: Does a genuinely religious movie directed by a devout Catholic fall in stride with the typical Hollywood blockbuster?

That sure is much to infer from movie reviews and media hype, but why else are people so willing to jump on Gibson’s case? Of course he directed the film, but if it was merely objective cinematic criticism, why are the attacks so personal? It’s as if to suggest an actor or actresses’ personal life is inherently relevant to the quality of his or her movie. Funny, that’s never seemed to bug Hollywood before.

I agree the movie was quite violent, but it was not gratuitous violence. It was violence shown in a specific context to offer a message and instill a sense of profound respect for what happened.

Now, to be honest, I felt the scene involving the Roman soldier piercing Jesus’ side was over dramatized and a little grotesque. However – despite the cringing – I felt the scourging scene was appropriate. The Romans were very efficient in their methods and ensured the condemned suffered as long as possible on the cross, sometimes for days. The fact that, according to the Bible, Jesus died in three hours suggests he lost an extreme amount of blood prior to being crucified.

All in all, “The Passion of the Christ” was a deeply moving film, and regardless of your religious affiliation or lack thereof, the theme of the movie – love and forgiveness – transcends religious boundaries. The awful reality of the film is what will remind you of that theme.