The debate will continue for months and perhaps years to come. Is Mel Gibson's highly popular film, "The Passion of the Christ," in any way anti-Semitic?

Many Catholics have insisted that it is not, including the Jesuit archaeologist who did the translation of the script from English to Latin and Aramaic and who is also a friend of Mr. Gibson.

According to a report in America magazine (April 5), the reaction among Catholic leaders has been mixed. In countries where Jews constitute a minimal portion of the population, there is little evident concern about the matter of anti-Semitism.

A number of bishops in Mexico and the Philippines have praised the film, while bishops in Germany and Austria have criticized it not only for its violence but also for its potential use "as an instrument of anti-Semitism."

The primate of the church in Poland, Cardinal Jozef Glemp, hailed it as a "great, decisive film," and predicted that it would bring about a better knowledge and comprehension of Christ's mission.

One of the clearest and most pointed articles on the subject is Philip Cunningham's, "A Dangerous Fiction: 'The Passion of the Christ' and post-conciliar Catholic teaching" (America April 5). After summarizing the relevant teachings, Cunningham --- executive director of the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College --- applies them to the film under four categories: selection, flattening, exaggeration, and the use of non-biblical elements.

He points out that the film combines various Gospel scenes in a way that obscures the distinctive insights of each Evangelist. As a result, the evildoing of Jewish characters is intensified.

This is particularly evident, Cunningham writes, in the scourging scene, which has received more attention than any other because of its excessive and prolonged violence.

Gibson follows the account in John's Gospel where Jesus is scourged as a ploy by Pilate to placate the Jewish crowd. In Matthew and Luke, however, the scourging occurs after the sentencing by Pilate, as part of the normal crucifixion process, while Luke doesn't even mention the scourging.

In the film, the scourging is followed by the Matthean scene of Pilate's washing his hands of blame, thereby highlighting Jewish hostility toward Jesus. This hostility is magnified by Pilate's uttering words not found in any Gospel, "Isn't this enough?"; "It is you who want him crucified, not I"; and "Do as they wish."

Regarding what Cunningham refers to as "flattening," viewers will erroneously imagine, he writes, that Jews wanted Jesus dead because he claimed to be divine. But the debate about his divinity occurred only after the Resurrection.

Under the rubric of "exaggeration," Cunningham notes that the film inflates Gospel passages that describe Jesus as being struck by Jewish individuals into a group assault upon him.

In John's Gospel a single solider strikes him once. The film, however, depicts Jesus as being so pummeled that Pilate's first --- unbiblical --- words to the Jewish high priest Caiaphas are, "Do you always punish your prisoners before they are judged?"

Finally, the interweaving of non-biblical with biblical sources has the effect also of intensifying Jewish complicity in the passion and death of Jesus, in contrast to the film's benign portrayal of Pilate and his wife.

Jews throw Jesus off a bridge on his way to the high priests. Agents of the high priests pay money to other Jews to assemble to demand Jesus' death.

Mary Magdalene begs Roman soldiers to help Jesus, telling them that the Jewish Temple guards "are trying to hide their crime" from the Romans.

An aide tells Pilate of trouble "within the walls. The Pharisees apparently hate the man." Cunningham reminds us that Pharisees are almost totally absent from the Passion narratives.

Pilate offers Jesus a drink, and also tells his wife that Caiaphas will lead a revolt if Jesus is not crucified. He and his aides decide that they need reinforcements because an uprising has already begun.

These non-biblical elements are derived, for the most part, from Anne Catherine Emmerich's "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," first published in 1833. Cunningham argues that the film is not so much a faithful telling of the Gospel story as it is a filmed version of Emmerich's version of that story.

Even if some people are spiritually moved by the film, "the fact remains," Cunningham writes, "that it violates the mandate of the Second Vatican Council" regarding the correct use of Sacred Scripture.

He appeals finally to Pope John Paul II's historic visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem in March 2000 where he begged forgiveness from the Jews for the sins of Christians, and prayed for reconciliation between the two communities.

It is as it was.

Father Richard P. McBrien is the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.