Catholics, Protestants Join German Jews in Objection to ‘king of Kings’

(Jewish Telegraphic Agency)

Not only Jews but Protestants and Catholics as well are opposed to the showing of the Cecil de Mille production “King of Kings,” as a picture which is offensive to the religious sensibilities of the various denominations.

The Central Institute for Education and Instruction of Berlin, to whom the film was submitted, declined to approve it as being of educational value. Kuratus Wienken, a leading Catholic priest who is a member of the Filmpruefstelle, asked that the showing of the film to school children and students in the upper schools be prohibited.

Leading in the opposition to the “King of Kings” is the Evangelical Church. Most outspoken in censuring the film as offensive to devout Christians was Piarrer Lic Horn. In Germany the film is shown with what is supposed to be an “endorsement of Rabbi Israel Goldfarb of Beth Israel Anshe Emes” and of the Berlin Court Chaplain, Vogel.

“I have no quarrel with Mr. Goldfairb. This may be left to the rabbis among themselves. I am certain they will do it thoroughly; I hope before the anti-Semites settle it. I am also willing to leave the discussion with Messrs Schildkraut to the Jewish critics. It is true that I cannot go as far in my criticism as Dr Hollaender of the Central Verein, who declared the ‘King of Kings’ to be a film of inciting influence, but I, as a representative of religious art and as a priest of the Evangelical Church, join in protesting against this jumble,” Dr. Horn declared to the “C. V. Zeitung.”

Still stronger is the opposition to the showing of the film voiced by the Evangelical weekly, “Das Evengelische Berlin.”

“The film like any other motion picture had to be submitted to the Filmpreufstelle. The representatives of three great religious societies were invited as experts to express their opinion before the examining committee. The objections of the Evangelical Church were expressed by Troschke, councillor of the High Consistory and member of the Federation of Churches. As he explained in reply to our inquiry, Councillor Troschke voiced his deep regret that this film is so little in accordance with the feeling of the Evangelical Church. Moreover in its general impression it is even offensive to this feeling. He protested in particular against the long drawn out scenes of the bacchanal which as an introduction to a Christ film is unbearable and could be compared to an unclean gate leading to a sanctuary.

“Furthermore, the scenes depicting the Crucifixion and the beating were done in a sadistic manner. He expressed himself particularly against misuse of Scripture texts in the titles. In many instances the texts were unpardonably mutilated, falsified and interwoven with profane sentences.

“Councillor Troschke expressed grave objections to the laxity with which Biblical history is treated in this film. This laxity is to be found not only in the continuity of the particular scenes but also in the combination of details for which one can find no foundation in the New Testament. The role of Mary Magdalene and Judas, which is the central point in the first scene, cannot be justified on the basis of the New Testament nor on the records of the Apocrypha.

“We do not doubt,” the Evangelical organ declares, “that this energetic protest of Councillor Trotschke and the sharp denunciation of the expert and representative of the Evangelical church, uttered in no uncertain terms, fully corresponds with the opinion of the widest circles in the Church.”