Sometimes when groups or people get all bent out of shape over a book I just need to shake my head. Take all the hoopla over the whole Harry Potter series. People have the right to their opinions, and the right to express their opinions… however sometimes I just want to tell them “It’s just a book, a work of fiction”.
But what if the people who are concerned raise a good point? Take for instance Genoa Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who is a former Vatican office holder on Doctrine and Orthodoxy. Bertone is urging people not to buy or read The Da Vinci Code. Now, on the surface this just looks like another “church trying to censor people” story right? Well, I think there is more to it. The good folks over at The Globe and Mail offer us this:
Allegations in the novel that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and has descendants have outraged many Christians and have been dismissed by historians and theologians.
Asked about commentary that the book’s success is “only further proof of the fact that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice,” the cardinal exclaimed. “It’s the truth.”
“There’s a great anti-Catholic prejudice,” Cardinal Bertone said. “I ask myself if a similar book was written, full of lies about Buddha, Mohammed, or, even, for example, if a novel came out which manipulated all the history of the Holocaust or of the Shoah, what would have happened?”
Bertone raises a very strong point in my opinion. I’ve asked this question before: Why in an age of understanding is it still totally acceptable… and even encouraged… to produce anti-Catholic material?
If The Da Vinci Code was about how the Holocaust was a lie… people would be calling for blood! And so they should. If the book was about Mohammed being a big con-man… then there would be mass boycotting of the book. It the book attacked the basis, ideals or fundamental claims of ANY major people group in the world everyone would be up in arms. And so we should.
However… attack Catholics… make fun of Catholics… mock Catholic history… and that’s in style.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not calling for a boycott on The Da Vinci Code. Not at all. To me it’s just a silly work of fiction. But I just have to wonder how we would all be reacting to the book if it went after anyone else.
What are your thoughts?
Please remember it is the Catholic church and not the Jesus who was undermined in the book.
From Abraham to Jesus (including Solomon) all the prophets were Man with normal life and divine power.
Nothing to wonder Jesus got married.
Hey guys All the religion aside the book and I hope the movie is really good. It makes us open oir minds and understand the role women have been taken away by SOME men. YOu holy rollers seems very antiwomen just saying
I am not against any kind of art and literature because these kind of things were invented to add meaning, beauty and color to human life. Arts and literature are very precious and wonderful part and parcel of human life.But these can never work without the knowledge of men. Many of us are given the gifts of talents and skills, like Dan Brown, but we are also given the prerogative to use these in such a way that it shall serve a common purpose or a morally accepted ideology.Arts and literature are actually good, beneficial, and even inspiring. Problem only comes in when people use these to serve only their own vested interests at the expense of hurting others feelings, destroying others beliefs ang religions and some other aspects of others lives.An example is the book The Da Vinci Code.Supporters of this book cannot claim that it is the right and freedom of anyone to write such kind of book because of the freedom of expression, speech,art, literature and other kinds of so called freedom. We must bear in mind that one’s freedom ends when others freedom begins!EVRY RELIGION MUST BE RESPECTED!!!!!!PEACE TO ALL!!!
The bible is a book of fiction.
The bottom-line with this book (The Da Vinci Code) and upcoming movie is an ethical issue of one just a little statement that should be in the first page of the book and at the very beginning of the movie,
” This is a fictional account and loosly based on the Gospel’s and Catholic Church history”. I think it would satisfy many people if Dan Brown or Ron Howard would do what Martin Scorsase (Sp?) did in “The Last Temptation Of Christ”. Add that little disclaimer and all will be forgiven if not many people are ready and willing to make sure that the upcoming movie fails. Also, the reason why the Catholic Church is in an uproar is because it paints the Church with a conspiricy paint brush (the Catholic Church and its secrets….oooh so scary). It feeds into the anti-catholic hysteria. Also, people that do not know much about the Church will be fed a pack of historical lies that THEY will believe to be true and thus PERPETUATE a SPIRIT of anti-Catholic allure. Keep it up Hollywood and one day you will find a major Jihad up your behind.Read the “Da Vinci Hoax” to see that indeed Dan Brown went to far.
ok first of all i think that everyone is over reacting just a little. i mean no one is forcing you to beleive anything. anything that has to do with religon is based on Faith anyways so it doesn’t matter. second of all i don’t think that the Catholic church is the only religon to get bashed. plenty of others do. Mormonism is one of them. although it is a christian church and has all baisic beliefs that others do it is still persecuted and made fun of. i don’t think catholics are being singled out here i think they are just making a bigger deal about it which makes it seem that way. i think everyone needs to chill…..lifes too short….don’t read it if it bothers you that much. From a writers point of view the only thing wrong with it is its a little choppy and not well written other than that its got a good suspensful plot and its very interesting, but as far as i can see i dont see how its anti- catholic…..its just a book!!
It’s fiction! Plus I think Angels and Demons is more anti-Catholic than the Da Vinci Code. I mean who would want to blow up the Vatican??? Also, Dan Brown is a Christian I’m sure he has nothing against Catholics.
The Da Vinci Dagger РA “seriously” fun continuation of the Da Vinci Code
Dear Sir,
I run a website with a short story that takes off where Dan Brown left. There are some interesting aspects of it that may interest you.
Please take a look.
I would be very grateful for any publicity that you can give and also, if possible, if you can provide a link to my site .
Many thanks
Prastil
Name of site : The Da Vinci Dagger
Brief description: The Da Vinci Dagger РA “seriously” fun continuation of the Da Vinci Code
As Georlge Carlin once put it “There is this invisible man, that has been around forever, knows everything you do,(all the time) knows what you think, he can see you always but you cant see him until you die” Hey if this is what you believe, then so be it. You have every right to. Dan Brown is not persecuting catholics by any means. He is only showing a different side of the story. Those who want to believe it should have the same right no? Is that Bashing?? Remember back in the day, when JC went against the status quo, he got nailed to a cross for it thus launching this new religion. Going against the current is the basis of christianity. All the catholics crying about “The Code” are no different then jewish leaders who condemmed JC for his views and VERY RADICAL CLAIMS!! GET OVER IT! Its just a matter of time ( a few more generations) before organized religions will be defunked and people will come together instead of subdividing. Maybe one day we will all just use common sense.
“Think for yourself,,Question authority”
As for the boob who made the holocaust coments, the shit is on video and very well documented,,,let me know when you get a video of JC walking on water dude.
I can hear it now, it’s increasingly loud and deafening, “Burn this Bubba! Burn him!”
LOL
Is it not the Catholic church that is anti-christian rather than the book being anti-catholic?
Check your history – after the old gods of rome failed and the empire was crumbling it was time to get a new one in (borrowed from judaisim). Thus a new tightly controlled religious empire was created, based loosley upon the wanderings of a certain jewish holyman. What are you going to do now – Have me burnt alive for heresay?
Ok Ive read all the comments and I need a bit of help. Im trying to write a paper on it. Can someone please give me 3 or more reasons why the book is anti-catholic?
Excellent point. I’m usually not one to make a big deal about people’s artistic expressions in writing, film, etc. If a book was written defaming any other religion or group, even if the book was stated fiction, people would protest. As stated,a number of people made a ridiculously big deal about the Harry Potter, also fiction series, which never once states that a higher being doesn’t exis, nor does it insult any religion. Yet people still made a big deal! People made an uproar about “The Passion”, directed by a Catholic. Some people said this Catholic’s version was anti-Semetic. I have Jewish classmates in my college classes who laughed at people making those claims (knowing full well Mel Gibson was pointing the blame on ALL humanity, not Jewish, seeing as though Jesus and his mother were Jewish) . Yet to most people, the Da Vinci Code is okay. I understand it’s fiction, and that’s fine. But if it was any other religion or group- God forbid. Brown states the book isn’t anti-Christian or Catholic, but he sure does throw in enough jabs to make you think so (i.e. Catholics killing descendants of Christ to cover it up, etc).
And yes, the corruption of priests in this country is horrible and disgusting, I agree with those who have noted that. However, this does not mean that the entire Catholic Church is corrupt, or should be put down. The priests themselves should be punished severely for their acts, as well as the nimrods who covered it up. Shame on them for making Catholics look so horrible and doing atrocious things to those poor children.
However, I must now note that the BTK killer that they have been trying to track down since the 70’s was the president of the congregation at a Lutheran Church. I even read a case of a Baptist minister who was accused of first-degree sodomy against 2 children. Now, I am not going to sit here and point out a head, or highly looked upon person, of every religion who has done something awful. My best friend is Lutheran, and my husband is Southern Baptist. There is corruption everywhere, and it gets tiresome hearing mostly about the Catholics the majority of the time, and letting a even a fiction novel writer defame Christianity. However, to each his own. I love all people, of all religions (and those without), races and nationalities and am not going to let this unfairness get in the way of that.
I grew up in a Scots-Irish American family. My family was 3/4 Protestant and my mother was Catholic. My Protestant grandmother would not allow her three grandchildren to visit because we were being raised Catholic.
When we went to Mass, the church pews were segregated, with black people being required to sit apart. I heard many references to “Christ-killing Jews” from the pulpit and throughout my sojourn in Catholic schools was assured that non-Catholics were “pagans” who would end in hell, a real problem for me since my Dad was not Catholic.
Fortunately, God gave me the brains to see through this nonsense, and by the age of 18, I’d had it with organised religion. I had heard of priest sexual issues with respect to children and parishioners” spouses. We knew that if misconduct was reported to the police, it somehow never would be prosecuted.
I am proud to say that I was a lawyer on the team which successfully sued the Catholic church in Boston in the Father Porter case, one of the first.
The other side is that the values I was taught and the discipline which was instilled have served me well. What is unfortunate is that these do not serve the leadership of the Catholic Church well. There is no excuse for the coverups of child sexual abuse that was routine when I was a kid (in the 50’s and 60’s). Of course, it was to protect “holy mother church”. Pope Pius’ claim of the same as an excuse for failure to denounce Nazism and to excommunicate any person cooperating in any way with Hitler has the same stink of hypocrisy and evil.
I refuse to refer to the Catholic Church as “the Church” as well. It is not “the” church and the murders for which it has been responsible are identical to those attributable to the fanaticism of the extremists who destroyed the World Trade Center. The Inquisition cannot be justified in any way whatsoever, and murder in the name of God is no different depending upon whose version of God is invoked. If Catholics feel insulted, tough.
Its close I think…history is, in some sense, the attempt to reconstruct for ourselves a picture of the past. Historians use whatever evidence is available and attempt to make reasoanble inferences about what might have been. This picture may be incomplete in most cases, but it may also make claims which are true. The story of dates, i.e. “in 1867 Prussia and much of the Austrian empire was unified…” is unineresting and gererally uncontroversial. The story of explanations, i.e. “The reason this occured was the growing liberal and nationalistic movements” is interesting but controversial. When it comes to ascribing motives to individuals and their actions it becomes less certain. We might have what seems like a reasonable explanation that in reality is false.
The biblical claims about the timelines that are correlated with the narrative accounts are something less contentious. But there are two levels of complication about the account of the events and their interpretation. First, we can take the gospel writers as historians who are trying record the events of previous years (I can’t recall exactly but most likely the gospels were written 30-60 years after the events). These accounts have a definiate agenda (right or wrong) and normally such accounts are taken with a grain of salt. You have to try and sift through the accounts and reference it to other facts you might know about the period and see if they are consistent with what is already known. So we are already a step removed from the actual events at this stage since we are reading history that is history. The second step of removal is our interpretation of what those authors are even intending to say. There is a barrier of language, of culture and the baggage we ourselves bring to the text. So the end product in cases like these may be far different from those events. In that sense our reconstruction is one thing, and the events are another.
s in g
I mean that comment to be no different than to say that the life of the true Abe Lincoln and the historic Abe Lincoln are two completly different entities. When one studies history he does not study what happened (truth) he studies what someone thinks about what happened (history). Oft times the two do differ, but the more powerful form becomes the standard for what we think of the individual or event, and the more powerful form is usualy historical.
I guess I should specify, I’m not saying Jesus wasn’t real or that what the bible siad didn’t happen, I’m simply saying that the bible presents us with a ficticous account of a non fictious event, no different than a history book in any given high school. That still doesn’t sound right… I’ve got to work on that one…
“Remember, this is the life of the TRUE Jesus not the bible’s HISTORIC Jesus, the two are seperate entities.”
How did you come up with that conclusion, that this is the life of the true Jesus and not the one that the Bible has presented to us? Does it mean the Jesus in the Bible isnt the true Jesus?
Anyway, I dont really know if this is where we want this conversation to lead to as religion, faith or one’s belief is such a sensitive issue and its something I would rather not delve into especially in a movie blog. Great discussion by the way everybody!
It would be good to remember that history is not the same as truth. History is simply mans way of protecting his beliefs and idiolgical pratices from being viewed as wrong or worse yet inhumaine.
So historians have debunked the idea that Jesus mairried Mary M. That’s great but what you fail to realize is that they grew up with the preconcieved notion that Jesus died on the cross, any other sort of information would become a threat to their well held beliefs. Because of this threat these historians will take the word of a book writen 1200 years + AFTER the fact as (pardon the pun) gospel and claim that anything else is foolish to even look into.
Fact of the matter is, there were a lot of people claiming to be the son of god at that point, a well documented fact. And those people were normaly tortured and crucified, a death that normaly took at least a day, sometimes more to finish. Jesus died in 3 hours… and was taken down by devout Jews on a SATURDAY, an act that any true-blue Jew would tell you is not the coolest thing to do, so to speak. It IS posible that the true Jesus died on the cross, it is also possible that he was the son of god. But it is ALSO just as possible, if not more so, that the true Jesus did not die on the cross but rather continued to live, although what he did after, as well as what he did for the majority of he life before the crucfixion is a mystery.
Remember, this is the life of the TRUE Jesus not the bible’s HISTORIC Jesus, the two are seperate entities. And if something like that is enough to shake your faith in God or your religion then you can go along and say that there are prejudices against you and the church, but to be honest it doesn’t sound like you had all that much faith in God to begin with…
Just my thoughts…
The best truth that Jesus is who He says He is, is that people are still trying to debunk Him, without success.
I think the point about the Code is that it doesn’t cover any of the investigations behind the claims. Hence they look paper thin.
It then just makes the claims look like a piece of promotional work written by an organised group to perpetuate their control and power.
Pretty much the same as either side really.
Anyway, all I can suggest is reading the non-fiction book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail to find out what is behind the suggestions he’s using.
Back to John’s point. If we flip it around for a moment. Why should one organisation be exempt from close scrutiny when others aren’t? What does everyone think represents this unfair attack on the Catholic Church, more than any Church \ organised religion or indeed any such organisation.
Oh, and going back to the mention of the knighthood for Gates, that wasn’t just for a single donation. I think it was for the contribution to computing and business overall.
Then it will have to be the deciphering of the codes then that did it for me Rich. Because I will not take what has been said about the Holy Grail either by Brown or by anybody as fact. I just dont and wont buy it.
I have no problems if he uses material that is already there before. But I will not be made to believe it. Like I said, the trail leading to the supposed “Holy Grail” is the fun side of this novel, I am just thinking how will they do the ending? Will it also give me the chills?
Guys, missing it again. All the talk about the Holy Grail, etc are ideas taken from other books, there’s not much where he’s changed anything for the book.
Read the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail from many, many years ago which researches the idea with a lot of effort.
I’d also say that the debunking is on both sides, and I can’t really say which is true for that very fact.
I’m much more inclined to believe a book that I know it’s authors existed, that they claim the appropriate credits for their book (fiction\non-fiction) and that there’s some scientific investigation into the ideas within the book. I mean Holy Blood and not Da Vinci, where all his references are.
Good point there. It did get us all talking, look at what has happened to this thread overnight! *laughs*
What I can not understand is why he would have the gall to actually say that what his book presents are based on solid facts, knowing that it will be scrutinized anyway and then debunked?
What I liked most about DVC is not the story about what the Holy Grail is in Dan Brown’s eyes, but the trail leading to the code. The Vitruvian Man for example. It gave me the chills. I just love the mystery of it. When I was reading the book and thereafter all his other books (“Angels and Demons” being the better among all of ’em IMO) I thought did he write this with the hope of it being adapted to film? The pulse and pace of the book tells you that maybe he might have.
And he got his way, the movie is in pre-production, he is getting all the publicity, his books remain to be bestsellers, and all the more so, he will be PAID every penny of it.
Just staying on the “FACT FROM FICTION” issue. I think more people would be able to distinguish between the 2 in this instance if Brown didn’t also claim his “facts” were accurate (dispite the fact that almost every credible historian has debunked him).
When Brown asserts that his book, while a work of fiction, is also historically accurate… then he opens up a whole new debate doesn’t he?
Still… historical or not, it does have us talking. :)
Definitely when I refer to “the Church” I’m talking about organised religion.
Although when I’m referring to the books it’s the Catholic Church, I haven’t read anything on other churches.
Blooming roses! This discussion just gets better and better each time I get back to it. Great input from everyone I must say. I know we’re talking about anti-Catholicism but I will veer away from that in this post since most of you have already explored all possible arguments. :)
Mediamelt says, “I am not Catholic, but I am a non-denominational Christian. Have been all my life. I go to church every Sunday, AND I can differentiate between works of fact and fiction”.
Good for you mediamelt, but I suppose the concern of Bertone is what about those who are unable to make that kind of discernment? The possibility is there for them to actually accept Brown’s premise not as fiction but fact.
I suppose the end result of this is that some of us feel indignant that we are actually being told that we can not actually distinguish this novel as just fiction. I am not a Catholic but if somebody tells me why I am reading the book since it could shake my faith of course I would be defensive, “what right have you got to say that to me? I am not that stupid!” But the Bible also says, “he who thinks he is standing up be careful so he might not fall down”.
John asked earlier to look at the other side of the coin, not sure really if this is what he wants to see but after re-reading all your posts, and looking at it on both sides, and agreeing perfectly with Nardhelain, now I am looking at the way Bertone thinks how this book can actually indoctrinate those of his flock, and maybe he thought well to be concerned that it might. It’s just being protective. Is he right to voice his concerns? Sure. Is he right to say not to read the book? Well, its really a personal decision, even I will not dare tell that to anybody, regardless of my strong feelings about it, but again the Bible says, “we reap what we sow.”
You make a valid point, John. I am Roman Catholic, and while I was growing up, it was never an issue. It was just part of my life, and nobody of my acquaintance said anything about it. When I went away to college, however, I was astonished at how much *hate* people have for the Catholic Church. My religion (about which I am not usually vocal) lost me friends and got me banned from “Christian” clubs on campus. You are correct in saying that it’s “in style” to hate Catholics. I deal with it all the time. I don’t think Catholic-bashing is the *last* or the *only* acceptable form of prejudice, but it certainly is *one* such prejudice.
Just like any large group of people, the Church has a very broad spectrum of members, from arch-conservative to bleeding-heart liberal (like me!). People hate a *stereotype*, and they assume that being Catholic automatically turns someone into that stereotype. I also think that people denigrate Catholic doctrine and beliefs without really understanding them. The media is no exception. For example, I know of at least four books written by conservative Protestant authors that attack The DaVinci Code, but it’s only when a prominent *Catholic* clergyman speaks out that negative attention is focused on Brown’s detractors. If a priest is accused of wrongdoing, it’s all over the news, but you rarely hear about the great charitable work of Catholic Relief Services, the Sisters of Mercy, the Hospitallers, and a host of other Catholic organizations. The Church is maligned for “putting itself on a pedestal” and holding to unpopularly conservative stances on social issues, but nobody ever mentions the fact that the Church is one of the most outspoken advocates for the rights of people who cannot speak for themselves. Nobody ever acknowledges the Church’s efforts to preserve great works of art and literature during some of Western civilization’s darkest times, but they’ll gladly trot out the Inquisition as an example of repression and a reason to hate the Church. The Church’s role in ending the Cold War and bringing freedom to Eastern Europe passed without much notice, but people will gladly raise a hue and cry whenever the Church and its very human leaders and members make a misstep. People hate what they do not understand, and so Catholic-bashing is still “acceptable.”
Incidentally, I have read The DaVinci Code and found it a reasonably enjoyable read, aside from a few issues I have with Brown’s writing style. Yeah, I think it’s most definitely *fiction*, and I am definitely not gullible enough to take fiction as fact. Not everybody is as discerning, however, and I think the Cardinal is motivated *in part* by concern for those Faithful that might be taken in by Brown’s speculations. Whatever your view of clergy, they are first and foremost caretakers of the Catholic congregation. Just like you’d expect your doctor to warn about dangers to your physical health, we Catholics expect clergy to warn us about dangers to our spiritual health. That doesn’t mean that no Catholic will read the book, but most of us will look at it with a rather jaundiced eye.
Dude. Dude. Not cool. This an forum for movie/entertainment discussion. Not an advertisement outlet.
By any chance has anyone here read, “The Last Day” by Glenn Kleier? The book told of
the second coming, the daughter of god, Jeza. The world religions as depicted in the novel feel to be accurate. The utter contempt because of her gender and her words asking the people of the planet to disband organized religion. The houses of faith, gone so very far for the original concept. It no longer represents the message. As expected she gets killed for upsetting the power structure. The book presents Jeza as product of science, a clone of dead girl, part of military project. In her head is chip, wireless modem, she’s plugged into internet – virtual omnipotence. For some reason, the way Jeza is described reminds me of Natalie Portman.
Another good novel is “Towing Jehovah” by James Morrow. In this book, god dies and the consequence that follows. The reason is that Man has always used god as a crutch, we succeed in something, god made it so. If we fail, god meant it to happen. Humanity takes no responsibility for its own actions. This is as good as we will ever get. God willed him/her/itself to death so that humanity can finally grow-up. To become. The novel is a comedy by the way.
Why the post? No real reason, just thought I’d share. As for my faith, I’m an atheist. I suppose if those two books did as much money as Brown’s novel has done, the Church would be condemning them too.
Whether the book “lies” or “criticizes” or whatever really does not matter, the fact remains that it is fiction, just as films or books or music that deal with the same subject matter are. Why single this one out? Certainly the church has a right to defend itself. But against works of fiction? C’mon… certainly they can find better things to do – like maybe save a few souls, or oust some child molesters or something. That would certainly be a more worthy thing to “speak out against” I think.
And as far as an unusual level of scrutiny placed on the catholic church, I don’t buy it. The church puts itself on a pedestal. They proclaim “we know the right way to be”. They are practically begging to be scrutinized. To be clich√ɬ©d for a moment: don’t put your hand in the fire if you can’t stand the heat.
And also to be upfront: I am not catholic, but I am a non-denominational Christian. Have been all my life. I go to church every Sunday, AND I can differentiate between works of fact and fiction. Imagine that… ;]
Hold on a sec folks. A few of us in the discussion keep reffering to “The Church trying to ban the book”. As Richard quoted, as far as I know the church has not tried to ban anything. A couple of people associated with the church have just voiced there concerns.
Now, let me really rile things up here. Many here have pointed out (rightfully so) the many tragic evils and mistakes of the Catholic church over the last 2000 years. However… and only to be fair…
I don’t think any one single institution has been responsible for more positive social reform and defining the charity movement than the Roman Catholic church either. But we never talk about that.
Bishop Gates and the church of Microsoft make a one time $1 Billion dollar donation to charity and he gets a Knighthood from the queen. The Catholic church annually gives over $12 Billion world wide to the buying of medicines, building villages, feeding the hungry and various social programs, literacy and inner-city employment programs and all we seem to talk about is how out of date and evil they are.
To be up front, I used to be Catholic. I left the Catholic church over 10 years ago.
All I’m saying is if we’re going to look at one side of the coin… we should probably peak at the other side too. :P
Keep talking.
Aha! There’s my post up there!
Yes the Catholic Church seems to get more criticism than any other denomination (for good reason one must admit) and any other religion but jeez, we didn’t exactly live with Islam/Hinduism/ as a dominant force for thousands of years in the Western world so part of the phenomenon is just a natural progression of things.
Islam…well we all know why it’s a touchy subject at present for both good and bad reasons.
But again I’ll stress that I feel much of the criticism, particularly from the more fundamentalist Christian faiths, are unwarranted, illogical and well…”unchristian”.
JC – If you check the quotes from the BBC above these are apparently not the views of the Vatican church but one Cardinal.
As triflic says and Simone repeats, “Most of the books, films and other media that bash the Catholic church seem to be going after the organized religion aspect, with it’s power center, decrees, and structure…Rather than the basic tenets of Christian beliefs”.
This is reasonable, but unfortunately this does not prevent many sectors of society from projecting this abuse upon Catholicism’s members. How many times have I heard people (mainly Pentocostals and Baptists) tell me that Catholics aren’t really Christian and it’s just a cult anyway? Catholicism is way too diverse as it stands today to receive this type of criticism.
Secondly, whether Brown’s book is anti-catholic is besides the point. The Vatican perceive it to be as such, and yet society is not prepared to hear its concerns. Instead we mostly mock them.
Much as I despise the Vatican (as a reformist Catholic), if you compare this attitude to that of any other mainline religion under similar circumstances, there is a sizeable difference. I think this is John’s point.
To analyse the book as historically accurate or not, or split hairs on whether it is anti-catholic or not is missing the point.
Richard – I don’t currently, but if it gets viewers I could be persuaded to throw a few up there.
Maybe the real prejudice here is that Tom Hanks won’t let actors who actually fit the part have the major role:)
“Where were the Church and their public voices when he wrote and published “Angels and Demons”? Is the Church only condemning that which comes to the big screen and not that which is written?”
I suppose its because of the publicity that the book has been getting more especially now that it will be adapted to film. It has been an international bestseller for a while now, more and more tourists have been visiting Paris to follow the trail of the Code and it looks like this is the beginning of a new franchise.
Here’s a story from the BBC:
The voice of dissent comes from:
It’s interesting what the Publishers come back with, and I’m glad I found this quote:
Bombadil – You have naked pictures at your site?
Okay, I’m finding it hard not to say anything…so…
There’s something inherently wrong here. They are trying to ban a book that has been published for some time and that takes all its religious plot directly from a book first published in the 80’s and also aired on BBC television – The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
A series of three or four books which trace the emergence of a power which was ultimately found and used by the Knights Templar. Some of which described such things as the character of Christ having a Brother, a Wife and a family. There have been many books around that subject, but this is the most “accurately investigated” in my mind and was written well before Brown’s book.
So why the concerted effort over Brown’s version of events so long after the original books publication and after this novels own publication? Well, because it’s being made into a readily accessible movie.
Much like The Last Temptation of Christ, which I am sitting watching for the first time right now, and The Passion of the Christ, and so many other non mainstream movies and books.
I think there’s a clear pattern in history, as the power of the Church over man faded, beginning with the loss of their great army the Knights Templar, and the education of what the Church did in the name of their God. The destruction, rape and looting of vast cities and countries merely for their own wealth and control.
As these things grew and the Church faded, so did the voice against the Church, and as more and more people feared the Church less, so did their voices against it grow.
The Church I keep referring to represents the idea of organised religion, not of God or of Christ, but of a band of men who retain a heirarchical control over a structured regime.
A great many people believe that the Church does not represent any God, in fact organised religion does not represent any God and is in fact created by man for control, power and wealth.
If a God exists, in any or multiple forms, he surely believes that you can believe in him and practice is word anywhere. It does not have to be in a specific building created by man to which you contribute money for it’s upkeep and maintenance, and it’s central offices and leaders.
There is a gulf between mans organisation of religion and any God that exists.
With that the voices against the Church are just that, against the organisation of religion, and this organisation is fighting back against the voice of men who no longer believe in the power of this organisation, but may well still believe in the power of God.
Capp – I would reconsider whether you really believe that Communism was responsible for more deaths and suffering than the Church. Again, I would refer you to the book on the Papacy I first mentioned for some real historical information on what the Church was and did.
I have read the Brown book, and his others actually (check out my site for some reviews) and they are quite lazy books, especially with all the direct usage of Holy Blood.
I really don’t understand the Church’s voice against this book, it talks of an age old idea of Christ that has been shown again and again in literature. Even in film form I doubt it will make anything more than 1% of the overall references to Christ and God that both Last Temptation and Passion both did.
The Church is just trying to hold onto and exert the power it once held, yet they fail to see that the world has moved on and that they need to as well.
Chadt – great points and well made.
One more thing before I really alienate half the sites readers against me. Never mind the wealth of material on the subject Brown talks about in Code, where were the Church and their public voices when he wrote and published “Angels and Demons”? That is a far better book and goes directly to the heart of the Church, the Pope and the Papacy and has it been condemned?
Is the Church only condemning that which comes to the big screen and not that which is written?
Dude, just face it your blog rocks. I can post naked pictures and I barely visit my own blog.
Maybe it gets attacked, because there are many things that are questionable and somebody needs to question them.
I think the Catholic Church has been subject to unfairly large number of attacks. However, much as they personally offend me, I would do nothing to stop these criticisms. What I would like to see is other religions and institutions subjected to similar levels of criticism.
Attacking Catholics is acceptable because the lords of political correctness have decreed it so. This in my opinion has caused the Catholic Church’s crimes and other shortcomings to be exaggerated. Combined with the fact of how poorly history is often taught (ex. Viewing a novel as historical fact) leaves Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular viewed as a major source of evil. Also importantly, attacking Catholics wouldn’t earn you a possible death sentence.
What is needed is some historical perspective. The Catholic Church is a 2,000-year-old institution. In that time, it is impossible not to commit its share of evils, sometimes major ones. But the Church can play a positive role as well. The current pope played an important role in the decreasing the power of a movement responsible for more suffering and death in less than a century than in all the Church’s long history. That movement is communism and it has not be held accountable for its great crimes, some that continue to this day.
John,
I see what you are saying about Catholics speaking out against perceived wrongs, however, I have a problem when the Catholic Church demands that NO ONE read the book. They – in the way that only the enlightened righteous can – that we basically banish the book because of its heretics.
This is where I have the problem – the arrogance of it all. Wouldn’t it be enough to say, “It’s all just rubbish. Pure ridiculousness. It is just fiction, after all, hmm?” I don’t think that the way Brown developed the Catholics in the book that it warrants their level of complaint. In fact, the Church tries to divest itself of the sect that encourages self-torture and belittles the role of women. The Church in the book is not perfect, yet they ARE portrayed as a religion trying to do right by their members. The evil acts are committed by a select few, outside of the whole of Catholicism.
I have no problem with Catholics disagreeing or being unhappy with the book – but to encourage a boycott isn’t warranted, in my opinion, but seems to be more of a case of the powerful Church flexing its muscles.
And sorry, John, I don’t want to offend you, but did you actually read the book? Do you feel the Catholic Church is right in its boycott demand?
Oh, and again sorry. I tried to send my regrets about your recent breakup, but I think Richard got it by mistake. I feel for you, but I’m confident you will bounce back, no problem.
Besides, you’ve got all of US, right? Cheers.
Ok… but isn’t it closed minded of us to say “you can’t voice your opinions if you’re concerned with how you or your people group are being portrayed”?
If some movie being made depicted my mom in a manner that was less than true… I think I’d be saying something about it. And I don’t think anyone would critisize me for voicing my concern.
I equally don’t think it’s fair of us to critisize the Catholic church or it’s members for expressing their opinons about how they’re being portrayed by someone.
We may agree or disagree with their opinons. But I don’t think it’s fair to slam them for expressing some concern about how they’re portrayed. Wouldn’t we?
Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code is about as anti-Christian as Arnold Schwarzenegger’s End of Days. If the catholic church wasn’t so reality-blind, they might see that the more attention they give the book, the more people start to believe it’s more than it really is – a well crafted, fast-paced, intriguing work of FICTION. Nuff said.
Great discussion, and one that I’m sure Dan Brown intended while writing the book and making his claims about the accuracy of his themes in the book.
I read the book, and I do not believe it is “bashing” Catholics. I do agree that it is questioning the organized religion aspect and not the basic validity of Christianity as a belief system. Brown criticizes the inflexibility of certain Catholics, who take it upon themselves to undertake morally questionable actions to protect the organization of the Catholic Church – all in the name of “Christianity.” In this, I can see that the real Catholic Church feels threatened by the book, but Brown puts forth fictional behavior that does have similar correlation to actual behavior within the real Church. I’m not saying they’d do everything Brown wrote – it is a work of FICTION, for crying out loud – but I feel Brown captures the rigidity and righteousness that are hallmarks of the Church.
I think that one point Brown made, that I am certain is a true statement from him as a historian, is that over many years, many Christians – especially in Catholicism – take events in the Bible as TRUE INDELIBLE FACT, with every word and description exactly how it happened. Brown insists that the Bible was written by men, with the express agenda to protect themselves and their ideas through heavy usage of metaphor and allegory. He is saying that the Gospels are ideal portrayals of the teachings of God, and not necessarily “exactly how it happened.” I believe this theory has merit, being the realist I am.
And as for Catholic-Bashing being the only “accepted” form of prejudice? Come on, get real. Prejudice is ALL around us, everyday, touching on EVERYONE. Watch the present season of the show “24.” The Muslim terrorists, who are fighting for their beliefs, are not portrayed in a good light. So I think the theory that Catholics are being singled out is groundless.
Sadly, the inflexible behavior of the Church in regards to “Code,” seems to mirror the portrayal of organized Catholicism in the book.
Just an opinion. Yes, I know you think I’m wrong. And no, I don’t care. Just try to relax. It’s only a book…
Wow… best discuession we’ve had around here in a while!
Good point s in g, which reminds me that the Catholic Church has been coming out with public apologies in the last couple of years of the injustices that they have done in the past.
“Age 10? You’re kidding, right? Actually I think a better analogy would be a person at age 60 being responsible for something his great-grandfather did.”
I think the analogy is reasonable. The point is that the catholic church should be seen as an individual institution that has has existed for a very long time, not a new institution that differs every time a the clergy shifts. As such it is responisble for its actions in the past, not just the actions of its present memebers. In this sense its more like a person, who has existed for a shorter time span, and is responsible for actions done earlier in life. We are just dealing with differing spans of time.
Triflic nailed it right on the coffin, “Most of the books, films and other media that bash the Catholic church seem to be going after the organized religion aspect, with it’s power center, decrees, and structure…Rather than the basic tenets of Christian beliefs”.
It’s an establishment, what else could you do but stick it to them? People who do this think its the kewl way to do.
I have read the book, (not brilliantly written mind you but entertaining to say the least) and found it really disturbing, I almost didnt want to finish it but the Jesus that Dan Brown was talking about here isnt the same Jesus that I know, the Jesus that the Bible has taught me who is God’s Son and King. I then finally came to terms to the fictional side of it and not let it shake my faith.
Just rambling here, but the government has pretty much dealt with the other ones. The passed legislations about womena and other races, but government pretends to stay out of religion.
To answer you question, no , I don’t think it is the last acceptable predjudice. Has anybody read the Left Behind series? They are wildly popular, heck they even had my wife considering going to church. In those books, if you didn’t leave a “proper christian” life, you either were killed or deemed a devil. I would say that is pretty prejudice to non-catholic religions.
Darn it I included an outside link and I need to wait for my comments to be moderated! Grrrrrrr. :->
I have not read the book and so have no idea whether it’s anti-Catholic or not. Statements about historians confirming basic historical events of Christianity aside, they only reason why the Catholics (or Christians in general) would then be upset about a story purporting that Jesus married anyone is for religions reason (came down from heaven, son of God, turning water to wine and whatnot) and I hardly think that such a re-telling ranks up there with misrepresenting the Holocaust.
However there is something of an anti-Catholic prejudice that exists to the point where other Christian denominations “demonise” it, and some atheists and agnostics who simply discount anything religious. The “problem” with religion-and Christianity is one of (perhaps the only) religion that has flourished in secular/religiously neutral societies the longest therefore making it an easier target I suppose-is that for SOME non-believers it’s a bit hard to understand theology primarily based on faith and matters that cannot be proven; this makes it I suppose more difficult for them to show respect? Some of it is just ye olde intolerance.
As to why Roman Catholics seem particularly susceptible that particular institution has been making things bad for itself long, long, long after slavery was abolished in North America. They were suppressing women long after women’s suffrage. “The Magdelene Sisters” anyone? I mean forget the movie, there was a documentary on the DVD that the movie was based on (the last laundry closed in the early 90’s I believe). I’m well-aware that it was all quite one-sided (the documentary and the movie) but aside from the Nun order offering a public apology the Catholic Church kept its mouth shut and the record books closed. Speaking of the Holocaust do we remember what the Pope apologised for a few years ago? http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/bernauer.htm
And you know to this day I still think others give the Church a bad rap without noticing its virtues but if the Vatican continues to operate less like a Christian institution and more like a bureaucracy, then I’m afraid they’re going to be recalling their negative historical stereotypes in the public conscious for a long time. The British (as an example) now talk more openly about the Atlantic Slave trade than the Catholics talk about their bad history in their own community (or so it seems from the hearsay of Catholic friends in certain parts of Canada. I am willing to acknowledge that it may be different elsewhere).
Basically we need to start easing on ’em a bit, and they need to stop shooting themselves in the foot.
My $0.02: Most of the books, films and other media that bash the Catholic church seem to be going after the organized religion aspect, with it’s power center, decrees, and structure…Rather than the basic tenents of Christian beliefs. Any time a group of people with too much influence and power over peoples belives get together, bad things are bound to happen.
Since the majority of power in the western world is in the Christian church, with the Catholics being the most visible stand-outs (They have their own mini-country; and of course, the best hats!), it is just easiest to bash the majority. It’s easier to discriminatory remark against white males 18-60 because they hold the majority of influence in North American Society. It doesn’t look as bad…Is this right…no, but there you have it.
/OK, so this ramble makes very little cohesive sense…more of a stream of consciousness thing…feel free to ignore…
“Much like a person in their own life is responsible at age 60 for actions that they might have done at age 10.”
Age 10? You’re kidding, right? Actually I think a better analogy would be a person at age 60 being responsible for something his great-grandfather did.
“The current actions regarding child abuse in the clergy has been terrible as well. The churchs handling of the situation has been appalling.”
I certainly agree with you on this point without a doubt.
Vic
Considering your comments,
“I don’t know why it’s “ok” to bash Christianity in our society. Perhaps it is because (for most people of faith) the Christian ethic is not about confrontation, so a lot of this bashing goes unanswered?”
– its not ok to say “my god, you’re a christian! To the lions with you”
– it is ok to be critical “What do we really know about Jesus anyway? Why do trust these texts?” Its not just christianity that is open to criticism, but any belief.
“As to the evils of the Catholic church… I used to be Catholic a long time ago but no longer am. Despite that, I think holding the present day Church accountable for what happened hundreds of years ago makes no more sense than African Americans born in the last 30 years looking for slavery reparations.”
– It might actually make sense to hold present institutions responisble for slavery considering that many of those institutions still exist and there are explicit records of their actions. If slaves are rightfully owed something, would it be that strange to think that these dues might get past on to their offspring? Furthermore, the Catholic church as a long standing institution is still responsible for their past actions. Much like a person in their own life is responsible at age 60 for actions that they might have done at age 10. The fact that the institution itself is much older and the people in it have changed shouldn’t matter. Its still the Catholic church. The other issue is that the Catholic church has been loathe to even admit that what happened in the past was problematic. Dear God, its wasn’t that long ago that they said, ‘opps, sorry Gallileo, you might have been on to something…’. The current actions regarding child abuse in the clergy has been terrible as well. The churchs handling of the situation has been appalling. Frankly, the reason there is some much backlash and criticism is that the church has a TERRIBLE track record, and it continues to. The final worry is that they actually exhert a lot of influence in society today, the greater the power the greater the responsibility. We need to hold them accountable.
I wonder if anyone has read ‘the man in the high castle’ by P. K. Dick? That book is set in alternative future where the Nazis won the second world war. I suppose the difference between the two is that Brown is claiming his alternative history to be the truth, when of course no-one can know either way.
As far as the book being anti-catholic, I don’t think that’s the case at all, I think it’s simply playing off a very interesting subject, the life of Jesus as a real historical factual person, something which not very much is known about. I know I find it interesting to wonder what Jesus was like as a person.
John,
I don’t know why it’s “ok” to bash Christianity in our society. Perhaps it is because (for most people of faith) the Christian ethic is not about confrontation, so a lot of this bashing goes unanswered?
Personally, it bugs the crap out of me.
As to the book itself, the problem I have with it is what someone brought up earlier in the thread… the author is talking through both sides of his mouth by claiming that it’s a work of fiction but that the facts are accurate (which they have been proven not to be).
As to the evils of the Catholic church… I used to be Catholic a long time ago but no longer am. Despite that, I think holding the present day Church accountable for what happened hundreds of years ago makes no more sense than African Americans born in the last 30 years looking for slavery reparations.
Vic
Hey guys… GREAT discussion.
Let me try to focus it a bit more… the question is:
Why is anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice?
Or is it the last?
And Dave… good points… but I would add to your comments that ALL OF NORTH AMERICA supressed the role of women until like 20 years ago. The Church wasn’t the only insitution doing that.
There is no doubt that the vatican DID supress the role of women in the church through time. There was a Gospel attributed to Mary Magdelene, the first apostle. This is fact. The scrolls for older bibles have been found containing it. The rest of the stuff is good fiction hokum. but I don’t see anything damaging in it.
What is far more damaging is the reality of paeodophile priests and the diminshed role of women in the religion ,not to mention the hitstorical role of the crusades (soon to be a film) and the inquisitions.
There seems to be a few ways one could look at this book.
1) It is a work of fiction: What if Jesus married Mary M? That sounds like an interesting tale to spin. As its fiction who should care. Other religous leaders have been given similar treatment, (siddartha etc.). Its not anti catholic. (if we made a movie sympathetic to an athiest perspective, would that be an anti catholic film?) I’m an athiest, would I have equal right to be offended by The Passion because its anti-athiest?
2) Its non-fiction: The author purports to make true historical claims. As such, these claims are judeged on their merit. The history of theology is one of radical change and upheaval. Theologians who challenged existing dogma shouldn’t been seen as anti catholic…in fact many of them were catholic.
In academic settings the goal of any discipline is to arrive at truth. Sometimes this conflicts with previously existing views. There is a sense in which denying the biblical account of the life of Christ would be anti-catholic, but only insofar that it would conflict with the beliefs of a subset of catholics and christians. This seems to me to be IMPORTANTLY differnt than hate speech or encouraging the persecution of catholics for their beliefs. One benefit of free speech is to create open dialouge. This means people might disagree with what you say.
On a more emotional and irrational note, Catholic history is ugly. Its filled with murder and persecution, and in our age we know there are still a lot of terrible things occuring within the c-church. Still they like to see themselves as a central political institution worthy of our consideration. Part of me is happy to see anything that would continue to erode there role in society (Mind you, not as a religous institution that people can participate in of their own will).
Hey Chris.
The difficulty (as I see it anyway… and I’m often wrong) is that just because some “King” at some point in history, wore a “Christian” lable on him… didn’t make him a Christian. So why do his horrible actions (in the name of his false Christianity).
The problem with semi-historical Christianity is that it is filled with lots of people who were not “Christian” at all… but used the influence of the faith and the church to act like assholes.
IE. I don’t believe that the Assholes who flew planes into the world trade towers were Muslims at all. Oh sure… they CALLED themselves Muslims… but they didn’t follow true Muslim teachings. Therefore… I refuse to bash Muslims over the actions of idiots who just acted in the name of Islam when they weren’t following the tenants of Islam in the first place.
The other thing to keep in mind is this… ALL world religions and people groups are filled with the same thing… PEOPLE. Flawed, imperfect people. If there were only more Star Wars fans the world would be a better place!
;)
I’m not sure if this is true, and in alot of ways I wish it wasn’t but maybe the reason why its “in style” to bash Catholics is because more than any single religion, catholicism has resulted in hate, segregation, and domination.
Catholicism might have been about freedom, and redemption and acceptence as originally preached but look at its history…it sure wasn’t acted out like that.
So, I think many see the hypocracy in that and they question, and with more and more evidence they see they become hardened to it. From there, its just a simple step to bashing catholics. I will be honest though, I’d prefer the discussion to be about Christianity in general, rather than just catholics.
I don’t hate one person or one group, I hate everyone and everything equally ;)
Hey there Guys.
Actually… if you look into history a little bit… the claim that there is “There is a great number of evidence that says it might not have happened that way” is actually more of an urban myth.
The vast majority of Secular (even atheistic historians) all pretty much affirm the basic historical account of Christ-era events.
Also… every major historical formula for ascertaining accuracy pretty much supports the basic history. If I’m not mistaken more than 35x the accuaracy from any Roman hisorical account that we all hold as factual.
BUT… that’s not the point I was trying to make.
I have no problem with the book (the code). It’s just a story. What I’m asking everyone is why we (including myself much of the time), find it “in style” to bash the Catholics… but do nothing remotly the same to other major people groups? It strikes me as a double standard.
I don’t think the issue is censorship… I’m more concerned about WHY we look at it the way we do.
Rich brings up a good point about Rushdie. I think people should be able to write whatever they want… I’m just curious about why we as the public react one way to a given situation… and the opposite way to another.
Once again… THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT THE WRITERS… THE QUESTION I’M WONDERING ABOUT IS OUR REACTIONS TO THEM… AND IS THERE A DOUBLE STANDARD.
Good discussion…. keep it going.
Pretty much all of what Brown passes off as “history” has been debunked by (secular) historians. Yet he still claims that if he were writing a non-fiction book he wouldn’t change any of those details. So in essence, he’s making up a fantasy past to make Catholics look bad.
No one is saying that Catholics are the only ones who should have any say on how their history is presented, but I think that they at least have the right to demand that we don’t just make up crap because it sounds interesting and then pass it off as true.
How is it anti-Catholic? Because they say that what happened isn’t what the Catholics say happened? The holocaust is pretty much recorded. What happened in that time is questioned by a great deal of people. There is no actual proof that how the Catholics say it happened actually did other than the bible and passed down stories. There is a great number of evidence that says it might not have happened that way and to say that something is attacking it, because they provide a different side of the story is just idiotic and shows they are trying to deflect negative attention. This is not the first time somebody has written about these topics, it is just the first time they were put in a fashion that attracted mass attention.
Was there this much fuss when the ideas were first released in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, before they were re-used by Brown?
Is it encouraged? I don’t see it anymore than anti-middle east, for example. I think the rights for freedom of speech have a good place here. Brown can write as much about the subject as those who first wrote the book “The Bible”.
If we will strive to protect the rights for freedom of speech of Salamon Rushdie, then also of the writers of Holy Blood.
The Church are trying to influence its sale, so late after its initial publication, which is no surprise if you consider their history. Another interesting book, which is equally unliked in such areas, is Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, a very interesting insight into that very subject. Having read it, I take quite a different view to whatever they say or try to do.
Is the suggestion that it should be unacceptable for anyone to question or challenge the Church and their written works?
I have very strong views about this topic, and perhaps it would be better for all if I leave them outwith the site.