Inspired by the Madonna thread: I have a question about The Da Vinci Code et al

[LindsayDunn228]

As I was getting up this morning my husbad had to the tv on the O'Reilly Factor (no flames please, this has nothing to do with my question). There was a guy on there and they were talking about The Da Vinci Code. I didn't catch if he was a priest, but I did hear him say he was Catholic.

My question: A LOT of Christians are protesting this movie, not just Catholics alone. Why is it almost all of the interviews I have seen all target Catholics? All of the interviews are with Catholics. A lot of the interviews are with Catholic priests. Why?? Why aren't there other denominations being asked their opinion? Why not have a Baptist minister? A Lutheran believer?? etc. Granted I'm sure it's been done, I just haven't seen it.

I haven't read The Da Vinci Code or seen the movie yet, so I have no opinion on it one way or the other. Is there something about this book/movie that targets just Catholics and not all Christians? Why is the Catholic church supposedly being attacked? Aren't Christians worshipping the same God and Jesus??

Just some thoughts. Note: I am NOT Catholic bashing. I have no problem with them.

 

[KimR]

Well, if you're really interested in a non-Catholic perspective I can give you my MIL's phone number. She is Southern Baptist and I can guarantee you she would happily give you an earful!

ETA: seriously, I think the reason Catholics are more vocal is that book heavily referenced the Catholic Church; however I do know that other religions (Southern Baptist specifically) have a problem with it as well.

 

[helenabear]

Because, from what I understand, it is the Catholic Church being acussed of hiding what really happened with Jesus. Kind of makes sense since that would've been "the" Christian church back then in that part of time (well not exactly then, but it was the first formed, if that makes sense). So some have taken it as a slam on the Catholic church, as yet another cover up... even though it is only fiction.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

Because, from what I understand, it is the Catholic Church being acussed of hiding what really happened with Jesus. Kind of makes sense since that would've been "the" Christian church back then in that part of time (well not exactly then, but it was the first formed, if that makes sense). So some have taken it as a slam on the Catholic church, as yet another cover up... even though it is only fiction.

Ok, that makes sense then.

I just wondered if there was something in the storyline that made this "Catholic-centered," for lack of a better phrase.

 

[gallaj0]

Edited to add some space in case anyone thinks these are spoliers...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think it's because the book focuses on a "shadowy Vatican group" and cover ups that supposedly go back to the time of Christ; which would focus most on the "first" and arguably most likely group to lead the cover up, which would be the Pope/Bishops of the early Catholic church.

 

[Amy]

I'll be vague so I don't give away the plot, but in the Da Vinci Code (which is FICTION), the Catholic Church is the "bad guy" trying to keep some documents secret. Opus Dei (which is a real organization, but not as depicted in the novel) is shown as an arm of the Catholic Church which commits the murders in the book.

So the Catholic Church is the most upset at the way they're depicted in the book, but other religions aren't too happy about the book. We're Lutheran, and our minister wasn't too happy when I told him I found the book fascinating. He has a bulletin board outside his office and he's got all kinds of articles posted there showing what's wrong in the book.

Just remember, it's fiction. Just the places and paintings are real.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

Ok you guys. Thanks for all of your replies. Head scratching over now

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

My guess..

Our church bulleting had an open letter to Ron Howard in it this past Sunday. Not sure who wrote it (noone from our church--not sure even our diocese). The gist of the letter is that no big deal if the movie is fiction and saying it is--but a big deal that there are words that say that it is based on facts (when the facts from what I understand are clearly false--I haven't seen the movie and haven't written my dissertation on religion just yet ).

Also--they misrepresent the group Opus Dei in a big way.


So the Catholic church has been very open about their opinions on the movie. Not sure about other religions. I'm not sure they would have scoffed it as much had fiction not been presented as fact. Probably would have treated it as any other movie that is reviewed for content and probably would have quietly given a disapproval to the movie.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

Thanks again. You all really answered my question

 

[Galahad]

On a non-religious note - I heard an Art Historian say yesterday that the History in the book/movie, expecially the Art History, is so laughably wrong as to make it imposible to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy the story. I read the book and liked it (I'm not an Art Historian ).

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I find it interesting that everyone always labels the book as "fiction." While that is true, and it is being marketed as a "fiction" book, perhaps everyone isn't getting "all the story" to know why the saying "it's just fiction" isn't really a good picture of what's going on.

Do you know what the first page of the book, right before the prologue, do you know what the first word is? "FACT". That's right. It's almost like a little disclaimer page before the book even starts, and author Dan Brown asserts that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Quite a claim for a "fiction" book, in fact why would you even say this in a supposedly "fiction" book?

As to the secret society named the Priory of Sion, supposedly started in 1099 which protects the bones of Mary Magdalene and documents about the bloodline of Jesus Christ (and of course which Brown says is "accurate", even in his "fiction" book), this is one of the most significant blunders of The Da Vinci Code. The Priory of Sion was actually started in France on May 7, 1956, by a con artist named Pierre Plantard (1920-2000). The Priory was first a civic organization. In the 1960s Plantard created the mythology of a secret society led by figures such as Isaac Newton and Leonardo da Vinci. The book says that ancient documents about the Priory were discovered in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris in 1975, and refers to these alleged parchments as Les Dossiers Secrets. However, these documents are not ancient but are actually forgeries done by Philippe de Chérisey (1925-1985), a co-conspirator with Plantard. They were not discovered by the French library in 1975 but were placed there by Plantard in 1967. In fact, both de Chérisey and Plantard admitted the hoax before their deaths. In fact, Plantard was forced to admit his fraud before Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre in a French court case in September 1993. That's a lot of "fiction" right there, which normally would be OK in a "fiction" book, except for Brown's disclaimer about the accuracy of what he writes.

But how about not just what Brown writes, but what he says. When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”

Similarly, in an interview with “Good Morning America” when asked: “if you were writing it as a nonfiction book, how would it have been different?” Dan Brown responded: “I don’t think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe and two years of research, I really became a believer.”

I guess people need to decide for themselves, whether he really wrote it as "fiction", as is claimed by some, or whether he believes it and considers it fact, as Brown has both written and said. You decide.

 

[RealMickeysGirl]

Well, I am going to throw my 2 cents in here. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Someone had to be the bad guy in the book - just happens to be so much history of Catholic events (crusades, inquisition, and all that) that they are an easy group to find a little fact about and morph it into a good story plot.

There has been speculation about a relationship with Mary Magdalen for a long time - Dan Brown didn't suddenly have a revelation about this.

There are even theories that the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine was his own wedding - hense the people at the wedding listening to what his mother had to say and her being the one to ask him to do something about the wine shortage.

Also theories that the story of the escape to Egypt being about Mary Magdalen and Joseph of Aramethea (sp ?) changed to be about Mary, Joseph and Jesus to remove Mary Magdalen from the story. Who knows - we don't have the original books. (Yes, I have done a little reading on this other than Dan Brown's books - just a hobby of mine)

I think that it doesn't matter if Jesus was married and had children. I am sure there are major parts of his life and his actions that are not in the bible. And what is my point -- the examples and lessons he gives on what is a good life doesn't hinge on him being married or not.

Just my opinion.

 

[SC Minnie]

I read the book and will probably watch the movie when its on PPV or HBO.

I have a co-worker that is Christian and is extremely opposed to this book. That's fine. But she asked me yesterday if I went to see the movie over the weekend. I told her I would probably wait until it was on PPV or something. She told be she didn't know if she could associate with someone that watched it. WTH???? She went on the tell me that 'you have to be careful what you bring into your mind etc'. It is just a book and movie for goodness sakes. It is not going to make me change my mind on what I believe as far as Jesus is concerned.

 

[goofygirl]

Why aren't there other denominations being asked their opinion?

Well I suspect the press is asking Catholics because they seem to be the most angry over this, and an angry person will make for an interesting tv interview. As explained, they are upset that some Catholics are the villain in the story.

Other demoninations are more upset about Jesus being married and a father (and thus more human) rather than a pious, celibate diety.


I talked about the DVC with my priest (Episcopal), I told him, "I'm seeing the DVC tonight, so I'll be here tomorrow morning for absolution, ok?"

He thought that was funny.

The church had a flea market Saturday and someone was selling the VHS of "Monty Python and The Holy Grail", and the same priest said, "This is what the DVC is based on, right?"


I'm so glad I know Christians with a sense of humor.

 

[cardaway]

People from other religions understand the fiction aspect and rarely bother Christians about the offensive and outrageous ideas in Christian fiction.

But look out when things go the other way. See "Last Temptation of Christ" and now this movie as examples.

And people actually wonder why all the Christian bashing.

 

[DVC Sadie]

As I was getting up this morning my husbad had to the tv on the O'Reilly Factor (no flames please, this has nothing to do with my question). There was a guy on there and they were talking about The Da Vinci Code. I didn't catch if he was a priest, but I did hear him say he was Catholic.

Since everyone else already answered your question I won't bore you with more details but I would like to know why you would get flamed for your dh watching a TV program?

 

[RUDisney]

Also--they misrepresent the group Opus Dei in a big way.

While I think the book stretched the truth a little about Opus Dei, I don't think it misrepresented them very much. I've seen other documentaries about Opus Dei and from what I've seen, it reminds me of a Jim Jones's like cult for Catholics (believers who live communally are kept from contacting their parents, family and friends outside of the order) and Jose Maria Escriva seems like L Ron Hubbard with his rules for life and all.

While I can understand why JPII made Escriva a saint and why he acknowledged Opus Dei as a legitimate part of the Catholic Church, I think the bottom line is that popes like when people sacrifice things in the name of the church, or the name of Jesus. Jose Maria was all about sacrificing, even to the point of wearing a cillus and self-flaggelating.

 

[LindsayDunn228]

As I was getting up this morning my husbad had to the tv on the O'Reilly Factor (no flames please, this has nothing to do with my question). There was a guy on there and they were talking about The Da Vinci Code. I didn't catch if he was a priest, but I did hear him say he was Catholic.

Since everyone else already answered your question I won't bore you with more details but I would like to know why you would get flamed for your dh watching a TV program?

I just said that because I know people have some pretty heated views about Bill O'Reilly and I wasn't wanting the thread to turn into a "Why the heck are you watching him" hijack. That's all.

 

[CheshireVal]

As a Protestant, the theories set forth in the book don't bother me very much. If Jesus had a wife and children, that really doesn't change anything. Our ministers/pastors are also allowed to marry and have children.

Maybe that idea shakes things up a bit more in the Catholic church since their priests are celibate (taking after Jesus? Not sure where the origins of that came from.)

I think what would be more earth-shattering and controversial to all Christians is the idea that Jesus was mortal and that the resurrection never happened. I believe the book might have touched on that idea a bit more (it's been a while since I read it so I can't remember) than the movie did, though it was still mentioned.

 

[RealMickeysGirl]

Maybe that idea shakes things up a bit more in the Catholic church since their priests are celibate (taking after Jesus? Not sure where the origins of that came from.)

I could be wrong but I think it comes from Paul saying that if you are going to be a disciple and travel preaching, it is better that you not be married. Then he goes on to say something about - if you can't control your lusts then you should be married - I can't remember exactly where this is or the exact wording but I can look it up if anyone wants the actual book and verse.