Church fights Da Vinci Code novel

[emad]

BBC


The Roman Catholic Church in Italy has spoken out against what it says are "shameful and unfounded lies" in the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop of Genoa, broke the church's official silence on the controversial book.

Its story about the Church suppressing the "truth" that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene has convinced many fans.

But the cardinal's spokesman denied reports that the clergyman was asked by the Vatican to hit back at the book.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4350625.stm

[oneighty]

1. Hey fellows,

it is make believe (Fiction)and the writer sells it as fiction, unlike another very popular book.

180

[emad]

2. Sunday Times last week said Brown's sequel to be book on Rennes

le Chateau: Berengere Sauiniere conspiracy about Mary Magdalene/J.Christ living in the Corbieres region of Southern France (good wine growing area....)

[patcox2]

12. I have travelled extensively in that area, Agde, Sete, Bezier.

Wine by the gallon from a pump. Canal boating on the canal du Midi. heaven.

[emad]

14. The Hotel de Ville at Couiza at the foothills of Rennes le Chateau

has happy hour 12 noon to midnight. Local Blanquette de Limoux (organic) costs approx $2.
Minicab service home via scenic route...

[NashVegas]

40. My Hat Is Off to Brown

As a novelist he's a hack - but he deserves full credit for exploiting this goldmine to the hilt.

[CanuckAmok]

113. Interesting...Sauiniere had "Terribilis est locus iste" engraved...

...above the Church narthax: "This place is terrible".

A mystery.

[Lorien]

54. Indeed; Brown wrote some nonsense about some films I worked

on in that book (Disney animated movies), and although I was a bit taken aback by his assertions, I still enjoyed the book as light fiction. If he had presented "The Da Vinci Code" as fact I might of been irritated, but instead it just made me chuckle. I guess it's not surprising that many of these same people can't see the "Left Behind" series for what it is, either!

[DemBones DemBones]

106. The Catholic Church sees both "The DaVinci Code" and the "Left Behind"

series as books full of factual and doctrinal error.

The "Left Behind" books teach the idea of the "Rapture," which isn't Biblical or a belief from the early days of Christianity but an idea only about one hundred years old, and definitely not a Catholic doctrine.

"The DaVinci Code" repackages old rumours and conspiracy talk of the Vatican hiding secrets that "would destroy the faith of millions if they were known." (The audience gasps!) People love the idea of knowing secrets and many aren't particular about the truth of the secrets. That's the bad part of Dan Brown's books. Apart from the writing, that is. But if people read them for fun, not believing them as gospel truth, there's no harm done.

What is depressing is that people are actually taking it as FACT that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and their descendants are living today. That's as crazy as it is that people believe George Bush won two presidential elections and Saddam helped Osama take down the World Trade Center.

[Malva Zebrina]

148. and some people take it as fact that Mary was a virgin

when she conceived a child.

And some people laugh at that. Some people also take the Bible as fiction as also the entire story and myth of the man Jesus

So?

This was a very entertaining novel. It was fiction.

It is simply the same thing as the many movies that have come about depicting the life the Christ. They are all fiction because they are based on mythology and the artist is free to extrapolate from that, what he or she will because it is myth and none of it has ever been proven as a truth.

As are all the pictures ever ever displayed that portray Jesus on holy cards and indeed, in some very famous paintings.

[Must_B_Free]

117. He didn't mention the phallic symbol on the Little Mermaid cover

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.htm

what is interesting is that snopes "debunks" this, yet can't deny that it is blatantly phallic

[IndianaGreen]

67. Those that peddle the fiction that is the Bible as non-fiction

have a hard time dealing with a fiction best seller like "The DaVinci Code."

The fact that the Vatican is going ape shit about this tells me that perhaps there is more truth in this book than in the Bible.

[redacted]

149. Dime store novel.

It's a mystery, fiction, a book. Not a very good one at that. Dime store novel.

?

[Trillo]

3. DVC is fiction, why call it book instead of novel?

Cardinal's spokeman calls fiction reports Vatican asked to hit back at the book.

[Just Me]

38. 'Cause they either have no faith or have something to hide?

:shrug:

They sure are picky about which scrolls they publish and how they go about interpreting and edititorializing the scrolls they do publish as "The Holy Bible".

[Trillo]

41. Something to hide: their complication in 'covering up' pedophile priests.

That is precisely the sort of thing that makes people look seriously at other possible conspiracies, such as those you note.

[Griffy]

43. Bibles fiction too.. shhhh

but we cant have the masses knowing that... the church barely survived admitting the Earth is round! "what.. no crystal spheres.. burn down the church!" ... and please.. if you want to reply to this, have some knowledge on how, where, when and by WHO, the bible was writen.

that said "I think" it is based on some real events mixed with miracles and special effects. There are good messages in the bible, but also really greusome and terrible things too. To me the book just proves that it is up to us to figure out whats right and wrong, and we dont need a book, especially one condones both good and evil.

[lastliberalintexas]

79. You don't know what you're talking about!

That should be by *whom* the bible was written. ;-)

Otherwise, I'd pretty much agree.

[Griffy]

134. So.. you in fact, agree, thanks...

and you are correct.. its WHOM, many people were involved, some of which we may never know.. I mean did someone copy a word wrong here or there?.. they were only human ;)

What we refer to as "god" exists beyond what we understand.. just some of us understand more.. IMO

[Teaser]

124. Not fiction.

Fiction, as a literary category didn't exist when the Bible was written.

The Bible is largely myth. Which isn't to say it isn't true.

[Griffy]

135. it is myth too... but you basically agree too.. nt

[pelagius]

140. I have no problem when people say the Bible is a myth...

...I object only when they say the Bible is *just* a myth.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Yet they said nothing about "The Camp of the Saints"

That was the Euro-potboiler about the A-Rabbs invading France.

Not a cross word was spoken about it, except by those loathsome French lefties who Hate Us For Our Freedoms.

--p!

[emad]

5. Vatican appoints official Da Vinci Code debunker

Guardian

Michelle Pauli
Tuesday March 15, 2005


With sales of over 18m copies in 44 languages, topping bestseller charts all over the world and earning its author more than £140m, Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code is a global phenomenon. And now it has become the first book ever to have an archbishop dedicated to debunking its contents.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa and a possible successor to the Pope, has been appointed by the Vatican to rebut what the Catholic church calls the "shameful and unfounded errors" contained within The Da Vinci Code. He is organising a series of public debates focusing on the conspiracy theories and what the Vatican sees as the blurring of fact and fiction at the heart of the thriller, the first of which will be held in Genoa tomorrow.

The book follows the investigations of a Harvard code expert who is looking into the murder of the curator of the Louvre Museum in Paris. He discovers a series of clues buried in the works of Leonardo Da Vinci and, by deciphering riddles and anagrams, uncovers the secrets of the holy grail: that Jesus never claimed to be divine, that he married Mary Magdalene and had a child with her, that his bloodline survived in France and that the grail itself was not a chalice but a woman. It is this, along with the book's characterization of the international Catholic organization Opus Dei as an extremist cult, that has particularly exercised the Vatican.

"The book is everywhere," Cardinal Bertone told Il Giornale newspaper, according to a report in The Times today. "There is a very real risk that many people who read it will believe that the fables it contains are true. even perverts the story of the holy grail, which most certainly does not refer to the descendants of Mary Magadalene. It astonishes and worries me that so many people believe these lies."

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1438297,00.html

[eek]

6. Hey Church:

Howzabout you work on world debt and poverty?

Maybe a little health care for the poor in Third World countries?

Might I suggest that there are some peple in, say, Darfur who might could use someone appointed by the Vatican, to lend them a hand.

Jesus was really big on helping the poor and the sick, right?
So don't it follow that it "perverts" ol' Jesus' teachings by wasting time debunking a fictional book when so many of His Flock are in extremis?

Just asking.

[pelagius]

65. The Catholic Church does do things like that...

...but it doesn't generate headlines.

Surely you've heard of Catholic Charities (www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/) or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul (www.ozanet.org/ssvpcgien/marco1_en.htm). These are just two of many Catholic organizations whose purpose is helping the poor. There are many more, to say nothing of what's being done at the diocesan or parish level.

The Vatican _has_ appointed a special envoy to Darfur. His name is Archbishop Josef Cordes and he is well-placed in the Vatican hierarchy as the head of the pontifical council "Cor Unum".
(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/corunum/)

I'm not a Roman Catholic nor do I study all things Roman Catholic. As just an average layman, I was able to find these things with about 3 minutes on Google. There's plenty of criticism that can be leveled at the Roman Catholic Church, but let's give credit where credit is due.

I agree the whole thing about the _DaVinci Code_ is probably overblown. I must say, however, time and time again -- including here on DU -- I've heard people telling me that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married as if it were indisputable fact. Clearly, some people who are confusing fiction -- and highly speculative fiction at that --with scholarship based on available evidence.

If I were being accused of withholding evidence, I'd mount a vigorous defense to prove I was not. I don't begrudge the Vatican for doing so.

But, yeah, it is silly. But people are silly.


on edit: typos corrected

[purduejake]

108. Catholic Charities - another horrible organization

I'm sure they do a lot of good, but my adoption was arranged through them and they did a lot of fucked up things like alter my birthday so I wouldn't know the real day I was born (makes it tougher to find birth parents). Needless to say, I was PISSED when I found out, especially with the realization that I never spent my birthday with people I loved and my family insists on celebrating the fake birthday now. Thanks Catholic Charities. Go to hell, right along with your... oh nevermind.

edit: forgot spell check

[pelagius]

141. Sorry to hear about that...

...personal experiences can vary, of course. When I was down and out for awhile, the Salvation Army used to serve some me pretty shitty food, too.

[Bill McBlueState]

7. great publicity

I doubt Dan Brown could have imagined better publicity for his book than to have the Vatican send out a cardinal to refute it.

[LiberalFighter]

86. Brown could include that snippet about cardinal in his next book :)

[Merlin]

27. DVC may be fiction, but reveals suppressed fact that dooms christianity

It isn't the sensational and silly allegations about Jesus surviving crucifixion and running off to France.

It's that this book reveals on a popular level thruths that have heretofore been suppressed: that the gospels were:
--written long after Jesus died
--by people who never knew him
--based on the legends that surrounded his life
--by anonymous authors
--who had an agenda of making him appear to fulfill OT "prophesies"

This means, of course, that the NT lacks the authenticity that christianity has sought to accord it throught the bogus use authors names "Matthew, Mark, Luke and John" to mislead followers into believing they were first hand accounts by his closest friends and followers, the apostles.

[gratuitous]

33. What?

Uhm, biblical scholarship has noted and debated every point you claim has been "suppressed" for centuries, and modern scholars have written volumes on every one of those points, applying textual critical techniques and analyzing the texts to try to ascertain the oral tradition that predated the written traditions.

Certainly there is a basic instructional shorthand that talks about the writers/assemblers of the various gospels as historic personages, but the only people who actually think that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John were walking around with Jesus contemporaneously writing it all down are know-nothing fundamentalist whackos; and there are fewer of them than you might think.

[freestyle]

44. Thanks gratuitous. All those "bombshells" are old news.

I learned all that stuff in Bible study in church. It was part of getting a basic understanding of the history of the Bible. That sort of knowledge does not doom Chrisitianity, although it does highlight the intellectual untenability of literalism.

[Merlin]

57. What church did you learn that in ?

I will bet it's not common knowledge among the parishoners.

Why? Don't you wonder why Christianity encourages the notion that the gospels were written by the apostles and thus reflect real experience rather than handed-down legend?

I'll tell you why. Because it's exactly as I said. It would destroy Christianity if it were generally known -- absent some long overdue essential reforms Christianity will wind up having to make anyhow.

Right now Christianity in the US is on the ropes. Find me a mainstream denomination where "callings" are not declining precipitously, for example. There are none that I'm aware of.

[DemBones DemBones]

104. Some Christian churches may be on the ropes in the U.S.,

but Catholicism and many other Christian faiths are growing in Asia, Africa, and South America, and the majority of those peoples are far more conservative than American Christians. Conservative Christianity and conservative Islam have a lot of appeal to people today.

Your assertions about the Church duping people, not telling them the history of the Bible, etc., are way offbase as well.

[JerseygirlCT]

123. It's absolutely open knowledge in many churches

We talked about those things all through my (Catholic) education, for instance. Certainly, it's part of our discussions in my Episcopal church.

And I don't see where historical accuracy or a literal interpretation of the bible are necessary for the survival of Christianity. The message shines through.

[Merlin]

56. Sure biblical scholars know it. But DVC brings it right to Mr & Mrs Smith!

Sure the scholars have known this. In fact, as a minister friend tells me, every divinity school student learns with 6 weeks or so of the truth of the origins of the NT. Some even wash out because of it.

But those in the ministry wind up making a sort of faustian bargain with organized religion that they will not rock the boat. Invariably, they point, he said--as he did, to the little old ladies and drunks and other true believers who--in the absence of their Christology--would surely succumb to abject misery of some sort. In reality it's a "to get along, go along" compromise.

Of course absolutely nobody but thee and me and other assorted heathens pays any attention to developments in the realm biblical scholarship, though I find it fascinating.

The net result is, the vast bulk of the public--at least here in the US--still actually believes the gospels were written by apostles. And most believe Paul was an apostle. And many believe the bible is the inerrant "Word of God." And on and on.

[gratuitous]

59. My, such an awful lot of unsupported statements

In the Christian circles I move in, it's pretty common knowledge that many books of the Bible, particularly the Gospels, started off as oral tradition, and assumed written form some time later, in the case of the Gospel of John perhaps as long as 75 years afterward.

The ministers and pastors I know are quite conversant with biblical textual scholarship, and though they don't belabor the point in every sermon ("Now remember, boys and girls, this wasn't written down until probably 70 or 80 C.E."), they and their congregations seem to have no trouble with the dating of texts, and indeed it's a popular subject in Sunday schools.

Are these facts drilled into kids from the cradle? No, but then pre-teens don't really have a sense of time that would enable them to understand a 75-year difference in events that happened nearly 2,000 years agos.

I'd be interested to know where your facts come from, specifically your assertion that "absolutely nobody" is aware of this, or that the "vast bulk" of people think the gospels were written by the apostles (I presume you mean contemporaneously with the events they describe). I don't think these facts enter into the equation for a lot of Christians, because they're more interested in what the text says and means and how it applies to their faith walk than in when it was assembled in written form -- I know that's what's important for me and my co-congregants.

When I'm discussing the Bible with folks who evince the sort of thinking that shows they don't have a clue about when the Gospels were written, or that the book of Isaiah really has at least two and probably three authors, or that the two letters of Paul to the Corinthians were probably originally five letters, then I divert the conversation temporarily to explain what textual criticism is, and how the written texts of the Bible came to be assembled and organized. But I don't run into that sort of cluelessness terribly often. Perhaps I need to get out more . . .

[Merlin]

66. What "Christian circles" do you "move in" ?

I am astonished that you appear to be arguing that average parishioners of mainstream denominations understand that the gospels are not the authentic works of members of The Twelve.

I say "appear to be" because you are hedging a lot. You say, for example, "In the Christian circles I move in..." and "The ministers and pastors I know are quite conversant with..." Neither of these groups qualify as Mr. and Mrs. Average.

I will gladly wager a tidy sum (whatever that means) that you will find no evidence anywhere for the proposition that average Christians--let alone average Americans--are aware of the fact that the gospels were not written by M,M,L&J.

Whether written then or later would not be all that relevant were they actually the works of their purported authors. But it's terribly relevant given that they were written by people who never knew or had first hand knowledge of Jesus--particularly because of the general state of illiteracy in the times, because books were the price of cars today and so nearly all information was handed-down word-of mouth, and because, other than Paul's authentic works, no prior written Jesus literature survives or even--except for Q--is solidly believed to have ever existed.

[pelagius]

73. My Episcopal parish...

...would be one such church where most of the parishioners understand in some way or another that Bible was written over a period of years by many authors and that "John", for example may not be a single person or even the apostle called by that name. If they didn't know that, they haven't been listening to the minister's sermons or attending the adult education classes offered by the church.

My wife grew up in a United Methodist Church where she remembers as a little child -- some 40 years ago -- being taught about the various "myths" in the Bible and the "Jesus narrative" and so forth. She was shocked to find out later in life there were Biblical literalists and protests "they're trying to read poetry like its an instruction manual!"

So there's at least two congregations I can cite anecdotally. I'm not qualified to comment on all of Christendom, but I suspect -- in absence of any supporting data -- you aren't either.

[Merlin]

83. I suggest that your experience is way out of the ordinary.

I needn't tell you that UMC and Episcopal are both denominations of the intellectual elite. That may explain your experiences.

I grew up a Catholic, where there is absolutely no awareness among, I'd say, about 95% of the faithful, that the "real" M,M,L&J did not write the gospels. Currently I am Episcopalian in a liberal parish in a very conservative community. I would venture to say the figure there might drop to 85%, but certainly no lower.

But you are still making vague what I am trying to make very specific.

I'm saying it is of great significance that the gospels were NOT written by their purported authors, the contemporaneous Apostles of Jesus.

I'm saying that up-wards of 95% of Christians generally do not know that.

I'm NOT saying they don't know the bible isn't precisely literal, or that there weren't perhaps multiple authors writing over a period of time, though those things are true.

I'm NOT saying they don't know that much of the bible was written as poetry or pseudo history, though that, too is true.

I AM saying very specifically they don't know that the gospels -- the basis for the Christianity's belief that Jesus was divine and performed miracles and fulfilled prophesies -- the gospels are not authentic works of eye witnesses, much less the closest contemporaneous followers of Jesus. THAT is what they don't know -- or didn't know until DVC came along.

People quickly grasp the significance of that fact once they first hear it.

So the Vatican will deliberately be vague about the fictions contained in DVC so as to attempt also cover its exposition of gospel origins. It will seek to put the toothpaste back in the tube again, as has been its tireless task ever since the enlightenment began.

Lyrics from Jesus Christ, Superstar
by Sir Andrew Lloyd Weber

Always knew that I'd be an Apostle.
Knew that I could make it if I tried.
Then when we retired we could write the Gospels
And they'd still talk about us when we'd died.

[Robeson]

84. I would say these numbers back up your assumptions....

...one need only to look at the number of Baptist, not to mention Pentacostals and others, to see we are talking about a sizable number of our population.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/us_rel2.htm

[Merlin]

92. Very interesting chart. Thank you, Robeson.

Only 2.5 million Episcopalians? Talk about influence out of proportion to numbers!

[pelagius]

85. Fair enough. I'm much clearer on what you mean...

...and I certainly agree that, if one believes that Jesus was performing miracles while Mark, for example, sat by taking notes for what would eventually become the gosple attributed to him, then learning otherwise would cause a huge shift in one's understanding of the faith.

One that would, I hope, cause people to stop worshipping a book and turn their attention to a Living God.

I don't understand, however, how this "dooms" Christianity.

[Merlin]

98. Thanks. Here's what I mean by "dooming" Christianity.

Ever since, probably, Constantine co opted the Church, Christianity has emphasized controlling the behavior of its supplicants in lieu of truth. This is not altogether a negative. Surely the discord and chaos and brevity and ugliness of life up until very recently has been in many ways bettered by the iron willed obliqueness of the church. Yes, they've done wrong. But they've done much good as well.

Now, however, and to some extent because of the dedication of many in the church to develop good schools and universities, the incredible growth in the percentage of the highly educated has created a new challenge which puts the collective Church in a box.

Many educated people (even without knowing about the authorship of the gospels) find the dogmas and obtuseness and mysteries and inconsistencies of organized religion as something they can not buy in to. They continue to respect the work of the religious community. But they no longer feel resonance with the message invariably imparted by it.

That's because they have been taught to look for truth and to reason objectively. They find the church embraces neither of these qualities.

From the collective church's point of view, however the reality is somewhat different. The vast bulk of their dwindling numbers of regular communicants in developed countries are people willing to embrace, without serious question, the certitudes of the church. They are not necessarily less intelligent, but they are generally less educated and definitely less questioning and more trusting than those who have fallen away.

Yet, as western cultures continue to develop, more and more of their populations are becoming highly educated and questioning and rational.

And yet still, the church is opening itself to more and more areas of the world that are far less developed than we are.

So what's developing is a split in a sense. Questioning intellectuals, finding an absence of truth and reason in the church, are falling away from it and--finding nothing else--drifting into humanistic, agnostic and even atheistic mindsets. This explains the dominant areligious mood of DU, for example. Liberals are typically more educated and more intellectual than average.

Surely the church owes its primary allegiance to their continued worshipers and to those less advantaged and less educated.

To attract back the educated truth seekers, the church would have to radically alter its approach, admit that the bible is not Divine Revelation, acknowledge that Jesus may not have been divine, accept that the pope is fallible, and on and on and on. This would wreak havoc among the believers.

Most mainstream denominations won't do that. The Units will and to a degree some UMC parishes do. Of course, the deists did, but died out.

So what's this all leading to? The huge number of "believers in exile" are left in a vacuum. They don't always turn to Unitarianism because there seems to be an absence of appreciation there for the spiritual aspect of life. Intellectualism is the emphasis, not spirituality and faith. (Broad brush, sorry, but confirmed by experience and feedback. Spent 2 years as a Unitarian back during the anti-war years.)

I am part of an effort to bring about a revival of something like deism, but with a new understanding of reason as not just the underpinning of our understanding of creation, but also the core component of both spirituality and faith as well. In my view, the counter-enlightenment of the 19th and 20th century snuffed out the intellectual development of deistic thought and left Descartes, Spinoza, Paine, Jefferson and others hanging. We need to pick up where they left off, I believe, and broaden it to spirituality and faith so as to provide a spiritual home for modern, thinking people who reject organized religion and reject the bible but deeply believe in God, in spiritual force and in the beneficence and positive direction of God's universe. These believers in exile deserve a creed that satisfies both their intellectual questioning and their spiritual needs.

Many are involved in this. My favorite is Bishop John Shelby Spong and, for example, his wonderful book Why Christianity Must Change or Die.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060675365/qid=1110943101/sr=8-6/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i6_xgl14/102-9830085-0060122?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[pelagius]

139. I agree with much of what you say...

...but am more optimistic about Christianity moving into its third millenium more fully informed by contemporary thought. I don't see an inevitable death. As for the "average Joe or Josie in the pew", what is understood by the intellectual elite has a way of becoming common knowledge and belief in not too many years.

The Anglican Church you and I attend is, by-and-large, a product of the Enlightenment tradition. Yes, it has ancient roots, but it is thoroughly modern (in the philosophical sense) in its beliefs and practices. I daresay you'd find more practical Deists among the Anglican clergy of the 18th/19th century (and even today) than you would elsewhere even in secular society.

[Merlin]

150. Agreed on all points.

Other than the recent renewal of heresy trials in Britain, Anglicans are among the most enlightened. Nonetheless, after readings on Sunday morning, the lecturer is still asked to say "The Word of The Lord," reinforcing the dangerous and anachronistic notion that the bible is "The Word of God."

Surely following the teachings of Jesus will survive. Jesus remains the most significant human in western history; the first and foremost liberal. Whatever the failings of the NT, it paints a portrait of an extraordinary man that comes across clearly--so clearly in fact that we may even confidently reject many of the John "I Am's" because they are so inconsistent with our sense of him.

So the Jesus aspect of Christianity will surely survive and, I believe, prosper. It is sad--and foolish--that so many liberals are so turned off by religion that they have rejected both God and Jesus. Hopefully people like Spong and Jim Wallis can change that somewhat.

Peace.

[lastliberalintexas]

80. Biblical *scholars* maybe

But this book brought those things to the attention of the general public, people whose little Bible Baptist Church had never dared speak such things.

[Sterling]

91. Layman Xtians think that Mark etc knew Jesus.

It's true. I did until I read about it in a history book.

[pelagius]

136. Would you say this information has been surpressed though?

It seems to be available to anyone who can take the time to go to the library or do a Google search. That people are intellectually lazy and unaware of this information is quite a different thing that information being withheld.

[info being]

47. Correct.

I don't care that Jesus was married. I care that the Bible was written by politicians with specific purposes in mind. It simply changes the way people think about religion, and nothing the church can say will change that.

[Robeson]

63. I agree, I've grown up in the South my entire life....

...and, yes I would say most people growing up in Southern churches, would not even attempt to discuss those issues. First off, they don't even know about them, and second, it is ingrained into people in the South that "one does not question the word of God", incongruities not-with-standing.

[saskatoon]

68. Not only in the south

Lots and lots of people have a desperate need for those Fairy Tales for something to cling to.

[Merlin]

69. Thanks. I don't think the South is unique in that respect.

It is understandably verboten in virtually all churches.

But it's a topic which current events, including DVC, are bringing to the fore quite rapidly, imo. It is a profoundly interesting subject.

[lastliberalintexas]

81. Heck, unless you are a Catholic in the South

you've probably never even read of the Gnostic Gospels. If you've even heard of them, that is.

[Robeson]

82. Right.

[DoYouEverWonder]

87. Seems the RC church

tries to ignore the gnostic gospels as much as possible? If more people knew about the incredible discoveries such has the Nag Hammadi Library, a lot of the RC bs would be blown to bits.

[hedgehog]

119. Are you perhaps suggesting that the gnostic gospels

are literally true? The phrasing I wa staught was that the Gospels are the Faith of the early Church. The gnostic gopspels were discarded because of their emphasis on an elite inner ring with knowledge of the real secrets. The M,M, L & J gospels were kept as representing the true teachings of the Christ.

[aneerkoinos]

122. Well...

The most influential and important Gospel, that of Thomas', is just collection of Jesus' sayings. It is not Gnostic, but Gnostics tend to take it quite "literally" and share the view of the majority of academic world that it is relatively more reliable presentation of Jesus' teachings than other sources. Goes without saying that there's great variety of opinion among the academics, but AFAIK e.g. the Jesus Synod accepted greater percantage of Jesus's words from Thomas as authentic than from synoptic Gospels.

Gnostic texts to my understanding are not generally meant present literal truth but to produce higher truth ("gnosis") in the readers through their metaphoric use of mythology. "Myth" and "reality" in antiquity is a very complicated issue. Gnosticism most likely predates historical Jesus, as in the earliest Sethian strata the Christ/Logos figure is Seth, the third son of Adam.

[DoYouEverWonder]

125. Of course not

neither did the gnostics ever try to make that claim, as far as I can tell.

Gnostics are all about reasoning and logic. The secrets are only secrets because most people are too blind to see the truth, even if it slammed them in the head.

[pelagius]

137. A "gnostic" gospel did make it into the Bible...

...it's called the Gospel of John and it's quite a different beast than the three other "Synoptic" gospels. Quite mystical.

[hedgehog]

118. Oddly enough, that's fairly close to what we Catholics are

teaching in Religious education class these days. I should know, I just attended a review class for teachers. By the way, the 75 year old sister who taught the class has an FBI file because of her peaceful protests against nuclear weapons.

[Desertrose]

29. Read "Bloodlineof the Holy Grail", "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar"...

"Holy Blood,Holy Grail" and see if it still only seems like "just fiction".

The church is scared because if the truth came out about its true history....my oh my, what a mess that would be!!!!

Seriously, they should be worried, its past time for the real history of JC & MM to come out. It has been kept hidden for way too long.

The Inquisition tried to stop the truth but pretty much just ended up driving it underground.

[bobbieinok]

105. IMHO, 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' is fun but hardly to be taken seriously

if you look at the documentation of many of it's most intriguing statements, you find something like...'we found this in an unpublished letter in the archive at XXX but when we went back to check the date, the letter was no longer in the archive'

great way to write and make some money

[Desertrose]

133. ever read the other titles I mentioned?

"Bloodline of the Holy Grail" is written by Laurence Gardner and has the documentation to back up what he writes.

http://graal.co.uk/index.html

Laurence Gardner is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and a Professional Member of the Institute of Nanotechnology. Distinguished as the Chevalier de St. Germain, he is a constitutional historian, a Knight Templar, and is Presidential Attaché to the European Council of Princes. Based in England, he is author of The Times and Sunday Times bestseller, Bloodline of the Holy Grail. This was serialized nationally in the Daily Mail and gained Laurence a UK Author of the Year award in 1997.

I also found the "Woman with the Alabaster Jar" quite compelling as well since the author set out to "debunk" the whole "Jesus married Mary" idea.

What they wrote just seemed to fit in with other things I have read, I mean, who trusts the church anyway?
...nevermind, its obvious too many do.

[cliss]

45. heh heh (evil snicker)

Looks like they've identified a major public relations problem. (as the church crumbles rapidly).

Just wait till they release the movie "The Da Vinci Code" starring Tom Hanks later this year.

They will be ready for a thermonuclear meltdown.

[LdyGuique]

88. Well, they've just guaranteed tripling sales of "the book"

Actually, I'm surprised that they didn't attempt to refute it much earlier. It is a mishmash of conspiracy theories and is a good read; however, I would say that it's strongly anti-Roman Catholic Church.

I had fun reading it fairly recently and used the web to find daVinci paintings, the Catholic Order mentioned, etc.

Whether or not Jesus married and fathered children will remain an elusive idea. Since it was nearly mandatory for Jewish men to marry, I find it surprising that Christians don't accept it as a viable idea, or that Mary had additional children. They've stuck their head in the sand for centuries -- let the good times roll.

[IndianaGreen]

101. What's next for the Vatican? The Holy Inquisition?

Has Bush's religious zealotry made a mockery of all religions?

I still can't get over the Pope saying that all gays are evil.

Now, let's get back to canonizing Hitler's Pope, Pius XII!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

143. What about the sex abuse issue?

Might that be a tad more important than a book? Besides, I've read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and it's the same theory. Ooh, can't be thinking for ourselves, can we?

BTW, I write this as a Catholic. One who isn't close to the church now because of how they handled the whole sex-abuse scandals.

[Bob3]

8. Hey bunky it's a novel - lighten up.

The stories about Mary Magdalene and such have been about in the popular culture for over 20 years (HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL was the first to mention this story) and had been part of obscure occult/mystical traditions for much longer. It is a matter of historic record that the Cathars believed that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were lovers. (You could look it up)

And is any of this true? Well who the heck knows? And who cares? Isn't faith about not needing concrete proof anyway? And why is the Catholic Church wasting its time on things like this? There are hungry and staving people in the world. Innocents are being slaughtered in numbers that Herod the great only could dream about, The ruling classes all over the world heap injustice upon injustice on the common man crushing dreams and hopes of a better life for their children. And there is the hideous abuse of children by priests - for which the church has blamed everyone except the church. About this they at best mumble. But for these withered celibate husks a flipping novel is a crisis. Yessh.

[Tansy_Gold]

58. There are debunkers even of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, who say

there is a strong element of fiction in it, too.

There are those who say Thor Heyerdahl used cranes to erect the moai on Easter Island.

I think the popularity of The DaVinci Code suggests there are a lot of people who really don't swallow the traditional story hook, line, and sinker, and who are willing to believe something else. This, of course, is the real threat to the Catholic Church -- open-mindedness. If they can't do anything about that, then they have to do something about what's going into those open minds.

[saskatoon]

70. the catholic church

What about the Fundamentalists like say George Bush.

[Tansy_Gold]

75. I'm not sure what your point is, saskatoon

The point *I* was trying to make is that the Roman Catholic Church is probably taking a stand on The DaVinci Code because of the book's enormous popularity.

The Holy See has little control over the fundamentalist protestant sects, who have their own myth-sustaining fiction in the "Left Beyond" series by LaHaye and Jenkins. Besides, the fundies are still closed-minded believers, and that's all the Church cares about.

But with Brown's book, a lot of readers who have been passive "whatever" believers are now getting a different view of the traditions. It's not so much what the book says as that it's reaching a whole lot of people that scares Rome. When you consider that the book has sold 18 million copies, and some of those have been shared or resold or lent through libraries, that means a whole lot of people have read it, perhaps as many as 50 million???

And I suspect that there is another concern -- I haven't read the article itself -- that it's not just challenges to the Gospels and/or RC dogma that the Church is worried about. There are political overtones in the book, too, and that's even more important to a body that exercises considerable socio-political power throughout the world.

[central scrutinizer]

9. nothing new here -

The same thing happened after the publication of Kazantzakis' "Last Temptation of Christ" and Salman Rushdie's book

from http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9602/articles/iannone.html

Controversy over this retelling of the Christ tale did not begin with Scorsese. The Last Temptation of Christ almost led to Kazantzakis' excommunication from the Greek Orthodox Church. The novel was placed on the Roman Catholic Index of Forbidden Books, and Protestant fundamentalist groups in the United States tried to have it banned from libraries (thereby helping to make it a bestseller).

[mikelgb]

10. Angels & Demons

I just finished reading the prequel to Da Vinci Code called Angels & Demons. This novel pits science in the form of the Illuminati against Christianity in the form of the Vatican. A very good read. I learned a good deal about the Vatican I never knew, some negative some positive. The book portrays science in the same light, promoting a balance between the reason and logic of science and the spiritual fulfillment of religion. Lets just be thankful the Vatican doesn't use it's Swiss Guard to confiscate all Dan Browns books and locks them away.... too dangerous for anybody but the Pope to see you know.

[Igel]

35. You and Bob3 should get together.

Would make for an interesting gab.

The topic: When is historical fiction ahistorical?

[MaineDem]

51. I thought "A and D" was a better book.

Welcome to DU as well! :hi:

[mikelgb]

62. thanks

I was waiting for a welcome... thought nobody loved me :)

[rinsd]

147. If I had read it first.....

I would agree considering Da Vinci code had the same basic plot line.

[petron]

11. OMG

Is Dan Brown going to be the catholic church's Salman Rushdie?

My God probably has more important concerns, seriously.

[emad]

13. With this kind of publicity & $$$$$s maybe next Pope????

Great marketing op for JP2 dilemma solvers...

[havocmom]

25. the Church frets over fiction and the US Congress snoops into steriods.

So glad there are no serious problems either of those noble bodies should be working to solve.

[pelagius]

74. To date, the Vatican has not issued a death warrant on Dan Brown...

...but I know some literary types who would applaud it!

[DemBones DemBones]

110. No, because the Roman Catholic Church will not

issue an order to have Dan Brown killed.

There was most definitely a time in history, and a rather long time, when Catholics (and, later, Anglicans and other non-Catholic Christians, once there were non-Catholic Christians) believed in putting heretics to death. But that time ended long ago.

Salman Rushdie learned that time has not ended for all of Islam yet. Some Muslims still believe in punishing heretics and blasphemers severely.

[patcox2]

15. Sounds similar to the outcry here over creationist books at Grand Canyon.

Really, they disagree with the book and are stating they disagree. They are not "banning" it.

As for those who say the church should pay more attention to third world poverty, umm, they do pay more attention to third world poverty, far more attention than you seem to be aware of.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. This thread really needs a spoiler warning!

Hey, I haven't read the book yet! :)

[msongs]

17. the bible is mostly fiction, but the pope does complains not because

he and his church are just about the wealthiest non-government entity in the world, going around conning desperately poor people to give money to the filthy rich church.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[piece sine]

24. but at least Mother Chruch

avoids all that corn-ball, hippy-chick batik CRAP they're trying to sell around here.

[Sugarbleus]

18. Me thinks the RCC doth protest too much....

What is it worried about???? hmmmm

[Sin]

19. What i don't get how they can say he didn't

If Jesus was a Jewish Teacher in that time didn't he have to be married and have a wife and or children or both to say have a following. Wasn't that some form of social standard.Then again I could be wrong its hard to find the true history of that time when so many people have a vested interest in keeping the bullshit front and center. Because the church doesn't like you screwing around with that house of cards they call doctrine pull a few out and there whole power structure and version of the truth starts to crumble a tad :)

[Igel]

36. JC was a rabbin like the Muslims say he

was a Muslim.

Only after the fact, and without many unambiguous facts as evidence.

[pelagius]

71. It's a good question.

There is at least one other option. Jesus was born under dubious circumstances. His parents were not married when his mother became pregnant with him. In first century Judaism, this would mark him as a _mamzer_, a person of uncertain parentage. (You can see a variant of this word in Yiddish -- momzer or "bastard".) No paternity tests back then!

A mamzer in first century Judaism would be considered "unclean" and would be restricted from certain ceremonial and sacramental activities as a result. When it came to marriage, s/he would be restricted to marriage with a person who held similar compromised status. Many did not marry at all, though that was, indeed, the norm.

So a case can be made, based on at least as much evidence as the "Jesus 'n' Mary sittin' in a tree/K-I-S-S-I-N-G" theory, that Jesus was not married.

[Chemical Bill]

99. He was married if he was a Rabbi...

according to Jews I've talked to. He couldn't have preached in Temples without being married either. And nobody would have paid any attention either, as you say.

Bill

[pelagius]

142. I would tend to rely more on the statements of scholars of...

...first century Judaism than contemporary practioners of the faith. "Rabbi" simply means teacher and contemporary standards for ordination don't necessarily apply here.

An interesting book to check out is _Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography_. Written by a scholar fluent in the languages of Jesus' day, it offers some surprising insights into Jesus' life. A lot of it is very speculative, but the speculation is founded on better facts that the DVC, in my opinion. Makes for interesting and entertaing reading.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

20. Uh...Didn't this book come out like two years ago?

nt

[Rainscents]

22. I think so and there's also DVD you can rent... I've watch it on DVD.

[Rainscents]

21. Doesn't Church has other things to worry about? Like cleaning up the mess

they made... having sex with young boys?

[Democrats_win]

23. Christiandumb's eternal war against books--the Bible too was illegal to

read at the time of the reformation.

[mmonk]

50. myth

Certain translations were banned from official use due to some translation inaccuracies. But whatever fuels hate.

[leftofcool]

26. OMG..........

First it was fighting Harry Potter and now they wanna fight a "code"

HEY IGITS..................IT'S FUCKING FICTION!

Left of Cool

[Igel]

37. Go tell it to the guy who posted #10.

Lots of historical fiction embeds mostly facts; the fiction is the plot, not the background, and tweaks to the background are fairly unimportant.

In DVC, the problem is that the background is fictionalized to support the plot.

People seem unable to discern the difference between historical fiction and ahistorical fiction, between what is likely to be reality, and what is avowedly and in-you-face non-reality.

[Mari333]

28. Great Publicity! n/t

[Desertrose]

31. Exactly :) n/t

[concord]

34. Yeah ... now I'm curious

I hadn't been interested in it before now :)

I recently read Margaret George's "Mary Called Magdalene" which had it's own take on the relationship. Interesting things to think about, but all fiction. What does it have to do with faith anyway?

The RCC is losing its grip.

[Mari333]

76. Read any book by Barbara Walker

especially Womens Encyclopedia of Secrets and Womens Encyclopedia of Symbols and Sacred Objects..

eye openers. If the RCC doesnt like it, you know its good.

[concord]

78. Dumb question ...

Would it be like reading an encyclopedia?

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm always looking for new stuff.
I'm plowing through "Walden" one paragraph at a time and enjoying old historical fiction "Katherine" by Anya Seton. I've got "The Agnostic Gospels" waiting in the wings, and now, apparently, "The Davinci Code".

[Mari333]

131. yes, actually, its an encyclopedia n/t

[concord]

132. Thanks Mari ... I'll check them out (eom)

[DoYouEverWonder]

89. Yet, there was a Mary and she even wrote a gospel

Whether or not this gospel is written by Mary Magdalene or another Mary is still open to speculation. However, the Mary who wrote this gospel was obviously a very important person to Jesus. It is this discovery that gives credence to the rumors that Jesus and Mary (Magdalene?) were possibly husband/wife or at least significant others.


Chapter 5

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.

6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.

8) And she began to speak to them these words: I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision. He answered and said to me,

9) Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.

10) I said to Him, Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it, through the soul or through the spirit?

11) The Savior answered and said, He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind that is between the two that is what sees the vision and it is <...>

(pages 11 - 14 are missing from the manuscript)


http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm

[concord]

97. This corresponds to the novel "Mary Called Magdalene"

In the book, Mary loves Jesus as a man and also for his works, but he makes it clear to her they cannot love as "married people do" and the love is never physical.

The book is a work of historical fiction, but I've read other books by Margaret George, and she works hard to use as many sources as possible for her stories. What you've posted above sounds a lot like what was in her book.

Thanks :)

[itcfish1]

30. The Church

Just want more readers for the DaVinci code or else they would just ignore it. It is a Vatican Conspiracy LOL

:tinfoilhat:

[0007]

32. The Church needs Cardinal K Rove to counter this non-sense

[Protagoras]

39. Never read it but...isn't if a work of FICTION?

I mean...that's where the book sits at my local Barnes and Noble...

Everyone I've talked to said Angels and Demons was a better read anyway...guess it's time to stop reading all these political bios and go chew on some more fantasy to see what's got everyone so hopped up.

[Griffy]

42. SOME ppl think only 1 book should exist.. burn all others! nt

[undergroundpanther]

46. Fundies and church-states

Hate the gnostics,who say the kingdom of god is inside you and that you are capable of becoming christ,and that there is no lgitamate kings..on eath or in heaven.. The early Christians were gnostic and gnostics were basically searching hippie anarchists looking to create peace,freedom, and sanity in the hearts of human beings,and the control freak roman empire didn't want people to have power.I mean what king can stand empowered people who won't obey?
What is a bully if no one around him lets him be a bully to anyone..
He is powerless.
If you look at the bible from a gostic metaphor way it makes more sense and it isn't literal.

http://www.gnosis.org/library.html

[EBK]

48. Cardinal Bertone told Il Giornale newspaper...

"There is a very real risk that many people who read it will believe that the fables it contains are true."


Isn`t the Bible comprised of fables/stories ?!

The Bible was written BY man FOR man.

Even with all the past fires here in So Cal, NOT ONCE did any of those burning bushes say anything to the people who lost their houses.

[dhinojosa]

49. The battle of fictional books begins! Bible vs. Da Vinci Code

BRING IT ON!!!

[ozone_man]

77. You hit the nail on the head.

If the Catholic church isn't careful, they might cause a closer inspection that brings the whole thing down. Let's take a closer look. ;)

[Kimber Scott]

52. I guess the word "Novel" doesn't really mean anything anymore.

Just like "Fair and Balanced."

[MaineDem]

53. Great PR for the Tom Hanks movie, no?

The Cardinal is a bit behind the times here. Besides which, the book is FICTION! This is rather laughable.

It's been on the Best Seller list for years though.

[Bridget Burke]

55. Why doesn't the headline match the story?

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop of Genoa, broke the church's official silence on the controversial book......

But the cardinal's spokesman denied reports that the clergyman was asked by the Vatican to hit back at the book.

Carlo Arcolao told the BBC's News website that it had been the cardinal's own decision to make a public statement about the book.

"The Church" is not fighting the novel. Even the Cardinal is not proposing it be banned, he just gave his opinion in an interview.

[Bo]

60. the high church are power hungry madmen

Who can forgive there endless death and destruction through the ages...they have set the world back a millenium...

[happyslug]

61. This Hearsay has been around for 1500 years

The heresy I am referring to is the Claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a Child and after Jesus's death (or with Jesus the story varies based on the source) Mary Magdalene and the Child moved to Gaul.

This Hearsay starts with the rise of the Merovingian Dynasty (c400-751 AD)of the Franks. It seems to have been used by the Merovingian Dynasty to justified ruling over what is today France as The Roman Empire in the West Fell.

With the Ruling of the Pope in 751 that the Real King of the Franks are the people who had actual power as opposed to who was nominally the King, the Merovingian Dynasty was overthrown and replaced by the Carolingian dynasty. Now the Roman Church disliked the story before 751 but with the overthrow of the Merovingians in 751 the Church came to dislike this story even more. Furthermore the Carolingian dynasty came to HATE the story for it brought into doubt the justification for their rule (and this continued with the Kings of France till their final overthrow in 1848).

This is what the Cardinal was complaining of, this old Heresy that should have died in 751 but keeps coming back alive by people who what to upset the ruling class of France (Even today their is a person who claims to be the Heir to the Merovingian kings and therefore the "rightful" king of France AND Emperor).

Furthermore this old Heresy is the basis of a whole set of "End-Times" prophecy from various Fundamentalist Christians. The Catholic Church holds the whole thing as non-sense but it has been around the book shelves for 30-40 years (and now extensively on the Net).

Thus if you look at what the Cardinal did say i.e. It was HIS PERSONAL OPINION NOT HE VATICAN. He did not want people to believe this book to be true. The "theory" in the book has caused problems in the 8th and 9th Century and again in the 11th and 12th Centuries and the Cardinal could see it has caused problems since the 1960s. Now you have a while written book containing this theory and he see it come back again. The Cardinal is only saying is remember the story is written as a PIECE OF FICTION not as truth, as Fiction is causes no harm, but if you start to think of it as TRUE you are going to cause harm. Remember the harm is NOT dogmatic but practical i.e. . Primarily in disrupting how the Vatican operates by people going to the sites mentioned in the book and thus getting in the way of people who have to do things in the same area.

As to the Cardinal holding a conference on debunking what is in the book, how else are you to address as large a crowd of people than in conference where most (if not all) of the facts can be presented?





For more on the Moroveingians:
http://www.royalty.nu/history/empires/Frankish.html
On how the Tempelers and the Moroveningians still exist (a real conspiracy site dating back to the Middle Ages):
http://www.ordotempli.org/the_merovingians.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/merovingian.html

And this story is tied in with some of the Fundamentalist end times doctrines:
http://watch.pair.com/roman-dragon.html

[Chemical Bill]

96. I like heresy

To really complicate things, consider that the first thing in the New Testament is Jesus' bloodline, "proving" that he really was King of the Jews. So any descendants of his would be Kings of the Jews (or of France?!), and would be entitled to rule the...oh, I don't know, how about the world. So anyone else, like the Queen of England or the Pope, would be a pretender.

The DaVinci Code is fiction, Jesus' marriage is as likely as drugs in that vinegar to make him appear dead. Nothing is provable, and it sure does distract from the message of loving your enemy. We all would probably be better off if we focused on that right about now.


Bill

[happyslug]

100. A little Hersey like William Rogers (Founder of Rhodie Island)

William Rogers basically started out as a Radical Puritan but as he went more more into purifying the Church he rejected more and more people contaminated with the impurities of the Catholic Church. Finally he was seen have communion with only his wife. It was a long New England Winter that year and the Following Spring he started to preach a new theology, that is since all people are imperfect, all churches must also be imperfect. Since all churches are imperfect all Churches have some sort of heresy in them. To be in the one EXCLUSIVE right church would its members equal to God, and that is also a heresy. He started to preach tolerance in early 1600 New England. When ask if he would leave Quakers and Catholics into New England, he responded "I would leave in Jews and Turks". For even such non-Christian religions can be inspired by God and to exclude them would be to oppose God's will.

For this William Rogers was kicked out of New England and founded Rhodie Island. His doctrine is really the background behind American Religious Tolerance, i.e there is NO perfect Church, no one True Church, all Churches have heresies in them, thus the best way to expose those heresy is to tolerate all religions and to hear what they have to say. Thus Americans support religious organizations but do not believe any is the one true faith.

And you can see that in the actions of this Cardinal, is he saying do not read this book? NO, Is he saying the book is false? Yes, and than showing why he believes it is false and to show the world his concern. May he be wrong? yes, he is human but you have to at least give him the right to say what he wants not criticize him for what he actually SAYS not for saying he will speak on the subject. Most of this thread has consisted of people critiquing the Cardinal for even saying anything about the book instead of what he will say (He has not yet spoken).

[Tansy_Gold]

129. Not to be picky, but the founder of Rhode Island was

Roger Williams, not William Rogers.

[happyslug]

130. That what I get for typing 1:00 in the Morning when i should be in Bed

Thank you for the correction.

[hedgehog]

151. By the way - the elderly sister I referred to above

pointed out that the genealogies in Matthew and Mark are different. The current emphasis on Bible study in the Catholic Church is hardly fundamentalist by any definition of the word. It's too bad so many people feel free to spout of about the ignorance of religious folk when they apparently haven't checked with any lately.

[VegasWolf]

64. The Catholic Church has to keep the sheep in line, otherwise,

no tithes, thus no income, thus no power source.

[saskatoon]

72. all you have to do is read Tom Paine's books

The Age Of REason and Common Sense,he picks all that crap apart.

[AlFrankenFan]

90. The key word is "novel"

Last time I checked it was fiction. :eyes:

[roguevalley]

93. what a sad pathetic faith if they feel threatened by a book. Won't

be for the first time. Too bad it isn't going to be the last.

[deadparrot]

94. Holy crap, the RCC is taking this seriously.

I'm a Catholic (technically). But come on. It's a book, people. Chill the hell out. Just because it says a few things you don't like is a pretty petty reason to organize mass meetings to debunk each and every word.

As a follower of Christ, it really doesn't make that much of a difference to me. What if, God forbid, Jesus was married? Does that change the value of his message in any way? Does it cancel out all the good he taught?

THIS is why I'm disillusioned by the Catholic Church--they spend way too much time on things that don't matter, and ignore real problems in the process.

[onenote]

95. its about the movie

The movie version of the book, starring Tom Hanks, is due out next year. I suspect the Vatican is trying to get a head start on building opposition to the story so it can get churches to "boycott" the movie when it comes out. It will backfire, of course, since for every Catholic that refuses to go see the movies, someone else who might otherwise not have bothered is going to be made curious enough to go see it....

onenote

[IndianaGreen]

102. Don't read Da Vinci Code, says cardinal (The Guardian)

The Vatican now claims the Da Vinci Code amounts to Catholic bashing. This is the same Vatican that has been bashing gays and women for eons!

Don't read Da Vinci Code, says cardinal

Associated Press in Vatican City
Wednesday March 16, 2005
The Guardian

If you are not among the millions who have already read The Da Vinci Code, an Italian cardinal has a plea for you: don't read it and don't buy it.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa, who previously was a high-ranking official of the Vatican's office on doctrinal orthodoxy, told Vatican Radio yesterday that the runaway success of the Dan Brown novel was proof of anti-Catholic prejudice.

Allegations in the novel that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and has descendants have outraged many Christians and have been dismissed by historians and theologians.

"The distribution strategy has been absolutely exceptional marketing, even at Catholic bookstores - and I've already complained about the Catholic bookshops which, for profit motives, have stacks of this book," the cardinal said. "And then there's that strategy of persuasion - that one isn't an adult Christian if you don't read this book. Thus my appeal is, 'don't read and don't buy' the book."

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1438491,00.html

[truthisfreedom]

138. "don't read it and don't buy it." basically that means "your faith won't

survive."

[ebayfool]

103. Well, now I'm gonna have to go buy the book.

Just to see why their so cheesed over it!

[Maple]

109. You should read both the prequel

'Angels and Demons'...which was definitely the better book, as well as the 'DaVinci Code'...just to know what everyone's talking about.

It's a pop culture thing that's getting bigger and bigger, so it's worth it to know the basis for all the uproar.

[Stunster]

107. Salon absolutely trashed the DVC

Here's a recent article from Salon...

The Da Vinci crock
A fascinating conspiracy about Jesus transformed the cheesy
thriller, "The Da Vinci Code," into a phenomenal bestseller. Too bad
it comes from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," a masterpiece of bogus
history.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Laura Miller



Dec. 29, 2004 | Recent history offers many examples of Americans'
inability to tell fact from fiction, but none more tangled than the
story of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code." The book is among the most
popular novels of all time, with 8 million copies sold since its
publication last year and what seems to be a permanent reserved slot
on the bestseller list. You see people reading it on planes and
trains, and if at a social event you happen to mention that you
write about books for a living, someone is sure to pull you aside
eagerly to discuss it. This baffles and annoys a lot of literary
types, many of whom haven't read "The Da Vinci Code" or couldn't get
past the first few hackneyed pages. Why is the public so preoccupied
with this cheesy thriller? they wonder.

"The Da Vinci Code" is indeed a cheesy thriller, with all the
familiar qualities of the genre at its worst: characters so thin
they're practically transparent, ludicrous dialogue, and prose
that's 100 percent cliché. Even by conventional thriller standards,
the book isn't particularly good; the plot is simply one long chase
sequence, and the "good guy who turns out to be evil" is obviously a
ringer from the moment he's introduced. Dan Brown is no Robert
Ludlum, so why has his thriller so outdistanced the work of his
betters?

The rest of the article, which is quite long, exposes the book as full of utter nonsense and historical falsehood.

[Maple]

111. LOL except that Salon

and Laura Miller don't know anything about it either.

Books have changed history...whether they're 'cheesy' or not...so these two books should be a part of everyone's current basic cultural knowledge.

If the Bible was a new book just out...it would be killed in the columns on 'literature'...yet it's affected the world one way or another.

Don't read these two books as 'War and Peace' fer cryin' out loud...read them as a litmus test of belief and ideas in current society.

Sheesh...all this pretentious 'literary' snobbery.....:D

[Stunster]

114. No, it really is a nonsensical farrago

of deliberate untruths.

Miller did trash the book's literary qualities. But most of the review was devoted to showing that it is based on a known, proven French fabrication, and that there isn't a shred of evidence to support a historical basis for the story.

I can email you the whole review if you want to read it.

[gauguin57]

112. What I find most interesting about all of this ...

... is the idea that Mary Magdalene was never a prostitute/woman possessed by evil, but was, instead, possibly a major leader in the early Christian church, who may have written her own gospel (surpressed around the fourth/fifth century when the inclusion/exclusion of various books in the Bible was being decided by MALE church leaders). The idea that she was Jesus' right-hand woman (even if she wasn't his wife or even lover).

Typical patriarchical bullshit to, over the centuries, turn her mythology negative, and turn her from a strong church-leading woman into a freaking PROSTITUTE.

FREE MARY MAGDALENE! FREE MARY MAGDALENE!

[DemBones DemBones]

116. The MALE leaders of the Catholic Church kept the Book of JUDITH

in the Catholic Bible. It tells the story of Jewish heroine Judith saving her people from the Assyrian army surrounding them by accepting the invitation of the Assyrian general, Holofernes, to "come up to my tent and see my etchings." She helped him get good and drunk and then cut his head off. The Assyrians fled after finding his headless body.

Also kept in was the Book of Wisdom, which features the spirit of wisdom, SOPHIA, who was present with God at the Creation.

SUSANNA comes off well in the story of Susanna and the elders, too, another story kept in the Catholic Bible after the Jews removed it from their Bible.

Protestants don't have Judith, Sophia, or Susanna in their Bibles, and are missing part of Esther's story, too, because they went against what the Catholic Church had chosen for those deuterocanonical books.

I agree that Mary Magdalene has been treated badly in some quarters but I'm not at all sure it is due to a Catholic conspiracy or a male conspiracy. I don't know why the fact that she stayed at the foot of the cross the entire time isn't mentioned more, or the fact that she was the first one to see the Resurrected Jesus. Those events are of major significance and show her important position among His followers.

[osiristz]

115. Now that they've condemned it, it'll sell more.

I doubt Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone's condemnation will do anything to silence the book. In fact the opposite is likely to be true.

There is a plethora of stories about Jesus, his lineage, his life 'after' the crucifixion, et al. There is also a plethora of 'gospels' considered anathema. There are cultures who hold traditions of Jesus having visited them in the first century. There's even a 'tomb' in Srinigar Kashmir of the saint Juz Asaf, reputted to be none other than Jesus himself. The tomb of Mary, his mother, is in Afghanistan. See: www.tombofjesus.com

As long as Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone wishes to stick to the party line, that's fine. But for those who like to think and learn and challenge their minds, we need not fear a few "shameful and unfounded lies". The Church itself has done enough of that for the past 1700 years to more than make up for one little book.

[hedgehog]

120. I have to go to work, but this thread's been a hoot.

As a fan of thrillers and mysteries, I've got to tell you that the DaVinci Code is embarrassingly formulaic. The entire basis is clap trap. All you have to do is look at the paintings mentioned in the text to realize that Dan Brown is a fiction writer. I am curious why so many here are so enraged that the Church is trying to explain to its members that the book is fiction. If you knew how many other works Catholics are involved with day after day, you'd realize that this is no big deal. Once again, we learn that not all fundamentalists are right wing Christians. Some are left wing non-Christians!

[Bridget Burke]

127. I realize people can't be bothered to read linked articles....

But most people here didn't even go past the headline--which does not reflect the content of the article. The Cardinal was NOT officially speaking for "The Church." And he wasn't burning the silly book, just expressing his opinion.

I haven't read the novel; examples of the prose style have set my teeth on edge. And it's the book currently being summarized endlessly by the feared Co-worker Who Reads One Book Per Year; save us from those folks.

"Holy Blood Holy Grail" was an elegant entertainment, but even non-fiction isn't necessarily "true." And current Magdalene scholarship shows she was probably an important discipline, not Jesus's wife or girlfriend or whatever...

[JNelson6563]

121. Double standard

It's so funny how they go after the DaVinci Code and yet I never hear them attacking Search For the Holy Grail. Monty Python is the enemy of God's people! I say we call for a Duct-tape-Fatwa!

Julie

[Donailin]

126. For fuck's sake

they oughtaa be fighting the Left behind Series, that other work of fiction that has a quarter of this country believing that they're getting sucked up into heaven.

[hue]

128. Cardinal Warns Against 'Da Vinci Code' ("anti-Catholic")

A Vatican Cardinal Claims "anti-catholicism" is an acceptable prejudice.

Mar 16, 8:45 AM EST

Cardinal Warns Against 'Da Vinci Code'

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- If you're not among the millions who have already read "The Da Vinci Code," an Italian cardinal has a plea for you: Don't read it and don't buy it.

Genoa Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who previously was a high-ranking official of the Vatican's office on doctrinal orthodoxy, told Vatican Radio on Tuesday that the runaway success of the Dan Brown novel is proof of "anti-Catholic" prejudice.

Allegations in the novel that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and has descendants have outraged many Christians and have been dismissed by historians and theologians.

"The distribution strategy has been absolutely exceptional marketing, even at Catholic bookstores - and I've already complained about the Catholic bookshops which, for profit motives, have stacks of this book," said Bertone, who has been mentioned as a possible successor to Pope John Paul II.

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VATICAN_DA_VINCI_CODE?SITE=IDBOI&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

********
I think he's a little slow in his warning since the book was on the top 10 list for so long so long ago!

[manly]

144. Church fights da Vinci code

How amusing.

[justsomegirl]

145. What's he so worried about?

Oh, to have a few weeks to peruse the Vatican's archive of banned/heretical writings....

BTW, in 1969, the second Vatican Council formally refuted their centuries-old lie that Mary Magdalene was a prostitue...
"Whoops, our bad."

[pelagius]

146. I don't know that the cardinal is worried...

...so much as he wants to correct a speculation made in a work of fiction that many people are claiming to be a fact. Why bother correcting people who confuse fiction with fact, indeed, is one approach? Another is to present a more scholarly view and let critics address that point of view on its merits or lack thereof.

If someone is claiming that I support the Bush budget, for example, and I'm not, I'd be sure to correct that mistake. If someone is claiming the RCC is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress certain facts, I see no reason for the RCC to avoid responding.