# The Vatican against Dan Brown



## TimeHP

Hi all.
The Vatican has led the offensive against The Da Vinci Code (the film has been released yesterday in Italy) calling for a boycott and even legal action against both the book and film.
What do you think?
Thank you.
Ciao


----------



## maxiogee

The boycott is a load of tosh as nobody pays any great attention to the Vatican these days.
However, I read the offending item - it should be boycotted. Badly written English and a ridiculous plotline, the drivel about Opus Dei (which as a very secretive society is open to having drivel written about it) and the whole lack of "oomph" about the supposed bloodline of Christ - yes it should have been ignored long ago, but it is far, far too late now!

If Christ had a line of descendants, the story makes no use of what they might have been doing, are they 'special', who are they, do they know they are Christ's descendants… there's so many avenues that could have been explored and weren't.

Legal action - can you take legal action against a work of fiction without investing it with some degree of credibility?

I believe the critics in England heckled and jeered when it was shown to them.


----------



## TimeHP

> I believe the critics in England heckled and jeered when it was shown to them


 
Many critics turned up their nose at The Da Vinci Code but the book has sold tens of millions. It seems there's never been a bigger adult seller over such a short time: 80,000 to 90,000 hard-cover copies per week!
It's a work of fiction, anyway. The fact and the characters are not real. 
So what's the problem? I can't understand...

Ciao


----------



## Saoul

The Vatican boycotted Harry Potter's novels and movies, without being actually followed, since it was one of the hugest success in Italy.
The boycotted the Exorcist back in the 70s, and we all know that they were not followed at that time, too.

I think this will happen with "Il Codice Da Vinci". The novel itself was such a success, that the movie will be as well. 

Despite Italy is a very religious country, Il Codice Da Vinci will have an incredible amount of viewers, here.
Too bad, Tom Hanks plays the leading role, since I find him such a poor actor.


----------



## zebedee

The Vatican has even appointed someone from their ranks to refute the book.

Taken from The Guardian:



> 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.
> 
> "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."


 
But of course, that would be highly dangerous. They can't have people believing any old fable, no no no, just the ones in the Bible please. 

Oh, sorry, I forgot. Adam and Eve and the other fables the Bible contains are, of course, completely true.

Seriously, it seems to me to be all a lot of hot air about nothing. The only thing the Vatican's going to achieve is free publicity for the book & film. Why has such a badly-written book sold so many copies? Thanks, in part, to the Vatican's reaction. Dan Brown should give them part of his royalties in recognition to the help they're giving him.


----------



## Papalote

zebedee said:
			
		

> Why has such a badly-written book sold so many copies? Thanks, in part, to the Vatican's reaction. Dan Brown should give them part of his royalties in recognition to the help they're giving him.


 
Hi, Zebedee

So many people have taken to such a badly-written book, because most of them, okay, let's not exaggerate, all the people I know who have read it and marvelled at it, are ignorant of religion, too lazy to get to know Roman Catholicism, or too scared it might really change their way of perceiving the world, and are rabid haters of anything religious. So, any excuse, and this drivel is a very good excuse if you "believe" Brown's meanderings in the world of fable, so, as I was saying before I confused myself  , so any excuse to demean and show the church how wrong they are is a good excuse. What surprises me the most, is that these people are very well educated, professionals and, in most instances, rather intelligent people. But, hey, emotions have nothing to do with intelligence, hey? Would you believe they are, at least 5 of them, right at this minute, watching the movie?

Take care,

P


----------



## Residente Calle 13

I think there is a *real conspiracy* here. The Vatican _must _know that boycotts actually sell tickets by giving movies free publicity. I think that it's a secret plan to get more people to watch.


----------



## ITA

Aunque el libro trate un tema religioso, creo que el vaticano no debería ni censurar, ni boicotear nada.Sería fantástico que cada persona tenga la posibilidad de leer el libro o ver la película y sacar sus propias conclusiones.
De todas maneras no debería sorprendernos esta actitud de ellos.


----------



## lsp

I agree, *Residente Calle 13*, that the fuss made the book and movie more well known than either would ever have been otherwise. It's a novel, for goodness sake. With all the porn and violence (and real crime stories ripped from the headlines and turned into "entertainment") why does the Vatican feel the need to make such a racket over fiction? They seem to be shotting themselves in the foot with their clamor.

*Saoul*, it got terrible reviews, even Tom Hanks. All the explanations and history and the long descriptions required apparently slowed the pace of the movie to what one Canne reviewer called, "dead boring."


----------



## TheWhiteRabbit

I believe, in my personal opinion, that this book...is nothing more than a book.  Dan Brown wrote this book to entertain readers, although I didn't find it a great novel, it didn't completely bore me.  (Personally, I liked _Angels and Demons_ better.)  

Although the Catholic Church does have some right to refute the beliefs expressed in this book, doing so in public is just drawing more attention to the book itself.  

I know some Catholics myself that say Dan Brown is a terrible person, trying to convince the people of the world that Jesus had a wife and child.  I have never seen it written, expressed, or in any other manner conveyed, by Dan Brown, that he wanted to convince people of this.  I'm not trying to say that the Catholic Church is going a bit too far, but I know that some Catholics personally, are.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

TheWhiteRabbit said:
			
		

> I know some Catholics myself that say Dan Brown is a terrible person, trying to convince the people of the world that Jesus had a wife and child.  I have never seen it written, expressed, or in any other manner conveyed, by Dan Brown, that he wanted to convince people of this.  I'm not trying to say that the Catholic Church is going a bit too far, but I know that some Catholics personally, are.



Well, if he's saying that Jesus _actually _existed as a historical figure that's a lot more than many scholars who believe that there is no reliable proof that Jesus of Nazarus is more than a fictional character in a series of books.

_I have a friend in Argentina who told me the Opus Dei had a cow about that Mel Gibson movie about Christ, I forget the title. So there, it got all that free publicity and "everybody" saw it because of that. _

This is heresay. I'm not sure about the facts about "The Passion" in Argentina and think it would be great of somebody who knows could clear this up for the rest of us.


----------



## danielfranco

I think the book and the movie are desperately trying to make people think about the humanity of Jesus Christ, and how it would not exclude or diminish his divinity if he had acted like any adult of his time and had gotten married and had progeny. The only problem with this idea is that all the way back in 325 A.D. in Nicea all this was already debated and declared anathema and heresy, and the bishops of the Church decided back then that if you wanted to be Christian, you better accept a chaste Jesus. By the way, Nicholas (of Santa Claus fame) was there in the Council of Nicea!
He didn't have any reindeer yet, though...


----------



## Residente Calle 13

danielfranco said:
			
		

> I think the book and the movie are desperately trying to make people think about the humanity of Jesus Christ...


Which I find odd since the whole "humanity" thing should be taken care of by the fact that he suffered and died a horrible painful death. What does it take to be humanized these days? Geez!


----------



## Keikikoka

If a book is written that contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church it seems reasonable that it be givin the chance defend itself.


----------



## mjscott

Maybe the Vatican should boycott the Bible to boost interest in religion....


----------



## Alundra

TimeHP said:
			
		

> It's a work of fiction, anyway. The fact and the characters are not real.
> So what's the problem? I can't understand...
> 
> Ciao


 
The problem, in my humble opinion, is that Dan asserts in the first page of the book that many situations (about opus dei, buildings and other things) are totally true. 

If Dan Brown wouldn't have done such statement, nobody could execute legal actions against the book or the film, because it would be a common novel.

Alundra.


----------



## Sidd

I was about to write what Alundra posted. 

I read the book before it was widely known -by chance, actually- and I think we all can agree it's a compulsive page-turnerer (I also agree it's not very good, but we can talk about that in another thread). Dan Brown must receive some credit for that, because everyday writers around the world try to write a best-seller and nobody seems to have the secret formula. 

After I read it I googled for a while trying to figure out if some of the facts were true, and it wasn't easy to find in Internet any clues about that. I mean the author wisely wrote a lot of facts that are actually in a grey zone, plus some fiction facts (as if they were true). I think the Vatican is saying "we don't agree with this film" so that catholics know for a fact that nothing in that film is true. (I suspect that's because they don't want people thinking about the book by themselves, even if it is to realised -as I did- that the book _is not very accurate _[for being polite])

I'm a professional choir conductor (I make my living out of it) and as such I deal with Catholic Church a lot. I can tell you that, although there are some good things in the chuch, the things I personally find wrong outnumber by far the former ones (another thread again?).

I also want to add that the church didn't complaint about the book until after a year or so since I read it. So maybe they tried to keep it low and realised it wasn't working. 

For me -and I was born a catholic- it is more believable to think that Jesus  showed us how big a man can be. And I tend to agree with the human part of him, having family and all. But that is something I already had read before I read this book in books like "voices from the desert" by Marlo Morgan, for instance.

Sorry for a long post. I did try to be brief.

P.S.:I watched the film yesterday. It was booooooring. But I want to point out that ***POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD*** they made Robert Langdon more cautious here. Everytime they say "Church did whatever" he replies something like "We can't be sure about that..." whereas in the book he also stated this things as facts.


----------



## zebedee

Sidd said:
			
		

> P.S.:I watched the film yesterday. It was booooooring. But I want to point out that ***POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD*** they made Robert Langdon more cautious here. Everytime they say "Church did whatever" he replies something like "We can't be sure about that..." whereas in the book he also stated this things as facts.



I also saw it last night and fell asleep twice. In my defence, it was the late night session ('sesión de golfos'). 

The film - at least the Spanish dubbed version -  also has Robert Langdon end with a disclaimer along the lines of "It doesn't matter if Jesus was human/had descendants or not, the important thing is to believe"

which wasn't in the book, and seems to me to be an epilogue added to appease the Church.


----------



## maxiogee

zebedee said:
			
		

> I also saw it last night and fell asleep twice. In my defence, it was the late night session ('sesión de golfos').
> 
> The film - at least the Spanish dubbed version -  also has Robert Langdon end with a disclaimer along the lines of "It doesn't matter if Jesus was human/had descendants or not, the important thing is to believe"
> 
> which wasn't in the book, and seems to me to be an epilogue added to appease the Church.



The important thing is to believe … *what*?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

mjscott said:
			
		

> Maybe the Vatican should boycott the Bible to boost interest in religion....



That would work! Except interest in the Bible doesn't imply religion. I read the Bible all the time but am a agnostic who has no interest in religion whatsoever. The more I read the Bible, the less I believe.

But boycotts are free publicity.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Alundra said:
			
		

> The problem, in my humble opinion, is that Dan asserts in the first page of the book that many situations (about opus dei, buildings and other things) are totally true.
> 
> If Dan Brown [wouldn't have done] *hadn't **written *such *a *statement, nobody could execute legal actions against the book or the film, because it would be [a common] *just a *novel.
> 
> Alundra.



But isn't that rather vague? Unless he says which which facts are, I don't see how they can prove libel. People mix facts and fiction all the time.


----------



## zebedee

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The important thing is to believe … *what*?



Well, exactly. That's why it seemed to me to be an epilogue added to appease all beliefs, a bit of a cop-out really.


----------



## Alundra

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> But isn't that rather vague? Unless he says which which facts are, I don't see how they can prove libel. People mix facts and fiction all the time.


 
Thanks for your help with my english  

Well, it is the problem, I'm afraid. You can write that you want, you can mix fiction with real facts... and nobody can say you anything.

I think that if he hadn't written that page (where he states about real situations), he wouldn't had any problem with the Church or Opus Dei.

Correct me, please.
Alundra.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Alundra said:
			
		

> Thanks for your help with my english
> 
> Well, it is the problem, I'm afraid. You can write [that] *what* you want, you can mix fiction with real facts... and nobody can say you anything.
> 
> I think that if he hadn't written that page (where he [states] *talks *about real situations), he wouldn't *have *had any problem*s* with the Church or Opus Dei.
> 
> Correct me, please.
> Alundra.



You're welcome.

Somebody lent me that book but I never read it. Whether Jesus was married or not doesn't matter to me anymore than whether or not Don Quixote ever slept with Dulcinea.

But the person who lent it to me was under the impression that the author "said" it was a novel so that the Pope's secret police would not kill him but that what the novel said was true. I don't think you can do anything to prevent people believing whatever they want but I think that's what the Church has a problem with. Many people believe Johnson killed Kennedy because of Oliver Stone.

Conspiracy theories are very popular and unfortunately, people love them.


----------



## Alundra

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> You're welcome.
> 
> Somebody lent me that book but I never read it. Whether Jesus was married or not doesn't matter to me anymore than whether or not Don Quixote ever slept with Dulcinea.
> 
> Well... I think the difference is that it is supposed the Bible are based on real facts... while the Quixote is a fiction novel, or Cervantes never said it is a real facts...
> 
> But the person who lent it to me was under the impression that the author "said" it was a novel so that the Pope's secret police would not kill him but that what the novel said was true. I don't think you can do anything to prevent people believing whatever they want but I think that's what the Church has a problem with. Many people believe Johnson killed Kennedy because of Oliver Stone.
> 
> Conspiracy theories are very popular and unfortunately, people love them.


 
I read very much books and some of them are absolute fiction, but I know it, and I know the writer is basing on something real or not, to write the book, but he/she doesn't specify it and I can think that I want.

On the other hand, priests don't give up to say (at least the priest of my church every Sunday): Don't read this book, don't read this book... (and it encourage us to read it  )

Why he does it? Has he fear?. He doesn't want you fail in your faith.

I think they want we read the Bible before we read books like that, because if you aren't very sure of your faith and read this book, maybe your faith is in danger

Correct me, please.
Alundra.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Alundra said:
			
		

> I think they want we read the Bible before we read books like that, because if you aren't very sure of your faith and read this book, maybe your faith is in danger
> 
> Correct me, please.
> Alundra.


That's interesting because traditionally, in these parts, the Church never really encouraged people to read the Bible. They even said, until recently, mass in Latin. So having people understand the Gospel was not a priority. They just wanted the people to "feel it." I don't blame them for this attitude; nothing causes me to doubt religion more than reading the Bible.


----------



## maxiogee

Alundra said:
			
		

> Why he does it? Has he fear?. He doesn't want you fail in your faith.
> 
> I think they want we read the Bible before we read books like that, because if you aren't very sure of your faith and read this book, maybe your faith is in danger


Faith, to those who claim to possess it, is always in danger.
They know how fragile a ground it is built on, and how little it takes to crumble that ground.
Faith is, at best, 'a feeling' - the Oxford American Dictionary describes it as follows…"strong belief in God, or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof"​… how can that not be shaky?


----------



## danielfranco

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Which I find odd since the whole "humanity" thing should be taken care of by the fact that he suffered and died a horrible painful death. What does it take to be humanized these days? Geez!



Sorry to be so late with this post, but I just woke up! 
I guess I misunderstood my Sunday class lessons, but it always seemed to me that the whole purpose about teaching kids the gory details of a crucifixion was to clearly contrast how a sinner would suffer, but that Jesus being divine could undergo such pain and agony even unto death, and still triumph over all of it, because He is the Son of God, and he wants you to be saved from such suffering so that you can have life everlasting, if you believe...


----------



## SpiritosoBella

Okay.. Please don't get mad at me for posting this....
You all are pretty much saying that the vatican is cracky...
They've made mistakes, okay? Everyone does. Only the vatican is very currupted... 
Dan browns movie the Da vince code is an open Blasphemy of the catholic faith...
It states that Jesus christ had a relationship with mary magdelene...
Impossible...Jesus is one and divine He has no need for human relationship, he made us for further gloryment of Himself.

Plus, they say that mary magdelene was present at the last supper, saying that John was really mary magdelene.
How would they know? Da vinci was not there. He has an artists description of what it is like!!!! He can't not possibley know who was there and who wasn't!

Also, I know that many people say that in order to boycott it lets go see a different movie!!! Well! If your mother was being beaten up and abused physically and emotionally would you go in another room so you don't see it therefore it didn't happen!?

The movie is an open blasphemy to our lord!! Would you stand by and let someone openly blaspheme on your family?

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but I know that a lot of people believe that the church is a liar and that the vatican is a spoof....

I know that if someone ever blasphemed against my faith and my beliefs id make them pay...

Just think. Our Lord gave his only son to us, so we could go to heaven. Would you repay Him by blaspheming against Him?

I would'nt.



Please dont get offended.....I just get a little defensive around my beliefs.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

SpiritosoBella said:
			
		

> I know that if someone ever blasphemed against my faith and my beliefs id make them pay...



Isn't this statement, especially from a follower of a messiah who specifically instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, quite blasphemous in itself?


----------



## SpiritosoBella

no its not because i don't follow Him i believe in Him
And would you if your father was being beaten up or blasphemed. Would you trun the other cheek?
And by making him pay does'nt mean anything violent necessarily. 
But besides that fact i dont have a messiah and i don't read teh bible for fun. I am a devout Catholic. And our lord jesus christ is being blasphemed in the da vinci code, so by NO MEANS  will i turn the other cheek.
It may be blasphemous how bout when you die and go up for judgement you ask Him ," Heya, I knew you were being blasphemed but I turned the other cheek." Thats like going in the other room  so you can't see you mother being beaten up.


----------



## Sidd

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> Isn't this statement, especially from a follower of a messiah who specifically instructed his followers to turn the other cheek, quite blasphemous in itself?



Well put!.


----------



## maxiogee

SpiritosoBella said:
			
		

> Only the vatican is very currupted...


I beg your pardon?
Would you care to rephrase that?




> It states that Jesus christ had a relationship with mary magdelene...
> Impossible...Jesus is one and divine He has no need for human relationship,


Who says?
Jesus as written about in the Christian bible is fully human and fully divine. To be fully human is to need other people - we are social animals and cannot exist in isolation from our fellows.



> Jesus is one and divine He has no need for human relationship, he made us for further gloryment of Himself.


Not a very 'secure' being, is He?
What sort of a deity 'needs' to be glorified, and needs it so much that it creates beings to do it?




> Plus, they say that mary magdelene was present at the last supper, saying that John was really mary magdelene.
> How would they know? Da vinci was not there. He has an artists description of what it is like!!!! He can't not possibley know who was there and who wasn't!


So no-one can know who was there.




> The movie is an open blasphemy to our lord!! Would you stand by and let someone openly blaspheme on your family?


* A family cannot be blasphemed. Only a God or religious things can be blasphemed.
The Christian God is all-powerful. Let Him be the watchman of His good name. Why should anyone else be concerned?




> I don't mean to be rude or anything, but I know that a lot of people believe that the church is a liar and that the vatican is a spoof....


I would offer the recent (1950) Doctrine of the Assumption…
_1950, Pope Pius XII, declared infallibly, ex cathedra:_"Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul         to heavenly glory."​This is plainly unproven, patently impossible, and based loosely on quasi-historical 'constant faith (paradosis) evidence'.





> I know that if someone ever blasphemed against my faith and my beliefs id make them pay...


Why?
Your beliefs are just that - belief. I may have a belief that I am a nice kind wonderful person but that doesn't (a) make it true, or (b) place an obligation on anyone else to accept it, or (c) entitle me to any official recognition.
Belief used to hold that the Earth was flat, that the Sun was round, and that the centre of the entire Universe was Jerusalem.
Belief also used to be that I was a bad Catholic if I ate meat on a Friday, or if I didn't attend Mass on a Sunday (now one can go on a Saturday evening). It used to be believed that one could (and probably should) receive Holy Communion many times a day - not any more.
Belief is insubstantial and doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and is liable to change. Even the Catholic Church has said that evolution is a valid theory.

Belief is a personal matter and should hold no sway on the life of Humanity!


----------



## SpiritosoBella

I am not trying to make anyone to chaneg their beliefs!! I was just stating teh facts...
Sure you can depict everything anyone says, but who cares....
It doesn't matter....
Its between your god and yourself....
Belief can be used in many ways...I was using it in terms of my faith beliefs....


----------



## maxiogee

SpiritosoBella said:
			
		

> I am not trying to make anyone to chaneg their beliefs!!


I never said you were.



> I was just stating teh facts...


"Facts" were few in what you posted.



> Sure you can depict everything anyone says, but who cares....


You seem to! You seem to care strongly!



> Its between your god and yourself....


That's the most sensible thing you have said so far - You have acknowledged that someone might have a different God than you.
At the root of that acceptance is the thought that someone's concept of God _just might_ be wrong.



> Belief can be used in many ways...I was using it in terms of my faith beliefs....


Indeed, and the point I was making is that that is just what they are, "beliefs" - concepts not based on facts.

I wish you well.


----------



## tvdxer

The book is a complete sham.  Not only is it a sham, it's a blasphemous one.  A complete waste of paper.  To deny Christ's divinity is a great sin - and to lead others to do it is far worse.  The Vatican is merely defending two thousand years of truth against falsehood.   I hope no one here has a problem with that.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

tvdxer said:
			
		

> The book is a complete sham.  Not only is it a sham, it's a blasphemous one.  A complete waste of paper.  To deny Christ's divinity is a great sin - and to lead others to do it is far worse.  The Vatican is merely defending two thousand years of truth against falsehood.   I hope no one here has a problem with that.



I don't have any problem at all with denying Jesus Christ's divinity. It's a free country. You can deny whatever you want.


----------



## danielfranco

After reading the last few posts, a new question comes into my very small mind... Has Dan Brown actually managed to blaspheme with his book, or is he being merely heretical?
I don't know precisely if this would be comparable to being guilty of a misdemeanor vs. a felony, but maybe there is a difference...
Also, when you read a book or watch a movie that the Church has already condemned, are you guilty of the same offense (blasphemy vs. heresy)?
I honestly don't know, alright? I'm not being facetious nor elliptical...


----------



## tvdxer

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I don't have any problem at all with denying Jesus Christ's divinity. It's a free country. You can deny whatever you want.



He has the legal right to do so.  I'm not saying he shouldn't...do you think that I believe apostasy should punished?  However, the church is perfectly right in condemning / boycotting the book.



> After reading the last few posts, a new question comes into my very small mind... Has Dan Brown actually managed to blaspheme with his book, or is he being merely heretical?
> I don't know precisely if this would be comparable to being guilty of a misdemeanor vs. a felony, but maybe there is a difference...
> Also, when you read a book or watch a movie that the Church has already condemned, are you guilty of the same offense (blasphemy vs. heresy)?
> I honestly don't know, alright? I'm not being facetious nor elliptical...



I say "blasphemous" because some of the concepts I have heard he has in his book (I haven't read it, but read about it, and our priest, who has read parts, delivered a homily on it today at mass) are insulting to sacred truth, which therefore, I think, deserve this classfication.  

I don't think watching it or reading it would make one guilty of blasphemy or heresy.  That's a bit far flung.  In fact, I'm not sure if it would necessarily be wrong in all cases.  However, for many, it would be a possible danger to their face, maybe an occasion of sin, which would render it sinful.  But blasphemy or heresy?  I don't think so.


----------



## danielfranco

Thank you for the explication, tvdxer. Being one of the very few non-Catholic Mexicans, many of these things are a mystery to me...
But I suppose there's a verse in the Bible that counsels about situations like these:
"Retain the good, and discard the bad."
I think this verse is in Peter's letters, but I'm not sure...


----------



## TimeHP

Catholic Encyclopedia:
_Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem._

In the Da Vinci Code the gross irriverence would be that Jesus the Nazarene had a wife and a baby. So terrible?
Are blasphemy and heresy still existing? 
I stupidily believed that they had died of shame, after tens of thousands women and men had been tortured and executed in their names.
The Church in their names also created the Index Librorum Prohibitorum: the list included Balzac, Zola, Hugo, Hume, Locke, Kant, Moravia, etc...
I don't think that the Church is 'offended' by the presumed marriage between Gesù Cristo and Maria Maddalena.
I think the Church is worried about the references to the Opus Dei.
If I were a Catholician I would be curious about this opu-lent organization. Maybe I'd like to know something more about it. 
Maybe I wouldn't like what I might discover. 
http://www.we-are-church.org/it/mondo/OpusDei.htm
Maybe something else - much more than a book - would offense my faith...

Ciao


----------



## Fernando

For the record, I am a Catholic.

Everyone is entitled to write a book in which Jesuchrist is the head of a demoniac society of child-eaters who performed cluster sex on a regular basis.

But, please, do not ask us to like it.

All this Dan Brown topic is pathetic. He has no single argument. It is just another templar-cathar book. If you want to read anti-Catholic books, please, choose a good one.


----------



## DDT

There are many different books, films, etc offending one historical or religious figure. I have no moral judgement on freedom of expression as long as it doesn't become a way to express racism, violence or extremism/fundamentalism.
I simply consider that the Church should wonder about the reasons of the success of "Da Vinci Code" instead of increasing the visibility of the book which - I fully agree with zebedee - will be the only final result

DDT


----------



## Sidd

Again, how does such a bad book sell so many copies?, and again, I didn't like it that much but it's a page-turnerer that keeps you on the edge of your chair from the first page. 

As I said before, you have to give credit to Dan Brown for achieving what every writer dream of, a book that everyone wanted to read. FIRST it was a best-seller and THEN it was polemic. So, although I'm sure because of the polemic it selled better, don't tell me now it is JUST because of that. 

So please drop the "it's a bad book" argument. 



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> But, please, do not ask us to like it



Nobody did that, as far as I know. Actually that's the point. The Vatican is asking people to _dislike_ it.


----------



## Cnaeius

TimeHP said:
			
		

> _.........._
> I stupidily believed that they had died of shame, after tens of thousands women and men had been tortured and executed in their names.
> The Church in their names also created the Index Librorum Prohibitorum: the list included Balzac, Zola, Hugo, Hume, Locke, Kant, Moravia, etc...
> I don't think that the Church is 'offended' by the presumed marriage between Gesù Cristo and Maria Maddalena.
> I think the Church is worried about the references to the Opus Dei.
> .....


 
Which Church? Which time are you talking about? 
I think that we have to be careful when talking about things that passed across a lot of centuries. People change and evolve, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively.
As example, I think it would be greatly ludicrous if we hated and blamed today German Authorities and Goverment for crimes occurred in the II WW.
In any case today "Church" feels and must not forget the responsibilities which come from the great mistakes that have been perpetrated in the past. I think that this memory is a memento, not a blame

Ciao


----------



## lizzeymac

tvdxer said:
			
		

> He has the legal right to do so.  I'm not saying he shouldn't...do you think that I believe apostasy should punished?  However, the church is perfectly right in condemning / boycotting the book.
> 
> I say "blasphemous" because some of the concepts I have heard he has in his book (I haven't read it, but read about it, and our priest, who has read parts, delivered a homily on it today at mass) are insulting to sacred truth, which therefore, I think, deserve this classfication.
> 
> I don't think watching it or reading it would make one guilty of blasphemy or heresy.  That's a bit far flung.  In fact, I'm not sure if it would necessarily be wrong in all cases.  However, for many, it would be a possible danger to their face, maybe an occasion of sin, which would render it sinful.  But blasphemy or heresy?  I don't think so.



I think it's fine if Catholics boycott.  If a Catholic is offended they should not go see the movie or buy & read the book, they should complain to the movie studio, they should picket.  Why should they have fewer rights than anyone else?

However, if Catholics were strictly worried about an "occasion of sin" the list of forbidden movies (books, TV shows, videos, songs) for every year would be longer than my arm.    (I was raised a pre-Vatican II Catholic but no longer practice Catholicism)  
I would be impressed if Catholics thought about all of the actions & ideas shown in modern movies that would be considered a sin, which would make watching those movies an occasion of sin. 
I don't share in these beliefs but I respect anyone who can live their life in accordance with a set of values.  The inconsistency & selectivity of modern American Catholicism annoys the hell out of me. 

I don't think God is injured by Dan Brown's book.  I don't think Dan Brown rates that high on God's list.
Brown's assertion that his "research" is legitimate & verified is outrageous & ridiculously easy to disprove - what was his publisher thinking?

This book a bad airport paperback, beach reading, junk food for your mind!

-


----------



## Sidd

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> This book a bad airport paperback, beach reading, junk food for your mind!



I sooo agree


----------



## Mei

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Hi all.
> The Vatican has led the offensive against The Da Vinci Code (the film has been released yesterday in Italy) calling for a boycott and even legal action against both the book and film.
> What do you think?
> Thank you.
> Ciao


Hi there,

I've read this book and I like it as a novel. What I don't understand is why The Vatican or the Church is criticizing it so hardly. Is this the only book that talks about Jesus or doubt about the Church or religion? If they are "making all this noise" it's because there is something that they don't like about this book that none else have. What are they worried about? It seems that this books scares them... why? 

They (the Church) won't lose followers... I think is the other way around, after reading this book you have doubts and what you do is to ask and to read more about religion. This book didn't change my point of view... this book just make me look for more information about it. Is it bad? 

And... hey... this book achieved its purpose... it was read for million people and I'm sure that many of them are reading another book. 

Just my opinion.

Mei


----------



## TimeHP

Cnaeius, non vorrei questa discussione diventasse una battaglia tra Cattolici e non Cattolici. 
Provengo da una famiglia Cattolica, anche se non strettamente osservante. E anche se sono agnostica, ho amici Cattolici (tra questi un paio di Sacerdoti) e rispetto la religione di tutti.
Ciò che non rispetto è il cattivo uso della religione da parte di alcuni. 
Il mio riferimento al passato, comunque, era in riferimento all'uso di eretico e blasfemo, due termini che speravo fossero superati. 
Perché poi parlare di blasfemia? O di offesa della figura religiosa di Gesù? 
Si tratta di un libro che fa delle ipotesi, tra queste quella che Gesù possa avere sposato Maria di Magdala (non è una teoria così nuova, tra l'altro...) 
E se anche fosse vero? 
Gesù non rimarrebbe ugualmente nel cuore e nella mente delle persone come una figura luminosa?


----------



## Cnaeius

TimeHP said:
			
		

> _I stupidily believed that they had died of shame, after tens of thousands women and men had been tortured and executed in their names._
> _The Church in their names also created the Index Librorum Prohibitorum_


 
Lungi da me fare alcuna battaglia! Il mio era solo un commento puntuale. Volevo solo ricordare che la "Church" lì citata non è la "Church" di adesso.
Per il resto, io ho letto il libro e andrò anche a vedere il film!_  _




> This book a bad airport paperback, beach reading, junk food for your mind!


 
_But let me say that I totally agree!

Ciao
_


----------



## JazzByChas

I believe that as a novel, the book is very entertaining. However, according to this review the author claims historical accuracy, and the book is apparently chock full of innacuracies.  I would imagine that if you are merely writing a novel, you must preface it with the standard disclamer, "All places, persons and things in this novel do not necessarily reflect an accurate reflection of reality" or words to that effect.  But to claim historical accuracy, one needs to represent facts, researched from reputable sources.

My $0.02 US




> Hi there,
> 
> I've read this book and I like it as a novel. What I don't understand is why The Vatican or the Church is criticizing it so hardly. Is this the only book that talks about Jesus or doubt about the Church or religion? If they are "making all this noise" it's because there is something that they don't like about this book that none else have. What are they worried about? It seems that this books scares them... why?
> 
> They (the Church) won't lose followers... I think is the other way around, after reading this book you have doubts and what you do is to ask and to read more about religion. This book didn't change my point of view... this book just make me look for more information about it. Is it bad?
> 
> And... hey... this book achieved its purpose... it was read for million people and I'm sure that many of them are reading another book.
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Mei


----------



## danielfranco

News update: the opening weekend of the movie grossed about 77,000,000 dollars. Not the best opening ever, but pretty impressive for a movie that is soooooooooooooooooo boring, no?
At any rate, I thought it was boring...


----------



## Residente Calle 13

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Sorry to be so late with this post, but I just woke up!
> I guess I misunderstood my Sunday class lessons, but it always seemed to me that the whole purpose about teaching kids the gory details of a crucifixion was to clearly contrast how a sinner would suffer, but that Jesus being divine could undergo such pain and agony even unto death, and still triumph over all of it, because He is the Son of God, and he wants you to be saved from such suffering so that you can have life everlasting, if you believe...



Maybe so. But I always thought that there was no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth had a human side:

He was so scared the night before his arrest he could n't even sleep.
He suffered during his torture.
He doubted God ("Why hast thou forsaken me?").
He died.


----------



## Talant

zebedee said:
			
		

> The Vatican has even appointed someone from their ranks to refute the book.
> 
> Taken from The Guardian:
> 
> But of course, that would be highly dangerous. They can't have people believing any old fable, no no no, just the ones in the Bible please.
> 
> Oh, sorry, I forgot. Adam and Eve and the other fables the Bible contains are, of course, completely true.
> 
> Seriously, it seems to me to be all a lot of hot air about nothing. The only thing the Vatican's going to achieve is free publicity for the book & film. Why has such a badly-written book sold so many copies? Thanks, in part, to the Vatican's reaction. Dan Brown should give them part of his royalties in recognition to the help they're giving him.



I agree with zebedee. The only thing the boycott is doing is giving publicity. I've read the book and it is pretty bad. Even the things Dan Brown has "discovered" have been already published somewhere else. I'll just recommend the "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" from Saramago.

And Zebedee, the Catholics don't believe that Adam and Eve were real. It's supposed to be an allegory or parable. The only real fact is that God created us, the rest is a fable. This is what I was taught at school by the jesuits. (I can't talk for other Christians)


----------



## emma1968

Of what Dan Brown wrote in the Da Vinci Code nobody can know what is true and what is not.
 As someone said  it's propably  true that if you think that that is true is because of you are ignorant on the context.
But  can I have the faculty of thinking that the church in order to arrive where it is today has disseminated only what it thought could be the best news to achieve his purposes?


----------



## Fernando

emma1968 said:
			
		

> Of what Dan Brown wrote in the Da Vinci Code nobody can know what is true and what is not.



Historians know: 90% is false, 10% is invented.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Fernando said:
			
		

> Historians know: 90% is false, 10% is invented.



There is a cable channel in the US dedicated to history and all last week they had shows about this novel and the movie and showed how what wasn't false about Don Brown's story was unlikely.

In other words, it's *fiction*.


----------



## maxiogee

Herewith, a mixed bag of thoughts on this subject.
I can't be bothered to make them all into individual replies, and it would only clutter the thread.

     =============================================





			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> tvdxer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say "blasphemous" because some of the concepts I have heard he has in his book (I haven't read it, but read about it, and our priest, who has read parts, delivered a homily on it today at mass) are insulting to sacred truth, which therefore, I think, deserve this classfication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is typical of the priesthood of almost all religions.
> a) They claim that something is insulting to "sacred truth" - without reference to the fact that many religions claim contradictory "sacred truths".
> b) They preach against individual books, of which they have "read part".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tvdxer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, for many, it would be a possible danger to their face, maybe an occasion of sin, which would render it sinful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will quote to you from the Catholic Encyclopedia…
> > It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and the occasion of sin.
> > The cause of sin in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite.
> > The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act or vicious habit which we call sin.
> So the book itself cannot be a sin!
> 
> =============================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tvdxer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The book is a complete sham. Not only is it a sham, it's a blasphemous one. A complete waste of paper. To deny Christ's divinity is a great sin - and to lead others to do it is far worse. The Vatican is merely defending two thousand years of truth *(alleged truth, undocumented by contemporaneous evidence)* against *(perceived) *falsehood.   I hope no one here has a problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is generally accepted by those who accept these things, that the earliest Gospel wasn't written until at least 40 years after the death of the central character.
> Other gospels were written - and circulated among the early Christians - which were later denounced or suppressed by the Church.
> 
> =============================================
> 
> Sidd wrote…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how does such a bad book sell so many copies?, and again, I didn't like it that much but it's a page-turnerer that keeps you on the edge of your chair from the first page.
> As I said before, you have to give credit to Dan Brown for achieving what every writer dream of, a book that everyone wanted to read. FIRST it was a best-seller and THEN it was polemic. So, although I'm sure because of the polemic it selled better, don't tell me now it is JUST because of that.
> So please drop the "it's a bad book" argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Sidd wrote…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzeymac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This book a bad airport paperback, beach reading, junk food for your mind!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I sooo agree
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you make up your mind please, Sidd?
> 
> =============================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lizzeymac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think God is injured by Dan Brown's book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can God be injured?
> Even if he is a mythical creation of ours, can an omnipotent God be injured, or offended?
> 
> =============================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only real fact is that God created us, the rest is a fable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not what the Church says publicly. In my childhood it was - to coin a phrase - Gospel truth!
> The whole Bible, or just the Old Testament? The Old Testament is not part of this discussion as only the Gospel characters are featured in the tale.
> Surely we can only say is that the "only real fact" is that some humans declare that God created us.
> Some humans say that this too is fable.
> Some humans say that humans created God in their image and likeness.
> 
> =============================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Residente Calle 13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a cable channel in the US dedicated to history and all last week they had shows about this novel and the movie and showed how what wasn't false about Don Brown's story was unlikely.
> 
> In other words, it's *fiction*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And did they do a "control" test on the Old and New Testaments, to see how much of them are false/fiction/unlikely?
> 
> =============================================
> 
> Finally, inspired by all the recent anti-Islamic brou-ha-ha on the Small European Families thread can I ask an honest question…
> 
> Can anyone here who is taking so much offence to this affront to the Catholic Church, its God and its "personal Papal prelature" show me anything they said, did or wrote in support of the offence taken by Islam at *Salman Rushdie's* famed/infamous _Satanic Verses_, or did they (hush my mouth!) support the notion of his freedom to write whatever he wished?
Click to expand...


----------



## mansio

Religion is often closer to legends and inventions than to true events. Many scholars believe Mary Magdalene is actually a fictitious character that the Catholic Church "created" by merging three different women from the Gospels into one.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

maxiogee said:
			
		

> And did they do a "control" test on the Old and New Testaments, to see how much of them are false/fiction/unlikely?



Oh, of course not. Do you know how many of their viewers believe in the OT and the NT?

There is no historical proof for Adam, Noah, Moses, or JC. They talk about Adam and Noah as allegorical figures but I'm afraid Moses and Jesus of Nazareth are treated as real people. They know better than to say otherwise.

I, of course, don't care whether Jesus was married because I haven't seen any proof that such a person ever existed so...


----------



## tvdxer

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> I think it's fine if Catholics boycott.  If a Catholic is offended they should not go see the movie or buy & read the book, they should complain to the movie studio, they should picket.  Why should they have fewer rights than anyone else?
> 
> However, if Catholics were strictly worried about an "occasion of sin" the list of forbidden movies (books, TV shows, videos, songs) for every year would be longer than my arm.    (I was raised a pre-Vatican II Catholic but no longer practice Catholicism)
> I would be impressed if Catholics thought about all of the actions & ideas shown in modern movies that would be considered a sin, which would make watching those movies an occasion of sin.
> I don't share in these beliefs but I respect anyone who can live their life in accordance with a set of values.  The inconsistency & selectivity of modern American Catholicism annoys the hell out of me.



Sin and evil have always been a topic in literature, and eventually movies.  There's nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not glorified.  

I don't see your point about movies.  Certain films could definitely negatively influence Catholics who are weak in their faith and beliefs.  Some very sexualized movies, etc., are occasions of sin for almost everybody.  But I wouldn't consider most movies "occasions of sin" for strong Catholics.


----------



## Sidd

Hi, Maxiogee, I'm enjoying your posts in this thread, so thank you. 



			
				Maxiogee said:
			
		

> Can you make up your mind please, Sidd?


 
Actually, this is the first thing I posted:



			
				Sidd said:
			
		

> I read the book before it was widely known -by chance, actually- and I think we all can agree it's a compulsive page-turnerer (I also agree it's not very good...


 
I enjoyed the book as I enjoy a meal at McDonalds,I know is not healthy, but when I go there from time to time, I really enjoy it. 
Truth be told I didnn't agree with "bad airport paperback", but I love the "junk food for your mind" part, because that's exactly how I read this novels. I like page-turnerers, I use them to get asleep and to kill some time at airports. 

When I want to not-think I read these kind of novels (or watch tv). I enjoy them like that, but I know what I'm reading is not "El Quijote". 

Fernando posted this


			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> If you want to read anti-Catholic books, please, choose a good one.


and I don't like that as an argument, like saying "too much talking for a too bad book" because it is a huge hit and when a book sells so many copies it has to have something, so it's worth talking about it.


----------



## maxiogee

I disagree with you about the notion that it must have something, purely because so many people have bought it.

Television is full of worthless programmes which pull in high ratings - the public goes for junk. They will watch endless volumes of it. The airport novels you speak of - where metallic print outshouts the book beside it - is proof. The stories are junk, the plot is anorexic, the characters are not even wooden, they're not chunky enough for "wood", and the quality of the prose just doesn't bear thinking about.
So volume proves nothing, I'm afraid. Huge numbers bought Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, but they never understood it, if they made it past the end of chapter 1.

That's not to say that I don't like a good page-turner myself, I do, but I rarely see anything worth reading on those whirly carousels at airports.


----------



## ElaineG

> when a book sells so many copies it has to have something, so it's worth talking about it.


 
To me, that's the interesting question.  As others have said, almost every writer wants to be a best seller.  Once in a very long while, one of them turns out to be a J.K. Rowling or a Dan Brown and to touch a cultural nerve and to make billions.

The question then becomes: Why them? Sure there's a marketing machine, but the marketing machine goes to bat for other books that never catch fire.

So we can legitimately ask, "what does the Da Vinci Code have that makes it so compelling?"  Why has _this _book become a worldwide cultural phenomenon.

As most here have agreed, it does not have literary merit.  I found it boring in stretches, horribly written and poorly plotted.  The characters were stock and improbable.  A gaping hole was left at the center of the story: If Jesus's descendants have walked among us for the last 2,000 years, WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN UP TO ALL THIS TIME?  (They preoccupied themselves with an internecine squabble with Opus Dei while Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda etc. etc. etc. happened under their noses?!?  OK, even if they weren't divine, couldn't they have gotten a lot of mileage out of the "WWJD" platform? Most descendants of great men have a little more care for the family legacy than that!).

So we cannot attribute its success simply to its readibility as a thriller.  Any John Le Carre book, even the lesser ones, are more thrilling and better written, and while Le Carre is phenomenally sucessful in author terms, none of his books have come close to the sales of the Da Vince Code.

Therefore, it would seem, based on the book's success, that there is something about the book's subject matter that people find interesting.

Hypothesis #1:  people are extremely interested in the "back story", "dirty laundry" etc. of the Church and Opus Dei.  Perhaps the Vatican, instead of behaving in its usual fashion should ask itself why a story that depends on its perfidy as in institution is so wildly popular.  It's obvious that, JPII aside, the Church has an enormous image problem and that it's easy and attractive for people to associate it with evil.

Secondly, it is tempting to infer that people are attracted to Brown's spin on Jesus's life.  Is a human savior who loved and had children easier to relate to in the modern world?  Or is that this thought seems so naughty to Christians that the sense of a naughty thrill sells books.

It's interesting to see what the book says about us, as a culture -- world-wide it would seem.


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:
			
		

> Secondly, it is tempting to infer that people are attracted to Brown's spin on Jesus's life.  Is a human savior who loved and had children easier to relate to in the modern world?  Or is that this thought seems so naughty to Christians that the sense of a naughty thrill sells books.



Good question and well made points Elaine.
I think that (for those who seek a meaning to life, through religion) the time is ripe for a new religion.
Christianity grew out of Judaism, and used the concept of the Trinity, to broaden the appeal of a monotheistic faith to the polytheistic Greeks and Romans it met as it spread from Israel.
Judaism has achieved nothing in recent centuries and seems to be a less than thriving faith.
Islam, which grew out of the same source materials as Judaism and Christianity is also stagnating.
Christianity doesn't seem to answer people's current questions. 

The dogmas of these faiths are totally at odds with our knowledge of the world and its place in the universe, and of our place within our world. I'm not sure if this knowledge is such that an "interventionist-God religion" would be compatible with it, but I can well believe that many people are searching around from a successor to Christianity. And, just as Christianity sprang from Judaic prophecy and scripture, so those seeking newness are possibly looking to the roots of Christianity for that newness.

Having seen many early human societies leave their polytheism and cleave to monotheism, I wonder if the time is approaching when an atheistic "faith" might arise? 
Reading through your list of events one is prompted to ask how can anyone who believes in a God who (in any way) interacts with its creation can look at the events of even the last 100 years and still believe - really believe - that that God 'cares' one iota what happens here.

We are not a chosen species. We were not created as such. (We give ourselves tremendous airs and graces.)
We are more like a virus on the organism that is the Earth, polluting and despoiling it.
We are possibly not the most intelligent lifeform in the universe.
In X millennia we will be gone - all gone, and replaced by an upstart species possibly sharing the planet with us at present, proving we have not made it uninhabitable to anything.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

ElaineG said:
			
		

> So we can legitimately ask, "what does the Da Vinci Code have that makes it so compelling?"  Why has _this _book become a worldwide cultural phenomenon.



Isn't the Princess Di "Candle in the Wind" by Elton John the highest selling single of all time?


----------



## ElaineG

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Isn't the Princess Di "Candle in the Wind" by Elton John the highest selling single of all time?


'

Exactly.  And we have every reason to investigate what made Princess Di such a compelling cultural phenomenon.    Culture isn't an accident.  I was in London during the days after her funeral and saw the hundreds of thousands of weeping Britons lined up to bring offerings to her various shrines.    Di in death became far bigger than Di in life.  To come full circle, many at the time discussed the fact that the response to Princess Di was similar to the response inspired in previous less-secular eras by saints and their images and by the cult of the Madonna.  (Maybe there is something to this presently unmet human need for a female divine that is both nurturing and human/flawed....).

I don't actually know if I'd go that far -- although it's food for thought.

But it's very naive to think that culture, including pop culture, is not a manifestation of deeper issues and trends in our society.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

ElaineG said:
			
		

> But it's very naive to think that culture, including pop culture, is not a manifestation of deeper issues and trends in our society.


I agree completely. People are attracted to people who seem larger than life. Jesus of Nazareth definitely fits into that category. So does the Vatican. So does Leonardo Da Vinci. The story may be mediocre but look at who it is about?

Women dies in a car crash. Sad but not that exicting. Princess dies when crash in Paris [in a possible plot by the Queen to have her eliminated*] while being chased by the paparazi is much better.

*I believe this story is false but wasn't that part of the whole allure?


----------



## maxiogee

But are not many people now somewhat ashamed of how they reacted at that time.
I seem to remember that there were opinions expressed to the effect that they somehow manipulated themselves into a 'mob'. The press (pre-eminently among 'the media') certainly played a huge part in this. They were busy being manipulative of both Charles and Diana, who were two people who were already busy manipulating the press/public for their own ends.

I do feel that 'real' female icons are sadly lacking. But then I think that we don't get male icons who are 'rounded' people either. The celebrities and sportspeople of both sexes are very unifaceted people. The very media that flaunts their singular talent at us will pounce derisively on any attempt to appear to be more than the press wish them to be. Similarly any politician/business person who attempts to show a human side is accused of demeaning themselves for ulterior motives.

Can there be people who portray the 'divine' in a time when mystery is so lacking in people's lives? We can know all we wish to know about anyone. We have no secrets. We have no privacy if the public desire to 'know' us.


----------



## lizzeymac

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Sin and evil have always been a topic in literature, and eventually movies.  There's nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not glorified.
> 
> I don't see your point about movies.  Certain films could definitely negatively influence Catholics who are weak in their faith and beliefs.  Some very sexualized movies, etc., are occasions of sin for almost everybody.  But I wouldn't consider most movies "occasions of sin" for strong Catholics.



Sorry you missed the point, I felt I was being clear.  Let me try again.

I wasn't arguing either for or against the effects of movies in general or this movie,  I was commenting on the appearance of selectivity in modern Catholicism. 

Many modern Catholics "pick and choose" what aspects of Catholicism they will follow.  I believe it is everyone's right to follow or not follow, or to follow only parts of the tenets of their religon but the Catholic Church does not believe this.  
I mean, these are "your" rules, why do some many modern Catholics not follow them?  I think many of these rules are a wonderful approach to a responsible & ethical life.

I felt I was pretty clear that I would find it admirable if more modern Catholics actually acted in accordance with their Gospel on a day to day basis - not just occasionally in reaction to a popular movie, which is much easier to do.  It is puzzling to see such a conservative & absolutist response to what is, after all, a badly written novel containing offensive ideas when many modern Catholics are lax in other areas of faith - mostly those that conflict with modern social (fun) behavior.  It seems inconsistent, which is human, but it is not particularly "catholic" in the original meaning of the word.


"Some very sexualized movies, etc., are occasions of sin for almost everybody"
Just to be clear, only a religious person can experience "an occasion of sin"  - it's a religious concept, not everyone is religious.

I agree with you that some movies (or books, TV shows, etc.) could be very troubling or offensive to a Catholic, or to anyone.  There are movies that are far more "dangerous" than The Da Vinci code.
I only disagree about the solution.  Some people think the movies should be banned, I think each person is responsible for choosing what they see, read, do - don't buy a movie ticket, don't buy the book, turn off the TV, don't eat the junk food. Exercise your right to "not" do something.
I do not think the very existence of a movie can lead a person into a crisis unless that person chooses to go to see the movie.

-


----------



## Fernando

Sidd said:
			
		

> and I don't like that as an argument, like saying "too much talking for a too bad book" because it is a huge hit and when a book sells so many copies it has to have something, so it's worth talking about it.



Then I propose you the following interesting threads:

- The lord of the rings
- Terminator
- Rambo
- Air Force one 
...

I do not deny they are interesting films and/or movies, but forgive me if I do not extract many consequences about them.


----------



## Fernando

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> I agree with you that some movies (or books, TV shows, etc.) could be very troubling or offensive to a Catholic, or to anyone.  There are movies that are far more "dangerous" than The Da Vinci code.


Agreed. Let us talk about them and not about this one.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> I only disagree about the solution.  Some people think the movies should be banned,



I do not know whether is your point or not but I do not know none (at least in Europe) who says it should be banned.


----------



## lizzeymac

Fernando said:
			
		

> Agreed. Let us talk about them and not about this one.
> 
> I agree with you in the general sense but the title of this  thread is  "The Vatican against Dan Brown." ;-)
> 
> I do not know whether is your point or not but I do not know none (at least in Europe) who says it should be banned.



I am sorry if you feel I am being insensitive to your religious beliefs. That is not my intention.
I am annoyed that such an insignificant novel has upset so many people, even if I don't share their feelings or beliefs. 

I'm glad to hear you don't know any Europeans who want to ban the movie.  
Unfortunately, many non-Europeans & Americans are significantly upset & want to ban it.  
I worry that this unimportant novel could to be used to establish a precedent of banning or censoring books or movies. 
I can only hope the uniformly lousy reviews it received will calm everyone down.

-


----------



## Fernando

I do not know very much about American Samoa, so:

I do not understand any of these guys of being belonging to "the Vatican".

- Deputy in the Duma: Not Catholic. 
- American Samoa: ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿????????????
- Islamic religious leaders in Pakistan: Has Pakistan converted to Christianism.
- Indian National Congress: Ditto
- The Council of Indian Bishops: Catholic, Protestant, ¿?
- Catholic Bishop of the Philippines. Well, at least is Catholic. Is there only one Cat. Bishop in Philippines?
- Bulgarian *Orthodox* Church
- Council of Churches of Jordan. Which churches? 
- SK and Thailand Christian groups. Ditto
- Singapore: Rated over 16: Well, they forbid spitting, so that is hardly news.

So we are with:

- Cardinal of Genoa
- Catholic Church leaders in American Samoa
- The "catholic" bishop of the Philippines

Well, that is hardly "the Vatican", but well, they are Catholics after all. As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong) the cardinal of Genoa did not call for a ban, but he discouraged the Catholics (or called for a boycott, if you want) to watch the film.


----------



## lizzeymac

Fernando said:
			
		

> I do not know very much about American Samoa, so:
> 
> I do not understand any of these guys of being belonging to "the Vatican".
> 
> - Deputy in the Duma: Not Catholic.
> - American Samoa: ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿????????????
> - Islamic religious leaders in Pakistan: Has Pakistan converted to Christianism.
> - Indian National Congress: Ditto
> - The Council of Indian Bishops: Catholic, Protestant, ¿?
> - Catholic Bishop of the Philippines. Well, at least is Catholic. Is there only one Cat. Bishop in Philippines?
> - Bulgarian *Orthodox* Church
> - Council of Churches of Jordan. Which churches?
> - SK and Thailand Christian groups. Ditto
> - Singapore: Rated over 16: Well, they forbid spitting, so that is hardly news.
> 
> So we are with:
> 
> - Cardinal of Genoa
> - Catholic Church leaders in American Samoa
> - The "catholic" bishop of the Philippines
> 
> Well, that is hardly "the Vatican", but well, they are Catholics after all. As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong) the cardinal of Genoa did not call for a ban, but he discouraged the Catholics (or called for a boycott, if you want) to watch the film.



I think you misunderstood my post & this is getting tiresome.  
You seem determined to take offense.

I didn't say these people were part of the Vatican. I posted a brief list of the various religious groups, governments, & private persons that have objected to the movie in varying degrees, as listed on Google News. 

There are more religions than just Catholicism and more places in the world than Europe. I can't believe an American has to say this to anyone. 
You seem not to know that there are Christian & Catholic communities in India, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, Bulgaria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran, American Samoa (it's an island chain in the Pacific Ocean), Egypt, China, Japan, Korea, etc., and in many "Muslim" & North African countries.  Your assumptions about who might be Christian or Catholic are unfortunate.
Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, a holy man, & Muslim leaders in many parts of the world also find this book offensive - perhaps you were not aware of this either?  

Enough.


----------



## TimeHP

> Then I propose you the following interesting threads:
> 
> - The lord of the rings
> - Terminator
> - Rambo
> - Air Force one
> ...


 
The thread is about the boycott of a book. 
I've never seen people leafleting outside the cinema when _The lord of rings_ was on. But they are leafleting in these days in Italy against The Da Vinci Code. 
You have quite clearly said that this thread is pathetic and not interesting.
There are a lot of threads in this forum. Everyone can choose if reading and posting or not... 
I'm sorry to see that you are so angry about this discussion. But I'm really interested in the Da Vinci's phenomenon. 
I deal with books in my profession and what's happening is quite unusual.

Ciao


----------



## Fernando

lizzeymac said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstood my post


No.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> & this is getting tiresome.


 Yes.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> You seem determined to take offense.


 No. As a matter of fact, I am taking no offence.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> I didn't say these people were part of the Vatican. I posted a brief list of the various religious groups, governments, & private persons that have objected to the movie in varying degrees, as listed on Google News.



As you pointed out, this thread is about "The Vatican against Dan Brown". I am not addressing you. 



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> There are more religions than just Catholicism and more places in the world than Europe.


Really?



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> You seem not to know that there are Christian & Catholic communities in India, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, Bulgaria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran, American Samoa (it's an island chain in the Pacific Ocean), Egypt, China, Japan, Korea, etc., and in many "Muslim" & North African countries.  Your assumptions about who might be Christian or Catholic are unfortunate.


Really? As a Catholic, I was totally unaware, I assumed San Francisco Javier was just a tourist.

I am not assumpting nothing. I KNOW that many Christians in these countries are not Catholics, so I am DOUBTING (I DO NOT KNOW) if they are mainly Catholics or not.



			
				lizzeymac said:
			
		

> Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, a holy man, & Muslim leaders in many parts of the world also find this book offensive - perhaps you were not aware of this either?


 I am totally aware abou Muza/Musa, but allow me not to say this in a "The Vatican against Dan Brown" thread.


----------



## GenJen54

*Moderator Note*:  The tone of this thread is becoming too personal. Please restrict your comments to those *about the original thread topic*, that of the Vatican's response to Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code."

Based upon the progression of the conversation, discussion may also include the response of other churches/denominations to the same.

Thank you.

GenJen54
Moderator


----------



## cuchuflete

The Church of the Almighty Yawn finds the book unworthy of purchase, the movie unworthy of viewing, and the actions of one of our fellow religious institutions--public condemnation hence copious free publicity--to be counter-productive, regardless of motivation.

We return to our accustomed somnabulism.

Pleasant dreams to all.


----------



## coconutpalm

It's benn most interesting to read all these posts! Actually I spent the whole night reading them! Worthwhile.
Please note that I am an atheist. I don't care about Jesus or any religion. BUT I have always been taught not to offend other people in their religious belief----I truely believe all of us should hold up to it.
I read the book in Chinese, and it was great fun! I think it's reasonable for vantican to defend its belief (or for anyone to defend his/her own belief).
I don't hear anyone talking about banning this book in China. Actually, it would seem ridiculous for anyone to say such a thing! We know it's fiction, we enjoy reading it, we forget about it when we are finished----no religion thing come to our mind. But maybe that's because Chinese (shall I say most chinese? I truly doubt it, maybe except for the Hui race) don't really believe in any religious god, but many of us believe in the unseen powers and I am one of them. Strange in your eyes?

Besides, I love the Lord of the Rings!


----------



## Cereth

I´ve read many of the posts not all of them, but it was so entertaining!...

first i have to say that My family is catholic and I believe in Jesus (but i´m not consider myself as catholic)...
i haven´t read the book because when i see that tons of people like a particular book and i see them reading it everywhere i completely lost interest, otherwise i saw the movie last weekend, i found it entertaining, i did not get sleep, it was not boring but it did not teach me anything new!

fact or fiction well i don´t care, i just believe in the main message of jesus: Live with love, love to your brothers and believe there is your father above who really loves you and won´t let you down.

there was just a thing that really came to my mind and made think, in the movie they tried to find magdalena´s tomb for "paying her tributte" and honored her....i just thought , supposing Brown´s story was real and Jesus once married magdalene...why should i go to her tomb? i have not learned anything special from her! just for being jesus´ wife?....nonsense...


----------



## DDT

Sidd said:
			
		

> and I don't like that as an argument, like saying "too much talking for a too bad book" because it is a huge hit and when a book sells so many copies it has to have something, so it's worth talking about it.



Let me politely disagree...success (of a book, movie, song or something) doesn't imply value  
Shouldn't it contradict some positions/beliefs of the Church, Dan Brown's book wouldn't have won so much popularity...please consider the fact that some details or historical information are fully invented...
So I cannot but wonder about the real reason(s) of its success

DDT


----------



## Residente Calle 13

DDT said:
			
		

> Let me politely disagree...success (of a book, movie, song or something) doesn't imply value
> Shouldn't it contradict some positions/beliefs of the Church, Dan Brown's book wouldn't have won so much popularity...please consider the fact that some details or historical information are fully invented...
> So I cannot but wonder about the real reason(s) of its success
> 
> DDT



The Bible shares some of these very same qualities.


----------



## maxiogee

Cereth said:
			
		

> i haven´t read the book because when i see that tons of people like a particular book and i see them reading it everywhere i completely lost interest…



… so you haven't been reading the Bible recently then?


----------



## Cnaeius

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> The Bible shares some of these very same qualities.


 
Which qualities of the aforementioned ones does the Bible share with Dan Brown's Code?
Grazie
Ciao


----------



## Sidd

DDT, I don't think we disagree that much, 



			
				DDT said:
			
		

> So I cannot but wonder about the real reason(s) of its success



That was exactly my point. "it has to have something" (_something _here doesn't mean _value_)


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Cnaeius said:
			
		

> Which qualities of the aforementioned ones does the Bible share with Dan Brown's Code?
> Grazie
> Ciao




They are both controversial books that are widely read today and they both have verifiable facts mixed in with unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## Cnaeius

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> They are both controversial books that are widely read today and they both have verifiable facts mixed in with unsubstantiated claims.


 
Yes, I almost agree. Now it is much clearer what you meant.
Anyway, my personal opinion, I think that any comparison among a commercial thriller and a huge collection of books of clearly different literary quality such as the Bible can be a bit unfair, although it is surely and easily feasible.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Cnaeius said:
			
		

> Yes, I almost agree. Now it is much clearer what you meant.
> Anyway, my personal opinion, I think that any comparison among a commercial thriller and a huge collection of books of clearly different literary quality such as the Bible can be a bit unfair, although it is surely and easily feasible.



I haven't read the Da Vinci code but I have read the Bible several times. Some parts are very exciting but as literature *I* would give it a poor review. That's just a personal opinion. So when I see the poor reviews for this book, it kind of reminds me...but there are major differences as well. 

I don't mean this to be a trite commentary on religion or Catholicism. I respect people's faith. However, the fact that some of the facts in the novel/movie don't add up is nothing new. From a historical point of view, you don't have much _evidence _for Adam, Noah, Moses, David, and little evidence for Jesus of Nazareth or Mary Magdelene. 

I can see why some people take the Gospels on faith because that's part of a belief system which demands that you suspend belief in empirical knowledge. "Beati quelli che crederanno senza aver visto!" [Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed]. But if we are going to question _*facts *_we have to at least consider the _*fact *_that maybe Jesus and Mary *may be* as fictional as the other characters in the Da Vinci code at least.

From my point of view, you open the door as soon as you start demanding that Brown put his ducks in a row.


----------



## coppergirl

Hi everyone!

Fascinating thread, this! I'm with Maxiogee (from his first post)---I rather thought that it was not all that convincing a storyline, so I have a lot of trouble seeing why the Vatican is worried about it. 

In any case, if you look at the history of the Vatican, it has always had something of a habit of banning books ("Lady Chatterley's Lover") scientists (Galileo and Copernicus come to mind here) and ideas. I was raised Roman Catholic but I'm too much of a free thinker to really go for institutions whose main function is to encourage belief through the banning of books and ideas. (Sorry---hope this does not offend anyone---it is just my viewpoint!).

Anyway, I also think it is crucial in modern times to keep a firm grasp of what is a belief, what is a theory and what is an actual objective fact. 

If the Church is upset about the *suggestion *of impropriety in Brown's book, it may take comfort in the *fact *that Brown was not out to prove anything about Christ, but merely stated that his was a work of *fiction*. 

It is a short road to disaster when church leaders cannot discriminate between fact and fiction. 

Doesn't anyone in the Vatican watch Monty Python? Or was "The Life of Brian" banned too?

Strangely enough, the Vatican can be---quite rightly--- very firm when dealing with the violation of human rights in various parts of the world, and yet many would consider that the freedoms of speech, the press and the arts should be among the first of our human rights, yet the Vatican itself refuses to uphold this one.


----------



## Sidd

Just in case anyone is interested, here are two links from wikipedia, 

About the book and about all the criticisms against it.


----------



## Cnaeius

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I haven't read the Da Vinci code but I have read the Bible several times. Some parts are very exciting but as literature *I* would give it a poor review. That's just a personal opinion. So when I see the poor reviews for this book, it kind of reminds me...but there are major differences as well.
> 
> I don't mean this to be a trite commentary on religion or Catholicism. I respect people's faith. However, the fact that some of the facts in the novel/movie don't add up is nothing new. From a historical point of view, you don't have much _evidence _for Adam, Noah, Moses, David, and little evidence for Jesus of Nazareth or Mary Magdelene.
> 
> I can see why some people take the Gospels on faith because that's part of a belief system which demands that you suspend belief in empirical knowledge. "Beati quelli che crederanno senza aver visto!" [Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed]. But if we are going to question _*facts *_we have to at least consider the _*fact *_that maybe Jesus and Mary *may be* as fictional as the other characters in the Da Vinci code at least.
> 
> From my point of view, you open the door as soon as you start demanding that Brown put his ducks in a row.


 
Having given the assumption that every opinion is possible on matter like literature but it would be always useful to know also critics' opinions, I would say that even if, at the worst, you totally dislike the Bible you cannot disagree on the fact that its historical value and deepness are not comparable at all with that of Brown's book. With "Historical value" I mean the value that the more or less questionable facts in the Bible have _in helping to understand _History, not necessarily in _being_ the History. That gives rise to literature quality also. Moreover you probably know that Bible has probably a lot of authors across centuries. All this things introduce a strong complexity: that is why whatever comparison has to be very careful. So let’s judge “fiction” and/or questionable facts but let’s remember the “context” which the things we judge are in.
In any case your punctual statements on questionable facts are clear, I don’t disagree


p.s: what is “putting ducks in a row” ??


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Cnaeius said:
			
		

> Having given the assumption that every opinion is possible on matter like literature but it would be always useful to know also critics' opinions, I would say that even if, at the worst, you totally dislike the Bible you cannot disagree on the fact that its historical value and deepness are not comparable at all with that of Brown's book. With "Historical value" I mean the value that the more or less questionable facts in the Bible have _in helping to understand _History, not necessarily in _being_ the History. That gives rise to literature quality also. Moreover you probably know that Bible has probably a lot of authors across centuries. All this things introduce a strong complexity: that is why whatever comparison has to be very careful. So let’s judge “fiction” and/or questionable facts but let’s remember the “context” which the things we judge are in.
> In any case your punctual statements on questionable facts are clear, I don’t disagree
> 
> 
> p.s: what is “putting ducks in a row” ??


"Putting your ducks in a row" is "getting your facts straight and in order." From what I have read, Dan Brown's book has not done this. But I don't think that the Catholic Church or its supporters should argue against the Da Vinci Code because the facts are wrong. It's a work of fiction, first of all, and the Bible is an important part of the Christian faith but also has the facts wrong*.

I would compare this to a Catholic bishop arguing against the Chinese government for being hierarchichal. 

In any case, I don't think a book is necessarily deserving of a boycott because "the facts are invented" as the post I originally responded to asserted. In fact, according to the Gospel, Jesus himself used parables to get his point across. Does it matter if the prodigal son in Luke was a_ real person_? I think not and I believe that most Catholics feel the same way (I'm not a Catholic). And I also believe you can have faith in God without taking every event in the Bible as literal historical truth. Even the Church has accepted that.

On a personal note, I find it disheartening that this is the approach many people of faith are taking (I'm agnostic) because I am very concerned about bigotry and I do think that seeing this novel and this movie as an attack on Catholics is a legitimate argument. I cringe when I see what I perceive as anti-Catholic propaganda (even in the cases where perhaps the Church had it coming) because of the history of persecution Catholics have suffered in the country where I live and in other places.

And I also believe that the Church has not only the _right _but the _duty _to protect Catholics from bigotry in any form. But any person who argues against Dan Brown would be ill-advised to judge the book or the movie as non-fiction when it's clear that in a fictional piece of work, making things up is the modus operandi.

So in short, I find no problem with a boycott on religious grounds. I do find it disturbing that a very poor argument is being used by some instead of a very good one.



*From a scientific point of view. I won't get into the details here because it's off-topic.


----------



## LoveLaughLive_animals

I have read both the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons and enjoyed both of them. 

_Lack _of historic information and other details contained in the book that are often left out when made into a movie is what ruins a movie.... 
An Example of this? the Fourth Harry Potter movie and anyone who has read the book should know this.


----------

