Vatican Plots Against 'Da Vinci Code'

[jfuh]

I'm intrigued how the religious right is getting all boiled over about the new movie the Da Vinci code. For onething this book has been around for 5 years already and most importantly it's a ficticious inconsistent book. Yet it seems the catholic community is upset over the idea that Jesus as human would've had sexual tendencies, as all humans do. Or so on and so forth.
It seems to me that the community that is putting up a fight against this show are those that don't want the remainder of the populous to think for themselves. Seems that these ppl do not understand the concept of a parable nor a metaphore.

Source

 

[KCConservative]

Re: What's the controversy?

As a practicing Catholic and a proud member of the religious right, I wasn't aware of anyone being boiled over or of the Catholic community being upset by the film. The dictionary link is nice, but is there anything else that might support your claim?

 

[Cassapolis]

Re: What's the controversy?

Vatican plots against 'Da Vinci Code'
From Richard Owen in Rome

THE Vatican has appointed a top cardinal to rebut what it says are the lies, distortions and errors in Dan Brown’s bestselling thriller The Da Vinci Code.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Archbishop of Genoa and a possible successor to the Pope, immediately took up the fight yesterday by claiming that the novel was a deliberate attempt to discredit the Roman Catholic Church through absurd and vulgar falsifications.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1525702,00.html



Vatican preacher blasts Da Vinci Code
15 April 2006

VATICAN CITY: A Vatican official on Friday railed against The Da Vinci Code, branding the book and its upcoming film version as just more examples of Jesus being sold out by a wave of what he called "pseudo-historic" art.


The official, preaching in the presence of Pope Benedict, also condemned the so-called "Gospel of Judas", an alternative view to traditional Christian teaching which has received wide media attention recently.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3638362a12,00.html

 

[aps]

Re: What's the controversy?

As a practicing Catholic and a proud member of the religious right, I wasn't aware of anyone being boiled over or of the Catholic community being upset by the film. The dictionary link is nice, but is there anything else that might support your claim?

OMG, KC, I can't believe you haven't heard of the controversy. I was surprised at how much importance the Catholic church gave to this book.

 

[RightinNYC]

[pie] Please include a link to a news story in threads in this forum, and make the title of the thread the same as the headline [/pie]

 

[aps]

[pie] Please include a link to a news story in threads in this forum, and make the title of the thread the same as the headline [/pie]

Hi NYU. So if we are posting an article, we need to make the title of the thread the same as the headline? How am I supposed to inflame people if I can't add inflammatory words in the title? lol

 

[RightinNYC]

Hi NYU. So if we are posting an article, we need to make the title of the thread the same as the headline? How am I supposed to inflame people if I can't add inflammatory words in the title? lol

and thus, through the measured inquiry of aps, the genius of the plan was unfolded for all to see....:lol:

 

[aps]

and thus, through the measured inquiry of aps, the genius of the plan was unfolded for all to see....:lol:

I have been known to be an expert in deductive reasoning.

 

[danarhea]

[pie] Please include a link to a news story in threads in this forum, and make the title of the thread the same as the headline [/pie]

Take heed at what the Canadian in the picture has to say.

 

[jfuh]

[pie] Please include a link to a news story in threads in this forum, and make the title of the thread the same as the headline [/pie]

That's not the topic of my post at all. The new title is suggestive of conspiracy theories and not my original intent at all.

 

[RightinNYC]

That's not the topic of my post at all. The new title is suggestive of conspiracy theories and not my original intent at all.

That's because your original post had nothing to do with news and had no actual story attached. I was about to move it to a different forum, but then Cassapolis saved it by posting a story and a link.

If you'd prefer, I can split the threads and put yours in the appropriate forum so its not adulterated by this discussion.

 

[jfuh]

That's because your original post had nothing to do with news and had no actual story attached. I was about to move it to a different forum, but then Cassapolis saved it by posting a story and a link.

If you'd prefer, I can split the threads and put yours in the appropriate forum so its not adulterated by this discussion.

The original topic is the controversy stroked by the vatican on this subject. The deeper reasons into why such offense is taken over a fictional novel and so on. Not just surface bickerings. Cassapolis didn't save the posting at all, but simply furthered the case that indeed yes the vatican and other catholics are indeed upset about this movie release. However the deeper conotations is to why there's such a reaction. That's the point of this thread. The news today is just the tip of the iceburg that everyone is seeing.

 

[StillPhil]

I dont remember this type of uproar from Zeus-believers when Disney came out with Hercules. :doh

 

[jfuh]

I dont remember this type of uproar from Zeus-believers when Disney came out with Hercules. :doh

FUnny you'd bring up Zeus. Have any of the rest of you ever noticed a striking resemblence between how the christian God is imaged in various art work through out the centuries to the almighty Zeus?

 

[RightinNYC]

The original topic is the controversy stroked by the vatican on this subject. The deeper reasons into why such offense is taken over a fictional novel and so on. Not just surface bickerings. Cassapolis didn't save the posting at all, but simply furthered the case that indeed yes the vatican and other catholics are indeed upset about this movie release. However the deeper conotations is to why there's such a reaction. That's the point of this thread. The news today is just the tip of the iceburg that everyone is seeing.

For future reference, discussions like that would probably be more suited to a different forum, if they dont have a news story attached and you'd like to shift the focus of debate.

 

[ludahai]

For future reference, discussions like that would probably be more suited to a different forum, if they dont have a news story attached and you'd like to shift the focus of debate.

Wow, I actually expected a serious discussion over the anti-Catholic bigotry in this book and the acceptibility of anti-Catholicism throughout American history, but bigotry against other religious groups is completely taboo.

 

[ludahai]

Here is a page with an explanation of the concerns many Catholics have regarding the book.

http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

Some excerpts

Why should a Catholic be concerned about the novel?

Although a work of fiction, the book claims to be meticulously researched, and it goes to great lengths to convey the impression that it is based on fact. It even has a "fact" page at the front of the book underscoring the claim of factuality for particular ideas within the book. As a result, many readers-both Catholic and non-Catholic-are taking the book's ideas seriously.

The problem is that many of the ideas that the book promotes are anything but fact, and they go directly to the heart of the Catholic faith. For example, the book promotes these ideas:

Jesus is not God; he was only a man.
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
She is to be worshiped as a goddess.
Jesus got her pregnant, and the two had a daughter.
That daughter gave rise to a prominent family line that is still present in Europe today.
The Bible was put together by a pagan Roman emperor.
Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.
The Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.
In the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene rather than Peter was directed to establish the Church.
There is a secret society known as the Priory of Sion that still worships Mary Magdalene as a goddess and is trying to keep the truth alive.
The Catholic Church is aware of all this and has been fighting for centuries to keep it suppressed. It often has committed murder to do so.
The Catholic Church is willing to and often has assassinated the descendents of Christ to keep his bloodline from growing.

Catholics should be concerned about the book because it not only misrepresents their Church as a murderous institution but also implies that the Christian faith itself is utterly false.

What does The Da Vinci Code claim regarding Opus Dei?

According to the "fact" page:

The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brainwashing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
The novel goes on to describe Opus Dei as "a Catholic Church" and portrays it as an order of monks with members serving as assassins, one of whom (a "hulking albino" named Silas) is a key character in the book.


What is the history of the real-world Opus Dei?
According to Opus Dei's U.S. communications director, Brian Finnerty:

The real Opus Dei was founded in Spain in 1928 by a Catholic priest, St. Josemaría Escrivá, with the purpose of promoting lay holiness. It began to grow with the support of the local bishops there and was approved as a secular institute of pontifical right by the Holy See in 1950. Opus Dei's work has been blessed and encouraged by Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II. In 1982, John Paul II established it as a personal prelature of the Catholic Church after careful study of its role in the Church's mission. The culmination of the Church's support for Opus Dei and its message came with the 2002 canonization of its founder. Pope John Paul has called Opus Dei's founder "the saint of ordinary life."18
How does the real-world Opus Dei compare to the one in The Da Vinci Code?

There is a large number of inaccuracies in the picture of Opus Dei painted by the novel. Some of the most significant are catalogued and critiqued by Finnerty:

The author evinces a remarkable lack of understanding of the structure of the Catholic Church and its various component institutions. Besides his mischaracterization of Opus Dei as "a sect," he variously calls it "a Catholic Church," a "congregation," a "personal Prelature of the Pope himself," and a "Personal Prelature of Vatican City."

Calling Opus Dei "a Catholic Church" makes no sense. Opus Dei provides supplemental spiritual formation rather than ordinary diocesan functions, except in a few isolated cases in which the Pope or a bishop has asked Opus Dei to take care of some task. Moreover, it is intrinsic to the concept "catholic" that there can be only one Catholic Church, the Catholic Church, and Opus Dei is a fully integrated part of it.

Congregation is also a term that cannot be applied to Opus Dei, since it refers to religious. The very raison d'etre of Opus Dei is to provide a way of holiness for people who are not called to life in a religious order. For the same reason, the depiction of the Opus Dei villain as a monk in robes and Opus Dei's centers as cloistered residence halls where people withdraw from the world to live a life of prayer is the exact opposite of reality.

The various permutations of "personal prelature" the author uses to describe Opus Dei are redolent of something like the papal equivalent of a personal army, i.e., an extra-legal operation not subject to the rest of the Church's established authorities. "Personal" does not mean that Opus Dei belongs personally to the Pope or Vatican officials but refers to the fact that the prelature's jurisdiction applies to persons rather than a particular territory.
Opus Dei places special emphasis on helping lay people seek holiness in their daily lives. It has no monks, nor any members anything like the novel's creepy albino character named Silas.

The author's descriptions of Opus Dei's "practices," as represented by Silas's bloody purging rituals, are at best grossly distorted and at worst fabrications. He has taken pious accounts of the penances of some of the Church's great saints, including St. Josemaría Escrivá, and transformed them into a monstrous horror show.

Likewise, teaching the faith, giving spiritual guidance, and being a Christian witness ("brainwashing," "coercion," or "recruiting," for the author) are fundamental aspects of the Christian faith, not just Opus Dei practices.
The idea that Opus Dei entered a corrupt bargain with Pope John Paul II-bailing out the Vatican Bank in exchange for status as a personal prelature-is offensive and has no basis in reality.19

Personally, as a Catholic, I find the fact that so many people actually take Dan Brown seriously as disturbing. There has LONG been an undercurrent of anti-Catholicism in the United States. Granted, a lot of that has to do with Protestants not understanding Catholics and the Church. Brown's work actually serves to make the problem of misunderstanding even worse due to the distortion of the truth and outright lies that exist in the book.

 

[RightinNYC]

Wow, I actually expected a serious discussion over the anti-Catholic bigotry in this book and the acceptibility of anti-Catholicism throughout American history, but bigotry against other religious groups is completely taboo.

Discussion like that is not a problem at all. The only reason why there was a bit of disagreement over this thread is because it didn't fit the format of the forum.

As a side note, I agree with you about the absurdly negative impact of the book on views of catholicism and christianity as a whole. Not only have I experienced non-catholic christians waxing critical of my denomination because of the book, I've had non-christians talk about how the book proves that all christians are crazy.

of course, that then makes non-catholic christians angry, because they feel they're being unfairly targeted for something that is "the fault" of the catholic church....sort of a crappy cycle.

basically, when it comes down to it, anyone who takes anything dan brown writes as "historical fiction" is deluding themselves. Its about as factual as the latest from james frey.

 

[jfuh]

Here is a page with an explanation of the concerns many Catholics have regarding the book.

http://www.catholic.com/library/cracking_da_vinci_code.asp

Personally, as a Catholic, I find the fact that so many people actually take Dan Brown seriously as disturbing. There has LONG been an undercurrent of anti-Catholicism in the United States. Granted, a lot of that has to do with Protestants not understanding Catholics and the Church. Brown's work actually serves to make the problem of misunderstanding even worse due to the distortion of the truth and outright lies that exist in the book.

Jesus is not God; he was only a man.
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.
She is to be worshiped as a goddess.
Jesus got her pregnant, and the two had a daughter.
That daughter gave rise to a prominent family line that is still present in Europe today.
The Bible was put together by a pagan Roman emperor.
Jesus was viewed as a man and not as God until the fourth century, when he was deified by the emperor Constantine.
The Gospels have been edited to support the claims of later Christians.
In the original Gospels, Mary Magdalene rather than Peter was directed to establish the Church.
There is a secret society known as the Priory of Sion that still worships Mary Magdalene as a goddess and is trying to keep the truth alive.
The Catholic Church is aware of all this and has been fighting for centuries to keep it suppressed. It often has committed murder to do so.
The Catholic Church is willing to and often has assassinated the descendents of Christ to keep his bloodline from growing.

I'm just going to point out a few of these points from an academic stand point.
1. Jesus was indeed a man. If you're christian you believe him to be your savior, however all other abrahamic religions see him as a man as well. He was a philosopher and he claimed to be son of god falls perfectly in line with god being the father of all of us.
2. The modern day bible was indeed assembled together by the Roman pagan emperor contantine the great.
3. the bible has indeed been changed now to focus not on the teachings of christ but on the divinity of christ.
4. The catholic church has indeed silenced for centuries those whom expressed descent. ie Galileo.
I believe the rest to be simple fictional entertainment. But let's look at who's buying the most of these books? Christians and catholics. something to think about.

 

[Captain America]

I think the RCC is right in plotting their defensive rebuttals to DiVinci code. Since their bread and butter is built on a following who believe that Jesus is God, Moses parted the Red Sea, water turns to wine, dead people come back to life, etc., yada yada yada...... Who knows what else these folks are capable of believing in?

 

[ludahai]

I'm just going to point out a few of these points from an academic stand point.
1. Jesus was indeed a man. If you're christian you believe him to be your savior, however all other abrahamic religions see him as a man as well. He was a philosopher and he claimed to be son of god falls perfectly in line with god being the father of all of us.

He was a man, but not merely a man. He was the Son of God made flesh to fulfill God's plan. None of us were worthy of heaven, but He was. It also allows Him to understand our suffering and lives here on earth.

2. The modern day bible was indeed assembled together by the Roman pagan emperor contantine the great.

Absolutely FALSE. It was compiled by Church fathers at the Council of Carthage in 397.

3. the bible has indeed been changed now to focus not on the teachings of christ but on the divinity of christ.

There have been NO CHANGES in the Catholic canon since that same Council of Carthage in 397. The only changes were made my Protestant "so-called" reformers. Those changes in the canon have never been accepted by the Church.

4. The catholic church has indeed silenced for centuries those whom expressed descent. ie Galileo.

Unfortunately, this is true. This is something that the Church has issued numerous apologies about. Many of the popes of that era were corrupt. Only through the grace of God has the Church survived despite those popes.

I believe the rest to be simple fictional entertainment. But let's look at who's buying the most of these books? Christians and catholics. something to think about.

Then why the so-called "fact sheet" in the cover of the book? Why the thanks for the "so-called" research? This is a thinly veiled attack on Catholicism and the Catholic Church and especially of Opus Dei. This also betrays a complete lack of understanding as to how the Church is organized.

I know very few Catholics who have bought the book and even fewer who intend on seeing the film.

 

[jfuh]

He was a man, but not merely a man. He was the Son of God made flesh to fulfill God's plan. None of us were worthy of heaven, but He was. It also allows Him to understand our suffering and lives here on earth.

There's precisely zero factual basis for this when you take out the superstition and cannonization of Jesus.

Absolutely FALSE. It was compiled by Church fathers at the Council of Carthage in 397.

Your concept seems to be off by around half a century

Constantine believed his success in his life was due to his profession of faith in Christianity and that he was “God’s chosen instrument” to bring peace and prosperity to all lands, and “Bishop to those outside the church”. He donated imperial property of Lateran to the Bishop where the Basilica Constantiniana was built. In the late 320’s Constantine became interested in churches and had the Holy Wisdom and the Church of the Apostles built, as well as indirectly sponsoring the construction multiple churches at other locations. As congregations were growing in Constantinople, Constantine commissioned new copies of the Bible to be distributed.

There have been NO CHANGES in the Catholic canon since that same Council of Carthage in 397. The only changes were made my Protestant "so-called" reformers. Those changes in the canon have never been accepted by the Church.

397? Seems nearly 400 years from the crucifiction of christ. Plenty of time for legend to become myth to become superstition. The importance of christ is hardly of his divinity, one needn't beleive in his divinity to acknowledge his greatness. The importance lies with his philosophy.

Then why the so-called "fact sheet" in the cover of the book? Why the thanks for the "so-called" research? This is a thinly veiled attack on Catholicism and the Catholic Church and especially of Opus Dei. This also betrays a complete lack of understanding as to how the Church is organized.

If anything, Brown is very good at preaching to the ignorant, he skillfully combines facts here and there into a general concept that is acceptable to many ppl.
However this is really no different from thos whom see the bible as the literal truth or factual in every sense in contrast to parable or metaphore.
Not many catholics understand thier own religion.

I know very few Catholics who have bought the book and even fewer who intend on seeing the film.

Sales demographic shows that 80% of readers are women, of which a large portion believe in the christian faith (not neccesarily catholic). It's a ficticious book, that I think if anything has encouraged ppl to think and actually do some research on the matters. A very good thing.

 

[ludahai]

There's precisely zero factual basis for this when you take out the superstition and cannonization of Jesus.


Your concept seems to be off by around half a century

For the first three and a half centuries of the Christian era, there were many different versions of what the canon was. Different regions purported that these books of those books were part of the canon, thus their "Bibles" actually differed in what books it contained. "Bibles" that were commissioned by Constantine was one of several versions of the the Bible that was printed in those early days. Also, wasn't it you who said Constantine was a pagan? Wasn't he a Christian? That would make him far from a pagan.

As I said before, the unified canon was determined by Church scholars after extensive inquiry over authorship issues and consistency with what was known about the Christ and that culminated with the Council of Carthage in 397.

397? Seems nearly 400 years from the crucifiction of christ. Plenty of time for legend to become myth to become superstition. The importance of christ is hardly of his divinity, one needn't beleive in his divinity to acknowledge his greatness. The importance lies with his philosophy.

The books were written long before the designation of what was canonical. The synoptic gospels were written shortly after the death of Jesus. The letters included in the New Testament were written in the first century. It was in AD 397 that the canon was FINALIZED, not written.

If anything, Brown is very good at preaching to the ignorant, he skillfully combines facts here and there into a general concept that is acceptable to many ppl.

Well, that and the general ignorance toward Catholicism among Americans and the anti-Catholic bias that exists in many Protestants.

However this is really no different from thos whom see the bible as the literal truth or factual in every sense in contrast to parable or metaphore.
Not many catholics understand thier own religion.

Well, Catholics do NOT believe the Bible is literal truth. It is sola scriptura Protestants who do. I WOULD agree that many Catholics don't understand our faith as much as we should. Most Catholics seem to end the Cathecism process after confirmation, and that is not the correct way to go. All Faithful should always work to improve their knowledge of the Faith.

Sales demographic shows that 80% of readers are women, of which a large portion believe in the christian faith (not neccesarily catholic). It's a ficticious book, that I think if anything has encouraged ppl to think and actually do some research on the matters. A very good thing.

As far as I know, few Protestants have a major issue with the book because it targets Opus Dei and the Catholic Church, which actually fits right in with a bias that many Protestants have regarding the Catholic Church.

 

[RightinNYC]

Sales demographic shows that 80% of readers are women, of which a large portion believe in the christian faith (not neccesarily catholic). It's a ficticious book, that I think if anything has encouraged ppl to think and actually do some research on the matters. A very good thing.

Just for the record, you cant actually do statistics that way. Just because a certain group of people happens to have characteristics doesn't mean that a selected subset will share those characteristics.

The KKK is probably 95% male. A large portion of males are asian, latino, or black. Thus, there are probably a lot of asians, latinos, and blacks in the KKK.

 

[Captain America]

The KKK is probably 95% male. A large portion of males are asian, latino, or black. Thus, there are probably a lot of asians, latinos, and blacks in the KKK.

Black KKK.

http://www.snabbstart.com/film/chappelles-show---black-kkk.aspx