• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Vatican Plots Against 'Da Vinci Code'

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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
 
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?
 
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
 
Re: What's the controversy?


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.
 
[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]
 
RightatNYU said:
[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
 
aps said:
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:
 
RightatNYU said:
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.
 
RightatNYU said:
[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.
 
RightatNYU said:
[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.
 
jfuh said:
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.
 
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.
 
I dont remember this type of uproar from Zeus-believers when Disney came out with Hercules. :doh
 
StillPhil said:
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?
 

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.
 
RightatNYU said:
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.
 
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.
 
ludahai said:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 

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.
 
ludahai said:
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.

ludahai said:
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

ludahai said:
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.

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.

ludahai said:
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.
 
jfuh said:
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.



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.


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.
 

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.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…