Posted on 05/16/2006 8:41:28 AM PDT by DeweyCA
If "such lies and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust," said Archbishop Angelo Amato, the Vatican's secretary for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, "they would have justly provoked a world uprising."
The archbishop was speaking of "The Da Vinci Code," the Ron Howard film that debuts at Cannes and opens worldwide this week, and is expected to gross $500 million by summer's end.
The archbishop's point is undeniable. Blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban, published a few months ago in a Danish newspaper and reprinted on the front pages of Europe's major papers, ignited demonstrations in Muslim communities across Europe and violent and deadly riots across the Islamic world.
Leaders friendly to the West, from Egypt to Afghanistan, felt compelled to denounce the cartoons, as did many in the West, as a provocation and insult to the faith of a billion people.
In the 1990s, the British novelist Salman Rushdie spent years in hiding after Ayatollah Khomeini issued a "fatwa" calling for his killing for publishing the blasphemous "Satanic Verses." In the 1970s, the film "Muhammad," starring Anthony Quinn, was pulled from many U.S. theaters after bomb threats. The film had offended Muslim faithful by showing the face of Muhammad.
Last February, British historian David Irving, whose books on World War II have sold in the millions, was convicted in an Austrian court of Holocaust denial and sentenced to three years in prison. His crime: In two speeches in Austria in 1989, Irving asserted there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Though he recanted in court, it did not save him. Prosecutors felt his sentence was too light.
Karen Pollock of Great Britain's Holocaust Education Trust applauded the verdict: "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such."
In nine countries of Europe, Holocaust denial is a crime. In the United States, to deny the Holocaust happened or suggest that it has been exaggerated is not a crime, but marks one down as a social leper.
If you would know who wields cultural power, ask yourself: Whom is it impermissible to offend? Thus the hoopla attending the release of "The Da Vinci Code," based on the Dan Brown novel that has sold 7 million copies in the United States, tells us something about whose God it is permissible to mock and whose faith one is allowed to assault.
For what "The Da Vinci Code" says is that Roman Catholicism is a gigantic fraud, that the church has for centuries been perpetrating a monstrous hoax, duping hundreds of millions into believing something it knows is a bald-faced lie. At the novel's heart lies the contention that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, that they had a daughter, that the Vatican has known this and been hiding the descendants of Jesus, that Opus Dei is a secret order whose agents will engage in murder to protect the secret.
Leonardo da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper" is said to hold the secret, as Jesus is portrayed touching the hand of the youngest apostle, John, who holds the place of honor at his side -- and who is, on close inspection, Mary Magdalene.
In Catholic teaching and tradition, the Holy Grail is the chalice that contained the blood of Jesus. In the book, the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene, carrying the flesh and blood of Jesus in her womb.
If "The Da Vinci Code" is based upon facts, no other conclusion follows than that to be a Catholic is either to be in on this fraud or to be the dupe of those perpetuating it. But if it is fiction, why would Hollywood put out so viciously anti-Catholic a film that can only have the effect of undermining the faith of millions of Christians?
Putting "The Da Vinci Code" on film, with what it alleges about the Catholic Church, is the moral equivalent of making a movie based on the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and implying this is the truth about the Jewish plot to control the world. One imagines Ron Howard and Tom Hanks would take a pass on that script.
Like the "Hitler's Pope" smear of Pius XII, a man who did more than any other to save the Jews in World War II, "The Da Vinci Code" is a Big Lie that, though readily refuted by the facts, will be believed.
But that it will be a box-office smash, that it is the subject of lavish praise in the press, that it is the best-selling novel of the 21st century, tells us we live not just in a post-Christian era, but in an anti-Catholic culture not worth defending or saving, for it is truly satanic.
Perhaps you would think it a sin to knowingly marry someone that you could not be there to provide for.
Jesus knew he would not be present after his assumption to care for a child or a wife. He declaired that type of person an infidel. I would think that he would value any women highly enough not to leave them high and dry after he was gone.
He asked another to care for his mother at the end. No mention of a wife, and Mary Mag was present.
Highly interchangeable.
Pat should know.
It is said, by Jesus, that marriage makes a man and woman "one" in God's eyes.
If Jesus and Mary married, then they would be one. So is Mary now God?
Also, recheck the wedding at Canaa. Jesus and His guests were invited
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=2&version=31
I totally agree. It's so disappointing that the beloved "Opie" and "Forrest Gump" would participate in this trashing of the religion (Christianity) that has historically freed more people than any other movement in history.
I have never watched a Woody Allen movie since he married his daughter, never an Elizabeth Taylor movie since she broke up Richard Burton's marriage, and never a Roman Polanski movie since he was convicted of child rape -- not even as a rental or on cable, where viewership can be tabulated on the other end.
see my 26
If I were to place it over on that book shelf numbered 900-999 then you would be allowed to criticize it.
But whenever a book is placed under a sign printed with the numbers 810-819.99 then the author can write whatever lies they want about you or anyone you care about and you have to sit there and take it.
Before long this thread will be flooded with responses highlighting this foolishness.
How about Freepers who've read the book: do you plan on seeing the film?
In other words, deities should be powerful enough that they do not require mere mortals to carry their water for them.
The Preface stated, "This book is ficticious, but it's intent is to put a spark to the dry tender of your mind."
If ones faith is so frail as to be swayed or insulted by the imaginings of a mere mortal then one should self check their faith to be sure it's not the fiction.
Ah! If Howard, et al, can make a buck with "Nancy Drew and Da Vinci's Junior Jumble", so what? I am reminded of "The Life of Brian" by Monty Python's crew and the chorus of harrumphing that ensued about that.
Get over yourselves. It's no big deal.
Personally, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and start shopping a little religio/comedy/gay-coming-of age script that I call "Brokeback Mecca", or "Ho, Ho, Ho-Mohammed".
Starring Gilbert Gottfried as a gay pedophile prophet, and John Goodman as his "right hand man", (running gag throughout the movie), this wacky duo will crack you up with their hijinks and halal-hilarity!
Featuring quotations from the late, great, Ayatollah Khomeini (played by Whoopi Goldberg), like:
"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."
(http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352826&TOCID=2083225445)
Buddha! There's 10 minutes of hyuks in that bit alone as every person in Iran hikes out of town with flocks and herds of animals to sell! Put some lipstick and eyeshadow on them and audiences'll laugh 'til their sides ache!
A few "gays should BE stoned, not GET stoned", cracks and we're almost there.
Throw in some anti-Christian stuff and a few Jew jokes, and it's gold! Guaranteed!
Now, if I can only get a fatwah whipped on this little baby...
You are exactly right.
Thanks for posting this excellent Buchanan column.
"I for one do not believe Jesus was married... But even if he was, where is the sin in that? Marriage an institution blessed by God."
Matthew 19:12 (New International Version)
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
"I am a Bible believing Christian, but there are a few things that leave to question. Who's wedding was it at Canaan? In those days, the groom was responsible for the wine. Why would Mary turn to Jesus and say we are out of wine?"
Jesus was invited to the party.
"Is it possible, yes... but I don't believe it.
"Where is Childbirth a sin. Or having offspring? After all Jesus is the Son of God and was born from woman...
"If Jesus was married and had marital relations and had sired offspring... where is the sin in that?
"It is not whether it is a sin to have children or not. Not all things that are legal/lawful are not permissable for every person:
1 Corinthians 10:23 (King James Version)
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
.......................................................
In my honest opinion, Jesus had certain legal requirements in remaining single and childless. One of which is that it mad the body of Christ able to legally take the role of His bride and also to inherit the blessing that go with it:
Isaiah 53:12 (King James Version)
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Your statement just verified the reason why I do not believe Jesus was married.
You are so right. And it breaks my heart to say so.
LOL Little early to be making that statement about any book.
I haven't seen anyone say that being married is a sin. The issue is that the DaVinci Code tries to deny the diety of Christ and make him human only.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.