I see the "historical" data in the book for what it is - it conveniently substantiates the premise upon which the whole book is based - it's literay liscence. But I also see (more in the book than in the movie) the underlieing use of this data to define the development of Catholic doctrine and policy (or, to be blunt, "rules") in the early days of the Church. Brown's books portray the Church as fearful that the fold will discover the secret of Jesus's relationship to MM and that it will undermine the "divinity" of their teachings. To keep the masses (no pun intended) in their place, they developed a dictatorial attitude with a stringent code to be adhered to. Of course no one could ever adhere to it, so you were left with the tremendous guilt of never being good enough. The Church also weilded tremendous power throughout the Middle and Dark ages. If I am not mistaken, this was when a lot of its doctrine was written. Keeping the people under their thumbs was critical to the continued expansion of the Church's domain.
As a former Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic education, I am more interested in this protrayal of the Church's attitude of indoctrination, than in his use of questionable historical data. Dan Brown uses the "Holy Grail-Mary Magdeline" secret to establish the need for the Church to adopt an attitude of secrecy and intimidation and the development of its extraordinary demands upon the congregation and the threat of eternal doom if one didn't comply. I always wondered about some of the teachings of the Church - like plenary indulgences and Pugatory. Who was it anyway, that told the powers-that-be that a person needed to say a given number of prayers to get another soul into heaven (yes, there were lists with numbers)? Or how did they know that another soul , who wasn't "good enough" when they died, would be waiting in Purgatory until enough prayers had finally been offered up for them. Of course, a person or persons never knew if enough prayers had been offered. In school, we were actually given detailed lists of what was a mortal sin and what was a venial sin. I can't even remember all of the other categories of sin that we were taught. And, by the way, this was an all girls high school with nuns and priest doing the teaching. Think that was a fertile climate for indoctrination?
I am in my mid fifties. Most Catholics (or former Catholics) remember the Vatican Council in the 70's. Out of nowhere, the Church endorsed the prospect that Catholics could, in some circumstances, be a free thinking entity and that maybe, some of the things that had been taught as rigid truth, should now be considered "suggestions". That rocked my world. Many of us were suffering under the oppressive nature of the Church and its "demands". Slowly, the Church's endorsement of free thinking (and the general attitude of the Freedom Movement in the 70's) led us to "questioning" and then "denial". I stayed with the Church for many more years until my children were grown and moved away. Then I became an agnostic for several years. I looked back at my life and realized I would never be good enough. I try not to harbor bitterness toward the Church (for one thing, I am still afraid it might be a Mortal sin).
Finally, this thought. I have to wonder if Dan Brown is a "recovering Catholic" also. He sure put into words a lot of things that I had been pondering for a long time.
P.S. At the age of 50 I began to attend the Baptist Church and one day it hit me - I WAS good enough because Jesus died on the cross and forgave all of my sins. He didn't expect perfection. What a releif it was to invite Jesus into my heart!
Indeed, we are quite different. I was a cradle Catholic who left for 20 - 25 years in the wilderness of atheism and agnosticism. 2 weeks ago I reconciled with the Church after years of questioning and studying.
I had my share of similar issues, and found the answers to them quite easily. There are lay movements in the Church that focus on people like us the ones with questions and anger. V2 had a host of problems in the way it was implemented (these problems vex us still to this day but are being worked on), especially here in the US.
The harm of this movie is that it gives anti-Catholics more ammo against the Church. Unfortunately, so many lay Catholics do not know the Biblical facts and the history of the Church in order to defend her. Who was/is at fault? The Church, to a certain degree. But with the inflow of former Protestant clergy (& I don't mean to imply that the flow goes but one way) into the Church and lay ministry, I think the tide is starting to turn.
bump for later.
You said -- "P.S. At the age of 50 I began to attend the Baptist Church and one day it hit me - I WAS good enough because Jesus died on the cross and forgave all of my sins. He didn't expect perfection. What a releif it was to invite Jesus into my heart!"
And although it was a "Baptist" church, I'm sure you know it has nothing to do with "Baptist" or "Catholic" or any other denomination -- but *solely* the Word of God and what Christ did on the Cross.
It was simply that it was the Baptist church that "spoke the truth of the Bible" to you -- and you recognized it for what it was -- the "Word of God" and Jesus Christ taking on the penalty of our sins and providing for our individual salvation.
And -- Amen -- we're all good enough to avail ourselves of what Christ did for us and to become "one of His"!
Regards,
Star Traveler
Vatican II was in the '60s, not the '70s (1962 to 1965, to be exact)...started by Pope John XXIII who died a few months before JFK.