Michelangelo, on the other hand, could at least sculpt a figure of Moses that looked like Charlton Heston.
Posted on 04/30/2006 7:44:23 PM PDT by Coleus
I was recently browsing Dan Brown’s web site to gather information in preparation for the one thousand theater protests against The Da Vinci Code movie, planned by the American TFP. Since I hope to organize several protests, I felt obliged to get to know the real Dan Brown. I wanted to hear, from his own mouth, why he wrote The Da Vinci Code and whether he believes the information contained in it.
As I was clicking around, I came across a section containing TV and radio interviews that utterly shocked me. While the articles I had read, left it rather dubious whether or not Dan Brown considered his book historically correct, here he clearly claimed that the theories set forth in The Da Vinci Code are accurate. Whereas former articles suggested that he was Christian and somewhat ambivalent to the Catholic Church, here he demonstrated a clearly anti-Catholic bias.
As I listened to these interviews, I was filled with the desire to spread the information I was gathering to the hundreds of protest organizers across the country, so I transcribed the more useful quotes in this article.1 Thus, I hope it will help these organizers tackle some of the more difficult questions they may encounter.
History or Fiction?
One argument protest organizers are certain to come across states that The Da Vinci Code is fiction and therefore harmless. Common responses to this argument include showing that even a novel can be harmful or explaining that fiction does not give one the right to slander or blaspheme. However, such a line of reasoning presupposes that Dan Brown’s book was intended as fiction. This is a presupposition that he, himself, refutes.
In the book, Dan Brown leaves the historicity of The Da Vinci Code ambiguous. Although the book is termed a “novel” on the cover, the first page informs readers that: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”2
However, Dan Brown is not nearly so restrained in later interviews. When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”3
Similarly, in an interview with “Good Morning America” when asked: “if you were writing it as a nonfiction book, how would it have been different?” Dan Brown responded: “I don’t think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe and two years of research, I really became a believer.” In the same interview, Dan Brown strove to substantiate his theory about Our Lord and St. Mary Magdalene being married. He claimed: “The people who ask me how much is true need to realize that this theory about Mary Magdalene has been around for centuries. It’s not my theory. This has been presented, really over the last 2000 years, and it has persisted.”4
In another interview labeled “Chronicle,” Dan Brown claims that he wanted his book to be more than just entertaining, but educational as well: “I wanted to write a book that while it entertained at the same time, you close that last page and go ‘Wow, do you know how much I just learned? That’s fascinating.’ That is really what I set out to do.” In that interview he reiterates his belief in the book’s historic value: “When I started researching Da Vinci Code, I really was skeptical and I expected on some level to disprove all this history that is unearthed in the book and after three trips to Paris and a lot of interviews, I became a believer…”5
Finally, there is a Time magazine article republished on Dan Brown’s web site calling The Da Vinci Code a “historical” thriller, “purporting to expose a centuries-old Vatican conspiracy to conceal the marriage and offspring of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.”6
It is therefore clear that Dan Brown considers the religious heresies expounded in The Da Vinci Code to be the Gospel truth and not just fiction.
Catholic Bashing
I have also heard Dan Brown described as Christian. However, the extent to which he truly believes in Christ, or any absolute truth, is called into question by a lecture he gave to the New Hampshire Writers Project. He said:
We were born into a culture. We worship the gods of our fathers. I humbly submit that if all of us in this room had been born in Tibet, probably a lot of us would be Buddhists. I think the chances are pretty good and I also think that we would hold on to all that Buddhist philosophy with all the passion that some of us might hold on to our Christian ideals.
He reaffirmed this viewpoint later in the lecture, saying: “Again, we worship the gods of our fathers. It is truly that simple.”7
Some believe that Dan Brown is ambivalent to Catholicism. However, twice in this lecture he made statements, critical of the Church. The first one lashed out against the Catholic belief in the infallibility of Church doctrine: “The world is a big place and now more than ever, there is enormous danger in believing we are infallible. That our version of the truth is absolute.”
Ironically, Dan Brown is not so relativistic in his own opinions. His opinion of Catholic doctrine on women priests is rather absolute. Later in this same lecture, he stated in a pontifical tone:
Prior to 2000 years ago, we lived in world of gods and goddesses. Today we live in a world solely of gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power and our male-dominated philosophies of absolutism have a long history of violence and bloodshed, which continues to this day…the fact remains, in the major religions of the world, women remain second-class citizens. Why can’t there be women priests? Why is this even an issue?
The Real Dan Brown
After hearing the real Dan Brown in his own words, I saw clearly something that the media are not telling us. Dan Brown is not an innocent fiction writer with an overactive imagination. He is a man with an agenda. He is committed to harm the Church and promote his Gnostic and neo-pagan religious beliefs. He wants to persuade others to accept his false view of history.
That is why, as faithful Catholics, we must reject The Da Vinci Code. We must confront the growing tide of blasphemy and send a strong message that Catholics will not stand by while the Faith is dragged through the mud. We must make it clear that we will resist this attack on the Faith with the absolute certainty that the Church, our immortal Mother, will weather this storm unsullied.
Perhaps Dan Brown knows this as well. During of his lecture to the New Hampshire Writer’s Project, he finished by cynically quoting a British priest who said: “Christian theology has survived the writings of Galileo and the writings of Darwin, surely it will survive the writings of some novelist from New Hampshire.”
At least I can say that on this matter, Dan Brown and I see eye to eye.
___________________
1. The interviews themselves can be viewed at http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/breakingnews.html.
2. Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, Doubleday, New York, 2003.
3. http://www.danbrown.com/media/multimedia/final/larger/today_show2.mov
4. http://www.danbrown.com/media/multimedia/final/larger/gma_cbds.mov
5. http://www.danbrown.com/media/multimedia/chronicle/large/chronicle_edited.mov
6. http://www.danbrown.com/media/morenews/time041505.htm
7. http://www.danbrown.com/media/audio/DVC_NH_talk.mov
What does the difference in the view of the Virgin Mary between Catholics and Protestants have to do with the Da Vinci code controversy? Evangelical Protestants are just as upset by the blasphemy of this book.
In your note you said: "I will say that for thinking people, it should do no harm"
Ah, there's the catch. In watching the "Real Da Vinci Code" broadcast by Discovery Times TV, Dan Brown argued that you could be sure of how dark were the secrets being kept because the Pope of the time moved so quickly against them in order to shut them up. News flash for Dan Brown: the Popes of the Middle Ages moved quickly and decisively against all groups that were deemed heretical. Decisiveness was not an indicator of dark secrets that needed to be suppressed.
Unfortunately, to the poorly educated masses of today, this argument by Dan Brown passes as reasonable.
So true. From looking at classical art, one would have to assume that all women alive during the time of Christ were overweight, white, wore flowing gowns with tight corsets, and always had at least one breast flopped out in a clairvoyant tribute to the likes of Janet Jackson. You can say a lot of things about Di Vinci's paintings, but it is certain that historical accuracy wasn't one of his main concerns.
You are so wrong! Jesus and the disciples sat side-by-side, just like DaVinci says, at Mort's Jerusalem Deli Counter.
There is very little entertainment produced today that doesn't directly defame God. The fact that the statement "Oh my God" is now one of the most commonly used phrases in the English language is a strong indicator of how openly and mindlessly our society defames God. If a person were to try to remove himself from exposure to blaspheme, he would have to lock himself into a small cell...but that in itself would be working against God's will. The answer is to educate yourself and to know your God and your faith to arm yourself with the appropriate armor that renders all these attacks useless. If a Christian reads The Di Vinci Code, and doesn't recognize enough historical and doctrinal error that the word "FICTION" printed on the spine of every copy of the book becomes a redundant waste of printers ink, then that Christian has a LOT more to be concerned about than Dan Brown.
Michelangelo, on the other hand, could at least sculpt a figure of Moses that looked like Charlton Heston.
I don't think the point of Browns book is necessarily what really happened but what DaVinci and others believed happened and the influence their secret society has had. The name of the book is "The Da Vinci Code".
No one has a photo of the last supper but to point out that Da Vinci painted Mary Magdalene into the scene is what seems to be a part of what is driving Brown.
It probably wouldn't have even been made into a movie if not for all the controversy. Might have just died a quiet death.
I agree that most of us tend to stick with the religion we are raised with, however....although, these days, more and more people effectively have no religion at all.
And what would be different in Christ's message if he was married?
Hundreds of years from now, people will be making the following claims about the early 21st century..."From looking at classical Girls Gone Wild archives we know that the young ladies of the time were often given to consuming large amounts of beverages containing alcohol. Many of them were even courteous enough to get an intricate tattoo on their lower back, sometimes including their name, so that the anonymous stranger they were having intercourse with would be able to learn their name."
Re my post 25, you forgot to quote the preceding words:
Only a non-Christian or an atheist, in my opinion, would be unconcerned about the blasphemy involved here.
Which one are you?
And don't give me the line that you claim to be some sort of Christian. It would be so far to the left that it ain't funny. Republicans have their RINOs, we have our CINOs.
bttt
bump
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.