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
Evidence please.
Feel free to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
This link to the Catechism provides searchability, so you can type in "Mary" and see all Catechism entries regarding Mary.
That's an understatement. Thanks for the link.
Frankly, I am a little puzzled by the hostility of your post. I will grant that perhaps I should have couched my earlier statement with 'in my opinion'. So if that offended you I apologize.
I will admit that there are those who feel differently, but the debate on whether or not Leonardo was gay has been raging for a long time. It certainly pre-dates the row over the Da Vinci Code. My opinion, and it is only that, is that he was gay, but I could be wrong. But it is an opinion that I do not hold alone. And apart from some sort of admission in his notebooks, which is not there, there is no way you could 'prove' that anyway.
You can weigh a number of factors. Yes, he was arrested and charged with sodomy and, as I recall spent a couple of months in prison. You are correct that the charges were dropped. He never married. His drawings show significantly more representations of male nudes over female subjects. Are those things conclusive proof? No. Are they possible indicators? Yes.
The case for him being heterosexual is, in my opinion more difficult to make. There is no record (that I know of) of romantic involvements with women. Perhaps he was just celibate with a purely academic interest in the human body. But even there, it is measurable that his 'academic' interest was weighted more toward the male form than the female form.
Yah...my personal effort on this movie (and book) consisted of 1) not buying either, and 2) making web-based criticism available to my children who have expressed some curiosity.
Interesting: the most strongly-worded criticism I recall seeing was from a Prot who was NOT friendly to Rome at all. But he ripped the book top-to-bottom...
Another interesting note: the fellow who recc'd the book to me remarked that a great deal of what he read was very familiar to him because of his Masonic membership.
Now THAT tells you something!
Jeez...you'd think they'd published some cartoons or something....
This passage from a letter from Saint Paul to the Corinthians (Ch. 11) was probably written within two decades of Jesus' death and resurrection.
23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
It's fiction. True. But the left is doing its best to promote it. They know that it will instill doubts in some people. And that's what they want.
Well, He was God, and yes, He did:
Matthew 19:12"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.
The books about Jesus's life were written fifth and sixth hand, centuries after His death.
Your orders of magnitude are off. Three of the four were written within 100 years of Jesus' death. I think most scholars put John right about 130AD (or would you prefer 130CE?) but maybe a bit later, certainly well before 230.
How can you possibly read that crap about Jesus and not come away offended? Just curious. You say you believe in Him and yet are willing to read made up stuff about Him? Please share your thoughts with me because I just don't get it. I'm not trying to offend you or question your worship, but for me, its a tainted piece of trash that blasphemes our Lord and I just can't imagine why you would want to read words of unbelief that would contaminate your mind.
"Jesus didn't say anything in the bible. The books about Jesus's life were written fifth and sixth hand, centuries after His death."
Bender:
1) Yes, He did say this, and;
2) You're historical statement is incorrect.
Re-check your info and try again.
I wouldn't be surprised if much of the book wasn't familiar to any number of odd organizations. Brown could be the next L. Ron Hubbard if he wanted to be.
It was well-written and entertaining.
I love science fiction, but don't take it as a given there is extra-terrestial intelligence out there. I loved Ayn Rand's books, even though I'm a god-fearing Christian and she's an atheist.
I didn't take it as blasphemous, but just what you said, a made up story, mixed with enough references to actual historical places and people to make it interesting.
I read a lot of different things, from classics to junk. (I've even been known to stock up on the Enquirer & Star while on vacation where I wouldn't run into anyone I know.) I think my mind can handle it.
I didn't forget to quote your opinion. I consider it another example of someone injecting their unfounded beliefs into Christology, and therefore irrelevant.
I'm a former Baptist, now agnostic.
So there you go. Your question is answered. Care to answer my question :
What, exactly, would be different in Christ's message if he was married?
And since you brought it up ...
Why, exactly, would be blasphemous to hold that Jesus was married?
He is very wise. He doesn't get hysterical about anything, and his teaching is straight from the Bible. Good man.
Crammed full of supposedly arcane revelations about mathematics, religion, symbolism and art - most of which read like verbatim downloads from Google - the "intellectual" content won't be dazzling or new (forget accurate) to anyone even slightly inquisitive about these topics. Worse, it's presented with a juvenile fascination for "connections" that would embarrass the most seasoned New Age charlatan. It all moves at a cracking pace, of course, and has enough scope and colour to hold your rapt attention for a few winter nights, and enough Catholic conspiracy theory to warm the heart of an atheist. But it's so devoid of literary merit, so apparently committed to the squandering of every opportunity to do anything interesting with the material - rather than just ape the narrative grammar of cinema - that it truly beggars belief. The characters are just names on the page, huge swathes of deadpan "I'm glad you asked"-style exposition pad out the clunky plot shifts, and because it's all so closely modeled on the rhythms of Hollywood nothing ever comes as a surprise - not a word, not an image, not a moment. This is post-literate prose at its direst, plugging directly into pre-fabricated scenarios, characters and images, absolving the reader of the need to imagine anything - which is why it's such a famously easy read. This is reality as a simulacrum of television, a copy of a copy, and about as convincing. It's an odd stylistic choice in a novel which takes as its theme the notion that great art depicts truths which evil empires would suppress.
Needs to be repeated over and over. We spend way too much time looking for the devil behind every bush—where he will be found every single time— and not enough time seeking God.
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.