And that would make Lambtron sad.
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
True, it took more than a year before the Vatican stepped up and started critcizing the book, but there were many people criticizing it long before the Vatican jumped into the fray.
It may be fiction, but why would a Christian want to read something in which everything they believe in is smeared, dishonored, and defamed? Why put themselves through that?
I see that the usual atheists have shown up to tell Christians they shouldn't be concerned about this.
I have to disagree. We are called upon to defend the faith. That doesn't mean physical action. But it does mean that when doctrines essential to Christian faith are denied (as in this book), we are to speak out to point out the errors.
Same reason politically minded people watch the discussion panels on tv while the opposition is attacking their core beliefs. How can you even hope to successfully counter the arguments of the opposing side if you don't even know what those arguments are?
But it's Fiction.
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.”
This guy is an idiot, a dork, a liberal, a heretic.
His answers are moronic and evidence of an impoverished mind.
> Only an atheist could say that with a straight face
Or someone who had seen them. What was actually blasphemous in "Life of Brian?" Jesus showed up precisely twice, and in both cases somewhat off in the distance and much as described in the Bible. "Temptation" expanded a few lines of the Bible into an excrutiatingly long and dull delusion created by Satan - this does not go against Biblical teaching either.
> I'm content to let the Church--or at least those who believe in Christ--decide what is blsaphemous.
I ask again: where was the blasphemy in these two movies that protestors made more profitable?
And that would make Lambtron sad.
The other Gospels were NOT written by any Apostles...right? Mark, Luke and John were NOT apostles...right???
For any non-Christians reading this....Jesus's lineage from ADAM is all documented...it is fascinating that back then the Jews kept records like that. Is anyone keeping the lineage record from David til now so they will KNOW if their Messiah has the correct lineage?
Yes, and with the word FACT emblazoned at the top of new topics, and defended as true in its essential details by Dan Brown. Dan has cleverly convinced many people that it is fact while ducking behind "fiction" if the situation demands it.
John was not an apostle? Since when? Mark and Luke although not apostles were in their company while many eye-witnesses were still alive.
I just ASSUMED because of how many YEARS between Christ's Resurrection and the writing of the Gospels that these 4 men were NOT Apostles, and now you all are telling me two are!! Learn something new everyday!! I just found out that there were TWO Judas;s!!
So he pretty much cooly debunks it as a work of fiction, huh?
Just like anyone WITH HALF A FREAKING BRAIN already knows it is!
Let me guess: you avoid the Harry Potter books/movies as well, don't you? Wouldn't want to come in contact with the work of the devil!
Sheesh! You won't be soon moving any mountains with your tiny, whiny, bit of faith.
As far as I know, the Vatican has never directly criticized the book, or at least not until about a week ago when a high-level cardinal made an oblique criticism of the Duh Vinci Code and the "Gospel of Judas."
Let's try this and see how it works:
"That is why, as faithful Catholics Protestants, we must reject The Da Vinci Code Harry Potter books and movies. We must confront the growing tide of blasphemy and send a strong message that Catholics Protestants will not stand by while the Faith Jesus is dragged through the mud. We must make it clear that we will resist this attack on the Faith Jesus with the absolute certainty that the Church God, our immortal Mother Father, will weather this storm unsullied."
Or maybe this:
"That is why, as faithful Catholics Muslims, we must reject The Da Vinci Code Dutch Cartoons. We must confront the growing tide of blasphemy and send a strong message that Catholics Muslims will not stand by while the Faith Mohammed is dragged through the mud. We must make it clear that we will resist this attack on the Faith Mohammed with the absolute certainty that the Church Allah, our immortal Mother Father, will weather this storm unsullied."
I get it. Moral equivalence between Christians arguing the doctrinal error in a work that the author sometimes says is factual and other times says is fictional, and Muslims conducting violent protests over the publication of cartoon that arguably violated a proscription of a pictorial representation of Mohammad.
Ahem. Your premise about Catholics "not being Christian" because of their devotion to Mary is as ridiculous as saying that Catholics believe that any sect that does NOT honor Mary as the Mother of God is not "Christian". Hogwash! Any sect that believes in Christ is "Christian" -- the difference is simply in whether the sect believes in the primacy of the Pope and Rome. We are all Christians, whether we look to Benedict XVI, or an eastern Patriarch, or to a Lutheran Pastor as our leader. Pope John Paul II made that very clear in one of his encyclicals.
We may have disagreements with one another on fine points, but I look at it rather as siblings disagreeing on the "proper" way to keep house, or mow a lawn. What unifies all of Christendom is belief in Christ and His teachings. Do not try to sow dissent among His children.
It is pretty well accepted that the author of the Book of John was not the same person as the Apostle John.
Show me those that have concluded that John son of Zebedee was not the author of the 4th gospel and I would wager that they are either secular, or liberal Protestants.
They will not be: Catholic, Orthodox, or conservative Protestant.
Given that many of the types that would dispute the authorship of John also dispute the Virgin Birth, the divinity of Christ, etc., I'll stick with those in the other camp.
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.