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
Can't believe how people make a mountain out of a molehill! I've read lots of historical fiction novels. Take historical characters and battles and embelish things to make an interesting read introducing a lot of historical background.
For crying out loud, its fiction! Who cares what the author says, he wants to sell books or up the cost of the movie rights.
I'm catholic and enjoyed DaVinci Code & Angels & Demons. I like Tom Hanks so might actually see the movie (I only see 1 or 2 movies per year average).
Opus Dei is different, but not so far out as religious groups go. I actually bought my house from them. Can't imagine they're happy with all the publicity and the use of their group in this book. However if I didn't like the attention I would just ignore it instead of feeding into it. Which is what those who have a problem with this fictional novel should do.
Would you kindly point out to us Catholics where it is we 'deify' Mary?
I usually avoid opening day at the theater, and although I might have caught this picture in the theater later in its run, I'm looking forward to the extra drama of protesters on opening day.
Does anyone have a list of protests? I wouldn't want to go to a theater without one, although the stadium cineplex in my neighborhood will probably draw a couple of folks concerned for my soul.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion started as a deliberate work of fiction combining a conspiracy theory about the Rosicrucians and later the Jesuits with an anti-Jewish twist. The author certainly knew it was a fabrication.
Geeeeshh already..it's NOT a PHOTOGRAPH!!! So what if DaVinci painted an apostle to look womanly....they were ALL men and we KNOW THEIR NAMES...and most of their fathers' name!!
It actually just proves that America is filled with FOOLS and anti-Catholics and anti-Christians!!
Mary is not the ONLY thing that separartes Cathlics and Protestants. The MAIN thin is that we believe in the HOLY EUCHARIST and Protestants just think of it as a symbol!! Wwell, Jesus said in the BIBLE that it was His Body and His Blood, and to do this in Remembrance of Me".
Why are you wasting time and effort "debunking" a movie of a novel -- a piece of entertainmant? On its own premises, it's fairly logical, but it's somewhat like Newt Gingrich's novel in which the Confederate States of America won the War Between the States. It's a "what if."
"The Celestine Prophecy" movie just came out too, and believe me, it promotes views not in accord with traditional Christian doctrine. Why aren't you folks getting all exorcised over it? Why focus all your fire on "The DaVinci Code"?
Noone sat for the painting so it comes from Da Vinci's imagination. He likely painted a woman into the story for his own purposes. Doesn't mean a darn thing with regard to the actual members present or the meaning of those present as the painter imagined them. God is not mocked.
He wasn't? Well, I'm going to check with Dan Brown about this. He'll know. He's an expert.
I for one would never do such a ridiculous thing.
(I am however, her great-grandson.)
Everything in Brown's NOVEL has been debunked on the show "Beyond the Da Vinci Code" that was aired on either A&E or the History Channel. After seeing this show, I decided to pass on Brown's best seller. I don't read very many novels. Michael Baigent (Holy Blood, Holy Grail), from whom Brown got most of his ideas, was on the show and poo pooed the book. Baigent said that Brown's book was nothing but a novel.
Or... a really smart marketing freak!
Not a Kodak moment.
In fact, the painter (DaVinci) was not in attendace at the Last Supper.
Don't believe me? YOU try to get accepted to Amherst. Don't believe me? YOU try to get accepted to Amherst.
i.e., A degree from the right school is a license to lie.
I'm not a Catholic......but an evangelical Christian. I happen to attend a SUPERB church with an unbelievable pastor, Pastor Steve Caronna ( http://www.lwfc.org/ ). He and his wife even do a show on WB about marriage.
For the past two Sundays, and next Sunday as well, he is actually doing a series on The DaVinci Code. It's fascinating.......and he rips it to pieces with FACTS, analysis of Brown's own words, etc. It has been so well done, so eye opening..........no emotionalism, no out of context quotations, etc. to attack. Just...........facts.
I wish everyone in America could have heard just what he taught this morning. NO one would read that tripe of a book or see the movie.
Today's teaching WILL be posted on that Web site soon. I highly, HIGHLY encourage ALL of you to download, listen to, and distribute what he has to say. It's rare that I say this , especially on FR, but...............trust ol' RightOnline on this one. GET it.
Yes, understood, "The Last Supper" was painted 1464 years after the real Last Supper.
I can believe that. Most people, unless in a state of depression, are from time to time. But, I wonder if he was afflicted with homosexulaity.
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.