Turns out that Sony, the studio who is producing The Da Vinci Code movie, has worked with Grace Hill Media, "a consulting firm that has worked with religious communities and motion picture studios on more than 80 films", and created a site, www.davincichallenge.com, for Christian critics of the novel and movie. The FAQ page states:
TheDaVinciChallenge.com is a website offering informative essays by a broad array of leading Christian scholars, pastors and educators addressing many of the historical and theological issues touched on in The Da Vinci Code. The essay writers represent an eclectic group of experts from Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions. The site was launched on February 9th, 2006.
Well, if "broad array" means having one Catholic, four Eastern Orthodox, and numerous Evangelicals, then broad array it is. As far as I know, Ignatius Press was never contacted about taking part; I certainly wasn't. So, is the lone Catholic "expert" someone who has written a book about the Coded Craziness, or is a biblical scholar, or is a theologian? Naw:
Sister Rose Pacatte, FSP, is the founding Director of the Pauline Center for Media Studies in Culver City, CA She has a M.A. in Education in Media Studies from the Institute of Education, University of London, and a Diploma in Catechetics, as well as a Certificate in Pastoral Communications, from the University of Dayton in OH. Pacatte is the film/TV columnist for St. Anthony Messenger and a contributor to The Tidings. She also co-authored the award-winning book series, Lights, Camera...Faith! A Movie Lectionary.
I don't know much about Sister Rose Pacatte, except that, well, she writes for St. Anthony Messenger and she thought that Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was a "horror" flick:
Sister Rose Pacatte, a Daughter of St. Paul and co-author of the "Lights, Camera, Faith: A Movie Lover’s Guide to Scripture" book series, had problems with the "personification of evil in the form of a woman." "I would have wished this film could have moved away from this overused stereotype of evil," Sister Pacatte said, adding that judging from some of the opening scenes she felt "this film actually belongs to the horror genre."
Amy Welborn makes several good points about the website and those involved:
A website of this nature, with experts (we hope) telling the "truth) about the Da Vinci Code could have been dreamed up and promoted without taking a dime from Sony. Could have. Because frankly, you're now in bed with them. Hope it's good for you.
My other question, aside from money, is whether any of these people, from Grace Hill to Hollywood Jesus to the experts, have a)read the script or b)seen any kind of cut of the film. I'm assuming that Grace Hill has - that they know exactly what they're encouraging people to see. Any information on this question would be welcome, either on the comments board or in an email to me. ...
And here's the snarkiest, rudest question of all: Could it be possible that this mainly Protestant-driven enterprise is perfectly happy to point people towards The Da Vinci Code because, in fact, it is the "Catholic Church" that is constantly besmirched, by name? In encouraging (or at least not discouraging) people to see the film, they are reinforcing bad vibes around the word "Catholic," then are happy to "correct" the film by directing them to their own resources, produced by their own denominations?
I left a couple of comments on Amy's blog, including this:
My initial reaction is that this is all rather surreal. I'm all for using the Coded Craziness for good — when and if possible — but I think Amy is correct in saying "you're now in bed with them." Indeed. And she is definitely correct to ask this question:
If a biopic were produced that dramatized ill-founded, negative "alternative" histories of Billy Graham, John Wesley or Martin Luther, would Grace Hill agree to push the film to Christian audiences, thereby making more money for the film's producers, all for that "teachable moment?
Of course not. For some (certainly not all) Evangelicals, this probably appears to be a win/win situation: get a few licks in on the Catholic Church and promote your responses to the Code — responses that will focus almost exclusively on defending Scripture, not on telling the full story of who wrote the Bible (Catholics), who preserved the Bible (Catholics), and who defined the canon of the NT, aided by the Holy Spirit (Catholics).
One of the dangers of apologetics is taking a utilitarian, pragmatic approach that can distort the Big Picture even while getting many of the details right. My experience as an Evangelical (I entered the Catholic Church in 1997) was that such an approach often took place when dealing with matters of history. Yes, Catholic apologists do the same thing and there is plenty of mediocre apologetics and dubious historical "research" in the Catholic world (I'm thinking here of popular level works, not academic works). But, when it comes to Church history, many Evangelical apologists will (understandably) focus on defending the Bible while providing only what is absolutely necessary about the larger context, which is thoroughly Catholic.
I applaud and respect the efforts of Evangelicals such as Dr. Bock in responding to the Coded Craziness. But I don't think I would want to be involved in The Da Vinci Challenge site because I don't want to be part of the Sony Publicity Machine; this is a project (publicity stunt?) that has a certain smell of condescension to it. I have no interest in exhorting people not to see the movie (after all, I will see it), but I'm certainly not going to tell people they should see it, as though they need to view it in order for them to be told the truth about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Bible, Emperor Constantine, and Leonardo da Vinci.
Perhaps Amy and I are just full of sour grapes? I'm sure some will think so. Frankly, it's irritating that the vast majority of news articles and television documentaries/infomercials about the Coded Craziness contain hardly any content from Catholics who 1) actually know something about the Da Vinci Code, 2) who directly address the salient issues (that is, don't just talk incessantly about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, which is only part of the problem), and 3) who aren't embarrassed by Church teachings. But, it's a rather moot point in this case, since I don't think I'd want to be eating from the hand that is slapping me and making money off of me. As I also wrote on Amy's blog about Sister Rose Pacatte's favorite horror movie:
I think that all Christians would do well to remember how Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" was repeatedly denounced by Hollywood and the MSM as 1) anti-Semitic, 2) historically inaccurate, and 3) bizarrely violent/bloody. Now we have a movie that, if it adheres to the novel (which it apparently does), is clearly anti-Catholic, historically inaccurate to a degree that is stupifying, and quite bizarre in its crazy brew of New Age-isms, radical feminist blarney, and neo-gnostic pseudo-scholarship. And Christians are going to be involved in a website sponsored by the studio that is producing it? Again, it just doesn't add up to me...
Finally, check out the comments (PDF file) of Evangelical apologist Josh McDowell:
.... McDowell, author of The Da Vinci Code -- A Quest for Truth, not only urges a trip to the theater, but also advises everybody to read the novel. Then, he says, read his book. “I don’t attack [The Da Vinci Code author] Dan Brown. I don’t attack the book,” says McDowell, who is on the staff of Orlando-based Campus Crusade for Christ. “Let’s see where fact leaves off and imagination begins. It’s a marvelous opportunity to be positive. The main purpose of my book is to reinforce their belief and placate their skepticism. If you look carefully, truth will always stand.” ...
The marriage of convenience -- if that is what it is -- between evangelicals and the film’s producers “doesn’t seem so startling to me,” says Teresa Berger, professor of ecumenical theology at Duke University Divinity School. “That’s how consumer capitalism functions in relationship to religious traditions.” For his part, McDowell can’t wait for May 19. “I look at the book and the movie as a platform for evangelism,” he says. “A little controversy can be a marvelous tool.”
True, it can be. But is being involved in a website produced by the one attacking your beliefs really the the way to address controversy? Analogously, if Playboy magazine asked you to write an article explaining why pornography is bad, would you write the article and then encourage people to look through the entire issue before reading your article? Don't get me wrong — I don't think that boycotting the movie or telling people they shouldn't see it is going to evangelize. But warning people about spiritual and intellectual dangers doesn't have to be solely motivated by the desire to evangelize; rather, it should be motivated by the desire to spare them from intellectual pornography that they might not be able to adequately handle. Giving people living water is one thing. But telling them that they need to wallow in dirt before you show them how to shower is quite another...
Carl, you really have to wonder why either of us were contacted. I would have said "no", but it still strikes me as odd.
Posted by: Amy | Thursday, February 09, 2006 at 01:32 PM
Amy, I agree — and not just because of my wounded ego. Both of our books have received mention in major media and have to be known to the folks running the DaVinciChallange.com site. Very frustrating -- and perhaps very revealing as well.
Posted by: Carl Olson | Thursday, February 09, 2006 at 02:14 PM
I don't interpret the comments by either of you as "sour grapes", but as a glaring omission that calls into question the sincerity of the project.
A question ... how is this being promoted to the public (or has there even been a sort of awareness made of the site)?
What does any of this site's goal matter, if the majority of the movie-going or book-reading public is ignorant of its existence?
Posted by: Matt | Thursday, February 09, 2006 at 02:37 PM
What does any of this site's goal matter, if the majority of the movie-going or book-reading public is ignorant of its existence?
A most excellent question, Matt! Could the DaVinciChalleng.com site be nothing more than a cyber-placebo? It has gotten publicity in the NYTimes, which is no small deal. Something to watch as May 19th draws nigh.
Posted by: Carl Olson | Thursday, February 09, 2006 at 02:50 PM
I heard an advertisement for the site today on a major secular radio station here in Los Angeles.
Posted by: Jackson | Thursday, February 09, 2006 at 08:49 PM
Carl,
Your ego should not, in deed, be wounded. Quite the contrary, it is the very fact that in your book you brilliantly answered the seudo-history of TDC and it's neo-gnostic mythology that you were not contacted by Sony. This is a site run by Sony marketers to promote nothing but positive interest in the movie. That is what marketing agents get paid for. If you were allowed to write an essay it would defeat their purpose and, in fact, make the readers of the site think about the truth of the matter. In essence, they are afraid of you because they are afraid of the truth. You and Amy should be honored by your exception.
Posted by: Brian John Schuettler | Friday, February 10, 2006 at 08:00 AM
Perhaps this is some sort of plot a la Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday? Sony (Sunday?) orchestrates circumstances so that critics of the film spend their time attacking each other rather than the film itself. And so forth.
Maybe I'm giving Sony too much credit.
Posted by: Furor | Friday, February 10, 2006 at 08:00 AM
I don't like the idea of playing in Sony's ballpark because it puts Brown and his debunkers at the same level with the readers asked to "choose" between them. Jewish scholar Deborah Lipstadt famously doesn't debate Holocaust deniers lest she lend them credibility by acknowledging them as opponents. I think we should do likewise.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel | Saturday, February 11, 2006 at 02:56 PM
What I really want to know is why Carl Olson and some of the rest of you are so obsessed with whining about a fictional book? Is this some kind of delusional paranoia, or is there actually a buck to made by convincing scores of people that they and their faith are somehow being victimized by a novel. Of course there is! Looks like Carl himself has written a book that attempts to cash in on Dan Brown's phenomenal success. Tell us Carl, how many pieces of silver have you made from your screed that purports to "debunk" a fictional novel.
To the rest of you, don't be fooled by this charlatan. You are not being victimized by a novel. Your faith, your church and your god are in no danger from Dan Brown or any other fiction writer. We're talking about a 2000 year old institution that is one of the most powerful in the world with one of the largest memberships in history. How is it that you are being victimized? I can understand that the Church as upset and felt victimized when Science debunked many of its beliefs, but a book of fiction? Please.
Posted by: El Perro Patron | Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 08:23 AM
Yall sound like marxists circa 1986. That's a good thing, mind you.
Posted by: jpe | Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 09:16 AM
"Whining," "delusional paranoia," and "charlatan." Whew, you've really got a way with words! LOL. If there is any type of intelligent argument or point being made in your rant, El Perro Patron, I don't see it. Anyhow, a few months ago I wrote an article that specifically addresses the sort of bigoted and unhinged comments that folks like yourself are making. Read it here:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/colson_justfiction1_mar05.asp
As for "cashing in," let's just say that what I'll make from our book is about .00000000000000001% of the reported $200 million plus that Dan Brown has made from his mediocre and very anti-Catholic novel. THAT is cashing in.
Posted by: Carl Olson | Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 09:16 AM
Yep, Brown made a lot of money off a very entertaining and original novel that millions of people obviously enjoy.
You are just another malcontent that is trying to cash in on Brown's success by taking advantage of those who feel that they are somehow victimized by a fictional novel. Sure, you're free to make a living by taking advantage of people's fears and delusions. That's America. But I challenge you to show how a book of fiction can in any way harm your church or its members.
Its just sad and pathetic how much mileage you cretins can get out of claiming victimhood by a novel. You're just as bad as the tent and television evangelists that make their living soaking the gullible.
Posted by: El Perro Patron | Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 09:30 AM
I'll ignore your infantile name-calling and simply point out the obvious: lots of people, both Christian and non-Christian, have questions about the many historical and theological claims made in Dan Brown's novel. Our book examines those claims -- not out of fear, but out of a desire for the truth to be known. You keep saying that I am playing the "victimhood" card, which only tells me you've never even opened our book.
The real parallel to televangelists can be found in the various "documentaries" and primetime specials from NBC, ABC, and other networks who pretend to offer facts and research, but merely repeat the many falsehoods found in The Da Vinci Code. And for what reason? To make money. Period.
If you are going to make wild and rude comments about my work, then I hope you have the integrity to also bash the authors of the many pro-Da Vinci Code books, such as Dan Bernstein, editor of Secrets of the Code, which has reportedly sold around 400,000 copies -- far more than our book has sold. So how about it, El Biggo Moutho? Are you going to contact Mr. Bernstein and call him names and bash him for "cashing in"? Or could it be that you are simply yet another enraged, unhinged anti-Catholic bigot?
Finally, it apparently hasn't occurred to you that Dan Brown (and his publisher and Sony and Ron Howard and Tom Hanks and...) is making a ton of money by skewing and attacking a story -- the life of Jesus Christ -- that is very important and sacred to billions of people. In addition, he plays on the irrational fears that many people have about the "power" of the Catholic Church. Just like Dan Brown, you have it all wrong. And, just like Brown, you probably have no interest in admitting so.
Posted by: Carl Olson | Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 12:29 PM
What's wrong about pointing out what's wrong in a bestseller? I've read the book by Sandra and Carl and it's not just about the Catholic Church being victimized; it's about the misrepresentation of facts. If some best-selling writer deludes millions into believing that a horse is a cow, why shouldn't an expert on the matter inform the public that no, a horse is not a cow?
I love both Star WArs and amateur astronomy. Sometimes my friends in our local astronomical society point out scenes in Star WArs that could not have happened in real life because there's no sound in space, asteroids in real life are so far apart that weaving in and out of an asteroid belt is not as perilous as the movie makes it seem, etc. I could easily accuse them of being paranoid about a work of fiction, but I don't.
Posted by: Cristina A. Montes | Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 07:44 PM
You want to pretend this isn't about cashing in the paranoia and victimology of the majority? Fine. That's your perogative. If you claim that you're doing this to somehow benefit mankind and/or your church, ok, then how about you donate 100% of the proceeds of your book to your church, or to some charity? Better yet, donate you book proceeds to an organization that is working to help the boys who have been molested by priests. Or is that another myth you'd like to debunk?
As long as you try to claim that you're doing something good by "debunking" a book of fiction, I'll continue to do some good by debunking the motivations of those who want to pretend that a fictional novel is somehow a threat to anyone but the clinically paranoid.
Posted by: El Perro Patron | Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 09:47 PM
Cristina,
As soon as one of your friends writes a book trying to make money by "debunking" Star Wars while acting as though the films are somehow a threat to real astronomy, then I'll join you in denouncing them as paranoid as well.
Posted by: El Perro Patron | Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 09:50 PM
Christina's comparison doesn't match up well with the The Coded Craziness because there aren't many (if any) folks out there using the "science" of "Star Wars" to inform themselves about scientific theories and facts. But there are many, many fans of The Da Vinci Code who are taking its claims about historical persons, places, and events as well-researched, undeniable fact. All you have to do is read online reviews or book reviews in major newspapers — how about the Chicago Tribune's breathless assertion that the novel "transmits several doctorates' worth of fascinating history and learned speculation…"? Here is just one of numerous possible examples written by a "Top 100 Reviewer" on Amazon.com:
Then there is Dan Brown himself, who in a 2004 interview for a National Geographic Channel documentary, "Unlocking Da Vinci's Code: The Full Story", stated. "I began as a skeptic. As I started researching The Da Vinci Code, I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a believer." Add to that Brown's many statements in other interviews about his total belief in the "facts" found in his novel, not to mention the "FACT" page that is found at the start of the book.
El Jerko Patron creates a straw man — that is, he is lying — with his continued insistence that I am scaring people into thinking they are "victims" of Brown's novel. No, my co-author and I have simply written a book that explains what Brown gets right (very little) and what he gets wrong (a lot), based on reputable scholarship (much of it non-Christian) and common sense. His statement — "Better yet, donate you book proceeds to an organization that is working to help the boys who have been molested by priests. Or is that another myth you'd like to debunk?" — reveals clearly what he is: an arrogant, bigoted jerk. Which explains very well why he is so angry that Catholics would actually have the gall to call a spade a spade.
Posted by: Carl Olson | Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 11:31 PM
First of all, I've never denounced my friends as "paranoid". I myself mention the scientific errors in "Star Wars" in casual conversations, and I definitely wouldn't want to denounce myself as "paranoid." ANd such a book has already been written, though not by one of my friends and not about "Star WArs" exclusively.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471409766/102-8528592-1368138?v=glance&n=283155
Also check out the author's website:
www.badastronomy.com
Anyway, to get back to the topic, if the Sandra and Carl and the rest were motivated by a desire to piggyback on Dan Brown's success, they wouldn't risk being unpopular by debunking the errors in his super-mega-bestseller. I would think a book praising a super-mega-bestseller would sell more than a book attacking it.
And about debunking motives: how do you plan to go about it? By citing authorities, the way Sandra and Carl have done in their book? :D
Posted by: Cristina A. Montes | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 03:04 AM
I got a good laugh when I saw them spell "challenge" wrong on their own website! hahaha~!
What a joke that website is. Carl you are exactly right:
"Could it be possible that this mainly Protestant-driven enterprise is perfectly happy to point people towards The Da Vinci Code because, in fact, it is the "Catholic Church" that is constantly besmirched, by name? In encouraging (or at least not discouraging) people to see the film, they are reinforcing bad vibes around the word "Catholic," then are happy to "correct" the film by directing them to their own resources, produced by their own denominations?"
I hate to disespect nuns, but this Sister Rose is not who I want representing me. I am sure they picked her on purpose... just to say "we have a Catholic expert"... yeah, right.
Posted by: Romani12 | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 05:45 AM
Cristina Montes -
You keep repeating "this is fiction!" as if we do not know. Of course we know. But the problem with a historical fiction novel is when the historical context is made to be fiction too. Most readers blindly believe it is true (especially when the author says so in the preface!)
Here is an email I wrote to a friend the other day, on this very subject:
The average fiction reader has learned how to apply "suspension of disbelief" to the fiction stories he reads. In other words, he knows that the people and events are entirely made up, but in order to "get into" the story, he must suspend his disbelief and act as if they were real. The same holds true for watching almost any good movie. There was no such person as Rocky Balboa, but millions cried and rejoiced over his life as depicted on the bigscreen.
Now, when it comes to historical fiction, the average person will not employ suspension of disbelief to the historical context. There is usually no reason to. In Huck Finn, we know that the US allowed slavery in the early to mid 19th century, and that people lived and talked just like Huck did, and that there really is a Mississippi River and people used to travel down it on all sorts of boats and rafts. In any historical fiction novel, it is assumed that the historical context (events, battles, famous people and their actions, politcs, wars, etc) are real. It is just the principal characters who are imaginary, but the story is believable because they could have existed. In a fictional story about the Revolutionary War, the background details of Paul Revere's "The redcoats are coming!" or Washington's crossing of the Delaware, or Benedict Arnold's treason are taken as fact. The only fictional story in which one must entirely suspend their disbelief would be fantasy or science fiction tales like the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. Likewise, in a historical fiction story, a reader would only want to suspend his disbelief regarding the historical context if in the story he read things such as Lincoln's Ithaca Address, or Washington's battle with Darth Vader. Unless obvious falsehoods pop out, there will be no reason for the reader not to believe that the historical context is true. In the case of the DaVinci code, Brown constructs an imaginary history of conspiracy to suppress religious truths that the average person may not know is false.
Dan Brown deceives the reader by outright saying that the historical context of his book is fact. It is not. His statements about Jesus Christ, Mary Magdalene, the Catholic Church, the Priory of Sion, the Knights Templar, Opus Dei, Emperor Constantine and Leonardo DaVinci are either outright fabrications or extreme stretches of the truth. He may get names, dates and places right, and he may get them wrong (as in the Priory of Sion). He has attributed false motives derived from Gnostic revisionist history and portrayed it as the factual, historical context in which his fictional characters act.
For the reader without a good knowledge of early Christian history, of the Gospels, of the Crusades, of Renaissance art - there is no reason not to believe Brown. Why would his historical context be any less true than Twain's in Huck Finn? So disbelief is not suspended and readers swallow the historical context as fact, when indeed it is just as fictional as the characters in the story.
That is why the book is dangerous.
Posted by: Romani12 | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 06:00 AM
Carl, please ignore the doubters/haters/bigots. Your (and Sandra's) work is an indispensable tool to combat the joke that is TDC. As a well-educated Catholic, even I had trouble addressing the broad range of falsehoods that Brown proffered as "FACT." Your book collected all the relevant counterfacts in one place and gave me the ammunition to fight back against all the daVinci believers.
Thank you and keep up the good work!
Posted by: Bill O'Shea | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 07:14 AM
Thanks, Bill, for the comment. Your short remark sums up very well the challenge for many readers: wading through a endless sea of information, trying to figure out the facts about a host of different topics. One of the rewards of co-authoring THE DA VINCI HOAX was learning so much more about the Catholic Faith, Church history, and a number of other topics. My responses here to "El Perro Patron" really aren't for his benefit, since I know he's not interested in really listening, but for other readers who might benefit in some small way from such exchanges, however unpleasant they might be.
Posted by: Carl Olson | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 07:42 AM
I read the book. Its a novel...not a historical book. Unfortunately many people will believe that it is true....thats what makes me feel bad about this whole affair. Im sure many who view the movie will also believe what they see...and that is unfortunate. More will see the movie than read the book....
Ok Christians, start your homework, and get ready for some battles for the faith... Oh, by the way, I am Chistian, and not anti catholic. We are all in this together...defending the faith.
Posted by: chikkensoup | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 10:31 AM
Looks like preaching to the choir is what this thread and your book are all about. Fine, keep jousting your windmills and basking in the adoration of your fellow travelers. Those of us in the reality Based Community will continue to be amazed and amused at those of you who somehow feel that it is a worthwhile endeavor to try to "save" one of history's most powerful organizations from a novel.
Posted by: El Perro Patron | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 11:29 AM
"The book is dangerous?"
LOL! That's just the kind of delusional paranoia I was referring to. Thanks for making my point for me, Romani12. You've joined an illustrious band of people who have feared and tried to suppress literature throughout the ages.
Tell you what, why not arrange a friendly little book burning? I'll show up and bring the graham crackers and chocolate bars. We'll make s'mores.
While we're at it, why not throw a few witches and/or heretics on the barby just for giggles?
Posted by: El Perro Patron | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 11:35 AM
Hmmm...I really wonder who is more hysterical, out of touch with reality, and paranoid: Catholics offering a sober, scholarly critique of a significant cultural phenomenon by writing a book, or a Catholic-bashing ranter who equates Catholics writing books (horror of horrors!) with book burnings and witch burnings. And thank you, EPP, for reinforcing my point. Much appreciated.
Posted by: Carl Olson | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 03:27 PM
Yeh, I'm already buckled in for the wild ride the next few months will bring...my anti-Catholic bookclub is salivating in anticipation of the movie. Of course they deny it, after all "it's just a book." I remind them that Uncle Tom's Cabin was "just a book," but it helped spark the Civil War, Mein Kampf was "just a book," but it got Hitler plenty of attention. The Bible too is "just a book..."
Books contain ideas, whether factual or fictional. My worry is that the non-academic average reader ("...look, it has to be true, it's got footnotes!...") will know that Da Vinci is fictional, but if pressed to separate the fiction from the fact....that is where the lack of scholarship will surface. The honest among them will research, but most will go away from the movie, vaguely uneasy but not hungry enought to get to the truth.
One wonders...will Evangelical churches host previews? take busloads to opening night? Will Christians recognize that what hurts the Catholic Church, hurts us all? Will Christians recognize the need for solidarity? I am struck that Islamists will riot, burn and threaten over a set of cartoons...they should walk awhile in the moccasins of a Roman Catholic....
Posted by: denise martin | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Romani: I've read you're post and I know you're on our side, but just to clarify: I'm not the one who keeps on repeating "This is fiction." My point exactly is that there's nothing wrong with critiquing a work that's "just fiction" and I used the "Star WArs" debunkers as an example. (Unfortunately, as Carl rightly pointed out, the scientific errors of "STar WArs" aren't as harmless as those in TDVC.) But it's ok; with the format of the comments section, even I have a hard time identifying who said what.
I really wonder why EPP is so afraid of a few level-headed scholars. I mean, if his favorite novel does tell the truth, why should he feel it's being threatened by a few scholarly debunkers?
He equates writing books critiquing other books with burning books. We're not interested in burning books or suppressing ideas. Freedom of expression is a two-way street. Dan Brown et. al.can write as much as they want, but we should also be allowed to air out our side.
Oh, and by the way, EPP talks about "debunking motives". You don't debunk motives; you debunk myths and you expose motives. Sorry, getting nitpicky...anyway, this is discussion is exciting...like a wild chase through an asteroid field...oops, sorry, I forgot, that's just fiction. :D
Posted by: Cristina A. Montes | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 05:16 PM
Nice comments, Cristina. As I often say, "I have no interest in censoring Dan Brown, and I have no interest in censoring my criticisms of his novels and ideas." And, as his interviews consistently indicate, he does believe in the ideas found in TDVC. As for burning books, I'm loath to do so, especially since I collect anti-Catholic books and literature. After all, you cannot fairly and accurately expose falsehood unless you fairly present those falsehoods as they have been uttered, printed, and produced.
Posted by: Carl Olson | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 05:21 PM
Furthermore, I wonder what EPP will think if, based on his comments on this blog, we will conclude that he and his kind burn copies of "The Da Vinci Hoax"?
Oh, and by the way, I think Romani made an excellent point about the lower level of suspension of disbelief when it comes to historical fiction. Actually, I've read somewhere that J.R.R. Tolkien does not believe in suspension of disbelief even when it comes to fantasy, but I'm digressing again.
Posted by: Cristina A. Montes | Monday, February 13, 2006 at 08:43 PM
Actually I'd love to read Carl's book trying to "debunk" a book of fiction.
Unfortunately, I have an ethical dilemma. I have a very strict policy of not giving my money to someone I find morally repugnant.
So if someone has a copy that they'd care to loan me...
Posted by: El Perro Patron | Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Actually, Carl, the book burning coment was directed Romani12 and his hysterical "The book is dangerous" comment. I don't accuse you or Cristina of wanting to burn or ban anything. Romani12, on the other hand, seems like the kind of target reader for your type of paranoia who would like to take things a step further.
I would never want to burn yours or any other book. I think that ridiculing it and questioning your motives for writing it are quite enough.
I am really looking forward to the film's release. Partially because I think it wll be a great movie (Hanks, Howard and Grazer... You can't go wrong) Buat also because I know that its going to bring the nutbars out of the woodwork to protest and try to debunk it. Should be very entertaining. Even more fun than when Kevin Smith released Dogma.
Posted by: El Perro Patron | Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 10:33 AM
I think that ridiculing it and questioning your motives for writing it are quite enough.
And as long as you avoid reading our book and engaging with the facts and arguments we present, you should have a wonderful time.
I have a very strict policy of not giving my money to someone I find morally repugnant.
That's very admirable, especially coming from someone who exhibits such a high level of logic, rhetoric, and moral certitude. I'm grateful for your unwillingness to actually address my arguments since it saves me from taking any more time addressing your small-minded screeds.
Posted by: Carl Olson | Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 11:56 AM
Carl and Sandra debunk TDVC after having taken the trouble to read it themselves and after doing thorough research. EPP ridicules the book by Carl and Sandra without even having read it, and claims to know their real motives without explaining how (I don't know; maybe he has access to results of Carl's and Sandra's psychological tests that reveal their motives? Or is EPP a legilimens? (check Harry Potter Book 5 for the definition of "legilimens"). Now, who's more credible?
Posted by: Cristina A. Montes | Wednesday, February 15, 2006 at 01:22 AM
Perro patron,
I am sorry that my comment was not understood by you. No need to compare me to a book anbd witch burner. That's just juvenile.
-Romani
Posted by: Romani12_2 | Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 09:23 AM
I know I'm coming in way late on this conversation, but I thought I'd just stir in a few facts with the speculation. Carl and Amy might have sent an email or two around asking some questions if they were so darn curious about what was going on. I, for one, would have been more than happy to fill them in, as I've been part of the discussions with Grace Hill from day one.
First, Sr. Rose was asked to participate because she was a known quanitity to Grace Hill -- as are all of the "experts" that the Dialogue (nee Challenge) has mustered. I can guarantee you that there's no "let the Catholics suffer" mentality involved. (The site has also just added another Catholic expert to its roster. Does that leave the panel still wildly unbalanced? Of course. It's put together by Protestants with ties to Fuller. What do you expect? It's no more unbalanced than, say, the Da Vinci Outreach site.)
The Da Vinci Dialogue per se is not promoting the movie. It's not even pro-DVC, which anyone would know if they'd look very close. (Is it kind of lame? Well, yes. And that's unfortunate. But "lame" is not the same thing as "evil" or "poorly motivated.") All of the essays thus far posted are very much in the debunking tradition, and are aimed at education about the real facts of the case.
Charges that we're all "in bed with Sony" on this are just pure hooey. Sony has wisely provided a forum for dissenting opinion a part of their promotional effort, and they're not influencing the content of the thing one bit. It's simply their way of helping reduce the noise level -- of saying, "You wanna complain about what we're doing? Here. Here's a site where all that can be contained. As long as you're not campaigning to ban the movie, do what you want." And naturally, the effort draws a lot of ministers like me who aren't afraid that a novel or a movie (or the gates of hell itself) will prevail against the church.
If any Roman Catholic (or atheist, or Baptist, or neopagan or whatever) would like to be a part of the Dialogue, follow the links from the site over to the forums at Hollywood Jesus. We'd love to have a more balanced discussion -- as long as we can actually talk about the book and movie, and do so without namecalling, browbeating, intellectual bullying, condescension or other forms of uncivil behavior.
See ya there?
Greg Wright
Senior Editor
HollywoodJesus.com
Posted by: Greg Wright | Monday, March 13, 2006 at 09:00 PM
I Love you girls
Buy
Posted by: LeOgAhEr | Friday, June 01, 2007 at 01:19 AM
Hi all!
[url=http://qoclick-shop-viagra.myance.org/] qoclick shop viagra [/url]
[url=http://uk-viagra-prices.myance.org/] uk viagra prices [/url]
[url=http://uk-cheapest-viagra.myance.org/] uk cheapest viagra [/url]
[url=http://uk-viagra-sales-in-the.myance.org/] uk viagra sales in the [/url]
[url=http://query-viagra.myance.org/] query viagra [/url]
[url=http://uk-viagra-supplier.myance.org/] uk viagra supplier [/url]
[url=http://uk-viagra.myance.org/] uk viagra [/url]
[url=http://uk-viagra-suppliers.myance.org/] uk viagra suppliers [/url]
[url=http://uk-viagra-body-building-from-sports-supplement.myance.org/] uk viagra body building from sports supplement [/url]
[url=http://use-of-viagra.myance.org/] use of viagra [/url]
[url=http://uk-viagra-on-line.myance.org/] uk viagra on line [/url]
[url=http://university-rochester-viagra-pfizer.myance.org/] university rochester viagra pfizer [/url]
[url=http://uk-viagra-online.myance.org/] uk viagra online [/url]
[url=http://use-viagra.myance.org/] use viagra [/url]
[url=http://uk-viagra-sales.myance.org/] uk viagra sales [/url]
Bye
Posted by: sitofotogra | Thursday, July 05, 2007 at 05:50 PM
Hi!
Girls sticking wierd things in the ass and pussy:
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/hot-thailand-girl.html] hot thailand girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/hot-wet-preteen-girls.html] hot wet preteen girls [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/hot-young-girls-brandy-ddd.html] hot young girls brandy ddd [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/hotttest-girls-in-panties.html] hotttest girls in panties [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/how-do-girls-masterbate.html] how do girls masterbate [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/how-to-get-a-girl-horney.html] how to get a girl horney [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/how-to-meet-thai-girls-in-london.html] how to meet thai girls in london [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/images-of-nicola-girls-aloud.html] images of nicola girls aloud [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/indian-girl.html] indian girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/indigo-girls-singing-grateful-dead.html] indigo girls singing grateful dead [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/infant-girl-easter-dress.html] infant girl easter dress [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/infant-girl-pageant-dress.html] infant girl pageant dress [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/infant-girl-swimsuit.html] infant girl swimsuit [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/infant-girls-easter-dresses.html] infant girls easter dresses [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/infocus-girls.html] infocus girls [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/ipanema-girls-in-thongs.html] ipanema girls in thongs [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/james-monroe-high-school-girls-soccer.html] james monroe high school girls soccer [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/jap-girls-tgp.html] jap girls tgp [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/japan-girl.html] japan girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/japanese-girl.html] japanese girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/japanese-girl-in-swimsuit.html] japanese girl in swimsuit [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/japanese-girl-pooping.html] japanese girl pooping [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/japanese-girl-shitting.html] japanese girl shitting [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/japanese-school-girl.html] japanese school girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/japanese-swimsuit-girl.html] japanese swimsuit girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/jock-sturges-girl.html] jock sturges girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/jock-sturges-girls.html] jock sturges girls [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/jungle-girl.html] jungle girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/katowice-girls.html] katowice girls [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/kellie-pickler-girls-like-me-lyrics.html] kellie pickler girls like me lyrics [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/kevins-ktm-girl.html] kevins ktm girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/khmer-girls.html] khmer girls [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/kind-girl-domai.html] kind girl domai [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/ktm-girl.html] ktm girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/ktm-girl-main-page.html] ktm girl main page [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/ktm-girls.html] ktm girls [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/kute-girls.html] kute girls [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/lakeville-girls-basketball.html] lakeville girls basketball [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/lau-girls-nude.html] lau girls nude [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/lesbian-girl.html] lesbian girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/leslie-and-exotic-dancers-and-bad-girls-club.html] leslie and exotic dancers and bad girls club [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/libby-lu-for-girls.html] libby lu for girls [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/lightspeed-18-girl.html] lightspeed 18 girl [/URL]
[URL=http://myspacelogo.hut2.ru/lightspeed-girl.html] lightspeed girl [/URL]
Posted by: EricaSrew | Thursday, July 12, 2007 at 11:45 PM
If you can see this message, please email the this website url so I can update my "do not post" file duudssdssudd@gawab.com.
[url=http://www.curriculum.k12.sd.us/ds063/_disc1/0000018c.htm]Automated Stock Trading System[/url]
Automated Stock Trading Software
Posted by: automatedtradingman | Monday, July 23, 2007 at 11:18 PM
If you can see this message, please email the website you saw it on, so i will stop forever duudssdssudd@gawab.com.
[url=http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/1031_Exchange_Properties]1031 Exchange Properties[/url] 1031 Exchange Properties
[url=http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/1031_Exchange_Starker]1031 Exchange Starker[/url] 1031 Exchange Starker
[url=http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/1031_Starker]1031 Starker[/url] 1031 Starker
Posted by: blkhtsob | Friday, July 27, 2007 at 07:47 AM
If you can see this message, please email the website you saw it on, so i will stop forever duudssdssudd@gawab.com.
[url=http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/Adjustable_Hawaii_Mortgage_Rate]Adjustable Hawaii Mortgage Rate[/url] Adjustable Hawaii Mortgage Rate
[url=http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/Adjustable_Mortgage_Calculator]Adjustable Mortgage Calculator[/url] Adjustable Mortgage Calculator
[url=http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/Adjustable_Rate_Mortgage_Advice]Adjustable Rate Mortgage Advice[/url] Adjustable Rate Mortgage Advice
[url=http://www.empiregoldcoins.com/blk/Adjustable_Rate_Mortgage_Basics]Adjustable Rate Mortgage Basics[/url] Adjustable Rate Mortgage Basics
Posted by: blkhtsoc | Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 05:26 AM