Da Vinci Hoax Blog

Barbara Nicolosi: The DVC is not an opportunity for "dialogue" and "conversation"

And she says so in clear terms in a recent piece for Christianity Today. She writes:

I've read and heard a lot lately from Christians who suggest that we should be willing to "engage" The Da Vinci Code, so that we can be a part of the "cultural conversation." Believers are touting the upcoming movie as an "opportunity for evangelism" and even an incentive to bolster our own faith.

Baloney.

This film is based on a book that wears its heresy and blasphemy as a badge of honor, and I intend to stay far away from it.

I get lots of calls to do interviews about The Da Vinci Code, but I duck as many of them as I can. Basically, I hate talking about DVC because I have a personal relationship with Jesus—and he isn't a proto-feminist goddess-cultic with a weak personality that could have been simply co-opted by power-hungry misogynists.

I fully appreciate Nicolosi's anger (and I think it's a righteous anger) and frustration. But I think she goes a bit too far. My frustration is that Christian reaction to TDCV has been presented, by both some Christians and some media sources, as being limited to one of two possibilities: 1) attack TDVC and condemn everything about it, including questions that readers (and, soon, viewers) might have, or 2) encourage people to read the novel, see the movie, and then engage in "dialogue," "conversation," and "discussion."

The fact is, not everyone who has a question about TDVC is necessarily attacking Christianity. In other words, while there are many who are using the novel to say ridiculous and even hateful things about the Church, there are many people who have honest questions. On the other hand, there isn't much good to be found in encouraging people to read or watch junk, especially bigoted, intellectually-rotten junk. We would never encourage people to watch pornography so we could have a "discussion about it." On the other hand, we shouldn't be afraid to talk about sexuality, the dangers of pornography, and a healthy Christian understanding of sexuality.

So, I have tried to do the following: defend the Faith against attacks, explain the Faith to those who have legitimate and sincere questions, and teach the Faith to those Christians who want to know this or that because of something TDVC-related. The difficulty of such an approach, as I find out on a regular basis, is that I am sometimes trying to do two or three things at once. This is especially true in interviews, where I find myself being an apologist, catechist, evangelist, author, and theologian all at once. And I sometimes fail. Which makes it frustrating.

I do agree whole-heartedly with Nicolosi that when Christians are faced with unfair and clearly bigoted questions, we shouldn't feel badly about walking away or refusing to respond. After all, when a questioner assumes the worst of you and/or the Church and refuses to reconsider his position, it's time to shake the dust off of our sandals. But being asked, "Why does the Church hate women?" is different than being asked, "I don't understand why women cannot be priests. Can you explain?" Sincere truth-seekers deserve answers. Bigots and jerks do not. Telling the difference can be exhausting, but it's a necessary and important work to undertake.

Correspondence with a fan of the Code

A recent example of how conversations with fans of The Da Vinci Code sometimes go.

Hi , just been reading about your book The Da Vinci Hoax. I do not know if you and your co author are catholic but aware you not giving credence to Dan Browns book by trying to debunk it. Reading and listening to arguments about the Da Vinci Code no one seems to home in on the fact that it is a novel, a story a well written tale of fiction and Dan Brown has used writers licence in writing his book.
Do we all think that James Bond is real and have endless books and debates about him? I must admit that with all the fuss the church is making about the Da Vinci Code I am wondering what the Catholic church has to fear or hide
Regards
J---------

J---------,

How much of our book have you read? On pages 29-43 we address the whole "it's just fiction" issue. (Also, see pages 294-298.) And then I wrote this article, "The 'It's Just Fiction!' Doctrine".

The difference between making a claim about James Bond and making claims about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Catholic Church, the Emperor Constantine, the Templar Knights, and Leonardo da Vinci should be obvious: those people and institutions exist and/or existed. And many, many readers are taking Dan Brown's claims seriously.

Finally, the Catholic Church has nothing to hide. We as Catholics are interested in truth. And we are also interested in defending the truth about history and what the Catholic Church teaches, especially when many people are taking the word of a lousy novelist over the word of scholars and historians. Is that such a bad thing?

Sincerely,

Carl Olson

Hi I have no wish to belittle your beliefs or religion ( each to there own) I understand that the Bible was 'written' by Constantine 150 years after the death of Jesus so although it mite not be a fair comparison the James Bonds of this world also exist. A word in your defence I read a article in the Scotsman newspaper that  Roslyn Chapel is having to fend untruths written in the Da Vinci Code But I still stand by what I said, the level of denial by the Catholic Church make me wonder what it has to hide bearing in mind that, to me, the book was only another novel, story or whatever you want to call it with references to Da Vinci and others to make it more 'real'
Regards
J--------

J--------,

It would have been difficult for Constantine to do much of anything re: the Christian Bible prior to A.D. 273/5, when he was born—or A.D. 306, when he became emperor.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which provide the greatest amount of detail about the life of Jesus, were written between A.D. 60-110, dates that very few scholars would dispute (and many would argue that all four were written by A.D. 75, within 40-45 years of Jesus' death).

I'm not sure what you mean by "the level of denial by the Catholic Church." A couple of cardinals have made statements, along with a few bishops (the Vatican, contrary to silly media reports, has not offered a statement). That's not much, all things considered. Four or five books have been written by Catholics rebutting the claims made in Dan Brown's novel. Compare that to the nine or ten written by American Evangelical Protestants, despite the fact that Protestantism is never mentioned in the novel. And don't forget the some 25-30 books that have been written in a positive vein about The Da Vinci Code or have elaborated on key topics of the novel (especially Mary Magalene, the gnostic writings, the Templar Knights, and Leonardo da Vinci) including Secrets of the Code: An Unauthorized Guide to The Da Vinci Code, which has sold over 3 million copies. You may want to contact Dan Burstein, the editor of that work (who is a big fan of the novel) and express your concern about how seriously he is taking all of this. I'm sure he'd like to hear your James Bond comparison.

Finally, perhaps the following will give you a sense of why some Catholics are concerned (not mad, or angry, or afraid) about The Da Vinci Code's influence:

I've just finished the novel about your mother, in which I portray her as a prostitute and you as her pimp. Your father is depicted as an abusive drunk and your brother is depicted as a cross-dressing murderer. But don't worry, it's just a novel.  The "FACT" page at the front and my interviews this month on "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show" and "Oprah" —  in which I say the plot of the book is fiction but the characterizations of the persons involved is accurate and factual — should help people put the work in context. I know you won't object, having nothing to fear or hide. It is, after all, just fiction. Oh, and when I'm asked about the claims regarding your family, I say that those facts are agreed upon by many scholars, that these "truths" have been around for many years, and that it's time for this story to be heard by a wider (much wider!) audience. But, again, not to worry, since it's just a novel. And if my depictions of your family members bother or concern you, just keep in mind that this is a wonderful chance for millions of readers to dialogue about your family's allegedly sordid, disgusting past, since the worst thing that could happen would be to succumb to apathy and ignore the "truth." Finally, be certain the media will continually present my novel as being based in painstaking research and will proclaim the need for everyone to read it so they might be intellectually challenged and fully entertained. And, finally, when I am asked by Charles Gibson on "Good Morning America" as to how much of my novel I would change if I wrote it as a work of non-fiction, I say, "None of it."

Sincerely,

Carl Olson

Authentic Faith vs. Conspiracy Theories

John Mallon, contributing editor of Inside the Vatican magazine, has written a fine essay about the Coded Craziness, the nature of faith, and our culture's obsession with conspiracy theories. He writes:

But what really got me thinking was the nice old-fashioned expression the editor used about “those weak in faith.” It got me thinking about the nature of faith. I could imagine readers of this book, including Catholics, falling into an infinite loop of doubt, asking, “But how do you know?” when someone tries to explain that the book is false regarding Catholicism. For example, the novel asserts that Jesus was not God, but fell in love and married Mary Magdalene and had a child with her, and from the very beginning the Church has sought to cover this up. Why? Critics of the Church would argue because it is a threat to the “male hierarchy’s” “power base” and that the Church has a “negative” view of women and sexuality.

No need to imagine that some readers (both Christian and otherwise) have fallen into doubt and confusion because of the novel. It has happened and is happening. In addition, millions of readers are having their understanding of the Catholic Church and Christianity tainted, even warped, by the claims made within TDVC. Here is just one of many possible example, an e-mail sent to me by a fan of the Coded Craziness:

Dan’s books are an excellent read. My wife loves him. Read Angels and Demons first.

Have I read the Gospels of Thomas and Mary... Yup! At least translations of the fragments found.

Joseph Campbell introduced Thomas to us PBS types some 20 years ago and referred to the Nag Hamadi [sic] library.

Drink from my lips and you will be as me....

Now that works for me.  Epinoae: direct knowledge! That tracks with Jesus’ Buddhist training in India. And the Vedic teachings that I have read.

Then years of Elaine Pagels’ wonderful books.

Her “Beyond Belief” introduced me to the Gospel of Mary. Now this makes sense! Jesus true second... a balanced yin/yang...opposite, yet the same... the two again becoming the One.

But that little hoser, Peter, was having none of that. Equality with a women??  Not this narrow minded patriarch. Like most men of the House of David, he probably preferred goats. In a hissy fit, he declared that only what he knew was true. And, of course, he didn’t know anything because Jesus didn’t give him anything. OOOOOh, he was miffed!

But the followers of Mary grew happily until Iernaeus decided that one size must fit all and ( in memory of the toasted Polycrap) declared believers of views other than his as heretics = ‘able to choose’. Say what?? One little pinhead decides for us all?  the killing in the name of Jesus begin!

Then, several years later, Constantine, ever the political realist, saw in this a simple way to  control people. Divide them into the blessed and the cursed. Give the blessed, through the supervisor, a license to kill the cursed ( ohh, the sweetness of killing in the name of God!!). Works off much animus, that. Veeery clever. Then those who killed feel bad, as they should. The supervisor sez ‘ya done good! now bow down to God....and his rep here on Earth, me....and the emperor too who allows you to kill them free thinkers!’

Nicea froze this insanity for 1600 years with several, politically inspired tracts of quite dubious provinance.

Dan Brown is just a very happy coincidence. He said what many of us believe the orthodox church is all about power and nothing about God. Why would he debate with you?  Your noise sells more of his books!

So we are exploring the true Jesus without the incumberance of parisite-priests trying to keep their bellies fed. Light and sweet! We’re just the meteor at the end of the age of  ‘the church’. ...

Remember, Dan is a storeyteller capitalizing on a growing movement to bring Mary (the sacred feminine) back home again. He didn’t start it. Attacking him just shows your denial of what is really going on: ‘the Rock’ crumbling into sand as the Goddess commands. Evolution.  I love it.

David Klinghoffer: Jews need to be concerned about the Coded Craziness

Klinghoffer has written an excellent column for The Jewish Week about how The Da Vinci Code could lead to the sort of bigotry that another book (initially written as a novel) spawned many decades ago. He asks the question: "But why should a Jew care" about Dan Brown's novel? Answer:

Consider that the alleged conspiracy underlying the “biggest cover-up in human history” bears a remarkable resemblance to another phony conspiracy: the famous hoax called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Apparently authored by Russian monarchist and anti-Semite Mathieu Golovinski in 1898, “Protocols” tells of a secret society of Jewish elders that work to keep gentiles ignorant of a plot to rule the world through “Darwinism, Marxism and Nietzscheism.”

In both conspiracy theories, an ancient world religion turns out to be a massive fraud perpetrated to gain or maintain power. In Brown’s version, the “Priory of Sion” (“Sion” simply means “Zion” in French) members are the good guys. They’ve been waiting for the right moment to reveal the secret about Jesus having children and to introduce the world to the worship of the “Goddess,” a.k.a. Mary Magdalene.

Meanwhile the Catholic Church plots to suppress forever the truth about the “sacred feminine.” Opus Dei is willing to go to any lengths, including murder, to keep the male church hierarchy in power.

A very good and timely piece. Highly recommended.

Report: 66% of Boston-area Catholics who have read TDVC...

...say  the novel is "very" or "somewhat" accurate. That's according to CBS4 reporter Lisa Hughes. But I'm not sure how seriously to take that number since she repeats this silliness:

But “Da Vinci Code” author Dan Brown says the Church is resilient. According to Brown, "A very wise British priest noted recently in the press, 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."

A few Google searches is all it takes to show that this story is most likely false and that Brown is incorrect about the quote and who said it, as I noted two weeks ago. Of course, it's not as though Brown is known for adhering to facts very well (after all, why should he when newspapers simply repeat his stories?). Which is why I wonder if this recent story is either embellished or even completely apocryphal:

Dan Brown recently met a priest at a book event.

"This man came up to me and warmly shook my hand and said, ‘Mr. Brown, I don’t like your novel one bit,’" Brown told a standing-room-only crowd during the Writers on a New England Stage event at The Music Hall Sunday night. "I was kind of taken aback. And then this man smiled and said, ‘But I just had to come over here and thank you.’"

Turns out, the priest held a Bible study every week, and every week the same eight people showed up. Then, one week, he put a notice in the church bulletin saying the week’s topic was "The Da Vinci Code."

Like the good book’s loaves and fishes, those eight people multiplied into 217.

"I’ve been trying to get these people interested in this stuff for years," the priest said. "Talking about a novel isn’t quite how I imagined it happening, but I’m not complaining."

Brown isn’t complaining about the upsurge in religious interest, either, whether it comes from fans of his best-selling novel or people out to "debunk" it.

"We’re all sitting here talking about religion on a Sunday night," he marveled at the 900-plus audience. "Most people are at home watching ‘Desperate Housewives.’"

Hmmmm...the Christian-Bashing Novelist or "Desperate Housewives." Can we please have a third choice?

"The Da Vinci Code" vs. "The Gospel of Judas"

A very funny cartoon from Doug Savage...

Tom Hanks: "The major religion I was exposed to in the first 10 years of my life was Catholicism."

One question I'm often asked after talks is this: "Is Tom Hanks a Christian?" I've known for some time that Hanks was, according to several reports, a practicing Greek Orthodox. But some recent Google searches turned up more info about his lifelong relationship with various Christian traditions/denominations, including the Catholic Church, Methodism, and "born again" fundamentalism, as well as the pseudo-Christian Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka, Mormonism). More info here and here.

Now there is news that Hanks is reported to have said recently that he and the makers of The Da Vinci Code movie are "hoping to cause a real rift in the audience - we either want universal acclaim or fist fights in the lobby after. ... Either one of those (reactions) are good for the film." Glory or gore, eh? And by "good for the film" he obviously means it will pull in a lot of movie-goers and money. Sounds like someone might need a refresher course in basic Christian virtues...

But at least the modern-day details in TDVC are accurate. Right?

Wrong. Just one of many examples, given by a reader from England:

I grew up in the Inner Temple, London, and subsequently was educated at Westminster School. As a result, I had free and constant access to two of the scenes of the Da Vinci Code, and for this reason I can say with confidence that Dan Brown has either never been to the Temple and Westminster Abbey Chapterhouse, or did so long before he wrote his book and therefore had forgotten the geography.

From the Temple Church, the heroes of the story run to Temple Station, and from there take the underground to King's College. But (a) Temple Station is in fact the nearest underground station to King's College and (b) King's College is closer to the Temple Church on foot than Temple Underground Station is.

From the Chapter House at Westminster there is no direct connecting route to or from the Abbey. As in most monasteries, you have to leave the Abbey, walk along the cloister, and enter the Chapter House from there. There is no view over College Gardens (named after my old school which uses them for cocktail parties - incidentally the oldest lawn in the world).

This reminds me of something written by Dan Burstein, editor of Secrets of the Code. He wrote (and I paraphrase, because I don't have his book with me and I'm on the road) that Dan Brown is actually more accurate the further back in history he goes in The Da Vinci Code. But if you can't trust an author to be accurate about modern-day details that can be confirmed through direct observation, or via trusted resources (maps, travel guides, etc.), why trust him about ancient history?  Weird.

From "mad-as-hell crusaders" to "debunking missionaries"?

The OpinionJournal has a piece by John Miller about how some Christians--most of them Evangelical Protestants--are actually encouraging people to see "The Da Vinci Code" movie as a way of trying to use it as a "teachable moment":

The movie's tagline happens to be "seek the truth"--a phrase that feels like an invitation to explore and think rather than a demand to watch and submit. It distantly echoes Acts 17:11, which urges people to read Scripture so that they may determine its validity. Sony Pictures, the studio behind the film, obviously hopes that millions of Christian truth-seekers will feel inspired to buy tickets. There's no guarantee that they will: In 1988, when Christians protested "The Last Temptation of Christ" for its depictions of Jesus as lustful and confused, Mr. McDowell's organization tried to buy the film prints so that they could be destroyed.

That controversy actually helped "The Last Temptation" to achieve not just notoriety but also commercial success--what was once seen as an art-house film with small-time appeal suddenly became the must-see movie of the season. Having bet more than a few Sunday collection baskets on "The Da Vinci Code," Sony isn't looking for a fluke hit but a blockbuster. ...

The amazing thing is that church leaders, like those at Campus Crusade, have been among the most aggressive contributors to this enterprise. Instead of acting like the mad-as-hell crusaders of the recent past--a strategy that probably has backfired more often than it has succeeded--they are now assuming the role of debunking missionaries.

One huge difference, of course, is that The Da Vinci Code has sold a few more copies than the book-version of The Last Temptation of Christ. In other words, the upcoming movie already has a huge built-in audience. Not to mention a more mainstream director and lead actor.

There's also little doubt that times have changed. I don't think that people look as kindly upon boycotts as they once did. Boycotts (especially of movies or books) are often considered to be too confrontational, negative, and even judgmental. "Hey, if someone wants to watch a movie, who are you to say they shouldn't?" Such seems to be the common mentality. So Christians have had to adjust. But is encouraging people to see this movie too much of an adjustment? I think so. Put another way, I think it's possible to be rightly upset by The Da Vinci Code (novel and movie) without needing to come off as "mad-as-hell" and attempt protests and/or boycotts. And I think it's both possible and vital that Christians be "debunking missionaries" without pushing people to see a movie that will, it is fair to say, attack Christianity using error and twisted "history" and more than a bit of bigotry. After all, would anyone suggest that Jews see a movie based on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" if such a movie was ever made (and shouldn't the fact that such a movie could not be made cause us to wonder that The Da Vinci Code has been made into a major motion picture?).

If people want to see the movie, that's their right. But if they want to use the movie as a means to question or even attack beliefs and facts held by Christians, we have every right to respond with polite but deliberate firmness. Missionaries don't encourage people to wallow in error even further before they present the Gospel to them. On the contrary, they try to explain why falsehood is dangerous and why flirting with error can lead to even deeper problems. That approach, I think, is not a sign of anger, but of commonsense and true charity.