Methinks the Catholic Church doth protest too much (DaVinciCode)

Here’s what Cardinal Cimillo Ruini had to say about the DaVinci code: “It is difficult to escape the sensation that the great success of works like the ‘The Davinci Code’ have more to do that hatred, or that failure of love for oneself… that is insinuated in our civilization.” :rolleyes:

You know, I’m getting a little sick of this new breed of Catholic rhetoric, popularized by a resurgent of pretentious pundits like Mark Shea (ah the world is drowing in a culture of death where baby-raping is an inevitable outcome of gay marriage and extra-marital!), and which more and more Cardinals are getting into. Catholic theologians and Catholic intellectuals have always taken the cake for pretensious know-it-all-ness, sneering at all critics with a “ah, you have not an ounce of the understanding necessary to see that you are wrong about everything,” and mostly because they have always tended to be such good and influential writers in the history of cultural and intellectual develop, I don’t mind: sometimes it’s even charming. But now it’s just getting petty and knee-jerk and pathetic.

Yes, yes. Because a conspiracy theory with little historical backing and many factual errors that differs from YOUR pet conspiracy theory with little historical backing and many facual errors was briefly popular as a POP cultural phenomenon amongst people who can read, but don’t read very good books, that means that people are full of hate, don’t love themselves, and that this is a great dangerous movement in our civilization.

I still don’t get the big controversy about the DaVinci code. This same sort of story has been told before. Heck, the Preacher comic told a much more vile and outrageous Grail story. The Last Temptation of Christ already covered the ground of Jesus’ potentially more domestic life. If anything, the DaVinci code is remarkably tame. Heck, the bad guy, if I remember, is basically a greedy, powerhungry atheist. And for all the supposed religious bashing, the main preist character is portrayed as an almost saint-like man and his servant is TRICKED into doing bad things.

But I suppose if you weren’t given to grandiose hyberbolic laments about the vile state of everything that doesn’t conform to the one-true-belief-system, you might not rise to a position of leadership very easily. But come on dude.

Telling people that they are full of hate and don’t love themselves because they don’t believe what you believe or they get interested in a different story than the one you value is something I would expect from a cult-member, not a respected scholar or the leader of a major world-religion. Aside from the issue of vaginas and what goes in and comes out of them, the Catholic Church is one of the most progressive institutions around. Don’t start acting like you’re the freaking Manson family all of a sudden.

I agree that getting upset about a moron like Dan Brown is according too much respect to a book I found almost unreadable.

I suspect some of these Church authorities have learned the wrong lesson from the drubbing Mel Gibson and the Church took in having to issue mea culpas for the Gospel accounts of the Passion and having to deny their intent to spark the mass pogroms that followed (or rather, did not follow) the release of Gibson’s movie.

The proper lesson to have taken away from that is, don’t whine about someone else’s movie, just ignore it if you don’t like it.

I think the Church doesn’t like that it says things that aren’t true, notably that the Church has been lying to almost every Catholic for thousands of years.

The scenes in The Last Temptation, by the way, were of an alternate reality based on a choice Jesus could have made, but didn’t. That’s why it’s a temptation. The Catholics who objected to the movie deliberately mischaracterized the film, to make it seem more sacreligious.

To me the funniest part is they claim that people will not realize that this is a work of fiction.

I know three people who belive this story is true. They did before the DaVinci Code came out, though.

With all the infotainment about the DaVinci Code found on the prime time news magazine shows as well as the History Channel it isn’t a surprise there are a lot of people who seem to think it’s based on fact.

Marc

And this “tells us we live not just in a post-Christian era, but in an anti-Catholic culture not worth defending or saving, for it is truly satanic.” ???
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50221

I mean geez. That stupid Nicholas Cage movie did the same thing with some conspiracy about the Declaration of Indepedence.

The rhetoric just doesn’t match the situation. At very worst, the upshoot of the big scandal that’s been covered up, an allegation made in a book that sits in the fiction section of the bookstore, is that maybe the church has been too uptight about minges all this time. Oh noes: heeeeeeere’s satan!

Actually, the most astounding thing about the article is that World Net Daily actually published something written by one of those idolatrous Catholics. (Of course, Pat is a lot closer to Fundamentalist Protestantism than to Catholicism, but he still goes to a Catholic church on Sundays.)

I find the hype originating among some Catholic circles to be overblown, however, there are a few things to consider:

  • consider the source (these are not massive broadsides issued by the National Councils of Catholic Bishops forbidding Catholics to buy the book or see the movie; they are the plaintive calls from a relatively few numbers of Italian bishops (and one or two of their American followers) who have always rushed to the barriers whenever they have perceived the mildest attacks on the church;
  • consider the charges (Brown did not simply make up a story about ancient peoples, his story uses a real organization (Opus Dei) as the villains in ways that are very reminiscent of the ways in which Jesuits have been portrayed as ruthless agents of Satan in fiction–and in claimed non-fiction, and believed by numerous credulous people–over the last few centuries;
  • consider that while it is all obviously so much silliness, there really are people who do believe the claims, people who are bolstered in their errors by Brown consistently being very coy and pretending that while “of course it is a novel” he really does believe that it “might” (wink, wink) have happened that way.

I think that the various outraged people in the Vatican and the Catholic League are behaving foolishly and would be better off simply laughing at the whole thing, but that is not their style. (And it is still a fairly small number of guys (it’s always guys–this is the RCC) making a loud noise who would not even be heard if the news media did not rush out to giuve them air play–and Brown free publicity.)

For all anyone knows, it really did “might” have happened that away, aside from the conspiracy to cover it up (of which there isn’t one). It’s imaginative historical fiction.

I’d say they have a valid concern on this point. The Church has built an empire based specifically on man’s inability to identify fiction.

The “conspiracy” is one of the big issues, however; the “story” was already long since debunked when Holy Blood, Holy Grail was published, years ago; and while I am not sure how “imaginative” the story is, since its basic plot was stolen from Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, the issue that some scholars and some church men have with it is that it is believed to be true, regardless of the quality of the fiction.

Well, the author is claiming he himself is a “believer”. So at least he is selling the Jesus part of it as something he’s believes is true. No doubt that will convince some people out there.

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/news/article299630.ece

“the “story” was already long since debunked”

How you debunk anything about the life of a person we know next to nothing about in a historical sense? Jesus could have had 80 gay lovers and preached death to all shellfish for all we know.

The story is that Jesus and Mary M had children who got into the royal lines of Europe, not merely that Jesus messed around with Mary. Most of it was based on a joke/hoax created in 1956. That has long been debunked.

That sparked my interest. Can you give some more background on the hoax?

I agree that the present reaction is stodgy and gives the impression that the Church thinks the average parisioner is a lunk.
To be fair, several months ago, a Catholic priest interviewed on the network news came up with the perfect line for describing the Da Vinci Code and the Church’s feeling about it:
“We’d prefer that people get their history from more reliable sources, like Monty Python and the Holy Grail.”

See – not stodgy. Hip. Gives people credit for intelligence. Puts down the idea that anyone could or would take this seriously. We need more priests like this.

I personally would put much of the blame squarely on the shoulders of Dan Brown. He’s the guy who tried to fob off his piracy as an embellishment of authentic history, rather than a pulpy retread of stale and half-serious conspiracy theories.

On the other hand . . . maybe giving people credit for intelligence is not a good idea, now that I see this:

That’s pretty amazing, and disheartening. I really could care less about what hurts the Pope, but it bugs the shit out of me that widespread stupidity helps Dan Brown.

Start here. Priory of Sion. Keep clicking links, and that should do it.