April 18, 2004
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown: Another Cheap Shot at Catholicism
Hello Everyone! I am attempting to return from my rather lengthy sabbatical. I've had a lot going on lately and it was simply a matter of prioritizing. I will admit that it was also, in part, due to my own selfishness. For that, I ask for forgiveness.
Now that I've taken care of that, let's look at what I've chosen to write about today: The Da Vinci Code. I have not personally read this book yet but have a copy and intend to begin reading it once the Spring semester is over (yes, on top of being married, expecting a baby in August, and holding down a full-time job, I am also working on my bachelor's degree). I have read several reviews of the book and have had several Protestant friends recommend the book, in fact my brother-in-law, who is Methodist, is the one who gave me the book. He claimed that it was incredible and historical. I had my doubts...
Msgr. T.W. Young is the pastor of a church nearby and wrote a rather emotional review. I still intend to read the book but thought that this review was worth posting. I will give my own personal review later this summer. Enjoy!
For several months family and friends told me that: "I simply must read The Da Vinci Code," a best selling novel by Dan Brown (Doubleday, 2003). Although I usually wait until fiction is out in paperback, a friend lent me his hardback copy, and I soon made this my "bedtime reading." It didn't take long for me to find this an engaging novel of the "thriller" genre, fast paced, and with a variety of interesting characters.
Obviously written with a screenplay in mind, it tells the tale in unequal length chapters, that are intended, no doubt, to constitute scenes in the film version. While I find this approach to writing irritating, the story, nevertheless, sustained my interest.Dan Brown may be a successful writer, but he's neither an historian nor a theologian! This work is a flagrant misrepresentation of historical fact and an outright assault on Christian orthodoxy. Since he references actual events and documents in his story, but gives them a wholly unfounded and unsubstantiated interpretation, he may mislead readers into accepting these errors as fact because they may seem plausible within the context of his story and involve familiar terms. For instance, he asserts that Christ's celibacy is too un-Jewish to be believed. Yet, The Dead Sea Scolls, which he often references, were the remains of the library of a Jewish monastic community which inhabited the caves near the Dead Sea between 135 BC to 68 AD, and their writings prove that celibacy was practiced at this time. Since Jesus shaped his movement around a leadership model similar to that of the Essene community, (i.e. a Righteous Teacher with 12 disciples with which there is an "inner cabinet" of three), it is highly possible that he had had exposure to them. Then, of course, there is Jesus' own teaching on the subject found in Matt 19:12.
All of this is meant to lay a basis for his primary allegation that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers, had a child, and for two millennia the Church has broken every law known to God and man to keep this a secret. It was Mary Magdalene who was meant to be central to the Church and the focus of the sacred feminine. Proof of this, he claims, can be found in symbolism hidden in art and literature throughout the ages and only understood by the enlightened few. Theh pieces de resistance of this argument is the very feminine figure of St. John in the Da Vinci's "Last Supper," whom Brown contends is really Mary Magdalene. Yet, a feminine looking St. John can be found in art both before and after Da Vinci. It was a way of trying to represent innocence and purity. Indeed, during the Middle Ages when trying to portray the experience of nurturing found in a spiritual relationship with Christ, there were references to his "motherhood."
Brown puts his own spin on a variety of other events in Church history. For example, he claims that the Emperor Constantine changed the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in order to bring it into line with pagan worship of the sun, hence "Sun-day." On the contrary, the Christian weekly holy day was changed to the first day of the week from the last because it was on this first day of the week that Jesus rose from the dead!
Brown really begins to manufacture his "facts" with a radical feminist tirade in Chapter 28. Here he claims that the Church burned at the stake five million women for witchcraft over three centuries! Where? When? Brown offers no proof. He also claims that the Church labeled as witches "all female scholars...mystics...nature lovers" in an era that produced St. Gertrude, St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Brigid of Sweden, St. Teresa of Avila, and others! In an age when both Catholic and Protestant rulers used religious allegiance as a test of political loyalty, heresy was a charge that brought death in many European countries. A Catholic was no safer in Tudor England than a Calvinist in Habsburg, Spain.
I must admit that when it comes to Brown's attacks on Opus Dei, that I am hard-pressed to give them an unqualified defense. Since they choose to operate with a structure of secrecy, they have invited such speculations. Yet, what I do know of them makes some of his characterizations of them improbable. For instance, he calls the gruesome albino Silas an "Opus Dei monk," but Opus Dei is made up largely of laity and priests living in the world. They don't have monasteries and don't wear habits. While their founder, Bl. Jose Maria Escriva, does seem to have advocated some ancient penitential practices (e.g. self-inflicted corporal punishment), those whom I have known showed no evidence of wearing the sort of torturous device worn by Silas. Finally, Opus Dei does seem to advocate a "trickle down" approach to evangelization (i.e. recruit the leadership of a society, adn the little people won't be far behind). Thus, intellectuals, public officials, titans of commerce, and the like may belong to the group, but I doubt that you'll find many blue collar workers in their ranks. This has given rise to a charge of elitism and the quest for power.
About halfway through this novel, I had to put it aside as "bed time reading" because its outrageous misuse of historical and theological data was too disturbing. That kind of nonsense needs to be encountered in the light of day when one has no expectation of sliding into restful slumber! Read The Da Vinci Code, if you like, but beware! You're entering an "all spin zone!"
- Reviewed by Msgr. T. W. Young
I did want to make a comments about this. First and foremost, Bl. Josemaria Escriva was recently canonized St. Josemaria Escriva. Secondly, I have always been a firm believer in getting the story from the source. With that in mind, anyone wanting additional information about Opus Dei, a "personal prelature of the Catholic Church" you can visit them at www.opusdei.com
They are an orthodox movement in the Church that has been both been approved and encouraged by the Magisterium. A man whom I respect highly a one of the leading biblical scholars of our time, Dr. Scott Hahn, is a member of this movement.
Interestingly enough, they have chosen to respond to the claims of The Da Vinci Code themselves. Their review can be read at www.opusdei.com/art.php?w=32&p=7017
Watch out Dan Brown.... You just got schooled! This response is excellent.
As I stated earlier, once I have read this piece of anti-Catholicism propaganda I will post my review. All I can say is that this is nothing new...the Catholic Church has been under attack since the day Christ founded it. He told us that the world would persecute us, so it's no big surprise. So keep trying world but realize that Christ also said:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. - Matt 16:18
In Christ,
Joe
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown: Another Cheap Shot at Catholicism
j: > Hello Everyone! I am attempting to return from my rather lengthy sabbatical. I've had a lot going on lately and it was simply a matter of prioritizing. I will admit that it was also, in part, due to my own selfishness. For that, I ask for forgiveness.]
rk: Why go through such hypocritical ritualistic posturing, unless you have learned that a spoonful of sugar only helps the arsenic of blind belief go down a little easier for nondiscriminating believers -- that, and you are studying to be a preacher?
rk: Truth speaks for itself. It does not require schmoozing. Such manipulative behavior only bespeaks the glitched spirit of the blind desiring to lead the blind. However, it is acknowledged that such behavior is the Satanic way of the world. You can see the shape the world is in because of such behavior.
j: > Now that I've taken care of that,
rk: Done your duty, eh, and now require recognition of it, do you? Why not see yourself as others see you? In that there is real spiritual growth.
j: > let's look at what I've chosen to write about today: The Da Vinci Code. I have not personally read this book yet but have a copy and intend to begin reading it once the Spring semester is over (yes, on top of being married, expecting a baby in August, and holding down a full-time job, I am also working on my bachelor's degree).
rk: You have yet to read the content about which you write -- Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?
j: > I have read several reviews of the book and have had several Protestant friends recommend the book, in fact my brother-in-law, who is Methodist, is the one who gave me the book. He claimed that it was incredible and historical. I had my doubts...
rk: In essence what you are saying is that this forum contribution reflects emptiness of substance. Such is the way of all illusion, is it not?
rk: All that glitter is not gold. Appearances are deceiving. Such is the way of most religious mystical offerings, is it not?
rk: Your actions indicate that you are devolving into the Witchdoctor Game, do they not? Do you not see your own long-term religious conditioning operant in your gushy-gushy, faux Christian (but empty) posturing? Where is the man? Where is the Substance? Where is the Conviction? Where is the Truth?
j: > Msgr. T.W. Young is the pastor of a church nearby and wrote a rather emotional review. I still intend to read the book but thought that this review was worth posting.
rk: What value have you produced by riding upon the coattails of another? Where are your words? your thoughts? your convictions?
j: > I will give my own personal review later this summer. Enjoy!
rk: Is this the level of intelligence possessed by the average modern day conditioned Catholic? (By the way, I was born into a Catholic family, baptized into the religion, and attended 8 years of Catholic school.)
j: > I did want to make a comments about this. First and foremost, Bl. Josemaria Escriva was recently canonized St. Josemaria Escriva. Secondly, I have always been a firm believer in getting the story from the source. With that in mind, anyone wanting additional information about Opus Dei, a "personal prelature of the Catholic Church" you can visit them at www.opusdei.com They are an orthodox movement in the Church that has been both been approved and encouraged by the Magisterium. A man whom I respect highly a one of the leading biblical scholars of our time, Dr. Scott Hahn, is a member of this movement.
j: > Interestingly enough, they have chosen to respond to the claims of The Da Vinci Code themselves. Their review can be read at www.opusdei.com/art.php?w=32&p=7017 Watch out Dan Brown.... You just got schooled! This response is excellent.
j: > As I stated earlier, once I have read this piece of anti-Catholicism propaganda I will post my review. All I can say is that this is nothing new...the Catholic Church has been under attack since the day Christ founded it. He told us that the world would persecute us, so it's no big surprise. So keep trying world but realize that Christ also said:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. - Matt 16:18
Joe, et al:
I hope that since you've published RK's note of Apr 18, that this is the last time we see his name, until he learns some manners.
In fairness to the rest of us who enjoy the civil exchange offerred by Deo Omnis Gloria, I think one chance is enough to raise issues so rudely on someone else's blog. Personnally I don't really want to hear from him again unless he behaves.
YIC, HF
Posted by: HF at April 18, 2004 06:00 PMRaymond,
You've got more hot air than anyone I know! Anyway, I edited your post since it deceptively looked like Joseph had posted it.
I would point out your errors, but I've already done that and it's difficult to argue with someone who believes nothing.
God bless,
Jay
Clearly Raymond you have some issues to deal with...
You reference above that I am "riding on the coattails of another", yet what human being doesn't? Even Jesus constantly quoted Moses and the prophets.
You make the comment:
rk: Is this the level of intelligence possessed by the average modern day conditioned Catholic? (By the way, I was born into a Catholic family, baptized into the religion, and attended 8 years of Catholic school.)
What level of intelligence are you referring to here? The statement seems to be out of context.
I find it a bit presumptuous that you would make the comment that you were baptized Catholic and attended 8 years of Catholic school implying that you must be an expert on matters of Catholicism... Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here but it appears to be a bit prideful, which is Satanic if you didn't know :-) Just kidding (I just noticed you seem to like that word), but seriously you should think about that.
In truth, I don't see how any of the points, or lack there of, have anything to do with the context of the article. Coming to a blog and attempting to attack the character of others (i.e. questioning why one would be asking others to forgive his absence from active participation on an open dialogue blog), seems to reflect a lack of mercy and an absence of a genuine desire for Truth. As I stated above, you didn't even comment on the context of the article.
In Christ,
Joe
Ecumenical hypocrisy rears its ugly head!!
April 18, 2004 06:00 PM
Joe Wrote:
Jay wrote:
hf wrote:
Raymond Karczewski (arkent3@earthlink.net) wrote:
Joe, et al:
hf: > I hope that since you've published RK's note of Apr 18, that this is the last time we see his name, until he learns some manners.
rk: Ah! the coercion of peer pressure rears its ugly SATANIC head. What ever happened to open-mindedness? Anyone see a "Contradiction in Essence" expressed by a power-oriented blind believer?
hf: > In fairness to the rest of us who enjoy the civil exchange offerred by Deo Omnis Gloria, I think one chance is enough to raise issues so rudely on someone else's blog.
rk: What does fairness have to do with the expression of Truth? Such implementation of Satanic concepts merely creates the rules
by which the games of Hell are played.
hf: > Personnally I don't really want to hear from him again unless he behaves.
rk: Exposure of the pettiness of blind believers does not sit well with you catholic folks, does it?
YIC, HF
Posted by: HF at April 18, 2004 06:00 PM
Raymond,
j: > You've got more hot air than anyone I know! Anyway, I edited your post since it deceptively looked like Joseph had posted it.
rk: I don't understand how my comments looked like joe posted them. I clearly marked the statements with the initials of the person who expressed them.
j: > I would point out your errors, but I've already done that and it's difficult to argue with someone who believes nothing.
rk: I have not seen where you have pointed our any errors. Where would they be located? Your comment regarding the difficulty of arguing with someone who believes nothing belies your own personal level of spiritual understanding. When you chance to see the vibrational differences between belief and understanding, you will grasp the dualistic essence of argument. Satanic, isn't it?
God bless,
Jay
Posted by: Jay at April 18, 2004 06:01 PM
j: > Clearly Raymond you have some issues to deal with...
rk: What would they be? Why so vague? Express yourself like any self-respecting Christ would.
j: > You reference above that I am "riding on the coattails of another", yet what human being doesn't? Even Jesus constantly quoted Moses and the prophets.
rk: Observing what others have observed and verbalizing them is clearly not the same thing as parroting or using their words or articles verbatim.
j: > You make the comment:
rk: Is this the level of intelligence possessed by the average modern day conditioned Catholic? (By the way, I was born into a Catholic family, baptized into the religion, and attended 8 years of Catholic school.)
j: > What level of intelligence are you referring to here? The statement seems to be out of context.
rk: How is it out of context? It merely pushes the envelope and draws you out of your conditioned belief comfort zone.
j: > I find it a bit presumptuous that you would make the comment that you were baptized Catholic and attended 8 years of Catholic school implying that you must be an expert on matters of Catholicism...
rk: No implication at all, just a simple statement of fact to lay a foundation for dialogue.
j: > Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here but it appears to be a bit prideful, which is Satanic if you didn't know :-)
rk: Yes indeed, it is a fact that you and the other limited-thinking conditioned believers have misunderstood my simple statements. Look at the responses which have arisen from within your group-collective Catholic consciousness. It indeed tells the story, does it not?
j: > Just kidding (I just noticed you seem to like that word), but seriously you should think about that.
rk: Sorry. I don't suffer hypocrites very well who say one thing immediately followed by "Just Kidding" in order to cover themselves both ways.
j: > In truth, I don't see how any of the points, or lack there of, have anything to do with the context of the article. Coming to a blog and attempting to attack the character of others (i.e. questioning why one would be asking others to forgive his absence from active participation on an open dialogue blog), seems to reflect a lack of mercy and an absence of a genuine desire for Truth.
rk: Truth is unmerciful, is it not? If you "think" not, you don't understand what Truth is. The question remains why do you and the others run so hard and fast in retreat from it?
j: > As I stated above, you didn't even comment on the context of the article.
rk: There was nothing to comment on. The author of the article was not present to dialogue with. I was merely addressing one who uses another's words rather than his own. (Sorta like bible thumpers)
Raymond Ronald Karczewski©--A Christ Without Amnesia
In Christ,
Joe
Posted by: Joe at April 18, 2004 06:12 PM
I will cut to the heart of the matter. You are a man in crisis who claims to hold some bizzard grasp on some truth which you cannot even clearly define.
Truth is simple and clear. God is a loving and merciful God. Jesus is the manifestation of the Love of God for He is Love. True Love is Divine Mercy, for it is perfect mercy. Jesus Christ is the Truth, for He has told us so Himself. Therefore, Truth is Mercy, not merciless as you would contend. God is Love, God is Mercy, God is Truth.
I would also like to point out how for someone who claims to have some sort of "enlightened consciousness" you are quick to adhere to one age-old Judeo-Christian doctrine; the existence of Satan and the Satanic. I have read through several of your comments and find your constant appealing to the "Satanic" to be thematic in your overall train of thought. I guess it was the one piece of Christian doctrine that fit your "enlightened consciousness". Your comments are anything but enlightened for they are scattered and confused....which I would say is more in union with the world (and the Satanic for that matter) than with God.
So as you wonder through your thoughts and personal Christhood know this...that if you claim to be another christ you make yourself just another antichrist for you fail to acknowledge the "True Christ, Jesus Christ". Pride goes before the fall....
I will pray for your conversion, fortunately for you I pray to the only "True Christ" of heaven and earth - Jesus Christ. May all the saints, angels, and those reading this now pray for the soul of Raymond that the darkness be lifted from his mind and heart, and that he will find the Truth that can only be found in the saving mercy and love of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
In Christ,
Joe
I had a core Near Death, coma, car acc., there is judgement,{validity of conscience}, a Council, as in Revelations, God is just, love and understanding, that's why the Council sent me back with a "mission" Knowledge of Christ, is not, dependent upon a book written with Satan's inspiration. It is evidence of evil in the written word, but the Masons are happy, so is the "illuminate"-but I am not, until it has been smashed, like all the other evil, that roams the world, seeking the ruin of souls.
Posted by: Linda Cooper at April 27, 2004 04:07 AMI happened to run into this article just by browsing GOOGLE. I have a case filed with the police over what this rude, idiotic, 7 time felon is doing to me daily.
PLEASE plug into GOOGLE "Arkent3, Kathy" and what you see will amaze you. He has been stalking me for 3 months now, no one can figure out why, plus he lives only about 20 minutes away from me. Yes, VERY spooky!
Could you please e-mail me; I would like to give you the address of the DA, and would really appreciate if you could send him a quick note about your dealings with Raymond, and what happened to you.
With best wishes always, K
Kathy L. Dean
Williams, OR 97544
kathylynndean@ direcway.com
http://www.kathylynndean.com
ive loved the book and i never thought i would read a whole book but it makes me think about everything i thought about church i beleive things are hiden that churchs dont want us to know about churches make way to much money have to much at stake to come clean
Posted by: jaden at February 13, 2005 06:41 PMHey Folks,
For the very best response to the DaVinci Code (and by a real NT scholar!!) get a hold of Bart Ehrman's book "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Available at your local Amazon :-)
Blessing!
Posted by: Jack at February 16, 2005 12:47 PMI love the book.
Posted by: john garrett at March 19, 2005 02:15 PMNo offense, John, but that doesn't mean a lot to me.
God bless,
Jay
O C'mon Jay!
Brown's book is a really good mystery. Though its true that while reading it, I was "punched in the stomach" with a lot of in-credible details..., I had FUN reading it.
Even if Brown doesn't know it too well, his book is only fiction, and a heck of a ride.
On the other hand, Ehrman's response is almost as much fun.
Peace!
Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2005 03:20 PMnowhere in the bible does it say that the Sabbath is a Sunday! Furthermore the resurection happened on the Sabbath or saturday. This is because Jesus was killed on the first annual Sabbath celebrated by Jews all round the world. THat is why Mary and co wanted to prepare the body for burial because it was the first available opportunity they had. Now Jesus talked about a period of 3 days taken in context 72 hours. How can you equate friday evening and early sunday morning( Mary and co headed to tomb early) with 72 hours. Add it up it just doesnt work. Jesus was crucified late wednsday the first annual 'high day' or Sabbath in the Mosiac Law and then burired early thursay and raised Saturday.
Posted by: halo at May 3, 2005 09:33 PMhalo,
Study a little more history. First, the Sabbath is a Saturday (the 7th day of the week). Jesus was crucified on a Friday - this was always the day of crucifixion during this celebration. Then he was raised on Sunday. This isn't a literal 72 hours, but He was deceased for three days (Friday, Saturday, Sunday). The Bible is not a science book.
The Church changed the day of worship from Saturday (Jewish day of worship) to Sunday (since Christ rose on a Sunday). This isn't difficult to find if you look in real history books - I'm not sure what you've been reading!
God bless,
Jay
