What do folk think about the da Vinci Code?

I'm not desperate to see the film - I read the book in about two days, and though it was pretty naff. But beyond that there's a lot on here about the response which the Church has made to the film.

Lots on here counter explaining the facts (such as the open fraud of the Priory of Sion) with the line "can't you tell what fiction means" - yet according to a survey here in the U.K. many have been taken in by the baseless suggestion that Our Lord married &c. (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/17/nvinci17.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/17/ixuknewsnew.html ).

It seems to me that pointing out the many inaccuracies which are not actually part of the novel, but are part of the assumed "factual" base of the story is perfectly reasonable. I was wondering what others think.

I thought Cardinal Arinze reacted the wrong way to the whole thing honestly.

And I think the Church doth protests way too much.

At the risk of blaspheming or offending, if Christ **was** married it makes not one whit of difference to me. It does not invalidate His teachings or His message. At least as far as my faith is concerned.

Christ's teachings are why I am a Christian, I don't care if he was married or not, it wouldn't affect my opinion of him. Shame really that one of the cardinals protesting the most was Arinze who I thought could have made a good pope.

Although there's no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that Jesus was married, that's not the main controversial claim of DVC. Rather, it's the notion that Jesus was merely a human (and one who, apparently, was a devoted follower of certain pagan beliefs in sexual gnosis and the "sacred feminine") until the Council of Nicaea in the early 4th century decided to proclaim him divine, write a new Bible, suppress all previous scriptures that presented him as merely mortal, and thus create the new and fraudulent religion of Christianity. A claim for which, I would add, there is no support in history -- even someone who had studied Religious History 101 at the most secular of universities would know that the facts reveal Brown's claim to be the purest flimflam.

They got kicked out of the Catholic (then termed "Christian") Church in the 4th century for trying to meld pagan beliefs--during the time pagan Rome still ruled--into Christianity.

DVC is fiction.

Way too much is being made out of this book.

are those who seem to accept the premises upon which it was build. These are not fiction, rather they are incorrect and baseless attempts at history.

I can accept a fictional book which has anything as part of its plot (though I'd choose not to read many because they're not my kind of book), but the D.V.C. is accepted by many people as the correct interpretation of what actually happened (despite a total lack of evidence to support it).

If the readers of the book treated it as fiction, I'm sure that the response from the Church would have been tiny if anything - but people are believing it, and that is why there has to be some response. Whether the shouts of "boycott" are the best way to respond is a very different matter.

he is god made man. in the story of him in the garden before he is arrested he shows his human side when he asks his father to let this whole thing pass if he would. also at the wedding in cana when his mother said to the waiters to give jesus the water to turn to wine, he at first dissed his mother and said, "women it ain't my time" and she gave him the evil eye and he did it. so he is a human. and as far as being married, who really cares.

Its a short read with short chapters and breathless cliffhangers. It reads like a script for a thriller movie, not a novel. I found it irritatingly bad. Not as bad as Left Behind, but bad nonetheless.

I was not really offended about the anti-catholic stuff until the end when Brown pulls a "just kidding, it was all someone else's fault." That kind of crappy cop-out allows him to make the catholics so all kind of crazy things, then justify it in the end.

Brown is such a crappy writer. I read the book when it came out eons ago, after having read one of his earlier novels,hoping that he might have improved. Nah.I wasn't offended by his 'momentous' ending, just bored by it.

I thought that he had a postscript in which he stated that everything he was writing about was true. Perhaps I'm remembering that incorrectly.

I read the book and didn't think much of it. I still don't understand why it was on the Best Sellers list for umpteen weeks.





http://movies.msn.com/movies/cannes06/davincicode_critics

is that some people have taken it as the gospel truth. I recently read (though not sure how often this happens) that people actually ask if they can see where Mary Magdalene's bones are buried when the visit the Louvre.

I enjoyed the book, but my taste in fiction is very broad. (I am reading "The Second Deadly Sin" right now, and I recently finished shorter novels by Wilder and Melville.) I found some of the logic in Brown's book preposterous: Why would Jesus' descendants have a claim on the throne of France? Because he is descended from the House of David, king of Israel? What does David have to do with France? And, if Jesus fathered a child, why does this mean he is not the son of God? Christian tradition teaches that Jesus is God and man -- at the risk of sounding sacrilegious, wouldn't the Son of God have the right equipment, so to speak?

I also have to laugh at the people who take seriously the notion that the Crimean council suddenly waved a magic wand that made Jesus divine, and the cover-up began; he was just an ordinary man up til then. Er, have they never read Paul . . ?

Then again, no: they probably haven't.

It's fiction. Treat it as such. (And yes, I had to "suspend my disbelief" at the French tie-in, too.)

Picked up my archdiocesan newspaper this week, and what do I find? A multi-page insert debunking DaVinci. Enough already! From what I hear, the movie will sink under its own pretentious weight anyway. (My local paper gave it a C+ review. Not exactly stellar.)

Memo to Vatican: Let's move on. Pulleeze?

Vatican should have ignored the silly thing. The fact that it's responding at all only adds fuel to the fire.

Over 50 million people have read the book. From the reactions I've seen, most seem to believe that the novel "exposes the truth" about the supposedly-fraudulent creation of Christianity. Why should the Church not fight back when the facts are all on its side?

And, for those who would say that public opposition "only adds fuel to the fire"...that's exactly what Kerry's advisors told him about the SwiftBoat ads. Ignore them and they'll go away. It didn't work. Ignoring something is only an option when the matter is of too low visibility on its own -- not when you're dealing with something as much a part of popular culture as DVC has become.

Except that the Church's reaction seems to be making matters worse.

Unfortunately, it's one more thing that appeals to people's prejudices, just like the immigrant issue.

I've had people tell me, smugly, in one breath, that it's just a movie and that Catholics should "get over it," and the next breath they're telling me of all the "facts" contained in it.

What's really upsetting is the number of DUers who are buying into it.

Jesus was married and that Mary Magdelene had a major role in the early Church. More than anything else, in some people's minds that would end any justification for mandetory priestly celibacy or a male-only priesthood. In other words, a cheap pot boiler has given these people a reason to accept a married and/or female priests. It may be frustrating to those of us more familar with the history of celibacy and the priestly role of some women in the early Church, but there it is.

And I think Brown probably did get his idea from it, no matter what the courts might think.

It's an interesting book, but I think it did push credibility a bit far.

documentation admitted in the '70s the whole thing was a hoax.
I find the whole thing too convoluted and ridiculous myself. My husband (who is not Catholic) says there are too many people involved -- every conspiracy falls apart and every secret is blown if enough people are involved.

Seriously though, the history of Europe and the church is bloody and tragic -- and sad -- enough without throwing in a lot of wild speculation.

It was pretty boring. As a target on our religion? I think your faith must be pretty weak if you let this stupid film (or stupid book...) affect it. It's not like Brown wrote Paradise Lost or anything.

the book.

I also think if someones faith is shaken by either the book or film, their faith is pretty weak.

The Church can make its case against the book and movie without going into all the histronics that it has since about the day after DVC was published two or three years ago.

With all this hysteria, is it any wonder that doubts are being raised by those who aren't educated in the religion? Me thinks it doth protest too much, and all that.

And I still think Ron Howard had the best response to all this. Don't see the movie if you think it will offend you. Pretty simple, eh? I can't help what people believe, or choose to believe, and neither can the Church. The truth is there if people want to look for it. But you can't make them. In the meantime, let the institution speak for itself. It's survived for millenia; somehow, I think it will come through even DVC. :)

I may sound pretty simplistic here, but I am getting damn tired of this silliness occupying so much of the Church's attention.

and I salute the filmakers for getting so much hype from religious freaks who have nothing better to do.

I could give a lesser damn about what consrevative catholics (They get lower case "C" because that's what they are) think...

I expect that it'll be more fun to watch it at home so we ca all have a good time making smart remarks about the wild inaccuracies and implausible story line and over-the-top characters. (I mean, c'mon, the murderous self flagellating monk is also an albino?!?!? And what's with Tom Hanks' hair anyways? Did he think we wouldn't recognize him?)

It wasn't as bad as some reviewers made it out to be, but wasn't as exciting as it should have been.

What I enjoyed most, actually, was the memories of Paris it brought back for me. This had nothing to do with the movie, of course.

The book and presumably the film are full of so many statements presenting fiction as fact that it is impossible to keep up with them all. (Sort of like Rush Limbaugh, I guess). I have seen assertions here on DU about history that are close enough to fact to sound true but are in fact wild stories direct from the Da Vinci code. For example, did you know that Constantine selected the books that made it into the New Testament and burned all the rest? Don't worry, that'd be news to Constantine himself. Constantine may have called the Council of Nicea, but he didn't control it. To the best of my knowledge, he actually leaned towards Arianism himself, and the COuncil (and Nicene Creed) firmly denounced that as heresy. The problem is, unless you make a hobby of early Church history, your memory of details is bound to be fuzzy enough that the fiction from the Da Vinci Code will be come as accepted as the notion that everyone but Columbus thought the world was flat!

Jesus can be both human and Divine, imho.

he is both God and Man!

The problem with the book is the misinformation about Church history that is presented as "facts" buried by the hierarchy.