It’s amazing how much religions have in common in spite of their avowed claims to being the one true faith and all others non-believers. While they may have differences of opinion when it comes to the articles of their faith, they sure seem to keep similar practices.
This seems especially true of those who claim to be most orthodox. Perhaps the more devout you are, the less room you have in your mind for dissenting opinions. Could it be that devotion and tolerance are mutually self-exclusive?
From Vatican City to the mosques of Teheran and the television studios of Pat Robertson-type Protestantism, the reaction to the issues of choice, equality for homosexuals, and dissenting opinions are pretty much the same. Thanks to their work, efforts to implement any degree of safe sex and family planning in the countries hardest hit by AIDs are routinely thwarted. On the issue of same sex marriage, they have been united in their condemnation and attempts to interfere in the governance of countries.
However, that’s just small potatoes when it comes to the matter of dissenting opinions. You’d think that Protestants would be more tolerant, as they were born out of dissent, and to be fair the more moderate denominations usually are, but perhaps that’s why they fear it so much. What happened once could happen again and they are worried about losing their power.
They each use whatever tools they have at their disposal to ensure that the minds of true believers are kept pure and untainted by thoughts that challenge the status quo. Muslims have the Fatwah, which, although not universally binding, imposes the will of a particular cleric upon his followers. The Christian Right of the United States has the organization and skills necessary to manipulate public opinion through pressure campaigns to have books removed from libraries and television shows cancelled.
The Catholic Church is an old hand at this, having had close to two thousand years to refine its skills. As it is no longer acceptable to burn people at the stake, and torture, although making a comeback in some circles, is still mainly frowned upon, they've had, however, to discard some of the tried and true methods of the Inquisition.
This still leaves them with three fairly effective weapons: The persona of the pope as the voice of Christ on earth, the list of proscribed books, and excommunication. The Catholic Church has long justified the power of the pope by claiming that Jesus said to Peter: "You and all those who follow shall be like my voice on earth". Something along those lines anyway. Whatever the exact words are, it comes down to that when the pope says jump Catholics are supposed to say how high.
Article comments
1 - Brian Jones
GB, I think these announcements might be a little Inside Pool for non-churchgoers. I mean, surely you're not saying that churches are required to bless, or blithely ignore, every book that comes down the pike?
No church (no Christian church, anyway) can forbid its members to read a book, no matter how dangerous. What's wrong with pointing out to its members that a book might contain plausible and seductive but utterly false takes on their core beliefs? Not all churchgoers have the immediate wherewithal to suss this out on their own, and it's not as if the book is some kind of innocent romp: in fact Dan Brown has stated quite plainly that part of his aim with the book is to cause people to question the teachings of their faith. Shouldn't the church be able to push back?
Anyway, I daresay that one who finds these announcements silly will find a great deal about the church silly. YMMV.
(Boilerplate: No offense taken, none intended.)
2 - Warren
The thing I've found amazing about the whole DaVinci Code phenom is that it is just plain bad history. It's been treated that way by historians.
I think this is another "Last Temptation of Christ" situation. If Christians had ignored LToC, there would have been little attention paid to it. DaVinci Code is decent fiction, but is based on bad history -- which makes Brown's assertion at the beginning of the book (that it is based on solid historical fact)a problem.
I think that rather than telling people they can't read it, we need to do what most evangelicals have done -- examine the claims of the book, and compare then to historic fact. Show where the book is obviously fiction.
I said it when the Left Behind books came out -- I shudder to think that people are getting theology (OR history) from works of fiction.
3 - Bernie Cullen
While I found the opinion somewhat interesting as it pertains to the Church, I am somewhat annoyed at the fact that someone would post an opinion pertaining to a book the he has not read. The book itself is annoying for reasons I expressed in my review on Amazon.com.
4 - Nancy
I concur: I would have liked some details from the book itself. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet, altho it's on my 'to-do' list, but I am interested in the conjecture that JC married MM. Given the Judaic disapproval of celibacy, & cultural tendency for every adult to be married (unless there's something seriously wrong w/you), I always found it improbable that JC stayed single, even if he did know he had a mission/was doomed.
BTW, the latest is that the pope, having been named as a co-defendent in a conspiracy to obfuscate justice ref: pedophile priest case, has actually petitioned Smirk (not the US govt, Smirk himself) to declare him "immune" from US lawsuits on the grounds he (the pope) is a Head of State.
This church is in serious trouble, headed with moral lepers like this.
5 - bigdoggy
Sure it's fiction. It doesn't claim to be anything else and therefore doesn't need to be attacked by the church. But the guy who's worried about theology being learned through fiction needs to realise that all of the Bible is simply the writings of people, writing about hearsay generations after the first hearings and sayings. Anyone who is a devout believer would have been a devout believer in whatever religion they'd been raised to believe. Or do Christians think that they would still have been Christian if they'd been born and raised a Muslim, or a Jew like Christ? Everything you believe is based entirely upon what some other people have said or written. At least with science you can test out the theories for yourself. You can even dig up your own fossils or prove that the Earth goes around the Sun. Basing your life and morality on hearsay is a dangerous thing and the devotion of dimwits to their own religion is what's responsible for all of the world's ills.
6 - Tony
The Pope has the responsibility to teach his faithful. You, as a non-Catholic have the right to ignore his teaching.
7 - Bird of Paradise
"Haven't read the book..." Makes up a quote from the Bible ("Something along those lines anyway"), Catholic Church "proscribing 'Da Vinci Code?'" (a Google search shows that Jordan and Lebanon have banned it; two Bishops have called for a boycott; & Cardinal Bertone of the Vatican says 'It's full of lies"...which is true) so? What's wrong with this? Have you ever told a friend "Don't see such and such a movie, it will bore you to tears"? is this "proscribing?"
By the way, you must be the only person in the world would has used the phrase "great literature" in the same sentence with "The Last Temptation of Christ." And to equate it with "Ulysses" is almost embarrassing!
Oh, and by the way, while still a Cardinal, the current Pope wrote a personal letter to a woman who had sent him a book in which she had written her concerns about the Harry Potter books. Here is the relevent text of Ratzinger's reply:
"It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly."
This was written, by the way, in the context of the world press falsely stating that Pope John Paul II had affirmed the book (which he most certainly had not done). In part, Ratzinger was trying to correct the misrepresentation by publically expressing his own PERSONAL (not official) position.
I suppose that we are all entitled to express our opinions. But when when we put them into writing and publish them on the internet it is usually a good thing to ground them on facts that bear at least some resemblance to reality.
8 - Kevin
I haven't read the book, don't intend to, since childhood know the canon of arguments of those who hate the Church. The Church is right to condemn those who slander her. May the author and those who promote the book enjoy their just rewards.
Kevin
9 - RogerMDillion
"it is a good read, but woefully inaccurate."
Did you miss the part where it's fiction. What does accuracy have to do with it?
10 - Mickey
I think Dan Brown is an overrated writer. I read his other book , 'Angels and Demons' after having read Da Vinci Code many months back - and I was surprised how similar both books . Same intrigue , similar plot line , suspense ,romance - everything. Brown is a limited writer with limited vision happening to have an idea which he regurgitates again and again , making a decent living out of it.
11 - Mickey
By the way - how does is matter whether Christ was married or not ? If JC was not a virgin as it is commonly believed , the only people who need to be upset are the millions of Catholic priests and nuns ,dead and alive , who over the centuries swore themselves to celibacy , believing it to be 'sacred'...what a frikkin' waste..;)
12 - tony summerfelt
um. the book is FICTION right? a novel?
anybody taking ANYTHING seriously in the book other than some thought provoking entertainment is reading the wrong book.
the very fact that some 'story' history was smoothly blended with real history (to the us without history degrees), is genius.
it had everybody hitting their history books so they could come back and claim 'bad history'.
pure genious on dan brown's part. he's got people ARGUING over events that happen in a NOVEL.
13 - Brian Jones
It's somewhat unseemly to jump around saying "It's just a novel, just a novel" when Dan Brown himself
has stated that he intended to plant seeds of doubt in church-goers' minds. He acomplishes this by hanging his clockwork plot on a claim of historical accuracy regarding certain elements of the plot. Given that intent, then, even as a work of fiction it's quite reasonable to point out historic and theological fallacies. This way, those who take church history seriously are encouraged to recognize they're being sold a bill of goods. Fiction is a way of saying true things that it might be exceptionally difficult to say in other ways; so I think it's valuable to know that this book is saying false things under a rubric of made-up history.
14 - Marianne
The people speeking out against the Da Vinci Code are right to stand up for what they believe in. If they don't stand up then who will. Though many say it is just a fictional movie/ novel, for those who don't know any better it can be very onvincing. The way Dan Brown presents his book, and the statements at the begining of the book claming historical accuracy, make the story behind the book seem very plossible to those who don't know much about the Christian faith. By speeking out against the Da Vinci Code Christians can prevent this confusion from spreading.
15 - Marianne
The people speaking out against the Da Vinci Code are right to stand up for what they believe in. If they don't stand up then who will. Though many say it is just a fictional movie/ novel, for those who don't know any better it can be very convincing. The way Dan Brown presents his book, and the statements at the begining of the book claming historical accuracy, make the story behind the book seem very plossible to those who don't know much about the Christian faith. By speaking out against the Da Vinci Code Christians can prevent this confusion from spreading.
16 - gonzo marx
o fcourse..the Church in it's many incarnations has never hidden any kind of truth, burned or killed any innocents, nor covered up anything that would make them look bad...right?
can you say...Pope Joan?
ahh...fuck it...too easy
Excelsior?