Teachable Moment or Sellout?

Earlier this week, Mark Pinsky of the Orlando Sentinel interviewed me for a piece he was writing on Grace Hill Media's work with Sony Pictures on marketing The Da Vinci Code film.

Here's the main article, which first focuses on what Campus Crusade for Christ and Josh McDowell are doing - producing study guides and other resources for those seeing the film, a project which, by their own admittance, is crossing over from using the moment to teach to encouraging people to see the film:

As a conservative evangelical leader, Josh McDowell is one of the last people you'd expect to urge young Christians to see The Da Vinci Code, the upcoming movie based on the phenomenally best-selling novel. After all, the book argues that Jesus sired a line of royalty before he died on the cross, because Mary Magdalene was pregnant with his child -- and that all of it was covered up by religious leaders through the centuries.

But McDowell, author of The Da Vinci Code -- A Quest for Truth, not only urges a trip to the theater, but also advises everybody to read the novel.

Then, he says, read his book.

"I don't attack [Da Vinci Code author] Dan Brown. I don't attack the book," says McDowell, who is on the staff of Orlando-based Campus Crusade for Christ. "Let's see where fact leaves off and imagination begins. It's a marvelous opportunity to be positive. The main purpose of my book is to reinforce their belief and placate their skepticism. If you look carefully, truth will always stand."

Grace Hill Media comes next, and Pinsky is just a little bit fuzzy about the situation, I"m guessing probably because no one from Grace Hill will be forthright about their arrangement with Sony:

What is not by the numbers is a quiet campaign by Sony, the studio producing the film, to court the one group most likely to be offended by the book's central theme: evangelical Protestants such as McDowell.

Through Grace Hill Media, a Hollywood firm headed by Jonathan Bock that markets studio films to Christian audiences, those who oppose the book's thesis are being courted, consulted, cajoled and encouraged to voice their criticism in ways that could blunt their opposition. Bock has had extensive meetings and conversations with Campus Crusade officials, including Gauthier, and faculty members of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif.

"I don't comment on projects I'm working on," says Bock, who has promoted The Chronicles of Narnia, Lord of the Rings, Holes and Walk the Line.

William Romanowski, author of Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture, says he is not surprised that Sony hired someone such as Bock to market the movie to the Christian community.

"Bock's efforts here are that he is trying to advance a kind of dialogue between the church and Hollywood generally and more specifically a dialogue about this film," says Romanowski, professor of communication arts at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich. "They're moving away from the idea of film as evangelical or educational, toward film as a means of cultural discourse."

This is such a fine line. Not the Grace Hill stuff, which is, I think a fairly inarguable sell-out (since they are getting money from Sony for this), but what it means to see this phenomenon as a teachable moment - for to encourage people to see the film is not just to engage in the culture - it's to help the filmmakers profit from the lies they're telling.

My part, along with Bill Donohue, is in an accompanying article:

Amy Welborn; author of Decoding Da Vinci: The Facts Behind the Fiction of the Da Vinci Code, a Catholic-based critique of Brown's book, is not offended by the actions of Josh McDowell and other evangelical Protestants to use the movie's release to defend and spread their faith.

"I'm not going to pour cynicism on this," she says. "To me it's just ironic. It's a hard place for all of us to be in. When do you cross the line from using it as a teachable moment to promoting the film?"

Welborn draws the line at preparing study guides that are posted on a Sony-sponsored Web site: "That implies that one needs to either read the book or see the movie."

"I'm wary of two things," says Welborn, a former high-school teacher. "That is, falling into promoting the product. I'm also a little wary of taking it too seriously. I do see The Da Vinci Code as damaging. It deceives people. At the same time, it's really silly."

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, takes a similar approach to the movie's release.

The "irony" which I was speaking of up there isn't exactly clear. The ironic point I was seeing was that evangelical Christians were going to be encouraging people to examine the real early history of early Christianity, a history which involves things like Church councils, the origins of Scripture, the relationship between Scripture and church, etc. Fifty years ago or so some evangelicals would have been echoing Brown's cant about Constantine, etc. We're long past that, of course, as evangelical scholars and publishing houses are today doing a great deal of work on patristics and early Christian origins that surpass what RC's are up to (because you know, there's this big chill that the Ratz put them under). But it's still ironic  - and good - that evangelicals are going to encourage folks to examine early Christian history. We're all the better for it!

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Like a broken record, I repeat - it's  a fine line. I'm just not comfortable with the side of the line that brings profits to those who are spreading lies about early Christianity. And let me say this...hmmm...how shall I say it?

The film treatment of these issues is not weakened, one bit. If anything, because all of Brown's repetition and useless exposition is eliminated, the impact of the historical material is heightened. And it's all there - from Constantine to the marriage of JC and MM to the Church burning 5 million witches to Opus Dei as a "sect of radical fundamentalists" - it's all there. 

There needs to be a response - it needs to be strong, vigorous, positive, and consistent. But how do we do this without letting Sony, Imagine, Howard and Hanks laugh all the way to the bank? I'm just not sure.

Update: Just one further thought. The problem with the argument that you must read or see DVC in order to engage the culture on the points it raises is that - you don't.

See, the problematic elements in DVC aren't related to anything that must be seen in context. They're not embodied in the unique qualities of characters you read about or see onscreen that must be encountered that way to be understood. They're not discerned through evocative writing or the nuances of lighting, cinematography and screenwriting. They're not even really part of a "plot" that unravels.

No, the problematic points are simple assertions that characters make to each other in long, boring speeches. Mostly Teabing, the Ian McKellan scholar character. Teabing says, "You know the Bible wasn't dropped from heaven." Sophie says. "Oh!" And then Teabing goes on to "explain." Sophie shows Langdon the fleur-de-lis with the "P" and "S" and Langdon gets all goofy and awestruck and gives her a speech about the Priory of Sion, and Sophie says "Oh." (In the film, Langdon's discussion of the Priory of Sion is slightly more nuanced than it is in the book, a sop to the annoying naysayers.  [Such as religious fanatics like Laura Miller in right-wing 'zines like Salon. But whatever] He compares talking to it, for example, to describing a myth like Atlantis. Although at no point later is the "myth" exploded or questioned.)

My point is that everything that needs addressing in the film is contained in these speeches and expositions. The context - the purportedly "exciting" and "suspenseful" plot of either the book or the film - adds nothing and illuminates nothing.

That's why I always tell people that it's not necessary to read the book. They can discuss the problem perfectly well without doing so.

Also - this columnist declares that certain anti-Catholic fundamentalists shouldn't have too much problem with DVC, if they're true to their roots. (via Bill Cork)

Comments

[JP]

I think Brown should be commended for his skills at picking a hot button subject. His publisher did a fatnastic job of marketing the book, and the MSM did even a better job of making this fantasy academically respectable. I never did read the book, but when I found out that Opus Dei was this ancient, diabolical society that killed for the Vatican, I about died laughing. I think Brown has created a new prosperous genre or subgenre.

Has anyone got any ideas for thier own conspiracy novel? Prehaps, one featuring the Poor Hand Maidens. Could the rumours be true that they are in fact on the Mossad's payroll? Or how about RCIA Directors? Maybe someone could write a thriller about how RCIA Directors secretly are bugging the confessionals for the NSA? The sky's the limit.

[Sandra Miesel]

Today (Saturday's) WALL STREET JOURNAL has a long article about the DA VINCI CODE "industry" and the way Brown keeps getting packaged and repackaged. But he can't seem to manage to produce that promised sequel, now can he?
I resent the few obols that I'll have to toss in their coffers in order to keep attacking TDVC. We can mutter all we want "Truth will out" but meanwhile, a subtantial portion of his 40 million readers and unnumbered future viewers will be persuaded of his falsehoods and will stay persuaded. It's only a teachable moment when people are open to being taught.

[fr. frank]

"But how do we do this without letting Sony, Imagine, Howard and Hanks laugh all the way to the bank?"

Whether they will laugh on their way to the bank, I can not say.

But why would any believing Christian want to pay for a movie or a book that claims that Jesus was not divine? That he was not who he said he was? That the Sacred Scriptures are just a bunch of hooey?

Some will say, "Oh, ligthen up, Father. It's just fiction," or Dan Brown's "just kidding."

Well, there's some things you don't kid about it: like the divinity of Christ and the veracity of the Scriptures.

I don't think anyway should go to the movie.

[fr. frank]

Make that "I don't think anyone should go to the movie."

[ml]

Well, people could always wait until it's available on video and rent it for a group. Better yet, look for dollar day rental somewhere. My Albertson's supermarket has a video rental department and offers newly released movies for $1 for a 24-hour rental on Mondays and Thursdays. People would still be seeing the movie, but four or five people seeing TDVC for $1 would put a lot less money in Sony and Dan Brown's pocket than four or five people seeing it in the theater for $8 apiece.

[Chris]

Even better, wait until it's at your local library. Free as long as your return it in time.

[Denise]

When NBC tried their ill-fated series, The Book of Daniel about a drug-addicted Episcopal priest and his dysfunctional family, the Catholics protested,the Evangelical Protestants protested, but the Episcopalians said, "Oh wonderful. We will use this as a teachable moment." The Washington DC Diocese set up its blog and they were ready to provide the truth to all those who asked. My reaction was "Haven't you learned anything from the Catholics and the DaVinci Code?" You only get one chance at a first impression.Viewers don't come flocking to real authorities and say, "Okay, you give me the true story." With regards to the DVC, once this distorted version of Catholicism is viewed, we will always be behind the curve trying to undo the damaging image it creates. No one should do anything to promote viewing of this movie. We should agressively condemn the movie and respond with the truth, but we should realize there are many people who are happy to accept Dale Brown's story as the final word.

[catholic]

Just a side thought about the film as a teachable moment and irony. It would be pleasantly ironic if Protestants wound up defending the Catholic church against DVC falsehoods in their efforts to discredit the movie.

[Tom Haessler]

Hi, Fr. Frank,

SOME people have excellent reasons to buy books that deny the divinity of Christ and the veractity of the Scriptures. My library is replete with books on Marxism, atheistic versions of psychoanalytic theory, shoddy gnostic new agey spiritualities, the works of heretics like Luther and Calvin, and the musings of Jesus Seminar types. With these I'm better equipped to defend Catholic truth. I would not recommend any of these to those intellectually or spiritually unequipped to read them.

Both Amy and Sandra are right to fear that many people will be harmed by the film. But the minority who will care enough to examine specious claims with the help of books like Amy's and Sandra's will be equipped to influence others. And, as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out before he was elected pope, it is minorities that will determine the future, not the masses.

Evangelicals are only recently willing to engage the culture (having only recently shed the anti-humanist stance of classical Calvinism and its offshoots).

The reality is that many will probably see the film. It's better not to get a reputation for cultural philistinism, as happened when Mother Angelica, in a moment of zeal, said everyone who went to see THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST would go to Hell! Well instructed Catholics who saw the film were in a better position to dialogue with others about what spiritual junk food like gnosticism does to the human spirit.

IMHO, priests would do well to arm the faithful by parish meetings to discuss the Welborn and Miesel books than warning people not to read or go to the movie.

[Donald R. McClarey]

"IMHO, priests would do well to arm the faithful by parish meetings to discuss the Welborn and Miesel books than warning people not to read or go to the movie."

I think protests should be organized at every theater showing the film. I understand that this will grant the film a lot of free publicity, but it should be done anyway. This film is a direct slap in the face to the Catholic Church and to truth. The Church should not supinely shrug her shoulders and ignore it. Everyone should be told how the book, and, presumably the film, is a mass of cynical lies intent on whipping up anti-Catholcism for profit.

[Clayton]

Donald,

Before you organize protests, please consider reading Behind the Screen, edited by Barbara Nicolosi and Spencer Lewerenz.

Here's an excerpt from a recent interview Barbara gave over at Godspy:

We shouldn't boycott the movie—boycotting is the technique of pathetic people with no power who have to whine and threaten and beg for favors. What we do is say in a very calm voice: "Not my kids. My family will not be going." Don't you old people say, "I won't go," because that's not going to impress Hollywood. Most of your over forties don't go to movies anyway. What's going to impress Hollywood and send the absolute finger of death running along the DVC production team spine, is: "Not my kids. My teenagers will not be going and our family will not be going."

[Sandra Miesel]

Organized boycotts and demonstrations do nothing good in these cases. They just provide free publicity. Makers of objectionable movies have been know to organize their own ca,paigns just to have this effect.

But alas, I'm sure there are more Catholic DRE's, RCIA Directors, and book clubs at Catholic parishes recommending TDVC than those who invite debunkers to come speak. Thre are Catholics buying the rope that hangs them and I'm at a loss to understand why. Oh well, parishes do the same with New Age and Pagan practices.

[reluctant penitent]

'As a conservative evangelical leader, Josh McDowell is one of the last people you'd expect to urge young Christians to see The Da Vinci Code...'

If he was been raised in a Protestant culture that spoon fed him stories about evil monks and Vatican conspiracies it's not that surprising. I wonder how Evangelicals who spread their own fantasies about the Catholic Church will be able to explain why this fantasy should not be believed.

[reluctant penitent]

I wonder how many DVC enthusiasts identify themselves as members of the 'reality-based' community.

[Tom Haessler]

Donald,

Don't you think that seeing the film as merely an attack on Catholicism is too narrow an optic? It's an attack on Christianity AS SUCH by means of an attack on the Catholic Church. Liberal Protestantism is every bit as much undermined by the goofy lies as Catholicism.

[Nerina]

"But alas, I'm sure there are more Catholic DRE's, RCIA Directors, and book clubs at Catholic parishes recommending TDVC than those who invite debunkers to come speak."

I agree, Sandra. When TPOTC came out, we got a 20 minute sermon from our lay preacher (a sister of Mercy) that "we should be very careful if we decide to see this movie. It is a violent movie that glorifies Christ's suffering. It is important to remember that Jesus was a faithful Jew and that we cannot leave the theathre with a desire to inflict violence against our Jewish friends and neighbors." (Thanks for that vote of confidence, Sister). Anyway, I wonder if she will take a similar stance about "being careful" when we view DaVinci.

I think this is a crucial moment at the parish level. I have proposed discussion groups and offered both Amy's and Sandra's books to our director of adult faith formation to which he responds: "Not necessary. It's just harmless fiction." He hasn't talked to the people I have who say, "it really got me thinking that the Church is really just an institution created by man," or "I don't think Jesus really was the son of God now," or "Of course Jesus would have been married, he was a man after all," etc...ad nauseum, infinitum.

A great opportunity exists, again,at the parish level, but I think it will be missed in my own local church and probably throughout my diocese.

[Mary Alelxander]

I wonder has hollywood made the connection between plummeting profits and the nonsense being offered up?

I thought your comments were great Amy. And how condescending of the reporter to call you a "former H.S. teacher". They really are pathetic aren't they? I can't even force myself or pretend to care what the liberal media thinks.

[Donald R. McClarey]

"Don't you think that seeing the film as merely an attack on Catholicism is too narrow an optic?"

No Tom I don't. Catholicism is clearly the target. Christianity in general is also attacked, but rather as an afterthought. Catholicism is the source of evil in Dan Brown's warped universe. Without the attack on Catholicism in the potboiler I doubt if it would have succeeded in the marketplace, certainly not to the extent that it did.

As for Sandra's comment, she may well be right, but there are also counter examples where protests helped lower the box office of a film. I believe this happened in regard to the Last Temptation of Christ. At any rate, I believe protests should be made to such an overt insult to The Faith. The world should learn that Catholics aren't going to sit back forever and passively look on as their Church is spat upon.

[John Hetman]

It would be nice to hear something from the pulpit on this--though it may require much more fortitude than seems to be available at many rectories these days. Though it could keep most flocks awake for the required Sunday 10-15 minutes of note reading.

In the Chicago area, we had ads a couple years ago splashed among all of the newspapers including the suburban "soccer mom" publications for the "Vagina Monologues". For months, it was an infestation--the the West Nile Virus. I know several women who saw it, applauded, and then backtracked once their brains got unscrambled.
And yet the sun kept rising.

As I did not see the VM, nor will see that gushed-over "Brokenhack Mountain" that was hyped by even some of our self-appointed art experts, I have no intention of enriching the purveyors of crap like the "DC" whether at an overpriced theater or on DVD (where residuals still flow into heretical bank accounts).

These blockbusters utimately have the same impact as the superbowl or world series winner from several or more years ago--eventually they fade away and few can remember even which teams played.

On this issue, I'll play the Libertarian role and make my "choice" to go fishing instead.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

But the Da Vinci code might be art. I repeat a question I had in other Da Vinci code string and in light of folks like Rod Dreher and Victor Morton praising Brokeback Mountain.

Question relating the DVC movie to Brokeback Mountain: I don't there is an ice cube's chance in hell that the DVC movie will be any good. But what if it were a superb artistic film? What if it spoke to the human heart's longing for truth and knowledge while showing our brokenness? What if the craft of the film was mindblowing?

What if the movie "creates vast plains of space for the audience to interpret [the characters']actions and the hopes and fears that motivate them"? (Christianity Today's words about Brokeback Mountain.)

Would we, could we criticize this movie? Oh sure the subject matter is based on a lie. But so is Brokeback Mountain in a sense, right?

I am asking these questions because I am trying to understand how we as Christians should be engaging the culture and engaging these films. I agree that we should react poorly to the DVC movie and I am inclined toward the reading given by Morton, Greydanus, and CT. But what is the difference.

Shouldn't we withhold judgment on the movie until we see it and know whether it is good art?

[Donald R. McClarey]

In regard to any protests I think they should be dignified of course, with flyers being passed out listing the gross distortions and errors of fact in the film. We should alert casual movie goers that this film is not entertainment but rather an anti-Catholic tract disguised as entertainment. The Church has followed an ignore the calumny heaped upon her in the popular culture strategy for several decades now and I believe that policy has been a flat failure.

[Donald R. McClarey]

"Shouldn't we withhold judgment on the movie until we see it and know whether it is good art?"

Frankly Cheeky it could be the highest piece of film making since Battleship Potemkin and it would be immaterial to me. I can, and have, appreciated fine pieces of art that have been used to lend support to despicable causes. Believe it or not I have a fondess for the Social Realism movement popular in the Soviet Union in the 20s and 30s. However that does not mean that I would not have attacked the use of a particular piece as propaganda, no matter its merits as art. Fine art can be appreciated at any time, especially when the evil cause it advocated, Communism for example in the case of Battleship Potemkin, has been defeated. However, I seriously doubt if the film in question is in any jeopardy of being confused with a cinematic masterpiece.

[mrp]

I think we should confront an abyss of evil with an abyss of love. I will pray for Dan Brown during tomorrow's Mass.

[Old Zhou]

From the Introduction to "Deus Caritas Est":

Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

Am Anfang des Christseins steht nicht ein ethischer Entschluß oder eine große Idee, sondern die Begegnung mit einem Ereignis, mit einer Person, die unserem Leben einen neuen Horizont und damit seine entscheidende Richtung gibt.

Ad initium, cum quis christianus fit, nulla est ethica voluntas neque magna quaedam opinio, verumtamen congressio datur cum eventu quodam, cum Persona quae novum vitae finem imponit eodemque tempore certam progressionem.

If you have this "enounter," the "Da Vinci Code" is deeply irrelevant, and no more of a threat than any of the myriad idiocies that compose pop culture.

If you don't have this "encounter," no number of "Decoding" or "Explained" or "Refuted" books, talks, films and articles matter, because it is just one person's opinion or belief against another person's opinion or belief. Christian and Catholic "scholars" and "leaders" are divided.

As the Wall Street Journal headline said today, it is a "Da Vinci Cash Cow," and many businesspersons want a piece of the action.

---
p.s. The English translation of the encyclical here is, again, inferior. Do I sound like a broken record? All the other translations include the phrase about this being the "Beginning" of the Christian life. But the English translation makes it sound like this "encounter" and resulting "coversion" is the whole thing, or maybe not the beginning, not necessary for the start. May God have mercy on the English-only Catholics.

[Clayton]

I still think Newmarket could capitalize on the event for a re-release of The Passion.

[Anon]

No, Zhou, you don't sound like a broken record. You sound like a pedant.

We all get that the encyclical reads better in the original Latin or German or whatever it was. And we all get that you can read it all.

Get off it.

[Old Zhou]

Dear Anon,

It is not about what "reads better" or what languges I read.

It is about the fact that so much of what the Church puts out in English (I know, it is approved by bishops, or the Vatican) is divergent from what the rest of the Catholic world receives. This has consequences. In particular, it has consequences to the formation of those who only speak English (which describes very few people at the Vatican).

[Mary Kay]

Over the past two weeks or so, I've had an ongoing... um, "discussion" is the only polite word to describe it, on another site.

There was much made out of the threatened boycott before the show aired. I watched a half hour because the first question asked was, Well did you even see it?

I watched because it was free and I could turn it off when I wanted to. Nothing on earth could persuade to put actual money and time into watching either of these.

There's a fine line to walk between stating the truth and falsehoods - Amy's and Sandra's work is essential - and giving the um, other side, an excuse to escalate.

Keeping to my that I have a right to have orthodox Christianity portrayed accurately did spark a discussion with a few reasonable people.

However, most were not interested in dialogue or any form of "teachable moment." Sparing you some of the invective namecalling, there were tirades about censorship and "you can't tell me what I can and can't see." I just checked over there and they're still at it.

Others chimed in and told the show's supporters that they had a right to their opinion but not to deny the Christians' right to free speech. Not a dent.

The bottom line for many of them is that choice is the Ultimate Authority. "You don't like something, fine. But you can't dictate to me what I can or can't see." Statements that they didn't have the right to drag others through the mud simply for their own entertainment fell on deaf ears.

I stopped the Choice as Ultimate Authority track by suggesting that if they were really intellectually honest, they would read the chapters in Crossing the Threshold of Hope where John Paul II talks about the rise of rationalism and European thought after Descartes. The silence was deafening after that. But like I said, they're still whining about censorship.

[Tom Haessler]

Hello, Nerina,

I'd be interested in knowing whether the people you talked to who said that now they think Jesus is not divine, was married, etc. were Catholics, and if so, were they Mass attendees? Or were these garden variety secular types?

I think it'd be better to spend our energies by finding like minded people in our own parishes to confront middle management's view that it's harmless fiction.

[Maureen]

Zhou, I just read the whole darned English translation of the encyclical into a microphone. And I guarantee you that I did in fact get the idea that it was a beginning, not the whole schmole. That's what "a new horizon and a new direction" means. A new horizon and a new direction are meaningless unless one is moving.

I don't know why the phrase "from the beginning" was left out. Ten to one it was an oversight or a mistake. That's unfortunate. But in this case, it didn't conceal the meaning. It was implicit in the whole line of argument.

[alias cli]

About art in DVC vs art in Brokeback Mountain: Haven't seen either. But DVC, tho' it acknowledges itself as fiction, claims to be historically accurate fiction. This is why it's so poisonous, as Amy has reiterated.

Brokeback Mountain is fiction. It may or may not succeed as a work of art. But it doesn't claim to be based on history. That's why it can't injure faith in the same way as DVC. (And it isn't directly about faith, anyway.)

[Tope]

Cheeky Lawyer -

The difference between Brokeback Mountain and the Da Vinci Code is that the former (propaganda aside) could be a true story, while the latter most certainly is not. Brokeback is just a story, and it doesn't claim to be anything other than that. Dan Brown claims that DVC is history, when it is in fact full of lies. There's a big difference there, I think.

[Tope]

I should add that when I say that Brokeback is "just a story", I don't mean to minimize the very real power of stories. What I mean is that, though one could legitimately object to the message behind Brokeback Mountain, you can't really take issue with the story itself, based on what I've read about the movie. The plot sounds perfectly plausible. DVC, by contrast, features both an implausible plot and falsified history.

[Lee Penn]

When TPOTC came out, I heard some conservative Catholics praise this as the evangelistic outreach of the millennium. The movie came and went, and the world continues to descend into an abyss ... the rate of descent seems unaffected by the film. (Check the international news if you wonder what I am talking about.)

If TPOTC had little mass effect for the good ... then maybe the DVC movie will have as little large-scale effect for evil as TPOTC had for good.

The DVC is a stupid book, and the movie will likewise be the same, if it is true to the book.

In any event, it IS just a movie. If its maximum effect in turning people away from God is rated at "10," then the ongoing abuse scandal and coverup in the Church rates 50-100, and the possible outbreak of an all-out war in the Middle East, a war that enemies of religion will blame on "fundamentalism", will rate 500-1000 as a faith destroyer.

Lee

[Lee Penn]

Pray the Fatima prayer (or its equivalent, as your conscience dictates) for the makers of the DVC film and related products.

That will do far more good than any kind of protests.

Lee

=============================

"O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy."

[Kevin Jones]

"Has anyone got any ideas for thier own conspiracy novel?"

This question had great potential, it deserves at least one response. My conspiracy novel idea:

the Protestant Reformation was an Islamic plot to split Christendom and convert Europe to Islam by overemphasizing Scripture and pushing iconoclasm, teetotalism, and anti-sacramentalism. Queen Elizabeth's anti-recusant laws were influenced by an Islamic agent who reapplied dhimmi legal disabilities in a Christian context.

This idea is copyrighted by me. Anybody who writes a bestseller based on this premise has to pull a Dan Brown and make a legal settlement to me.

[JP]

Some Catholics may worry that as such entertainments as the DVC continue over time, an anti-Catholic bias will begin to firmly take hold in much of our society. They point out that same had occured in Europe during the late 19th, and early 20th century with the Jews. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was an instant bestseller, and was translated into several languages. The Protocols made outlandish statements about the Jews which could be refuted by any teen who knew his history. Facts didn't stop people from buying the book however. The Post World War I era in Central Europe was replete with antisemetic books, and magazines which printed lies and caricratures of Jews. The Shoah followed twenty years later.

I don't necessary beleive this line of thought, as the Jews were a distinct minority scattered across the shetls and ghettos of many nations. Catholics on the other hand are a majority in many nations.

The populairity of the DVC especially amongst Catholics is revealing. Poor formation and cathecesis do eventually catch up. A more consistent voice from our Bishops would be nice; how many Bishops appeared on national TV explaining how utterly proposterous the DVC was?Why does the Bishops Conference spend so much on "communications" when they fail to use it? Casting scorn on the DVC would have been an excellent time for the Bishops to collectivly conduct a "teachable moment".

In a society that celebrates radical egalatairinism, vulgar sentimentality, and invidualism , the Church sticks out. It's an easy target. Coupled with the recent abuse scandals, it isn't surprising that many people take such pot shots. For comedians and creative writers its a gift that keeps on giving. I am reminded about the carictures of Richard Nixon that so many people made a living off of a decade after he left office.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

Thanks for the answers to my questions. I was asking the question in seriousness and I appreciate the distincitions being made. I think they make some sense of things but I still wonder if at times some people play the "it is art" card a little naively.

[Cheeky Lawyer]

Thanks for the answers to my questions. I was asking the question in seriousness and I appreciate the distincitions being made. I think they make some sense of things but I still wonder if at times some people play the "it is art" card a little naively.

[mark]

The DVC movie undoubtedly will be damaging to Catholicism and Christianity in general. Works of art can set a cultural mood, all the worse if the premises are completely false. I can't recall who said it, but paraphrasing, "the most successful lies are those that are interwoven with truth." The idea that millions of people are walking around with a false idea about the history of Christianity because of this piece of "art" should bother all of us greatly.

How, particularly, is an author who has written a heretical book that purports to be laced with truth and thus misleads millions undermining their faith, potentially to their damnation, different from a heretic, such as Arius, who teaches an idea that is false but that he believes and promotes as truth, misleads millions by undermining their faith, potentially to their damnation? Arius did it for "truth", which perhaps God conceivably, perhaps, might forgive? But Brown has misled the flock for nothing but a dollar?

As for the Evangelicals issue, such as the Hughes column: Sure, there are some dense Evangelicals who are going to tee hee about this. But the more clear-headed among them, and there are many, understand that toying with the flock's understanding about Jesus' divinity is no laughing matter, and for a hardcore Bible-believing right-wing Evangelical, anything that counters the Gospels in the way DVC does is still highly offensive. The mention of Focus on the Family seems a particular swipe, because that group is intelligent and not likely to stay quiet about a worthless work like DVC as it undermines Christian witness.

My Lutheran Church, albeit not Evangelical Protestant, has already had mentions against the DVC from the pulpit, with more to come, surely growing in intensity. Whatever chops away at the root destroys the whole tree.

[Sandra Miesel]

I was interviewed by the Rev. Albert Mohler, a Baptist seminary head, on exactly that point: TDVC is an attack on Christianity itself because it denies the Divinity of Our Lord and the trustworthiness of Holy Scripture.
Brown's text, however, attacks only Catholics. No other form of Christianity is mentioned except one brief swipe at Anglicans for the grimness of their ceremonies (!).
But the lies spread by TDVC aren't going to go away. They're striking deep roots in culture all over the word. (It was a bestseller abroad, too.)The comparison above to the PROTOCOLS is apt. And they're still with us and influencing attitudes a century after their writing.
Offhand, I can think of one instance where Hollywood turned a wretchedly trashy book into a well-made film--PEYTON PLACE. DR.STRANGELOVE is my husband's example. But there was no religious issue. It's inconceivable that the filmed TDVC will have any artistic merit. But its propaganda machine will be whirring along.

[Nerina]

"I'd be interested in knowing whether the people you talked to who said that now they think Jesus is not divine, was married, etc. were Catholics, and if so, were they Mass attendees? Or were these garden variety secular types?"

Hi Tom. The answer to your question is a little of both. My MIL is a person who has had her faith seriously undermined by reading this book. She is in her mid-60s and though she has faithfully attended Mass since she was a child, she could not tell you the first think about Catholic theology or doctrine. Nothing. For all the talk about my generation being poorly catechized (which we were/are) I am often surprised at how little our parents know about the faith (at least that has been my experience).

Others have been my neighbors who attend Mass about 1-2 times a month (usually not in summer because they "need a break") so I'm not too surprised when they mention things about the book being "interesting and thought-provoking."

There are several of us with opinions that TDVC needs attention in our local church, but unfortunately we are also more traditional in our views on liturgy and we tend to speak out about the entire continuum of Catholic Social Teaching, so we're not the most popular people in our very liberal church. Mostly we're seen as reactionaries and too extreme.

I just don't want people walking out the theatre and then walking out of their church.

[Jon W]

We need to give The Da Vinci Code the attention it deserves. Which is to say: not much.

People do not come to believe in TDVC by means of its compelling historical arguments and rigorous scholarship. People come to believe in TDVC because a million-trillion other people say, "This is interesting. Apparently, some historians think this is true."

People don't believe in the Big Bang because they're cosmologists who've read Hubble. They believe in the Big Bang because a million-trillion other people say, "This is interesting. Apparently, most physicists think this is true."

So what we need to do is have Welborn and Miesel on our shelves and walk around with the comfortable confidence of people who know the truth. Then, when people say, "Oooh, check out this Dan Brown guy," we can say, with a wave of our hand, "Yeah, it's interesting. But according to most reputable historians, it's bulls---." And then drop it. We've got to be dismissive, not shrill. That's what convinces people.

They may not believe us the first time or the second or the third, but when there's this critical mass of people just dismissing it, I guarantee you, everyone else will dismiss it, too.

[Eileen R]

Jon W, I agree.

Anyway, as for whether anyone actually buys all this stuff, our local talk station's sports guy says that he's "discovered all these things about the Catholic Church" via reading DVC. However, one of the morning show people mocks him everytime he starts on the subject.

[Elaine]

Another data point for the question posed to Nerina"I'd be interested in knowing whether the people you talked to who said that now they think Jesus is not divine, was married, etc. were Catholics, and if so, were they Mass attendees? Or were these garden variety secular types?" -

A few I know who seemed taken when we talked shortly after reading TDvC, were regular Mass goers of the Sunday & at least once a week sort, and one was also a member of Cursillo, which I don't know *that* much about but I gather it's for devout Catholics.

Since the Mary Magdalene marriage and downgrading of women was mentioned as one of the things they were thinking hard about I quoted a bit of the Gospel of Thomas to them, to the effect of "Mary would be just great, except she's not a man. Once she is, she'll be perfect."

For the future, I think I'll follow Amh's lead in addresses the historical errors, by pointing people to Brown's mega goofs on Leonardo first, then go into the religious ones.

[dymphna]

I intend to tread DVC the same way my parents treated Holy Blood Holy Grail. I'm going to ignore it and if someone brings it up within my hearing I was mock it in the most sarcastic tone possible. Opie Cunningham won't make a dime off of me.

[Cheryl]

Someone above mentioned that we are still waiting for the DVC sequel, which hasn't materialized yet.

Whaddaya bet that Dan Brown pulls a J.D. Salinger and we never read or hear a peep out of him for the next few decades? He'll continue wrapping himself in a cloak of privacy, cultivating the image of the reclusive academic stroking his beard up there in New Hampshire. Which conveniently alleviates the need to ever answer those pesky questions about the book.

He reminds me so much of the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz!

And of course it's not like he ever has to work again.

Our pastor is offering a seminar this spring called The Da Vinci Code and Beyond. The content is described as focusing on the truth of the Gospel and the early Church. I don't think he's planning to use the book or the movie as "required reading," just making lemonade out of this lemon of a cultural moment.

[amywelborn]

Exactly, CHeryl, and I think that's the right approach. I've been saying for years, you could offer a parish adult ed program called "Jesus and the Origins of Christianity" and you'd get 5 people there. But offer a program with the title you offer, you can accomplish the same thing, get the same info across, and reach a ton more people.

[Eileen R]

Yep, Amy. I think I've mentioned before that one of the campus priests here was disturbed at first at people asking him to talk about the Da Vinci Code, instead of his preferred subjects. Then he realized that it was the *perfect* opening to teach about Christology and have the audience show up and pay attention.

[c matt]

However, one of the morning show people mocks him everytime he starts on the subject.

if someone brings it up within my hearing I was mock it in the most sarcastic tone possible

I am personally very fond of this approach when used with caution. It seems to work best with those who live to know "the secret" behind everything, who always think they are "in the know" about something. Mocking them really does attack their pride - in particular, when they are shown they have been duped by Brown for a buck.

But for others who are truly just ignorant of the faith, history, etc., I am not so sure this would be the best approach.

[bruce cole]

I know I'm coming in late on this, and it's only a side-topic, but, Tom, did Mother Angelica REALLY say that people who went to see Lethal Passion (sorry, TPOTC) would go to Hell?
Man, I thought I disliked that film.....

[Sandra Miesel]

Brown has got his tweedy performance down pat. He never needs to make another public appearance or finish that promised sequel. (There were supposed to be five Langdon novels, each set in a major city.) His evil meme is out in society and for years to come will infect even people who didn't read the book.
One thing that might possibly hurt the movie is for loyal readers to expect every glorious word to be transferred to the screen. They may object if the tedious lectures are missing and as said above, there's not a lot else going on in the book.
I'm going to be speaking at two Anglican churches in Phoenix Feb 8 and 9. The talk isn't billed as a debunking so some Brown fans may show up. I hope they don't making my appearance too "interesting."

[James Kabala]

Bruce: She said it about THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, not THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. (Or at least, so Tom says. He's definitely one of the most well-read and reliable commenters around, but I have to say that I don't have any personal knowledge of this Mother Angelica soundbite.)

[James Kabala]

There was a three-year gap between the publications of ANGELS AND DEMONS (2000) and DVC (2003). It would be great if Brown turned out to have a massive case of writer's block and never publishes again, but it's more likely that he has always been a slow writer rather than someone with James Patterson or Nora Roberts's crank-them-out abilities.

[bruce cole]

James, you are right and I have egg on my face. Chalk it up to a Monday morning at work after a week-end with a flu-infected family!!!
I have to admit, I didn't think she'd say that.....Never saw it myself, so (at least on the count) I won't go to Hell. Hasty reading of posts, on the other hand....

[amy]

The word on Brown's next book is basically that the original title has been changed - It was The Solomon Key, but is no more. Reports from last spring's BEA indicate that Brown's existence was not noted at the Random House display. There is no pub date. From a recent article:

Publisher Doubleday is sharing no details on Brown's next book except that the working title — "The Solomon Key" — has been dropped.

"No title, no content, no publication date, no nothing," Doubleday's Alison Rich says.

[Sandra Miesel]

Ah, but the sequel was supposed to have been published last summer. He had a set deliverty date, a title, and supposedly a subject--Freemasons in Washington.

I'd seen that same report that nothing was up about a sequel at the trade fair.

Then my suspicion that NATIONAL TREASURE scooped what Brown had been writing just might be true.

[Eric Nicolai]

Definitely a teachable moment
Whether we like it or not there is a tidal wave coming our way and it will hit the beach on May 19th 2006 when the movie premieres at Cannes and the DVC will be seen in theaters all over the world. Millions will be gazing with rapped attention. When this wave comes we should all just be ready to ride it. The movie will get attention, but so will the Catholic Church, and everyone will be talking about Jesus Christ, the role of women in the Church, the authority of the Gospels (which, by the way, Dan Brown doesn’t quote once, not once), Opus Dei, monks, art, chastity, real love and so much more. So let’s ride it! Isn’t this stuff wwe all love to talk about? Ascension Press has started a study guide for parishes, there are untold numbers of books on the subject (not all good), with the latest being Amy Welborn’s book on Mary Magdalene, and there is even a blog out by a priest of the Prelature, Fr. John Wauk (www.davincicode-opusdei.com), who like Langton, even studied at Harvard. Who would want to boycott this opportunity to speak and use the podium we’ve been given to clarify things?

[A Conservative Evangelical]

Al Mohler, Mark D. Roberts and other evangelical leaders with some scholarship credentials--as well as any evangelical who knows Christianity 101--recognizes that Gnosticism is an attack on small "o" orthodoxy, no matter which flavor of Christianity you are talking about.

Unfortunately, some protestants will use DVC as an opportunity to mock the Church of Rome, forgetting that the real challenge of DVC is to anyone who believes in the divinity of Christ.

Me, I'm doing some reading on DVC (and now, the "Gospel of Judas") and using it as an opportunity to talk with God-shunning loved ones about matters spiritual.