It's hilarious how the Vatican just realized that The Da Vinci Code was around. Last week some top cardinal came out and said that the premise of the book is false (duh it's a fiction book). The book has only been out for two years so I wonder why the Vatican responded so quickly?!

So it's plop on the vatican time again? I guess they did it to us for 1500 yrs... Seriously though, the only mistake this cardinal guy did was challenge a fictional piece. I mean he could have easily said, "we don't agree with work, but we should remind you all that this is fiction." Of course I've met enough people that believe fiction (WMDs?) so it must be a threatening book.

The Bible Code was a well researched and finely written fictionalised account of real events which never once made me want to stop reading it.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but some subjects are worthy of no form higher.

So, I love your blog, for any number of satirical and rationally-based reasons. I'm inclined, however, to cast a suspicious eye on the implicit discredit given to religion in this not-explicitly-stated attempt to give anti-religious and atheistic or agnostic mindsets the upper-hand in terms of being "pro-reason."

It's an equal attack against reason to live in the mindset that religion has no valid claim, that faith is simply for crazy people and Christian conservatives who take the Bible literally, sitting in Congress and lobbying to re-write the American Constitution so that all men can carry a gun, burn a cross in anyone's yard, and force belief in Jesus upon people while in the same breath adhering to ideals of Christian love :P It does no good to form a pseudo-intellectual stance on a spiritual issue, or an issue involving a religious institution, simply because you happen to harbor your own prejudices or even go so far as to "hate" religion. To state the beliefs of the Church in such a way that the intended response is to make them seem out of phase with physical reason, ontologically or epistomologically unacceptable, or simply insane reeks of an implicit prejudice that I daresay smacks of intolerance and a generative capacity for hate-mongering. Equally, it is unfortuneate when generalities occur and anyone who happens to believe in something beyond himself--while voluntarily adhering to an organized religion because that's what he believes reason has led him to--is simply marginalized and grouped in with the fanatical and overly-zealous who make the rest of us look bad.

Of course, I'm not meaning to be accusatory, but personal prejudices against religion tend to be just as dragged into and abused in the realm of academia, intellectualism, and liberal politics, as do the faith-based stances that drive fundamentalists who have happened to implant themselves in those same institutions. Accepting Christian doctrine is not "unreasonable," nor is it fair to claim that proof is neither presentable nor necessary. Granted, this opens up the debate as to what the nature of "proof" really is, and what human beings want versus what actually is, but I digress.

The DaVinci Code is primarily fiction, and the Catholic Church is not just now becoming aware of it, nor beginning to react to it. The only reason the Church has made so little fuss over the book is /because/ of reason and the very fact that it's fiction in the first place, and any reasonably educated Christian who's done his homework would never take the claims of the book seriously. The book itself has been so hyped by the media and any number of documentaries on the History Channel simply because it offers a frivolous alternative to traditionally held beliefs, made possible in part because of that implicit prejudicial language that looks down upon religion in the first place. It's probable that because of the heights to which this hype has soared that the Church finally felt enough need to give a self-evident statement at all.

Anyway, it's one thing to focus on specific individuals who have taken their faith to an extreme and contradict the very tennets of the Christian faith, and quite another to attack the tennets of that faith itself. Collapsing the two into the same entity is intellectually dangerous, and ultimately can't be taken seriously outside the realm of opinion. The Church is not in itself unreasonable or unable to explain why it believes in its long-attested-to Creeds...which perhaps merits coming to understand it, at least in part, on its own terms.

It must be pointed out that the DaVinci Code discusses topics that are not fictional, and that have been written about for the last 2000 years (there are passages in the Koran that mention Jesus surviving the crucifixion).

If you want to get an historical account of Jesus, and also understand where Dan Brown sourced a lot of his material read "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" (Baigent, Leigh & Lincoln) and it's follow-up "The Messianic Legacy" (same authors). These books were written in the early to mid-80s and outline the full history of the Prieure de Sion from it's inception through to modern times. It also outlines the Holy Grail "secret" that is the foundation for the existence of the Prieure de Sion.

I thought the DaVinci Code was a very good read - it is fiction - though it's based on historical conclusions that are certainly not new to historians or to the Vatican. I find it interesting that the Vatican should denounce this book when they've been silent on previous books that have discussed the same controversial topics in much greater detail (though it’s probably because this book has been sitting in the best-seller section of bookstores for such a long time).

Michael GREAT POST!

"[...] The book has only been out for two years so I wonder why the Vatican responded so quickly?!"

Two years is pretty damn quick for the Catholic Church. It took 359 years before Galileo got his apology from the Pope.

Michael,

I would hardly call what the posted article says "personal prejudice" against religion. An argument is made, not just some condemnatory remarks. The argument is that Catholicism makes some specific claims about the world such as there was a virgin birth and a resurrection. Is this a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine? I don't think the pope would say we should just understand these things metaphorically. Doesn't the church claim these things literally happened? The article then states Catholicism doesn't require a burden of proof for such claims. You are right to point out that this is too strong. There have been many historical attempts, mostly fallacious in my view, to prove God's existence through reason or even evidence. One could try this again. However, most Catholics or indeed other Christians I run across don't try to meet the burden of proof in this way. They usually rely on faith only. And in fact you call the teachings of the church "tenets of faith." Perhaps you understand "faith" in a different way than the author of the article. If so, could you please specify.

"The Da Vinci Code" is not just fiction. There are a lot of scholars that believe historical some of the things proposed in "The Da Vinci Code." Most of the ideas in "The Da Vinci Code" come from a non-fiction book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln which I managed to read a 126 pages before I got to bogged down to continue with. It's a very in depth, wordy, and dry alternative historical account of how Jesus may not have died on the cross, and how Jesus Mary of Magdalene had children together. That what the Holy Grail really is not a chalice or cup but, the bloodline of Jesus and Mary protected by a secret order called the "Prieure de Sion." The Merovingian dynasty or the family line of Jesus himself. There is also a documentary movie called “The Da Vinci Code Decoded.” Which I seen broadcast on the history channel. So to just say it's fiction is wrong Holy Blood, Holy Grail was written in 1982, and the idea has been around as far as anybody knows since the time of Christ. There are also many other books out that delve into this controversy that have nothing to do with Dan Brown's book.

Here is an excerpt from the editorial review on Amazon.

“Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh, authors of The Messianic Legacy, spent over 10 years on their own kind of quest for the Holy Grail, into the secretive history of early France. What they found, researched with the tenacity and attention to detail that befits any great quest, is a tangled and intricate story of politics and faith that reads like a mystery novel. It is the story of the Knights Templar, and a behind-the-scenes society called the Prieure de Sion, and its involvement in reinstating descendants of the Merovingian bloodline into political power. Why? The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail assert that their explorations into early history ultimately reveal that Jesus may not have died on the cross, but lived to marry and father children whose bloodline continues today. The authors' point here is not to compromise or to demean Jesus, but to offer another, more complete perspective of Jesus as God's incarnation in man. The power of this secret, which has been carefully guarded for hundreds of years, has sparked much controversy. For all the sensationalism and hoopla surrounding Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the alternate history that it outlines, the authors are careful to keep their perspective and sense of skepticism alive in its pages, explaining carefully and clearly how they came to draw such combustible conclusions. --Jodie Buller”

Michael,

I do believe atheists in general have the upper-hand in terms of being pro-reason. They don't accept miraculous explanations for physical events, and that is at least a head-start on reaching an understanding of the world we live in. I must say your post is the most polite accusation of religious bigotry that I've ever received. Let me make it clear that I don't paint all religious people with the same brush. I hold fundamentalists in greater contempt than those that are more moderate or liberal in their views, but at least you know what your up against with the fundamentalists. I do think that those who are tolerant of any belief just because it is identified as religious are adding to the problem. Belief in a religion unlike one's race or sex is a choice and as such should be subjected to critical examination. I'm unable to understand why religion should get some sort of special consideration when it's making claims about the physical world. You write, "To state the beliefs of the Church in such a way that the intended response is to make them seem out of phase with physical reason, ontologically or epistomologically unacceptable, or simply insane reeks of an implicit prejudice that I daresay smacks of intolerance and a generative capacity for hate-mongering." I'm not sure how to tell you this but claims such as a virgin birth and resurrection of the dead are out of phase with physical reason. They violate any number of physical and biological laws. No mother would accept the claim from her pregnant daughter that she hadn't had intercourse, and how many times have you seen anyone who dies on a friday night return to work monday morning and yet these are the types of claims religion makes. Now there are certainly those more liberal religions whose members hold the view along the lines of God is a metaphor for a force or power inside that leads them to goodness and to being caring people. A path to self actualization. The view the words of "sacred texts" as products of humans that are simply points of departure in a search for moral clarity and personal fulfillment. But then beliefs like those don't need a God at all and are really no different than those of a secular humanist. If I make statements in the future that you believe are unfair to religion in some way. Try applying the same statements to a non-religious group and see if you still feel I've been unfair. if you do be sure and let me know.

Dan Brown is a terrible author.

There are a lot of scholars that believe historical some of the things proposed in "The Da Vinci Code."

Actually, no. Both that book and "Holy Blood Holy Grail" are regarded as rubbish by mearly all reputable scholars. Leaving aside the scriptural/doctrinal stuff, they commit huge honking errors about basic historical facts that we know to be true.

A good debunking of both books is here.

I think people are attracted to the alternative theories more than the actual content of the books. When you take something as widely accepted (or known at least) as Christianity, and make a new spin on it, it will attract readers. "It's sooo Indiana Jonesy and cool!"

People argue that these are in fact very old views and my response is 'so what?'. Does this mean the average new york times best seller list reader was aware of this? No. To them, this is awesome stuff.

It is a fresh idea and people are attracted to it. It is also convenient in an age of 'Make your own custom spirituality' to bring out new theories. The church has no choice but to categorically deny them although they would have been better off ignoring the book altogether. Now the conspiracy theory blog community will smell a cover up. It's a fictional piece supported by 'what if' literature. It's a fun read but people take this stuff way too seriously. The world has enough real conspiracies to deal with. Wolfowitz is going to the head of what?!?!