Leading Cardinal won’t ‘forgive and forget’ Da Vinci Code

May 9, 2006

The [tag]Da Vinci Code[/tag] movie won’t open for about two weeks, but the response from some religious communities is already heating up.

A leading cardinal has urged Christians to take legal action against the best-selling book The Da Vinci Code, and the forthcoming film adaptation.

[tag]Cardinal[/tag] Francis [tag]Arinze[/tag], who was among the favourites to become the new pope last year, spoke out in a TV documentary due to be shown in Rome.

“Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget,” said Arinze. “Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical.”

Arinze added, “Those who blaspheme Christ and get away with it are exploiting the Christian readiness to forgive and to love even those who insult us. There are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking.” Was Arinze suggesting that Roman Catholics should respond to the movie the way some Muslims responded to the Danish cartoons in February? Could the Vatican be that bothered by this fictional story?

I was also struck by the notion that Arinze believes Christians should respond with [tag]legal[/tag] action.

“So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others,” Arinze said.

“This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected,” he said, without elaborating on what legal means he had in mind.

[tag]Opus Dei[/tag], which is not characterized in a flattering light in the story, has also been battling with film-makers over the movie, to no avail.

The director of the upcoming religious thriller “The Da Vinci Code” says he sees no need for a disclaimer labeling the film a work of fiction — provoking a rebuke on Monday from Catholic group Opus Dei.

Filmmaker Ron Howard has acknowledged the controversy renewed by his film of Dan Brown’s best-selling novel, which depicts Opus Dei as a shadowy sect at the heart of a murderous conspiracy to conceal dark secrets of the early Christian Church. But the Oscar-winning director of “A Beautiful Mind” rejected the notion that his latest film should carry a disclaimer — as requested by Opus Dei — stating what he said was already obvious.

“This is a work of fiction that presents a set of characters that are affected by these conspiracy theories and ideas,” Howard told the Los Angeles Times on Sunday. “Those characters in this work of fiction act and react on that premise. It’s not theology. It’s not history. To start off with a disclaimer … spy thrillers don’t start off with disclaimers.”

It’s not like this movie needed more publicity, but can any serious person think these threats and complaints will drive moviegoers away?

May 9, 2006 at 10:35 am

What’s next? Will MI6 sue Eon productions to include a disclaimer on James Bond movies?
Most people do respect faiths they do not share. But, when a religious person comes out with this sort of nonsense, it makes it difficult

I read a little bit of the DaVinci Code, some time ago, simply because the book had become so popular, and concluded that it was dreadful, and never went further.

Last night, I spoke to a friend, a Jew who went to Catholic schools. With my limited acquaintance with the book, I had supposed that there might be some appeal rooted in gnostic mysticism wrapped up in the sweep of history and the notion of hidden conspiracy and hidden meaning. His take on the book was that it exposed the malignant hypocrisy of the Church, down through the ages. By positing an alternative interpretation of doctrine and history, it exposed the ridiculousness of the orthodox interpretation, and by tying the alternative to power plotting thru the ages, it implies that the orthodox story is also just so much rubbish covering power-plotting thru the ages.

It struck me that this is what accounts for the active hostility of some church authorities. A fictional society plotting thru the ages reminds us that there has been a real society in the Church plotting to gain and hold power, thru the ages; the Church, itself, is such a plot.

I’ve read the book and am looking forward to the movie.

The church here, both the Vatican and Opus Dei are blowing smoke screens. They want to get Catholics riled up about issues that are not really part of the story to distract from what is.

Now, the movie may be different, but in the book does not “depict Opus Dei as a shadowy sect at the heart of a murderous conspiracy to conceal dark secrets of the early Christian Church.” What the book does do is describe some of the more extreme forms of self-discipline some members of Opus Dei practice and shows how a mentally unhealthy individual would go beyond the teachings of the group. That’s what bothers Opus Dei. The consipracy is purely a work of fiction asserted only within the context of the book.

As for Francis Cardinal Arinze’s claim that the book and movie are blasphemous, someone needs to point out to him that in America, we have a right to believe (or even just talk about) the assertions of the book about Jesus and Mary no matter what the Catholic church teaches.

What has the Vatican bothered, really, is the claim that it is hiding Truths about Jesus because it wants to promote its Doctrines and Teachings instead. That, really, is the point of the book if you read carefully (IMHO). For similar kneejerk reactions, read up about the church’s comments on ‘The Last Passion of Christ’, ‘Stigmata’ and ‘Dogma’. In each movie, there is a gospel or story the Church is accused of surpressing (In Dogma, it’s The Gospel according to Long Rufus, all about Jesus’ life from 12 to 30 and about his family including his full brothers (James, for instance) and sisters. In Stigmata, it’s supposed to be a Gospel written by the risen Christ himself. I suppose once you rise from the dead you are no longer illerate.).

I’m a little late to the party but I wanted to read this book before the movie ruins it for me. I am about 2/3 through and I have to say it is a really good book. It moves quick, the story line is intreguing and the characters are interesting. Prior to the book I knew nothing about Opus Dei, little about Da Vinici and this Pirory deal is news to me. I am reminded of thoes dudes in the boat chase from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade who are trying to protect teh secret of the grail.

I was thinking about this whining and bitching about the book/movie last night after wrapping up my reading. I understand this work points out uncomfortable aspects of the Cathoilic Church and raises doubts about the relationship between Christ and the Church. IMO the Church could release a statement claiming the book/movie is fiction and they appreciate it as a work of fiction. They can defend themselves by letting it go in passing.

Here is the interesting thing. In the book they are explaining the power of the Grail and that shaking the foundations of the church by casting doubt could cause a massive loss of faith in the lay community. The Church therefore wants to destroy the secrets. In reality, it appears the church is out to destroy the book/movie for the same reason. They are only adding weight to the idea that the content of the book/movie is valid.

Concidering the rhetorical noise about attacks on Christianity blah blah in recent years shouldn’t the Church (and all Christians) be thrilled that a blockbuster movie staring Tom Hanks and Directed by Ron Howard is 100% about Christ and religion? Why don’t Christians want the whole country to engage in discussing religion? Isn’t that the idea?

“So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others,” Arinze said.

“This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected,” he said, without elaborating on what legal means he had in mind.

It is a fundamental human right that teh Jeebus fable should be respected? I can respect your right to hold religiously insane beliefs, but it seems to me that I also have the right to consider it nonsense as well.

I would also like to ask the church: if your religious beliefs should be repsected, and your religious beliefs say that abominations should be crucified, do I have to repsect your right to crucify others? How exaclty does that jibe with the lack of respect that the jeebofascists have for gays, unmarried people who engage in teh secks, and those who won’t go in a tizzy if someone has an abortion?

Sorry if the rhetoric sounds a little extreme – I have heard similar types of diatribes come out of religious types an awful lot of late…

Not the kind of book I read. Being a history buff I have had enough classes at university and read enough books (like Name of the Rose) to know enough of the Catholic Church history of bad behavior and hipocrisy. I don’t need to read this bit of fluff.

I read “Angels and Demons” and was amused. I got 2/3 of the way through “Da Vinci” and gave up. There’s no question the author is a capable writer and that the plots he frames “move”. But all this speculation is very, very old; even a passing interest in the biography of Jesus or the history of the Church would reveal many such speculations many centuries ago. My response to both books was a big Yawn. I plan to see the movie and hope the acting will be good.

I do wonder what was going through the mind of the Vatican cardinal who urged legal action (!) against the movie. When the printing press replaced the monk’s copying as the source of information, the Church began the practice of printing “Imprimatur” (it may be printed) and “Cum permissu superiorum” (with permission of the superiors), as a guarantee that the printed matter was “safe” for uneducated Catholics (believed, by the Vatican, to be the only True Church). Does the cardinal realize that we now have a vastly more educated populace, world-wide access to literature of all kinds, and that – ever since Martin Luther and Thomas Jefferson, anyway – we, in particular, no longer need the Vatican’s assurances before we read or see even literary or cinematic trash, let alone “The DaVinci Code”?

So what’s the Latin word for jihad?

The Church may not want to forgive and forget, but they won’t be able to ignore and bury. There’s nothing more dangerous than an idea and there’s no way to put that genie back in the bottle. It’s pretty screwy to get in a pissing match between faith and a work of fiction

“There’s nothing more dangerous than an idea and there’s no way to put that genie back in the bottle.” – petorado

Really, when was the last time you met someone who claimed that both God and Jesus were divine beings but that there was no such person as the Holy Spirit? The Roman Catholic Church managed to wipe that idea out, and it probably isn’t the only one that is gone.

Or consider the third century scribe who plugged in a couple of verses in one of Paul’s letters saying that woman shouldn’t be allowed to preach during mass (I really recommend Bart Erhman’s “Misquoting Jesus”). We’ve only just begun to reverse the affects of that one in a few Protestant denominations.

Bottling genie (ideas) is just what the Church, and especially the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) is designed to do.

Does anyone remember the Albigensian Crusade, or why the Cathars were all slaughtered throughout Southern France (having burned all they could capture, the Church dug up the bodies of dead Carthars to burn even those)? The Church has a long and sorry history of doing what it can to make life miserable for those with whom it disagrees. Lest you consider this criticism merely historical, look at the way they’ve lied about priestly pederasty over the last half century, and their utter refusal to accept modern psychiatry’s views on homosexuality, and their denial of full citizenship to women, etc. I hope release of “The DaVinci Code” (which has already sold 40 million books) will out-perform the sado-masochistic “The Passion of the Christ”. The Church is so far different from the New Testament’s sentiments (even after editing and selection by the early Church) it makes me sick to think the one claims to be founded on the later. Honesty in advertising: I spent three years in Franciscan seminary and am no longer a theist.

The Catholic Church is hellbent on their quixotic quest against fiction. Let them tilt against windmills; it all seems too much like Trekkies probing William Shatner for Star Trek inconsistencies. I’m more incensed by the Churches disdain for non-fiction, like science.

This is just one more example where the Church reinforces my belief that intelligence is not a naturally selected trait.

The Last Temptation of Christ, anyone? I wonder if any of the theatre chains which refused to show the low budget LTOC because it would be “offensive” to their audience (Carmike comes to mind) will also not show the big budget tent-pole Opie feature The Da Vinci Code. Just asking.

MNProgressive quote: “Why don’t Christians want the whole country to engage in discussing religion? Isn’t that the idea?”

Sadly no. Autocratic religions don’t want discussion, they want adherence without doubt. Thus the term “blind faith”, from which their power comes.

These people do realize this book is a work of fiction, right? I mean, doesn’t it all boil down to that? Work of fiction: get over yourselves?

“Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget,” said Arinze. “Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical.

you’re kidding right? where was the duty to do something practical when Cardinal Law was shifting around child molesting priests?

I hope release of “The DaVinci Code” (which has already sold 40 million books) will out-perform the sado-masochistic “The Passion of the Christ”.

Comment by Ed Stephan

Thank you Ed. The image that came immediately to mind is Opie vs. Mad Max. The movie isn’t tugging at me to go see it, but it’s opening week receipts will be of more interest to me now.

And Cardinal Francis Arinze, in conjunction with his church, will be represented by Humungus, Ruler of the Wasteland.

Respect for the religious beliefs of others is a courtesy extended to the believers. It is by no means a “fundamental human right”. How Arinze came up with this bit of poppycock is beyond me. Notice the implicit threat in the statement regarding how to handle “blasphemers”. If the punk wants to mix it up, he should say so. As to the notion that non-believers, which evidently includes all those interested in The DaVinci Code, should be dragged into court, it reminds me of the fascist “tribunals” the Church used to traffic in, the ones where an accusation was the same as truth.

Poor Arinze. He longs for the good ‘ol days when we didn’t have all these problems.

Comments are closed.