Condemning the Code

Near as I can surmise, every American who has the capability to do so has read The Da Vinci Code. I have not. One of Dan Brown's previous novels, Deception Point, struck me as marginal, and I saw no reason to go out of my way to read mediocre fiction when my stack of books to be read was towering with writers that would put Brown to shame.

Earlier today, the large picture adorning the top of the Drudge Report displayed burning copies of Brown's controversial novel. According to Wikipedia, "Critics have attacked it as inaccurate, sacrilegious and poorly written and decry the many negative implications about the Catholic Church and Opus Dei." Thus, the book burns.

In his leading of the delighted reader through the Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire, Gibbon spends no small amount of time with the Emperor Constantine, who, as I understand it, played an instrumental role in the cover-up proclaimed by Brown. Yet, strangely, Gibbon does not mention the progeny of Jesus and Mary Magdalene at all. Since he viewed the Catholic Church as one of the principle culprits in the demise of the great empire, it is unconscionable that Gibbon would willingly commit such a careless oversight. The historian is skeptical of religious sentiment, especially that of the Christians, who were frequently either too hypocritical or too "superstitious" for his cynical mind.

Now, Brown obviously offers some explanation for how the conspiracy was brought to light, even if I have no idea what that explanation is. In all likelihood he exonerates the character of Gibbon, as the damning documentation was discovered some time in the last two hundred years, after the completion of Gibbon's work.

It never ceases to amaze me the outrageous explanations people will believe which belie Occam's razor. There are several possibilities as to the qualities of the person of Christ, and there are several alike for that of the Church. It is entirely possible that the Church has pulled the wool over the eyes of everyone. She may in fact be the vehicle of the greatest conspiracy of all time. But make no mistake about it, if the Church is not what she says she is—namely, the protector of the sacred Truth revealed by Christ—she is the most powerful and devious institution to grace this earth in hoodwinking so many billions of people over the last two thousand years. It seems far more plausible that the Church is exactly what she says she is, rather than some bizarre collection of ambitious scoundrels, hellbent on controlling the masses.

As an aside, I can't ever figure out how on earth the Church can be presumed to be so controlling. Only four percent of married American Catholics follow her teaching on contraception; the bishops refuse to withhold communion from politicians who support abortion—and yet find time to march for illegal aliens, which is more curious than unholy; most Catholics do not attend mass weekly, and fewer still receive the Sacrament worthily. Ironically, it is the remnant of orthodox Catholics which is now howling loudest in the Church, not for reform per se, but rather for a strict adherence to her doctrine and promulgation thereof. The hard-liners scream for more control and pastoral leadership, but the Vatican refuses to budge. Controlling indeed.

I've been trying to get riled up about Da Vinci. I know it's blatant heresy, but anyone who has studied the Church history knows that we've dealt with this thing before. The idea that the Church could last two thousand years only to be brought down by a mediocre novelist is laughable. The Church will rise again; people will be surprised as they always are; and in a short matter of time they will resurrect some new cadaver to lead their march new march which will assuredly destroy the Church.

Yet heresy should not be dealt with lightly. The pope at the time of the reformation was alerted to murmurs of discontent, but dismissed them as silly disputes amongst the monks. One of those monks was Martin Luther, and since that horrible day when he nailed his complaints—some legitimate, some not—to the Church door, the Church has been reeling from disunity. I do not see Brown having the same impact that Luther did, but he still has the power to shake the faith of some Christians.

Now, as I have already mentioned, anyone who knows anything about the Church and what she teaches, or about the history, specifically in regard to all the heretics she has had to condemn, can't find this latest assault my Brown much more than a nuisance. It calls to mind the story of the great doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, who once interrupted a large feast with an adamant fist to the table and a boisterous shout of, "And that will settle the Manichees!" St. Augustine had, of course, settled the Manichees hundreds of years previous, but heretics are notoriously bad with history, and were evidently unaware of this fact. St Thomas, patient man that he was, had found perhaps another way of “settling” the dissenters.

Unfortunately, however, most Catholic, and fewer Christians, know much about their faith, especially as it extends beyond selected passages in the Bible. It is our job to instruct, and to avoid contributing to this heresy by boycotting the film. The shepherds of the church have not been struck, but have instead played the coward, and the sheep will be scattered. Only one of very weak faith would buy into the nonsense of Mr. Brown, but in the spirit of Vatican II, we have handed out condoms and false doctrine in the stead of faith and knowledge.

Christ said that the path is wide that leads to destruction, and although we must fight to broaden the path and urge others to follow, we are all, ultimately left with free will. If Christ saw no problem in letting others choose damnation, neither shall we. But let us pray...