The Da Vinci Hoax (15)

Conclusion

Dan Brown has penned an atrociously researched mess. His novel is not so much historical fiction as it is fictional history. But it has taken esoteric and anti-Christian conspiratorial literature mainstream, and is helping to gain it popular acceptance. After all, how many of the average readers will recognize the blazing inaccuracies? It is unfortunately all too common that the vast majority of people today get their knowledge of historical events from motion pictures, television, and fictional books. But when it comes to novels, that have a religious theme, particularly a novel, which claims some degree of historical accuracy but is not, the misinformation generated can be particularly damaging.

Brown borrows many of his historical ideas uncritically from Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation. Author Brian Onken notes in his examination of Holy Blood, Holy Grail: "Where does this approach to history lead us? If historians were to adopt the Baigne/Leigh/Lincoln theory of historical research [as Brown does], most of history could (and would) be rewritten. After all, the matter would no longer be whether something was factual and could be proved, but whether we liked the idea and whether we could create a scenario that would render our hypothesis plausible…. Conjecture, assumption, speculation, and an unbelievable gullibility characterize the authors' approach, and nowhere is this more clearly seen than when they turn to the Grail legends" (Book Review, Holy Blood, Holy Grail).

Author Amy Welborn has given talks on the errors in The Da Vinci Code. She noticed that there were typically three different levels of readers faithful to the book:

1. Those who believe that every assertion made in the novel is true. These people come carrying copies of The Woman with the Alabaster Jar and stand in front of reproductions of Leonardo's Last Supper, and solemnly point out the presence of Mary Magdalene.

2. Those who are startled by the claims of the novel, suspicious because they've never heard them before, but at the same time accepting of the possibility. These folks usually lack any background in history, and suspect that there's no way to know the truth anyway.

3. Finally, there are those who really don't care about the exact content of The Da Vinci Code, but are glad that it seeks to discredit Christianity, and so "believe" in the project in general, and heartily approve of it.

Why would anyone take serious such a fantastic yarn? Father William Slattery gives an interesting insight from, of all people, Adolph Hitler. I give a somewhat different translation of the infamous quote from Mein Kampf: "All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters, but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously" (chapter 10, Mein Kampf, 1925).

The success of The Da Vinci Code is an example of this insight into human nature. Under the safe venue of a fictional yarn it tells a big lie: that what untold millions of Christians have believed, sacrificed and placed their hopes in these last two thousand years, what millions of Christians continue to believe, sacrifice and hope in today, is a gross deceit fostered on them by an evil and manipulative Church. The Church has actually suppressed the truth and spent at least these last 1,500 years killing millions of innocent people to maintain the deception and its power. It presents this proposition in novel format, but many people seem willing to believe it in whole, in part, or simply in principle.

Dan Brown besmirches the reputation of the Catholic Church and denigrates the divine majesty of Jesus Christ all under the guise of fictional entertainment. Many internet sites, talk shows, documentaries, magazine articles, and myriad's of ordinary people discuss the premises of Brown's novel as if credible, yet when Christians try to refute them with known facts or defend the integrity of their beliefs they are told to lighten up, after all its just a novel! This is a disingenuous approach. And while characters in Brown's book might throw out the odd, mildly indulgent, if not condescending, remark about believing Catholics, the reader is still left with the overwhelming impression of the Church as an evil institution that has falsified history, manipulated its followers, and maliciously inflicted untold harm on millions of people, especially women, over the centuries. Further the book blasphemously mocks the very essence of Christian belief - the teachings and divinity of Jesus Christ. One wonders if much of its popularity is not simply a chance to publicly thumb the nose at Christianity?

While many in our secular society think themselves tolerant, the reality is that they often speak of Christianity and the Catholic Church in a manner that would be considered unconscionable if of any other religion or group. As Cardinal Bertone, Archbishop of Genoa, noted: "There's a great anti-Catholic prejudice. I ask myself if a similar book was written, full of lies about Buddha, Mohammed, or, even, for example, if a novel came out which manipulated all the history of the Holocaust…what would have happened?"

Of the easy public acceptance of anti-Catholic sentiments and ideas, Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State Univ., has said: "Almost as troubling as the sheer abundance of anti-Catholic rhetoric is the failure to acknowledge it as a serious social problem. In the media, Catholicism is regarded as a perfectly legitimate target…What sometimes seems to be limitless social tolerance in modern America has strict limits where the Catholic Church is concerned" (The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice, 2003).

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17