To Heck With The Da Vinci Code

[anthony!]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4350625.stm

All I have to say is that its sad how people WANT to believe fiction is true. Jeez I can't stand popular culture sometimes...

—A!

[MacQuarrie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4350625.stm

All I have to say is that its sad how people WANT to believe fiction is true. Jeez I can't stand popular culture sometimes...

—A!
Um, the first page of the book says that all the documents and history in it is true. It's allegedly "historic fiction" based on supposedly true facts.

About the only true fact in the book is that the Vatican exists.

Given that the book is being peddled as fiction that reveals the dark secret truth about Christianity, it's only responsible for the church to refute it.

[anthony!]

Um, the first page of the book says that all the documents and history in it is true. It's allegedly "historic fiction" based on supposedly true facts.

About the only true fact in the book is that the Vatican exists.

Given that the book is being peddled as fiction that reveals the dark secret truth about Christianity, it's only responsible for the church to refute it.

Sorry, where you disagreeing with me? I'm sort of slow.

I think the church should refute the book into the ground.

—A!

[BoosterBronze]

This just in. The Costa Rican government has to hold a convention to refute all of the outlandish claims in Michael Crichton's Jurrasic Park.

[Screwtape]

Whatever. I've been there. I've seen the dinosaurs. They can lie all they want, but it won't change the pterodactyl egg on my mantelpiece.

[kingdom2000]

It seems to be that da vinci code is more of interpretation of the same existing facts. Its accuracy is in as much doubt as the vatican's views. Neither side can be supported 100%.

[BoosterBronze]

It seems to be that da vinci code is more of interpretation of the same existing facts. Its accuracy is in as much doubt as the vatican's views. Neither side can be supported 100%.

We're talking about history not faith.
DVC isn't supported AT ALL. It is not scholarly in the slightest. It's based on half-truth, outright lies, and false connections.
The Catholic view, is also the view of the infinite majority of scholars, is based on the complete understanding of church history.


ps.
BTW, I loved the book regardless.

[anthony!]

It seems to be that da vinci code is more of interpretation of the same existing facts. Its accuracy is in as much doubt as the vatican's views. Neither side can be supported 100%.

Well its the Da Vinci Code that is causing confusion as to Catholic actions and beliefs.

Obviously it can't be supported 100% on the Catholic end of things, because its a matter of faith.

The problem is that people are believing that the Da Vinci Code's warping of Catholic faith into Catholic conspiracty is true.

[kingdom2000]

You mean its making people think that the Catholic church is all about gathering and keeping power?!? Say it ain't so!!!! Nor that it clearly and deliberatly make every effort to make woman second class citizens? No way!!!! Or a religion that claims to come from God and therefore unique, its strange how God looks just like all of the Grecian depictions of Zeus.

I actually don't remember specifics of da vinci code, i read it about three years ago. But some of its theories, specially in regards to woman in the chruch, made alot of sense to me.

[MacQuarrie]

I actually don't remember specifics of da vinci code, i read it about three years ago. But some of its theories, specially in regards to woman in the chruch, made alot of sense to me.
The theories may make a lot of sense, but the historic "facts" presented in support of them are utter rubbish.

[the4thpip]

I've not read the book, but I read a review in Salon and I could not believe the book is actually presenting as fact that stupid pamphlet that some anti-semite wrote to create evidence of a global zionist conspiracy.

[Screwtape]

I posted that article a few months back and I can't remember what I did with it now... but it definitely made the clear point that Brown's distortions are actually based on somebody else's quackery. They're not even HIS lies.

[MacQuarrie]

Sorry, where you disagreeing with me? I'm sort of slow.

I think the church should refute the book into the ground.

—A!
Ah. I misunderstood you.

I had the impression that you were criticizing the church for taking the fictional "Da Vinci Code" seriously and attempting to refute it.

[the4thpip]

Here is an excerpt from the salon story. But I knew all that already from either "The Big Book of Hoaxes" or "The Big Book of Conspiracies" (both published by Piranha Press/DC... not sure which one it was in):

The Priory of Sion did exist -- sort of -- but not in any form even remotely resembling the fantastical claims of the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" or Brown. (In one of his few unqualified claims to nonfiction, Brown includes the sentence "The Priory of Sion -- a European secret society founded in 1099 -- is a real organization" on a page labeled "Fact" placed before the prologue of "The Da Vinci Code.") In reality, the Priory of Sion was the invention, in the 1950s, of a man named Pierre Plantard who had a history of fraud, embezzlement and membership in ultra-conservative, quasi-mystical and virulently anti-Semitic Catholic groups. These tiny extremist groups sought the reunification of Europe under the dual leadership of an orthodox Roman Catholic Church and a divinely ordained monarch, somewhat like the Holy Roman Emperor and preferably French.

Plantard learned of rumors surrounding a town in southern France, where the late priest's unexplained affluence led to talk of buried treasure in the local church. (The priest's wealth actually came from charging superstitious Catholics to have Mass said on their behalf, and he was censured for it by the church.) Plantard capitalized on the "mystery" of Rennes-le-Château by insinuating into the grapevine further rumors: that the priest had discovered evidence of an explosive secret and was being bribed to keep it under wraps.

Plantard wanted to pass himself off as the descendant of the Merovingian dynasty, a family of medieval French kings and, ultimately, of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. (In reality, he was the son of a butler and a cook.) With his accomplice, a genuine but dissolute aristocrat and expert forger, Phillipe de Chérisey, he produced a set of fabricated parchments full of encoded and suggestively prophetic verse alluding to this Merovingian fantasy. With a restaurateur interested in drumming up tourist business for his establishment (located in the priest's former villa), they disseminated a story that the priest had discovered these parchments in the church, inside a hollowed-out pillar of Visigoth origins. (The pillar was later determined to be solid.)

The parchments and a variety of other faked documents pertaining to the Priory of Sion and the Merovingians -- including that list of past Grand Masters, featuring Leonardo and Newton -- were planted in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. This institution, alas, cannot be said to run a tight ship, and there are apparently no records indicating who exactly deposited the infamous "dossiers secrets" in their collection. However, investigators eventually determined that the printing press used to produce them was the same press used by Plantard to print his right-wing newsletters and broadsides.

The entire case for the existence of the Priory of Sion and the bloodline of Jesus extending into the French monarchy rests on this cache of bogus documents. There is no other "proof" anywhere that the Priory of Sion ever existed. A third confederate of Plantard and de Chérisey's, Gérard de Sède, who seems to have bought the story initially, published a lurid bestseller about the "mystery" of Rennes-le-Château. At this point, once a truly interesting sum of money entered the picture following the book's success, the three men fell out, quarreling over who deserved how much of the proceeds.

They began to tell outsiders of the scheme and eventually, de Chérisey confessed on camera, displaying the forged parchments and explaining the methods used to produce them to the French journalist Jean-Luc Chaumeil, who has devoted himself to exposing the hoax. Plantard tried intermittently to sustain the fable, but in the 1980s, he got into trouble with French authorities when a financier who Plantard had claimed was a member of the Priory of Sion committed suicide. In the subsequent police investigation, Plantard was forced to admit he'd invented the whole thing.

Although the Priory of Sion hoax had been debunked within France, the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" were still able to pass it off as authentic in their book and in subsequent media appearances. (Insiders swear the authors knew all along that the story was phony.) Even today, with "The Da Vinci Code" and its preposterous conspiracy theories on the lips of 8 million American readers (and more worldwide, now that translations are appearing), the truth about the Priory of Sion -- a major component of the novel -- isn't widely known. (An excellent summary of the case by Amy Bernstein, based on French sources, can be found in "Secrets of the Code," a collection of writings of varying degrees of gullibility, edited by Dan Burstein. Exhaustive documentation of the multifarious frauds of Pierre Plantard can be found at the Web site maintained by Paul Smith.)

Without the Priory of Sion to hold the Grail conspiracy theory together, most of the provocative "evidence" Brown presents in "The Da Vinci Code" crumbles. Take that supposedly ambiguous figure to the right of Jesus in Leonardo's "Last Supper." If there's no real reason to suspect Leonardo of believing in a special relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ, why should we see that figure as a woman? Yes, the figure looks somewhat feminine but, in addition to following established conventions in representing the disciple John, Leonardo was quite fond of painting androgynous-looking young men. His reason for doing this was the same one that Michelangelo had for painting lots of muscular male nudes and Botticelli had for depicting long-limbed, ivory-skinned lovelies. You don't need a degree in symbology to figure that one out.

http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2004/12/29/da_vinci_code/print.html

[MacQuarrie]

It seems to be that da vinci code is more of interpretation of the same existing facts. Its accuracy is in as much doubt as the vatican's views. Neither side can be supported 100%.
Just about every historic "fact" cited in the book is false. Not a different interpretation, just plain old empirically false. Misrepresentations, lies, distortions and completely made-up nonsense.

The book has been so thoroughly refuted by scholars of every stripe that it's absurd to even consider any of it remotely accurate.

[Screwtape]

Cheers, Pip.

[the4thpip]

My pleasure.
I can't stand dishonest discourse, no matter how deserving the receiving party may be.

[MacQuarrie]

This just in. The Costa Rican government has to hold a convention to refute all of the outlandish claims in Michael Crichton's Jurrasic Park.
I must have missed it... did "Jurassic Park" have a prologue titled "FACT" in which Crichton claimed that all the scientific and historic information cited in his book was accurate and true?

So I guess we're not talking about the same sort of thing at all, are we?

[abbas.khan]

i'm such a non conformist that i totally refused to read this book.

[anthony!]

My pleasure.
I can't stand dishonest discourse, no matter how deserving the receiving party may be.

Even support comes at a price, I suppose. Kudos, Pip.

[anthony!]

i'm such a non conformist that i totally refused to read this book.

Normally I am a big proponent of the "don't criticize it unless you read/see it" rule. In the case of The Da Vinci Code, not reading it because everyone else WAS reading it— was also my major reason for ignoring it. Although I confess to reading many reviews about it, and skimming through it in the bookstore— ala that ridiculous "FACT" prologue. Ugh.

—A!

[Tobias March]

Normally I am a big proponent of the "don't criticize it unless you read/see it" rule. In the case of The Da Vinci Code, not reading it because everyone else WAS reading it— was also my major reason for ignoring it.

—A!

Yeah I'm getting a lot of stick for this too. Reading Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell instead - much more satisfying (though harder to read on public transport.

So I haven't read the book, but from what people are saying - has Brown used some of the Gospel of Thomas? Christ as natural philosopher as opposed to Son of Man/God?

[anthony!]

Yeah I'm getting a lot of stick for this too. Reading Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell instead - much more satisfying (though harder to read on public transport.

So I haven't read the book, but from what people are saying - has Brown used some of the Gospel of Thomas? Christ as natural philosopher as opposed to Son of Man/God?

Man I'm soooo waiting for the paperback on Jonathan Strange/Mr. Norrell...I've been wanting to read that for ages, if only just for the fictional footnotes! I love the idea of make believe sources and citations.

I'm not sure if the Gospel of Thomas is used in The DaVinci Code. Most of the contraversy as I understand it involves the ages old "Mary Magdelene and Jesus hooked up" crap, mixed in with some Templar b.s.

—A!

[Screwtape]

Dude, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell was the best book I read last year. Go buy it in hardcover; it's worth the extra money.

[Michael P]

Out of sheer curiosity: Would the book hold up as fiction if the prologue instead said, "I took a whole bunch of disproved hoaxes, pretended they were true, and wrote a novel about what that would be like?"

[stealthwise]

Anyone go out of their way to disprove FARGO yet? :)

[Tobias March]

Ooooh....didn't some girl freeze to death out there looking for the treasure?

[Spackling Compound]

I'm not sure if the Gospel of Thomas is used in The DaVinci Code. Most of the contraversy as I understand it involves the ages old "Mary Magdelene and Jesus hooked up" crap, mixed in with some Templar b.s.

—A!

I am relieved that he at least acknowledged that there was a Jesus and Mary Magdalene! There have been stranger books out there. My favorite is the one where Jesus is just a fictional representation of a hallucinogenic mushroom. Check out the link...

Dude, Where's my Messiah? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0340128755/qid=1110919825/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7265472-4220015?v=glance&s=books)

[jimmything2681]

Out of sheer curiosity: Would the book hold up as fiction if the prologue instead said, "I took a whole bunch of disproved hoaxes, pretended they were true, and wrote a novel about what that would be like?"

No, because Dan Brown isn't qualified to write my order down on a check, let alone write a full novel. Also, even if he admitted that it was all a load of crap, rather than pretending it was all true, he still would have lifted that load of crap entirely from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." Also, even if he admitted it was all a load of crap lifted from someone else's work, it would still read like it was written by an art professor with a serious inferiority complex. Also, even if he admitted it was a load of crap lifted from someone else's work and he went back and edited out all the parts that included some reference to how many marble steps led up the side of St. Peter's ass in some deserted square in the foothills of the alps to show everyone how cool he was because he'd seen it and it was "100% truthful," it would still read like a bad script for a bad action movie.

I'm sorry, I'm tired.

[BoosterBronze]

I must have missed it... did "Jurassic Park" have a prologue titled "FACT" in which Crichton claimed that all the scientific and historic information cited in his book was accurate and true?

So I guess we're not talking about the same sort of thing at all, are we?

... I was trying to be funny. Ironical and stuff.

[BoosterBronze]

Out of sheer curiosity: Would the book hold up as fiction if the prologue instead said, "I took a whole bunch of disproved hoaxes, pretended they were true, and wrote a novel about what that would be like?"

DVC is a fun read. A competently written little thriller, the characters are awfully cheesy, like a bad romance novel.

It really is the ideas that sell it, fascinating ideas even if they are whack.

The sad thing is that ACTUAL Church history is even more interesting than the crap, but crazy cospiracy stuff is what gets the attention.

[Screwtape]

I am relieved that he at least acknowledged that there was a Jesus and Mary Magdalene! There have been stranger books out there. My favorite is the one where Jesus is just a fictional representation of a hallucinogenic mushroom. Check out the link...

Dude, Where's my Messiah? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0340128755/qid=1110919825/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7265472-4220015?v=glance&s=books)That's awesome. The historical Jesus movement makes me snort milk out my nose with laughter. "Hey, let's compile all the non-religious texts on a predominately religious figure, no matter how academically suspect, and write our own biography of him in studied ignorance of the Bible! And just to make sure we drive our point home, we'll give canon and non-canon gospels equal weight, especially the ones that were written in 300 AD!" Yeah guys. That'll teach 'em.

[MacQuarrie]

... I was trying to be funny. Ironical and stuff.
Sorry. I guess I missed your point.

[JeffreyWKramer]

One undeniable fact is that PREACHER featured some of the same ideas used in DA VINCI CODE, but told a vastly better story.

[the4thpip]

Out of sheer curiosity: Would the book hold up as fiction if the prologue instead said, "I took a whole bunch of disproved hoaxes, pretended they were true, and wrote a novel about what that would be like?"
Probably not.
More from the salon review:

"The Da Vinci Code" is indeed a cheesy thriller, with all the familiar qualities of the genre at its worst: characters so thin they're practically transparent, ludicrous dialogue, and prose that's 100 percent cliché. Even by conventional thriller standards, the book isn't particularly good; the plot is simply one long chase sequence, and the "good guy who turns out to be evil" is obviously a ringer from the moment he's introduced. Dan Brown is no Robert Ludlum, so why has his thriller so outdistanced the work of his betters?

[Crowley]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4350625.stm

All I have to say is that its sad how people WANT to believe fiction is true. Jeez I can't stand popular culture sometimes...

—A!
this statement is brimming with irony. :D

[anthony!]

this statement is brimming with irony. :D

Hey now...

I'm not going to get into another one of Ian's "Religion is fiction" arguments. That conversation still has my apparently "mentally handicapped" brain fuming! :rolleyes:

[Screwtape]

One undeniable fact is that PREACHER featured some of the same ideas used in DA VINCI CODE, but told a vastly better story.Preacher also had an Irish vampire and lots of bar fights, two things I thought were sorely lacking in The Da Vinci Code.

[Raziel]

Everyones faith must really be lacking these days. With this news item and all the videos I see at Blockbuster "The truth behind The Da Vinci Code" crap that I see. For everyone to be so shaken by it makes me wonder.

[Screwtape]

I don't think there's a whole lot of shaking. Writing a decent story that takes issue with religion (Preacher) is one thing (and I don't see "The Time of the Preacher?" books on every shelf), but writing fiction and calling it fact is quite another. I've certainly talked to people who took Brown at his word and thought that he had somehow "uncovered" a bunch of supressed truths.

[Dreadstar]

Everyones faith must really be lacking these days. With this news item and all the videos I see at Blockbuster "The truth behind The Da Vinci Code" crap that I see. For everyone to be so shaken by it makes me wonder.

I don't think it has anything to do with a crisis of faith, per se.

It seems more of a reflexive counter to dis-information in the mainstream public consciousness. People have a distinct aversion to hearing a known lie and tend to want to correct it to spite the liar.

[Moptormouse]

The Da Vinci Code most likely is a big steaming pile of Bulls*it, but hey, christian fundamentalists (including the dude that you guys voted in for another 4 years) seem to have no trouble believing that the Earth is 12'000 years old!, and that everyone begat someone who lived for 900 years. Who's to say what infomation the church has withheld from general public knowledge, one thing that the book does address very well is the near universal low regard that the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths have for women.:eek:

[Spackling Compound]

The Da Vinci Code most likely is a big steaming pile of Bulls*it, but hey, christian fundamentalists (including the dude that you guys voted in for another 4 years) seem to have no trouble believing that the Earth is 12'000 years old!, and that everyone begat someone who lived for 900 years. Who's to say what infomation the church has withheld from general public knowledge, one thing that the book does address very well is the near universal low regard that the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths have for women.:eek:
MoPtormouse...geez, at least get a spell check before you enter a screen name.

And, if you know this board at all, only 2 of us brainless minions of the Christian right voted Bush in. The rest are lefties of one sort or another.

Moptormouse...hehe

[anthony!]

The Da Vinci Code most likely is a big steaming pile of Bulls*it, but hey, christian fundamentalists (including the dude that you guys voted in for another 4 years) seem to have no trouble believing that the Earth is 12'000 years old!, and that everyone begat someone who lived for 900 years.

Well Catholics aren't Old Testament Bible literalists.

Who's to say what infomation the church has withheld from general public knowledge, one thing that the book does address very well is the near universal low regard that the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths have for women.:eek:

I can't speak for Islam, Judaism and Protestantism, but I think the critique of Catholic views on women are highly subjective. Yes, women cannot become priests in the Church— but that doesn't connotate that they do not have an important role in the Church or that they are somehow lesser than. Sisters play important roles in influencing and executing Church policy. I don't think you could exactly diminish the huge deal Catholics make about Mary and the plethora of female saints, either.

—A!

[Screwtape]

I can speak for protestantism. We like women. The vicar at my church is a woman. She is neither barefoot, nor pregnant.

[Crowley]

Hey now...

I'm not going to get into another one of Ian's "Religion is fiction" arguments. That conversation still has my apparently "mentally handicapped" brain fuming! :rolleyes:

I'm just saying that it's ironice that people who think that EVERYTHING in the Bible is literal would then blast a work of Fiction.

it's kinda like when people of one religion denounce another religion. Or as Flanders said:

"Why don't you just call for Hawkman?"

[anthony!]

I'm just saying that it's ironice that people who think that EVERYTHING in the Bible is literal would then blast a work of Fiction.

it's kinda like when people of one religion denounce another religion. Or as Flanders said:

"Why don't you just call for Hawkman?"

Totally.

Just for the record, Catholics and myself do not take everything in the Bible as literal.

—A!

[Moptormouse]

MoPtormouse...geez, at least get a spell check before you enter a screen name.

And, if you know this board at all, only 2 of us brainless minions of the Christian right voted Bush in. The rest are lefties of one sort or another.

Moptormouse...hehe

Getting slightly of the subject, i seriously doubt that too many lefties voted in the neo-conservative monkey boy (or are you saying that everyone on this board is a leftie), and obvioulsly i don't know this board very well........you might have a point on the spell check though.

Also, just because the church makes a huge deal about their female saints, that doesn't automatically mean that they treat women with a great deal of respect. Arguably our greatest monarch was Queen Elizabeth 1, does that mean that through out history our women have been treated with the respect that they deserve.? By the way, can someone please tell this religious sceptic just why women can't be ordained in the Catholic church.

[anthony!]

By the way, can someone please tell this religious sceptic just why women can't be ordained in the Catholic church.

Here is something I found off the cuff. I hope this properly answers the question. Forgive me for the thread drift.



WHY CAN'T THE CHURCH ORDAIN WOMEN?

"Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination." *The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry....The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. *For this reason the ordination of women is not possible. (1)
The fact that the Catholic Church does not ordain women to the ministerial priesthood is no secret. *In fact of all the Church's policies it is one of the most widely criticized! *Yet the actual reason why the Church confers the Sacrament of Holy Orders only on men is less well known.

Is Sexism the Reason?

One usually hears the charge that this policy arises from a deeply entrenched "sexism". *Yet our Faith is not sexist! *The Catholic Church teaches that women are equal to men in human dignity, capacity for salvation and potential for spiritual growth and holiness - not bad for a "patriarchal" religion. *She also teaches that the highest creature is the Blessed Virgin Mary - a woman! *It is difficult to find "sexism" in such doctrines.

Though a few medieval writers tried to argue against women priests on the basis of an allegedly "inferiority" or "state of subjection" to man, this was only their personal opinion, not the Church's official dogma.

In 1977, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released its Declaration of on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (Inter Insignores). *This document, which rejected the idea that women could be priests, also stated that "the Scholastic doctors, in their desire to clarify by reason the data of faith, often present arguments on this point (women's ordination) that modern thought would have difficulty in admitting or would even rightly reject" (2). *This is a clear reference to any argument which would posit some alleged "female inferiority"!

Finally, consider all the liturgical roles which the Church has opened to women and girls in the past few decades. *Many Catholic parishes currently have female readers, special ministers of the Eucharist, parish coordinators, even altar servers. *The pope permitted the latter despite the strong protests of many traditionalists. *The Church has done much to include women in the liturgy, even at the risk of angering and losing many of her members! *Why then does she not also ordain women to the ministerial priesthood?

So Why No Women Priests?

The simple reason is that she just cannot do it, as her documents clearly state. *According to Inter Insignores, the Church "does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination" (3). *And in his recent letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II authoritatively writes: *"I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful" (4).

So it is not that the Church can but will not; rather, she does not because she cannot!

A Common Argument against Women's Ordination

The most common argument put forth against female priests contends that, since God became incarnate in the male sex, only men can represent Christ and so only men can become priests. *Though not untrue, this argument is incomplete and open to misunderstanding. *It may give the impression that women are not Christlike, and are thus "second-class Christians".

Nothing could be further from the heart and mind of Mother Church! *The witness of countless female saints in Scripture and Church history refute this notion, as does the modern example of such Christlike souls as Mother Teresa. *In fact, the one saint who is most like Jesus is His holy Mother, Mary. *The Blessed Virgin is even more Christlike that Saint Francis of Assisi, for she is the sinless New Eve whose entire life mirrors perfectly that of the New Adam. *So this argument obviously needs further clarification to prevent any false conclusions.

A Clash of Worldviews

A major reason why this issue is so controversial could be that each side is approaching the question from a different worldview. *The feminist worldview, for instance, states that all differences between male and female roles arise from male domination and oppression of women. *Thus the Church's exclusion of women from Holy Orders must be another example of such "patriarchy".

But is the feminist worldview valid? *One can hardly deny the existence of unjust discrimination against women throughout the centuries and even today. *But does that mean that all social and religious distinctions between men and women are necessarily unjust?

The Catholic Worldview

The Church, too, has a "worldview", as does any religion. *Hers is rooted in the Bible and Sacred Tradition, which she believes to be Divine Revelation. *If we examine the Church's worldview, perhaps we will understand why she does not consider herself able to ordain women.

(I recognize that many readers are not Catholic, and therefore will not agree with the Church's worldview and the conclusions drawn from it. *But please recognize that this a legitimate religious worldview, cherished and developed over the centuries, not a modern excuse fabricated to "disempower" women. *If you do not accept our worldview, I ask you to at least try to understand and respect it.)

Scripture tells us that, in the beginning, God created man and woman (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4). *The Church believes and officially teaches that the human race originated with this human couple, whom Scripture calls "Adam" and "Eve".

God created two sexes because His Plan for the human race requires that male and female cooperate in the transmission of life. *The Creator originally intended for our first parents to transmit to all their descendants both physical life and the supernatural life of grace. *After the Fall, however, they could pass on only physical life doomed to die and spiritual death-that is, original sin, the lack of sanctifying grace in the soul.

[Pixies Chick]

Anyone go out of their way to disprove FARGO yet? :)

Yes, actually.

So is the midnight sex ritual off or not? C'mon, I got dip, and I need to make plans.

[Moptormouse]

Here is something I found off the cuff. I hope this properly answers the question. Forgive me for the thread drift.

Scripture tells us that, in the beginning, God created man and woman (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4). *The Church believes and officially teaches that the human race originated with this human couple, whom Scripture calls "Adam" and "Eve".

God created two sexes because His Plan for the human race requires that male and female cooperate in the transmission of life. *The Creator originally intended for our first parents to transmit to all their descendants both physical life and the supernatural life of grace. *After the Fall, however, they could pass on only physical life doomed to die and spiritual death-that is, original sin, the lack of sanctifying grace in the soul.


Well, thank you for clearing that one up for me. Can't quite come to terms with the concept of "original sin" but hey, i'm a heathen. Strange how the Catholic church referes to itself a female though.
Getting back to the DVC, my biggest problem with the book was how the main character seemed to be the all seeing oracle who could work out any riddle in two pages of text!

[MacQuarrie]

...one thing that the book does address very well is the near universal low regard that the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths have for women.:eek:
Judaism was the first culture to give women property rights as opposed to keeping them as property. You'll find it in Numbers.

[Screwtape]

Yes, actually.

So is the midnight sex ritual off or not? C'mon, I got dip, and I need to make plans.I'm in!

.....

[JeffreyWKramer]

Preacher also had an Irish vampire and lots of bar fights, two things I thought were sorely lacking in The Da Vinci Code.

Few things wouldn't be improved by including an Irish vampire and a few bar fights.

[Screwtape]

Well, thank you for clearing that one up for me. Can't quite come to terms with the concept of "original sin" but hey, i'm a heathen. Strange how the Catholic church referes to itself a female though.
Getting back to the DVC, my biggest problem with the book was how the main character seemed to be the all seeing oracle who could work out any riddle in two pages of text!The church refers to itself as female because Paul describes it as "the bride of Christ." For more on this, John Donne's holy sonnets are interesting reading.

I'm actually looking forward to the movie of this book, if only because I think Tom Hanks can flesh out the character a little bit.

Incidentally, Stephen King made some less-than-complimentary noise about the Da Vinci code a couple of months ago; anybody read that?

[Screwtape]

Few things wouldn't be improved by including an Irish vampire and a few bar fights.Waitwait... we're always talking about how to fix the church, right?

I smell a new denomination...

[JeffreyWKramer]

Here is something I found off the cuff. I hope this properly answers the question. Forgive me for the thread drift.

If by "proper" you mean illogic, double-speak and convoluted BS, sure.

The Church should just state that they don't do it because it's not traditional. Such lame, illogical arguments as the one you cited just seem mealy-mouthed and silly. Arguments to tradition aren't exactly the height of rational thought, either, but they are a lot more dignified than that tripe.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Waitwait... we're always talking about how to fix the church, right?

I smell a new denomination...


Vampires might have some problems with taking sacrement, seems to me. I'm guessing a fair number of the priests I know would be pretty good in a bar fight, though.

[Screwtape]

I thought it was because Paul says that he doesn't allow a woman to teach a man in 1st Timothy, actually. He makes reference to the creation order, which some say elevates the dictum from its cultural context to a doctrinal level. I personally disagree (Paul also says that long hair is a disgrace to a man, which it might well have been in first century Rome, but a couple of things have changed since then), but that's just me.

[Screwtape]

Vampires might have some problems with taking sacrement, seems to me. I'm guessing a fair number of the priests I know would be pretty good in a bar fight, though.I have a half-written vampire story about a priest who has to drink from the holy grail to cure his condition somewhere in the annals of study.

[Pixies Chick]

Judaism was the first culture to give women property rights as opposed to keeping them as property. You'll find it in Numbers.

Perhaps the first of the so-called western cultures. Not the first culture.

[sixstringguild]

what was the first culture?

[anthony!]

If by "proper" you mean illogic, double-speak and convoluted BS, sure.

The Church should just state that they don't do it because it's not traditional. Such lame, illogical arguments as the one you cited just seem mealy-mouthed and silly. Arguments to tradition aren't exactly the height of rational thought, either, but they are a lot more dignified than that tripe.

Hey I never said you had to like it. Besides, it was just one persons explanation that I found quickly. Could you please back up off my nuts?

And by the by, if I just merely said it was "tradition" then we'd have to put with people saying "yeah, a sexists tradition".

—A!

[Screwtape]

Here we enter into the largely futile "who came first" argument...

"Wait! The date on my text says 6000 BC! Beat that!"

"It says 6000 BC?"

"...Oh, crap."

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hey I never said you had to like it. Besides, it was just one persons explanation that I found quickly. Could you please back up off my nuts?

I wasn't attacking you, I was attacking the lame reasoning used in that tripe you linked to. If you don't like that, tough... I never said you had to.

And by the by, if I just merely said it was "tradition" then we'd have to put with people saying "yeah, a sexists tradition".


Yeah, but that would still be less silly than the argument presented.

Irish vampires should bite people who write stuff as silly as that argument.

[Spackling Compound]

(Paul also says that long hair is a disgrace to a man, which it might well have been in first century Rome, but a couple of things have changed since then)

And yet...
http://www.ticketservice.com/assets/images/kenny_g_1.jpg

[Spackling Compound]

Vampires might have some problems with taking sacrement, seems to me. I'm guessing a fair number of the priests I know would be pretty good in a bar fight, though.

In comicland, there was the Confessor: Priest and Vampire...and he also had a teenage sidekick..umm..damn, bad example.

[JeffreyWKramer]

In comicland, there was the Confessor: Priest and Vampire...and he also had a teenage sidekick..umm..damn, bad example.

Heh!

Was the Confessor actually a priest, or just a devout Catholic who took on the Inquisitor motif and operated out of that abandoned church complex? I haven't reread that story arc in so long, I'd forgotten.

I should re-read that. Great story, and a great example of a positive depiction of a religious character.

[Spackling Compound]

Heh!

Was the Confessor actually a priest, or just a devout Catholic who took on the Inquisitor motif and operated out of that abandoned church complex? I haven't reread that story arc in so long, I'd forgotten.

I should re-read that. Great story, and a great example of a positive depiction of a religious character.
He was a priest, I'm sure.

I had an entire run of Astro City and passed it, along with most of my 1000+ comics to my cousin who wanted to be a screenwriter but found it frustrating so I told her to consider comics (Gail was someone I told her had done reasonably well in comics).

I sort of miss those things now but I had no room. VIVA TPBs!

[anthony!]

He was a priest, I'm sure.

I had an entire run of Astro City and passed it, along with most of my 1000+ comics to my cousin who wanted to be a screenwriter but found it frustrating so I told her to consider comics (Gail was someone I told her had done reasonably well in comics).

I sort of miss those things now but I had no room. VIVA TPBs!

Hmmm. Tell me more about this Confessor character. Color me intrigued. I never followed Astro City beyond its very first issue at Image/Homage Comics.

—A!

[Screwtape]

Gah. Then you've just had the second storyline ruined for you. It's called "Confessions," and it's great.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Gah. Then you've just had the second storyline ruined for you. It's called "Confessions," and it's great.


It *is* great, but yeah, definitely a story which will have a bit less impact the first time if you've been spoiled.

Hm, that reminds me of an ironic point, but includes another spoiler. So...
Anyone else find it odd that one of the few comic characters who has been killed off and stayed dead was a vampire - i.e., one of the undead?

Anyway, Anthony!, "Confessions" is highly recommended, as is the entire run of ASTRO CITY. Pick up the "Confessions" TPB. You'll likely love it. Most people who like good comics love that storyline.

[the4thpip]

I don't think it has anything to do with a crisis of faith, per se.

It seems more of a reflexive counter to dis-information in the mainstream public consciousness. People have a distinct aversion to hearing a known lie and tend to want to correct it to spite the liar.
Especially when the main document the book is based on was specifically forged to make jews look suspicious.

[the4thpip]

Totally.

Just for the record, Catholics and myself do not take everything in the Bible as literal.

—A!
Yeah, like "god hates shrimp" is clearly just a typo in the bible, while "god hates fags" makes total sense.

Hmmmmm, seafood!

[Spackling Compound]

Yeah, like "god hates shrimp" is clearly just a typo in the bible, while "god hates fags" makes total sense.

Hmmmmm, seafood!
Actually, God hates shrimpy fags, fags who shrimp and faggy shrimps...according the book of Nebuchaduzabuzzleschmidt chapter 20, verse 69 or thereabout.

[anthony!]

Yeah, like "god hates shrimp" is clearly just a typo in the bible, while "god hates fags" makes total sense.

Hmmmmm, seafood!

Well then its a good thing I ignored the God hates Germany part, too.

—A!

[Spackling Compound]

Well then its a good thing I ignored the God hates Germany part, too.

—A!

From what I gather, the feeling is mutual.

[Screwtape]

Germans hate shrimp?

[Spackling Compound]

Germans hate shrimp?

No. Shrimp hate Anthony. Sorry I wasn't clear. ;)

[Rabid Trekkie]

I'm just saying that it's ironice that people who think that EVERYTHING in the Bible is literal would then blast a work of Fiction.

it's kinda like when people of one religion denounce another religion. Or as Flanders said:

"Why don't you just call for Hawkman?"

Well we don't exactly consider the Bible a work of fiction so it isn't quite the same thing. From what I hear (not having read DVC or the books to refute it) an amateur can debunk most of the stuff in it. Whereas something like the Bible does have sources backing it up, maybe not the religious context but the historical parts are being proved.

[anthony!]

No. Shrimp hate Anthony. Sorry I wasn't clear. ;)

Oh, see now I thought that Germans hated me, Anthony. Which was wierd, having been to Germany. Loved it. Best time I had in Europe after seeing the Pope.

—A!