The Da Vinci Code : A good Thriller? or Blasphemy?

OK, question. The Da Vinci Code is a film of a book which makes a couple of claims (maybe several) which go against religious teaching. It never claims to be anything more than fiction… is that ok? or does simple mis-portrayal of religious characters constitude blasphemy …

what do people think?

I’d vote for “Fiction”, but I’m not sure about “Fun Fiction”…

there’s also the possibility that he was looking for a good way to sell books and thought he’d intertwine the two.

Munich did similar things in so far as both sides thought it portrayed against them.

And there was that portrayal in the cartoon in Holland.

It’s part of life these days that religions still disagree with one another and there’s no reason why an individual shouldn’t do that unless seeking to incite religious hatred etc.

There was an option in the forum for ‘a bad movie’, but it didn’t like it :S

I quite enjoyed the book, but the debate surrounding it is a bit ridiculous !

I think the debate has been caused by yet another conspiracy theory, along the lines of JFK’s assassination and the moon landing.

Why did you delete your post, Rob?

I’ve just found out that the first page is whats causing all the controversy. Its titled ‘facts’, claiming the existence of the Prioiry of Sion and Opus Dei are real organisations. They both are - they even both have websites! He goes on to state: ’ all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate’.

It doesn’t seem to suggest that anything else (like his storylines which deviate from church teachings, for example) are based on any factual knowledge anyway.

I remain as baffled as I was before!

this is true, though there is a large difference, in so far as JFK did die, so that conspiracy isn’t about the big guy himself.

The moon landing one i don’t give any real thought to, as i don’t think they’d have put so much money and time into it, as well as had so many accidents since, if they’d not gotten there in the first place.

Thus, things written about a person from 2000 years ago, disagreeing with a book that may or may not be factual, dependent upon your religious persuasion, is a bit more controversial to some, and not in the slightest controversial to others.

(because it wasn’t aiding the conversation as a whole) (or in the slightest :P)

Its both I think

Theres a prime bit of fence sitting :stuck_out_tongue:

Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion do you are correct both exist

Opus Dei is a Catholic institution founded by Saint Josemaría Escrivá. Its mission is to help people turn their work and daily activities into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for improving society.

The novel describes Opus Dei as “a Catholic Church” and portrays it as an order of monks with members serving as assassins, one of whom (Silas) is a key character in the book.

**Priory of Sion **
The Priory of Sion was a club founded in 1956 by four young Frenchmen. Two of its members were André Bonhomme (who was president of the club when it was founded) and Pierre Plantard (who previously had been sentenced to six months in prison for fraud and embezzlement).

The group’s name is based on a local mountain in France (Col du Mont Sion), not Mount Zion in Jerusalem. It has no connection with the Crusaders, the Templars, or previous movements incorporating “Sion” into their names.

The organization broke up after a short time, but in later years Pierre Plantard revived it, claimed he was the “grand master” or leader of the organization, and began making outrageous claims regarding its antiquity, prior membership, and true purposes.

Dan Brown begins The Da Vinci Code with a page labeled Fact, on which he describes the Priory of Sion as “a European society founded in 1099, a real organization”

My understanding is that the issues most people have with this film is the misportrayal of these organisations and religious facts surrounding the film/novel. Whilst I think people appreciate this is only fictional it is the way that it is portrayed as fact and the way Dan Brown has claimed it to be fact both on his own website and in interview that have caused such uproar.

I’m still not convincec by this claim that the religious representations have been claimed as ‘fact’. I have yet to find any interviews or statements which suggest that he claims these religious ‘misrepresentations’ are fact. As far as I can see, he makes the distinction between fact and fiction by stating the things which are fact (suggesting by implication that what is left is not). I just think that if he claimed factual basis for something he couldn’t support, he would have been sued (and lost) by now.

Also, the Silas thing is interesting. In the middle ages, priests and monks etc were sent as ‘assasins’ of the church and pre-pardoned for thier sins. Annoyingly, I can’t remember what its called.


Ah crap, yeah thats in his dark materials as well!!!

In HDM they call it Pre-emptive Penance, whereby a priest stores up some ‘credit’ for a sin not yet committed. Its practised only by the Consistorial Court of Discipline - a secret and powerful chhurch body. The term consistory means a body which was often used by the pope in the past to help manage ecclesiastical matters. The term has also been used elsewhere; for example, “Consistorial Courts” in the Church of Ireland were charged with administering wills and the like, and may thus have also achieved a degree of worldly power.

I really should do more revision and less mucking around :slight_smile:

Did anyone see the documentary on this last night?

I saw a bit of during dinner, it was showing bits of the Louvre

Anyway it isn’t his idea, the actually concept of his book was from a previous book called ‘Holy blood, Holy Grail’. Brown just turned the book into another book (i haven’t read all of the original one, i only started it). Thats why the authors of HB HG tried to sue Brown…

But they were unsuccessful … so legally, Brown did create his own work vs plagiarising the others. I’m not sure how similar they are on the details … hurry up and finish it so you can tell us!!

The film is rather good, I enjoyed it. Great casting, but perhaps not Tim Hanks’ usual 110%. Quite British too, and I do like the smart car. And Audrey Tautou is fit