Da Vinci Debate

Since Dan Brown put his book The Da Vinci Code on the market more than two years ago, it has been a runaway best seller. It has generated discussion, debate, and in many cases anger (as do many things that challenge religious ideas). Now the movie is out and the uproar has continued. The Catholic Church (which features prominently) has asked its member to NOT see the movie or to read the book. To me that smacks a little too close to censorship. However, I think it's time I sound off on the subject because I have read the book, I have seen the movie, and I think I know a thing or two of some of the topics therein.

To start off we have to accept that Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius. Absolute, without a doubt, gob-smacking genius. He was a master painter, an accomplished sculptor, wonderful musician, a chef, and a mathematician. Just to name some of his hobbies. The man was a guidance counselor's dream. So the genius part we have to accept as fact.

Next is the painting of The Last Supper. When you look at Brown's theories for thinking that John (the Apostle?); seated to the right of Jesus was Mary Magdalene, I don't buy it. For one, Da Vinci usually painted John as young, and Da Vinci's young men were always slightly androgynous. Maybe this was because of the widely held belief that Da Vinci was very much homosexual. I don't know. That's just a theory.

One then has to wonder, why would Da Vinci paint The Last Supper AGAINST what the church wanted or believed? The Catholic Church of the 16th century was not the kind, loving, and forgiving organization that it is today.

But what about Opus Dei? What about it? It does exist as an ultra conservative sect of the Catholic Church (I know, I know, who woulda thunk it). Does it go around killing for its beliefs? I think not. I believe they are to the Catholic Church what the Amish are to Protestants. A group of people who want to live life by a simpler, stricter code. It's not like the Amish do drive by shootings (clop clop, clop clop, BANG, clop clop, clop clop) to protect their way of life. One accepts it, or doesn't participate.

The Priory of Scion. Did it exist? Most believe that it did but it died out years ago. Even at the beginning of the book Dan Brown says evidence was found that it existed. There was nothing that said what it existed for. Maybe it was a bible study for gap-toothed geeks. Maybe it was code for a group of Dungeons and Dragons players. Who knows? Not Dan Brown and he really didn't need to know. He made a story that fit into his book; which is what any good author would do.

So what about Jesus and Mary Magdalene? Did they marry? Did they have a child? Devout Christians will say no, because it doesn't say that they did in the bible. Point of note, it doesn't say they didn't either (bearing in mind I am no biblical scholar, I asked for informed opinion). There is also about 18 years of His life (from 12-30) that isn't in the bible. So is it possible he married and fathered a child, or a horde of children? I think yes it is. Do I believe he did? I don't know; but I didn't know before I read the book either. I don't make my mind up by heeding religious zealots or by fiction authors. In this instance, my mind isn't made up.

So what does all this mean when you tie it all together? I'm going to give you my interpretation. Ready? Here it comes; it's a book. It is a fanciful story that is very well told using famous images and playing on the largely western need to find conspiracy everywhere. Is it real? No! It's crap. Dan Brown said so in dozens of interviews during the books initial publication but he then started to say very little when the media hype continued to crescendo. That's good PR because there is no such thing as bad press.

I think the media hype would have died much sooner if instead of condemnation, religious leaders took more of a neutral position. Saying something like; "Yes I read the book. I don't believe a word of it but its well written." and leave it at that. I think that trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't read is what can get religions into real trouble. See founding of the Prodestant faith.

There are some who would refuse to read the book because they think it's blasphemous. In my own opinion, how can you try to refute something you have never read? Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of it. Particularly if you might get asked questions because of it.

So at the end of the day, I read the book, I saw the movie, and I enjoyed both. I don't believe it, but it's still a good story