This is NOT a job for superheroes

A few nights ago, I watched a talk show on TV that featured guests who put forth various insights on Dan Brown's novel. It was quite interesting to listen to the different ideas. One realization that I had (and the one that struck me the most) as the discussion progressed was that a newspaper columnist -- and advanced in years (and presumably in experience) -- regards the availability of information via the Internet as something undeniably positive because it "democratizes knowledge" (I agree to a certain extent, heavy emphasis on "certain extent"). And this he postured since now, he said, people can get all the information they want about things of God and the Church and choose what to believe in. For him, the so-called "cafeteria Catholicism" is a step in the right direction. For him, "personalizing" one's faith was the key -- never mind if the desire to reach the truth is forgotten, or whether this "personalized faith" is actually based on truth.

This makes me wince, since the truth and the love for it are two things that are very important to me -- whether we're talking about nasty showbiz rumors, the real motivations behind people's saying things like "abortion is perfectly safe" and "FHM is not pornography," the workings of supernatural grace, or the real deal about poor people suspected of some crime and whose faces are splashed on the news even before any trial takes place.

Okay, back to the TV program I was talking about before I got carried away. Good thing another guest later pointed out that with the democratization of knowledge also comes the democratization of garbage. Access to information does not necessarily mean getting to the truth. What do you do with information when it doesn't contain the truth? Or worse, when it presents itself as the truth? And perhaps the worst, when it is mixed with the truth without indicating which is which?




Hopefully, the following gets you on the right track:

“Along with trashing Christianity, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code is a veritable museum of errors where Renaissance art is concerned,” writes [art history professor Elizabeth] Lev.

Lev’s informative essay focuses on the artist at the centre of Brown’s story, Leonardo Da Vinci, and his renowned work, The Last Supper. She methodically debunks each claim Brown makes about the Renaissance artist’s work and life with historical evidence.

“Art historians have been slow in responding [to The Da Vinci Code], mostly because it is difficult to know where to start,” she says. “The novelist’s imaginative notions of iconography may make for best-selling fiction, but they are wildly at variance with what is known about the life and work of Leonardo.”

She demonstrates Brown’s ignorance through his mistaken interpretation of Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, Virgin on the Rocks, and The Last Supper.

“Brown’s appetite for desecration reaches its pinnacle when he comes to Leonardo’s finest masterpiece, The Last Supper,” she writes.

She calls Brown’s theory that the figure of the Apostle John is really Mary Magdalene “preposterous” and explains how Da Vinci’s soft-featured, long-haired and beardless depiction of John was a typical artistic style used in Renaissance art to depict young men.

Amy Welborn, author of De-coding Da Vinci, also contributes to the Web site. She points out the historical fallacies that Brown puts forth and questions his historical sources. She observes that Brown did not refer to any of the scores of texts, from the mid-1st century to the 4th century, which have survived and which indicate very clearly what early Christians believed. Instead, he refers to Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation, which do not reflect serious historical scholarship, she says.

The Web site has a page that addresses readers’ questions and promotes a television documentary, titled Jesus Decoded, which also seeks to debunk the myths about the Church put forth by The Da Vinci Code.

Full story, plus additional links, at Catholic News Agency




Then here's an excerpt from an interesting piece (a LifeSite Special Report from last year) called "The Da Vinci Code: Hoodwinking the world" by John Jalsevac:

Why Are Many Readers Taking its Outrageous Claims Seriously?

But if the book is as ludicrous as all that (and it truly is), again it must be asked, why is it selling, and, more importantly, why are readers taking its preposterous claims seriously?

Dan Brown himself presents us with the answer. Twice in the course of the book his characters exclaim “everyone loves a conspiracy.” David Klinghoffer explains that “the best thing about The Da Vinci Code is that the conspiracy is just an awfully neat one. What makes for an outstanding conspiracy? It doesn’t have to be real, as this one is surely not, despite Brown’s inclusion of a preface boldly headlined “FACT.”

Indeed, it is that FACT page that provides the key to the whole question. For the very pulse of a conspiracy theory is that it provides an alternate ‘truth’, any truth, just as long as it isn’t the established one.

Chesterton once said of Christianity that what made it so unique in world history was that it was a myth that just happened to be true. Historically Christ did live, die and resurrect from the dead. Hundreds of witnesses and corresponding written eyewitness accounts attest to this. What Dan Brown is doing in The Da Vinci Code—and what his readers find so attractive about it—is presenting his own myth and attempting the gargantuan (although ultimately impossible) task of legitimizing it with the same sort of historical authenticity that the ‘traditional’ story of Christ has.

However, his attempt falls flat on its back, for several reasons. The first is that the ‘sources’ from which Brown gleaned his so-called ‘impeccable research’ are largely unheard of texts that no principled or sane academic would ever take seriously. That is to say, the whole thing is pure bunk.

And the second, more important reason that it falls flat on its back is that by the half-way mark any inquisitive reader of the Code can’t help but ask, “Who the heck cares?” For Brown’s views of history are entirely post-modernist in nature; that is he refuses to acknowledge the existence of historical truth altogether. And like any other post-modernist view of history, his opinions are fraught with contradiction.

Full article at LifeSite


** Art: Mona Lisa (c. 1503-1506), by Leonardo Da Vinci
The Last Supper (c. 1495-1498), by Leonardo Da Vinci
The Virgin of the Rocks (c. 1485), by Leonardo Da Vinci

Great post at Feminine Genius.

Where is Mary?

by Genevieve S. Kineke

[From the archives. Blessed Triduum, everyone.]

Converts often have a reticence about Mary. After my conversion, Mary fit theologically into the overall picture of the faith for so many reasons. As one Church Father noted, "You cannot have God as your Father without Mary as your mother." Of course. On paper "she works." Now as a person, she's another matter.

Like any person, time has to be invested in the relationship to build a foundation of love, trust, and understanding. This Easter (2002) will be my 18th as a Catholic — call me slow, but the foundation is finally in place. Years of rosaries, meditations, spiritual reading, theological formation, and, most importantly, personal prayer have allowed the relationship to blossom and deepen into a wondrous friendship. The abstract understanding of "new Ark of the Covenant" and "mediatrix of all graces" has warmed into the honest-to-goodness joy of knowing that she is "my mother!"

Therefore, this Holy Week I can't help but wonder beyond all my observance of the profoundly beautiful liturgies that lead to and mark the Passion — where is Mary?! What could she be doing at this intense time as her Son's earthly life comes to its climactic close? How could she be enduring this sword of all swords, piercing her heart and making its attempt to shatter her peace?

Read more

Jesus is raised on the cross. Around him is a distressing scene. Some pass by, and jeer; the chief priests, more scathing and sarcastic, scoff at him; others, indifferent, are mere spectators. There is no reproach in Jesus' eyes -- only pity and compassion. He is offered harsh wine and myrrh. Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their misfortune, and remember their misery no more. It was the custom to make such humanitarian gestures with condemned men. The drink -- a strong rough wine with some myrrh -- had a numbing effect and made the suffering more bearable.

Our Lord tasted it as a sign of gratitude toward the person who offered it to him, but wished to take no more, so as to drain the chalice of suffering. Why so much suffering? asks St. Augustine. And he replies: Everything he suffered was the price of our ransom. He was not content to suffer a little; he wished to drink the chalice to the dregs without leaving a single drop behind, so that we might learn the greatness of his love and the baseness of sin, so that we may be generous in self-giving, in mortification and in the service of others.


In Conversation with God
Vol. 2 (Lent and Eastertide)


** Artwork: The Crucifixion (1543), by Maerten van Heemscerck