‘The Da Vinci Code’ Is All Fiction, Keep In Mind

Reviewed by MSGR. T.W. YOUNG, Special To The Bulletin

Published: December 11, 2003

For several months family and friends told me that “I simply must read ‘The Da Vinci Code,’” a bestselling novel by Dan Brown (Doubleday, 2003; hardcover, $24.95; 454 pp.).

Although I usually wait until fiction is out in paperback, a friend lent me his hardback copy, and I soon made this my “bedtime reading.” It didn’t take long for me to find this an engaging novel of the “thriller” genre, fast-paced and with a variety of interesting characters.

Obviously writing with a screenplay in mind, Brown tells the tale in chapters of unequal length that are intended, no doubt, to constitute scenes in the film version. While I find this approach to writing irritating, the story, nevertheless, sustained my interest.

Dan Brown may be a successful writer, but he’s neither ok historian nor a theologian. This work is a flagrant misrepresentation of historical fact and an outright assault on Christian orthodoxy. Since he references actual events and documents in his story, but gives them a wholly unfounded and unsubstantiated interpretation, he may mislead readers into accepting these errors as fact because they may seem plausible within the context of his story and involve familiar terms.

For instance, he asserts that Christ’s celibacy is too “un-Jewish” to be believed. Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls, which he often references, were the remains of the library of a Jewish monastic community that inhabited the caves near the Dead Sea from 135 B.C. to A.D. 68, and their writings prove that celibacy was practiced at this time. Since Jesus shaped his movement around a leadership model similar to that of this Essene community, (i.e., a Righteous Teacher with 12 disciples within which there is an “inner cabinet” of three), it is highly possible that he had had exposure to them. Then, of course, there is Jesus’ own teaching on the subject found in Mt 19:12.

Brown’s assertion is meant to lay a basis for his primary allegation that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers and had a child, and for two millennia the church has broken every law known to God and man to keep this a secret. It was Mary Magdalene who was meant to be central to the church and the focus of the sacred feminine. Proof of this, he claims, can be found in symbolism hidden in art and literature throughout the ages and only understood by the enlightened few. The piece de resistance of this argument is the very feminine figure of St. John in Da Vinci’s “Last Supper,” whom Brown contends is really Mary Magdalene. Yet, a feminine-looking St. John can be found in art both before and after Da Vinci. This portrayal was a way of trying to represent innocence and purity. Indeed, during the Middle Ages when trying to portray the experience of nurturing found in a spiritual relationship with Christ, authors referred to his “motherhood.”

Brown puts his own spin on a variety of other events in church history. For example, he claims that the Emperor Constantine changed the Christian Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in order to bring it into line with pagan worship of the sun, hence “Sun-day.” On the contrary, the Christian weekly holy day was changed to the first day of the week from the last because it was on this first day of the week that Jesus rose from the dead!

Brown really begins to manufacture his “facts” with a radical feminist tirade in chapter 28. Here he claims that the church burned at the stake five million women for witchcraft over three centuries! Where? When? Brown offers no proof. He also claims that the church labeled as witches “all female scholars … mystics … nature lovers” in an era that produced St. Gertrude, St. Hildegard of Bingen, St. Brigid of Sweden, St. Teresa of Avila, and others.

In an age when both Catholic and Protestant rulers used religious allegiance as a test of political loyalty, heresy was a charge that brought death in many European countries. A Catholic was no safer in Tudor England than a Calvinist in Habsburg Spain.

I must admit that when it comes to Brown’s attacks on Opus Dei, I am hard-pressed to give them an unqualified defense. Since they choose to operate within a structure of secrecy, the group has invited such speculations. Yet, what I do know of the members makes some of his characterizations of them improbable. For instance, he calls the gruesome albino Silas an “Opus Dei monk,” but Opus Dei is made up largely of laity and priests living in the world. They don’t have monasteries and don’t wear habits. While their founder, St. Jose Maria Escriva, does seem to have advocated some ancient penitential practices (e.g., self-inflicted corporal punishment), those whom I have known showed no evidence of wearing the sort of torturous device worn by Silas. Finally, Opus Dei does seem to advocate a “trickle-down” approach to evangelization (i.e., recruit the leadership of a society, and the little people won’t be far behind). Thus, intellectuals, public officials, titans of commerce and the like may belong to the group, but I doubt that you’ll find many blue-collar workers in their ranks. This circumstance has given rise to a charge of elitism and the quest for power.

About halfway through this novel, I had to put it aside as “bedtime reading” because its outrageous misuse of historical and theological data was too disturbing. That kind of nonsense needs to be encountered in the light of day when one has no expectation of sliding into restful slumber! Read “The Da Vinci Code,” if you like, but beware. You’re entering an “all-spin zone!”

Msgr. Young is pastor of St. James the Apostle Church, McDonough.