The Da Vinci Code and (some) other stories

Everybody's talking about The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown; a bestseller of the first rank.

What made this thriller different to all others is that the fundamental story deals with the supposed bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. When one adds the ever-elusive Holy Grail to the mix, plus all the romance of the Arthurian legends, the result is a sure winner. Add to that the idea that the Church has been sitting on a secret of tremendous import for 2,000 years and you have a blockbuster. Where people must be careful, and this is why I am writing about it, is not to take the story too seriously.

Thomas Carlyle said that history is a distillation of rumour and it would be very easy to fall into the trap of taking the pure conjectural "history" as expounded in the Da Vinci Code literally.

A decade or so ago the Church was up in arms over the controversial film The Last Temptation of Christ. The basic story there was the overriding humanity of Jesus as a historical figure and that in reality the execution was a mock one like Cavaradossi's in Tosca. The film tied up with another bestseller called Holy Blood Holy Grail in which the entire theory of the historical aspect of Jesus' life on earth was sensationalised.

In today's world it is extremely difficult to imagine that an issue like that of the true nature of Jesus Christ was the subject of persecution, war and martyrdom. Even today we have Monophysites like the Copts who believe that Jesus was fully divine while we, as Catholics believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was made man.

Back to the thriller; in a nutshell, the story relates that Jesus was a prince of the House of David and Mary Magdalene was the princess and heiress of the tribe of Benjamin and that their secret marriage constituted a very serious political threat to the Roman occupation and even more to the Herodian usurpers. The story continues that irrespective of whether Jesus was executed or not, Mary Magdalene bore Jesus' children from whom the mysterious Merovingian priest kings of Gaul descend.

The story is absurdly conjectural but very plausible to readers who do not have a proper historical or academic background.

Contrary to every other subject under the sun, the teaching of religion as an academic subject has always been the cause of controversy. All other subjects are based on facts, sound theories, dates, formulae and rigid rules and regulations. Fairytale books like Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code can very easily topple every shred of faith with regard to the universal story of Jesus as the Christ. This is one of the basic reasons why I was very unhappy with the title (let alone the sensationalism) of Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, when it was so clearly based on supposedly sound historical research.

Carlyle also says that history is the essence of innumerable biographies. The biographies of Jesus Christ are the New Testament. We have all been taught and we can read for ourselves that the four evangelists differ somewhat. Matthew, Mark and John were also apostles and were eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus on earth while Luke was a Greek physician who never met Jesus. What is of paramount importance is not the conflicting detail but the overriding message of the New Testament that is the message of love and peace. One must also remember that Christianity was finally accepted by Constantine the Great as the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century and if one stops to think of something that happened in 1604 for instance and transfers it to the present day the possibilities of distortion are infinite.

I am therefore not at all surprised that these books and films have seriously disturbed the Church as an institution and I feel that the Church has every reason to be preoccupied by them. They contain just enough historical research to make them plausible and, who knows, more such information could come our way in the future.

We sometimes do not realise that Western civilisation is today based on a highly educated middle class of avid readers and informational technocrats. This means that the level and volume of information available to the rank and file is unprecedented in history. This is why the Christian today has to perforce separate the historical from the spiritual and keep an open mind as far as academia is concerned. Trying to reconcile the two would lead to utter confusion and despair.

Alexander Maclaren in his Expositions of Holy Scripture said that the Church is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. Throughout its history the Church has been threatened and besieged many times over. It has indeed survived into the Second Millennium after wearing out an infinite number of hammers because in spite of itself the message of its fundamental belief is based on an unshakeable ideal which mankind in its entirety has always striven to achieve and never managed to: The lesson of love in the true sense of the word with all its consequences.

The Church's secret of success has always been its adaptability. When Christianity was institutionalised by Constantine the Church Fathers knew that they would never be able to make a lasting impression unless the trappings and customs of Ancient Rome were transmogrified into Christian traditions and in the words of Giuseppe di Lampedusa, things merely changed in order for them to remain the same.

This is why it would be impossible for the Church today to take a fundamentalist stand and anathemise the authors, scholars and film makers who try to distort or sensationalise the life of Christ as opposed to the historical life of Jesus of Nazareth. This conflicting dissemination of knowledge must be dealt with by explaining the difference between history and religion. Oddly enough it appears that fundamentalist elements within the Church are gaining ground; however, I personally feel that it is merely a matter of time before the Church realises that the triumphant type of counter reformation image it represents today is seriously out of synch with today's world and a return to basics is what is urgently required.

The Church must realise that it must not repeat its 15th century mistakes when it lost half of Europe to Protestantism due to its dilatory institution of the counter reformation.

I am among those who see real Christianity today represented by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, an Albanian nun who worked tirelessly and selflessly to alleviate the sufferings of the untouchables, the emarginated and the sick. Conversion was never an issue, in fact, the habits of her order are adapted Indian saris. It was because of Mother Teresa's deep understanding and appreciation of the cultures, both traditional and religious, within which she operated that she was so effectively successful. Above all she was humility personified and the deep reality of all she represented caught the imagination of all who came into any sort of contact with her. This is why she held popes, prelates, crowned heads and politicians in thrall.

If one truly and genuinely believes in and practises faith, hope and charity, we would have no wars, no persecutions, no conflicts, no misery, no emargination, no intolerance, no famine and no despair. Compared to this, the supposed bloodlines of Jesus are of no importance at all. This is why the Catholic Church must forget and bury all its historical and political aspirations, like being an eminence grise within the EU for instance, and concentrate its energies on missions of true mercy like Mother Teresa's. This is its inevitable destiny for success in the Second Millennium.

kzt@onvol.net