Dalton said:
The book does not offend me as a person of faith, it offends me as a historian and a person of reason.
I read "Angels and Demons" and then "The DaVinci Code". Admittedly, there are errors there - however, Brown has done his homework and I did learn a few things.
I found both books difficult to get into initially. It took me a while before the books got to the point of being really interesting to me. If the notion that these books were really meant as pseudo Hollywood scripts is true, this could account for my feelings. Still, overall I enjoyed both (liked "Angels and Demons" more).
As I was raised a Catholic, one might think someone like me would be offended. But not true at all. In fact, my views are perhaps a bit radical. I always enjoyed Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ". I felt that movie (based on the popular novel) truly captured how Jesus might have felt those last hours on the cross. What if he had married? What if he had children? What if he lived a "normal" life? If Jesus was really both man and God, the man side of him certainly would have these thoughts. I find nothing wrong with that. After all, even in the Bible, Jesus had his moments of anger, frustration, disobedience and doubt/hesitation. Even he questioned if God had forsaken him! If the man side of Jesus could express these emotions, why not those of love or desire of a family?
I always felt that the notion of priests not being able to marry was a silly rule. Why? Just because Jesus didn't? His apostles were married - and they carried on his teachings just fine! So why can't a priest marry? Speaking of apostles, there is a slightly "homo-erotic" element to the writings of the New Testament... a certain close male bonding. It seems Jesus could express his love for certain apostles - even being betrayed by a kiss - yet the church refuses to accept homosexuality (at least the late Pope John Paul "tolerated" homosexuality, which was a monstrous step forward in the Catholic church's thinking). Therefore, given that the Bible shows married men carrying on the teachings of Jesus, why does the church have such strict doctrine about marriage for priests? What is to be gained? Other religions allow their priests to marry.
When one combines the above thoughts with some factual data (like the presence of that "extra arm" and knife in the "Last Supper") it is easy to see how Brown came up with his ideas (especially given that "The Last Temptation of Christ" covered some similar topics). Even as a child, I would look at DaVinci's famous painting of the "Last Supper" and marveled at how effeminate John always looked. If a child could think this, then why not an adult?
Still, all of the above said, I found the novels to be enjoyable fiction, nothing more. Yes, elements of truth, but not really true theories - just a story. Also, his ideas aren't that unique. I've already mentioned the "Last Temptation of Christ" a few times. But even Anne Rice, in her vampire novels, stresses the importance of women. For example, why do we trace lineage through a male? While DNA evidence now can confirm fatherhood, such technology never existed generations ago. It seems far more logical to trace genealogy through the mother - after all, there is always the question of who is the father, but never the question of who is the mother. Just as Rice empowered women, so does Brown, and former cultures. Brown is just tapping into what already exists - nothing truly new or radical. Sadly, for some people not familiar with the past, this could be new revolutionary thinking, hence the uproar.
