TPJCatholic:
cenpress,
Let’s look at this subject through a lens of faith. As a Catholic I often study other religions, not because I intend on becoming a member of those others religons; rather, I study them to be a more informed Catholic so I can be a stronger witness to Christ. I do not need to become a Methodist in order to understand that Methodist theology is different then Catholic theology in many ways…all I have to do is study Methodist theology. I would say that if I became a Methodist in order to learn about their theology, I would be gravely sinning because I am a Roman Catholic and I am not “free” to join other faiths.
Similarly, one does not need to read/see the Da Vinci Code in order to know it contains some very bad stuff…all one needs to do is study trusted sources on the issue and that is plenty enough to inform us of what is wrong about that book/movie. Like I stated before, one does not need to have an abortion to know it is wrong.
I challenge your analogy. Reading a book is not like converting to another religion (Methodism isn’t another religion–from the Catholic perspective it’s a heretical form of the same religion–but that’s irrelevant to the argument). Reading a book implies no agreement with or approval of the contents. Reading the *Code *is analogous to reading the Qur’an in order to study Islam. It is not analogous to converting to Islam in order to study it.
To validate your analogy, you need to demonstrate some way in which reading a book commits one to the ideas contained in it. I think you will have trouble with this.
You’re setting up an infinite regress by arguing that you can get adequate knowledge about the book by reading other people’s analysis (this is a highly dubious claim in the first place–again, it’s like claiming that you can speak authoritatively about Islam without having read the Qur’an). Even if you were right on that, where would your sources get their knowledge of the book? At some point someone is going to have to read it.
Furthermore, in a work of fiction much depends on how things are presented. Without reading the book, you really don’t know what the general effect is. And in the case of a thriller, reviewers often suppress plot twists. For instance, many people think that Opus Dei is portrayed in the novel as employing an albino assassin to kill people. Actually, we discover at the end of the book that the assassin (while he himself is a member of Opus Dei, and so the novel does imply that an Opus Dei member might be brainwashed enough to become an assassin) is not working for Opus Dei, but for Lionel Teabing, who is trying to discredit the Catholic Church by killing people and framing Opus Dei. That’s a mildly important point–it doesn’t nullify the grave criticisms of the book, but it does make it at least somewhat less of a hatchet job than many people think. I would never have known this if I hadn’t read the book, because reviewers don’t talk about it in order not to give away the plot.
The traditional Catholic position, as I understand it (particularly from the late 16th century to the 20th century, though it goes back into the Middle Ages and to some extent even to the early Church), is that certain people in the Church (mostly clergy) can be trusted to read “bad” books with the Church’s approval. They can then digest these books for everyone else, so that ordinary laypeople are not corrupted.
I find it interesting that no one is defending this view, which would have been second nature to most Catholics until a f3ew decades ago. Clearly everyone on this board is deeply influenced by modern American democracy. In this case I think that’s a good thing–I think the traditional attitude was patronizing and harmful. But if you embrace that kind of egalitarianism, you need to bite the bullet and admit that anyone who wants to have an opinion about the *Code *should read the book. Otherwise you should be prepared not to be able to refute your friends and neighbors who love it.
Further, when we pay for a movie that we know is bad, our dollars are not counted in a separate column relating to people who are “studying” the film. No, our money is chaulked up as part of the basic bottomline of receipts for that movie and if the movie is successful, then the studios will simply encouraged to make more of the same. Every dollar we spend on such filth encourages more filth to be made. IMO.
That’s a good point, and that’s one of the reasons I will very likely not see the movie (anyway, I haven’t seen many movies in the theater recently). I read the book in a long airport layover, without buying it. In my own case I definitely needed to read it, because people kept mentioning it to me when they learned that I studied the history of Christianity for a living.
There are libraries, you know.
Edwin
…
