Ghost Writers In The Sky

Seems that the usual complaining assholes are indulging their favorite pastime by offering their unwanted 2¢ on the upcoming movie of The Da Vinci Code, which is apparently some book that many of the kids are reading these days. Since I just re-read those Henry Porter the Magician Kid books over and over again, I never hear about the new stuff.

The book, which is fiction, takes aim at central Christian dogma, claiming that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene, who was meant to be his true heir. It alleges an enormous coverup by the Roman Catholic Church, which, according to the book, usurped Mary's place in favor of a male-oriented hierarchy that has suppressed what Mr. Brown calls the "sacred feminine."

Even before production began, the studio and the producers Brian Grazer and John Calley received letters from groups like the Catholic League and Opus Dei expressing concern.

The Catholic League asked that Mr. Howard include a disclaimer acknowledging that the movie is fiction. Opus Dei, a conservative Catholic group, was particularly worried about its own depiction, because it is a central villain in the book. "The novel portrays Opus Dei in a completely inaccurate way; if the movie does the same thing it's something we'd be concerned about," Brian Finnerty, a spokesman for the group, said.

Studio officials have consulted with Catholic and other Christian specialists on how they might alter the plot of the novel to avoid offending the devout. In doing so, the studio has been asked to consider such measures as making the central premise - that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene - more ambiguous, and removing the name of Opus Dei.

Look, do you want to make a movie, or do you want to stand around and try to sell the world a Coke? Obviously, those things are not mutually exclusive -- indeed, they're basically the same thing when you get right down to it.

But does it occur to any of these yahoos that the book itself did just fine, despite these nattering nabobs of the Nativity? And uh, you know, how exactly would Opus Dei's spokesman like them to be portrayed -- as a non-creepy cult-like organization of control freaks?

Due to the radical demands of the prelature of Opus Dei, some critics, especially former members, accuse it of acting as a religious cult within the Church.

They say that Opus Dei shows characteristic cult behaviour such as:

aggressive recruitment methods - includes love bombing techniques, monitoring of members' recruitment efforts, formation of recruitment teams and strategies;

undue pressure to join - vocational crises are staged; threats are issued: saying no to a calling leads to a life of misery;

lack of informed consent on the part of the new recruits - they vaguely commit themselves to a certain "spirit of the Work";

encouraging members to relinquish contact with their friends and families in favour of contacts within the group;

controlling the environment of the member; loss of freedom of the members

threatening members when they try to leave. The strongest form of threat is the threat of condemnation, i.e. it is not a physical but a psychological threat.;

making members focus on efforts in favor of the growth of the group. The most important job for an Opus Dei member is to attract other people to become members too. His social life, the circles that he frequents, the kinds of people he tries to become a friend of, are always geared towards proselytism.;

Cilice - Traditional mortification belt used by Catholic organisations: Critics say this is a bizarre, cult-like requirement; Supporters say it is the free choice of adults who want to do penance and become saints;

requiring numerary members to perform what critics view as highly suspicious practices such as mortification of the flesh, involving the use of the cilice for two hours a day and the discipline; its founder is frequently alleged by critics to have whipped himself until there was blood on the walls. In The Way, point 208, Escriva writes: "Let us bless pain. Love pain. Sanctify pain... Glorify pain!"

Sounds yummy. Where do we sign up? Seriously, a cult's a fuckin' cult -- these guys might as well be $cientologists or Hale-Boppers. Pass the applesauce and glorify pain, beeyotches!

Anyway, back to our movie, and the crusaders thereof:

Among those who take Mr. Brown's revelations seriously is Olivia Hsu Decker, a real estate agent who owns the Château de Villette and lived there during the shoot in June and July. "This book revealed the truth that the Catholics have been hiding for thousands of years," she said in a telephone interview. "The book is fiction, but it's based on truth."

Ms. Decker added, "The book kind of explains to the world how the Catholic Church demonized women such as Mary Magdalene, and also have killed millions of women during the Crusades."

A half-dozen books published in the last two years rebut that very notion, and it is just this attitude that has fueled concern not only among Catholics, but Christian activists of other denominations as well.

Oh, well I guess that settles that then. There's books rebutting what anyone who's paid attention to history knows to be obvious -- the church has been responsible for as much mayhem and murder throughout its history as the bloodiest of empires. This is simply indisputable by any rational observation, as is the fact that the church is still the institutionalized repository of some of the finest sexual hangups the 12th century had to offer. That Dan Brown fictionalized some things (and no, I really haven't read the book, so I don't know many specifics about it) doesn't change the basic truth -- nor does the lobbying of the professionally faithful change either the nasty history or the current ugliness.

Really, if the damage control department of the Vatican spent half as much time turning their child rapists over to the proper legal authorities as they do protecting their precious delusional image of themselves, they might get somewhere. As it is, they gave Bernard Law a sinecure in Rome.

Yeah, the Catholic Church is just misunderstood. Give me a fuckin' break.

"A lot of people are getting their view of Christianity and the Bible from the book," said Alex McFarland, a speaker and writer for Focus on the Family, an evangelical group. He said the message of the book "broke my heart."

In searching for a middle road through this thicket of competing agendas, Sony has opted to say nothing, at least for the moment. And there are signs that the studio has not ruled out attracting religious moviegoers, including those who made an international sensation last year of Mel Gibson's film, "The Passion of the Christ."

"The phrase I heard used several times was 'Passion dollars'; they want to try to get 'The Passion' dollars if they can," said Ms. Nicolosi, referring to her conversations about the film. "They're wrong," she added. "It's sacrilegious, irreligious. They're thinking they can ride the 'Passion' wave with this. And I said, 'Are you kidding me?' "

They are being silly if they think they're going to get the Passion demographic. They shouldn't even try for it. Just let Ron Howard make the movie he wants to make, stay faithful to the story, and if people don't like it, they don't have to see it.

Funny they should mention Mel Gibson, because that's exactly what he did -- he made the snuff film he wanted to make. It was his right to make it the way he wanted to, and it was people's right to decide whether to see the thing or not. That should be the end of it.

Ron Howard, Sony, Brian Grazer, Dan Brown, Tom Hanks -- none of them owe the church, or Focus on the Family, or any of the rest of the professional wingnut pressure groups a damned thing. Make the movie, be prepared to counter their nonsense....and go with God on that.