Uncoding the politics of Christian fundamentalism post-Da Vinci
George Menezes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I write this knowing fully well that I'm going to raise the
hackles of fundamentalists. It will not be a new experience.
I have been at the receiving end of venom both from Christian
fundamentalists when I became a member of the National
Executive of the BJP in the 80s and subsequently from the
Sangh Parivar when I quit the BJP and spent a good part of my
retirement writing about the BJP's communal politics in the
country and its Fascism in Gujarat.
I never imagined that I would live to write and strongly
condemned the fundamentalism of Christian lay
organisations and self-appointed lay leaders who
represent nobody but themselves.
I believe, I am, a fairly devout Catholic, a practising
Catholic in most of the things I do or refuse to do. I'm also
a Catholic who reserves the right to disagree or dissent in a
Jesus-driven way.
******************************************************
NEWS HEADLINES FROM GOA: June 15, 2006:
* Government plans parallel bridge over Zuari river;
bridge closed to heavy traffic from June 16.
* Government not to close down Marathi schools with
poor enrolment. There are 133 schools with a student
strength of less than 10. (NT)
* Manganese deposits entering Salaulim water, to
take tea-coloured water to Margao taps. (NT)
* Government for panel to help Baina displaced
sex workers... two years after demolition.(NT)
* Nine students from Goa -- including Ralph Silva,
Ishan Puri, Avinash Prabhu and Gaurish Malkarnekar
-- have secured ranks in the IIT joint entrance exam.
(NT)
******************************************************
I have read "Da Vinci Code" several times. It is one of the
finest thrillers I've read in a long time. I could not put it
down. It is in the genre of some of the best fiction I've
read. Dan Brown has taken us through a mind-boggling journey
through the Louvre, through church history, early and recent,
and twisted a great deal of it into a make-believe story that
ends, unfortunately in a whimper.
I must also say that I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.
I'm glad that it has not been banned (in India as a whole).
First and foremost we live in a secular democracy. We do
not have the right to coerce others to conform to our
religious sensitivities. Secondly the book and the film
are a personal challenge to my faith. Is my faith
strong enough to resist the clever, entertaining and
well disguised attack on the Catholic Church and its
teachings? I confirm that it can.
We rush into defending in a thoroughly uninformed manner, the
slurs on the Catholic Church and its teachings and its
history, totally unmindful of the fact that our personal
lives are not in conformity with what we are trying to
defend, leading to a personal as well as a public sense of
hypocrisy.
What happened in Mumbai in the process of trying to get
the film banned is thoroughly shameful.
First, several lay organisations, one certainly of doubtful
integrity and repute (ignored by Archbisop Simon Pimenta in
his time), joined in competeing with each other to find
favour with political bigwigs. Such organisations, all
claiming to represent half a million Catholics in the city
held press conferences, made TV appearances, organised
signature campaigns, morchas and dharnas and even in one case
went on a hunger strike and filed a case in the High Court.
This of course ensured a great deal of publicity for the
protesters day after day both in the press and electronic
media. What was most surprising is that the hierarchy, that
has seldom involved the laity in decision-making (as
different from consultation), allowed lay organisations to
hijack the entire protest movement against the screening of
the movie.
The politicians in Delhi, in a masterly appeasement move,
invited representatives of the Church and decided that the
movie would not be banned but screened with a disclaimer.
The result is that the Church has taken responsibility for
agreeing to the screening of the movie with a few crumbs
thrown in called “disclaimer”.
It is a great embarrassment for the Church and the
community. The result is that we have played into the
hands of fundamentalists of all hues and all religions.
We have created a precedent that every creative work has
now to be approved by the religious heads of the
community which feels denigrated.
And what if the film/book shows the truth that has been
conveniently forgotten (like in the case of the book on
Shivaji, or the fact that Hindus ate beef in Vedic times
etc)? Will we have to get the approval of the fundamentalists
in the community concerned before it is allowed? So we're
only strengthening the fundamentalist forces.
Finally, by not condemning the Corporator who offered Rs.11
lakhs for the head of Dan Brown, both lay groups and the
Bishops and have shown that we are supporting his intolerant
position and put ourselves in the same league as Khomeini and
his ilk.
This sad and and demoralising episode leads us to question
and the quality of leadership in the hierarchy and in all
your organisations.
It is also a reminder, if not an indictment, of the level of
ignorance amongst the members of the Church whose knowledge
of biblical history and of the history of the Church is
abysmal thanks to the fact that the Church has totally put
such matters on the backburner and consumed itself in the
managing of events of no consequence, including managing or
mismanaging its property.
With all its resources, the Church could have quickly
disseminated rejoinders to the fiction in Dan Brown's book
which it passes off as truth in history. Catholic scholars
have refuted Dan Brown's historical distortions fully and
completely. Why did the Church NOT use this material?
I quote only two examples below from Dr Don Rhodes, President
of "Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministry", one out of many
great scholars who debunked Dan Brown’s claim to historical
truth.
Priory of Sion
There are things Brown claims to be historical which, in
fact, are not historical at all. A primary case in point is
the Priory of Sion, an organization that is at the very heart
of Brown's story, and which, if proven to be based on bogus
history, undermines the entire infrastructure of Brown's
theory.
Refutation
Historically, in 1953, a Frenchman named Pierre Plantard
spent time in jail for fraud. In 1954 he founded a small
social club named the Priory of Sion. The organization
dissolved in 1957, but Plantard held on to the name.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Plantard put together a
number of bogus documents which "proved" the Jesus-Mary
Magdalene theory, with French royalty being their
descendants.
Plantard claimed that he himself was one of the descendents
of this couple. Some time later, a friend of the French
President found himself in legal trouble and Plantard ended
up being called to testify in the case. While under oath, the
judge asked him about these documents about Jesus and Mary
Magdalene, and he admitted he made the whole thing up. All
this has been thoroughly documented by several French books
and a BBC special.
Jesus was Married to Mary Magdalene
Refutation
There is no mention of Jesus being married prior to the
beginning of His three-year ministry. There is no mention of
Jesus being married during His three-year ministry. There is
no mention of Jesus being married at the crucifixion. There
is no mention of Jesus being married at His burial. There is
no mention of Jesus being married at His resurrection. In
other words, there is no mention of a wife anywhere!
Aside from this deafening silence regarding a wife are
theological arguments against Jesus having been married. For
example, in 1 Corinthians 9:5 the apostle Paul defends his
right to get married if he so chose to do so: "Don't we have
the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the
other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" Now, if
Jesus had been married, surely the apostle Paul would have
cited Jesus' marriage as the number one precedent. The fact
that he did not mention a wife of Jesus indicates that Jesus
was not married.
Further, we must note that Jesus' marriage is yet future. He
will one day marry the "bride of Christ," which is the
Church. Revelation 19:7-9 tells us: Let us rejoice and be
glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has
come, and his bride has made herself ready. Fine linen,
bright and clean, was given her to wear."
Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are
invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!'" And he added,
"These are the true words of God." Clearly, the evidence is
against Jesus having gotten married in New Testament times.
Yet another evidence Dan Brown sets forth for Jesus' alleged
marriage is Leonardo Da Vinci's painting of The Last Supper.
To Jesus' right, we are told, is Mary Magdalene, not John.
While it is true that John looks effeminate in The Last
Supper, this is quite in keeping with other paintings by this
homosexual artist. Indeed, even John the Baptist was
portrayed in a feminine way by Da Vinci. Note that neither
John nor John the Baptist have womanly bodies in these
paintings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Menezes is a prominent writer and retired management
expert based in Mumbai.
GOANET-READER WELCOMES contributions from its readers, by way
of essays, reviews, features and think-pieces. We share
quality Goa-related writing among the 7000-strong readership
of the Goanet/Goanet-news network of mailing lists. If you
appreciated the thoughts expressed above, please send in your
feedback to the writer. Our writers write -- or share what
they have written -- pro bono, and deserve hearing back from
those who appreciate their work. GoanetReader welcomes your
feedback at goanet@goanet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet, building community, creating social capital for a decade.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
