The Da Vinci Code: A Woman's Story?

[bobbieinok]

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/5/23/152936/178

The Da Vinci Code: A Woman's Story?
By HerCode Tue May 23, 2006 at 03:29:36 PM EST

....

Although The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, it has touched a raw nerve: the suppression of women within institutional religion. While my Christian faith is the soul and foundation of who I am, it is also true that the history of Christianity reveals centuries of silencing women that continues today. This incongruity magnified to a national level, I believe, is the reason for the astonishing popularity of The Da Vinci Code.
My colleague the Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite, President of Chicago Theological Seminary, points out that The Da Vinci Code resurrected the authority of one of the woman long suppressed in Christian history, Mary Magdalene. Echoing one of Brown's major themes, Thistlethwaite says that "There is simply no biblical evidence that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute - even though the church has taught that she was."

Rather, the Bible does say that Magdalene was a witness of the resurrection. According to Thistlethwaite, this should have given her "apostolic authority" of the same magnitude as the rest of the male apostles of Jesus.

....

This film provides our country with an opportunity for national dialogue centered around questions we don't often like to discuss. What is it about the relationship of women and the organized religion today that makes a mere fictional novel so popular and so controversial?

I've created an online space for women from around the country to join in this conversation together, to tell their stories of struggle and triumph in their faith communities. HerCode.org is dedicated to raising women's voices, to elevating the discourse of scriptural sparring over a fictional novel to a new level to discuss the real lives of women today.

To read what women around the world are saying, and to tell your story, join us at www.HerCode.org.
--
Helen LaKelly Hunt is the author of Faith and Feminism: A Holy Alliance and the founder of FaithandFeminism.org.

[ananda]

1. indeed

The oppression of women has been a serious aspect of economics and institutions for a very long time, and the Catholic Church has certainly taken a prominent role in undervaluing and disempowering women, notwithstanding the undeification of the goddess.

Also, another thread of this economic and societal oppression of almost everyone is that of heresy and of heretics keeping their views hidden from the oppressors, while at the same time continuing to communicate with each other. That, of course, would mean secret codes and all kinds of serpentine subterfuges, which -might- include putting out false clues or heresies, like the one about Jesus and Mary Magdalene marrying and founding the Merovingian dynasty. What I believe to be the actual case is that people like da Vinci had knowledge and beliefs that conflicted with those of the Church and the government, and that they formed secret societies and coded their beliefs and messages in order to stay safe. Even then, they sometimes failed, as we see with da Vinci's Madonna of the Rocks, which the Church condemned, forcing da Vinci to redo it as The Virgin of the Rocks. Luckily, we still have the original version. I shudder to imagine how many works were lost or destroyed over the years.

Sue

[happyslug]

4. The Church Condemned? But they ORDERED IT and PAID FOR IT?

Leonardo did NOT paint his painting just ot paint but on Orders from people who were PAYING him. The problem with the Madonna on the Rocks was the Religious Order that had ordered the Painting had a problem with it. The problem has never been explained to my satisfaction but I believe the problem was one of how do you portray TOGETHER, the infant Jesus AND John the Baptist? In the Bible it is clear that John was born first and is believed to be six months older than Jesus. Thus in any painting of the two John must be larger (he was older and thus larger than Jesus in their infancy).

On the other hand Jesus, under Catholic Theology, was the LARGER person in life. Thus in a painting Jesus must be show to be superior to John (Which generally done by making Jesus LARGER than John). Leonardo seem to have resolved this problem of which should be larger in his painting by painting them the same size. Apparently this did NOT please the monks who had ordered the painting (and I have NOT heard why, but the addition of the Reed Cross in the hands of John seems to have solved the problem, so the issue was less the painting itself and the size of the babies as to clearly showing who was Jesus and who was John and that Jesus was to be the "larger" in life of the two.

As to women, that is more difficult. Not only the Jewish roots of the Church put women below men so did Both the Pre-Christian Greek and Roman societies. Thus the biggest outside influence were anti-women. The Church itself would refined its Roman and Greek Roots throughout its history and women rights would go down hill (The biggest drop in Women's Right was during the Renaissance and the widespread re-introduction of Roman Law which were in many ways more Anti-Women then the Feudal codes of the Middle Ages).

This was compounded by one of the differences between the Sexes, the deeper voice of men and the higher pitch of women (and children). The Deeper the Voice the further it can travel and thus the more likely it is to fill a Church hall (but are harder to detect the exact location of the speaker by Voice alone). Higher pitch voices are easier to locate by sound alone but do not carry as far. Today this is unimportant with electric amplification, but prior to 1920 what people heard was based on the how far someone's voice could be heard. Thus when religion turned from secret presents to the gods (The practice of the Ancient Pagan religions) to preaching to the congregation (The standard Christian religious ceremony), voice was important. Thus the shift from a mixed religious group of men and women to a male only religious hierarchy with women restricted to the Convent or other NON-preaching parts of the religion (which by definition within Christianity such activity were secondary to preaching the word of God).

These two pressures on the Church made the Church prejudice to males (as opposed to prejudice against women). This was NOT always the case, in certain time period (The high Middle ages for example) women had a lot of power within the church both at the local level and in the hierarchy via the convents, but the fact that men could do a better job REACHING everyone in the Congregation as they sat in the Parish Church AND the past Jewish.Greek/Roman tradition of women being subject to men kept reducing female powers over time.

A third factor is the Military. While Technically Church men during the Middle ages could not shed blood, the fact that the Military was a almost male exclusive group (and I know about the washer-women and the various Female Soldiers and leaders, but these were the exceptions to the rule) influenced the makeup of the Church (Basically it was thought Soldiers would be less likely to run roughshod over another male than a women and thus further straightening the control of men over the Church).

Similar situations have occurred in non-religious situations (For example the former Soviet Union which technically called for equality between the Sexes but over time became more and more male dominated do to the same pressure I mentioned above).

My point is the Church is no more male dominated than the rest of society, thus it reflects the rest of Society. Now amplification of Sound has ended one of the three advantages men had over women, the weakening of the Jewish/Greek/Roman traditions has ended the Second, and that most US males today are NOT veterans has weakened the third, you see more and more women in positions of preaching in the Church. The Catholic Church may even make the switch if present trends continue, but the Catholic Church is very resistant to change, it will change will it have to, but slowly and if possible at its own pace.

[shrike]

9. The Priory of Sion was a hoax

concocted in 1956. Leonardo had nothing to do with it.

[Jade Fox]

2. It's interesting that what has some Christians....

panties all in a knot about the Di Vinci Code centers around the idea Jesus may have been married and a father, therefore he must have had You-Know-What.

What is so terrible about the idea Jesus may have slept with women? The folks who are talking (and talking!) against this film are starting to seem like......I don't know what. People utterly terrified of sexuality? Utterly misogynistic?

[Demeter]

3. And That Gives The Pope the Willies

Without the willing women, the Catholic Church would have disappeared centuries ago. Enslaved by the threats and strictures, Catholic women live with cognitive dissonance, deny reality, or break free.

And is there any other dogma that doesn't do the same to women? Can't think of a one! All coercive religions are under attack when the treatment of women comes up.

[katty]

11. raised Catholic-not anymore,Church is blatantly anti-Woman

The Catholic Church is a powerful hierarchy of MEN, men that definitely prefer to be with other men, make policy and leave the women to alot of the service work and heavy lifting. There are exceptions, depending on your location, but generally it's run like a mini Roman Empire.

[AnnieBW]

5. He Hung Out With 12 Guys

Jesus hung out with 12 other guys... maybe he was GAY? :D

The idea of Jesus and Mary Magdalen having a child is nothing new. It's not even the first novel about the idea. See "The Moon Under Her Feet" by Clysta Kinstler, which came out in the mid-90's.

Is it so surprising to Christians that God can have a feminine face? It's been suppressed for 2000 years! Even more so if you count the Jewish suppression of the Shekinah, or Divine Feminine. If you're really interested in the Divine Feminine, read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Don't waste your money on Dan Brown.

[Dubiosus]

6. the final conclusion is sooo scaring!!!

first of all I have to admit that I didn't read the novel nor watch the movie but.....
in germany I saw a "documentation" just after the book has been published.
That "docu" took 2 1/2 to 3!!! hours reconstructing three times the idea of this bullsh**
each time with a little footnote at the end, saying that all this, of course is fictional.

First I was wondering what that has been, than I was stunned by the possible idea behind this.

David Icke is a highly controversial figure pointing out the importance of blood lines for free masonic fellows and maybe I've seen to much of him but this little link makes me wonder...

The most important fact is not that Jesus had a child but that this child has been taken into the Merovingian bloodline which is going through european aristocratic families and history and in the end will be found in the USA as well.

MY POINT IS THAT ONE DAY THEY WILL LINK SOME OF THE UPPER CLASS FAMILIES OF YOUR COUNTRY, AS THE BUSHES ARE, DIRECTLY TO JESUS!

HE ALL READY HAVE SPOKEN TO GOD AND THE CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS RIGHT WILL HELP HIM TO CHANGE YOUR CONSTITUTION AND MAKE HIM OR ONE OF HIS "MEN" TO YOUR NEW KING FOR LIFETIME.

Sounds some kind of crazy but meanwhile this world is such a crazy place to me.

What do you think? Isn't the propagandistic hype some kind of strange to you?

[shrike]

8. To me, the Merovingians was the weirdest part of this whole book

Other than the fact that Mary Magdalene got to France (!?)

I realize the Church must take its lumps for reacting to the movie in this manner. But people are telling me, on the one hand, "it's fiction," and in the next breath, "well, it's basically factual, you know."

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. They'd have to use chastity belts to stop a whole country being descended

from one person 2000 years ago. At about 25 years per generation on average, and 2 descendants who themselves survive to have children (in reailty, it averages more - the world population has increased), after 500 years one person would have about 1000 descendants. Take off some from that number for intermarrying (but that may be made up for by the increasing population), but you'll still have the thick end of a million descendants in 1000 years. Try keeping track of all of them - some will emigrate to other countries, men will have unrecorded children out of wedlock - really, you'd have to keep the descendants under lock and key to keep control of who was a descendant.

If there are any descendants of Jesus alive today, there are probably millions.

[happyslug]

12. That is why this hearsay was suppressed in the 700s

The Merovingians were the first to advocate this legend that they were descended from Jesus. The reason they did so was how the Roman Empire in the West Fell. Rome did not fall in the sense that the barbarian invaders all moved in, Rome starting in the late 300s, started to use Barbarians in the Roman Army (They had to be Christians to join, but they enlisted in the Roman Army).

Even the Goths sacking Rome in 410 AD was NOT viewed as that big an event (the Goths only sacked public building and then only for three days as agreed by the Roman Senate in the negotiations as the Goths were about the Storm Rome). In the 420s Attila the Hun was on the loose but with his Death Roman fortunes actually looked up for a few years. Every attempt by the Barbarians (Except the Goths and the Vandals) had been defeated by the Roman. So how did the Barbarians get into the Western Roman Empire? The answer is Rome SETTLED THEN WITHIN THE EMPIRE AS TROOPS TO BE USED TO KEEP DOWN THE ROMAN PEASANTS.

Now after the Goths Sacked Rome they were defeated and settled in Southwest Gaul and Spain (Where they ruled as "agents" of the Roman Emperor). The other Barbarians moved in, were defeated by the Romans and then Settled within the Roman Empire as a police force against the Roman Peasants. By 450 the Germans even controlled the Western Roman Emperor and after 450 Roman Authority in the West did not go far (The Roman Senate actually retained more power within the Western Empire than did the Emperor during this time period).

Into this mess the Franks moved in, they had NEVER been defeated by the Roman Empire for they NEVER fought the Romans. On the other hand they did move against the Barbarians settled by the Romans in Gaul. Unlike most other Germans they were Catholic NOT Aryans, but to rule Gaul they needed a Hook to overcome the fact that their subjects stilled viewed themselves as Romans who owned their allegiance to the Roman Emperor (In 476 the German Military ruler of Italy abolished the Emperor-ship in the west and sent the Roman Emperor Robes to Constantinople with a pledge of Allegiance to the Eastern Emperor as the sole Roman Emperor).

Thus the hook the Kings of the Franks used was that they were the Blood Descendent's of Jesus himself and as Christ Descendant they had to RIGHT to rule both Germans and Romans. The Catholic Church in Rome seems NOT to have accepted this (Being under Gothic control not Frankish Control) but the bishops of Gaul seems to have accepted this statement (If they did not expressly advocate it). This incurred in the late 400s and the Merovingian used they "Descent from Jesus and Mary Magaline, to show they had this right to rule.

This hearsay ended when Pepin the short, the Mayor of the Royal Palace of the Merovingians, in the mid-700s, asked the Pope who is the rightful king, he who has the Title or he that has the Power. The pope Responded by saying he who has the Power and the Merovingians were removed from power and the Carolingians became the ruling house of the Franks, From this point onward the old legend of Jesus and Mary Magaline was now suppressed, for the house that advocated it was gone (and had NEVER been accepted by the Pope in Rome nor the Eastern Roman Emperor who was still in Power in the 700s and would still be in existence till 1453). Thus this is an OLD legend, but a Legend used to justify the Rule of the Franks over Romans after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Thus you are right, this descent from Jesus is a propaganda tools but one that is over 1400 years old. Occasionally it has been renewed but tended to die again within a hundred years of its re-newel (One of the the Reason, is when the Holy Roman

[midnight]

7. Yep. I thought Leonardo thought very highly of women.

It was good to read.

[K-W]

13. Roman patriarchy enshrined and passed down. EOM

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. anytime you see the right-wing crazies go nuts - it's gotta be a women

that they can't control that's bugging them. Nothing makes them more nutso.