Cheap Lies

[Snow]

Top Cardinal Blasts 'Da Vinci Code' as 'Cheap Lies'

ROME (Reuters) - A top Catholic cardinal has blasted "The Da Vinci Code" as a "gross and absurd" distortion of history and said Catholic bookstores should take the bestseller off their shelves because it is full of "cheap lies."

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, in an interview with the Milan newspaper Il Giornale, became the highest ranking Italian Churchman to speak out against the book, an international blockbuster that has sold millions of copies.

"(It) aims to discredit the Church and its history through gross and absurd manipulations," Bertone, the archbishop of the northern Italian city of Genoa and a close friend of Pope John Paul told the paper in its Monday edition.

"This seems like a throwback to the old anti-clerical pamphlets of the 1800s," he said.

The central claim of the book, written by American Dan Brown, is that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children. The Bible says Jesus never married, was crucified and rose from the dead....

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story....0&w=RTR&coview=

Oh? Perhaps the good Cardinal knows something about the bible that I don't know???

[Jason]

Oh? Perhaps the good Cardinal knows something about the bible that I don't know???

He's refering to what Catholics call Sacred Tradition, that holds that Christ lived a celibate life. Both Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe that Celibacy is a higher law than Marriage.

We both know that the Bible is silent on the matter. (Though I believe that one must admit that Christ being married seems highly unlikely given his purpose for being here.)

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 15 2005, 10:30 PM

Oh? Perhaps the good Cardinal knows something about the bible that I don't know???

He's refering to what Catholics call Sacred Tradition, that holds that Christ lived a celibate life. Both Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe that Celibacy is a higher law than Marriage.

We both know that the Bible is silent on the matter. (Though I believe that one must admit that Christ being married seems highly unlikely given his purpose for being here.)

Oh He was married alright. He was the perfect example of everything. He did only what He saw His Father do, and we didn't come from nowhere ~ if you catch my drift ~

[Snow]

Yes, we both know that but apparently the good Cardinal does not (although I suppose he could be deliberately dishonest though I doubt it.). And no, he was not referring to the Sacred Tradition, he was referring to the Bible. I can tell because he used the code word BIBLE.

Though Paul didn't seems to be much of a marriage fan, there is no evidence that Christ shared his prejudice. Indeed his selection of married disciples seems to indicate that he favored it. Celibacy was a late addition to Christianity, practiced spottily for centuries, violated regulary by priest, bishop, cardinal and pope alike, and, many may argue, was a result of the Church's desire to prevent its clergy from passing their wealth onto their offspring instead of the Church. Feel free to disagree.

I would disagree entirely that marriage was unlikely given Christ's purpose. In our theology marriage is part and parcel of full realization of human (and divine) potential. I understand the theorectical argument for subjugating one's interpersonal and sexual humanity but I don't buy it for a moment and think that a better argument that it causes more harm than good. Marriage, in its best realization, is the pinnacle and most sublime of all human endeavors - says I.

[Jenda]

While I agree that the Bible is silent on the matter, I lean toward the belief that He was never married and chose a celibate life. He knew what His purpose here was. He knew that he would spend most of his adult life away from family (if he had one), and I believe that He would choose not to do that to a family, knowing what the loss of income would create his wife to be and do, knowing that kids that grow up without a father in that culture are cast to the edges of society.

No, I don't believe that he would/could do that to his family, so he chose not to marry. That is my belief.

[Outshined]

My belief is that the cardinal should realize that the book is fiction, and was not marketed as a historical reference.

On whether Jesus married, I've seen plausible evidence both ways, and so do not take a stand on either side, as neither is actually proven and it just does not matter.

[Guest curvette]

He's just now speaking out against the book? It sure took him long enough to read it!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Ex,

"Sacred Tradition" isn't the Bible, regardless of whether it's accurate. And the cardinal specifically said, "The Bible says Jesus never married." That isn't true.

What would be true would be to mix up the word order a bit, like so: "The Bible never says Jesus married."

Of course, the Bible has absolutely nothing to say of how Jesus spent his twenties. There are some stories of his birth, one episode from his childhood, and a general reference to his growing in favor with God and man. Then we fast-forward to his baptism by John at age 30.

The position that Jesus never married depends on the inference that his marriage would have been a significant enough thing for the Bible to have mentioned. I think that position is reasonable, at least if you limit it to the time the Bible records. That is, I think it's logical to conclude that Jesus was not married during his ministry, which would rule out the "Da Vinci Code" speculations about his being married to the Magdalene.

I don't think you can rule out, though, based on the evidence available, the possibility that Jesus was married (perhaps for a short time; young wives died right and left back then) during his twenties. Prolonged bachelorhood was apparently unusual enough at the time that one might expect Jesus' remaining single to be unusual enough that it would have been specifically mentioned in the Bible.

Think of the logic this way: A story of my life would probably not mention that I wear clothes to work. Would it be reasonable to conclude by the lack of this mention that I therefore went naked to work? Of course not -- wearing clothes to work is the usual habit of people in my context, so it would likely not be mentioned. Now if I did go naked to work -- an unusual thing -- that would probably be recorded.

The question comes down to this: Does the lack of a mention of Jesus' marriage mean Jesus was not married, or does the lack of a mention of Jesus' remaining single mean that he did not remain single? Which state -- marriage or celibacy -- would have been more unusual, and thus more noteworthy, of a figure in the context of Christ's times? I vote for the latter.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Mar 16 2005, 04:31 AM

My belief is that the cardinal should realize that the book is fiction, and was not marketed as a historical reference.

On whether Jesus married, I've seen plausible evidence both ways, and so do not take a stand on either side, as neither is actually proven and it just does not matter.

Good comment, Outshined---we agree on something!