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. -----------------------------------------------------------------