Is it a sin to see the Da Vinci Code film?

[miss_fluffy]

The book "Stranger in a Strangeland" By Heinlein was very obviously science fiction, yet many new-age hippies took it as gospel. They adopted the lingo, and strived to live more "enlightened" lives like the characters in the book.  This involved the principles of polyamory, mass sterilization, canabalism, and stealing, lying, or cheating the "unenlightened" masses.  The premise of being enlightened in this book had much to do with ESP, and superhuman powers, that many people turned to either LSD or pagan religion to fulfill.  The book furthers the insanity by blasphemeously "borrowing" from Christianity by having their prophet martyred in the book. This lead many LSD-crazed followers into a frenzy of fear about how they will be ostracized, oppressed, and perhaps even murdered for their "enlightened" polyamorist hippie attitudes.

 

In my opinion this book was one of the most damaging during the "hippie" revolution of the sixties.  All of this was under the guise of fiction, and it truely influenced many people to actually believe this crap.

[buddy]

According to the Church, one of the nine ways of being an accessory to another's sin (as well as one's own sin) is by partaking.  On that basis I would consider seeing the movie a sin.  The movie is inherently evil since it seeks to call into question the divinity of Christ among other things.

[lumengentleman]

I want to see the film, purely out of curiosity, because I read the book and I want to see how much of the content they decide to bring out in the movie.  The whole speech that Teabing gives about Mary Magdalene is really, really dry and boring in terms of narrative/action content, so I'll be curious to see how much of it they cut and/or alter in the movie.

 

Needless to say, as someone involved in apologetics, I'm going to see the film, if only to be "out in front" of the reviews and such.

[miss_fluffy]

So, I have this idea, which is probably incredibly sinful, so don't  quote me on it.  But if one is to see the film, for educational  purposes.  Perhaps one could buy a ticket for another film in the  theatre, starting around the same time, and then sneak over to the Da  Vinci showing.  That way, you get to see it, but you avoid  "voting" with your ticket.
 

[gladius_veritatis]

I want to see the film, purely out of curiosity, because I read the book and I want to see how much of the content they decide to bring out in the movie.

 

Imo - this is a seriously lame reason, lumen.

 

The whole speech that Teabing gives about Mary Magdalene is really, really dry and boring in terms of narrative/action content, so I'll be curious to see how much of it they cut and/or alter in the movie.

 

This is perhaps just adding to the lameness.

 

Needless to say, as someone involved in apologetics, I'm going to see the film, if only to be "out in front" of the reviews and such.

 

This might suffice, but I doubt it - as you have already read the book, and can easily access other materials to help you achieve your goal without viewing what you know is blasphemous trash.   In the end, though, only you can decide for yourself.

 

No, your previous knowledge that it is blasphemous trash does not make it "safer" or permissible, as one could not just read the books of the Index, knowing beforehand that they are stuffed - there has to be an objectively serious reason (some kind of obligation, really) for exposing oneself to such garbage.

[Vincentius]

The book "Stranger in a Strangeland" By Heinlein was  very obviously science fiction, yet many new-age hippies took it as  gospel....In my opinion this book was one of the most damaging during  the "hippie" revolution of the sixties.  All of this was under the  guise of fiction, and it truely influenced many people to actually  believe this crap.

 
  The title of Heinlein's book seems to have been lifted from the Bible  [Exodus 2:22].  I read half of the book and it was pure  trash.  "Grogging" was what kind of intrigued me to read it.   I never grasped what "to grog" actually meant.  Flower people and  free love was what Heinlein's book produced.
 
 

[miss_fluffy]

The title of Heinlein's book seems to have been  lifted from the Bible [Exodus 2:22]. I read half of the book and it was  pure trash. "Grogging" was what kind of intrigued me to read it. I  never grasped what "to grog" actually meant. Flower people and free  love was what Heinlein's book produced.
 

 FYI, the word is "grock" and it means to understand someone in an ESP  sort of way.  Like, you are one with them, and so you feel/get it  with them.
 

[Kephapaulos]

The "big deal" is that the DaVinci Code, regardless of whether it's technically fiction or not, has impacted the faith of countless souls, and many have taken it as "historical fiction," "fact packaged in a fictional story," or whatever you want to call it, even though it is an entire fabrication. This is insidious, and as the book is (and the movie probably will be) a great hit, this is a big issue for Catholics. It's NOT simply a matter of "no big deal, it's just a fictional movie." We can say that all we want, but there are lots who don't seem to get that.

 

I already know one guy at my university that sort of believes or buys into The Da Vinci Code myth, and this was all before hearing about the movie. I think it was more than once I had to admonish him not to believe in that blasphemous myth. I would say do not see that movie at all. Wait until it hits the libraries and after awhile since many would probably want to check it out at first. Otherwise, really do not see it in that case unless you have purely good objective reasons for seeing it because of reasons such as apologetics. In that case, it would be alright if it surely would not harm your faith, but if you know it could, then do not watch it at all then.

[lumengentleman]

I want to see the film, purely out of curiosity, because I read the book and I want to see how much of the content they decide to bring out in the movie.

 

Imo - this is a seriously lame reason, lumen.

Uh huh... is that a magisterial category of censure?  :wink: