When the Homily is about Immunology

Copyrighting History

As many of you might have heard, the author of "The DaVinci Code" is being sued by an author of a previous book that espouses many of the same conspiracy theories that Dan Brown capitalized upon.

But, if we are to believe that these things are historical facts, how in the world can they be covered under copyright laws? Except for outright plagerism, what gives with regard to this case? Unless of course, these conspiracy theories are in fact simply cleverly invented fictions...GASP!

Otherwise, I shall await the lawsuit that comes from my saying this: Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States. (Surely someone said this before me, no?)

At any rate, the man who wrote the first book "Holy Blood Holy Grail" fancies himself a theologian as can be seen in this interview.

I think he's a great example of a hit and miss historical theologian. For instance he'll quote the gospels as an historic texts when it suits him, but deny their validity when he rubs him the wrong way (e.g. that Jesus DIED on the cross, or that Jesus opted ONLY to chose men for his disciple - he claims Christianity USED to be "feminine")

He tries to "scare" us with the amazing revelation that the council of Nicea officially proclaimed Jesus as God (at least he doesn't lie like Brown - I assume - and claim the vote was close) and that the NT Scriptures weren't determined until the late 4th century. And all we Orthodox say: so what?

He makes dubious reference to "other" writings as expressing the more "wide" beliefs of early Christians, but there are no specifics? No means by which to argue the validity and authenticity he claims they have. Why trust Michael Baigent as opposed to those who lived in the time period and decided THEN what was authentic and what was spurious?

And then this:
The sacred is very important to me. It's crucial. I think that we need a relationship with the sacred which gives our lives meaning in the same way as we need food, air and water. It is that important and for that reason we need to approach it for ourselves. It is too important to allow someone else to tell us how to think or what to believe. We need to ask our own questions and demand our own answers.

Let me get this straight...the sacred is sooo important that I need to figure it out for myself? And I can too, by the way...I am so stinking brilliant!

Why is it that it always turns into some form of tyranny as opposed to what it actually is: the revelation to a community? Hmmmm? Individualism gone mad. The sacred is SOOOOO important, you better NOT be relying on yourself, in so doing you demonstrate the epitomy of arrogance, pride and recklessly absurd self-trust. Like an explorer who refuses to seek the counsel of those who went before him. Hope you make it back!