Monday, June 16, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

by Times Online

Thanks to Marcus Lyon for the link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4147839.ece

Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

The Vatican has banned the makers of Angels & Demons, the latest Dan Brown thriller to be filmed, from shooting scenes not only in the Vatican but in any church in Rome on the ground that it is "an offence against God" and "wounds common religious feelings".

Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, head of the Vatican's Prefecture for Economic Affairs, said that the author had "turned the Gospels upside down to poison the faith. It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into mendacious films in the name of business."

Father Marco Fibbi, spokesman for the diocese of Rome, said: "Normally we read the script, but this time it was not necessary. The name Dan Brown was enough." The Vatican fiercely condemned both the novel The Da Vinci Code and its film version, which starred Tom Hanks as the Harvard professor Robert Langdon.

Hanks also stars in Angels & Demons which, like The Da Vinci Code, is directed by Ron Howard. Published before The Da Vinci Code — which suggested that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had children — Angels & Demons revolves around a plot by a sinister elite known as The Illuminati to seize control of the papacy during a conclave to elect a new Pope.

Key scenes are set in the Vatican and two Rome churches, Santa Maria del Popolo and Santa Maria della Vittoria. In both churches cardinals are murdered and mutilated with mysterious marks and symbols. Father Antonio Truda, parish priest at Santa Maria del Popolo, said that there was "no question" of allowing scenes to be shot there. "It's bad enough having to put up with tour guides explaining the scene to tourists," he said.

Vatican officials said that they had been unable to prevent the filmakers shooting exterior shots of St Peter's and the surrounding medieval streets of the Borgo, with the permission of the local borough council. However the marble halls and staircases of the former Royal Palace at Caserta near Naples are having to be used to double for Vatican interiors.

"When a film is about the saints or about stories regarding the Church's artistic values, then we give permission without any doubts," Father Fibbi told the TV listings magazine Sorrisi e Canzoni (Smiles and Songs). "But when it is a question of content which does not relate to traditional religious criteria, then our doors are closed."

The Vatican asked the faithful to boycott the film of The Da Vinci Code, which Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Archbishop of Genoa and now, as Secretary of State, the right-hand man of Pope Benedict XVI, described as a "phantasmagorical cocktail of inventions" and "a pot-pourri of lies". The film was also contested bitterly by the arch-conservative Roman Catholic organisation Opus Dei, represented in the film by a ruthless killer monk, although it has no monks.

The plot of Angels & Demons is, if anything even more preposterous than The Da Vinci Code, and scholars have been quick to point out the book's factual errors. Thes include the claim that the oculus in the domed roof of the Pantheon is known as the "demon's hole", and the omission of "son of Lucius" from the famous inscription on the Pantheon's facade, M. AGRIPPA L. F. COS. TERTIUM FECIT (Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, Consul for the third time, built this).

Santa Maria della Vittoria is wrongly located on Piazza Barberini in the book (it is actually some way uphill, on the corner of Via XX Settembre and Largo Santa Susanna.) Equally bizarre is the climactic scene when Langdon battles the villain at Bernini's Fountain of the Four Rivers in a deserted Piazza Navona, which in reality is lined with bars and cafes and invariably full of tourists and residents (not to mention police) day and night.

Moreover the fountain's sculptures represent not Europe but four rivers and continents: the Danube (Europe), the Nile (Africa), the Ganges (Asia) and the Plate (the Americas). The bird on top of the fountain's obelisk is not a sinister portent but a dove, the symbol of the family of Pope Innocent X , who commissioned the fountain.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, June 16, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 107 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #193872 by leodavinci on June 16, 2008 at 7:17 am

Stupid old men.
I also hate Dan Brown though, the Da Vinci Code, another steaming pile of shit for conspiracy theorists.

Other Comments by leodavinci

2. Comment #193878 by action1976 on June 16, 2008 at 7:26 am

I have to agree i hated the Dan Brown Novels just as much and the Da vinci code film was pretty rubbish.
If you want to see a good film that bashes the Catholic Faith and the Protestant one also check out James Clavell's The Last Valley made in 1970 and starring Michael Caine it is personally one of my all top films and is very historically accurate also.

Other Comments by action1976

3. Comment #193879 by irate_atheist on June 16, 2008 at 7:30 am

Like I give a shit?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

4. Comment #193882 by Cartomancer on June 16, 2008 at 7:32 am

a "phantasmagorical cocktail of inventions" and "a pot-pourri of lies".

I never knew that there were so many glass houses in the Vatican, or such a ready supply of stones...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

5. Comment #193883 by Your_Noodly_Master on June 16, 2008 at 7:33 am

"It's bad enough having to put up with tour guides explaining the scene to tourists"
"The Vatican asked the faithful to boycott the film of The Da Vinci Code"

I thought the appropriate response to misinformation or conspiracy theorists is to explain the truth as often as possible. Trying to prevent people from being exposed to a viewpoint is something to be expected from an actual conspiracy, and will therefore backfire and build suspicion that the information is accurate.

Other Comments by Your_Noodly_Master

6. Comment #193884 by Alkal on June 16, 2008 at 7:33 am

I will watch this film, if only for this... But I am sure it will be a disappointment like the DVC... yet just because it is being banned i will watch it

Other Comments by Alkal

7. Comment #193888 by Philip1978 on June 16, 2008 at 7:37 am

I have seen worse films, I have read worse books but really, the Vatican is making mountains out of molehills bollocking about banning this sort of thing.

If you don't like it, don't sodding well go see it!

People were worried about the Golden Compass for Quetz's sake, didn't make a blind bit of difference!

Other Comments by Philip1978

8. Comment #193889 by severalspeciesof on June 16, 2008 at 7:38 am

The church can and does have every right to determine who should use their interiors. But I find it odd that, say if the film were to be about the life of St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine, the church would be fine with that knowing full well that both thought torture was acceptable, even warranted under certain circumstances, in order to gain conversion or confession. And one of them (I forget which) advocated killing. Yet a work of self proclaimed FICTION gets the boot because it might tarnish the church's image because people can't be trusted to think for themselves... hmmmm...

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

9. Comment #193891 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 7:42 am

Something here needs fixing:

Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, head of the Vatican's Prefecture for Economic Affairs, said that the author had "turned the Gospels upside down to poison the faith. It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into mendacious films in the name of business. Selective use of ancient texts and lying to extract money from people is the exclusive preserve of the Vatican."

You're welcome, Bish.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

10. Comment #193892 by Opisthokont on June 16, 2008 at 7:42 am

Actually, I am not too bothered by the Vatican not wanting filmmakers to use their churches. It is their property, after all. If it were publically owned, that would be a different question. Not wanting people to use your property to do something that casts you in a bad light is an understandable and defensible position.

Of course, I agree completely with the Noodly Master on the conspiracy angle....

Other Comments by Opisthokont

11. Comment #193902 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 7:49 am

It's interesting how they think a work of fiction should be hindered in its production if it portrays a fabricated series of events. I suppose they think a work of fiction should actualy portray events as they actualy happened.

Or are they saying works of fiction should never be produced which have anything to do with Christian history. Perhapse they have first hand experience of a lot of people believing fiction to be fact. I wonder what that might be.....

Other Comments by phatbat

12. Comment #193905 by annabanana on June 16, 2008 at 7:53 am

Filming movies about the Bible (mostly fiction)in the Vatican = ok

Filming movies about other fiction in the Vatican = bad

Totally makes sense... :-/

Other Comments by annabanana

13. Comment #193907 by EvidenceOnly on June 16, 2008 at 7:57 am

All religions and their books are fiction but they will never admit this.

Dan Brown's books and movies are fiction and he clearly says so.

The difference? Religions want to dictate how we live. Dan Brown's books and movies are entertainment.

Religion poisons everything (Christopher Hitchens).
Ran Brown's works are entertaining. They only hurt the feelings of those still stuck in the dark ages.

That hurt comes from the fact that religions don't want to admit that they are just as much fiction as Dan Brown's works.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

14. Comment #193908 by Dr Paul on June 16, 2008 at 7:57 am

Hey, these are just stories. The big issue is the medieval response of the Vatican to simple story-telling. Blasphemy, for heaven's sake - I guess the inquisition will be after Tom Hanks next.

Other Comments by Dr Paul

15. Comment #193915 by Vaal on June 16, 2008 at 8:03 am

Why are they so worried by a fiction? Still, I suppose it can be argued that Christianity is a fiction.

All that will happen is that it will just make more people want to see it .. just like Life of Brian. So, another spectacular own goal by the Catholic church.

What is their view of the Life of Brian, incidentally? Is that allowed in Rome? Does Darth Ratty have a chuckle watching it, like most of my Christian friends, or does he burst a blood vessel.

Edit: Sorry, misread article, thought they were banning the film, not the filming.

Other Comments by Vaal

16. Comment #193924 by xrod on June 16, 2008 at 8:10 am

As an ex-catholic I found the book an extremely amusing read, if for nothing else to marvel at the glaring inaccuracies Brown continued to present as fact. Without the exaggerations and pure ridiculousness it would never have come close to being a compelling story.

Nevertheless, I love it when someone starts slinging shit at the church, especially when the church is stupid enough to respond publicly.

Bottom line: If someone sees this movie, they are not going to walk out thinking any better of organized religion, be it for good or bad reasons, and I think that's just great.

Other Comments by xrod

17. Comment #193945 by toddaa on June 16, 2008 at 8:28 am

The Vatican asked the faithful to boycott the film of The Da Vinci Code, which Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Archbishop of Genoa and now, as Secretary of State, the right-hand man of Pope Benedict XVI, described as a "phantasmagorical cocktail of inventions" and "a pot-pourri of lies".

DANG IT!!! I just bought that irony meter.

Other Comments by toddaa

18. Comment #193949 by davemei on June 16, 2008 at 8:32 am

"You can only shoot here if you present us in the way that we want. Otherwise, fuck off!"

Other Comments by davemei

19. Comment #193952 by moderndaythomas on June 16, 2008 at 8:36 am

scholars have been quick to point out the book's factual errors.

Based on........testimony?

On both accounts it's just testimony. One fantasy debunking another, no?

On another note, isn't Hanks a Scientologist?

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

20. Comment #193955 by Ygern on June 16, 2008 at 8:39 am

I don't like Dan Brown's novels, I think they are poorly written. But this will guarantee that this one leaps onto the best-seller charts again, both in paperback and movie form.

Own Goal! Well done, all you Really Smart People at the Vatican.

Other Comments by Ygern

21. Comment #193957 by rod-the-farmer on June 16, 2008 at 8:41 am

I liked the Da Vinci Code book a lot. I am not expert enough on all the stuff true fundies say were errors, but it was a great read anyway. As for Angels & Demons, if the church is opposed, I am all for it, and will buy the book first chance I get.

Shooting scenes ? Too bad they started filming already. Wait a few years, and you will be able to buy one of those ornate churches, for lack of a congregation.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

22. Comment #193959 by Border Collie on June 16, 2008 at 8:44 am

Dan, Dan, Dan, shame on you! You should know better than to write a book bringing the feminine principle into the largest, most jaded conclave of pedophiles on the planet. Run, Forrest, run!

Other Comments by Border Collie

23. Comment #193960 by mixmastergaz on June 16, 2008 at 8:44 am

Hmmm... The Illuminati. Isn't that the non-existent secretive organisation that David Icke believes to have been manipulating world events for hundreds of years? Aren't they supposed to be giant lizard-like aliens in human form? Sounds like this could be a shittastic film to me!

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

24. Comment #193965 by Triseult on June 16, 2008 at 8:50 am

Forget about "offence against God"... Angels & Demons is an offence against Science as well. There's really little redeeming value to a tale of scientists getting murdered because they proved the existence of God in creating antimatter.

The Church could have simply called that book (and The Da Vinci Code) rubbish and get over it. Instead, they give it legitimacy by considering it offends their chosen imaginary being in the sky...

Other Comments by Triseult

25. Comment #193968 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 16, 2008 at 8:52 am

I will never understand the ability of the religious to score own goals.

Come on people: after the Da Vinci Code, membership in Opus Dei skyrocketed. And who really takes Dan Brown seriously on anything?

Unless - they are counting for a repeat if the DVC syndrome; sending people to the film so they come back harder Catholics then before... Who knows?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

26. Comment #193975 by hoops mccann on June 16, 2008 at 8:58 am

It's called FICTION for a reason.

From Wiki:

"A false document is a form of verisimilitude that attempts to create in the reader (viewer, audience etc) a *sense* [emphasis mine] of authenticity beyond the normal and expected suspension of disbelief."

Don't these "scholars" know what a LITERARY DEVICE is?

Other Comments by hoops mccann

27. Comment #193996 by sidfaiwu on June 16, 2008 at 9:12 am

It seems a lot of people misunderstand what _fiction_ is.

Fiction can treat imaginary conspiracies as true.
Fiction can violate scientific principles.
Fiction doesn't even have to get _facts_ right.

Why? It identifies itself as FICTION! That's a disclaimer that says "there is stuff in this book that if false, impossible, or both."

The problem is when fiction masquerades as truth, aka 'scripture'.

Personally, I found both DVC and Angels and Demons entertaining, although not all that well written. In other words, great stories, sub-par though not terrible writing. Good audio book material.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

28. Comment #194002 by black wolf on June 16, 2008 at 9:19 am

On another note, isn't Hanks a Scientologist?

No, he converted to Greek Orthodox when he married in '88. Mixed up with Tom Cruise?

Other Comments by black wolf

29. Comment #194005 by Apathy personified on June 16, 2008 at 9:22 am

A film i won't be seeing based on a book i won't be reading annoying a useless and outdated organisation, i honestly don't think i could care less about any aspect of this story or the outcome.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

30. Comment #194007 by HourglassMemory on June 16, 2008 at 9:23 am

Am I the only one who's actually excited that they're filming it?
The novel focuses on religion and science. And it involves the church with "bad stuff". I'm all for seeing that on the big screen.

It would be much better if they could film in the vatican, but today's special effects and the capacity to built realistic looking sets can easily fool people and make them suspend their disbelief for this piece of FICTIONAL ENTERTAINMENT.

"It offends god" Don't put words in his mouth! I'm surprised that excuse is coming from the oh-so-modern Vatican.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

31. Comment #194010 by robotaholic on June 16, 2008 at 9:25 am

This is weird, The Pope is against a mythical misrepresentation of Jesus Christ and the Church but in doing so is preferring the Catholic version of the myth-

I think Dan Brown should do a vampire pope movie...

Other Comments by robotaholic

32. Comment #194011 by esuther on June 16, 2008 at 9:26 am

Since I write anti-church/anti-religion fiction myself, I confess to being bitterly jealous of Dan Brown's success. TDC was dreadfully written, but I have to hand it to him, he did have a fast paced plot and colorful settings. And it was not ever intended as a revelation of a conspiracy, just entertainment. I don't know what evidence that Fanusi has for the TDC causing a sudden increase in Opus Dei people skulking around. Even if it did, it also caused a sudden increase in people LEARNING about Opus Dei and laughing at it.

But for movies that make profound and hilarious statements about the idiocy of religion, I think the prize winner will always be The Life of Brian.

Other Comments by esuther

33. Comment #194024 by ksskidude on June 16, 2008 at 9:42 am

All thier antics will do is make more people go and read Angels and Demons.

I didn't care that it was a conspiracy theory or that it was true or not. I enjoyed the books as works of fiction. In all honesty, The Da Vinci Code really was one of the books five years ago that spurred on my rapid assent into atheism.

Other Comments by ksskidude

34. Comment #194039 by Eventhorizon on June 16, 2008 at 10:05 am

Good old Catholic Church - acting like a bunch of over zealous control freaks beacause somebody dares to portray them as a bunch of over zealous control freaks. That they dont see the irony...SIGH.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

35. Comment #194042 by ghuckin on June 16, 2008 at 10:11 am

Dan Brown is simply the worst author I've ever read. I tried Angels before Da Vinci. Reading fiction should not mean you accept every page without question, but Dan Brown expects nothing less of the reader. A hypersonic passenger plane developed without anyone knowing of it? Really? Where was he when they were building Concorde? Almost very week, there was something in the papers about it. I gave up on Angels after the first few chapters - not just because it was silly, but also because the guy writes like he's writing a Grade 8 essay. Because of all the hype, I stayed with Da Vinci to the bitter end, but it was a real chore. Same juvenile sentance construction, plot holes a mile wide. I thought Peter Benchley was bad until I read Brown.
Why is the Vatican getting so bent out of shape with such trivia? Could it be that they are trying to deflect attention from more "sensitive" issues?

Other Comments by ghuckin

36. Comment #194043 by mr-zero on June 16, 2008 at 10:12 am

Angels and Demons is tosh of the first order. As I remember it, the head of CERN was trying to kill the pope using antimatter so that the church couldn't prove that the higgs boson existed thereby proving the existance of god. Something like that. Anyway - they all escape in a hot air balloon in the end.
It was a long flight so I may have some of the details muddled but as I remember it, it was more anti science that anti religion.
Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

37. Comment #194046 by Souvlaki on June 16, 2008 at 10:27 am

So if someone wanted to make a film about priests molesting little boys or burning people at the stake, they would allow the use of their churches because it's actually factual?

Interesting.

Other Comments by Souvlaki

38. Comment #194047 by Philster61 on June 16, 2008 at 10:28 am

Another example of the Catholic Church manipulating events if the subject in question doesnt agree with them.Poor old dearies.Youd think that after the pedophile scandals of the last few years that theyd grab any positive headline that they could.
And I enjoyed Angels and Demons.If you dont jump on the band wagon,start an industry within itself and just enjoy the book as entertainment,then its a good read.True there are some very dodgy plots going on but otherwise,it is a good fictional adventure.

Other Comments by Philster61

39. Comment #194048 by hoops mccann on June 16, 2008 at 10:30 am

Comment #194011 by esuther:

"But for movies that make profound and hilarious statements about the idiocy of religion, I think the prize winner will always be The Life of Brian."

Amen (if you'll pardon the expression). Let's not give "Holy Grail" short shrift though. Especially the "how do you know that she's a witch?" dialog.

Other Comments by hoops mccann

40. Comment #194062 by thewhitepearl on June 16, 2008 at 11:10 am

I don't understand why they are accusing Dan Brown of lying. He clearly states that his novels are fiction. You can't really lie when the point is to make it up..

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

41. Comment #194064 by EvidenceOnly on June 16, 2008 at 11:19 am

Dan Brown clearly states that his books are fiction. He is not lying.

The catholic church states that their holy books are the truth. They are lying for jesus.

Who's accusing whom here? What a hypocrisy.

Souvlaki, your comment is a great one. You should whisper this in the ear of Michael Moore. He would be great for a factual movie about the catholic church as the world's largest organized pedophile organization. It would be great if the pope and his entourage fully supported such a documentary.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

42. Comment #194065 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:28 am

Michael Moore great for a factual movie?

Are you serious? This guy is a manipulator and a propagandist who uses every trick in the book to get people to agree with a position he takes - manipulating interviews, cutting out-of-context, juxtaposing certain scenes to imply a conclusion.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Bush-administration should spend life in prison for crimes against humanity and potentially for treason because of what they did to the constitution.

Michael Moore is largely on the right side, but his methods are despicable and his claims often not substantiated by the evidence he presents.

There are far better people creating documentaries.

Have you seen "Taxi to the Dark Side" or "No End in Sight"? The first was presented entirely objectively, but I almost couldn't bear to watch it. It made me physically sick and enraged beyond description.

Also, as far as I know there already was a documentary about the Roman Catholic Church's practice of playing the shell-game with pedophiles.

Other Comments by MPhil

43. Comment #194077 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 16, 2008 at 11:56 am

*claws out*

Michael Moore is largely on the right side, but his methods are despicable and his claims often not substantiated by the evidence he presents.

On the right side? May I remind you that this is the man who said that the only problem with 9/11 is that it didn't incinerate Bush voters? That the jihadists in Iraq are 'minutemen' - heroes, the resistance? And these are the same ones who will hack the heads off eight year old girls, who will shoot schoolchildren for being too western in their dress?

No. Michael Moore is absolutely, and without question, on the wrong side, and he doesn't even have the courage of knowing it. He is a parasite, and nothing more.

The means determine the ends. There is never any reason for lying if your cause is virtuous. It is only the evil who need institutionalized lying.

I am sorry that we will be oblidged to save his goddamn neck in the process of saving ours.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

44. Comment #194106 by clodhopper on June 16, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Wall to wall bollocks from both Dan Brown and the Ratzis.

Other Comments by clodhopper

45. Comment #194115 by mrjonno on June 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Always found Dan Brown to be very PRO religion. When he comes up with conspiracies about jesus etc he is working on the basis that jesus actually existed and that is the biggest conspiracy of them all. The catholic church is based on worshipping a person (never mind a god) that has no real evidence to have ever lived

Other Comments by mrjonno

46. Comment #194127 by Barbara on June 16, 2008 at 12:54 pm

It's fiction! It's intended as entertainment. I enjoyed 'The Davinci Code' and I plan to see 'Angels & Demons' when it's released. Some will like the movie, some will think it's crap. So what?

As far as shooting the film in the Vatican, I've never been there, never intend to go there, so I won't know the difference. I couldn't care less where this movie is filmed as long as the scenery reflects the feel of what the story is about. In my opinion, Tom Hanks is a top-notch actor and Ron Howard is a top-notch director. I doubt I will fail to be entertained by this new film.

Other Comments by Barbara

47. Comment #194152 by Grumpy Max on June 16, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Fair enough, they're their churches, they don't have to participate in dragging themselves into further disrepute, although to be fair the Catholic church's reputation is more or less irrecoverable at this point. If someone wanted to make a film about how mean a fictionalised "me" was, I wouldn't let them film inside my flat.

Just to throw in my 2 cents' worth- TDVC showcases some horrible, horrible writing but it was pretty rollicking. I remember solving the "Newton's Orb with Seeded Womb" (or summat like that) puzzle many pages before the protagonist did and feeling really irritated with him. If Angels and Demons is half as silly and half as fun I shall have to try and read it.

And re: Michael Moore- I think his dishonest methods are pretty well documented (although is "propagandist" necessarily pejorative? Does propaganda need be dishonest?) but, Fanusi Khiyal, you should probably source any quote that inflammatory- I flat out don't believe he said that about 9/11.

And, btw, AnnaBanana- is that Charleston Aquarium you're at in the avatar pic? I spent ages watching the otters in there and ended up a half-hour behind the rest of the group.

Other Comments by Grumpy Max

48. Comment #194161 by thewhitepearl on June 16, 2008 at 1:25 pm

clodhopper,

WTF??? (In regards to your picture) I dont know what it is but it sure made me laugh!

Fanusi,

"May I remind you that this is the man who said that the only problem with 9/11 is that it didn't incinerate Bush voters? That the jihadists in Iraq are 'minutemen' - heroes, the resistance?"

I think this is what we commonly refer to as a figure of speech. He was just making a point. Just read between the lines. Not all things are to be taken so literally and seriously...

"He is a parasite"

agreed.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

49. Comment #194167 by Double Bass Atheist on June 16, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Comment #194127 by Barbara
It's fiction! It's intended as entertainment. I enjoyed 'The Davinci Code' and I plan to see 'Angels & Demons' when it's released. Some will like the movie, some will think it's crap. So what?

Well said, Barb!
The christians have been making shit up for nearly 2000 years... and those stories would be fairly entertaining if so many people didn't take them so seriously.
Dan Brown has been making up some pretty entertaining stuff too... and not nearly as long ;-)

Catholics - get over it. His fiction is better then yours anyhow.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

50. Comment #194168 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm