The question I posed was not how people interested in Church history should get their information. By and large, I'm of the opinion that people interested in history should read the work of historians. Rather, I was asking what you proposed with regard to fiction that is not historically accurate. Do you want it banned? Do you want to demand that it be published only if it is so bad that no one could possibly mistake it for the truth? Do you permit it so long as it doesn't touch on something -- like the Catholic Church, apparently -- that matters to you, rather than mattering to others?

You're apparently quite offended that "The Da Vinci Code" exists, and that many people have found it compelling. As I've now pointed out several times, "The Da Vinci Code" is hardly the only piece of popular fiction that has strayed from historical accuracy in the interests of plot, that has cast aspersions on a particular group or organization, and that has in particular portrayed the Church (or, in truth, a faction of a faction of the Church) as villainous -- all, once again, in the service of a plot. Fiction can be very powerful, and I sympathize to some extent with your offense. But thrillers, by their nature, demand a villain, and I'd strongly recommend that you shrug this one off and assume that it will -- and it will -- be some other group's turn next time.

>Would you like to ban the books that you think are false and scurrilous? And if that is not your view, are you willing to give credit to others for not having that view either?

Of course. But I haven't been railing about Dan Brown's failure to present an accurate picture of Church history. Nor do I demand that fiction be "useful in an ostensible battle for the truth." Mostly I demand that fiction be entertaining. As far as I'm concerned, the ability to tell a good story trumps an awful lot of sins. And if it prompts inquiry into The Truth, that just ices the cake.

Longtime, we're talking past each other, and I'm done. Though I can't help pointing out that people may feel that they have been lied to by the Church because, as headline after headline over the past several years has made clear -- including last week's concerning the long-overdue "disciplining" of Father Degollado -- the Church HAS lied, over and over and over again, and to a rather staggering extent. Loathe though I am to give the GOP a free pass on anything, I don't think you can blame the Republicans for a current tendency to be distrustful of the Church.

Ok, I lied, I'm not quite outa here. Specifically, I was curious about Longtime's claim that Dan Brown regards the "history" outlined in TDVC as true. So I figured I'd go to the source. The following is taken directly from the "FAQ" section of The Official Dan Brown Website:

"HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?

The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.

BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT?

If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader."

Apparently Mr. Brown does NOT regard himself as having written non-fiction or any kind of work of scholarship, nor does he regard the theories advanced in the book as necessarily true. To the extent that readers HAVE tended to regard these theories as true, I'd suggest that the problem lies with the readers, rather than with Mr. Brown, whose only crime lies in having written a very persuasive novel. And to the extent that this persuasiveness has prompted readers to investigate Church history or the history of the Gospels or the role of women in the Church or any other topic, then, yeah, I do applaud Mr. Brown.