'Da Vinci Code' Spurs Religion Coverage

By: Tom Mullen "The Da Vinci Code" is the best thing to happen to newspaper religion reporting so far this year. Controversy about the film, which alleges that the Catholic Church has covered up the "secret" of the marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, and birth of their child, has spawned widespread religion coverage in mainstream newspapers across the country.

From the largest dailies to smallest-scale suburban papers, "Da Vinci" stories have run on Page One, metro fronts, and in entertainment sections.

Newspapers don't always do a good job of covering religion. You don't have look too far for critics in and outside the newsroom whom can fault about how the whole realm of belief is covered. And it's interesting to note how a Hollywood movie has again become a huge religion story that's inspiring so much copy. Where is all the religion coverage on matters a little closer to home, a little closer to readers' everyday lives? That's still a topic for discussion at length, but for now, it's worth noting what many papers did well over the last week or so before "Da Vinci" opened.

The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times, for example, all published various pieces that looked at the scholarly controversies and myths related to author Dan Brown's work and how religious groups have responded.

Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times took this approach in a May 11 story:

"Many Christian leaders across the country are girding themselves for battle with 'The Da Vinci Code,' the movie based on the blockbuster novel by Dan Brown that opens on May 19. Whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, Orthodox or evangelical, they agree that the book attacks the pillars of Christianity by raising doubts about the divinity of Jesus and the origins of the Bible.

"But they are not at all in agreement on how to best respond to a movie that one leader called 'blasphemy on steroids.' Some will boycott it. Others will use it as a 'teaching moment.' Still others will lodge a protest by seeing another movie."

Another strong piece, by Michelle Boorstein and Alan Cooperman in the May 14 Washington Post, looked at how some clergy and church leaders see the movie as an opportunity to evangelize nonbelievers:

"Greg Beatty's first look at 'The Da Vinci Code' came when a neighbor reached across his back fence in 2003 and handed the Catholic lawyer the book and a question: Is this true? After reading the novel, Beatty saw the questioning spread from his Springfield yard to his downtown office at the National Labor Relations Board. Was Jesus really married? Do some members of the Catholic group Opus Dei really wear self-mutilating belts?

"Beatty could answer some things but not others. Forty-five million copies later, his challenge is about to get bigger.

"On Friday, Hollywood will release its version of 'The Da Vinci Code,' but Beatty -- along with many other Christians -- is ready.

"Hundreds of churches have distributed books and DVDs meant to expose what they say are the film's many historical inaccuracies. Pastors are delivering sermons about the issues raised by the movie. In classes and seminars, Christians of several denotations are being trained in how to talk about the themes."

The Post also had a terrific sidebar -- "Contentious Notions" -- that offered a glance at claims asserted by the novel and how scholars have responded:

"What the Novel Says: Jesus' followers viewed him as mortal, not divine, until the year 325, when Roman Emperor Constantine convened a meeting of bishops called the Council of Nicaea. Constantine was concerned that religious divisions were threatening his power base, and he endorsed the idea that Jesus was divine as a way to unify the empire.

"What Scholars Say: Constantine did convene the Council of Nicaea in 325. But the New Testament includes references to Jesus as divine, including in the Gospel of John, which historians say was written toward the end of the 1st century. The dispute at Nicaea was primarily not over whether Jesus was divine but over how he could be both human and divine -- a debate that led to the doctrine of the Trinity."

Steven G. Vegh, who covers religion for the The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, Va., took a similar approach in two fine stories on May 14.

Although the Catholic Church and the church-affiliated Opus Dei bears the brunt of Brown's fiction, "Da Vinci" reporting also has focused on how the film is of huge interest to non-Catholic groups who also oppose it. Stephanie Simon, writing on May 11 in the Los Angeles Times, went about the story this way:

"Evangelical churches across the nation are launching an aggressive effort to save souls by talking about a fictional murder mystery that many regard as blasphemous."

Certainly, not all coverage has been noteworthy. Some newspapers have taken the tiresome "some say" approach, which often turns out like this: "Some Christians believe the 'Da Vinci Code' is blasphemy. Some others aren't so sure. Both will get to have their say when the movie opens. ..."

From a publicist's perspective, the near-saturation reporting about the movie must be a dream. It seems as if you can't find a newspaper -- or television station or online media outlet -- that hasn't had some kind of "Da Vinci" story. The movie may indeed bomb, as some critics have already speculated, but it surely won't be for lack of news coverage.