I am practicing Catholic, and I consider it my duty to defend my faith
when someone asks me about the Da Vinci Code. Why did the Register
say it would be a sin if I saw the movie?

Often times someone believes that it is his or her duty as a good Catholic to
investigate the book/movie. I agree with this position completely. As I try to
bring up in my homilies, holiness and knowledge of the faith is not just the
responsibility of priests and religious. There is a universal call to holiness
among all Christians.

To understand why the author of the Register article (a priest of the diocese
of Lincoln, but not this one) said that going to the movie would, we should
probably first look at the evil that is being put forth. I believe the major error
is the denial of the Incarnation. The book says that the early Christians
never believed that Jesus was God (that he was merely a "mortal prophet"),
and that this was an invention of the Emperor Constantine that he used to
consolidate power in the Roman empire. Well, if Jesus is not God, then our
faith is really in vain, and we have no possibility of eternal salvation. Our
whole faith is predicated on the truth that Jesus really is who he says he is.

The denial of the Incarnation is of course a heresy (and the way he
presents it, if one were to subscribe to the author's point of view, it would
probably be apostasy). The manner in which this heresy is put forth is
blasphemy. The book contends that the Church is the biggest lie in human
history and that Sacred Scriptures are not the inspired word of God, but are
the musings of a fourth century pagan Emperor. The Catechism (CCC 2148)
says that blasphemy is speech, thought or action involving contempt for God
or the Church, or the persons or things dedicated to God. Blasphemy is
directly opposed to the second commandment and is "in itself a grave sin".

If I do not believe what is being said in the movie, how is that
cooperating in evil?

Therefore, it is reasonable to say that by reading the book or seeing the
movie, we are in some way participating in this grave sin. Catholic moral
theology tells us that there are two types of cooperation with evil that
govern the secondary agent who participates in the evil of a primary agent.
Formal cooperation is where the will of the secondary agent is in agreement
with the will of the primary agent. For example a nurse who assists in an
abortion really cannot claim that she is against abortions.

The lesser type of cooperation is called material cooperation. This is where
the secondary agent at least claims to be in disagreement with the will of the
primary agent. There are two types of material cooperation: immediate and
mediate (mediate can be further divided into proximate and remote, but for
our purposes I will not address these). Immediate material cooperation is
where the secondary agent provides something essential for the immoral act
to take place. For example going back if a landlord owned the building where
abortions took place, this landlord may be opposed to abortions, but he is
providing something essential for that act to take place.

Mediate material cooperation is where the secondary agent provides some
assistance, but it is not essential for the immoral act to take place. For
example, Starbucks is a supporter of Planned Parenthood. If I buy coffee
there, then some of the profits from my coffee sale (although it be remote)
go to support Planned Parenthood. Is my coffee sale necessary for the
immoral acts of Planned Parenthood to take place? No.

Formal cooperation with evil is never permitted. Immediate material
cooperation is not permitted except in the case of duress. For example, if an
anesthesiologist were assisting at an operation of a woman who was in an
accident. During the operation the doctor sees that the woman is pregnant
and he decides to do an abortion because he thinks the pregnancy will be
too taxing on the woman's system. If the anesthesiologist leaves the
operation at that point, the woman would die, so he continues, even though
he does not agree with what the doctor is doing.

Mediate material cooperation is permitted, but under two conditions: 1) that
the good cannot be otherwise easily attained and 2) the cooperation avoids
scandal. In terms of scandal, I think that we want to be careful about this
aspect. We ourselves may not lose our faith because we see the movie, but
if someone sees our actions and says, "Well so and so is a good Catholic and
they went to see the movie. Obviously there is no big deal." Our example
could cause another to be affected negatively.

Although mediate material cooperation is permitted, we must remember that
it is never good to be in cooperation with evil. Therefore, we must see if
there is some other way for us to obtain the good. If the good we are looking
for is entertainment, I would say that there are many other ways to be
entertained. If the good we are looking for is knowledge of the movie so that
we can defend our faith, I believe that this is legitimate. However, we must
see if there is any other way to gain knowledge first, and I do believe that
there is enough written on the book to know the error that are contained
therein.

Does that mean that anyone who sees the movie is committing a
mortal sin?

No. The moral quality of an action is going to be determined by three things:
the object, the intention and the circumstances. I do not believe that the
object of this action is in itself (per se) sinful. That would mean that no one
could ever read a heretical book, even for the purpose of study. Most people
are not going to the movie with the intention of losing their faith. Therefore,
the circumstances will determine the moral quality of the action.

Remember the movie is in itself evil because it blasphemes our Lord, Holy
Mother Church, and Sacred Scripture. The question we must ask is does a
person have a need to see the movie? Most people want to go out of
curiosity, they want to experience first hand what the big deal is. If this is
the case, then we are putting ourselves in the presence of evil for no good
reason. For someone who has care of souls, the responsibility might be there
to see the movie in order to be able to warn others about the errors in the
movie. Does a high school student have this responsibility? No. There are
many good refutations of the Da Vinci Code that one could read in order to
be able to gain knowledge of the subject without having to experience the
evil for oneself. Seeing the movie should really be a "last resort". Going back
to the idea of cooperation, there is no other way to obtain the good.

What if I see the movie for free, am I still cooperating with evil?

Yes. If we are just going out of curiosity, then there is an implicit
acceptance/approval of the evil that is being committed. (N.B. Remember this
is an analogy used to help illustrate a point). Say for the sake of argument
that you are friends with one of the great serial killers of all time, say Jeffery
Dahmer. One day Jeffery confesses to you that he has a problem, that he
has a compulsion to kill people, and that he has already committed several
murders. You, instead of turning him into the police, say, "Oh, I have never
seen a murder before. The next time that you kill someone, could you call me
so that I can watch? You know, I am personally opposed to murder, but I
would like to see one so that I can tell other people how terrible it is." Now,
when the police find out and they arrest us, our defense is going to be, "You
can't arrest me, I didn't do anything. I was simply watching the evil take
place." We would be thrown in jail (and rightly so) because we are what is
called in legal terms a material cooperator or an accessory to a crime.

But don't I need to see the movie in order to defend my faith? If I
speak out against it, the first thing I will be asked is if I saw the movie."

My high school students brought up the point, "Don't I need to see the movie
first in order to be able to defend my faith? If I speak out against it, the first
thing I will be asked is if I saw the movie." In response to this I asked them,
do you believe that abortion is evil? They said yes. So then I asked, do you
know what happens in an abortion? They said yes, so I asked them to
explain. Then I asked, have you ever seen an abortion take place? They said
no. So I asked them how they knew what took place, and how they knew it
was evil since they themselves had not experienced the evil first hand. They
said that someone they trusted had told them about it. So a direct
experience of the evil is not necessary for us to be able to speak about it in
an intelligent manner.

The way that I suggested that they handle it would be in this manner. If
someone asks about it, question him or her about it. "Is it true that the book
said this?" In terms of apologetics, the only thing that needs to be
established for the discussion is that the book does say it. After that, then
one can address the issue in an intelligent manner. There are a number of
good Catholic books out there that quote from the book, so one could give
the quote and say, "this is from the book and this is why it is blasphemous."
Therefore, does one have to experience the evil firsthand to know that it is
evil? I do not believe so.

One of the things that we want to remember about evil is that it sticks to
us. To willingly put ourselves in the presence of evil is never good, and if we
find it necessary that we have to do it sometimes, we should prepare with a
great deal of prayer and fasting. The book (and I assume the movie) does
have the power to influence people negatively. The bishop was telling me
that he was in St. Louis a few months ago, and a woman came up to him and
began yelling at him saying, "Your not going to pull the wool over my eyes
anymore, I know the truth, I read the Da Vinci Code!" It may not affect us
immediately, but we do not know how the seed of doubt and dissent are
planted within our hearts. We cannot hold hands with the devil and think that
it will not affect us.

How does a "spiritually immature" person approach the Da Vinci Code?

a) It's not blasphemous.
One of the characteristics of spiritual immaturity is a lack of a sensitivity to
evil. As one matures in the spiritual life, one begins to see the true nature of
evil and how ugly it really is.

b) It's just fiction!
This is true, but fiction has been used for a long time to convey a message.
Look at George Orwell's animal farm. This is a brilliant allegory of the evils of
communism. Even though it is fiction, it is still blasphemy.

c) It won't affect me!
To willingly put ourselves in the presence of evil is very presumptuous. It
may not have an immediate impact on our lives, but it may sow the seeds for
future problems. Just as we can't really explain how when the Word of God is
preach hearts are move, we don't know how evil can influence us in later life.
If we even find ourselves say, "well, I guess that's possible." The devil has
done his work and planted the seed of doubt.

d) I must experience it first-hand to know that it is evil.
(See above examples of witnessing abortion or murder)

How does a "spiritually mature" person approach the Da Vinci Code?

a) Gratitude
Instead of attacking the person who spend a great deal of time researching
this book/movie so we don't have to, we should be grateful that they did all
of that work for us and warned us about the evil that is present therein.

b) No desire for cooperation in evil
A spiritually mature person has no desire to cooperate with evil in any form.

c) Research
A spiritually mature person does research so that he will be prepared to
answer questions on the errors that are presented in the book.

d) Lord God, are you pleased with me?
A spiritually mature person always asks the question in everything he thinks,
says or does, "Lord God, are you pleased with me?"

e) Prayer.
If the spiritually mature person does not understand something that is being
taught by the Church, he prays about it and asks for the gift of
understanding.