Dan Brown's view on the Roman Catholic Church


I was reading the well known novel “The Da Vinci Code”, written by Dan Brown, when I reached a passage where the protagonist (professor Robert Langdon) together with a friend of his, talked about the efforts made by Emperor Constantine the Great to keep his political power in the 4th century.
They tried to explain a woman the fact that Constantine could have rewritten the Bible and “divinate” Christ, together with his attempts to completely eliminate Mary Magdalene (who was supposed to have royal blood) from the Scripture.
Brown tries to encourage his opinions by bringing in one of Da Vinci’s most popular paintings, “The Last Supper”, saying that the person sitting next to Christ is a woman, and not St. John.
Langdon pretends that person to be Mary Magdalene, saying that she should have been the “rock” of the Church, and not Peter (as written in the “real scripture”).
What do you think?


The clue is in your 7th word


Dan Brown is a well-known hater of the Catholic Church.

That’s all.


@scope , there’s a link here to the top ten errors in the Da Vinci Code .



It’s fiction. Statements by fictional characters do not necessarily reflect the views of the author. Now, if you have an interview with Brown to reference, where he discusses his views on the Church, then you could discuss them.


Dan Brown hates Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular.
Ignore anything he has to say.


I read that book and found it intriguing. It all turned to dark humor when the grandpa tells the main feminine character what he and grandma had to hide for her in a pagan rite. That is when I realised that pagantry is nothing if you have to do that on an altar.
Unfortunately I shared the book with others who were “freed” from Christianity or Christian guilt.because of it.
I consider it an atheist book disguised as an “intriguing book”. The book comes with an agenda.
Those who believe that Constantine just used Christianity to unite the Roman Empire fail to answer this question - why did Constantine divide the empire between his 3 sons as a testament? Was political unity most important to him or was he just another believer?
As for royal blood, Virgin Mary actually had David’s blood following her father’s ancestry and also her fiancee St. Joseph was a descendant of David. The Jewish law permitted ancestry to be passed on through adoption (which Joseph did). It also followed the halachical law that only male blood ancestry passes a nobiliary title so all in all, follwoing the Jewish law at that time the fact that Virgin Mary was a descendant of David was irrelevant. Her fiancee’s descendance was more important because it brought right of entitlement to Jesus.
Mary Magdalene has been used and abused enough by people who concentrate more on what she used to be than to who she was by the time she died. They just use her to justify their ow unrepentant vices while she herself is a saint, cum apostolae (like the Apostles) - title given by the Church. Conspiracy ended.
God bless.


Has he actually said that? In a non-fictional setting?


It’s a book, written for entertainment.

If people want to take fiction as literal truth, or care what some author who is out to sell books actually thinks about anything, that’s their hangup, not mine.

I clicked this mostly to find out who Dan Brown was because I honestly did not recognize the name. Never read the Da Vinci Code either. Yawn


I remember when this book came out, it had a very good advertising and even at the stations in bookstores of Western European cities, this book (along with other books refuting traditional Christianity) was focused on the winds.
Looking at the covers of these books, it seemed to me that in the West, an invisible war was declared against traditional Christianity, and especially against Catholicism.


In one of Brown’s books, the character Robert Langdon is asked if he believes in God. He answers something along the line that faith hasn’t been revealed to him and he doesn’t know if it will ever be revealed to him. Again, we’re talking about a fictional character, but I thought it was an interesting comment. Who knows - perhaps Brown is searching.


Actually, accoding to Dan Brown, he is not writing just for entertainment.

" I’m trying to write books that taste like ice cream but have the nutrition of vegetables. "

Source:. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/da-vinci-code-author-dan-brown-our-planet-would-be-absolutely-fine-without-religion/

This NY Times editorial sums it up:

Read the third paragraph.


I really don’t care what Dan Brown thinks he is doing. He wouldn’t be the first author to have an exaggerated sense of his own self-importance, or to have an agent who pushes his product by making it seem more important than it is. As far as I’m concerned, his books are only good for entertainment. He will probably be totally forgotten in a century or two. If that long.


I only commented on your previous post because you had said he wrote them for entertainment, his writing intentions are more than that. Besides that I agree with what you said, except for one more point: when you say they are only good for entertainment, they are actually not good entertainment. He is a poor writer. And a horrible researcher, which a good fiction writer needs to be.


Murderous albino monks is a mildly interesting concept. Not enough to get me to read it though, and certainly not enough to get me to throw down money for such a tome of drivel.


I had a history professor in college who brought up Dan Brown’s Da Vinci code.

His thoughts were it was all bogus. No evidence whatsoever for Dan Brown’s ideas.


I remember when it came out all the secretaries at my work were reading it. I doubt any of them were actually Catholic. I’m equally sure they were the type who read whatever the “hot” book of the minute is. They probably all rushed out to buy “50 Shades of Gray” too.



Here you go :slight_smile:

“While Constantine was certainly instrumental in helping advance the cause of Christianity through the Edict of Milan he issued in A.D. 313, the emperor did not decide the canon—i.e., list of books—of Scripture. He died in 337. The canon of Scripture was decided by the Council of Rome in 382 and further affirmed by the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 387.”


I think that’s his purpose in writing them. He wants his books to be best sellers. That’s where the money is.


I was still attending a local Protestant church at the time the movie & book were popular. The claims of the book were such that the pastor had given out free copies of a book refuting the claims of The Da Vinci Code.

I think it’s fair to say that Dan Brown has a strong dislike for Christianity in general. And…as usual there are plenty of uninformed peiople with itchy ears looking for fake news to imbibe deeply of…& the sad part is that such books work counter to bringing people to the faith.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.