JPII vs. Ideology

I intend to devote a post entirely to JPII and Leo XIII, but a general rebuke of ideology in the name of Catholic Christianity is in order via the works of these men, as well as Maciej Zieba's commentary on "Centesimus Annus". The basic premise of my argument is that ideology distorts reality by using persons as means and not recognizing them as ends. This can occur in socialism, capitalism, and nearly every other system, including an ecclesial system, whereby that which is not personal reality, namely ideas and materials, replaces personal reality.

When I use the phrase "personal reality", I am referring to the Catholic Christian understanding that persons are ends in themselves, that is, the only creature, man, whom God created for its own sake (CCC #356). Persons are not ideas or materials for utilization. They can freely cooperate in a given system, as in free market capitalism, and freely respond in faith to God, but they are not systems in themselves to be coerced into action or strictly used for production. Despite the speculative accuracy of Meyers Briggs testing, a person is not a machine to be relied on for utilization in a given specialization. In theory, persons are free and largely unpredictable.

That said, systems are necessary for upholding the common good of persons: economically, socially, and so on. Were there not an agreed upon economic approach for upholding the common good of man, entropy would reign. Capitalism, for example, is the most successful system of economic exchange available to man to date, because all of the others distort the freedom of persons and personal reality. Nevertheless, Capitalism does have its shortcomings, and as an ideology, can prove to severly distort the worldview of its adherents. Likewise, as with any other system--including ecclesial--when taken as ideology can severely distort the worldview of its adherents.

In "Centesimus Annus", JPII argues that Catholic Christianity is not an ideology. In his work "Letter from Poland:Faith is not Ideology", Maciej Zieba O.P. makes constant reference to "Centesimus Annus" and outlines this list of Ideology's red-flags:
(1) it contains a conception of truth and goodness

(2) its followers believe that they are free to impose their conception upon others

(3) it expresses the whole of reality in a simple and rigid scheme.

He then follows the list with a concise rebuttal:

The Pope maintains that Christian truth does not fulfill the second and third conditions, and so Catholicism is not an ideology.(http://www.crisismagazine.com/1994/letter-from-poland)

I would simply add to his rebuttal, that ideologies do not recognize the person as a subject; merely as an object. With this in mind, ideology can therefore operate in opposition to personal freedom in the name of well-intentioned ideas.

Capitalism is a perfect example of this abuse, especially when it operates without reference to morality. The buying and selling of marijuana in some States in America, along with pornography and the business of "gentleman's clubs", constitutes a grave abuse of capitalistic ideology. In these cases, buyers are drawn into behavoirs that inhibit their freedom as persons and sellers are either using themselves, or their "people", as materials for use.

Yet, such ideology is excused as 'freedom' because it employs the willingess of its buyers and sellers to invest in it. On the contrary, the abuse of 'freedom', namely, the guaranteed loss of right reason with marijuana and the use of persons in the adult business, outweighs the ideological excuse. I want to make clear that personal freedom depends upon objective truth and goodness. In other words, the fact that a person is free does not enable him to do whatever he want to enslave himself. Or, in the case of an embryo or fetus, no action by another free person in the name of 'freedom' against the person as embryo/fetus is justifiable (Please see www.personhood.net for more info).

Another example of an impersonal ideology is socialism. Thanks to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical letter "Quod Apostolici Muneris", we have the following identification of socialists:

1) opposed to private property

2) against marriage between one man and one woman

3) advocate unconditional equality

As familiar as #'s 2 and 3 sound to the state of our world at present, #1 is really the most controversial in regard to Biblical Christianity. Indeed, many Christians themselves will site Acts Chapter 2 as justification for socialism/communism. But the sharing of common materials among persons in covenant, as the early Church did, is not the same as opposition to private property. Nor would one argue that a husband and wife and their family are communists because they share living space and other materials. Marriage between husband and wife is a reality that socialists are staunchly against! Why? Because the marriage covenant, as with religious congregations, interferes with the ideology that no one should have private property or take a subordinate position to another (as in the case with parents and children, etc.).

Conscious subordination of persons for the good of the whole of a family or congregation is opposed to entropy and in accord with right reason. It is not ideology to make decisions for the common good of persons. As I said before, some systems are necessary to insure people's well-being.

The crux of this matter, namely, between the common good of people and individual's personal well-being is where the Church has the most trouble with ideology. Orthodoxy is objectively good, so long as it is not used by Church members deliberately against the good-will of individual persons. What I mean by that is far more delicate a subject than with capitalism, because the economy of salvation is all the more valuable. Nevertheless, prosetylization or coercion of any sort at the expense of persons is unjust and ideological. Historical examples I can think of are the Spanish Inquisition, and forced baptisms of non-Christians. These are actions divorced from the recognition of persons, and stand in stark contrast to the familial subordination of persons I mentioned earlier. While the forced baptism of a non-Christian is an objectively and ideologically good idea, it does not respect the underlying covenant of persons involved: including the Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Infant baptism does not fall under this category because a baptized infant will later have the chance to accept or reject the faith at Confirmation (although the decision is not limited to this Sacrament by time and place).

The Anabaptists, those against infant baptism, take the ideological stance that infants are incapable of receiving salvation at baptism. Therefore, they replace the Sacrament of Confirmation with Baptism later in life, as though baptism did not bring about an ontological change in the person, but was merely based on decision. The Amish in particular, will require their candidates for baptism to spend time away from their tight-knit community in order that they may make an informed decision to join or not to join the group by baptism. Rather than being an offense against the subjectivity of the person in this case, the Anabaptists place too much emphasis on the individual person and not enough on the objective and ontological truths of salvation that accompany baptism. Again, with Catholicism we have a both/and situation against ideology, whereas Anabaptists maintain an either/or approach. (Please see my previous post on Objective and Subjective Solipsism for more information).

Overall, I have laid out an argument that can utlimately be summed up in the differentiation between ideas and persons. The Catholic Church is not a mere framework of ideas, but the living body of her Head, the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus. Unfortunately, many people experience faith as ideology. In reality, the encounter with the Person of Jesus should define a Catholic Christian, and the following of the Lord's commandments should necessarily follow his Person.

JPII and/vs Feminism

In 1949, Simone De Beauvoir wrote The Second Sex as an early argument for pre and post-war feminism, largely influenced by existentialism. It pre-dates Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique (1963) by about 14 years, and was published in French. The two works together form the catalyst for the worst of feminism today. As for the best of feminism, I specifically have in mind Wojtyla's understanding of female saints of his day, as contemporaries of De Beauvoir, emobodying "feminine genius" and not "feminine mystique"!

Some background on Simone De Beauvoir (special thanks to TMIY, http://www.slideshare.net/PDEI/light-to-the-nations-week-10?from_search=4):

1) Born and raised in Paris, France

2) After WWI, her family underwent financial crisis and she attended a local convent for her education

3) She became an atheist at age 15

4) At about age 20, she began a lifelong friendship with Jean-Paul Sartre and claimed him, Hegel, and Leibniz as her main philosophical influences

A key concept to Sartre's philosophy included: woman "being-in-itself", and man "being-for-itself". In other words, men were geared for 'freedom', and women were merely geared for 'commitment'. De Beauvoir's Second Sex aimed at destroying women's dependence on 'commitment' by divorcing women's maternal dimension from their social/'professional' lives. She is said to have taken these practical steps to bring such a change about:

1) Insistence that girls be raised without dolls, houses, and traditionally 'feminine' things

2) Discouragement of women to stay home and raise children

3) Encouragement of young women to strive for professional success at all costs

4) Wrote and signed French women's "Manifesto of the 343", numbering in the millions of women, who had had an abortion for the sake of advancing career and demanded free birth control

Compared with the Magna-Carta-like scale of Second Sex, Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique was a simple amendment for the cause of feminism. But it's timing was much more effective, as the second generation of women since the War were more susceptible to revolution in the 1960s, especially in regard to sex. Worldwide, women's mindsets altered drastically from interdependent to independent, thanks to the work of De Beauvoir and Friedan. Colleges and Universities began offering "Women's Studies" programs with more depth added to radical feminism by diversity of class and race. Within two decades, the 'normal' understanding of women's roles and biology had morphed entirely into an obscure indecipherability from that of men. Androgyny had become the socially constructed norm, as the outdated heteronormative view was only permitted for select Arab, Indian, and Israeli peoples.

What began as Sartre's differentiations between men and women (freedom and commitment), ended with just freedom/'being-for-itself'. This is the state of things today in most countries, namely, a lack of identity in the most fundamental sense of male and femaleness. Such is the case with the global push for same sex marriages, a kind of 180 degree turn from less than a century prior. {I do not want to be misunderstood here to mean that same sex attraction is a result of 20th century philosophy. That would be folly. What I mean is that from a modern philosophical and legal standpoint, there is little reason left to uphold the view of marriage between one man and one woman)

What were some of the outide socioeconomic pressures in Europe during the world wars? In other words, what may have been contributing factors to such outlandish philosophies of the last century?
Death Toll
A) European casualties in WWI= 15,893,629 enrolled men(http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html) Note: does not include Great Britain or Russia. France's total casualties (alone) of enrolled men=6,160,800
B) European casualties in WWII= 5,217,700 enrolled men (http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/) Note: ibid^

Civil Service/Employment
C) Many women were forced to enter the workforce by governments during wars

D) On account of so many male deaths, women needed to support themselves

E) Higher education determined higher salary, etc.

I am not so naive as to think that the 20th century was not traumatic for women on both a macro and a microscopic level. And that even some of those who held to the age-old understanding of the human person grew desparate and disillusioned by war, hatred, and the overall problem of evil. My post is not intended to condemn feminism or its founders, misguided though they may have been. I very much hope that the guinea pigs of the movement (men and women both) have run their course and will teach future generations what not to do. But again, I am not so naive, and I estimate that at least another generation is gearing up to implement the philosophies of its founders.

Proof of my estimation is largely found in legislation. De Beauvoir's "Manifesto of 343" has been internationally legal in various forms for nearly half a century (Roe v Wade, etc.). Likewise, same sex marriage was just legalized in France this past year (2013). Unfortunately, legislation tends to outlive generations.

But where documents like that of Friedan and De Beauvoir thrive, so do that of great minds like Von Hildebrand, Wojtyla, Lewis, and others! I want to draw attention, particularly, to John Paul II's "Mulieris Dignitatem" as the medicene for the wounds inflicted by De Beauvoir. Otherwise, De Beauvoir's work communicates that womanhood in itself is undignified, which is fallacious. The woman as a human person, in reality, is central to the history of salvation and cannot, therefore, be replaced by androgyny. Nor can she be replaced by women trying to embody the worst vices of men, like Sartre, whom JPII seems to be directly addressing in his letter:

In the name of liberation from male 'domination', women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine 'originality'. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not 'reach fulfilment', but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. ("Mulieris Dignitatem", #10)

The limitation placed on man and woman by Sartre and De Beauvoir's philosophy finds a direct contrast in the thought of Wojtyla. Where the former limit man to 'freedom', Wojtyla calls man to 'responsibility'. Likewise, where they limit woman to 'commitment', Wojtyla affirms woman as 'gift'. These are not mutually exclusive terms either, since Wojtyla perfects the original terms with their logical conclusions.

In "Mulieris Dignitatem", John Paul II also presents the unsaid conclusion to De Beauvoir's feminist program, namely, 'dominance'. Since De Beauvoir understood man's freedom to be 'dominating' of women, she wanted to empower women to do the same. Ironically, neither sex benefits from dominance, but rather, 'service' remains the key to reigning with dignity ('to serve is to reign'). In the end, 'dominance' only robs women of their fundamental right to reign in a specific sphere of humanity: maternity.

Thus, we have the basic principles from JPII in place for refuting De Beauvoir and Friedan's feminism, but how are they practically lived in today's world? A world where men's and women's occupations and professions are nearly interchangeable, where family's are redefined, and where confusion remains as to what the authentic expression of sexual identity is.

Again, JPII offers a simple, but forgotten, answer. For women, the self-giving service of maternity is not optional. Whether married or celibate, a woman can and must realize her maternal vocation and identity. Divorcing her body from her career, refusing to serve in her home, rejecting the Intelligent Design of her person by the Creator are all decisions for 'dominance' and not for 'gift'.

Visibly and daily, marriage between a man and a woman presents an obvious portrait of such service. Children are an excellent reminder of women's cooperation in the history of salvation, as a type of memorial of the Incarnation to which Mary addressed her 'fiat'. Indeed, without Mary's cooperation, the Incarnation would have been thwarted.

To expand on how unmarried or purposely celibate women live authentically, again, maternity is non-negotiable, although its expression is different from marriage. The authentic expression can be applied to the workplace for women in the secular world (though persecuted), as much as it can be applied to a convent or abbey. For a hypothetical example, the widowed queen of France can either choose to 'dominate' or 'serve' the common good by approving or disapproving of unethical legislation, and behaving in a way that befits her office as a high-profile woman who influences others.

Likewise for a nun, the opportunity for 'dominance' is just as accessible as 'service'. In my opinion, we have seen a majority of the LCWR display the incorrect expression of their femininity since the sexual revolution. The alternative are nuns who exercise their maternal authority in obedience, respect, and conformity to the example of the Theotokos.

The final question I want to ask is, would JPII have come to the conclusions he did without the bad examples of De Beauvoir, Sartre and others? In other words, is "Mulieris Dignitatem" just a conservative reaction to the feminist movement gone out of control? I would argue that that is not the case. Instead, I believe that Wojtyla's understanding of the human person is inspired by God first, and is seen to have always been lived out in the Church. As much as De Beauvoir was a contemporary of Wojtyla, so was Mother Theresa of Calcutta, St. Faustina, and St. Mrs. Gianna Beretta Molla.

The Church has always and will always hold the keys to authentic masculintity and feminity, because she(the Church) was founded by the One God in three Persons who said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness...male and female".

JPII and Cardinal Avery Dulles

The first time I encountered Avery Cardinal Dulles was at a Borromean lecture in Columbus, Ohio. There, I was operating lights for the stage on which he was delivering his address regarding the Church's response to terrorism. I only remember two things:
1) I fell asleep on the control panel for the lights, causing them to flash wildly during his presentation
2) When I woke up and fixed the problem, it was time for questions to be asked of the Cardinal. Someone asked him if the Boston Tea Party was the first act of terrorism, and if so, why should America be fighting against it! He replied with, "My lecture topic was the Church's response to terrorism, not 'America's' response".

After the fact, my impression of Cardinal Dulles was of straightforward brilliance. He is arguably ranked with the most Christ-centered Jesuits of the past century (though I wasn't interested in that qualification at the time of hearing him): Fr. Pacwa, Pope Francis, Fr Robert Spitzer, etc. But what sets him apart from even these priests was his pastoral wisdom for ecclesial matters, his simple articulation of defending the magisterium and pope, and lastly, his attention to details of Christian truth.

He was elevated to Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2001. This after having served in the Navy during WWII and earning the Croix de Guerre medal as a lieutenant. Following the war, he joined the society of Jesus in 1946 (mirroring Karol Wojtyla's same year of ordination). Indeed the two men paralelled each other in a few ways, most notably their 'man of war'-like approach to defending Christ's Church and especially Vatican Council II.

A few more obscure facts about Dulles:
1) First American to be named a Cardinal based on theological works
2) suffered from polio since WWII

Again, like Wojtyla's later years, Avery Dulles knew the suffering of a debilitating disease. During WWII he contracted polio, and had boughts with the illness for the rest of his days. He did outlive Wojtyla by five years (Dulles: 1918-2008, Wojtyla: 1920-2005).

The two men helped to define for very different generations, what it meant to participate wholeheartedly in the life of the Church. I am referring specifically to the pre-conciliar generation and the post-conciliar generation. To each respective generation, both Dulles and Wojtyla defied the "laws" of liberal/conservative ideology. Instead, they insisted on the presence and Person of Jesus as essential to any approach to theological thinking. Unfortunately for me at the age of 17 (January of 2003), the presence and Person of Jesus in Cardinal Dulles' lecture only had a hypnotic effect. But looking back today, I can see more clearly.

Overall, it would be hard to argue with the witness of heroic virtue of Avery Cardinal Dulles. Here are some more examples in regard to his strong faith (see also JPII and Jesuit Reform from an earlier post):
1) He was the son of a Presbyterian pastor, and converted to Catholicism as an adult (1939) with his family's disapproval
2) He joined an order that was informally opposed to his own formal and informal conclusions about the Church.

I would even venture to say that Dulles outdid Wojtyla on a number of levels:
1) longer life with illness
2) more ideological enemies
3) lived through and served in WWII

Nevertheless, Cardinal Dulles did not almost single-handedly bring down the iron-curtain! Close, but not quite.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, ora pro nobis!

Short List of his works available in pdf online (please add to it if necessary)
1) "Filioque": What is at stake?
2) "Models of Catechesis"
3) America Magazine
4) Firstthings: Particularly, Dulles' teaching on Covenant http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-covenant-with-israel

JPII and TMIY

A Catholic ministry that I have come to greatly respect comes to us out of the Lone Star State from a former energy derivatives trader, Steve Bollman. In the great jubilee year of 2000, he heard a call from God to found "Paradisus Dei", a lay ministry that serves as an umbrella organization for the program I am involved in, "That Man is You". It integrates faith and reason by incorporating the authentic teaching tradition of the Church with science and statistics. Blessed John Paul II, Pope Leo XIII, St. John Chrysostom, St. Iranaeus and many others are regularly referred to when considering male leadership in four distinct roles: morality, spiritual combat, economic stability, and political integrity. Far from being a strictly American or Texan approach to faith, Steve Bollman gets at the heart of the Universal Church by identifying Christ as the standard of virtue and perfection throughout history, including the Old Covenant pre-figurement of Christ in David, God's anointed king.

The first year of the program encourages husbands and fathers to become "men after God's own heart". David himself received this description, even with tremendous responsibility and temptation. He did, in fact, sin grievously--only to repent of his wrongdoing and accept the consequences of his actions. Therefore, besides the four leadership roles listed above, TMIY identifies five leadership traits to accompany the roles:

1)personal responsibility for one's actions
2)develop clarity of thought
3)maintain integrity of action
4)lay a foundation for the future
5)pay the necessary price

Reinforced by the writings of saints and church fathers (see above) as well as statistics and science necessitating the need for contemporary improvement, the program gives men a chance to hear God's continuous call on their lives and consequently discuss appropriate responses in small groups afterward.

Year two, my current course, is entitled, "Light to the Nations" and focuses in on the family. It draws from JPII's writings on the family as "placed at the heart of the great struggle between good and evil, between life and death and between love and all that is opposed to love” (Pope John Paul II, Letter to Families, #23). Likewise, he called the family the "domestic church" and the "nucleus through which passes all of human history". The timing of this course could not be better for me, as I begin raising my son at the start of my second year of marriage! Indeed, TMIY is timely for many parishes throughout the United States and is recently expanding to pilgrimages in France and Italy.

Speaking of Europe, Steve Bollman does not neglect the effects of 19th & 20th century philosophy on modern thinking. Readily accessible in JPII's Theology of the Body, Steve identifies Freud, Nietzsche, and Marx as the three european architects of the "culture of death" and masters of suspicion. Their influence still plagues the legislation, prejudices, and ideologies of western thought today. In direct contrast to such ideologies, JPII calls for a "civilization of love", the most basic unit of which is the family.

Inarguably, the family is the battleground for either succumbing to the "culture of death" or truly embodying the "domestic church". TMIY's emphasis on male leadership (particularly that of a 'father who is rich in mercy') is much needed throughout the Church to bring about authentic images of Trinitarian communion in marriage and family life. Thankfully, Steve himself and Blessed John Paul II serve/served as excellent examples of 'fathers who are rich in mercy'.

JPII vs. the Da Vinci Code

As promised, the follow up to mentioning Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code in the light of Blessed John Paul II is here! With full awareness that Brown's work deserves no refutation on account of its sheer errancy, I am compelled to refute it anyway because of the damage it has done to the faith of loved ones. Not to mention its popularity at the time of its publication, topping the Bible, proves that it must be dealt with, since it was not dealt with in my parish or education. As always, JPII's writings come in very handy, as does the general understanding of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church.

That said, I will outline the two main errors with Brown's magnum opus and the popular evidence in support of his claims:

1) He claims the grail legend points to Mary Magdalene as the grail (Holy Blood and Holy Grail, Messianic Legacy, Da Vinci's "Last Supper")

2) Jesus was not a celibate rabbi (Last Temptation of Christ, Freemasonry, From Ritual to Romance, The Golden Bough)

Since JPII has not published directly against Brown's publication, what he does have at my disposal for refutation of the above are the following:

1) General Audience of December 11, 1991 "Jesus as Bridegroom"

2) General Audience of July 17, 1993 "Apostolic Celibacy"

The questions worth asking are: Did Jesus die and rise at all? Since he did, was it because he was a political leader with a family or the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world? Has the Church been proclaiming truth about Jesus' celibacy for two millenia, or just controlling the paternity and Apostolic Succession of the Church? Was Jesus more like the Son of God, or just a son of David? Who was the beloved disciple of Jesus, is he the same as who the Bible says he was, namely, John?

I think that for most uncatechized Catholics, these are questions that cannot be answered by the Da Vinci Code alone. In other words, like Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor in its own day, Da Vinci Code will more or less strangle the seed of faith in any average parishioner. Why is that? And is JPII partially to blame for not seeing this attack on the faith? Based on his writings, as I said with the abuse crisis in an earlier post, he informed the faithful of "the one thing necessary" on a weekly basis! His catechesis was specifically geared toward a clearer understanding of sexuality in light of the Gospel of life, both celibacy and marriage alike.

Why such confusion? For one thing, the internet has made information, both accurate and inaccurate, readily accessible. For every one valid document, there may be a handful of "tabloid"-type documents. The Da Vinci Code is exactly that, with the headline reading "Jesus' Secret History Discovered!" or "The Search for the Holy Grail Found in Mary Magdalene!". After all, what has more shock value nowadays: traditional logic and eye-witness testimony, or outrageous hearsay?!

Further proof of Jesus' celibacy can be verifed by his cousin John the Baptist, as recorded by JPII, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews), and the Gospels:

1) He wore camel's hair, lived in the desert, and ate locusts

2) He was a celibate jew, trained by the Essenes(also celibate)

3) He took a nazirite vow(no shaving, strong drink or contact with death)
4) He identified Jesus as the "Lamb of God who takes away sins"

The life of John the Baptist fills in a few unspoken facts about Jesus' celibacy, explaining the heart of the question brought up by Brown's book:

*Although rare and very unpopular, Jesus was not the only celibate jew (Jeremiah, Daniel, and John were too according to Scripture)

As JPII's General Audience of 12/11/91 reiterates, John the Baptist played a very crucial role in announcing Jesus as "Bridegroom" and "Lamb of God". St. John the Baptist says in Jn. 3:29-30:

I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease (RSV)

Needless to say, the "bride" John the Baptist is referring to is not Mary Magdalene. Jesus calls himself the "Bridegroom" in Mt 9:15 in direct connection with the messiah of Israel, whom John the Baptist says he himself is not. Therefore, since the disciples of John the Baptist thought that perhaps he was the messiah--or bridegroom-- of Israel and he insisted on Jesus instead, then Jesus is precisely the Bridegroom of Israel and not of any isolated woman. In other words, Jesus is the Bridegroom of Israel/Church/People of God/Ekklesia!

As simple as what the above concludes to be true, the Da Vinci Code concludes otherwise and with a lot more esoteric and convoluted information. On a certain level, it does require faith to see Jesus as the messiah and Bridegroom. After all, many of his contemporaries missed the boat. But reason can also help us to realize that JPII, the Bible, and Church Tradition are more reliable than Dan Brown's 'shock value' references.

In fact, in the person of the Pope--the Vicar of Christ--we have a celibate man intent on following the life of Jesus in all of its authenticity. What authenticity does Dan Brown's life follow--Robert Langdon, a fictional symbologist of Harvard?

Two final points to clear up speculation on Brown's "anti-thesis": Jesus' own words on celibacy, and the legend of the grail in classic literature.

The first of the two points needs no explanation, the Scriptural account in Matthew's Gospel speaks for itself:

10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." 11 But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Mt. 19, RSV)

The second of the two points concerns a pair of long-held interpretations of the grail legend besides that of the conspiracy theorists, namely, the authors of Holy Blood... and Da Vinci Code. The pair hinges on Joseph of Arimathea and St Lawrence the Martyr. The BBC has this to say about Joseph:

The legend states that Joseph of Arimathea became a missionary after the death of Jesus and was eventually sent to England to preach the Gospel. He took with him the Holy Grail, and his pilgrim's staff...After landing in England he made his way to Glastonbury. When he stuck his pilgrim's staff in the ground at Wearyall Hill it overnight turned into a flowering thorn tree...In time Joseph converted thousands to Christianity, including, it is said, 18,000 in a single day at the town of Wells. He also converted Ethelbert, the local king...Joseph went on to found Glastonbury Abbey...He became so well-known and admired that when he died at the age of 86, his body was carried by six kings in the funeral procession (http://www.bbc.co.uk/thepassion/articles/joseph_of_arimathea.shtml).

It also says this about his presence in Sacred Scripture:

The story of Joseph of Arimathea is told in all four gospels. Joseph was a wealthy man who came from Arimathea in Judea. He was a good and righteous man who managed to be both a member of the Council (the Sanhedrin) and a secret supporter of Jesus - which is why he did not join in the Council's actions against Jesus. After the death of Jesus, Joseph asked Pilate for permission to take Jesus' body and bury it properly. Permission was granted and the body was taken down. Joseph, helped by Nicodemus, wrapped the body in cloth with the addition of myrrh and aloes. They buried Jesus in an unused tomb that Joseph may have intended for himself, where it was protected by a heavy stone rolled against the opening (ibid).

Now, if anyone would agree with conspiracy theories on the holy grail, the BBC would! Yet, they give an honest account of his life from the perspective of British legend--since, the grail itself was the source of the quests of Arthurian legend. The Oldest work of literature in line with the BBC's references are Joseph d'Arimathie (c. 1190 AD), an epic poem by Robert de Boron detailing the history of the grail. The decendants of Joseph of Arimathea, not Jesus, guarded the holy grail and were known as Fisher kings. Within the last 100 years, C.S. Lewis re-introduced the title "Fisher king" with his Arthurian fantasy, That Hideous Strength.

But as I said, the grail legend is not limited to England, as the stone chalice used at the last supper now resides in Spain (see agate picture above), and was believed to have been taken there by St. Lawrence the Martyr from Rome. Here is some evidence that the chalice is authentic:

Antonio Beltrán, professor of archaeology at the University of Zaragoza, noted that the cup is formed by a deep red agate, called "Oriental carnelian," with streaks in the form of flames. By its material he asserts that it must come from a workshop in Palestine, Syria or Egypt between the fourth century B.C. and the first century A.D... Jorge Manuel Rodríguez, president of the Spanish Center for Sindonology, explained that although films have always shown "a wooden Holy Grail, […] that material did not comply with the norms of purification of the Jews."
(http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/scholars-on-holy-grail)

and specifically about St. Lawrence:

José Vicente Martínez, professor of ancient history at the University of Valencia, and American researcher Janice Bennet, doctor in Spanish literature both spoke about Pope Sixtus II: martyred in Rome during Valerian’s persecution, entrusted the Holy Grail to Deacon Lawrence to protect it from the emperor. A manuscript by St. Donatus told of this event, said Bennet, as well as the fact that Lawrence was a native of Valencia (ibid).

Notice then, that accounts of the grail in both England and Spain have no mention of Mary Magdalene. Instead, the common thread to grail legend is the very body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ and the unworthiness of all who seek it! It points toward the institution of the Eucharist at the last supper when Jesus made a new covenant between God and his undeserving people. Sister Madeleine Grace C.V.I says the following:

The saga of the holy grail has been told and retold in various cultures and languages for hundreds of years. The appeal of the quest is universal because it expresses at its deepest level our human desire for union with God. The grail itself has been depicted in a variety of ways, including a chalice or a ciborium with the consecrated host inside. The home of the grail is in the unexplored area of the soul. In variations of the story, it is seen as a temple or castle, in a remote and mysterious place. Ultimately, the grail is identified with the words of Paul, "I live no longer, Christ lives in me." The search for the grail becomes the awareness of Christ abiding within, and this presence is seen most readily in a reception of the Eucharist(http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=982)

As with all relics, including the most recent vials of Wojtyla's blood, the intention of preserving them is to draw devotees closer to Jesus' humanity and divinity. The Da Vinci Code falsely draws readers to a portrayal of Jesus' humanity that is inconsistent with history, the saints, and legends.
Who knows, maybe someday a tabloidist will invent some stories about Karol Wojtyla that are inconsistent with his biographical records. In the face of so much written, visual, and eye-witness evidence (no different from Jesus!), the truth behind the slavic Pope will be preserved until the Second Coming.

For more information on the Valencia grail:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=4287 http://www.marypages.com/HolyGrail.htm as 2nd class relic of the holy grail given by Joseph of Arimathea
http://holygrailinvalencia.blogspot.com/