Here's an article on Christianity Today.com about her take on what we need to do in response to the Da Vinci Code.
A little snip here:
And here's another thing that troubles me about the "opportunity for dialogue" stance. The debate is all on hell's terms. I am somebody who reads about exorcisms. I don't know why. I just do. And one of the first rules of exorcism is that you never answer the Devil's questions. You don't debate the Devil. You do not give evil the authority to question God.
DVC represents a debate in which the questions start with Satan's presumptions. I find it beyond naive to convince myself that the folks who are lapping up DVC are on a "search for truth." They're not. They are on a crusade to validate their own rejection of the authority of Christ and the Church.
And a little more from her, quoting Mark Shea:
I thought of this when I read a recent DVC rant from Mark Shea, who wrote that "the most maddening thing about this book is the thought of somebody losing their faith over this—this!—stupid piece of dimestore erudition. If you are going to risk your eternal soul, it should at least be over something noble and romantic and big. If you are bound to damn yourself, then at least let it be over a torrid and star-crossed love affair, or out of tragic hubris that sought to know What Man Was Not Meant to Know .… But to lose your soul over this cartoonish, illiterate, dishonest piece of hack drivel?"
To which I say, AMEN.