Father Orthoduck is as surprised as Father Ernesto, but following is a continuation on previous vampire posts.
The original Bram Stoker tale on Dracula was widely based on Roman Catholic theology. The reason Holy Water worked is because once it is blessed by a priest, it becomes a water that lives in two worlds. It is water from this world, but it has been set aside by God and is powerful for blessing and cleansing. The reason the Cross works is because it is a power-laden symbol of God’s victory over Satan. It is made of materials of this world, but is also a doorway for the power of God that won the victory over Satan. The reason the Communion host works is because it is bread of this world, but is truly the Body of Christ, Risen, and the food of eternity. Frankly, the use that Van Helsing made of the communion host in the book would be considered a mortal misuse of the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, part of the reason why Van Helsing did not call a priest may have been that a priest would have accused him of mortal sin. Nevertheless, because of the nature of the holy objects, it was irrelevant that Van Helsing was committing a mortal sin, the object worked anyway.
But, do you realize that much of “modern” vampire “theology” as found in many of the vampire chick-lit books is based on Protestant theology? None of the instruments used by Van Helsing would “automatically” work against today’s vampires. At best, what many of the books say is that either the vampire or the person wielding the holy object need to believe in it for it to be useful. Some books go farther and say that the holy objects never worked. But, the idea is put out that holding out a cross against a vampire only works if the person holding the cross fully believes in the power of the cross. In some other modern books, Father Orthoduck has read that holy objects will work against a vampire only if the vampire believes in them. Thus there are a couple of books in which older vampires are hurt by holy objects whereas newer vampires are not.
And this is strictly a very modern Calvinist modern theology. The bread and wine only become Body and Blood as we receive them in faith. For instance, the Anglican/Episcopal Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion say, “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.” Father Orthoduck has heard more than one sermon in which it is stated that if there is no faith, then there is no participation in the Body and Blood. That is, the holy object is not holy in and of itself, but is holy only insofar as the one receiving or handling the holy object believes it to be holy. There is no such thing as an “objectively” holy object.
But, here is the interesting part, though the newer vampire tales have done away with automatically powerful holy objects, they have kept the idea of automatically powerful vampires. Yes, this is also what one sees as true in much of modern American Christianity. Books are written on inner healing that talk about the power of Satan, and about the power of the demonic. Books are written on exorcism, on freeing oneself from the influence of the evil one. But, in America, many of those books are written by those from a more Anabaptist background. And so, those books never talk about things like Holy Water, the Lord’s Supper as a source of power against the enemy, of the use of home altars as a way to sanctify the house, of confession as a powerful means by which God’s forgiveness and grace break into this world in an especially powerful manner, etc., etc. Rather, many of those books are on techniques of exorcism, or techniques of resisting evil influence or of having a powerful prayer life which will enable one to declare God’s judgment on the enemy. Bible reading becomes only an adjunct that allows one to find verses that one can use against Satan or to claim health and wealth for oneself. The pastor (or priest) is viewed simply as another human being who may or may not be mentioned in the book, so irrelevant is the “priest” to the handling of matters spiritual. Growth in holiness is irrelevant, only the use of right techniques is.
Is it then so surprising that today’s books on vampires consider holy objects to be particularly useless and priests as having no power and holiness as being separate from the power to resist the demonic? They have been taught that by the very Christian culture of the United States, a culture that diminishes holy objects until they are seen as only superstitious leftovers from which we are well rid, and priests only as hirelings whose job it is to pastor you through troubles, baptize you, marry you, and bury you, and holiness as something that only fanatics strive for. Both in the case of the book Dracula and in the case of many of the modern vampire books, shows, and movies, the stories reflect the Christian culture prevalent at those times. Here is the sad part. The book Dracula reflects the truth about holy objects, but show them being misused outside the Church and without the priesthood or personal holiness. The modern stories reflect a lack of understanding about holy objects, sacraments, and the priesthood, and holiness, and thus, show the Church as totally powerless against the invasion of evil, thus vampires have a power that is essentially unstoppable unless they choose to control themselves.
Neither set of views is healthy per se, but of the two views, Van Helsing’s view is closer to what is true, even though he thoroughly misunderstood the priesthood and a lot about the Sacraments and holiness.
It’s always fascinating for me to see the differences between the theology of the various branches of Christianity. Coming from a Protestant background, some of these things never even occur to me…such as Van Helsing’s blatant misuse of the Host. As I recall, the other characters are actually appalled at the way he’s using it when they first find out about it, but quickly fall in line with his way of thinking when they see how effective it is against their foe (and in the Balderston/Deane stage version, even Dracula himself seems taken aback by Van Helsing’s use of the Host, yelling “Sacrilege!” in outrage even as he retreats from it, to which Van Helsing coolly responds that he’s taken an indulgence). And it certainly had nothing to do with the faith of its bearer in the book, or else Van Helsing’s attempt at using it to bless Mina after she had drunk of Dracula’s blood would have gone far differently.
This idea that the faith of the person holding the sacred object has become pretty pervasive in vampire fiction. The most egregious example I can think of is in Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot, in a scene in which priest Father Callahan faces down Barlow, the vampire plaguing the titular town. Barlow has just murdered a boy’s parents and is holding the boy hostage as Callahan faces him down with a crucifix, and Barlow threatens to kill the boy if the priest does not throw away his cross and face him with only his faith in God pitted against Barlow’s faith in whatever dark forces he serves (King is intentionally vague on that point). Father Callahan agrees to the deal, and Barlow releases the boy, but then the priest’s resolve wavers and he is unable to relinquish his hold on his crucifix. Without faith to back it up, the cross (which had been literally glowing with power up to this point) becomes nothing but metal, and the vampire quickly swoops in.
There really has been a gradual shift in popular culture over the years away from concepts like objective faith and concrete holy objects and more towards the idea of faith itself being the power that protects. Once again, I’m left at a loss to determine what that specifically says about our culture. But it’s really interesting to observe that these paradigms seem to shift right alongside our concept of vampires. In fact I’m beginning to suspect that vampires have become a sort of barometer of popular culture’s spiritual weather. They’re really a very powerful symbol–downright archetypal–and they seem to have a great knack for evolving to fit into many different cultural and psychological niches.
I wonder what judgment future generations will make about us based on the current crop of vampire fiction?
Father Orthoduck thinks that they will say that we were quackers (sorry could not resist the bad avian pun).
But, you have a point. We seem to have lost the concepts of concrete holy objects while preserving the concept of concrete evil objects. It is no wonder that priests always are quickly killed in modern horror movies! As to the future, that is hard to predict. If we keep going secular enough, even the idea of an objective evil may be lost. But, the pendulum may swing back towards spirituality.
One never knows how events will play out in the future! I do like your postulation that vampires might be becoming a metaphor for people struggling against sinful impulses, and I hope that’s the track they’re going down. I could get behind a symbol like that. There’s a really strong redemptive message there, though, I’ve heard some Christians lamenting that popular culture seems rife with monstrous or supernatural characters who in the old days would have been villains who are, instead, heroes. Vampires, Hellboy, and even a couple of werewolf superheroes spring to mind. Personally, I prefer to see them as representing the power of repentance, a lesson that evil doesn’t always get its way. I think that, for all the confusion and missteps that are being made in our world today, both in reality and in fiction, there are some truths that can’t be ignored, and that WILL manifest themselves, though not always in the form we expect them to. Vampire missionaries? God’s worked in stranger ways…