Several people have asked what I think of Anne Rice unfriending the Church on Facebook.
I can’t say I’m too surprised. She’s always made it clear that she didn’t really grok Jesus’ own teaching about his intimate union with the body of Christ. The entire understanding of Paul, the New Testament, and the Church following these about the relationship of Christ the head and his body is summed up in Jesus’ words to Saul of Tarsus. They are not “Why are you persecuting my disciples?” They are “Why you persecuting me?” All of Paul’s subsequent writing about the nature of the Church consists of a life long labor of unpacking that statement (of which Ephesians is the highest expression).
All of this is invisible to Rice. She treats Jesus as her own private boyfriend and the Church as a bothersome collection of riffraff punctuated by an elite of chosen souls who agree with her. Now, to be sure, fellow Christians can be annoying as hell. They can stab you in the back, live lives of exasperating mediocrity, and even be miserable SOBs that you are rightly uncomfortable sitting next to and would not want your daughter around. They can be small-minded, vindictive, dumb and just plain evil.
But so what? The kingdom of heaven is like a great net that catches the good fish and the bad. It’s like field filled with wheat and tares. And besides, who says you are such hot stuff? Anne Rice was not saved because she graciously permitted Jesus into her life. None of us are. We are all sinners in need of redemption—all in the same boat (and the boat is leaking). The great Catholic proposition is “You can pick your friends, but you are stuck with your family.” Rice reeled off a list of gripes against the Church, most of which are empty. Somehow the Church is “anti-life”. Huh? Anti-science? Wha? Some of it was political tribalism. But I think the emotional core of the diatribe was her complaint that the Church was anti-gay. Her son is gay. I think that’s what’s driving this. It’s a pity that she seems to be unaware of what the Church actually teaches about homosexuality. But in our culture most people “know” what they “know” from whatever they pick up on TV.
At any rate, Carl Olson, I thought, analyzed the basic problem pretty well when he posted a quote from St. Thomas on the difference between what the Church understand the virtue of Faith to be and what often passes for faith in ordinary human parlance:
I answer that, Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
The reason of this is that the species of every habit depends on the formal aspect of the object, without which the species of the habit cannot remain. Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.
This phenomenon of a sort of human faith that somehow remains closed to grace can be seen, for instance, in John 8 (which I discuss in great detail here). What’s striking about the conversation is that Jesus is addressing “the Jews who had believed in him” when he warns them that they are of their father, the devil. Why the harsh language? Because this is catechesis about the reality of original sin and their radical need for a savior. They are approaching Jesus as peers, curious onlookers, integrated Adult Personalities who Have it Together and who think that Jesus may be an interesting addition to their circle of self-admiration. He shocks them by informing them that they are slaves to radical evil and that they need salvation, not affirmation in their okayness. By the end of the conversation, they are cursing him as demon-possessed and trying to murder him, which rather proves his point. Rice wants Jesus, but on her terms. Not for her is Jesus’ identification with all those tacky people she dislikes. Not for her is Jesus’ word to the Church: “He who listens to you listens to me”.
I hope one of the things we learn from this sad but not unpredictable train wreck is to break the habit of thrusting new converts into the spotlight the moment they announce they are Catholic. God, in his wisdom, took his greatest convert, Saul of Tarsus, and sent him up to Antioch for years and years to just learn the ropes, undertake basic catechisis, learn to be a servant, and learn to master his pride. It was only after this that Paul the apostle was sent on his mission. Not surprisingly, he wrote years later that while it’s great to aspire to be a bishop, still a bishop “must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim 3:6-7). Much the same thing can be said for the peculiar age we live in, which allows lay loudmouths like yours truly to sound off, as though God somehow entrusted us with the office of bishop. This is why I warn strenously against anointing any fave rave media hero as an alternative magisterium to the Church.
Comments
Post a Comment
I’m left remembering the implosion of Gerald Augustinus’ blog ‘The Cafeteria Is Closed’. Recent convert, check. Outspokenly ardent, check. Popular, check. Eventual split with Church over Human Sexuality, check.
” I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown.” - Rev 3:11
Why worry about Rice ? She has never been a catholic as she never believed in the teachings of Jesus or His Church. She wants to keep Jeus as her doll on the shelf and wants to say that she believes in Jesus Is it not madness,fun and foolishness? Let us not worry about people who do not care for Jesus’s teachings but claim to be followers of Jesus.Let us spend few minutes for prayer for such people’s repentance and return
I just loved the comments made about her over at ABC.com which related her ‘large collection of Bibles and statues” as proof of her committed Catholicism. Had I known it was that easy, I would have stocked up on my own plaster and paper and not spent so much time trying to break down my own ideas and selfishness and replace them with Christ’s thoughts and actions.
Rachael… Funny! If that’s our only necessity to be a good Catholic, I can finally rest at ease! I’ve got dozens of each! :)
I pray for Anne Rice. Her and my Catholic upbringing are so similar. I love her for that. What I do not understand is this: No Church teaching has changed from the time of her recent return to the Church to her more recent rejection of the Church. She cannot claim that a major shift in policy or teaching has occurred between those two events. It seems something else going on in her thought process. Pray for her enlightenment. She has much to give the world.
Raymond, rightly pointed out that no Church teaching has changed between her conversion and her rejection of the Church. That is not what is going on though. She was in the “honeymoon phase” just after her conversion. Now, months later (maybe a few years), she is beginning to see things that she doesn’t like about her spouse, and so has decided to divorce rather than to humble herself to try to see things from her spouse’s perspective or really understand her spouse. I’ll pray that her heart be softened, prepared to accept in all humility the WHOLE Truth, and not just the “truth” that she wants to accept.
I don’t think we are informed from television. We don’t have a television.
I read this blog thinking that I really agreed with it. But now I have this feeling that you are doing what Rice is running away from in the Church.
It isn’t anything that you’ve written, it is all very true and thoughtful.
But it is the attitude—especially in the comments, like “Oh that Anne Rice never really converted, she was just playing with her Bibles and statues.”
Does anyone here know how hard it is to convert to this Church?! Do you know how difficult it is to be constantly judged as not Catholic enough by your fellow parishioners?
And lastly, if the Church is to ever become strong, we need converts. Converts will save the Church.
Superficial judgments and dismissing others won’t.
Mark Shea, I’m wondering if you actually tried to contact Anne Rice? Or are you merely forming your opinion of her based on what you have seen on T.V.?
As a matter of fact, being a convert, I DO know, Mary. And I agree fully with Amy. She liked the IDEA of being a Catholic more than actually being one. The way I see it, she wants to jump back on the Vampire bandwagon that our nation seems to have plunged itself into, and from which in the past she has profitted much. My guess is her TRUE god is the almighty dollar and making such an unnecessarily theatic display in her break recently is nothing more than to help her generate sales of her, I’m sure, forthcoming book. Her health crisis is over and now she wants to go back to her old ways… Pray that she wakes up and pray that individually you have the strength to avoid losing the Church in your own life.
I have wondered if her decision to leave was more to do with being a mother of a homosexual son than being a Christian. She may have felt she had to choose and that is sad. I will keep them both in my prayers. I believe that Ann is a fervent, honest person who acts on what she percieves to be “truth”. Leaving the church makes her a statistic while by staying she could have become a Dorothy Day or modern day Catherine of Sienna.
I do wonder about her reference to “leaving Christianity” when there are churches who openly embrace the gay agenda so her blanket remarks for all Christians seemed a little strange.
The Holy Spirit guides ALL of us including Ann Rice. Please keep her in your prayers
Mark, my initial thought is that, I thought your tone was *little less compassionate than it could have been…All of what you said was true, but without love, truth can be dry and lifeless…
At the same time, if we actually read the Gospels, we find Jesus saying some pretty hard things… “how do you think you’ll escape Gehenna…”
I do really like what you said about not putting celebrities who’ve recently converted to Jesus Christ in the limelight… that’s a wise word that I think bishops and pastors should really take to heart.
Let’s pray for her- “Lord Jesus, I ask that you would convict Anne Rice of the Truth, let her know your love, heal her of any wounding that comes from her perception of the Church, and bring to embrace you in your body, the Church, one again. Amen!”
I’m thinking she’ll return… It’s God’s very deepest desire that all people come to know Jesus and live for Him as His disciples and members of His body, the Church.
Mark, you wrote the sentence “...she didn’t really grok Jesus’ own teaching about his intimate union with the body of Christ.” I’m not familiar with the term ‘grok’. What does it mean? Peace.
“grok” - is a science fiction term, coined by Robert Heinlein - it was used in the book “Stranger in a Strange Land” and is a Martian (as in Mars) word - it means, loosely, to “understand utterly and completely, intimately, and totally, to have a completely unity and oneness with the object of one’s attention” - if you love something, you “grok” it - but in order to hate something, you have to grok it also - so in Martian terms Martian hate is “utterly black”, because it is so complete. But their love? We have no words for it… Grok…
Thanks, Lisa. I guess I’ve lived too much of my life sheltered and uneducated to know cool words like grok. I guess I didn’t grok grok!
Michael,
Anne Rice wrote her Vampire novels to cope with the death of her daughter, who died of leukemia at 7 years-old. I doubt she wants to relive that, and I know for a fact she would unwrite that book if it could bring her daughter back. I think your words are very unkind.
And she has also said that she wrote them grappling with the loss of the Church of her childhood. She was mourning the loss of her Catholic faith, pre-Vatican II.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/02/in-defense-of-anne-rice
I think that sometimes mean spirited words are a knee jerk reaction to being hurt…..Many were so glad that this very talented writer had come back to the Church and feel so disappointed that she has again left….
I have read several articles that seemed mean but in realty they were a reaction to feeling duped or sad or confused. I just hope that we dont over analyse her situation because it is “a long road that dosent have a turn” as my grandma always said.
If she doesn’t write another book, then you were right and I was wrong…
“And she has also said that she wrote them grappling with the loss of the Church of her childhood.”
The Church prior to Vatican II was even more restrictive than after, so I’m confused by that comment. It was still very much Pro-Life and against homosexual practice.
Why worry about Rice ?
Because Jesus Christ died for her and the Catholic Church is not a cozy club of Fortress Catholics who don’t give a rip about those outside the fortress?
I agree with all those saying we need to pray for Rice. The end of the honeymoon period can be HARD, especially for those dealing with a specific beef against the Church’s teaching (as a convert who’s struggled with SSA for most of my adult life, I can sympathize with Rice; there were days when it was VERY hard for me to keep from saying, “Well, this Catholic thing was a great failed experiment, but I guess it’s time to go be Episcopalian”). Hopefully Rice’s “divorce” from the Church was more of a temporary snit that she’ll get over eventually than a total break.
Rachel,
I hope you are right, but I’m not optimistic. I have engaged (or tried to) Rice on blog comboxes but she is pretty stuck in her own echo chamber—refusing to even consider explanations or arguments that do not reinforce her preconceptions. I’m afraid her arrogance is a pretty big barrier. Of course the Holy Spirit pays those barriers no mind—yet still, one must be open to Him.
The church is the body of Christ and all of us are united to Christ as the head. The institutional church is an organization of ordained celibate males who have little or no regard for the opinions and wisdom of the rest of the body of Christ. The more the institutional church expands its power and authority away from the rest of the body of Christ, they sucuumb to that which corrupts all centralized institutions of humans. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A simple reading of the history of the church shows the many ways and times where the majesterium has been wrong. Look at slavery, religous freedom, Galilleo, the burnings at the stake during the iquisition, The war against Islam, and on and on. Where is it written that the Spirit speaks on ly to the istitutional church. How many times did God raise up ordinary pwople to challenge the istitutional church of the time. Ann objected to the institutional church position on gays, the denigration of women and use of contraceptive birth control which the rest of the body of Christ almost universally practises.
Simple reading of Church history is right.
Hi, Jim. So, is the Pope superfluous? The Ecumenical Councils, the Cardinals and Bishops? The whole hierarchy and magisterium? Is it just me and my Bible and my own (doubtless independent and objective) convictions, after all? Are you a Catholic/Orthodox Christian, or are you just another guy with an opinion? Because I got one of those, too.
Mark Shea, you are one of the truly Good Guys.
Linda,
I agree with you and really like how you have put things, very kind, and truthful.
Read the “First Things” link above, Rice can tell you how she lost the Church of her childhood and how Vatican II helped push her out. It isn’t about restriction vs. non-restriction. Culture is a lot more complex then that.
Here is what Rice’s “conversion” was all about: She wrote this historically awful “life” of Christ and then pretended conversion to sell her book. Yawn…you all never really believed her, did you?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.