Last week, Anne Rice, the author of the bestselling “Vampire Chronicles” series, and — of more relevance to believing Christians — two novels about the early years of Jesus Christ, announced she had “quit being a Christian.”
Most of Rice’s longtime fans, drawn to vampire tales that explored gender-bending romantic relationships and the immortal creatures’ existential woes, mostly expressed a sense of relief.
But newcomers to the Rice oeuvre, moved by Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt and Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana may well be mystified by her seemingly abrupt change of heart. How can an author offer an inspiring fictional rendering of the Incarnation, only to shrug it off and go on to a new chapter of her life?
The author provided at least a partial explanation for her surprising decision in several posts on her Facebook page. “I remain committed to Christ, as always, but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity,” she announced in her first message. A subsequent post added the following: “In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.”
Rice is not alone in professing her love for Christ while repudiating countercultural teachings embedded in the faith. According to Beliefnet.com, more than one-fifth of Americans describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” Her private path may not be unusual. But her public struggle sheds light on the dialogue between faith and personal experience and the challenge Church membership poses to our sense of self and our understanding of human reality. While membership in the Church can provide a haven from a chaotic or alienating world, it also can — as the Gospel of John notes rather ominously — take us where we “don’t want to go.”
Indeed, those who read the author’s poignant but disturbing 2008 memoir charting her return to the Catholic faith of her childhood may have anticipated the latest twist in her spiritual journey. As she made clear in the conclusion to Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession, Rice returned to the Church without really coming to grips with theological and moral teachings on gender complimentarity and sexual ethics that threatened her own identity and vision of reality.
From her childhood, Rice resisted the imposition of traditional gender roles and never embraced her feminine identity. During elementary school, she didn’t think of herself as a “girl” and was surprised to discover that she could not become a priest. Though a faithful wife and mother of two children, including a daughter who died of childhood leukemia, Rice wrote novels that explored an existence without gender boundaries or fixed moral norms. “Vampire Lestat, the genderless giant who lived in me, was always the voice of my soul,” she has written.
Fans have speculated that Rice’s preoccupation with the immortal world of vampires was partly a working out of her grief at the death of her daughter. But her conversion memoir suggested that the world of vampires also gave her free rein to experience their reality.
The “Vampire Chronicles” might well have continued, but for a competing force in the author’s life. A near-death experience resulting from a serious illness led the author back to the faith of her New Orleans childhood, when she used to pray that God allow her to receive the stigmata.
In her memoir, Rice described herself during the early phase of her conversion as “Christ-haunted.” She immersed herself in the Old and New Testament. She reconnected with her Catholic relatives, who welcomed her back into the fold. She became a Catholic again. Yet the “Vampire Lestat, the genderless giant who lived in me” had not entirely retreated — or so the reader is likely to conclude after reading the memoir’s ambiguous conclusion.
No surprise, then, that the new chapter in Rice’s life — like the author herself — is a bit more complicated than the recent headlines suggest. As one news story noted: Rice “is not necessarily leaving belief in God or even belief in Jesus. … Rice makes it clear that her departure from religion is not theological as much as it is moral.”
Apparently, Rice’s new position is that she still believes in Christ, but repudiates the Church’s controversial stance within the framework of the culture wars. In her view, the person of Christ transcends the negativity of the Church’s position on issues like same-sex “marriage,” birth control, abortion and human embryonic stem-cell research.
In a subsequent interview with National Public Radio, Rice explained that the California Catholic bishops’ decision to back Proposition 8, which opposed the legalization of same-sex “marriage,” was the final straw in her break with organized religion. The NPR reporter asked Rice if her only child, Christopher Rice, a prominent homosexual author, influenced her decision. She said No; She had been exploring themes of interest to homosexual readers for decades.
It’s easy to characterize Rice’s Facebook report as a publicity stunt. In recent years, she has begun a new series on angels, and her willingness to cast off Christian concerns might well increase her appeal to a broader audience of readers, especially her old fans.
But it’s equally possible that Rice simply couldn’t resolve the internal contradictions exposed in her effort to straddle two worlds — her own preference for a genderless, boundary-less reality and a faith anchored in the incarnate Word that affirms the dignity and the sacramental nature of the human body: “Male and female, he created them.”
The birth of Christ and his suffering and death on the cross for the salvation of the world affirm the central place of the human body in the life and teachings of the Church. The body in both its masculine and feminine forms is not peripheral to the faith. And the moral absolutes that Rice shrugs off as so much culture-war boilerplate actually secure and defend the sanctity of the human body as the expression of a person’s deepest values.
Like such writers as Graham Greene, who drifted away from the Church despite writing classic “Catholic” novels like Brighton Rock, Rice’s story also confirms the difficulty of bringing faith and life into harmony.
Jesus Christ is not just a beautiful idea. The Bridegroom lived on this earth and lives now in the Church, his Bride. He asks us to “follow” him with the full integrity of our body and soul.
For every believer, that call of discipleship necessarily involves a leap of faith that forces us to cast aside impediments to our spiritual journey. Rice’s narrative gifts and celebrity allow us to witness her own struggle, and there is something to be learned from her unfinished tale. In the meantime, we can pray that subsequent chapters in her story trace her path to the place where, at least for now, she “does not want to go”: full re-conversion to the Church and reconciliation to Christ.
Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Jennifer Fulwiler: We Need to Talk to Converts About Spiritual Attack
Tim Drake: Novelist Anne Rice Goes 'Angelic'
Comments
Post a Comment
No matter the subject, I’ve enjoyed Mrs. R ice’s novels. I have concentrated on the style and subject matter of her novels instead of her political views.
Bravo. Bravo. Wonderfully said. Love it from start to finish. Love the final paragraph. Entire piece covers my thoughts exactly. The final chapter of her book Called out of Darkness had me thinking that there was more to come in her public walk of faith….I’ve been waiting for this to some degree. And I’m prayerfully waiting again for her to re-embrace Christianity and Christian people. We are the body of the Christ she professes to remain committed to.
Anne Rice’s spiritual journey as a writer reminds me of what Milan Kundera puts so beautifully in his book ‘The Art of the Novel’. The novel is Western culture’s way of counteracting the black-white, right-wrong dualism that has plagued our civilization since the dawn of time. The devil is in the duality, the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, the temptation to usurp the right to judge. But in a novel every character has an equally inalienable right to their own world view, a view that remains valid even when it is contradicted by the world view of other characters, and even when it is internally inconsistent, for example in his/her gender orientation. A novel is an artistic rendition of unconditional love, the true fruit of the spirit, the love that transcends all boundaries and categories without denying them. It is a hard road to walk and one that calls for constant vigilance, honesty and courage.
The author of this article just doesn’t “get” Anne Rice fans at all. She doesn’t have any “old fans”. Once a fan, always a fan. This lady isn’t Louis Lamour (no disrespect to a great one) who will lose all of his fans if he starts writing love stories. We are devoted to her, WHATEVER SHE WRITES, because she is a gifted wordsmith and storyteller. And having read her, there is no “not reading” anything she writes. We wait in line for it. There was no dismay from us when she “turned Christian”, nor is there any delight now that she’s turning her back on hypocrisy and focusing on her Lord. We READ what she writes…anything she writes…because she touches our souls.
Beautifully said Tiffany Willis, I couldn’t agree more.
Anne Rice’s decision is the morally correct one and reflect the movements of the True and Living God in human hearts and in history. Tradition is false comfort and flight from God, from the “places we don’t want to go”.
Rice has turned her back on her Lord and embraced the way of heresy. That’s all there is too it. Her decision is heartbreaking and I pray that she repents and returns.
The NPR interview highlighted Rice’s upset with the bishops funding Proposition 8, thus working to actively deprive gays and lesbians of their civil rights.
I’ve never considered Catholicism a fundamentalist religion, but it is beginning to act more and more like one, as dissent is censured and a wholesale retreat from progressive theology is beaten back by Josef Ratzinger.
“Male and female” he created them can and should be a deep statement. Carl Jung demonstrated that every human being is in fact male and female. Kinsey showed us that human sexuality, if it has a scientific “normal,” has a very wide range of natural sexual behaviors, of which homosexuality is one. God created us a very diverse bunch: It is our work to own that and find the charism in that. To deny the charism inherent in homosexuality and other non-mainstream sexual preferences is spiritually ignorant, so long as those preferences are affirming of human life and love.
Sadly, modern church sexual politics are fear-based, not love-based. A loving union between two people of the same sex does nothing to take away from the marriage of anyone else. Christ showed us that the thing is to ever push the boundaries of our love and compassion, not retreat when its uncomfortable.
Thank you, Christina. :)
About the only thing I “pray” for is a world where: everyone is equal and free to marry whomever (s)he chooses; women are truly equal in all aspects of life including religion (a famous sci fi show called Babylon 5 even featured a female Pope); the cells of those never to be born can do some good to living people; the American government is truly free of any and all religious references (ie eliminating “under god” from the Pledge of Allegiance and removing “in god we trust” from our currency); and Anne Rice, free of any and all religious restrictions while still secure in her beliefs, continues the wonderful and fascinating story of Lestat!
I was afraid of this after hearing her story of her conversion. From the beginning I sensed her doubts about all that the Church teaches and tagged her as a “cafeteria Catholic”, accepting some things, and doubting others.
From what I read a lot of this happens with reverts or new converts—-their past keeps popping up and instilling doubts. I did read earlier though that she does intend to attend Mass but not to receive the Eucharist, so perhaps this is encouraging.
I am praying for her as well as Christopher Hitchens, and perhaps we should also pray for Anne’s son. She is a very good writer, and could do much good if she comes back to the Church.
Respectful and thoughtful commentary is a rare and welcome find. Sadly, though, a call for a return to the moral absolutes of your peculiar faith - or those of any other - is a call for Ms. Rice to deny her own. Jesus declared two and only two absolutes: Love of God and Love of Neighbor. All else is derivation that ultimately limits the two. Questioning and discovering are the highest forms of reverence for God and the only means of finding the paths of greater love for neighbor.
Jesus asked the religious leaders of the day what they thought about John the Baptist’s message. Was it from God or from men. And there was the conundrum. If they said from men, the people would stone them because they thought John a prophet. But if they said from God, Jesus would ask them why they didn’t believe and obey his words. And so they said to Jesus they didn’t know where John’s message was from. And so the question is analogous to our day. Has the Holy Spirit eally “spoken through the prophets” as we read in the Nicene Creed? Did Jesus really give the reins of the earthly Church to Peter and the apostolic succession to authentically define and defend Christian faith and morals? If our answer is no, then we have nothing to fear from God, for He has given us permission to make our own religious path as we see fit. But if the answer is yes, then Jesus’ question to us is the same as it would have been to the Pharisees—why did you not believe and obey.
I am an Anne Rice fan and have been since the beginning and will continue to be however I think that Rice as many others who have left the Catholic Church for what they believe is the higher moral ground mistakenly take the church for a democracy which should bend with the cultural winds - tradition is a deep and potent current with incalculable value - to brush it off like so much dross as “anti” this and that is to do it a gross injustice and reflects an immature understanding of its meaning in history.
But I’m still a fan, bless her heart:) I wish her the best and hope she comes back to us..
Justin and all…
She has not turned her back on her Lord. She has turned her back on the institution of Christianity. She’s very clear about that. And she’s way to classy to flat out say it, but I will. The catholic church (lower case deliberate) has become a joke. It’s become the laughingstock and horror of the entire world. MAJOR reform IMMEDIATELY or we all know that it will be irreparable.
NOTHING about what this church does is in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ. NOTHING.
THANKS FOR A BRILLIANT ARTICLE!
Interesting… as the commenting goes on, people seem to become increasingly antagonistic toward the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Something important to remember: Just because a man feels sexually “drawn” toward another man (or toward five women or toward a 16-year-old girl… or boy) does not necessarily justify or validate any resulting sexual behavior. The Catholic Church does not hate homosexuals. Rather, it views the results of homosexuality as detrimental to the nobility of the full creative potential of a person.
Sexuality is something that is formed somewhere deep within each person’s being and, as such, it is very difficult for some people to hear that certain sexual behavior could ever be wrong.
But that is what we are called to understand as children of God. As humans, we have some very powerful impulses (some of us are given to power, greed, alcoholism, anger, self-love, etc.). As disciples of Christ, we must give these false gods up in order to take on our true identities as Daughters and Sons of God.
The Catholic Church is not a fundamentalist Church. It is also not a democracy. It teaches faith and morals and if it goes against what you believe in, please either don’t join it or get out as Anne did.
The Catholic Church will never go against it’s teaching despite what the modern world believes. It is misplaced compassion to believe that homosexuals should marry. The Church has the utmost sympathy for homosexuals but not to the extent that they practice this. There are Catholic organizations like COURAGE that can help these people.
Do we want to say for an example that because a person has a tendency for shoplifting they were born that way and do it? What about alcoholism? Or murder? We may be born with tendencies for certain things, but we were also born to try and overcome these tendencies as we are weak as a result from original sin.
Best luck to Anne, and I will still continue to pray for her, as she is obviously very confused perhaps also by our so-called Catholic leaders like Pelosi.
It sounds to me like she is pursued by the “Hound of Heaven”. I pray He catches her soon.
As I grow older and more spiritual, I marvel at my earlier relationship with the Catholic Church. I went to Catholic school, was a postulant and novice in a religious order, and attended Catholic university. It was at the latter that I had my eyes open to the bible myths and the many similar myths that preceded the creation myth from many other ancient peoples.
If you study the old and new testaments, you can get them to support anything you want to.
But even Jesus’ followers never said that he said “Build a big rich establishment, make sure it’s tax free, own lots of property, use children sexually and cover it up, and when you’re found out, make new tougher rules against it, but don’t, by all means, report it to the police as a criminal activity.” I could go on for days.
But I digress. Some of my best friends are Catholics. I reunited with the band that I entered the nunnery with and found that they were all, but to the last one, pro choice for women, supportive of gay people and their aspirations, and loving, intelligent women who have chosen the best from many different spiritual paths in order to develop as the best human beings they can be. And oh, they democratized the order.
But alas, most women in the Church do not have the opportunity to avail themselves of the studies and experience of these privileged women And so they are victims of the male-dominated, anti-women hierarchy of the Church.
One last note. The Christians in the Catholic Church need to do more to speak out against the growing tide of fundamentalism in the Church. Fundamentalist Muslims aren’t the only threat - an equally dangerous one is the threat to humankind of fundamentalist Christians and Jews.
Sandra,
I have recently re-found my Faith… and what I’ve discovered is a rich and moving calling to live courageously, laying my fears and broken desires at the feet of God.
I find comfort in a Church that does not bend nor droop beneath the shackles of the world’s often ill-formed and self-destructive moral code. My God is a forgiving God, a loving Father who understands that his children are all small, feeble, and usually lost. But, like a good parent, my God also expects greatness from even the most lowly of us. To concede that greatness is not possible when talking about the life of a child or the desires of women and man (because these things seem too big for such a quiet God) is to admit to hopelessness.
I need a Church that will cling to the timeless goodness of God’s law. I need a Church that defends life. I need a Church that recognizes my weaknesses but, despite these frailties, insists upon my perfection through Christ. God help me and God bless my Church!
No one has suggested that the church become a democracy—I think that’s a rallying cry for many but it’s not founded. What is needed is wisdom from the theocracy. Regrettably, and to the detriment of the church, wisdom is in short supply.
Speaking of wisdom, one of my literature teachers in college astutely pointed out, Jesus cared very little about what people did in the bedroom. He was the one who rescued them from those who did care, much like the Iranians who have recently sparked international outcry for their plans to execute an adulteress. Jesus’ message to them (and not delivered with sternness but gentleness, I’m convinced) was “Go and avoid this sin.” (Perhaps the understood second half of this statement was “because next time I won’t be here to bail you out and they *will* have your head.) Jesus reserved his anger for those who would make rules about what people should and shouldn’t do, and then go forth and oppress the masses with them.
Sound familiar?
How did the church grow to mix these two up, pouring its anger and judgment upon sexual minorities and either taking pride in or defending its own oppression and hypocrisy?
“Jesus reserved his anger for those who would make rules about what people should and shouldn’t do, and then go forth and oppress the masses with them.”
No, no , no. Jesus reserved his anger for those who were hypocrites in observing the law. Jesus never rejected the Law, He obeyed the Law. His point was not that the Law didn’t count but that it is meant to be lived not just for the external show of it all but the Law exists to give us a structure in which to obey the Laws of God and in which to worship Him. The same is true today.
Jesus never, ever said that is was o.k. to sin. He didn’t tell the adultress to go ahead, don’t worry about. He said “go and sin no more.” In scripture, individuals who became followers of Jesus did so after an encounter with him that radically changed them. Zaccheus the tax collector is a good example. He cheated people prior to his encounter with Jesus. After his encounter he was transformed and lived as a just man. On the other hand, the young rich man who asked how to get to heaven rejected what Jesus told him he had to do to get to heaven. Jesus told him to give up all his possessions. The young rich man couldn’t/wouldn’t do that and he went away disappointed. He did not become a follower because he was not radically transformed by his encounter with Christ. Jesus didn’t tell him he could live his life any way he pleased. The young man couln’t have it the way he wanted it.
In real life, the radical transformation may not be all at once. It can take a life time but we are transformed none the less by an encounter with Christ. I hope and pray that this is just part of the journey for Ms. Rice, a mistaken turn, but just part of the journey.
Al Polito,
Christ most definitely DID NOT come to save us from “the other guy’s opinion of us.” Among those who misunderstood Christ were the ones who thought the Messiah *would* be a politically powerful figure who was supposed to bring about a worldly paradise.
This is wrong.
By every account, Christ came to forgive people of *their own* sins (i.e. the sins of the bedroom as well as those of the public square).
You are right - Christ’s message was one of gentleness, but don’t ever mistake that to mean that he wasn’t fully aware of our own terrible inadequacies.
The sins “of the bedroom” can be some of the most devious to address. We are called to *use* our sexuality, but we are called to do so in a healthy manner (much the way we are called to enjoy alcoholic beverages in a HEALTHY manner).
When virtue is distorted, we begin living viciously. Christ told us not to fear those who could do us bodily harm, but rather we ought to fear the one who could reach in and destroy our very souls.
Do not be mistaken - Christ most certainly came to rescue us from OURSELVES. Sexuality (along with every aspect of our humanness) can be extraordinarily tough to define and profoundly difficult (if not impossible) to control.
Our loving Father, though, is aware of the havoc that unhealthy behavior wreaks upon the soul. This is why he sacrificed His only Son - so that, despite our broken humanity (perverted desires, blind ambitions, and all), we may be made whole!
I would suggest that all of you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s teachings are not only based on the Bible but tradition, that of the early Church Fathers.
Paul in his epistles warns against fornication and homosexual behavior, as the Romans practiced it. If we are “temples of the Holy Ghost” why would we want to soil this with not only this , but also promiscuous behavior, and the modern way of just living together rather than getting married.
Yes Jesus is all merciful, but he is also just. Children need both parents of different sexes. The loving but not “just” Jesus has been thrust upon us by the secular world and relativism.
Read some of the papal documents such bas Humana Vitae and Theology of the Body.
If you don’t agree with the Church teachings, examine yourself and ask “do you know better than the Church that Christ founded”? Are you being just a bit arrogant or proud?
Jesus forgave sinners but He also told them to go and “sin no more”. And yes, read the Bible about the Samaritan woman at the well, who had many husbands, for proof that yes, Jesus did care about sexual matters.
“She has not turned her back on her Lord. She has turned her back on the institution of Christianity. She’s very clear about that. And she’s way to classy to flat out say it, but I will. The catholic church (lower case deliberate) has become a joke. It’s become the laughingstock and horror of the entire world. MAJOR reform IMMEDIATELY or we all know that it will be irreparable.
NOTHING about what this church does is in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ. NOTHING.”
Tiffany, that is simply and completely untrue - millions upon millions of people would disagree with you and rightly so - the Catholic Church continues to be the largest institution on the face of the planet that cares about the poor, infirm, abandoned and forgotten and puts its money where its mouth is every day all over the world sometimes at great cost to its participating members who occasionally pay with their lives for their efforts - feeding, clothing, administering health care, taking in abandoned children, defending the rights of the unborn….NOTHING to laugh about there…
I think we would have a very silly God if God is indifferent to the evolution He has shepherded in the form of male and female. We are formed to live in a particular way. It is very, very difficult to understand how a male with a male is normal. It appears to be anti-evolutionary at best
What a miserable article. You could do so much better, NCR. Why would you offer a platform for this thoroughly speculative piece of psychoanalyzing drivel? Rice could not overcome her ego, to participate in a Spirit guided institution so much larger than herself. Or maybe it was all a publicity stunt to sell her books on Christ. Certainly, her"reversion” brought her a huge amount of publicity and probably new readers. This article is junk science. I’m surprised you ran it.
There is so much ignorance on this thread. The church’s position on homosexual sexual behavior is very loving and logical, but MANY of you have no idea what in the world you are talking about. You talk from your emotions. You talk as you wish the world to be, not as God created it. And many of you have no idea how this disunity we are experiencing began in the first place, making some of your posts sound infantile and completely ridiculous. Then again, I guess that’s what the internet is for, to expose all these backwards opinions.
And the most ridiculous posts of all are also the ones that deny the reality of sin. I think some of you need to go back to the Christianity 101 class, because some of your ideas are WHACKED. Everything the church teaches can be backed by love and logic, if you will clear your mind enough to learn. It is also good to accept the sovereignity of God, and the authority of his steward. If you don’t understand what I just wrote, you have a lot of reading to do. Better join the nearest RCIA class. Go back as many times as it takes. Stop relying on your own understanding of things.
Melinda T
“the Catholic Church continues to be the largest institution on the face of the planet that cares about the poor, infirm, abandoned and forgotten and puts its money where its mouth is every day all over the world sometimes at great cost to its participating members who occasionally pay with their lives for their efforts - feeding, clothing, administering health care, taking in abandoned children, defending the rights of the unborn…”
I think you need to check your facts. The Catholic Church has, and often continues to support repressive regimes that oppress people, keep them impoverished and ignorant, and denies them basis human rights and freedoms. Study the Church’s history in Central and South America. And the Italian Church’s support of the Nazi’s in WWII.
There are many many Catholics who live the Christian life and follow Jesus’ call to love their neighbour, feed the hungry, nurse the sick, etc. But the Church establishment has a less than stellar history.
The sexual abuse of children has been widespread in the Church for a long time and the coverups legendary. The arrogance of the Church to think that making tighter rules is addressing the problem would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. The Church is putting itself above the laws and moral standards of the world. Sexual abuse of children is a crime and should be dealt with that way.
I live with a survivor of this crime and have witnessed his anguished life as a result of this soul destroying crime. The most Christian thing I’ve done is stand by him through this painful journey, risking my relationships and finances as I support him.
Rather than tell other people how to live and what they can and can’t do with their bodies, Catholics need to clean up their own house. The Church will never be a moral force in the world until it does!
“I’ve never considered Catholicism a fundamentalist religion, but it is beginning to act more and more like one, as dissent is censured and a wholesale retreat from progressive theology is beaten back by Josef Ratzinger.”
No. Quite the contrary. Pope Benedict is trying to save the Church and bring back to it a sense of her true self.
“Progressive theology” is what is killing liberal Protestantism. That’s right - killing it. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, ELCA Lutherans - all experiencing rapidly declining membership as they embrace ever more deconstructed visions of Christianity. Just as it has killed order after religious order in the Catholic Church that has embraced it. Faith has a *definable content*. Once it becomes a thing each man or woman can fashion to their heart’s content - or merely echo the reigning zeitgeist - it ceases to be anything recognizable. It’s just solopsism. It’s not Christ.
It always bugs me to hear the Catholic Church called “fundamentalist.” In fact, nothing could be more opposed to fundamentalism than the Church. Fundamentalism is opposed to reason. The Church has always believed that faith and reason are the two wings on which the Church takes its flight. The Church is not sola scriptura. Its tradition and its creed is far richer than that.
I’ve read…most of Anne Rice’s works. She’s a talented novelist, and I’ve followed her conversion with great interest. However, it always seemed to me that she never really came to grips with the Church’s moral teachings, especially on sexual ethics. Forced to straddle her old world of libertine, fluid gender boundaries that Ms. Desmond perceptively takes note of and the new (or restored to her) world of the Catholic faith, she was unable to square the circle and simply returned to the former. Reading her statement, it’s clear to me that she doesn’t really grasp *what* it is she is rejecting. Her posts on Jimmy Akin’s blog about the tragic case of Sr. McBride’s excommunication - the details of which are still not fully public (not even to Ms. Rice) - is a case in point.
And so I will pray that she does not abandon the struggle, but grasps the true content of the faith - just like the rest of us poor sinners who labor on to live it as grace allows us to.
Many who have written negatively on the Catholic Church and profess to know what Jesus would “really want” must ask themselves one critical question: By what authority? Who or what is the true authority on the teachings of Jesus? This is the pivotal question of all those who profess to know and love Jesus.
Pride has lead many to believe many different authorities, but when Jesus ascended into heaven he left a pope- Peter and a Church that is still here today.
Now, that Church is and always has been full of sinful people and we could discuss this fact forever, but in the end we must except one source of authority on faith and morals-the Catholic Church.
DW, I concur. And that is why I modified my earlier comment posted to this site and added it to my blog. Here is what I wrote at “thecontemplativecatholicconvert.blogspot.com”:
“When He entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him while He was teaching, and said, “By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority? (see Matthew 21:23-27).
I heard the other day that Anne Rice, famous for her books about vampires – and more recently for her books about Jesus – left the Catholic Church. She explained her departure from Catholic faith is rooted in her belief that the Church’s position on some moral issues is archaic and out of touch with the true teachings of Jesus.
As I mused about her rationale, I thought of the text from St. Matthew’s gospel in which religious leaders asked Jesus by what authority He said the things He did. In reply, Jesus asked them what they thought about John the Baptist’s message. Was it from God or from men?
And that presented them with a conundrum. If they said from men, they knew the people would stone them because they all thought John to be a prophet. But if they said from God, Jesus would ask them why they didn’t follow John’s teaching. And so they opted for the coward’s way out. They said they didn’t know where John’s message was from.
A similar conumdrum circulates in our day. Has the Holy Spirit “spoken through the prophets” as we read in the Nicene Creed? If not, then who’s to say one person’s opinion of morality and faith is better or worse than the next person’s? But if the Holy Spirit did speak through those prophets, then Jesus’ follow-on questions to us are the same as they would have been to the Pharisees – do you do as the prophets said? If not, why not?
Which brings up another question – especially for those like Anne Rice who claim (or claimed) to be Catholic.
Did Jesus give Peter and his apostolic successors authority over the earthly Church to delineate and define true Christian faith and morals (Matthew 16:17-19)? If not, then one can argue that God has given us freedom to live according to the teachings of any religious path of our choosing. But if the answer is yes, then Jesus’ follow-on questions demand sober consideration of people who call themselves Catholic: Do you obey His Church? If not, why not?
Those who believe Scripture about God’s justice, as well as His mercy, understand that to elevate our opinions higher than God’s is tantamount to sorcery and idolatry. And those who believe in an eternal heaven and an eternal hell also realize that the Pharisees of Matthew 21, if they persisted in their rebellion, still grind their teeth with regret over their decision to disobey God. Even after 2000 years.
And so, the point. To those of us who claim to be Catholic, Jesus asks the question that demands our answer: Will we obey Him by obeying His Church?
Our eternal home, even 2000 years from now, depends on our answer.
Sandra, you say the Church places itself above the laws and standards of the world? Of Course! That is what it is supposed to do. The “laws” and “standards” of the world are essentially against God’s Laws. We see this in the promotion of all types of sins as “rights”. We Catholics must ever fight these “laws” and “standards” with courage and fortitude.
Those who side with “the world” on this are incapable (without the aid of grace) to see how evil sin is and thus they rail against any and all who would bring the truths of God’s Laws to their attention.
TishMorgna,
The Church has placed itself above the law that it is a serious crime to sexually abuse children. The Church has placed itself above this law. And you call that moral?
And to d.h. -
The Old Testament said that homosexuality is an abomination.
It also said that eating shell fish was an abomination.
Let’s hear what Jesus had to say on the topic.
Sandra, if you would learn what the Church teaches you would know that the Church’s teaching on child sex abuse does NOT condone such things. You are essentially saying that it does. That is an egregious slander against Her. The sins of Her members cannot be imputed to Her or Her FAITHFUL children. You use quite a broad brush there.
As to the laws and standards of the world, they encourage pedophilia through sex ed and the immoral books, movies, internet content, etc. The philosphy of “the world” is diametrically opposed to the good of children, especially in the realm of morals.
The council of Vatican II unwisely opened up the Church to the world and thus we see this horrific homosexual priest crisis in the church which brought about the abuse of (almost completely male) minors. The smoke of satan has certainly entered the Church and has provided Her enemies with unholy and totally unfair ammunition against Her. We were told by Christ not to be surprised by these tactics, but it is profoundly sad when someone is sucked into the infernal maxims of “the world”.
Sandra-
I couldn’t agree more, the sexual abuse scandal is immoral and a shame and I am so incredibly saddened by it. I need to ask you though, do you understand the teaching of the “mystical body” of Christ? The Church WILL ALWAYS have sinners in it. You are suffering from what Fr. Barron has called “ecclesial angelism.” The question you still have not answered is: who is your authority?
Are you your own authority?
A recurring thread in these posts is that the church is not a democracy. No it is not but it is not a dictatorship either. The teaching authority of the church is valid when it is exercised in consultation with and in agreement with the entire people of God.
Is it hilarious or scary how people who want to defend the Church attack the very priests the Bishops were working so hard to treat better than the victims. The Church leadership does not trust God, the “leadership” will lie, cheat and steal, and defend doing so as the work of the Spirit to keep the “gates of Hell” from prevailing against it/them. Thus it makes up crap like a celibate clergy of men and tells us it was Jesus or his Father’s will for such a thing to happen at some unknown century after Jesus (and Mary, later) got (back) to Heaven, rather than when Jesus was hanging out in a co-ed crowd of 12 or so guys, plus women, and healing the Mother-in-law of at least 1 pope (to be.) Kyrie eleison
It is great to see that one Catholic, TishMorgna, is wiser than the whole council of Vatican II ... “TishMorgna on Friday, Aug 6, 2010 5:55 PM (EST): ... The council of Vatican II unwisely opened up the Church”
How many Hail Marys must we say to get the BVM to take us back to the days when the Church was Secret Society Numero Uno making me Masons or CIA seem like honest forthcoming people?
Good luck and God’s blessing on finding your way back to the true Church of
Jesus Christ…the Body of Christ…that never changes ..or diappoints!
Jim Collins,
You write that “The teaching authority of the church is valid when it is exercised in consultation with and in agreement with the entire people of God.”
What does this statement mean? How does it work out practically? Is it in agreement with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Is the Church’s historic teaching against artificial contraception not valid unless the “entire people of God” agrees with it?
You admit that the Church is not a democracy but then undercut that statement by seeming to imply that the Church only has teaching authority when the entire people of God agrees with it. This is simply not the Church’s historic view of herself, whether in 100 A.D., the medieval period, 1968, or today. The Catholic Church and Faith are inescapably hierarchical. They have always been such, and they remain so today.
Vatican II was not a radical rupture with the past but rather a re-emphasis of the laity’s role in the Church, among many other things. This re-emphasis did not and does not entail, however, that the people of the Church now tell the hierarchy what Truth is and is not. The Pope is still the Vicar of Christ. We look to him, as guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, on matters of faith and morals. He does not look to us to know what Truth is in order to teach it to us.
Ann Rice left the Catholic Church with the following statement:
“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life.’‘
Does she mean the following?
“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be antigay” –-Does she want Jesus Christ to sanctify and bless homosexuality?
“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be antifeminist” –-Does she want Jesus Christ to authorize the Catholic Church to ordain women to the priesthood, as bishops, and pope?
“In the name of Christ I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control” –-Does she want Jesus Christ to introduce a dysfunction into the body with steroids (birth control pills) and the priest pass out condoms as part of the program of marriage preparation.
“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-secular humanism” –-Does She want Jesus Christ to erase any trace of God from our USA history and founding documents?
“In the name of Christ I refuse to be anti-science” –-Does She wants the Catholic Church to promote research with embryos and embryonic stem cells.
“In the name of Christ I refuse to be anti-life” –-How is the Catholic Church anti-life?
“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-democrat” –-does she want the Catholic Church to become a Democracy?
Her proclamation “in the name of Christ” comes across as blasphemy. Great many have joined the church for the same reasons she left.
Carlos Vidal
I used to read the Vampire novels - from the days when they were first published in sci-fi magazines in serial form - yes, I go that far back! I had to stop when she got into the Mayfair Witches phase, and go pretty pornographic… it was just too much… I actually saw, though, how much she was exploring her spirituality when she wrote about things like “Memnoch the Devil” and walked her characters through her versions of spiritual realms… she makes her journey visible to anyone with eyes to see. She’s struggling - and she’s in pain. I wrote to her when she wrote the 1st “Christ” book came out. She claimed she’d done a lot of research - but it was clear she was more drawn to the “mystery” writings, such as the weird gnostics - such as The Gospel of Thomas, and so on. It was easy to see she was still struggling. I wanted to let her know that she was in a lot of people’s prayers. She still is. It must be hard - being Anne Rice - and everything you do is “out there” for the world to see - and everyone has all these expectations of you - when she left the occultism behind, she got a lot of grief from a huge segment of her fans - and now she’s getting flak from another side. She probably feels like she’s “damned” no matter what she does, and she can’t please anyone. Like everyone is trying to “explain” everything to her - and no one will leave her alone, to find her own way. We’ll be lucky if she doesn’t end up on top of a clock tower telling us she doesn’t like Mondays… Poor thing… Lets pray for her, all of us. She’s Anne Rice - sure - but she’s all of us, too.
Lisa, I get your care and concern for Ann Rice. However, I would offer her a bit more respect than that. I think Ann’s move was one of a leader. It takes guts to say something that’s you know is going to upset some people and choose to embrace or at least except the upset that will happen as a result. Most people are too afraid of conflict to do that. I don’t think she’s in any kind of spiritual struggle; I don’t think she wants our prayers, or that she’s bound to end up on a clock tower. She’s a grown-up who made a grown-up, responsible choice.
Many people seem to have a hard time with the fact that she chose something different from what they’ve chosen. That’s her divine right and I’m confident she’s no less close to God as a result. In fact, while Christians are out pointing fingers at others because of what they believe, scores of “spiritual, not religious” people are filling God’s vineyard doing the super important work he put us up to in the Gospel. But the Christians aren’t noticing because they’re not looking.
Just makes me sad. I think Anne may be giving up more than she knows for a temporal cultural identity, it seems to me. I do empathize with her intense struggle and search for the truth. We live in an age that calls good evil and evil good. It’s even more confusing for us when some of those who are supposed to be good act badly, do evil things. I’m sure her personal crisis is generated by many factors. I pray God’s Light shines upon her. May whatever darkness may plague her, I pray God’s Light breaks through it. In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
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.