Anne Rice: `I quit being a Christian’
Anne Rice
Or so the novelist, who had returned to the Catholicism of her childhood, said on her Facebook fan page. Her explanation:
“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. In the name of …Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”
To which Rod Dreher responds:
“I’m sorry, but this is weak, and makes me wonder what really happened. Surely a woman of her age and experience cannot possibly believe that the entirety of Christianity, current and past, can be reduced to the cultural politics of the United States of America in the 21st century. Does she really know no liberal Christians? Has she never picked up a copy of Commonweal?”
Indeed.
Dreher says that this is hard to take seriously, but it is hard to take Dreher himself seriously. What is the latest faith/church/denomination/trend Dreher is on to these days?
I think Rod Dreher is being kind to Anne Rice. Her proclamation is weak at best and totally uninformed at worst. This is lazy thinking on the part of what I thought was a successful author. Christianity is not the “flavor of the day” where the adherents of this religion take it on and off like fashions. Did she have a solid faith in Christ and the Creed to begin with? It doesn’t sound like she did. Alas….
What nonsensical babbling. I do not know what is the matter with this woman, but will spend a little time to unpack her rant a bit:
“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay” Catholics are is not “anti-gay”.
“I refuse to be anti-feminist.” Catholics are not “anti-feminist”.
“..I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control.” She obviously has not given this matter or natural birth control much thought or consideration. It seems that like a cranky little girl, Ms. Rice simply wants what she wants and that is the end of it.
“.. I refuse to be anti-Democrat.” Catholics are not “anti-Democrat”
“.. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism.” Catholics are very human
“.. I refuse to be anti-science.” Catholics are not ‘anti-science’.
“..I refuse to be anti-life..” This is too nonsensical to warrant a moment’s though, much less a reply.
Well – I am glad that is done!
:)
While I agree with Dreher that Rice seems to be leaving the Church for some rather trivial reasons, I have to say I find it ironic to hear a conservative recommending liberal Christianity to someone…
The anti this-and-that quote from her Facebook fan page is getting most of the media play–and it is disjointed and plain wrong in some respects–but when one looks at all of the posts by Ms. Rice on the Facebook page, including one just five minutes before the money (?) quote, it’s clearer (though not crystal clear) that she is discouraged about organized religion, and likely Catholicism in particular, and not really about being a “Christian.” How does one be a follower of Christ, which Ms. Rice affirms she is, without being a Christian?
There are two comments at Rod Dreher’s blog that I found interesting. One is from an individual who identifies himself/herself as “Fr. J.” The individual is very sensitive to Rice’s apparent emotional state when she sounds off “[i]n the name of Christ,” and Fr, J offers speculation as to what might be underlying Rice’s outburst, which does seem driven by emotion and anger when one sees that her several posts about leaving Christianity are interspersed with a post about the reduced price of Kindles as the result of the e-reader price war.
The other comment at Dreher’s blog includes a quote from C.S. Lewis about why, despite his inclination to be so, he found that he couldn’t be a solitary Christian:
“C.S. Lewis was once asked, ‘Is attendance at a place of worship or membership with a Christian community necessary to a Christian way of life?’
His answer was as follows:
‘That’s a question which I cannot answer. My own experience is that when I first became a Christian, about fourteen years ago, I thought that I could do it on my own, by retiring to my rooms and reading theology, and I wouldn’t go to the churches and Gospel Halls; and then later I found that it was the only way of flying your flag; and, of course, I found that this meant being a target. It is extraordinary how inconvenient to your family it becomes for you to get up early to go to Church. It doesn’t matter so much if you get up early for anything else, but if you get up early to go to Church it’s very selfish of you and you upset the house.
If there is anything in the teaching of the New Testament which is in the nature of a command, it is that you are obliged to take the Sacrament, and you can’t do it without going to Church. I disliked very much their hymns, which I considered to be fifth-rate poems set to sixth-rate music. But as I went on I saw the great merit of it. I came up against different people of quite different outlooks and different education, and then gradually my conceit just began peeling off.
I realized that the hymns (which were just sixth-rate music) were, nevertheless, being sung with devotion and benefit by an old saint in elastic-side boots in the opposite pew, and then you realize that you aren’t fit to clean those boots. It gets you out of your solitary conceit.’”
“If there is anything in the teaching of the New Testament which is in the nature of a command, it is that you are obliged to take the Sacrament, and you can’t do it without going to Church. ”
Wow. I always suspected that Lewis read a different New Testament than the rest of us.
Commands to love God with all one has and one’s neigbor as oneself? Different NT, I guess.
I know Ms. Rice was commenting on a number of Catholic blogs at the time of the Phoenix excommunication debate. Her postings were very emotionally distressed. She could not comprehend the action of the Phoenix bishop in announcing the excommunication. It’s a shame no one was able (I saw a number of sincere efforts) to explain the complete reasoning of the Church’s position in that case.
I guess we always have to be careful not criticize our own Church so unflaggingly that shallow-rooted people (Mt 13:20-21) such as Rice find no response but to completely disavow their faith. Surely self-criticism, while necessary, is not worth the salvation of souls if it is taken to excess.
Joe P.–
Wouldn’t observance of the first of the two great commandments include reception of the Eucharist? I’m no theologian, but it seems to me that receiving the Eucharist is one of the best ways, if not the best way, express love of God with our whole hearts, minds, and souls.
Here is a thread from Jimmy Akins blog in which Ms. Rice posted numerous times regarding the excommunication issue in increasingly strident terms.
She begins like this:
Posted by Anne Rice on Monday, May 24, 2010 8:00 PM (EST):
I don’t think you have shed much light on this disturbing story at all. In fact, your cavalier and sarcastic comments show a want of human decency, and an inveterate nastiness that is very off putting. We are after all talking here about life and death. ——I think the Bishop’s statement was merciless and unwise. He gave the world…and me….the impression that he wishes this mother of four had died in the emergency room of a Catholic Hospital along with her unborn child. ——And yes, this is most certainly about a double standard. The Catholic Church takes a cold, absolute approach to this dying mother; but never examines any Catholic soldier as to whether his voluntary service overseas has involved him in killing women or children or innocent civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq. And the clergy abuse scandal demonstrates that pedophile priests and bishops have been sheltered from justice worldwide. ——I wonder how many loyal Catholics like me were shaken to the core by Bishop Olmsted’s shocking comments. —- I wonder how many have left the faith because of this. ——And of one thing I am sure. No pregnant woman should ever entrust herself to a Catholic hospital. My heart goes out to this mother; and my heart goes out to Sr. Margaret McBride.
…and then this:
Posted by Anne Rice on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:29 PM (EST):
Reading some of these posts is positively chilling. What is it that you people want? You want that this mother should have died in that emergency room with her 11 week old unborn child? You want her dead? You’re disturbed that she isn’t dead?——Do you understand what you’re saying? That Sr. Margaret McBride and others should have simply washed their hands of the woman and let her die, no matter she might have wanted, or what her husband might have wanted? If they’d done that, they’d be liable for murder. ——- This case deserves national attention. Every pregnant woman should understand the risks of being treated at a Catholic hospital. Responses supporting Bishop Olmsted make me ashamed to be Catholic.
You can also see in the thread a number of people trying to reason with her, but her emotion on the issue has apparently blinded her to consideration of the full complexity of the case.
She could not comprehend the action of the Phoenix bishop in announcing the excommunication. It’s a shame no one was able (I saw a number of sincere efforts) to explain the complete reasoning of the Church’s position in that case.
P Flanagan,
I wouldn’t call Bishop Olmsted’s position the Church’s position. There have been a number of articles and comments from good and faithful Catholics disagreeing with Bishop Olmsted’s announcement of Sister McBride’s excommunication, and there is even disagreement as to whether the abortion in the Phoenix case was a direct abortion. Bishop Olmsted speaks with a great deal of authority as a bishop, but he was stating his own position on these matters, not the position of the entire Church. Even the USCCB statement on the matter stopped short of endorsing Bishop Olmsted.
P Flanagan, thanks for the quotes. I have much more sympathy for her now.
You write: I guess we always have to be careful not criticize our own Church so unflaggingly that shallow-rooted people (Mt 13:20-21) such as Rice find no response but to completely disavow their faith. But note that her distress is not directed towards critics but towards supporters of Bishop Olmsted. I guess we always have to be careful not to support our bishops blindly (not that anyone reading this blog would suspect me of doing that!)
Well, maybe she intends to be provocative. She says she is shaken because she is a loyal Catholic. It seems from the other quotes P. Flanagan cites that she does not believe her concerns have been heard by those who defend the decision of the bishop of Phoenix. Probably she feels the same way about the non-response, inadequate response, or dismissive response of those who speak for the Catholic Church about the contentious issues she names.
You can hardly blame her for feeling this way. I can’t think of a single American bishop who has spoken up in favor of Sr. MacBride, or women’s ordination, or gay marriage, can anybody else think of one? And while some bishops have (either tentatively or grudgingly) admitted that it is possible for a Catholic to vote Democratic, some more vocal ones have absolutely ruled it out.
Picking up a copy of Commonweal will not help. :) It seems she’s protesting the overall direction the Catholic church in America is taking. It’s not intended to be a nuanced response to complex questions. However, if she thinks any of the bishops are going to care what she does, whether she rejects Christ or not, or stands on the steps of her local cathedral with a placard, or anything else whatsoever, I’m afraid she’ll be disappointed. I only wish they would care enough to engage all the people who feel the same way and are voting with their feet.
It’s a shame no one was able (I saw a number of sincere efforts) to explain the complete reasoning of the Church’s position in that case
Sorry, rather than give good-faith explanations of the Church’s teaching, or even attempt to have a good-faith understanding themselves, there are far too many who instead want to blast the Church and throw gasoline on the fire, encouraging people like Rice in their distress, rather than helping to alleviate it. Rather than help people understand the faith in charity, they are all to eager to effectively shove people out of the Church by their own contempt for it.
Picking up a copy of Commonweal will not help.
No, it won’t. Like I said, it would only encourage her to be disenchanted with the Church, it would only feed her distress. Rather than obtain answers, she would only find rocks.
Wouldn’t it make her feel that she is not alone in her distress? Isn’t there a comfort, and even a kind of hope, in that?
Anne Rice isn’t a great novelist, but she does have a great gift for dramatic presentation. Not that drama necessarily exaggerates the facts. On the contrary, sometimes stark presentations make the truth most apparent, I think her listing of the terrible moral issues facing many Catholics today is a service. The sheer number of issues that have gone without persuasive teachings by the hierarchy and Rome is, as I see it, scandalous.
So I have a great deal of sympathy for her, even if she is ignorant of some of the teachings of the Church as she seems to be. Also, her only child, a son, is gay. How the Church’s largely unpersuasive teachings about homosexuality must rankle her mother’s soul.
She has the reputation in New Orleans of being a kind and generous person. Perhaps on returning to the practice of the Faith she has been scandalized by what many of us see as a fact — that the hierarchy and Rome are largely indifferent to the serious nature of the questions the laity have about many moral issues. We ask serious questions, and in return get unconvincing answers, even silly ones like their claim that homosexual unions threaten heterosexual marriage.
She was naive to expect or even to hope for anything better from them, and she seems terribly surprised and disappointed by what she has found.
Joe P.,
How have you been?
I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m splitting hairs, but Jesus didn’t give those commandments. They were already in the Law. “Do this in memory of me” is not.
Ann Olivier mentioned her son’s homosexuality, and given the treatment of gays by church authorities and many Christians her reaction is understandable, I think. And the sex abuse scandal redux has also caused her great pain.
I suspect she is yearning for that religionless Christianity that many have desired.
William C. I suppose some might understand the Eucharist this way. I would not count myself among them.
Kathy: Keeping busy (three boys). As long as you are not splitting one of my grey hairs I do not mind. If I had to guess, I do not think Jesus would have counted “Do this in memory of me” as even being similar in kind to the two great commandments (which, in fact, remain one commandment, as the second is a clarification of what is required as part of the first).
It seems I just do not have a sacramental understanding of the NT. For me, the sacraments come later.
Maybe she’s been doing too much blog reading. Especially conservative blogs.
Is there anyone here who can offer her a reason to stay? Who can encourage her to love the Church? And to love all of her fellow Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, liberal/progressive and conservative/traditional alike?
Interesting about Anne Rice. I still am a Catholic, and I hang-on with great willpower (faith!), but I “feel Anne Rice’s pain.”
Dreher refers, and provides a link, to a 2008 essay in the Washington Post’s On Faith (?) web section. He seems to perceive a contradiction. While a significant shift has taken place for Ms Rice I don’t see a contradiction. Both comments are Christ centric.
Bender –
For me leaving would mean quitting Mass. Unthinkable, though I’m not the sort who ever went to Mass everyday. It is the center, the main fount of grace, the place for meeting Christ HImself and reviewing His teachings and having His demands re-presented to us. Af ifs best the Church retains for us the wisdom of a culture of 2000 years, a well of living waters, polluted though it sometimes is. The Church rightly warns us often about our proclivity to sin. It requires us to face our sins and to do penance and make retribution where necessary. It also constantly reminds us of our destiny which gives us us hope even in the face of the sometimes terrible difficulties of life. Not to mention emphasizing above all the two great commandments that we love God, self and neighbor and providing the sacraments to help us love.
I feel very sorry for those who feel they can’t stay. It seems to me their focus is misplaced on the clergy. That is dangerous to faith because it is bound to disappoint. Anyway, Christ didn’t call us to a life of semi-adoration of human beings. But in spite of the sinners, there are grand holy exceptions who retain their personal if sometimes eccentric friendship with the Lord, They light the way for us They’re living proof that the teachings of the Christ are our truest guide. Yes, it’s a struggle sometimes to get to those teachings, but they are there preserved more or less clearly in the Church..
I can’t get all those things from secular humanism or private spiritual practice.
Well, I feel sympathy with all Anne Rice’s positions and I respect her freedom of conscience. If she feels that these are matters that might force one in conscience to quit the Church, is she not encouraged in this by the Pope, who believes that people who disagree with him on these issues are no longer in full communion with the Church? (See Ad Tuendam Fidem and his commentary thereon, which someone here posted the link to recently.)
I’m taken aback by some of the response on this site to Ms. Rice’s leaving. Some SCOLD her? I’ve read her memoir about returning to the fold, and she did not strike me as a superficial person, but the contrary; in fact, devout. This is a very serious move for her and it grieves me. We have lost a sister!
Catholic tribal malice is nakedly in evidence in the venomous remarks made about Ms Rice on other sites.
“I feel very sorry for those who feel they can’t stay. It seems to me their focus is misplaced on the clergy. Anyway, Christ didn’t call us to a life of semi-adoration of human beings.”
There’s a lot packed into those words. I, too, can’t help but wonder if many who fall away had put their faith in the clergy, or man, or an idea, some imitation of Christ—but not Christ. I admire they can have so much faith, but wonder if they fell for the signposts, and not what the signs were guiding them to. It would be as if Jesus lost his faith when his friends fell asleep during agony in the garden.
“In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay” Catholics are is not “anti-gay”.
Many Catholics, maybe most in N America, are not anti-gay, but believe me, the church is, no matter what they say about loving the sinner.
If you have parented a gay child, believe me, you know that the church does not want gays in the flock, and they have made that very apparent.
Intrinsically disordered is used in the medical field as well as by the hierarchy. It is used to describe a cancerous protein. I believe that the hierarchy thinks that my child is a cancer in the body of the church.
I decided, as it seems did Ms Rice. That if my daughter is a cancer, I will live without the body.
As for the Sr McBride issue, the scholarly dissertations on the church position and on Canon Law, just left me cold, as I suspect they did to her. As I tried to struggle through them, I wondered where the love for this family was, and the understanding of “walk a mile in my shoes”
The Dignity of the Human Person, which is found within our complementary nature as Male and Female, is endowed to us from God. To identify with a disordered sexuality, is to deny this Truth from The Beginning, when we were created in The Image of God and called into a communion of Perfect Love. We are called to Holiness, and to be Holy, we must orient ourselves to the Word of God Who Has revealed to us that any act that is not oriented towards The Will of God, is not an act of Love and that Perfect Love desires Salvation for one’s Beloved.
“Do this in memory of Me…I give you a New Commandment, Love one another as I Have Loved you.”-Christ
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john13.htm
More on Ms Rice’s decision at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jul/30/anne-rice-quits-being-christian
It seems fairly certain that this “disordered sexuality” was a gift from God.
“Is there anyone here who can offer her a reason to stay? Who can encourage her to love the Church? And to love all of her fellow Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, liberal/progressive and conservative/traditional alike?”
There are more people than Anne Rice waiting for good answers to these excellent questions (though I find Commonweal a reason not to jump ship entirely, no rocks there for me). Ann Olivier, thanks for taking a stab at it. What a wonderful direction this thread could go in, a testimony to liberal faith.
I also have read her memoir, and I doubt she longs for a religionless Christianity. It is the ‘attire’ of Christianity, as well as the substance, that she embraced.
She probably already loves the Church, and all in it, but cannot abide with those who make a mockery of Christian professions of love with their obdurate teachings. She believes in love, even love that the Church cannot accept. She is for life, even the life of a woman who does not believe she must give up her life so her unborn child can live for a few more days.
Perhaps she longs for a Christianity which teaches embodied love, and not the kind of religionsless Christianity taught by those who dear sin more than they love life.
Alienation is difficult, and is almost always incomprehensible. We have discussed it very often, and will not doubt continue to discuss it. I prey that she, and all who wander from the Church, will be able to find the loving embracing Church that expresses the life and love of Jesus.
“It seems fairly certain that this “disordered sexuality” was a gift from God.”
God is Love, and Love is not possessive, which is why it can be known through reasoning, that The Blessed Trinity exists within an ordered, complementary relationship of Perfect Love through the Unity of The Holy Spirit, and thus The Love Between the Father and The Son, must proceed from both The Father and The Son, to begin with. Only within a complementary relationship can two become One Body, One Spirit, in Love.
“Let Us Make Man In Our Image…”- The Blessed Trinity
“So often times it happens, that we live our Life in chains, and we never even know we have the keys.”
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm
May the Light of The Holy Spirit shine upon all of us and give us Peace.
I wanted to know when attendance at Sunday Mass became mandatory for Catholics. It took me a very long time to find this:
Easter Duty dates to 1215:
These quotations are from Catholic Customs and Traditions: A Popular Guide, by Greg Dues, Revised Edition (1993), Twenty-Third Publications (found on Google Books).
Surely Anne Rice and anyone else thinking of following her out the door will reconsider after experiencing the outpouring of love in these comments.
♥
I do think you can de-evangelize yourself by wallowing in certain blogs–some iof which present themselves as great evangelizers. If the Catholic Church reminds you of the worst of seventh grade (bullies and mean girls), well it doesn’t exactly seem to have a whole lot to do with the Gospel. And most people, thankfully, don’t want to relive seventh grade.
David N. –
I don’t see the requirement for Sunday Mass as a penance. For me it’s a gift, and I love getting gifts.
It seems to me that the problem with Mass for many people is that it’s boring, and it’s boring because the sermons are boring and because many don’t really think that Jesus becomes present there in an astounding way (called into presence in what looks like bread and wine by a mere man) for an astounding reason (because He loves each of us by name).
I think that many people reject the Real Presence because they reject the possibility that God *could* do that if He so chose. In other words, they reject even the possibility of miracles. This rejection is built into our culture now, given the scientism since the Enlightenment. The deists of that period at best thought that God creates the world, puts in it order using unbreakable laws. and then abandons it. For them God is not immanent. What I don’t understand about them is that they can accept the amazing fact of creation but think they have to reject the Real Presence becasue of physical laws (laws God Himself invented and keeps in existence!). They swallow a camel but strain at a gnat.
To reject this Presence as “against the laws of nature” shows a view of God like the Enlightenment view — God is a non=personal watchmaker who invented the world, brought it into being (think Big Bang) then did not give it another thought. He is an “impersonal god”. In my experience God is a personal, as evidenced by the availablility of grace to me personally and by the corroborated evidence of the experiences of the saints and mystics.
It seems to me that people haven’t been catechized well enough about these issues and problems. No, none of it can be proven, but there is evidence for the creation of the world, and for God’s love of us mere creatures, and, as I see it, the whole narrative especially of the Jews and the Christ, the whole history of creation makes the best sense. Our personal God, taken as an explanation of why-the-world, i.e., why-something-rather-than-notiong explains more than any of the paltry little hypotheses such as: we’re the result of random movements of atoms which resulted in organized bodies, there are no ultimate values, and life makes no ultimatae sense. More should be preached about these things.
Ann Rice has taught us, once again, that while the truth shall make us free, it can also be painful.
“There are many people which the Church has but God does not have; and there are many people which God has which the Church does not have. “ St. Augustine (paraphrased) ca 4th century.
“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.” Philo of Alexandria.
“We know where the Church is; it is not for us to judge and say where the Church is not.” Orthodox theologian Paul Evdokimov.
“What I don’t understand about them is that they can accept the amazing fact of creation but think they have to reject the Real Presence becasue of physical laws (laws God Himself invented and keeps in existence!).”
Exactly! Thank you for that perfect expression of the overarching power of God. It astounds me that people do not believe that the creator of the Universe is capable of, for example, being born of a virgin…or even of the comparatively mundane multiplication of loaves and fishes.
“I do think you can de-evangelize yourself by wallowing in certain blogs”
It does appear that Ms. Rice was driven further into her despair by the lack of charity she saw in some comments. It’s a shame she seems not to have paid deeper attention to those who offered her more charitable fraternal correction.
But by the same token, certain blogs that unremittingly, constantly wallow in vitriolic condemnation of “the institutional church” and the “hierarchy” as irredeemably immoral and corrupt can only lead a casual inquirer to conclude that she would be crazy to even consider what the Catholic Church proposes.
Ann–
Re your 4:35 pm post…One of your best IMO. If Mass is perceived as an obligation only, it’s destined to be regarded as boring. Lackluster sermons are an important contributing factor, as you note, but I am often surprised how many Catholics, including adults of my generation, have little knowledge of the parts, symbolism, and drama of each Mass. Lack of good catechesis is also a contributing factor, but I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment that there is little sense of awe about experiencing the Real Presence and partaking in the Eucharist, “the fount and apex of Christian life” according to Lumen Gentium.
I don’t see the requirement for Sunday Mass as a penance. For me it’s a gift, and I love getting gifts.
Ann,
I was interested to find out when attendance at Sunday Mass became obligatory because of this earlier quote from C. S. Lewis by William Collier: “If there is anything in the teaching of the New Testament which is in the nature of a command, it is that you are obliged to take the Sacrament, and you can’t do it without going to Church.”
Of course, from the Catholic viewpoint, poor C. S. Lewis was not receiving the Eucharist, but that is another matter. My thought about Anne Rice not wanting to be a Christian any more, and people’s reactions to it, was that Catholics tend to believe that Catholicism is what they know and experience today: Go to Mass — celebrated by a celibate priest — every Sundays under pain of mortal sin. Go to confession. If you get married, you must be married by a priest. And so on. But for the first 1000 years of the Church, much of what we experience today was either very different, or in some cases nonexistent.
I am finding it difficult to find really good information, but I think it’s safe to say that when (if) Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me,” he wasn’t talking about going to Mass on Sundays, and there was no such thing as a Mass for generations after his death. There were Eucharistic celebrations in people’s homes. If those people could travel through time and attend a contemporary Mass, I doubt that they would say, “Look! Two thousand years have passed, and they’re still doing what we did!”
“wallow in vitriolic condemnation of “the institutional church” and the “hierarchy” as irredeemably immoral and corrupt ”
P Flanagan –
I don’t know anyone who wallows in condemnation of the institutional Church and hierarchy as *irredeemably* immoral and corrupt. Nobody here has ever said that they are irredeemable, and many praise their virtues, e.g., their stand in favor of the helpless, at least sometimes, though definitely not always. I know that I don’t find my own condemnation of the lying, secretiveness, and injustices of the hierarchy and Vatican a pleasant duty. But duty it is.
There are times one is obliged to speak out, especially when there is no other remedy. Were there official ways for the laity and lower clergy to make our thinking known to the bishops, the official Church would undoubtedly be in better shape. But we are simply shut out, contrary to Vatican II which says that the bishops must listen to what we have to say. Theyy have brought these criticisms on themselves.
True, these public complaints don’t make the Church attractive to non-Catholics, but would it be more attractive, do you think, if, after all of the scandals the laity just sat silent closed our eyes to the facts the way many bishops did? I think not.
Thanks, Bill Collier. I just feel very strongly about this. I’ve been extremely blessed in having known a number of very holy people who made it easier for me to see that what the Church teaches is true — that the grace of God when accepted can work near-miracles in human hearts and even miracles at times, But I suspect that each person comes to Faith in their own unique way for many different reasons.
P. S. I’m interssted in hearing what convinces other bloggers to accept the Church and/or stay in it, What’s the point for you all?
I wonder if this horrifying story has something to do with the punitive Christianity Rice abhors?
http://www.economist.com/node/16636027/comments#comments
http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
Ann Oliver: “I think that many people reject the Real Presence because they reject the possibility that God *could* do that if He so chose.”
Really? Do you really know anybody who rejects the RP because they think it violates physical laws? I think most people rather unthinkingly assume God could do it (stash himself in a wafer) if he really wanted to, but that there’s no particular reason to believe he wants to.
I don’t know anybody who thinks the Creator of the Universe couldn’t send the angel Moroni with some gold plates to tell us all to move to Utah, but I know a lot of people who doubt he actually did it. I don’t know anybody who thinks the Creator of the Universe couldn’t evolve some space aliens in UFO’s and send them this way to enlighten us about His Divine Will, but I know a lot of people who doubt he really did that. Now that we’re going to be a small, pure Church, it’s useful to remember that our doctrines will generally be viewed in the same light as the Mormons’ and the Raelians’ doctrines.
Anyway, on the question of those scientistic old Deists, here’s Ben Franklin, who seems never to have heard of the Real Presence: “I never doubted, for instance, the Existence of the Deity, that he made the World and govern’d it by his Providence; that the most acceptable Service of God was the doing of Good to Man; that our Souls are immortal; and that all Crime will be punished and Virtue rewarded either here or hereafter; these I esteem’d the Essentials of every Religion, and being to be found in all the Religions we had in our Country I respected them all, tho’ with different degrees of Respect as I found them more or less mix’d with other Articles which without any Tendency to inspire, promote or confirm Morality, serv’d principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another … and as our Province increas’d in People and new Places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by voluntary Contributions, my Mite for such purpose, whatever might be the Sect, was never refused.”
His postulate seems to be, if something is common to all religions, then it must be true. If it is particular to one, then it is suspect. And the most important thing is to promote morality and good-will.
I think Ben Franklin is a bad example of what Deists actually imbued us with, because he may very well not have known a Catholic well until he was well into adulthood. Probably the Virginians would be better. Didn’t George Washington used to ostentatiously get up and walk out of church as soon as they started the liturgy of the Eucharist?
David Nickol, thanks, that’s interesting, on when Sunday mass became mandatory. A randomly-generated Redemptorist confessor at http://www.themissionhurchboston.com was trying to explain to me why one must go to mass a couple of weeks ago. His idea (as expressed in incomprehensible Bostonian) was that people always say they’ll just pray at home but then they watch TV instead, so the Church requires you to go to mass because that’s the only place they can be sure you’re praying.
“His postulate seems to be, if something is common to all religions, then it must be true. If it is particular to one, then it is suspect. And the most important thing is to promote morality and good-will.”
Not sure if this is a tenet of Deism, but certainly Universalism, with which most branches of Unitarianism merged.
“I think Ben Franklin is a bad example of what Deists actually imbued us with, because he may very well not have known a Catholic well until he was well into adulthood.”
Not sure exactly what this means, but Franklin loved France–especially French women–where he must have met many Catholics.
Felapton,
As Stephen Roberts said, “When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
The only reason I ever believed that the RCC was the one true way to God, was because my parents told me it was…………So if your parents raise you Baptist or Moslem, the chances are you believe that is the way.
I think most people rather unthinkingly assume God could do it (stash himself in a wafer) if he really wanted to
Actually, many people do not assume or believe that. And, if we take your words strictly, neither do you (perhaps unwittingly by your word-choice).
Transubstantiation, which is what the Church understands to happen, is not God “stashing Himself in a wafer.” That is NOT the Real Presence. Rather, what the Church understands to be true, and so many people cannot grasp, is that there is no more “wafer.” The Host is no longer a wafer, no longer bread, it is instead His Body, Soul, and Divinity, period. There is no stashing, there is no hiding — the Host is simply Him.
A great many people do not, cannot, or will not understand that a thing can merely appear to be one thing when, in fact, it is something else entirely. The Host might appear to be bread, but it is not, it is the actual Body of Christ Himself.
A great many people do not, cannot, or will not accept transubstantiation. Instead, they argue for consubstantiation or mere representation. Surely those who argue for these latter things know that God could do it if He wanted to, right? Well, apparently not, because a big objection to transubstantiation is the possibility of a thing actually and truly being something other than what it appears and seems to be physically.
Felapton -
Yes, I’d say that most people who reject the real presence do so because they think it’s physically impossible. And, yes, there is a great deal of history that indicates that God-Jesus wants to be present to us still. The Christian divinity is most transcendent, but also most immanent. This, I think, is a main distinction between the Jude0-Christian beliefs and other ones.
The issue for many people is the possibility of miracles . Perhaps that isn’t true of people without much education, but it seems to me that is how many people in the educated European tradition of the Enlightenment (materialist, skeptic except for science) tend to think, and many of them say so outright. Yes, there were degrees of skepticism from individual to individual, but the influence of Hume in the matter of miracles has been humongous, I think.
There is another reason which I think the Real Pesence is resisted among Catholics. The very word “transubstantiation” is off-putting. Many people HATE long words (they have to go get the dictionary and look them up, and you can’t really trust the dictionaries in such matters). Further, it suggests medieval logic-chopping, and, yes, I think that to get its meaning exactly you do have to do some medieval logic-chopping because it involves certain highly abstract metaphysical notions like substance, accident, “efficient causality”, etc.. Most people couldn’t care less about all this. But I don’t think that a metaphysical description of the miracle is necessary to understand the basics — Christ is body and soul, the priest is given the power to call Him back to be present physically again, and His body doesn’t look like a human flesh. (Aquinas says the appearances are changed because it would be horrible if the Body looked real. That seems to be a big stumbling block for lots of Protestants — Communion as cannibalism, and I admit they have a point.
But all that isn’t the *point* of the Real Presence. It’s up to the theologians and artists to begin to tell us about that, I think. While the general point is the loving presence of Jesus, I think His presence-to each individual reveals different aspects of Him, that “the point” of Communion is many points becasue His love is both individual and inexhaustible, varying with each communicant — all loving acts vary with the individuals involved even when they *look* the same. (If you want an example of an artist revealing something of what the Real Presence is about, check out Graham Greene’s “The Power and the “Glory”.)
See — you can’t just go by how something *looks* to know everything that is happening, everything that is important about it. True, Christian dogma is as strange in some ways even stranger than Mormon dogma. The question is: which teaching has more evidence for it? And which reveals *more* of what God wants us to know? Most difficult of all, just what do the words the dogmas are expressed with mean? But that’s a whole other discipline.
I like your old priests point about requiring us to attend Mass :-)
“And the most important thing is to promote morality and good-will.”’
Jean and Felapton –
Hmmm. Is it *most* important? As I understand the Catholic teaching what is most important is to love God, and then ourselves and other people. That’s not contradictory, of course, though I must admit that sometimes it seems that there are people who are called on to do something out of love of God that results in, at best, what seems like neglecting others people. I’m thinking of hermits who go into the forests to do contemplative prayer. But , after the fact,they too have their social function — to teach us about doing personal prayer and contemplative prayer
One thing that always impresses me about the OT is that God as He appears there is a *jealous* God. He wants our attention and love. (I’m speaking metaphorically, but no less intensely). I can well understand people who convert to Judaism. And I think that too often the God of the OT has been lost to Christians. Yes, as is said so often these days, He looks like a monster (He can be terribly demanding), but He’s a jealous monster. He wants the love of every cotton-picking one of us.
Bender –
Yes, His presence is real, but the *appearances of bread and wine* are also symbolic of Christ as spiritual food. To me that symbolism more than makes up for the truly horrid connotations of cannibalism. I think that the Protestants are right — the symbolism is real and importa
Well, apparently not, because a big objection to transubstantiation is the possibility of a thing actually and truly being something other than what it appears and seems to be physically.
A young woman I knew in high school was offended by the idea that God couldn’t make a square circle, or that he couldn’t make a weight so heavy that he couldn’t lift it. I think that for many people, transubstantiation falls into the square circle category. If something has all the physical properties of bread, right down to its molecular structure, then it is bread. To say that at the moment of consecration, the bread ceases to exist is meaningless. Why is it necessary to have a technical explanation for a mystery?
” — public complaints don’t make the Church attractive to non-Catholics —”
Maybe not the church as organizaiton, but I know more than one non-Catholic who has developed an admiration for those who finally have spoken up and out. These non-Cs have said to me that they never expected “good Catholics” to anything except to accept anthing that the church said and did as being OK because it is the “one true church established by Christ.”
Many of those who have spoken up, out and complained loudly and longly have finally come to understand the wisdom of this sage:
“What you need is sustained outrage…there’s far too much unthinking respect given to authority.” Molly Ivins
David N. –
I don’t think technical explanations are necessary, but some people want them, and if we’re talking about mysteries then complete explanations aren’t even possible.
What I don’t understand is the people who grant the possibility of creating real things, yet deny the possibility of creating mere appearances. Not that creation is *explainable* either –about all that we know about philosophcally it is that it is the condition of the actual existence of the contingent things we find existing.
Late to this, but I think the topic too narrowed to Ms. Rice.
I think the topic should be when people see the last straw and decide to move on, as we’ve seen even in some here.
It’s partof the big “slow motion implosion” driven on by defender s of pronouncements that kil the faith that people have who want to hang on.
Sex, sexuality ecclesiology and other vital points touch peoples’ lives who want to care deeply -standard brands responses strike me as aiding the killing of faith and that’s the nub of the problem.
I identify with Bob Nunz with respect to the narrow focus on Rice.
I very much desired to “hang on” to the faith that was my birthright and that sustained me for over forty years. I wanted to belong to the universal church of “Here Comes Everybody,” in James Joyce’s terms.
But that proverbial last straw came for me last fall when the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage (in Maine, in particular) turned political, even to the point of using the Mass in various dioceses as a fundraising event for a media campaign to overturn, through plebiscite, what had already become state law. (If I have in any way misstated the details of the situation, I beg pardon in advance).
It is difficult to explain why that particular combination of events involving the Church’s intervention in civic affairs proved decisive, when so many elements did not, and I certainly don’t wish to divert this thread toward a litigation of the legitimacy of that campaign or of my decision to sadly “move on,”
Yet move on I did, when I could no longer contribute to the mission of the Church through time, talent and treasure. The point is that we all (or at least a great many of us) have our last straws, and parting is definitely not a sweet sorrow. One year ago, I could not have magined that today I would be worshiping among Episcopalians or looking foward to raising my six year old daughter within the Anglican tradition.
Peace to all on the journey.
Ann wrote: “I feel very sorry for those who feel they can’t stay. It seems to me their focus is misplaced on the clergy. That is dangerous to faith because it is bound to disappoint. Anyway, Christ didn’t call us to a life of semi-adoration of human beings.”
Some of the withdrawl need not be idolatrous, but actually an attempt to defend one’s faith. I ask myself what does one do if one’s experience of the church community itself becomes a drain, an occasion of sin, or a source of diminishment to one’s faith? Great holy people have fled to caves, or withdrawn to monasteries because the world encroached on their ability to live as disciples; their “ordinary” experience of Christianity did not work for them any longer. It held them back, rather than helping them forward. I am concerned about a lot of much more ordinary people today, who have no cave but who are trying to hold onto their faith, try to defend it against threat by (alas) backing out of the room. I wonder if they are “gone” really? It’s in you, after all.
We need a sabbatical program. Check out for a while, pray hard alone. Come back when it’s time.
Even as I say this, however, I know there are those for whom the break is final, and that too must be respected.
I ask myself what does one do if one’s experience of the church community itself becomes a drain, an occasion of sin, or a source of diminishment to one’s faith?
Fleeing to caves – focusing solely on private prayer and building one’s faith based on one’s private beliefs and experiences only – seems challenging in the long run. How did those holy people of history prevent a distortion of their faith and avoid self-centeredness?
Two weeks ago I went to Mass in a trappist monastery. The prayer of the faithful was completely focused on the (few and aging) members of the local community: “help us be perfect today”, “we pray that we may always be helpful to one another, and never yield to anger”. I was struck by the complete lack of interest in and connectedness to the outside world or at least to the larger Catholic community. It does not seem good to me.
I lament what the church has become.
It used to be inclusive, it was “suffer the little children” and Matthew 25. It has become exclusive, in the sense of publicly not wanting this politician because he separates his public life from his religious observation, or not wanting this group because of their sexuality, be it women in general, and homosexuals in particular.
The public face of the church is about what it is against, not what it is for.
I guess the clerics decided to become politicians rather than pastors.
Ann,
I think we just know different people then. I don’t really know anybody who rejects the Real Presence on the grounds that it conflicts with physical evidence. It’s not because they’re “uneducated,” (whatever that means) but because they’re secular. They’ve never heard of the concept and it strikes them as nonsense. I work at a university.
Ann and Jean, in re: Ben F.
When I said I suspect Ben Franklin didn’t know any Catholics until he was an adult, I was thinking of what he says in his autobiography. His father was a “dissenter” and his brother was too. There were a lot of people in and out of the father’s house and the brother’s shop, but it sounds like they were pretty much the same sort of dissenting young tradesmen as James Franklin was. So my guess would be, the first real Catholics he met would have been customers in Philadephia.
I guess I knew the principle “what is common to all religions must be true; what is particular to one is suspect” is Universalist. Over the years, various friends have read me the Seventy Principles of Unitarian-Universalism. (I try not to get them confused with the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.) And, in fact, Ben Franklin is kind of like most of the U-U’s I know. He’s eminently sensible, reasonable, cheerful, helpful, hard-working, fit, healthy and successful, a great neighbor and an ideal business partner. But something seems to be missing. One wonders, how helpful will rational, enlightened principles be when you learn your child is anencephalic or an earthquake wipes out your entire town? On the other hand, one could ask how helpful all these charmingly antique litanies, benedictions and capae magnae would be.
On the question, “Why stay?” this probably sounds very uneducated, but when I think of leaving, I get kind of nervous about that Eternal Damnation thing. Doesn’t anybody else? I mean, what is an hour of boredom once a week, compared with spending eternity with Ugolino and Ruggieri? (Two guys who would have done a lot better if they’d just opened a nice restaurant in Boston’s North End.)
an hour of boredom once a week: a description that I am afraid reflects the experience of the Mass for most of my family. What is the high point of the week for me is a dull chore for others even though we attend the same Mass at the same time. Distressing!
“Surely a woman of her age and experience cannot possibly believe that the entirety of Christianity, current and past, can be reduced to the cultural politics of the United States of America in the 21st century. Does she really know no liberal Christians? Has she never picked up a copy of Commonweal?”
Here is the thing. As I explained to Joseph O’Leary in one of the threads below, it’s rather unfair to criticize someone for viewing you the way you view yourself. For too many people, being a Christian really does come down to the cultural politics of the United States of America in the 21st century — and in particular, they would challenge Rice’s right to call herself a Christian for deviating from those political positions that they consider to be definitional to Christian identity. How many people use the term Commonweal Catholic to mean not really Catholic at all? You don’t go to Church so that others can wage war on the authenticity of your faith, and after a while, for many, personal integrity calls you to respond even if the ire isn’t directed at you personally. Most people leave silently. I am sure that many would see the responses given to Rice’s public decision as validating their decision to leave, and to leave quietly.
“Here is the thing. As I explained to Joseph O’Leary in one of the threads below, it’s rather unfair to criticize someone for viewing you the way you view yourself.”
Yay, Barbara!! This needs to be said over and over. We *don’t* know each other very well. In some ways we barely know ourselves. So it is impossible to judge the inner workings of others. It’s one thing to say, “I don’t understand Jack”, and another to say “Jack is unwise/wrong/dishonest”. (And this happens ALL the time on blogs regarding people’s views of ALL sorts of subjects.)
I firmly believe that not only do we come to Faith in different ways, but there are different aspects of God which are understood and acted on by different people, so that not only are our beliefs somewhat different but our *practices* flowing from those beliefs are different. So while I stay in the Church, others feel compelled to leave. It is not, not, not for me to judge them. “Judge not”, says the Lord. But pray always at we can share whatever goods that we have encountered and been granted the grace to make our own.
“about that Eternal Damnation thing”
Felapton =
Given the necessarily simple teachings we got in grammar school, of course it’s human to think this way. But here’s where St. Paul comes in: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.”
This text is, I think, the rock-bottom ground below the big chasm between liberal and conservative Catholics these days. It was typical of many Catholic teachers to tell us “Never doubt” and even “Never question”. The irony is that questioning is what children do — God *made* us to be questioners. We’re *supposed* to question, and when necessary, doubt. That is human nature, the basis of the natural law.
So the emphasis in certain Church quarters to keep questions and doubts at bay is, I think, where the rift in the Church starts. They think their understanding of Church teachings is right in many, many fundamental matters. The rest of us think they exaggerate their own ablities, but, ironically, they deny their ability to ask “Is this exactly so?” and “Am I mistaken about this?”
“Surely a woman of her age and experience cannot possibly believe that the entirety of Christianity, current and past, can be reduced to the cultural politics of the United States of America in the 21st century.”
———
The Church teachings Anne Rice cannot accept are not confined to this country or to this century.
OK, (Ann) doubt and questioning, two good things. But what about that rabbi in old Professor Ratzinger’s book, (Introduction to Christianity), the one who says to the unbeliever, “But perhaps it’s all true, after all?”
I have always thought Pascal’s wager was a bit simplistic. I would not risk my immortal soul on a one-in-a-million chance, but if it’s a one-in-ten-to-the-twenty-five-factorial chance, well, that’s not nearly so obvious.
Claire, if going to mass is the high point of your week, well, Providence must be even worse than its reputation and you just need to get up to Boston more.
On the subject of Catholic hospitals discussed above, this letter from a reader of Andrew Sullivan’s site has just been posted:
“Two months ago, my 88-year-old father-in-law passed away after lung cancer surgery at a Catholic hospital. The surgery was successful, but after two days his lungs filled with fluid, which caused his heart to stop due to lack of oxygen. By the time he was breathing and his heart beating again, his brain lacked oxygen for several minutes. An EEG showed some brain activity but he was effectively in a coma.
“My wife had power of attorney and after 10 days of no change decided to remove the breathing machine. He would not want to live this way and his health care directive stated that. They removed the breathing machine, put him on a morphine drip and also injected a large dose of morphine at decreasing intervals. When the breathing machine was removed, his breath rate went from 15 breaths per minute, to 10, then 5, then 3 at each morphine injection until he finally stopped breathing. The whole process took 7 hours.
“To me, the actions this Catholic hospital took showed true mercy, and put humanity above doctrine.”
I agree with Claire. Going to Mass IS the high point of the week for me. Granted, the newness of the Anglican service I am now attending will wear off in time, but I’d like to think that liturgy (including preaching) done well has a burnishing effect in any rite. For most of my life, going to Catholic Mass was the high point of the week and at times even the day.
It is distressing to hear how rampant boredom has become. Perhaps our tolerance for even moderate, potentially creative boredom has eroded.
Boredom at mass? Not here: http://www.mhr.org.
Felapton, here are a couple of unsolicited practical suggestions to make that weekly hour in church less boring. At least for myself those “tricks” are very helpful.
Before Mass: Practice lectio divina with the readings a few times during the previous days; think about how the readings relate to your life; construct your own little homily just for your own private benefit.
At Mass: Concentrate on what is being said; it’s a challenge to spend one hour without being distracted! With the readings firmly present in your head, the homily will make more sense. With any luck, the preacher will take an angle that you had not fully considered and give a new insight which you can then take home with you and mull over later that day; with more luck, the hymns will be related to the readings, and, thanks to your prep work, that will be visible to you as you sing, so that the readings and the lyrics may be mutually enriching.
Also at Mass: during the Eucharistic prayer, silently say every word at the same time as the presider and try to make them yours. The prayer goes by too fast for that of course, but every week a few words may suddenly come to life.
Hi Claire,
I think I have a pretty good solution to boredom at mass; I downloaded Frogger onto my cellphone. I’m a lot less bored during the homily since I did that. I would completely recommend it. (It’s harder on a tiny little screen.)
Not sure what you mean about the readings helping make the homily make more sense. Most of our homilies follow a predictable pattern: First a cutsey story about the presider’s late but very devout mother, the drag out the old abortion horse and ride it around the church for a few minutes, finally some analysis on the progress of those idiotic Red Sox. The Gospel doesn’t usually make an appearance.
(Note: this is not a report about the Redemptorists’ preaching, which is quite good really; I live in a suburb and go to Sunday mass there.)
Hey Jiimmy,
Are you in any of the photographs?
One of they guys on bikes, maybe?
felapton
The biggest hurdle that I had as a Catholic, was the whole eternal damnation thing.
I could not reconcile a God who loved everyone, but was prepared to see them damned by an accident of birth. (My catechism was taught by an old Irish priest in the 1950′s).
The whole idea of serial killers being saved because of confession, but non believers who worked tirelessly for humanity, being damned, never made sense to me.
The beginning of my search on the whole idea of deity, that has taken a good fifty years so far.
Hi Michael Cowtan,
I’m not completely sold on the big ED either, but my policy is to accept in perfect filial docility all that Holy Mother Church teaches to be true, even the parts that are clearly arrant nonsense.
But you have to concede, a lot of things in life work this way. If you want muscles, you have to work out. If you don’t work out at the gym, you’ll have tiny, weak, pitiable muscles. Why? Because God doesn’t love you? No, because muscles take effort.
Or, you spend hours memorizing trig identities for a math exam. Then you forget them. The next year, in the next exam, you wish you could remember them, but they’re gone. Why? Because God doesn’t love you? No, because knowledge requires effort.
So, it’s not completely implausible that if you blow off the old spiritual gym workout, either because it’s so darn boring, or for some more elevated reason, and when it’s time for the general judgment, you find you don’t have sufficient sanctifying grace to escape the Big Campfire. And it wouldn’t be because God doesn’t love everybody.
Felapton
According to my old Irish priest, if you were Baptist or Buddhist you were damned to hell, no matter how good you were, whereas the repentant Barabbas?…….well he went straight to heaven.
The Baptist and Buddhist may have worked on their muscles religiously :o) for forty years, made no difference.
Someone posted a letter that Andrew Sullivan had received. There is a follow up today, bit more revealing
“I sent you the email regarding my 88 year old father-in-law. Here is some additional information. When my wife made the decision to let him go, the physician from his medical group that was stationed at the hospital told my wife that the process was that they would move him to a private room, leave in the breathing machine but removing the feeding tube and let him starve to death. She said that process could take up to two weeks. That would have been a terrible burden for my wife and 90 year old mother-in-law, who suffers from dementia. My wife insisted that the medical group assign a new physician (for this and other reasons), which they did.
By the way, we got the bill a month later. For a 14 day stay, it came to $516,779.34.”
Sometimes I am so glad I live in Canada.
Well, Michael, if everybody who met an idiot in a Roman collar left the Church, the entire Body of Christ could celebrate mass together in a telephone booth. Our parochial vicar doesn’t know the difference between Diocletian and Domitian but consistently manages to guess wrong. Forget your old catechism teacher; he knows better now. I once accidentally told a class of undergraduates that the Sun is located at the focus of the eclipse described by the Earth’s orbit. Some of them are still probably confused about it to this day.
Um, is that Barabbas who went straight to heaven or Dismas? I think you have to be a martyr to go straight to heaven.
You are right of course
Felapton: I only ride with Dykes on Bykes, sorry. And yes I am in some of the photos. Once in awhile I masquerade as a bishop ( I LOVE drag!), but they refuse to take my picture, so that is why the Abp of SF is shown.
” I think you have to be a martyr to go straight to heaven.”
Thank goodness that the BVM was “assumed,” then, or she’d have hung around for much longer than she did.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/02/my-take-why-i-support-anne-rice-but-am-still-a-christian/
(snip) “So I do not condemn or criticize Anne in any way. I’m glad she has followed her conscience and articulated the reasons for doing so. That’s good for her, and it may be good for the church, too. Sometimes, powerful people only listen when they see enough people voting with their feet.”
And then there is this (http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/the-rice-path/) -
“If only Ms. Rice read the right pastoral letter, studied the right papal document, talked to the right priest. Or blogger. It’s all an intellectual exercise for too many Catholics. Read the right stuff, think the right thoughts, hang with the right people–and it will all be obviously easy. Is it like the Fulton Sheen route to celebrity Catholicism: talk to the right high profile Catholic and you’re in for life. (Like the mafia?) And we Catholics would have our token liberal “convert.” Somebody to throw up there with Newt and some of the TOB guys. —– So yes, certainly, some Catholics are inspired by the intellect. They analyze the pains of hell and judge that a safe course might be to navigate close to, if not on, the Barque of Peter. Or they find a wonderful confirmation in their head space. Seems to be it’s at least as valid a route as the heart or the gut. Problem is, that a catholic church has to appeal across the board on all these levels. If we were solely a Church of intellectuals, where would be good ol’ go-with-the-gut Peter? Or the foolishness of Francis way back at Assisi?”
E.D. Kain has posted this about Anne Rice’s act:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/08/anne-rice-quits-christianity/
It is extremely difficult, in a situation like this in which a public figure (for whatever motives, and I don’t think Ms. Rice’s are malicious) attacks the church and its teachings, to simultaneously treat the attacker with charity and also refute whatever is fallacious about the attacks.
But that’s what members of the church are called to do.
I think everyone can sympathize, to one degree or another, with Ms. Rice. But by airing her complaints publicly, and given her prominence and the public nature of her faith journey, a response in an apologetics vein has to be part of the church’s public response: that in fact, what the church offers is better for homosexuals, women, the family, etc. than any other way of life.
What’s more: the church’s response needs to be on a couple of levels. Because the church’s views on all of these issues are underpinned by revelation and theology, that foundation needs to be (re-)explained. Our Holy Father is quite good at this: incorporating abstruse theological concepts into talks that are aimed at a general audience.
But theological teaching can’t be the extent of the church’s response. It needs to be coupled with direct, vigorous, pastoral words that are well-suited to today’s fast-paced, talk-radio and web-driven communication. Memorable, bite-size chunks – characterized by both truth and charity.
Of course, these responses have to be coupled with private, sensitive pastoral outreach to Ms. Rice. Ultimately, that’s the most important response of all.
Just my view.
I think part of the “last straws ” people find in walking away is the reversion to the Catholicism that “refutes” what is questioned/disagreed with/dissented from and is less than convinced of the credibility of those who so “refute.”
Private. sensitive outreaches to catholics today need to listen better and to be open to change, though I know the Crdinal archbishop of Chicago doesn’t believe in that idea.
Private. sensitive outreaches to catholics today need to listen better and to be open to change, though I know the Crdinal archbishop of Chicago doesn’t believe in that idea.
Perhaps we can begin by modeling that ourselves, and refraining from the need to take gratuitous potshots against those whom we disagree with.
Has Cardinal George explicitly rejected these types of approaches? If not, then perhaps it’s not just bishops who could stand to learn a bit about charitably dealing with those with whom one disagrees.
JP said: “– what the church offers is better for homosexuals, etc.—”
You may believe this but as one who has been on the receiving end of this “betterness” for the better part of 50 years, I say you are wrong on that count.
As one who has walked away (in the form of becoming an attending, volunteering, financially contributing member of another Christian faith community) I found the most painful part was realizing that anger and resignation had made full, joyous participation in the visible, public life of the Catholic church all but impossible. I did not want to work on that relationship or work through my issues to a new, better place.
Indeed, we left when we did because we wanted to spare my six year old daughter from this particular blend of cognitive dissonance and cynicism that would come from her parents’ open disagreement with doctrines we would be encouraging her to learn while hoping she would come to dissent from. The impossibility of women’s ordination was the deal breaker. Still, I mourn the loss.
Another thoughtful observation:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0804-rutten-20100804,0,4961167.column
Jimmy Mac, since it is true that one can know through Faith and Reason that our complementary nature as Male and Female is endowed to us from God, and that Christ instituted the Sacraments in His Church, I am wondering what it is about the L.A. Times commentary that you consider to be a “thoughtful observation”?
Nancy: your question had absolutely nothing to do with the thrust of Rutten’s article. I think you should read Rutten again and actually pay attention to what he said.
William FitzGerald: Word. The notion that I would be catechizing my daughters in doctrines that I did not ascribe to and hoped against hope they would find a way out of was the end of the line.
Barbara: I really do think that my crisis of identity (in terms of institutional affiliation) would not have unfolded as it did if my daughter was a bit older or younger, for she is just ready for formal catechesis in preparation for the sacraments beyond baptism. How she would come to understand and experience Eucharist was of central concern in our resolve to take a different path.
To all still checking out this thread: What about the kids? How does a ‘fiduciary’ responsibility to hold in trust the deposit of faith influence your commitment to or break from the Roman Catholic church? Ultimately, these matters of faith involve family.
Bill: slightly off-topic, but that reminds me of an incident. A priest was guilty of a sexual misdemeanor against me a few years ago. (I filed a report with his superior the next day, and he was removed from active ministry within a couple of weeks.) Still stunned, I told my children right away, and my daughter’s immediate reaction was: “the entire Catholic church is rotten anyway”. To which I countered by: “Not true. You can’t generalize from this one man to the entire church.” Even in the heat of the moment, I differentiated.
I think it was good for them to see me continue to go to church in spite of the unpleasant incident. I trusted that they could, or later would be able to, see that our church is bigger than the problems of its members. In terms of doctrine, I would teach them only what I believe (I don’t think one can effectively communicate anything else anyway), and try to explain to them where there is a difference with the official catechism. Confusing, maybe, but one day they’ll be adults and have to learn to deal with confusion anyway, don’t they?
Not that I’ve had much success with their Catholic upbringing now that they’re at the end of their teenage years, but I did what I could…
About doing something about the mess –
I read this week that three Irish priests have started an organization of priests to dialogue with their bishops. I say lots of luck, and wonder how long it will last.
.
If I could meet her in person, I would
love to say “Thank you Anne Rice –
for so very articulately stating what
I have felt in my heart for years” !!!!
One’s ‘Faith-in-Christ’ should IN NO WAY
be tied into the man-controlled ‘Religion’
that so many refer to as “Christianity”
(especially that apostate, psuedo-religious
political-movement called ‘evangelicalism’)
It took me forever to realize that my
relationship with God (as established
through Christ Jesus, God The Son) was
IN NO WAY dependent on the apostate
psuedo-religious movement sweeping
America in the name of the “church”.
If Christ were walking the earth today,
a lot of these same “religious” types
would be the first to demand that He
be ‘crucified’ — and based merely on
who He chose as FRIENDS (women,
gays, foreigners, immigrants, the poor,
the rejected, the downtrodden, the rich,
men, old, young, happy, sad, and so on).
The “evangelicals” (not to be mistaken
for TRUE FOLLOWERS of Christ) and
other “church” types have essentially
hijacked the Christian ‘Faith’ in order to
turn it into a mammon-worshipping,
power-mongering, “Religion” of hate.
These people are more akin to a system of
ANTI-CHRIST (i.e. “against”-Christ) than
to anything tied into WHO CHRIST IS.
Their evil has reached such profound levels
that even people who know and love Christ
are turned off from them and their words
(again proving these “church” types are
really nothing more than anti-Christ,
self-righteous Pharisees and are not
even remotely related to Jesus Christ).
Never again will I waste my time stepping
into the psuedo-religious social-club that
is known as “church” or associate myself
with the political-clique that is known as
‘christianity’ — because FROM NOW ON
– I realize that I do NOT “need” either
in order to have a relationship with MY
LORD JESUS CHRIST (in fact, those
two entities were actually ‘interfering’
with my relationship with God)
THROUGH CHRIST — GOD HAS OPENLY
EXPRESSED HIS LOVE TO ‘EVERYONE’
(no matter if rich, poor, gay, straight, male,
female, sickly, healthy and so on) — AND
CHRIST (not the so-called”church”) IS
‘THE DOOR’ and ‘THE WAY’ TO GOD!!
ALL ARE WELCOME TO APPROACH AND
TO ENTER THROUGH ‘THE DOOR’ TO GOD!!
NO ONE IS REJECTED BY JESUS CHRIST !!!
JESUS LOVED AND LOVES EVERYONE !!!
LET’S ALL TRY TO REMEMBER
THE BIBLE VERSE OF ‘JOHN 3:17’:
“For God did NOT send His Son
into the world – to condemn
the world, BUT that the world,
THROUGH HIM, might be SAVED !!!!”
JESUS CHIST – and *not* the institution known
as “the church” or the religion called “christianity”
— IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE!!!
LIKE MANY OTHER PEOPLE – I AM DONE
WITH THE CHURCH & WITH CHRISTIANITY
– AND FROM HERE ON OUT – MY FOCUS IS
ON (AND FAITH IN GOD RELIES IN) JESUS
CHRIST AND JESUS CHRIST ALONE !!!
.