"Revert" Anne Rice: Pro "gay marriage," pro women's ordination, and pro contraceptive. What gives?

UPDATE (1/4/06): My thanks to Jackson for pointing to a lengthy L.A. Times piece (Dec. 26, 2005) about Anne Rice and her views on a host of topics. It's ironic that someone who is so upset that many Christians are arrogant, judgmental, irrational, and narrowminded, Rice sure sounds like a Christian who is arrogant, judgmental, irrational, and narrowminded. But, then, perhaps I'm the one who is arrogant, judgmental, irrational, and narrowminded for daring to say so...

-----------------

There has been quite a bit of understandable fascination with the story of novelist Anne Rice's return to the Catholic Church and her recent novel about the childhood of Jesus, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt. But what is the exact nature of the prodigal return to her childhood faith? If this January 3rd article in The Baltimore Sun is accurate, Rice's views about Catholic doctrine are, well, a bit different than those taught by the Magisterium:

Her views will not please all of the devout. Rice favors gay marriage. She believes the church position regarding birth control is a grievous error that is not supported by Scripture. She repudiates what she sees as intolerant, "sex-obsessed" church leaders and says she does not find support in the message of Jesus for their focus on sexual orientation or abortion. She argues for a more inclusive church.

"Think of how the church bells would ring and the pews would fill if women could become priests and priests could marry. It would be the great resurgence of the Catholic Church in this country," Rice said recently, seated in front of a roaring fire, in the La Jolla, Calif., mansion she moved to after she left New Orleans.

Would there be a growth of attendance if the Church had priestettes? We'll never know, of course, but the wasting away of Anglican congregations (not to mention main line Protestant denominations who have touted women's ordination) strongly suggests otherwise. As for married priests, Rice should acquaint herself with the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. In other words, she would do well to understand the difference between doctrines and disciplines.

Some Christians are using rather grand language to speak of Rice's conversion. The Sun reports that Christian columnist David Kuo, "a former aide to President Bush who was the deputy director of the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives", says: "This is a conversion story on the level of Augustine. Anne Rice was a daughter of darkness." And the National Catholic Register (which I write for on a regular basis) named her as "Literary Convert of the Year" in its January 1-7, 2006 edition. The Register notes that Rice's conversion is still ongoing, and quotes Archbishop Philip Hannan, retired archbishop of New Orleans, as saying, "She is somebody who needs a little bit of maturity. There are already a lot of people in the Church already who think that way. We don't give up on them."

It's a point well taken and — believe it or not — I'm not interested in bashing Rice or questioning her faith. And since I've not read her novel, I have nothing to say of it. But Archbishop Hannan's remarks have a flip side: those in the Church who agree with Rice may see the acceptance as an affirmation of their dissident views about key issues (which is not to say, again, that Rice is not sincere in her return to the Church). And Rice's seemingly foggy understanding of how important issues of life are ("She repudiates what she sees as intolerant, 'sex-obsessed' church leaders and says she does not find support in the message of Jesus for their focus on sexual orientation or abortion") and how they are part of a cohesive theological/moral fabric is disconcerting, to say the least.

The irony — and it is strikingly identical to the sometimes discordant stances taken by theologian Luke Timothy Johnson — is that Rice has no patience for the heretical views of skeptical theologians, such as those who make up the famed Jesus Seminar. The Register reports her as writing in the notes of her novel: "These skeptical scholars seemed so very sure of themselves. They built their books on certain assertions wihtout even examining these assertions." She also refers to the "bad faith" and "bias" of those scholars. Likewise, Johnson — who is a brilliant scholar and a very engaging man — has written books tearing apart the Jesus Seminar, but then also insists on supporting "gay marriage," contraception, and women's ordination. As I wrote in a review of his book, The Creed:

When Johnson agrees with Church teaching, his writing is measured and his arguments are logical. But when Johnson parts ways with Church teaching, the tone becomes polemical and he shows little if any respect for the thinking and logic behind those teachings.

So, my question, in contemplating the fascinating and curious journey of Anne Rice, is simply this: if one's careful study of the facts shows that the Catholic Church is correct about Jesus — his life, teachings, death, and Resurrection — then why not give the Church the benefit of the doubt and carefully study her reasons for rejecting contraception, homosexual acts, and women's ordination?

Comments

[Jeff]

I too was suprised when during an interview with CBC she was rather ambigous regarding abortion ("We know it's killing, but I'm not sure it's murder" - or something very close to that) and other issues of Catholic doctrine. When I review my own journey, however, I am not surprised. Everyone approaches the Church with some kind of baggage; in her case, however, her own struggles with the message of the Church is taking place in the spotlight. I think we should remember her in our prayers.

[Tom Harmon]

Carl,

Excellent post! The Register piece was somewhat one-sided and needed to mention Rice's continuing problems with Church teaching more prominently. It's clear she's overcome huge obstacles in coming back to some form of belief, for which she must be honored and praised, but equally clear that she has a ways to go to get to orthodoxy.

Farther up and farther in, Ms. Rice! I very much hope she comes all the way home.

[Mark Brumley]

Good points, gentlemen.

On the one hand, we must be patient and we shouldn't expect that everyone professing faith today does so with the faith objectively intact. We live in an intellectually fragmented world, so it should surprise no one that some converts come "pistically" fragmented. Yes, the truth of the faith is one, so one must at least implicitly affirm the whole of it to affirm any of it in an act of genuine faith. However, the cacophony of the modern world sometimes makes those turned hard of hearing struggle to discern truth's symphonic unity. Perhaps that explains Anne Rice.

On the other hand, we should not be so eager to claim convert trophies from the world that we are willing to put people with manifestly defective faith on a Catholic pedestal, as if to think recognition by a "name" from the world validates the Catholic Faith.

Jesus loves Anne Rice and wants her to be fully Catholic, but he doesn't need her for Catholicism to be true, good and beautiful. Neither do we.

[Jeff Miller]

That's the element I always wonder about those Catholics who don't fully accept all that the Church teaches. If they are right, then the Church has been teaching serious error for two centuries which would be a denial that the Holy Spirit guides the Church.

[Ed Peters]

I'm glad I have smart friends. They can keep track of people like Ann Rice (whoever she is) and books by Orson Scott Card (whatever they are) and let slugs like me know when I need to take note. Really. On the other hand, if you ever need anything checked out in the Libri Quinque Decretalium (1234) or in Gasparri's De Matrimonio, I'm your man. FWIW.

[Jackson]

Read this recent L.A. Times article on Rice:

http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-et-rice26dec26,1,2740074.story?page=1&cset=true&ctrack=1

I believe that she's not a Catholic at all. Here's one of her more shocking quotes from the article: "Millions of women are having abortions. They have control of their reproductive powers, and they do not want to relinquish that control. Abortion is at the heart of that, because it's at the core of women having control of who they are. I think it's killing. But I think it's a woman's choice." Note that last part: She admits that abortion is killing, yet is willing to sacrifice babies on the altar of radical individualism. Immeasurable depravity. Combined with her other ridiculous quotes, it doesn't at all sound like she subscribes to the gospel of life.

[Carl Olson]

Ed: You are the "smart friend" (and a very smart professor). Really! I only know OF Anne Rice; I've never read any of her books and have no interest in doing so. My curiosity is in the celebrity convert status she is quickly assuming. Granted, I don't know that she is looking for it, but she is getting a ton of ink. My hope is that the truth about her views aren't washed away in all of that ink...

[Jennifer]

I think the only thing important to keep in mind about Anne Rice is the fact that she is crazy. I used to be a big fan of hers, but her sanity has steadily eroded over the years. It is very sad and very public. I find it impossible to take anything she says seriously, although maybe God is blessing her somehow by opening a door back into sanity for her.

[Roberta young]

I am a revert as well, and when I first regained my faith, I kept all my pro-choice, pro-contraception, pro-divorce, pro-gay-marriage views.... at first. But those views changed as I started exploring why the Church teaches what it teaches. If Jesus is really the Son of God and not a just a wise sage, then he must be our moral authority, and those moral teachings passed on to the Apostles and from them to their successors must continue to be preserved not altered to suit our times.

[Bruno Wolzl]

I would not call Mrs. Rice a "revert", but declare she is on her way back. It is not that she has differing opinions about liturgical colors, but she is wrong about fundamental moral issues. And since she spouts off in the public, she should be reprimanded and pointed out to, that she is defacto excummunicando by her parish priest and bishop. That would be the most charitable thing to do.

[Thomas S. Painter (R)]

The lord says abortion is evil:
Leviticus 18:21, Deuteronomy 30:19, Ezekiel 16:20-21

The lord says homosexuality is evil:
Lev. 18:22, Gen. 19:4-7, Romans 1:25-27, I Cor. 6:9-10, Jude 1:7

The lord says men and women should procreate:
Genesis 1:26-28; Genesis 9:1-7; Genesis 16:10; Genesis 17:1-7; Genesis 17:15-20; Genesis 22:17; Genesis 26:4-24; Genesis 28:3; Genesis 35:11; Genesis 48:4; Exodus 32:13; Leviticus 26:9; Deuteronomy 7:13; Deuteronomy 8:1; Deuteronomy 13:17; Deuteronomy 28:63; Deuteronomy 30:5-16; Jeremiah 33:22; Ezekiel 16:7; Ezekiel 36:10; Ezekiel 36:11; Ezekiel 37:26; Amos 4:4; Hebrews 6:14

Cultures must reproduce enough to ward off foreign invasions or they will be conquered. Humanity must replace the dying or it will die.

[Thomas S. Painter (R)]

I used to be a big fan of Anne Rice before I became a right-wing conservative christian republican. I've read about a dozen of her books, but I would not recommend them unless they would help you evangelize goths & vampyres.

[MG]

"So, my question, in contemplating the fascinating and curious journey of Anne Rice, is simply this: if one's careful study of the facts shows that the Catholic Church is correct about Jesus — his life, teachings, death, and Resurrection — then why not give the Church the benefit of the doubt and carefully study her reasons for rejecting contraception, homosexual acts, and women's ordination?"

Because we are thinking beings with conscience?

The Church is run by humans who are also fallible...should we just accept things which our conscience tells us is wrong?

[James Yelvington]

It sounds as if Ann Rice would make a much better Anglican catholic than jousting with the Roman church...