Anne Rice likens Catholic Church to the Mafia; says Church is "one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world"

We interrupt Reality to bring you this message from Anne Rice:

When I left the RCC last year, I still had faith in the "people in the pews." I thought they were good people. But from what I've seen in these discussions, I think I was sadly mistaken.

When are rank and file Catholics going to stop supporting the worldwide crimes of the RCC against children and victims of clergy abuse?

If you support the Mafia, are you not complicit in its crimes?

What does it take to get Catholics to

1- apologize personally to the victims of clergy exploitation.
2- refuse to support their diocese unless the diocese comes clean about complicity with abusers, and efforts to shelter them and enable them.
3- Publicly demand that the Vatican come clean on clergy abuse, and begin some worldwide moral reform to see that this kind of blatant criminal behavior is never enabled and protected again?

Some of the posts by Catholics in these discussions are positively nauseating. You'd think these people didn't belong to one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world.

The utter failure of the Vatican to admit its own wrongdoing is appalling.

The Pope and his assistants have zero credibility.

The idea of moral leadership by this church is very simply outrageous.

That was posted two days ago by Rice on an amazon.com "Catholic Discussion" under the heading of "Are Rank and File Catholics just as guilty as their hierarchy of worldwide sexual abuse?" (ht: J.V.). There's plenty more to read in the discussion, and some of the key points ("accusations", really) are, in summary:

• Very few Catholics care about the priestly sex scandals, except to defend accused priests. Rice, in another post, writes, "It would be so easy for Catholics to stand up and say, 'We deplore this scandal, and we too want the truth.' But they really just don't do it." I'm not sure which is more mind-boggling: her omniscience or her ignorance (how about "omnignorance"?). Which leads to:

• No matter what the Pope or bishops or other Catholics do, it is never enough, it is never good enough, and it is seen as either implicitly or explicitly intended to cover up sins, crimes, and failures. After all, if the Catholic Church is just like the Mafia and is "one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world", it will surely continue to find ways to do what Rice and Co. insist it exists to do: molest, abuse, lie, and destroy.

• Catholics who defends the Church and who see bias or worse in the media when it comes to the scandals are either unwitting dupes or devious hatchetmen. Rice grudgingly admits that while some Catholics may have stood up and complained at some point, "the Catholic press is filled with defensiveness, attacks on the papers, attacks on the critics, excuses and platitudes. These discussions are filled with defensiveness and attacks on critics. I wonder: wouldn't the rank and file feel better if they stood up for the victims? Can't they be loyal to their pastors and their parishes and still speak up against people like Fr. Donald McGuire, and Marcial Maciel and other abusers?"

At this point there are already a couple big breaches in logic—the sort of breaches that Rice seems given to whenever she attempts to piece together her various "arguments" against the Catholic Church. One, for example, is that she insists the Catholic Church is essentially rotten and criminal in its very nature and that most Catholics are complicit in some way or another, but then insists that those same Catholics should be able to stand up against said criminal activities while remaining loyal to "their pastors and their parishes". Apparently she doesn't grasp that if she says that the Catholic Church is rotten through and through, it follows that every parish and priest (as well as lay person) is either tainted or corrupted and should be abandoned immediately.

Benedict XVI has addressed the scandals at many points in his pontificate (and was deaing with it years prior) and he has done more to directly confront the issue than anyone else (given his position, but also his awareness of the seriousness of matters). He has met with victims on several occasions; he has uttered very strong words about "the filth" that has been a vile cancer in the Church for several decades. He has dealt directly with specific situations, as in his letter to Catholics in Ireland just over a year ago. There is much more to it, as you can see here. But, of course, that will never be enough—not even the start of enough—for folks such as Rice. After all, she says: "The utter failure of the Vatican to admit its own wrongdoing is appalling."

In this, Rice sounds very much like another artistically-inclined, theologically-confused ex-Catholic, the singer Sinéad O'Connor, who recently wrote a piece with the modest, cautious title, "We Need a New Catholic Church". O'Connor refers to the Pope's 2010 end-of-the-year address at the Vatican to the Roman Curia, an address that she has both badly misunderstood and misrepresented before:

I thought the Vatican might be moved eventually, if enough people kept up the pressure. But after over 30 years of knowledge and pressure, at Christmas pope Benedict addressed his cardinals on the matter using the following words: "in the 1970s it was theorized that pedophillia was fully in conformity with man and and with children." He went on to say "nothing was considered either good or evil in itself." I can tell you that's not what the chemist told my granny when she asked for condoms.

His point apparently was to say that there was no more of an accepting attitude of pedophilia within the church than there was in secular society. Nonsense of course to suggest that after laws against pedophilia were enacted in the late 1800s anyone theorized it as acceptable. And there can never have been a child on earth who felt even slightly in conformity with pedophilia. Hardly needs stating that Jesus Christ would never have been in conformity either

This both misses the Pope's obvious point—that moral relativism, wherever it exists, leads to evils such as pedophilia—and the obvious fact that there have been several movements, in both Europe and the U.S., pushing for pedophilia to be accepted as normal and healthy. (It also ignores, strangely, this statement by Benedict: "We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime." The entire address is necessary reading.)

O'Connor, apparently unable to understand the Pope's basic point and quite clueless about what has been going on in the world for the past few decades, jumps on her straw high horse to swipe at the Vatican straw man:

When I heard those words I knew there was no point fighting any more. There is no hope of morality or a fiery cleansing of the Vatican from within on this issue of respect for Christ. Only a headset entirely bereft of morality could have made such an astounding remark. And clearly a phalanx of lawyers added to this lack of morality means those of us who were fighting for a cleansed Vatican may as well throw down our arms. My dead mother has more chance of releasing her debut album.

However, while there are zillions of us who do not identify with the current Vatican's manifest definition of Catholicism, we still identify with the beautiful essence of the Catholicism we grew up with. But the child is being drowned, and the bathwater needs to get thrown out. And no one at the Vatican is going to do that. So we're going to have to run in and rescue the baby and raise it ourselves.

This appeal to the "the beautiful essence of the Catholicism we grew up with" is curious, as it's not entirely clear what O'Connor's experience was with Catholicism while growing up in the mid- to late-Seventies. Her life has been, to put it delicately, complicated: several marriages, several children by different men, admission and then partial retraction of being lesbian and/or bi-sexual; being "ordained" as a "Catholic priest"; a suicide attempt, etc. But there is no need to succumb to psycho-analysis; just look at the bottom line for O'Connor:

We must now start a provisional alternative Catholic Church for all, including present Catholic clergy, who have been let down and disillusioned and who want to see a Catholic Church which honours Christ with truth, honours the sacraments and the people's spiritual needs, has no hierarchy and does not dictate who God can love or not love. Nor whom can be in or out. Nor whether a woman is fit for Christ to make himself manifest through in priesthood. Nor whether the sacrament of sacred marriage and the comfort of children and grandchildren should be denied to priests. ... I don't know how, or what, I just know we need a new Catholic Church. If we stick to the sacraments and honor them fully, the rest will follow.

Two related notions stand out in O'Connor's essay: the distrust of and disdain for hierarchy and Church authority, and the conviction that Catholic beliefs about sexuality and the roles of men and woman must change to fit the times: "In history, people move. They create what they feel they deserve. Times change." The Church's beliefs, in other words, are malleable and should be at the service of our feelings of entitlement. Perhaps it is not so strange, after all, that O'Connor doesn't understand how Benedict's address was a direct denunciation of this deadly form of moral and cultural relativism.

The same two notions are in abundance in Rice's various posts and essays. She writes, "... I do think that the structure of the Roman Catholic Church has involved a particular kind of corruption. And other institutions no doubt have similar problems, related to their structure and their power. This is a worldwide monarchical organization that mixes ideas of religious virtue with its rules and regulations. And a system like that is bound to breed considerable corruption."

Of course, structures of governance can be abused, and its not as if Catholics are immune to corruption and sin; not at all! But Rice is saying something far more problematic: that "a worldwide monarchical organization that mixes ideas of religious virtue with its rules and regulations ... is bound to breed considerable corruption." I wonder: is it the worldwide nature of the Church that botheres her, or the combination of "religious virtue" and "rules and regulations"? I suspect it is more the second, which begs the question: is she opposed to religious virtue or to rules and regulations? (And, while we are at it, does she hold the same strong perspective about the U.S. public school system, which is filled with rules and regulations—and in which close to 10% of children are abused in one form or another?)

The answer, I think, can be found in Rice's strong support of "gay rights" and "same sex marriage". Her Facebook page describes Rice as a "Supporter of gay rights, and Same Sex Marriage" and says she is "Committed to defending the rights of women, children and gays against traditional religions that target them for special persecution and oppression." Now, it might be that Rice has written a great deal about, say, Islamic oppression of homosexuals and women, but it seems she is mostly focused on "one of the biggest criminal organizations in the world", the Catholic Church. It is also fairly obvious that she believes the Catholic Church, by its very nature and structure and beliefs, is focused on molesting children, oppressing women, and persecuting "gays" (incuding her son).

Finally, what Rice, O'Connor, and Co. don't seem to fathom is that many "rank-and-file" Catholics are able to make some basic distinctions that are necessary for comprehending why they remain Catholic. First, they believe the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, is necessary for salvation, and is both the holy Bride of Christ and on earth a communion with members who are sinners—sometimes horrific and even unrepentant sinners. The Catechism states:

"Christ, 'holy, innocent, and undefiled,' knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal." All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. 300 In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time. 301 Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ's salvation but still on the way to holiness:

The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (CCC, par. 827)

Secondly, this means that Catholics can (and should!) be both outraged and horrified by the sins of certain priests and love the Church. Some Catholics, sadly, have been burned and badly wounded by their instictive trust in the innocence of this or that priest. But most Catholics that I know understand that pedophilia, homosexual acts, and other sins committed by priests are not caused by Church teaching or "the structure", but by free, sinful choices made in a fallen world. (In a similar way, they understand that the traditional, true understanding of marriage should not be ditched because so many people commit adultery, get divorced, etc.) They understand the parable of the sheep and the goats; they know about the wheat and the tares. And many Catholics have and do stand up to demand accountability, from bishops who have failed to deal rightly with guilty priests, with bishops who fail to call sin "sin", and bishops who would rather appease the critics than say, "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexual acts are disordered and sinful. Fornication is a grave sin. Adultery is evil. Abortion is murder. Using contraceptives is a sin." And so forth. It's not that some of us Catholics fixate on those sins because we ignore the sins of molestation, abuse, stealing, and ignoring the poor; no, it's because everyone agrees those sins are evil—even while a whole swath of Catholics refuse to acknowledge the sinfullness of abortion. homosexual acts, fornication, and using contraceptives.

Thirdly, this is part of the reason many serious, practicing Catholics are so frustrated with the way the Catholic Church is portrayed in the media; they tire of hearing how celibacy or the male priesthood or "traditional attitudes" are somehow responsible for actions are that, put bluntly, the evil acts of men who trangress God's law, Church law, and natural law when they engage in homosexual acts or pedophilia or fornication. As Philip Lawler shows in his book, The Faithful Departed, there is indeed corruption—but it is not the product of a system of governance or hierarchy but of a failure to admit and repent of sin, very often that involving homosexuality. Of course, in a culture that celebrates homosexuality as not just normal but the pinnacle of evolution and enlightenment, such facts simply cannot be allowed. Alternative explanations, both convenient and unconvincing, must be given: Church teaching is repressive, celibacy is unnatural and leads to molestation, chastity is a quaint stupidity, following Catholic moral teaching is for nostalgic, puritanical fascists.

I'll conclude this overly long post (yikes!) with something I wrote about Rice many months ago, which I think sums up many of the serious problems with her opinions about the Catholic Church:

So, in addition to being fairly clueless about Catholic history and theology, Rice is equally clueless about the uneasy and complex relationships between Church and State, Christianity and secularism, and tradition and modernity that have shaped the culture we swim in, the society we live in, and public square we meet and debate within. And, in fact, she has become the very thing she sincerely but wrongly caricatures: a judgmental fundamentalist (secular in perspective, with a subjective sprinkle of magic Jesus dust) who damns the Church for not sleeping with the secularists, embarrassed that some Christians won't bow and worship the State that would be and wishes to be lord, life, and eternal ruler.

Related Insight Scoop posts:

• Anne Rice: Catholic Church is "dishonorable...dishonest...an immoral church..." (Feb. 7, 2011)
• More Anne Rice: "Christians have lost credibility in America as people who know how to love." (Aug. 17, 2010)
• Anne Rice blasts Benedict XVI; says Bishop Olmstead was "the very last straw" (Aug. 11, 2010)
• Yep, earth-shattering, cosmos-quaking (side-splitting) news (Aug. 10, 2010)
• Fr. Barron on Anne Rice and a proper ecclesiology (Aug. 6, 2010)
• Anne Rice talks about "final straws" (Aug. 3, 2010)
• A Cautionary Tale: Augustine, Aquinas, and Anne Rice (July 29, 2010)
• "Revert" Anne Rice: Pro "gay marriage," pro women's ordination, and pro contraceptive. What gives? (Jan. 3, 2006)

Comments

[Rocket]

Wow! That is quite the response to Rice. Keep up the good work!

[Joe]

I think it is a mistake to equate bloggers with the rank and file. Many bloggers are outrageous in their prosaic reach. Rice is herself one such example. We tend to take ourselves over seriously.

And, I would agree the Church needs to be more active in protecting its own hierarchal character, and not putting up with priestly nonsense. The moral excesses are one side of that coin, so I would agree with her. The lapses on the liberal side are things like too many silences in the face of Jesuit nonsense, allowing a Bishop Weakland Center, etc. What did someone say? The Church is the biggest argument against Catholicism! Or as Dorothy Day wrote, the Church is the cross on which Christ is crucified. But it is the Church, nonetheless. What Rice seems unwittingly to want is a cult with the appearance of faux-perfection. That certainly is not the Church.

I sympathize with her disillusionment, but her noisy retreat and defiance to not pose an answer.

[Molly]

I don't defend Anne Rice's comments, but it interests me that she's interacting on Amazon's group forums. Some months before Anne Rice publicly left the Church, I used to encounter her on Amazon Catholic forum discussion pages. At the time,the sex abuse scandal in the Church was in one of its red hot stages. I recall that she was repeatedly badgered by many snide commenters who questioned her loyalty to the Church because she held some beliefs that did not pass muster with the commenters. It was upsetting to see the sarcasm and disdain the commenters directed at her. After several weeks, she withdrew from the forum and deleted all her comments. I assume the snide commenters went elsewhere, once they were deprived of their celebrity target. It wasn't too many months later that she announced she was leaving the Church. I will always recall that incident with sadness.

[Dan Deeny]

In Far from the Madding Crowd, Thos. Hardy, i.e. the narrator, remarks that Gabriel Oake was a good Christian except when he went to church on Sunday and could see all the sinners in the pews.

[Subvet]

If you're going to be a devout Catholic you need to grow a thick skin, learn to faithfully follow the most seemingly nonsensical orders and practice humility, patience & forgiveness at every turn.

Public figures suffer from their success and have it harder than most of us, I wonder how many of their Catholic detractors would fare if dealt the same seemingly favorable hand. Recall that Christ said a rich man would find it exceedingly difficult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

I'd recommend praying for the souls of Rice, O'Connor and their ilk.

[Josey Wales]

"Public figures suffer from their success and have it harder than most of us"

Right. I'm all broken up over their sufferings.

[Achilles]

I am with you Subvet, imagine the baggage of success and the immense wieght and pressure it would put on clarity of moral vision. I can't believe anyone would sympathize with the assinine comments of O'conner and Rice, but to sympathize and pray for these souls is the least we must do. Pax Christi vobiscum!

[Mike Malone]

I'm not sure what Anne Rice believes about God....she goes in and out of the Catholic Church like the bird in a coo coo clock.

In her Profession of Faith she noted that she returned to the Catholic Church in 1998. She said she felt the greatest thing she could to to show her complete love of God was to consecrate her work to Him.

That is one of the most narcissistic statements I've ever read. I wonder if God thinks her porn writings under the pen name Anne Rampling are worthy reading. I'd also doubt He is impressed with Anne's opposition to the book He wrote, The Bible, or many of her other anti-Christian beliefs or her other dark-side writings.

But hang on.....next week Anne will probably be back or she'll probably re-write Scripture to suit her errant beliefs.

[Josey Wales]

The idea that public figures, presumably wealthy, have it harder than most of us is just twisted. Wild. They have it harder than the many poor living in barrios? I don't think so. I've been there, and under their roofs. The rich public figure has it harder than the poor, or the struggling middle classes? No way. "But I'm not speaking of the material, but of the spiritual." Do you think there isn't potentially crushing spiritual suffering related to being poor? Think again. I've seen it. The poor suffer both materially and spiritually. The rich public figure suffers only spiritually.

[tantumblogo]

All the rhetoric about priest abuse and the Church as a corrupt organization is just a smoke screen for hurt feelings because the Church can't/won't change it's Doctrine to suit one, or many, individual's personal whim. This all gets down to Rice being unable to reconcile her love for her son and desire to embrace him as the world tell her to, and what the Church says about the acts her son is likely committing on a regular basis. And so she has to deform the Church into a caricature in order to fit it into her worldview. Subvet has a point - those who are so deeply inured in the world (and worldly success definitely plays a role) have a very hard time seeing the Truth revealed by Christ through His Church. Unfortunately, they do a great deal of damage and help peel many people away, so their actions cannot be excused as mere personal suffering. If it were merely a private exercise, prayer alone would do, but since Rice and O'Connor and others can move perhaps poorly formed people, or those with a weak faith, even further away from the Church, they must be corrected and their actions revealed for what they are.

Subvet, correction is the first spiritual work of mercy. It's a difficult balance, and I likely fail at it alot, trying to balance correction with charity, but simply folding one's arms and saying "I'll pray for them" ignores the real-world damage that is being done.

That, too, needs a response, as Mr. Olson has provided here.

[Carl E. Olson]

"And Jesus said to his disciples, 'Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'" (Matt. 19:24)

"Riches prick us with a thousand troubles in getting them, as many cares in preserving them, and with yet more anxieties in spending them, and with grief in losing them." — Fr. Camus, The Spirit of Saint Francis de Sales (17th c.)

"The greatest baseness of man is his seeking for glory..." — Pascal

[Sheree Knotts]

I have to agree with Anne Rice. For too long the church has moved, hidden and protected abusers. Why I can't explain except to protect the name of the church at the expense of the children. Good for Anne Rice. She speaks the truth.

[Eva]

What a wonderfully one-sided argument this has been.

Let's get some things straight:

1. Rice is against the child abuse that has been caused by priests and the vatican's rather obvious attempts to cover it up and just relocate the priest as a 'quick fix' to the problem instead of casting out and taking to court the offending men as would, and should, happen with the laity. If you think this practice by the vatican and the church in general is OK then you need to have your head examined.

2. If you feel it's right to persecute gays for the sake of being gay, then you should be reminded of Christ's own words of "let ye without sin cast the first stone." Also in the words of Christ, "You Hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Do you really have a right to say they are wrong? If your defense happens to be, "But it says right here that being gay is BAD!" I would like to remind you that it is *also* bad, according to the bible, to eat pork, flip a light switch on sunday, get an erection in public, and oogle the opposite sex- the latter being something every single one of you has done. The list goes on. Are you going to hell, too, then?

I think the majority of you are more pissed off over the fact that she happens to be saying something period instead of what she's actually saying. Use that righteous moral compass you all seem to have and evaluate whether slapping priests on the hand and sending them on their way after fornicating with children is alright. Ask yourself if name calling and exclusion is alright- think back to your childhood and maybe you'll get more perspective.

We do have a crisis on our hands, and scoffing and complaining about the people who actually have their eyes open and are upset about it only reflects badly on you.

PS: I'm also wondering if the comments here have been one-sided due to the moderation filter. I'd hate to think that not even freedom of speech and counter opinion is allowed here. We shall see, though.

[Arik Hartmann]

I think its quite pitful that none of you actually refute her claims, claims that are by the way very supported and very real, and instead attack her on the basis of her celebrity, her wealth, her family, etc. But nothing about the validity of her statements. If one thinks that Catholic Church does not need reform, one is clearly delusional.

The tidal waves of molestation and abuse stories hitting the Church is not some conspiracy perpetuated by Anne Rice, or any other person who dislikes the RCC, they are secret and horrible truths coming to light. But I understand, if I had to dish out 160 million dollars to hush up a scandal, I'd be pretty ticked as well.

Please, if you're going to refute a claim or argue logically, mud-slinging and bitterness does not add to the weight of your opinion.

[Truth Justice Peace]

Rice is a recovering alcoholic. Many alcoholics like her are addicted to drama. It is sad that the same woman who only a few years ago wrote a book praising the Catholic Church and reveling in her reconversion is now using the same tactics of extremism to create more drama. In her Facebook pages she often shrieks about what she calls "war on women" but never mentions that she wrote and profited from somef best selling books (under a pseudonym A.N. Roquelaure) detailing the degradation and humiliation of women for erotic titillation.

I am sorry for Mrs. Rice because I believe it is her addiction speaking but I also fear that the kind of hate she continually perpetrates is the dangerous. There are crazy people who believe in people like her. If one of them carries a gun into a church like the crazy man who carried a gun into a political rally in Arizona how will she feel then?

[RickyS]

Her life has been, to put it delicately, complicated: several marriages, several children by different men, admission and then partial retraction of being lesbian and/or bi-sexual; being "ordained" as a "Catholic priest"; a suicide attempt, etc. " Clearly, she is not mentally capable to have a legitimate opinion due to this past.

[Carl E. Olson]

I see that Anne Rice has unleashed the hounds (via Twitter and Facebook). I also see that her minions are not interested in actually reading my post and addressing any of my points. As expected. My prediction: the minions will keep upping the rhetorical ante and soon I'll be called "homophobic" and "hateful" and the like. All of which will simply prove one of the points I made in my post: "Catholics who defends the Church and who see bias or worse in the media when it comes to the scandals are either unwitting dupes or devious hatchetmen." Sigh...

[Mark M]

Well turning to the bible to defend points made about modern day scandals in the church is hardly a redeeming way of saving face is it? After all if these preists actually followed the bible teachings in any way, shape or form, then maybe we'd have none of these scandals in the first place. Anne Rice makes many sound points, some are misguided but at the heart of all her thoughts is that she wants improvements, honesty, openness and the truth, finally, from a church that is still locked up in the secrecy it has hid behind for thousands of years. "Come in to the light" to borrow a cliche...you've kept the public in the dark long enough!

[Memnoch's Advocate]

I think the more you keep writing about her the more her fans will tell praise her and feed her big ego. This is all about getting more people to be her followers so she has more people telling her how wonderful she is.

[Mark M]

@truth justice peace : You haven't managed to address any point that has anything to do with this discussion. All you have delivered is your personal hatred of somebody you don't see eye to eye with. Because you praise somebody in the past does that forego the right to change your mind when you discover the truth. If you promoted an employee for his good work and then he turned around and stole from you or killed a fellow employee or molested your children, would you still pat him on the head and say "well done!". I think we know the answer to that. Just because this is the church involved it doesn't matter, they now need to face up to the fact that in this day and age people will not tolerate the church placing itself above the law!

[Shoeless Jerome]

To all those who posted in agreement with Anne, did you happen to look at any of the links Mr. Olson Posted in his blog refuting each and everyone of them? Did you happen to read the section quoted from the Catechism on the nature of Church and sin?
I can appreciate that reform is necessary, but I would challenge you people who come after the church to check your "facts" from the media before spouting off about scandal's and cover ups. The Papacy IS taking action. In turn, every diocese in the world is taking action (or is out of line with the directives from Rome). To those who actually work with Children in the Church, the requirements for clergy AND staff have been raised significantly (both in training and background) and have become standardized across the board.

The church is learning once again the necessity of transparency (so there is no darkness to hide in), and reform is happening.

As a side note, in response to Eva's point about the Church "persecuting" homosexuals, there is no such persecution validated by the church. The Church's stance on the subject has not changed since first broached. Being attracted to people of the same gender as yourself is not wrong. Sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. Marriage IS one Man, one Woman. Thus, sexual activity between same gender partners is (being outside of marriage) intrinsically wrong. God doesn't hate Homosexuals, and neither does the Church, but they share mutual disgust for fornication.

Peace People.

Luceat Lux Vestra!

[Linnsworld]

I am a Christian, and a Catholic. I was a scholar of Religion in University, and was raised by a Minister and Professor of Religion. I have found my path, and don't presume to judge the paths found by others.

However, I have read this blog, and the following comments, and I have to ask, to which Religion do you folks belong? I, personally, do not recognize the Christian religion - any part of it - in your attempts to malign a person who has criticized you, or your need to call her a sinner, in graphic and inaccurate detail. I, also, do not recognize Christianity in your reflexive defensiveness of your Church. After all, Jesus railed against the corruption in the Church, and never - not one time - did he speak of loyalty to a Church, over integrity, honesty, or true compassion. Third, I don't recognize that sentiment you each refer to as "sympathy", especially as a sentiment advocated by the Life of Christ or the Bible. You each keep referring to 'feeling sorry for her, but...'. I honestly, truly, do not see actual sympathy, much less humility and compassion, in those statements.

So, can you clarify for me, to which Religion do you each belong? I am intrigued. Honestly. I am not being facetious - I would like your honest, humble answer.

Sincere Regards,

Linn H.

[Ricardo G.]

I think it's horrible to speak of Sinéad's "children by different men" and Anne "unable to reconcile her love for her son", but I'm sure you don't, obviously.

If this Pope had to publicly acknowledge these crimes it is because people like them pushed, spoke, fought for it. It is not true that "this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests". These abuses, cover-ups, moving priests from parish to parish, silencing families, etc. went on for years and years, and so, what good does it do to hear a lie as an apology?

I don't mean to convince you of leaving Catholicism, but, if you're a part of it, you should think deeply who and what you are defending.

[Carl E. Olson]

Linn:

A few quick responses, with the qualifying remark that I, as the author of the original post, can only speak for myself. As you can see, there are a variety of viewpoints being expressed here.

• You write, "I have found my path, and don't presume to judge the paths found by others." And then, "I, also, do not recognize Christianity in your reflexive defensiveness of your Church." So, in fact, you do presume to judge. Not to worry: it's impossible to not judge statements if you are going to have a conversation. Just pointing out that your opening remarks are puzzling at best, condescending at worst. Surely, as a scholar and a Catholic you can recognize that it is well within bounds for a Catholic to defend the Catholic Church? Is that really so outrageous or incomprehensible?

• "I, personally, do not recognize the Christian religion - any part of it - in your attempts to malign a person who has criticized you, or your need to call her a sinner, in graphic and inaccurate detail." I'm not sure if you are speaking here of comments about Anne Rice or Sinéad O'Connor. For my part, I've not maligned anyone; if you disagree, please give me specific statements. Or, perhaps you are talking about Rice's statement that nearly all Catholics are knowingly part of a large criminal organization, the Catholic Church. Would you say that her statement is fair, or does it unfairly malign Catholics? Also, calling a sin a sin is certainly not contrary to Christianity; all you have to do is read the Gospels to see that Jesus consistently pointed out sins and called people to repentance. Judging the state of someone's soul, of course, is another matter, but the only people who seem to be doing that here are those attacking Catholicism/Catholics.

• "After all, Jesus railed against the corruption in the Church..." Indeed he did, in the Book of Revelation, where he condemned, among other things, immorality (Rev. 2:14, 20) and adultery (2:22). And in the Gospel of Matthew he condemns "evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander" (Matt. 15:19). Yes, pedophilia and homosexuality and fornication are not acceptable for any Catholic, priest or otherwise. Did I say differently?

• "... and never - not one time - did he speak of loyalty to a Church, over integrity, honesty, or true compassion." The Church is described in the New Testament as the body of Christ and the bride of Christ; St. Paul wrote, "For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body." (Eph 5:29-30). Defending or hiding guilty priests is not an act of loyalty to Christ or the Church, but defending the Church against claims that it is a criminal organization structured so that abuse and sin can take place is outlandish.

• "So, can you clarify for me, to which Religion do you each belong?" I am a Catholic and strive to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church——the Church founded by Jesus Christ——relying on the mercy and grace of God. What puzzles me is that a self-identified Catholic such as yourself seems to be in the dark about many things Catholic. And, believe me, I say that sincerely and without rancor.

[Matthew Hopkins]

Hey come on you guys! Anne rice wrote about vampires, and Jesus was definitely a vampire (drink my blood and live forever, anyone?) Can't you guys get along?

[betherzzz_04@yahoo.com]

I tried to read this article but your grammer is awful. That's ok though. I in particular hate religion, so I'm sure all you said was a load of crap.

[Catherine Alexander]

Ditto what Linn said. Dial it down, please; a lot of this was unnecessarily sarcastic and defensive.

[wesleygg]

I support her......

[Carl E. Olson]

Ricardo: Ah, I get it: saying that the Pope is a liar is a helpful and objective statment, but making a verified and true observation about O'Connor that bears directly on her stability and moral character is out of bounds. Righto.

[Science]

Ah Catholicism. The great lie I was told for many years before I matured and got tired of defending a concept that's as ridiculously absurd as Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and Mickey Mouse all rolled into one. As a kid I wanted to be a priest, now I probably wouldn't let my child near one. This world in all of it's naive sun worship will probably let me down until the day I die, as the day you children grow up may never come. Unable to think for yourselves, live your own lives instead of living vicariously through a thousand year old cons designed to separate you from your money. I've sat on the sidelines, the peaceful Atheist for far too long. We will take the necessary steps to destroy your God, one scientific fact at a time, and one day I hope religion is so frowned upon that it is finally made illegal. Our day will come, maybe not in my lifetime, but trust me it will happen, so enjoy your violent fairy tales while you can. The only flaw in Anne Rice is her stubborn blindness to the fact that all of these atrocities are in the name of an invisible man none of you have ever met nor can prove the existence of. I hope you all sleep well at night knowing your organization promotes the abuse of children. I know the responses before you hurl them. Ranging from hate to prayers. Know that I appreciate the kindness as a gesture but a healthy fart in my general direction would be more tangible than any prayer you can offer. Thank you.

[Metronomic1]

Some of these comments and indeed this blog post proves how absolutely rotten and petty Catholics really are. Your religion is shrinking by the day and for good reason. People are sick of your schoolyard bullying and lies on top of lies. Jesus Christ would be shamed to be associated with any of you fools. You've twisted his words so as to be completely unrecognizable and it will be you that burn in your imaginary hell, punished by your imaginary friend in the sky you call "God".

[Patrick Moran]

The Church needs to stop reacting and really look at what is going wrong and vigorously ask itself why. The vigor appears to be focused on crisis management instead of really deciding to make important changes. It may go one, but it will continue to contract and weaken until it decides to confront itself.

[Jo2825]

The problem most people have with the Catholic Church, as far as the abuse scandal is concerned is that the Church knew...ALL ALONG...and did nothing. Yes, once it was outed in newspapers around the world, the Pope has made several speeches and written some letters. But before this, accused priests were quietly shuffled from one parish to another, victims were hushed up and NO action was taken. These priests were not removed from "public" service, where they could (and DID) molest and abuse more children, nor were they excommunicated for these most horrible sins. On the outside the RCC decries the act of pedophilia, but on the inside they were protecting their priests and covering up decades worth of repeated crimes. THIS is what the general public screams about. The protection of criminals. The outrageous actions the RCC has taken to protect itself, above all else...only ministering to the victims if sufficient public notice was given to that particular incident. On the "outside" the mean who committed these crimes would have been investigated, arrested and tried for their crimes. Because they fell under the umbrella of the Church, they were moved to somewhere new with an entirely new parish full of children to victimize. What sort of organization does that?!

[Holly Turner]

It's inappropriate to criticize Anne Rice's understanding of Catholicism and the sex abuse scandals running rampant through it simply because you disagree with her conclusions. My uncle was a Roman Catholic Priest, and all my relatives as far back as I can trace were good Catholics. As such, I often find myself in the position of arguing against generalizing about Catholics based on the actions of the hierarchy who protect the most loathsome of criminals in their ranks. However, I have to point out that, in the weeks and months preceding their court appearances against the victims of abuse suing them, every diocese attempts to hide assets so as to avoid paying just compensation to victims who lost their lives and innocence to perverted Catholic Priests.

[Leslie Chaney]

Don't care if this is approved or not. I am saddened by the abundance of idiots and so-called "Christians" who spew their intellectual vomit upon the blog of the mentally challenged. People doubt the presence of God because of Dillweeds like all of you. I'm praying for this bunch of poindexters because it's the spiritual thing to do. Mean people suck.

[Grace]

Sorry folks but I happen to agree with Anne Rice. All of you Catholics need to stand up to the church and say, "Enough!" If you don't stand up to the church's wrong doings then you are in fact condoning the rape and molestation of innocents by clergy that are never prosecuted. And then that makes all of you part of the problem.

"If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."

[Ricardo G.]

Carl: That the Church knew, including the Pope, has been widely documented, there were even documents that like you say "verfied" it. Published in The New York Times, by the way.
Sinéad's stability is no evil doing sir, raping a child is, looking the other way is. And yet you speak of moral.

[Septumbler of Bumblers]

Science, it's all been tried before. Persecution only strengthens the Church. It's indifference that hurts it. And you're most definitely not indifferent. By all means, keep it up.

It's always amusing to see how much atheists hate the God they don't believe exists.

[Jessica]

To the gentleman who authored the original blog post, had you originally posted something along the lines of what you did above in response to Lynn's comment, you would have made your point in a much more diplomatic and thought-provoking manner. You accused people of not reading the entire blog and you mentioned that "Anne's minions" had gotten wind of this post and gone on the war path. I am a fan of Anne Rice, yes, I found your blog post through Anne's facebook page, AND I happened to read your entire blog, long before I read the comment calling me a "minion." Thanks for the name calling, by the way, it wasn't inappropriate or immature AT ALL. Very Christian of you. It made me take your post all the more seriously. I hope you sense my sarcasm.

[Patrick Moran]

And the real horror to consider, is that these issues did not just happen in our lifetime, but in generations before us per the stories of the survivors of the sexual abuse in Catholic orphanages in Ireland and Australia from the earliest years of the 20th century are showing us. That is a lot of evil to visit on innocent victims who are branded with that experience through their whole lives and before anyone could even help them. Yes, hell exists, and it is a big part of the lives of those who have been victims of institutionalized sexual abuse.

[Lynn Harrington]

Anne Rice is exactly right. Also pedophiles have been drawn to the priesthood because they knew they would be protected. The worst thing that has happened for the RC church is the internet, because victims are networking and the darkness and secrecy is coming apart. I thought Rice had lost her mind when she re-joined the RC church, and I was overjoyed when she'd had enough of their ignorance about homosexuality and their horrid cover-up of sexual abuse.She also had a lot of trouble with the asinine rejection of condoms to prevent AIDS.I support her 100 percent. I hope that the entire RC institution is wiped out by law suits.

[Jeanette Victoria]

Anne has not only posted the link to this page not once but twice. Even a causal reading of the comments from her "minions" reveals an astounding lack reasoning whatever. The comments are either personal attacks or sanctimonious lecturing.

Ms Rice is constantly attacking the Catholic church and yet she supports the very perversion that is responsible for the abuse scandal....homosexuality.

In the past year she has become increasingly irrational claiming that the Catholic Church and Christians in general are persecuting homosexuals (even though all the push for change is coming from homosexuals) and that conservatives have launched a war on woman's rights (i.e. the mother's right to murder her unborn baby). It is clear that she is disturbed both emotionally and spiritually and need our prayers.

Unfortunately Anne's opinions are important because she uses her celebrity status as a bully pulpit for evil.

[Dave Reynolds]

Blah, Blah, Blah. It's very simple. The Catholic Church has a really serious problem that they continue to deny exists, fail to correct and apologize for and attack anyone who challenges them on it. I left the RCC because of it and feel way closer to God without them. Trust me, during my nightly chats with the "Big Guy" NEVER does the RCC come into our conversations. Really, how relevant a Religion is that?

Anne Rice can be on my team anytime!!

From a former Catholic Alter Boy who was never "diddled" with...uhh... unless I've repressed it all.

[Jo D.]

Dear Ricky S.:
You're confusing Anne Rice with Sinead O'Connor. Get your facts straight.

To the author of this blog post: Regardless of what you think of Anne Rice personally, her points are valid. The Catholic Church is rotten to it's core, and it's time for 'rank and file' Catholics to stand up and speak up. You're grasping at straws, and it shows. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is complicit in in sex crimes. Period.

[Linnsworld]

Mr. Olson,

My questions were genuine, and simple. I did not try to make a statement by them. I made observations that I do hope I was clear were my own, but only observations about actions just taken, not judgments of those actions, or of the persons behind those actions. I then asked you an honest question, based on those observations.

I am well acquainted with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. I am very well educated in the Christian Religion. I have not heard you make an argument that my personal observations about the actions to which I referred were incorrect. Nor did you argue that the actions of yourself and other commenters here do in fact accurately represent the Christian Faith, of any denomination. In your reply you did reference a large number of verses from the Bible, none of which were relevant to my observations or my simple question.

So, I ask you, or other commenters, to please tell me what Religion you do represent, and how your personal statements, regarding Ms Rice or anyone else, specifically the ones I pointed to, represent the religion you claim.

Respectfully,

Linn H.

[MP]

Ricardo G. said,

"That the Church knew, including the Pope, has been widely documented, there were even documents that like you say "verfied" it. Published in The New York Times, by the way."

I *think* you're referring to those widely debunked slander pieces published by the New York Times last year. Referring to the New York Times as though it's somehow credible in matters of religion is pretty interesting...

I once respected Anne Rice's struggle to be Catholic. Living a Christian life in today's culture is not easy. One must be openly counter-cultural. However, now I feel I am unable take her seriously. While standing up for survivors of abuse is laudable, what she is actually doing is exploiting them to vent her anger toward the Catholic church and those of us who are faithful to its teaching. However, we will continue to fight for human rights against Anne and everyone who supports abortion and the culture of death.

I hadn't realized she was so hateful and angry, but now I see. I pray she finds peace, and I pray she finds it in the deep embrace of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, who loves her deeply.

[mel]

Combox commandos cannot conceive coherent comments. Anne Rice let the dogs out again.....woof!

[savvy]

To all the readers, berating Catholics along with Anne Rice, for not standing up, not doing enough etc. The question is how do you know we are not doing enough?

How the heck do you know this?

Have you been to every Catholic church in the city, country, in the world?

Have you?

Standing up to abuse it one thing. Linking the abuse like Rice does to church's teachings on faith and morals, is another thing. I wonder if Rice would hold these positions if the church subscribed to all her hippy, 60s morals.

As a woman I am disgusted with the thought that Rice, O'Connor, Dawd, the band of radical feminists, constantly feel the need to whine about the church oppressing women. As a former radical feminist, I came to the church because I discovered it was the most pro-woman organization on earth. Once, I looked past my own prejudices.

St. John Crysostom said "The road to hell, is paved with the skulls of priest and bishops."

But, he would still go down fighting for his church.

So, would Catherine of Sienna and many others.

Napoleon once told a group of Cardinals, that he wanted to destroy the church, to which they replied. "Even we have not succeeded in doing that."

The gates of hell will not prevail against her.

[Justin Boyer]

Part of me fervently wishes for Anne Rice to reach a level of spiritual comfort that both Karen Armstrong and Madeleine L'Engle have achieved. Truthfully, I find Anne Rice's words to be brutally honest. She has essentially simplified the thesis of Karen Armstrong's book "Through the Narrow Gate." She has shown that the actualized state of institutionalized religion is that it reflective of the vice of humanity rather than the grace of God.

Karen Armstrong eloquently explains in her novels that the Christian religion, especially Catholicism, are enamored more with doctrine than the virtue of compassion. Even Protestantism has pointedly expressed importance placed on belief rather than the core of Jesus' own message about love.

Historically, the Catholic Church promoted barbarity far more than forgiveness.They bred spiritual warriors so that the supposed pacifistic church leaders could vicariously live through their violence. In a sense, the leaders of the church were unable to engage in this violence more or less due to their high status in society. But, some base desire for that violence allowed them to disregard Jesus and create their own rules of engineering violent Crusades as a means of fulfilling their most sadistic desires. For them, it was sadism to kill heathens in the same manner the Roman citizens rapturously attended to the gladiator fights.

Why did no one try to openly defy the church? Fortunately, many of the followers of the church were impoverished and therefore illiterate. Therefore, it was relatively easy for the church seize intellectual and psychological control over the deluded citizens. Their faith was not inspired partly by any deep spiritual yearning for a metaphysical God. It was a soulless emulation of the belief of a church leader who superimposed himself on the very face and body of God.

No world religion at this point has ever been so presumptuous to have their leaders ordained as Gods per-say. In Paganism, we were accustomed to seeing people who were drug-addled being the supposed spokesperson for a certain deity. Within Catholicism, leaders have a disconnect with the world to try and formulate their perception of God. In reality, we know they are cleverly titling their own words as being from the mouth of God.

In a sense, Anne Rice is right. Catholicism truly is becoming antiquated in a sense just as many of the Pagan religions have become. After a while, they are worn and no longer suit an evolving world. To say differently is to deny the rich complexity of our world that God has created. Perhaps, the score of sex abuses are just a notification to the world that Catholicism needs change of some sort.

I know I will brutally attacked for writing this statement: it is inevitable for people to treat controversial views as venomous. But I mean this respectfully, religions are not something that should override God. Karen Armstrong correctly states that the core of religions should always be compassion. But for any religion to pose themselves as the absolute spokesperson for something that exceeds our comprehension in nearly every way is buffoonery.

Quite frankly, I am nevertheless humored by the continuation of this fixation on Anne Rice. Especially when individuals like Karen Armstrong have written far more scathing and brilliant accounts of seeking to live a empty,monastic life.

[Jayson Zachery]

Anne Rice is justified in her opinion. How is the Catholic Church above an apology? Keep turning a blind eye! Until it's your child!!! You're turning something that's meant to hold people accountable into an attack on Anne Rice, she didn't do anything to those children, she just has a strong word to say about it. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not valid. What reality do you live in?