My reaction to Anne Rice renouncing Christianity is a bit late, although my extreme surprise and dismay remains fresh. When Rice announced her reverse-revert decision in her
"This is a straightforward tale set firmly - thanks to Rice's considerable strengths in research - in the geographic and historical context of the time...".
I am now wondering whether Anne Rice's "considerable strengths in research" was ever applied to 2,000+ years of Catholic tradition, to a point where she can put some historical context into the "quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group" that she is renouncing. My, she has some choice, colorful adjectives for the Bride of Christ, even as she professes to "remain committed to Christ".
On Youtube, I have come across Fr. Barron comments on Anne Rice leaving Christianity.
Here, I take particular note of Fr Barron's reference (3:43 onwards) to
I will pray for Anne Rice, and many like her who refuse to stay attached to the mystical vine, just because they refuse to 'historically contextualize' their personal thorns. I think the best reaction to Anne Rice's decision would be her very own words, written as a closing 'Note to the Paperback edition' where she partly says :
"..I realized that none of my theological or social questions really made any difference. I didn't have to know the answers to these questions precisely because God did. He was the God who made the Universe in which I existed...I didn't have to worry about the ultimate fate of my good atheistic friends, gay or straight, because He knew about them, and He was holding them in his hands. I didn't have to quake alone in terror at the thought of those who die untimely deaths from illness, or the countless millions destroyed in the horrors of war. He knew all about them. He had always been holding them in His hands."
I pray that Anne Rice allows God to continually hold her in His hands, because He really wants to embrace her.
I have more to say against Anne Rice's
Dislike.
/
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Anne Rice: Out of Egypt and Out of Context
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Yes, I have certainly researched 2,000 years of Catholic Church teaching and history, to answer your question. And let me assure you that it is possible for a well educated, well informed, well indoctrinated Catholic to leave organized religion as a matter of conscience. I have done it. I appreciate your allowing me my good intentions. With regard to Fr. Barron's gentle and generous message, I have to say that Roman Catholicism has so abstracted and intellectualized the concept of Christ that I no longer find the concept recognizable in that church. I remain devoted to Jesus Christ. I remain intent on keeping Him central to my life. I do not believe Christ can be contained by or owned by any religion or group. And no religion or group can block a believer's access to Christ. Paul's experience on the Road to Damascus makes that clear. Thank you for your interest, Anne Rice.
Dear Anne,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is indeed possible for a well educated, well informed, well indoctrinated Catholic to leave organized religion as a matter of conscience - but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. I do not doubt your sincerity in following your conscience, with the best of intentions. In your research you have probably discovered that the formation of conscience takes a lifetime, and indeed the 10 years while you were a revert should be just a small part of that. You might be referring to the Church's concept of Development of Doctrine, when you think of the "abstraction and intellectualization of the concept of Christ". All that means is that the essential truth was already revealed to the Apostles but the elements of that truth is given more substance throughout history - by the Church that Jesus Himself established, authorized to teach all that was given to the ends of the earth, and which He promised to stay with "always, till the end of days" -Mat 28. In the related verse from John 15, Jesus promised the "Spirit of Truth". Did He promise it to an individual or a body of followers? Who are these people? Are they still with us now? The answers are in those very verses.
If you no longer find the concept of Christ in ‘that church’, it so implies you are amenable to an earlier version of that church - before the 'abstractions' you mention happened. Just until when did the church retain the authentic concept of Christ in your perspective? Could it be the church of the 16th century perhaps? or maybe the 10th? Perhaps you would have no feelings of disenchantment with the church in its first 300 years, or make that the earliest times in the era of the Apostolic Fathers. Would your concept and the church's concept of Christ, be a perfect match at that time?
No, it is not the Church's goal to block a believer's access to Christ. On the contrary it is the Church's role to draw people to Christ. Speaking of Paul's experience, the first thing he did after his conversion was to seek out the church. It was through the mediation of the disciple Barnabas that he was reconciled to the earliest version of the church that we had then - the small yet immensely empowered, (and 'organized', mind you) group of Peter, the disciples and followers. He chose not to be a lone ranger even after his encounter with Christ. There is only one obvious reason - Paul chose to build up the church, a stark departure from his old ways of persecuting it. Paul's 13 (14?) letters in the NT is a powerful testament to the success of this mighty and fearless evangelist in establishing Christ's churches throughout the Gentiles. Saul of yore was by the way, very much well-informed and well-educated, being a scholarly product of the best Rabinnical schools at the time.
Immensely successful as he was, Paul never hesitated to call a spade a spade. He condemned sins left and right. He rebuked strayers and dissenters without mincing words, much like Jesus did. He was so anti-manythings. Even our most outspoken and 'disputatious' bishops of today would utterly pale in comparison. He had to do so - for he was building up the Church. The Body of Christ. The One true Path to salvation. There is no other candidate (is there?), for only in the One true Church can we find the graces in the sacred sacraments and the Real Presence of Christ in the ultimate summit of the Faith: the Holy Eucharist. Its members are by no means indefectible (quite apart from its official teachings), but there is no other Church other than the one Christ instituted with the supreme Sacrifice.
(continued)
(continuation)
Anne,
In the end it is between you and God. No one can question your conscience or intentions – no, not the bishops, nor the Democrats, nor the gays - either way. Your soul is at stake…follow your conscience wherever it leads you, and my only unsolicited advise is for you to continue in the formation of your conscience. I still dislike your FB post, although I love you as a Christian brother. I will include you in my daily prayers.
Yours in Christ,
-WillyJ
"In the end it is between you and God. No one can question your conscience or intentions – no, not the bishops, nor the Democrats, nor the gays - either way. Your soul is at stake…follow your conscience wherever it leads you, and my only unsolicited advise is for you to continue in the formation of your conscience."
Willy, you are right ... in the end it is between the person and God. In the end it is Anne Rice's conscience.
I read Anne Rice's two books about Christ and I was truly fascinated on how she presented the "hidden" years of our Lord.
Sadly, writing these books may have led her to find her individualistically chosen but imaginary Jesus because to say "Jesus yes, Church no" is totally irreconcilable with the intention of Christ.
Post a Comment