Pardon the Interruption: Regarding Anne Rice's Flouncy-McFlounce Out of the Church

Here's some news that's been getting some attention on my entertainment blogroll: Anne Rice, author of some of my mother's favorite vampire novels, has decided to abandon the organized Church. As she writes:

I quit being a Christian. I’m out. 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.

My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.

I can only wonder what has prompted Rice to throw down the gauntlet like this. If it is because she has encountered Christians who have not treated her with charity and respect, then I apologize. It's an unfortunate truth that the Body of Christ is filled with people who fail to live up to Christ's teachings; we Christians are no less vulnerable to the consequences of original sin than our non-believing contemporaries. However, I don't see this as the fault of the Church; it is the fault of individual Christians who have decided to behave like jerks (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Westboro Baptist).

It also clear, though, that she disputes some elements of the Church's social doctrine. If she wishes to leave the Church because of this, that is certainly her prerogative, but I feel that what she implies in her dramatic flounce needs to be challenged in the interest of preventing misinformation. I will deal with each claim in turn:



1) In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay.

As the Boyz once observed, the worst thing a modern Christian is likely to say to someone who's gay is, "I pray that you will be converted and will learn to overcome your inclination to sin." The worst thing a modern Islamist is likely to say to someone who's gay is, "Tie the noose tighter!" Which is another way of saying that, when it comes to homophobia, Christians are certainly not today's worst offenders.

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual sex is a violation of the sixth commandment and campaigns against gay marriage. It does this on the basis of Natural Law, which views sex as serving the dual purpose of fostering unity between spouses and ensuring procreation. The Catholic Church does not, however, endorse any of the following: gay bashing; violence against gays; using the death penalty to punish gays; or denying gays the right to vote, work, or use public facilities. The Church also does not teach that homosexual sex is somehow a greater sin than all the other sexual sins one can name; it has simply been forced, by the culture at large, to spend an awful lot of time addressing it.

My view? To be honest, I have struggled with this issue as a believing Catholic; not only do I have many gay friends whom I love dearly and want to see find happiness, but I've also been personally drawn to "slash" (fanfiction featuring homosexuality) and the LGBT subculture. I'm not inclined to dismiss the Church's teaching on homosexuality out of hand, though, because I think there is wisdom in it. I don't think, as many today do, that marriage is solely a means by which adults can express their romantic love for each other; I think that attitude has led to a very anti-child culture in which adults feel free to form and dissolve marriages at will (and may our offspring be damned!). I do think the Church is right when it teaches that marriage is a sacrament whose purpose is to build families, ensure the salvation of husband and wife, and allow the husband and the wife to express their sensual delight in each other. And I do think the Church is right when it teaches that there is something fundamentally special about traditional heterosexual marriage - something that distinguishes it from extra-marital co-habitation, "gay marriage," or other non-traditional unions.

So what are my personal views on gay marriage? Well, after much thought, I've decided that I wouldn't be opposed to the secular state's establishing a separate civil union for gays, but I believe the government should keep its muddy paws off the marriage sacrament - and I think gay activists are doing the wrong thing when they demand complete acceptance and celebration. I think a lot of rank-and-file Catholics feel this way - and I don't think that makes us "anti-gay."

If you define "anti-gay" as "anti-gay sex" then yes - I suppose the Church as an institution is anti-gay. I believe, though, that such a definition misses the nuances of the Church's position and fails to take into account the complex feelings of Catholic individuals. It also carries with it the assumption that men and women can only be personally fulfilled through the physical gratification of their sexual urges -- and I know of at least one openly gay Catholic writer (not to mention thousands of celibate priests, monks, and nuns) who feels such an assumption is erroneous.

2) I refuse to be anti-feminist.

You know, I've called myself anti-feminist in the past, but again, I think this boils down to a conflict of definitions. If by "feminism," you mean the general belief that women should have the right to work (or not to work) outside the home, vote (or not to vote) in local and national elections, inherit property, and enjoy freedom from personal endangerment, then the Catholic Church is not anti-feminist. As far as I could tell, no statement denying women the above rights was made in John Paul II's beautiful apostolic letter, Mulieris Dignitatem. But if by "feminism," you mean the mode of thought that holds that gender is socially constructed rather than biologically determined, that men are personally responsible for all the indignities that women face, that women have no hope of achieving equality unless they embrace leftist politics, and that all women should be granted the unlimited right to murder their unborn children, then yes - the Catholic Church is anti-feminist, and rightfully so, for this second kind of feminism has done a great deal of damage to the dignity of women. As many social commentators have observed, younger women are flocking to Jane Austen adaptations, gobbling up Stephenie Meyer's trash vampire romances, and organizing modest fashion shows because they are sick of being sexually exploited by the purveyors of popular culture. And woe to any female politician who dares to wander off the leftwing political plantation, for she will be mercilessly mocked and harassed by an unscrupulous and secretly misogynistic press. (Don't even get me started on Sarah Palin. I could write a whole post about her alone.)

Personally, I fled to the Catholic Church precisely because - not in spite of - its teachings on the unique vocation of Christian women. Thank God the Church is here to stand up for the Truth: that women are spiritually equal to but physically and emotionally different from men. This teaching is informed by centuries of history and pure common sense, and it should be continually defended.

3) I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control.

Okay - I can answer this complaint on purely non-religious grounds. First of all, I'm sure you all have seen the commercials for the hormone-based birth control medications on the market. Have you noticed the rapid-fire litany of side effects that is always inserted at the end? I don't know about you, but speaking for myself, I'd rather not increase my risk for heart attack and stroke. I'll grant you that these drugs don't adversely affect a very large percentage of the population, but still -- if there's another option (namely, NFP, which is far more effective these days now that we have a deeper understanding of the changes a woman's body undergoes during her cycle), why take the risk? And as for the barrier methods, I think perhaps it's wrong to ignore men's complaints that sex "with a raincoat" is somehow less exciting; instead, I think we should take those complaints seriously as expressions of a deeper human instinct - one that acknowledges that the unitive and procreative act of sex is somehow diminished when one can't be fully in contact with one's partner.

Secondly, as my co-author noted while on a recent visit to our Northern Virginia homestead, artificial birth control appears to give medical professionals, teachers, family planning clinics, and other supposedly responsible adults an excuse not to talk about the emotional impact of sex. I went through sex ed in a public school and emerged skilled in the art of putting on a condom (as a matter of fact, to my parents' chagrin, I subsequently taught SABR Matt what a condom was and how it should be used in the middle of a very public drug store - LOL!) and well-versed on the symptoms of the most common sexually transmitted infections -- but not once did I hear an instructor warn us that taking things "to the next level" when one is not ready may lead serious heartbreak. As many young people have discovered, this crucial deficiency in our sex education curriculum has left Americans - especially teens - terribly unprepared for the realities of sexual relationships - and what results, quite frankly, is a lot of unnecessary dating drama of the "You bitch! You had sex with my ex!" variety. You may be able to put barriers on your genitals, but, it seems, you can't put a condom on your heart.

Of course, the Church has also deployed complex philosophical and theological reasons why Christians should not use artificial birth control that have to do with the nature of "personhood" and the absolute right of "persons" not to be used as "objects of pleasure," but I think I can popularize some of those ideas this way: when a couple - even a married couple - has sex while using artificial birth control, there's no need for either the man or the woman to stop and think about it first. The man and woman can satisfy their sensual longings whenever they want with (supposedly) no worries. According to the Catholic Church, the problem with this scenario is that, eventually, many couples will stop appreciating the act of sex as something more than the biological melding of bodies; partners essentially - and usually unconsciously - become toys for each other. This loss of appreciation has certainly occurred in the larger culture, and I think it can be argued that sex's thoughtless ubiquity has also ruined many individual marriages.

On the other hand, argues the Church, if there is a certain time of the month during which a man and his wife cannot physically co-mingle - days during which they have to actively practice chastity - then sex will come to be appreciated all the more. Moreover, practicing chastity during fertile times will allow a couple more time to become emotionally and spiritually intimate. This view, I think, is very wise. It's also not unique to the Catholic Church; Orthodox Jews also observe rules of chastity that limit sexual activity to certain times of the month.

I think that before Anne Rice attacks the Church's position on birth control, she should read Paul VI's Humanae Vitae and take into serious consideration how many of the pope's predictions have come true. Here's a simplified list from section 17:

a) Marital infidelity will increase. (Yep!)
b) There will be a general lowering of moral standards. (Yep!)
c) Men will forget the reverence due women. (Yep!)
d) Governments will intervene in the private decisions of husband and wife. (China, anyone?)

4) I refuse to be anti-Democrat.

Well, Ms. Rice, I think that's an issue you should take up with the Democratic Party, not the Church. The Catholic Church and the Democratic Party didn't use to interact the way they do today - not in the days when the Democrats were firmly anti-communist, had the freedom to stake out their own position on the abortion issue, and were genuinely concerned with the welfare of the workers and the poor. Since the mid-20th century, however, the hard left has hijacked the Democratic Party and turned it into the party of abortion-on-demand, class warfare, free love, and enviro-spiritualism (which is not simply the laudable desire to conserve resources and keep the environment clean, but is also a kind of idolization of the earth itself), all of which fly in the face of Catholic teaching. The Church did not leave the Democratic Party; the Party left the Church.

Lately, the Church has been a vocal opponent of the Obama Administration mostly because of the abortion issue; if Obama weren't such a radically pro-abortion politician, he would not attract the Church's ire. It also doesn't help that Obama has turned into an honest-to-God idol for so many of his well-known admirers. Personally, as a Catholic, I find it beyond disturbing that Obama's fans are putting him in Christ's place; if you truly believe in the Risen Lord, you should also be concerned.

By the way, Pope John Paul II criticized George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Was the Church anti-Republican then? No - the Church is not influenced by secular parties but by Her own catechism. Sometimes that means She challenges the Democrats; sometimes that means She challenges the Republicans.

5) I refuse to be anti-secular humanism.

I find this an incredibly odd statement given how many Christians - including John Paul II - have successfully incorporated the humanist emphasis on individual freedom into the practice of the Christian faith. Rice and I must not be thinking of the same thing when we read the word "humanism." As far as I'm concerned, the Church is no more anti-humanist than it is anti-feminist.

6) I refuse to be anti-science.

This right here just shows Rice's lack of education. In order for science to be possible, people must accept the proposition that the universe is ordered according to a set of natural laws. This assumption did not take firm root in Europe until the advent of Christianity. And the first Western scientists? Many were Catholic clergymen who saw no contradiction between the results of their experiments and the Faith. The claim that the Church is anti-science is a black legend invented by Enlightenment-era anti-papists. It bears no relation to reality.

I'm a Catholic -- but I also believe, based on the evidence, that evolution is most likely the means by which God molded our planet's living organisms (though I'm a little more ambivalent when it comes to the origin of life itself) and that the planet Earth is roughly five billion years old and has been shaped over time by God via natural geological processes. I read the Creation story in Genesis not as a literal account of the making of Earth but as an ancient people's rendering of God's big message that He's responsible for our being here and intends for Creation to be a temple of worship - and I've never been told that this reading violates Church teaching. As a matter of fact, I have been told in Bible study to read it precisely this way.

7) I refuse to be anti-life.

This doesn't even make sense. If anything, it is the secular culture - not the Catholic Church - that is "anti-life." The Catholic Church has worked tirelessly to defend the unborn, the handicapped, the terminally ill, and the poor, while the secular culture has worked to murder our most vulnerable and maintain a permanent class of impoverished Americans who will be forever dependent on the government dole. How, exactly, is Rice defining "life" here?

8) But following Christ does not mean following His followers.

And right here, Rice reveals the big assumption that underlies all of her complaints: that the Church is apostate and therefore has nothing to do with Christ. A close reading of Church history does not support this assumption. The moral teachings Rice apparently objects to can be found in documents that date back to the first or second century. That's the Apostolic Age folks (or darned close). To believe that these teachings pervert the Gospel and that our post-modern politically correct notions of tolerance at last reflect the true spirit of our Faith and our Lord displays a chronological arrogance of the highest order.

Bottom line, I'd love to go back in time and give the individual who was responsible for Rice's cathechesis a good stern talking to. Clearly, he or she didn't do her job.