The Deacon's Bench

The Deacon's Bench


Anne Rice: “I have to, in the name of Christ, step away from this…”

posted by jmcgee

A few days after her bombshell announcement that she’s “quitting Christianity,” author Anne Rice has given a lengthy interview to the Los Angeles Times to explain herself:

rice.jpgQ) You were raised Catholic, became an atheist, then returned to Catholicism in 1998. Why are you quitting now? It’s not as if the church has suddenly changed.


A) Well, I’ve been living with this now for 12 years, and I’ve come to the conclusion from my experience with organized religion that I have to leave, that I have to, in the name of Christ, step away from this. It’s a matter of rejecting what I’ve discovered about the persecution of gays, the persecution and oppression of women and the actions of the churches on many different levels. I’ve also found that I can’t find a basis in Scripture for a lot of the positions that churches and denominations take today, and I can’t find any basis at all for an anointed, hierarchical priesthood. So all of this finally created a pressure in me, a kind of confusion, a toxic anger at times, and I felt I had to step aside. And that’s what I’ve done.

Q) Two days before you announced on your Facebook page that you were quitting Christianity, you praised the Lutheran Church for welcoming gay pastors. So why not become a Lutheran, or a member of some other church that shares your views?

A) I feel much more morally comfortable walking away from organized religion. I respect that there are all kinds of denominations and all kinds of churches, but it’s the entire controversy, the entire conversation that I need to walk away from right now.

Q) The United Church of Christ even started a Facebook campaign to get you to join. How can you say no to that?

A) I respect completely people who want to find a church that’s more in accord with what they can morally accept. But for me, walking away is the thing right now. In the name of Christ, in the name of God.

Q) I wanted to ask you about that, because you have said that you quit Christianity “in the name of Christ.” From a practical standpoint, what does that mean, how do you follow Christ without a church? Are there rituals that you intend to maintain?

A) I think the basic ritual is simply prayer. It’s talking to God, putting things in the hands of God, trusting that you’re living in God’s world and praying for God’s guidance. And being absolutely faithful to the core principles of Jesus’ teachings.

There’s more at the link.

Comments are now closed on this thread. 

I left early this morning for a series of meetings in New Jersey, and return to find children stomping their feet and sticking out their tongues at one another.  Into your corners.  Now!     



Advertisement
Comments read comments(44)
post a comment
RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 7:30 am


Sounds like the poor thing is having a meltdown. She hasn’t searched the Scriptures hard enough if she can’t find references to a hierarchical pristhood–You are Peter and upon this rock etc.
She needs prayers.



report abuse
 

Holly Hansen

posted August 6, 2010 at 8:01 am


Ms. Rice, like many others has had it with organized religion and I can understand that. But to sort of quote Will Rodgers ” I don’t belong to any organized church, I’m a Catholic”.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted August 6, 2010 at 9:28 am


RomCath said:
Sounds like the poor thing is having a meltdown.
endquote
That is precisely the Christian charity I so love to read from you.
Ms. Rice is another victim of our culture wars.
I, personally, feel that it is harder to adhere to Christ’s teachings outside of a church body than within the shelter and discipline of a church.
You – and I – often forget, however, that for the vast majority of Christians (including Catholics) our passionate, furious and extremely vital arguments over what it means to be a Christian are neither comprehensible nor do they signify anything but hatred and discord.
Not everybody burns with the fierce conviction you have that you have all the answers. Not everybody resents being treated as a second-class citizen as I do.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 10:45 am


Anne Rice has chosen to place God first — “I am the Lord, your God…you shall have no other gods before me”.
Organized religion has become a god unto itself, more often than not, and Catholicism is a prime example of this.
Too many Catholics are placing Church politics and dogma before God. Too many Catholics place Catholic pundits, blogs, writers, etc., before God. Too many Catholics place efforts to legislate Catholic positions before God. Too many Catholics are too much about politics and drama and confrontation and self-promotion and too little about quiet prayer, about humility, about simple kindness.
Sometimes you really do have to walk away from all the misery and suffering and pettiness and meanness organized religion fosters — enourages, even — in order to get closer to God.
I totally understand Anne Rice’s position on this.
Life is too short. Father Corapi, Mother Angelica, Saint This One, Saint That One, Blog A, Blog B, Blog C — these are not my gods. Dickering over liturgical music, whether or not girls can be altar servers, which insider, elitist Catholic sub-cult is the best, etc., these are not my gods.
I am the Lord, your God, and thou shall have no other…



report abuse
 

steve

posted August 6, 2010 at 10:54 am


Rice is a publicity hound. This should be a private matter between Rice and God. Articles like this only fuel our vapid celebrity culture….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 6, 2010 at 11:03 am


Why is this person relevant?



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 11:16 am


I don’t think she’s a publicity hound. If she had facebooked her desire to return to a traditionalist Catholic sensibility, no Catholic would be saying that about her. They’d be singing her praises and linking to her post faster than you can say “Mel Gibson”…
She’s just saying something you don’t like, so you’re ascribing nefarious reasons for her statements.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted August 6, 2010 at 11:22 am


Any traditional conservative Catholic can walk out on Christianity for the same reason of organizational discontent that Anne Rice did (folksy music, campaign ties to Saul Alinsky organizations, widespread dissidence among parishioners, PC sermons that never take a stand on any “divisive” issue, lack of reverence, etc.), and I’m sure many have. It is in “the name of Christ” that I choose to remain, to carry our cross daily as he instructed us to do. All the same I wish her well (wherever she ends up).



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted August 6, 2010 at 11:45 am


So Anne can’t find scriptural references to substantiate Church teaching. That means she has never picked up a copy of the Catechism, or read an encyclical. They are laden with scriptural references. It’s all right there. This in turn begs the questions: Who has been her spiritual director? Has she been a frequent participant in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and if so, has she been given appropriate direction?
When she returned to the Church, Rice had not worked through the spate of liberal issues which have driven her to another rupture. I don’t ascribe base motive to her in this (publicity). The fact is that she’s a best-selling author and it’s natural for people to want to know what is in the author’s mind and heart when he/she writes.
Pride is the deadly sin at work in Rice. If it doesn’t sit well with her, make sense to her, then she holds herself out as the final arbiter. Implicit in this is a rejection of the authority that Jesus has from the Father, and the transmission of that authority to Peter and his successors. The opposing virtue is humility, which does not demand mindless obedience, but faith seeking understanding.
Rice needs prayers, and lots of them.



report abuse
 

Nathan R Smith

posted August 6, 2010 at 11:48 am


Organized religion is a product of the intellect whose “golden calf” is the bible, while the bible itself declares that Jesus is the Word of God, and Light, and Truth. And Jesus said that where 2 or 3 are gathered in his name, he was with them. That’s a different “with you” than “I will never leave you or forsake you” or I will be with you till the end”. But with you personally, in your group for fellowship, and light of his truth. Rejecting religion does not in any means you must reject Jesus. He is separate from religion. In fact the religion of the day rejected him.



report abuse
 

Dana MacKenzie

posted August 6, 2010 at 11:51 am


You know, after reading this, I have concluded that she’s just a confused sort of woman who is not getting enough attention, lately.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 12:03 pm


“Organized religion” has become a perjorative term for Church. Jesus never intended us to be Christians merely as individuals but as members of a community of faith–I will build my Church, he said. Paul called the church the Body of Christ.
Without a community and for Catholics, without the grace of the sacraments, I don’t know how anyone could lead an authentic Christian life on his or her own.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 12:12 pm


But even the notion of “community” has been twisted by the Church.
Too often, community means blind, mindless obedience (pay, pray and obey), and, too often, the “community” is poisoned by groupthink and powermongering, etc.
You know, if you read this post, and read Kandra’s other post about the Benedictine community and their charism of community stability, you really see where Anne is coming from.
Of course no one individual is perfect, and no one community is perfect, but Anne is responding to the all-too-prevalent problem of the “community” behaving terribly in the name of God, rejecting individuals the “community” doesn’t want around, kicking to the curb those who are deemed unworthy by the “community”.
Even here, the snide comments about Rice’s motivations show that the “community” doesn’t really serve God — it serves itself and it’s own groupego.
Community (aka organized religion) has often become a god unto itself.
I get where she’s coming from — sometimes the sheer cruelty of the “community” is just too much.
BTW, all my Captchas are coming back in Hebrew or tranliterated Hebrew… :-)



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 12:30 pm


No amount of “cruelty” would cause anyone to leave Christ in the Eucharist if he/she really believe who it is. Did she ever hear of “picking up the cross”? Did Jesus suffer cruelty? Your other comments about kicking people to the curb and rejecting people are balderdash.



report abuse
 

steve

posted August 6, 2010 at 12:32 pm


Aquamarine: I’m a Catholic and I would be saying the same thing about Rice if she posted on facebook that she was returning to the Church. The point you don’t seem to understand is that celebrities always put themselves first . . . she has been giving endless interviews about her leaving the Church, as if she were an important religious figure. She’s not. She made a name for herself writing semi-illiterate Vampire books. This is all about her, not the Church.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 12:47 pm


RomCath — thank you for proving my point.
steve — Celebrities don’t “always” put themselves first, and many non-celebrities put themselves first, so that’s sort of a red herring.
I followed this story a bit and, while I don’t really think facebook posts are any way to make important statements, I can understand, after witnessing the particular trajectory of events leading up to Rice’s post, where she’s coming from. Also, perhaps she felt it a necessary statement to make in light of her Christian-themed books. If she didn’t make her relationship with the Church public and those who were fans of her Christian stuff found out, she’d be publicly excoriated as a hypocrite and someone who was pretending to be a Christian to make money selling Christian books. It’s kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario with anyone who’s a public figure.
And you totally missed the Mel Gibson reference…
When celebrities use their high-profile status to pimp out their pro-Catholic stuff, they’re practically canonized on every Catholic blog and media outlet you can find. They say something negative, and they’re slammed up, down and under and called every name in the book.
Whatever.
Her public status and her statement could foster a good conversation about the negative aspects of organized religion, about the people who fall through the cracks, but instead it’s been the source of the usual cheap shots and unChristian nastiness that’s just all too common these days.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted August 6, 2010 at 1:22 pm


Aquamarine,
Subtlety is not necessarily a strength of all who post here – your Mad Max reference was right on target, even if not understood.
RomCath said:
Without a community and for Catholics, without the grace of the sacraments, I don’t know how anyone could lead an authentic Christian life on his or her own.
endquote
Again, your idolatry is met only by your ignorance. The Catholic church recognizes other heterosexual marriages as fulfilling the sacrament. Adultery (unless committed by Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingerich or another deeply conservative politician) is considered a violation of that sacrament.
Being a Christian has nothing to do with one’s church and everything to do with one’s following Christ’s commandment to love the Lord with all our heart.
Period.
Full stop.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 1:51 pm


Also, it’s important to note we do have the example of the Desert Fathers, some of whom were hermits, some of whom lived in small, isolated monastic communities.
“Community” doesn’t mean one thing.
As for the Eucharist, Anne does express sadness about missing it, but the Eucharist and the Sacraments are not the only means through which God has promised us he is with us always, is near us, knows us, loves us, calls us.
It is typical group behavior to demonize those who leave the group or who flout the group in any way. The group protects the group, not the individual, unless the group is democratic in nature. When it’s hierarchical, and when all the power is held by a few at the top of the pyramid, those few must maintain the base, or their power disappears.
But…that aside…perhaps the reason God has allowed the revelation of the terrible abuses the hierarchy were perpetrating, and perhaps more folks are becoming outspoken in rejecting organized religious community is _because_ God wants us to take a long, hard look at what those organized religious communities have become. Also, we have the example of good community (the Benedictine sisters mentioned on this blog) to shine a light on the more positive aspects of community.
Perhaps God wants us to sort this out ourselves — it is kinda why we have free will and intelligence and all that, ya know — to be objective enough to recognize and do away with the negative and humble enough to see that the positive has less to do with ego-stroking and self-gratification than it does serving the other in good times and bad (you know, like marriage, Christ and the Church, me and my husband, you and yours, Panthera, etc.).



report abuse
 

John Dietz

posted August 6, 2010 at 1:56 pm


The ‘Lutheran Church’ didn’t begin accepting homosexual clergy, as claimed in the article, only the liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which is more ‘Mainstream Protestant’ than Lutheran. Unfortunately, it has begun to practice theology that ‘tickles the ear’ rather than adhering to the true faith.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted August 6, 2010 at 2:06 pm


Aquamarine,
“It is typical group behavior to demonize those who leave the group or who flout the group in any way. The group protects the group, not the individual, unless the group is democratic in nature. When it’s hierarchical, and when all the power is held by a few at the top of the pyramid, those few must maintain the base, or their power disappears.” Glad you have it all figured out . . . nice psychobabble. Save it for Oprah.
“Whatever” is right….



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 2:19 pm


Gee, Steve, you’re so pleasant! Let me immediatly look into the community you belong to because I so want what you have… :-p
Steve, can’t you see that your sort of antagonistic, condescending, mean-spirited rhetoric is why people leave the Church all the time?
Almost all of those who do are just quietly slipping away, too, unlike Rice, who at least has the benefit of her high-profile status. We can hear her cries, we can appeal to her.
The thing is to start to look for and listen to the cries of the everyday janes and joes who slip away unheard and unnoticed and, unfortunately, go unmissed…



report abuse
 

steve

posted August 6, 2010 at 2:35 pm


I’m sure you’ll find a home with like minded people, and when you do you can blog about it to the whole world.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 2:39 pm


Well, my next “home” will definitely be a better place than this. ;-)
Like-minded? I hope not. What a bore. “Like-spirited” would be nice, however.
Here’s hopin’! :-)



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 2:39 pm


Dcn Greg, now this person Panthera is making personal attacks. I am sick of it.
He wrote: “Again, your idolatry is met only by your ignorance. The Catholic church recognizes other heterosexual marriages as fulfilling the sacrament. Adultery (unless committed by Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingerich or another deeply conservative politician) is considered a violation of that sacrament.”
He and Aquamarine need to be reminded of the guidelines if they don’t understand.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 2:44 pm


Aqua wrote: RomCath — thank you for proving my point.
I didn’t prove any of your “points” as I have not seen you make any that make sense. The babble about community is bizarre–kicking people to the curb-WHO?????? What are you talking about?
Jesus is present in other ways than the Eucharist but is present in a tangible way. If you don’t comprehend that, buy a Cathechism or read John 6.



report abuse
 

Doug

posted August 6, 2010 at 2:47 pm


Another wolf in sheeps clothing.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 2:50 pm


RomCath, seriously, how old are you?
C’mon.
Look, “kicked to the curb” is just an expression. Did you really, seriously find it that personally offensive? Seriously? Really??
I’ve been perfectly nice, even to people who are being horribly, directly rude to me.
If you wanna have a conversation about anyting I’ve written, fine. If not, that’s fine, too.
But tattling because you don’t like me? LOL!
Okay, how exactly do you want me to respond to that?



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 2:55 pm


Aqua, you wrote: “Anne is responding to the all-too-prevalent problem of the “community” behaving terribly in the name of God, rejecting individuals the “community” doesn’t want around, kicking to the curb those who are deemed unworthy by the “community”.
Those are your words what and who is rejected or deemed unworthy???????????????????? You have been “perfectly nice”??????? Baloney



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 3:09 pm


Yes, those are my words, and I stand by them. I apologize if you found the way I expressed myself to be personally offensive. However, I do believe, after reading Anne Rice’s comments re her initial facebook statement and after learing of the events immediately leading to that statement, that she was responding to exactly that sort of behavior.
Care to discuss?



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 3:32 pm


Actually, I don’t care to discuss anything with you since you still have not answered the question. Who has the “community” rejected or kicked to the curb? I have a feeling I know the anwswer from Ms Rice anyway.
She seems to have an on again off again relationship with the Church so maybe she wil drift back someday. I guess maybe when it is convenient or needs some more publicity.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 3:50 pm


Well, if you go back up and read the entire post you’re referring to, and read what it was written in response to, you could answer your own question.
But since you don’t care to discuss, then it’s a moot point.
Have a lovely evening, dear. :-)



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted August 6, 2010 at 4:01 pm


Aquamarine,
I truly regret your ill health.
You make many very wise statements here and I find your compassion compelling.
As for RomCath, he always runs to the Deacon screaming foul – ignoring, as in this case, all the hateful things he has said about Ms. Rice. It’s just the way he is.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted August 6, 2010 at 4:01 pm


Aquamarine,
The group is not behaving terribly as regards Rice’s objections, but rather it is behaving consistently with its moral precepts from its founding.
The problem for Rice is a common error. She lived in Haight-Ashbury during the emergence of the Hippie counterculture, and did so after 20 years of a “pray, pay, and obey” model of Catholicism where formal contact with faith formation ended with Confirmation in the seventh grade. She, like many, carried into adulthood a seventh grader’s understanding of the relationship of faith to life’s adult issues. Of course the faith, immature as its development was in her, was inadequate to address the issues of young adulthood. Such immature formation is long on what to believe and do, and short on the rationale.
It’s actually a virtue to seek understanding to matters of faith, as St. Anselm pointed out. But what MUST come first is the assent of faith in order to predispose one to fully grasping at the heart’s level the understanding that only comes in time. Rice never understood this. Her pridefulness predisposes her to rebellion until such time as she is intellectually satisfied, making her ego the universal moral arbiter instead of God.
It’s all pretty evident to one who has spent thirty adult years deep in scripture and catechetical study that Anne has simply eschewed any formal, rigorous adult study of her Church and its teaching. She thirsts for satisfactory answers to burning questions, but has not gone to the source material for those answers. She would have been well advised to do the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) year-long program of the Church. The scriptural basis for all she questions is there.



report abuse
 

TomKumar

posted August 6, 2010 at 4:24 pm


Gerard Nadal — you hit it out of the park!
What people like Anne Rice need to learn, is that, sometimes, the answer is “NO!”



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted August 6, 2010 at 4:53 pm


Gerard,
I don’t know how far Ms. Rice has progressed in her faith, my suspicion is that you are fairly right in your analysis that her understanding has remained on the level of puberty.
That said, she is neither semi-literate nor stupid. Her basic contention, that the American Christian churches in general and the Catholic church in particular are too focused on hatred and not on love is worth considering.
Over the last three years, you, Klaire, I and several other people have discussed the meaning of the biblical passage: 1Corinthians 13:1-13:
If I speak in the tongues of men and angels,
but have not love,
I have become sounding brass or a tinkling symbol.
And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge,
and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains,
but have not love, I am nothing.
And if I dole out all my goods, and
if I deliver my body that I may boast
but have not love, nothing I am profited.
Love is long suffering,
love is kind,
it is not jealous,
love does not boast,
it is not inflated.
It is not discourteous,
it is not selfish,
it is not irritable,
it does not enumerate the evil.
It does not rejoice over the wrong, but rejoices in the truth
It covers all things,
it has faith for all things,
it hopes in all things,
it endures in all things.
Love never falls in ruins;
but whether prophecies, they will be abolished; or
tongues, they will cease; or
knowledge, it will be superseded.
For we know in part and we prophecy in part.
But when the perfect comes, the imperfect will be superseded.
When I was an infant,
I spoke as an infant,
I reckoned as an infant;
when I became [an adult],
I abolished the things of the infant.
For now we see through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face.
Now I know in part, but then I shall know as also I was fully known.
But now remains
faith, hope, love,
these three;
but the greatest of these is love.
The response from a non-zero number of conservative Christians ahs beenthat “love” means dissolving marriages, stripping rights, refusing to divulge campaign contributions, attempting to repress petition signatories (and, boy, did that sit well with Scalia…), in short, all means are justified to prevent people from going to hell over just this one single ‘sin’…while doing absolutely nothing about all the other ‘sins’ which the Bible and the Catholic church constantly addresses.
But what, just suppose, what if 1Corinthians 13 means just what it says? So far, your approach has won over nobody and, three federal – if lower, still, federal judges (all three Republicans appointed by conservative, Republican presidents) have clearly stated that their rulings were, in large part, based on animus from your side.
Maybe, just maybe, in concern for our souls, you have overlooked charity, in the Christian sense.



report abuse
 

Aquamarine

posted August 6, 2010 at 4:56 pm


Thank you, Panthera!:-)
Gerard,
I understand what you’re saying and I agree (to a point, but more on that later…). In her particular situation, however, she’d just been through a very nasty internet “discussion” about the homosexuality issue which, as you know, she’s personally vested in. She’s always been open about her disagreement with Church teaching regarding homosexuality, but I think it was the level of nastiness directed towards herself personally because of her son that was the straw that broke the camel’s back in her case — and understandably so.
Jewish tradition addresses the seriousness of taking responsibility for the words that fall out of our mouths (and drip off our fingertips as we anonymously tap away at our keyboards) and the harm they are capable of causing. I wish the Church would address that issue in a big way, because the greatest damage careless and prideful words does is driving people away from not just the Church, but from God Himself.
As for this:
–But what MUST come first is the assent of faith in order to predispose one to fully grasping at the heart’s level the understanding that only comes in time..–
I think I tend to be in the C.S. Lewis camp on that one — I can’t agree to agree with what the Church may decide in the future before I’ve had a chance to examine whatever it is myself. My faith is in God, not in the men of the Church. I assent to faith in God and God alone. I cautiously and carefully agree to take a sincere look at what the Church comes up with.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 5:02 pm


Panthera wrote “As for RomCath, he always runs to the Deacon screaming foul – ignoring, as in this case, all the hateful things he has said about Ms. Rice. It’s just the way he is.”
I think the Deacon has reminded people here about his guidelines. I would love to know what hateful things I said about Ms Rice.
She probably left because she felt her son was somehow rejected by the “community”. Of course that’s a bold faced lie. As someone said to Aqua, save it for Oprah, the prez’s friend. Or maybe Jerry Springer would be more appropriate.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted August 6, 2010 at 5:14 pm


No Panthera. Her contention is not worth considering. You and I are college professors. If either of us ever had a student with a seventh grade level of mastery in biology sign up for one of our courses, could we honestly engage that student’s misconceptions on a serious basis if we were being told that WE were the ones in error?
Hardly.
I would have that student withdraw from my class and take the appropriate remediation before he/she was ready for university level studies.
Rice is not alone in her mistaken notions of what the Church teaches and why. There are precious few people who have taken the time to visit the Vatican’s website and read the primary source material–the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and the Encyclicals. Many parade around claiming be be acting “In the spirit of Vatican II” who have not read so much as one word of any of the Council’s documents.
As one who has been at this for decades, there is NO hatred in the teaching of the Church. However, there are tons of people who hate the Church based upon hearsay or the ultimate source of all things ecclesial—The New York Times.
Rice is afraid to know the truth. As a skilled writer and very intelligent woman, she knows where to turn for her answers. But then she would have no excuse left for her rebellion.
It’s like the old joke about the Swiss dissident theologian Hans Kung, who argued against papal infallibility.
One day the pope dies and the College of Cardinals meets in conclave to elect his successor. Suddenly two Cardinals emerge and are whisked to a private jet and flown to Germany. They go to Hans Kung and tell him that the College has elected him to the Chair of Peter, and ask if he accepts. Kung declines. When asked why, he replies:
“Because I would have to give up my fallibility.”
That’s a common fear of many regarding the Church teaching in area of morals. They would need to trade their fallibility for infallible truth. So the truth is then painted as either relative or hate speech in an attempt to hang on to the good old comfortable fallibility.



report abuse
 

Panthera

posted August 6, 2010 at 5:15 pm


Save it for Oprah, the prez’ friend? Save it for Jerry Springer?
That is not hateful?
RomCath, next to myself, nobody here presumes on the Deacon’s good nature more than you. This is absurd – you argue that we are being hateful when, in the very same breath you insult three people!
Gerard Nadel has done more to make me reconsider my position on abortion than anyone else in the last decades, more even than my husband who has succeeded in convincing me to invest a substantial sum over the years in aiding young women to keep their children and put them up for adoption.
You, on the other hand, make me fearful for my life. You are precisely the face of the conservative Christian world which causes liberal Christians like me to invoke, as unto a Tibetan prayer wheel, the mantra: This is a constitutional republic and not a theocracy, this is a constitutional republic and not a theocracy, this is…
You might also want to seriously take into account the significance of federal judges referring to ‘animus’ in making their decisions.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted August 6, 2010 at 5:18 pm


Aquamarine,
I agree with you on the charity issue regarding internet speech. That’s why I write under my own name. It keeps me grounded as I must take ownership of my words before the world.
Another thing that keeps me grounded is something that Fr. Benedict Groeschel told us in the seminary:
“The sexual sins are without a doubt the most personally humiliating, but the sins against charity are without a doubt the most damning.”



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 5:43 pm


“RomCath, next to myself, nobody here presumes on the Deacon’s good nature more than you. This is absurd – you argue that we are being hateful when, in the very same breath you insult three people!”
Which 3 people? Jerry, Oprah and le Prez?
You, on the other hand, make me fearful for my life. You are precisely the face of the conservative Christian world
I thought you were told not to use that tiresome phrase. What drama.
Are you referring to federal judge who overturned Prop 8 against the will of the people of Calif? What was his persuasion? Wait till it goes to the SCOTUS.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 5:47 pm


BTW I know Fr Benedict very well and I am sure he would make mince meat of some on here who mock the church. Watch his EWTN show and see his “charitable” opinion of the NY Times. Some would say he is uncharitable, but he simply speaks the truth which is charitable as well.



report abuse
 

Gerard Nadal

posted August 6, 2010 at 6:06 pm


RomCath,
Agreed about Benedict, but he always speaks the truth charitably.



report abuse
 

RomCath

posted August 6, 2010 at 6:12 pm


Gerard wrote : Agreed about Benedict, but he always speaks the truth charitably.
I have heard him several times speak rather forcefully about issues especially abortion. He does speak the truth with charity but he does not mince any words or hold back when he is fired up. He would have a field day here.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

This blog is no longer active
This blog is no longer being actively updated. Please feel free to browse the archives or: Read our most popular inspiration blog See our most popular inspirational video Take our most popular quiz

posted 10:42:40pm Dec. 12, 2010 | read full post »

One day more
A reminder: "The Deacon's Bench" is closed! Please enjoy the archives!

posted 11:26:20pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Meet Montana's married priest
Earlier this week, I posted an item about Montana getting its first married priest. Now a local TV station has hopped on the bandwagon. Take a look, below.

posted 10:29:55pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Big day in the Big Easy: 10 new deacons
Deacon Mike Talbot has the scoop: 10 men today were ordained as Permanent Deacons for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. This group of men was formally selected on the day the evacuation of New Orleans began as Hurricane Katrina approached. The immediate aftermath of the storm for this class would be

posted 6:55:42pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Gaudete! And let's break out a carol or two...
"Gesu Bambino," anyone? This is one of my favorites, and nobody does it better than these gals: Kathleen Battle and Frederica von Staade. Enjoy.

posted 1:04:10pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.