Last July I noted that novelist Anne Rice had denounced Christianity. Now, in an interview conducted by her homosexual son, Christopher, she denounces the Catholic Church. The MetroWeekly has transcribed some of the highlights from the video:
- “I am completely confident that gays are winning the battle for equal rights in our country. And that the battle for same-sex marriage will be won. And that Don’t Ask, Don’t tell is going down.”
- “I hadn’t been a Catholic for 38 years, so I began to study it. I began to live it…. And I came to the conclusion 12 years later that it was not a fine religion, that it was dishonorable, that it was dishonest, that it’s theology was largely sophistry… and that it was basically a church that told lies. And that it was for me, for my conscientious standpoint, an immoral church; and I had to leave it.”
- “They’re very eager to blame the liberals, but the liberals have had no power in the Church all these years. And 75% of the priesthood and the hierarchy are gay.”
I completely agree with Carl Olson’s take on Rice:
It is increasingly obvious that Rice’s hatred (and it does appear to be hatred) of the Catholic Church flows from her conviction that her son’s homosexuality is not only perfectly fine, it should be celebrated and proclaimed good by the Church. Like so many others, she makes it personal, as if the Church has pinpointed her son; yet the Church has consistently, from the start (Romans 1, anyone?), understood homosexual acts to be sinful—just as the Church has held that adultery, fornication, etc., etc., are sinful. Her “argument” seems to be simply: “I think being gay is great, and anyone who disagrees is evil.” It is, of course, not an argument, but an opinion—and while she is certainly entitled to that opinion, it is a truly dishonorable and dishonest one.
February 7th, 2011 | 10:55 am
This is interesting, but I don’t quite understand why Anne Rice’s opinion of Catholicism is more important than, say, VP Biden’s opinion. VP Biden has real power. Rep. Pelosi has real power.
February 7th, 2011 | 11:46 am
We should care about the “thoughts” of an overpaid writer of vampire trash for what reason?
February 7th, 2011 | 11:49 am
We should care about the “thoughts” of an overpaid writer of vampire trash for what reason?
For better or worse (mostly worse), Rice has been a not inconsiderable influence in pop culture. She’s also falsely considered a “Catholic voice” by many liberals in the media.
But what I think is most interesting about her comment is that she is saying what a lot of Americans are starting to think: If forced to choose, they’ll side with homosexuality over Christianity.
February 7th, 2011 | 12:26 pm
When an ideological view comes to have deep and profound implications in a person’s life, this often occasions closer, and well-deserved scrutiny by that person.
This may be one of the reasons we tend to give special respect to the responses of those most painfully affected by a given judgment, policy decision, or ideological perspective. On the issue of torture, we gave special weight to the to the views of John McCain; on the issue of racism, we listen more carefully to those who have suffered from it. It’s all fairly consistent.
Ideologues about the church’s views on homosexuality and marriage legislation should carefully listen and seek to fully understand those most negatively affected by such ideologies. I suspect Anne Rice did a lot of careful listening to her gay son. That’s only right.
February 7th, 2011 | 1:33 pm
It’s not so much that she writes “vampire trash”.
It’s that everything she writes is about the experience of being violated, of living in a world where nobody is, or can ever be, safe.
The characters in her books have relentlessly dysfunctional relationships with power/control, authority, and uncontrollable, destructive appetites.
What is astonishing is not that Anne Rice is hostile to the Catholic church. What is astonishing is that anyone could think she could, should, or would ever be anything else.
February 7th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
Allow me to take this opportunity to state that I do not know, and nobody knows, whether or not 75% of the Catholic clergy is gay. I should not have stated this as if it were a fact. I’ve been told on good authority that this is a reasonable estimate. Others estimate that 50% of the clergy are gay. Some estimate far less. But again, as far as I can find out, nobody knows. Also nobody knows what the implications might be of any such estimates.
February 7th, 2011 | 1:39 pm
C. Ehrlich writes:
“Ideologues about the church’s views on homosexuality and marriage legislation should carefully listen and seek to fully understand those most negatively affected by such ideologies. I suspect Anne Rice did a lot of careful listening to her gay son. That’s only right.”
What precisely are you suggesting here? Should the Church abandon its views on social justice because some venture capitalists are going to be negatively affected by it? And what does it mean to be negatively affected? Perhaps Christopher’s sense that his actions are condemned by the Church is precisely what he ought to hear, just as your judgment of the Church is what you think it ought to hear. In each case, what is doing the work is each one’s prior commitment to an understanding of human sexuality that is conflict with the other. Whether one is “negatively impacted” depends on whether the judgment is good; not the other way around. The Church’s condemnation of adultery and fornication is sometimes unwelcomed by the adulterer and the fornicator, but that does not make it wrong.
Moral disputation is hard work. Please do not diminish it making it seem as if its all a matter of sentiment gushing in a Bourbon Street focus group. Sometimes it’s true that what you want most is bad, and what you want least is good.
February 7th, 2011 | 1:58 pm
I’m sure Anne would be quite welcome in the Episcopal Church. That way she can have all the parts of the Bible she agrees with, while overlooking or removing the ones that don’t fit in her worldview.
February 7th, 2011 | 2:12 pm
C.Ehrlich, When you say “ideologues about the Churches views on homosexuality and marriage”are you making a distinction between the Church and those ideologues or are they the same to you or are you saying that there is a distinction and that the ideologues are distorting the Churches views. Please clarify because as I read the article she did not reject any ideologues but the Church itself and its considered position on subjects with which she disagreed. I do agree with you that when these things hit home they can have a profound effect on a person but your implication that the Church has not looked at these issues deeply enough seems a little off base.
February 7th, 2011 | 2:54 pm
Anne Rice seems to delight in saying something to stir up the Catholics (of which I am a dedicated member) and then trolling the blogosphere to see how people respond (see Ignatius Insight, National Catholic Register, etc.). It would be sad and pathetic, if it wasn’t so creepy!
February 7th, 2011 | 3:17 pm
“…a lot of Americans are starting to think: If forced to choose, they’ll side with homosexuality over Christianity.”
Would that many thought it was a choice! The we-can-have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too mindset makes the situation far worse than that with many mainline denominations making it ‘Christian’ to take the side of the homosexual agenda under the guise of ‘love,’ etc.
I am afraid that we have so distorted basic teachings that ‘resistance is futile.’
We need to look at twists in the path that got us here.
For example, some years ago, syndicated Columnist Geneva Overholser believed that churches would eventually approve of homosexual unions. Why? ‘I think in due time this thinking will change, just as most churches’ opposition to divorce, for example, has
changed.’
February 7th, 2011 | 4:12 pm
Ms. Rice would prefer that the Catholic Church, like the Episcopal Church, become wedded to the spirit of the age. Of course, once you become wedded to the spirit of the age, you become widowed when the age has past.
Her confident predictions about the future are curious. A good first step would be for same-sex marriage to be approved -just once!- in a public referendum. This has yet to happen, of course.
February 7th, 2011 | 4:35 pm
Allow me to take this opportunity to state that I do not know, and nobody knows, whether or not 75% of the Catholic clergy is gay. I should not have stated this as if it were a fact. I’ve been told on good authority that this is a reasonable estimate. Others estimate that 50% of the clergy are gay. Some estimate far less.
As a one-time Catholic seminarian who didn’t finish, I would like to say that as far as I could tell, the vast majority of my fellow seminarians were heterosexual; many, as I did, had broken with girlfriends or fiancees to attend seminary; and not a few were pleasantly surprised (relieved, even) to realize that the seminary atmosphere was nothing like people on the outside say it was.
Of course, I was one seminarian at one seminary, and I am a little obtuse.
February 7th, 2011 | 6:08 pm
Per:
“Allow me to take this opportunity to state that I do not know, and nobody knows, whether or not 75% of the Catholic clergy is gay. I should not have stated this as if it were a fact. I’ve been told on good authority that this is a reasonable estimate. Others estimate that 50% of the clergy are gay. Some estimate far less. But again, as far as I can find out, nobody knows. Also nobody knows what the implications might be of any such estimates.”
This cleanup more pathetic than her original remarks.
February 7th, 2011 | 8:12 pm
I don’t think anyone should be too hard on Ms. Rice; she’s been pretty honest about her attitudes from the beginning, and God knows there are Catholics who make it difficult to be Catholic if you are having difficulty with any point. And it’s entirely possible, even for people who agree on the moral point, not to like episcopal involvement in politics. Really, it all comes down to whether she can participate in good faith in Catholic sacramental life; if she can’t, she’s right that she shouldn’t pretend to (and better off than many). I hope that in recognizing this she doesn’t cut herself off from everything Catholic, but remembers just how much there is to it beyond this one set of points: if so, perhaps one day things will change and she’ll see things in some different light.
February 7th, 2011 | 9:25 pm
A few months back there was an article on the National Catholic Register about Bishop Olmstead and that hospital in Phoenix…the very first commentator who posted afterwards was Anne Rice. And she kept posting….and posting….and posting…. I think it was Jimmy Akins who finally pointed out (with a certain degree of exasperation) that for someone who was against Catholicism so much, she spent a lot of time around Catholics, even if it was only to yell at them….
February 7th, 2011 | 10:33 pm
Think about it this way. Just as there are fewer practicing atheists in foxholes when the bombs start falling, parents with gay children are bit less likely to really believe that God condemns homosexuals.
And that’s not unnatural. In many respects it’s entirely appropriate. Really queer are the dogmatists who continues to believe that God will justly torment their gay sons or daughters in hell for eternity. These are the Fred Phelps of parenting. I feel sorry for your families if you’re among them, as it’s a vile and hateful thing that you believe. I also feel sorry for you, as the Church has tormented you with the choice between this and apostasy. It’s all pretty nasty. Dropping religion is sometimes the most decent thing to do.
February 7th, 2011 | 11:16 pm
It would have been preferable if Ms. Rice had not confidently asserted that ’75% of the clergy are gay’ when she lacks any evidence for this point. Many people don’t know anything about the Catholic Church, and she is not helping to enlighten them.
February 8th, 2011 | 1:17 am
Christianity doesn’t teach that “God condemns homosexuals”. We do believe that homosexual acts are gravely disordered, i.e. sinful. Like all sins, they lead away from God, Who is all joy, peace, and happiness. Persons afflicted with same-sex attractions who live pure lives seeking God are heroic.
February 8th, 2011 | 6:57 am
“Allow me to take this opportunity to state that I do not know, and nobody knows, whether or not 75% of the Catholic clergy is gay. I should not have stated this as if it were a fact. I’ve been told on good authority that this is a reasonable estimate. ”
Best estimates are somewhere between 15%-25%, according to a number of priests who have made statements about it. This seems reasonable. The figure 75% seems to refer to the Society of Jesus specifically, from a book about the Society written by a Jesuit. There is little doubt, though, that homosexuals are more prevalent in the Catholic priesthood than in society at large (2.5%).
February 8th, 2011 | 9:42 am
Ray- You set up a false dichotomy as though the only choice is the rejection of your child or apostacy. As a Catholic father of four children, all of majority age, who have engaged in significant behavior that goes against my deeply held beliefs I have made my opinions known to them on occasion so that there is no doubt in their minds where I stand. I have not beat them over the head with my positions and I have continued to love and support them even when they continue in their unacceptable, to me, behavior. I pray for them each day that they will be reconciled to God and that he will support them in their struggles. Struggles, I might add, that we all are engaged in. As to the Church condemning them to hell I don’t think that they claim to know who is in hell and for myself it is not my job. There is even debates as to whether hell is empty, a position not widely accepted yet considered and an indication of the Churches continued effort to more perfectly understand our human condition.
February 8th, 2011 | 10:04 am
I love how a post on Anne Rice trashing the Catholic Church while evincing a profound amount of ignorance of the Church’s teachings while she trashes away magically evolves into yet another discussion of how many gays are in the Church and how mean the Church is towards gays and their parents.
Happily though, this conversation was worth it as it proved Joe Carter’s hypothesis:
“But what I think is most interesting about her [Anne Rice's] comment is that she is saying what a lot of Americans are starting to think: If forced to choose, they’ll side with homosexuality over Christianity.”
Just lookee here will ya Mr. Carter – another disciple of Anne’s pops up to agree with her – and more importantly – you:
“Really queer are the dogmatists who continues to believe that God will justly torment their gay sons or daughters in hell for eternity. These are the Fred Phelps of parenting. I feel sorry for your families if you’re among them, as it’s a vile and hateful thing that you believe. I also feel sorry for you, as the Church has tormented you with the choice between this and apostasy. It’s all pretty nasty. Dropping religion is sometimes the most decent thing to do.”
So now if you believe and uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church you are Fred Phelps.
Brilliant. Perfectly brilliant.
Please tell me which college or University teaches this level of critical thinking so we can defund it.
Thankfully First Things has has educated commenters like FWKen :
“Christianity doesn’t teach that “God condemns homosexuals”. We do believe that homosexual acts are gravely disordered, i.e. sinful. Like all sins, they lead away from God, Who is all joy, peace, and happiness. Persons afflicted with same-sex attractions who live pure lives seeking God are heroic.”
When someone is called to live heroically, a lot of people don’t like them. Why? Simple. Their lives preach what a lot of people don’t like to hear. As for Anne Rice after this latest comment thread, she really does look exactly like what Jody Bottum said here in this space last July:
“a woman who can’t stand the heat.”
February 8th, 2011 | 10:04 am
In my previous comment I started by saying Ray. I meant to say C.Ehrlich. I guess I have Ray Ingels on my mind or under my saddle.
February 8th, 2011 | 10:04 am
Best estimates are somewhere between 15%-25%… There is little doubt, though, that homosexuals are more prevalent in the Catholic priesthood than in society at large (2.5%).
I don’t doubt you, but without a scientific survey, this should be taken as rumor. Since rumors are flying about, we ought also say that in an actual fact, there was a collapse in spiritual formation for about two decades after the Second Vatican Council. As one of my formation directors put it, they told him when he was a seminarian not to worry about how to deal with celibacy, because that requirement would be removed “any day now.” This was 1970. Another told us that they never saw the breviary until the day before they were to be ordained deacon, and were not given much instruction on its purpose or use. It is no surprise, then, that the 1970s saw an outflux of priests, many of whom were getting married.
By the time I was in seminary (mid-90s), the breviary was prayed daily, and we were being guided on how to develop healthy, chaste relationships.
Returning to rumor, then: as I noted above, I remember being told how some seminaries had turned into “pink hotels.” Some seminaries were reputedly closed down for a year or two for this reason. I never saw anything like this at my seminary, and I recall a fellow seminarian expressing his own relief at how those rumors (passed on to him by a priest!) proved to be unfounded.
Finally, I’d like to point out that one can be homosexual and chaste; gratia supponit naturam.. Even if 25% of priests are homosexual, that doesn’t imply that 25% of them are evil. I honestly don’t know whether any priests I’ve known were homosexual, but I’ve had my suspicions, and I’m reasonably sure that nearly all of them were chaste. The only I knew who was certainly not chaste left the priesthood to marry a woman with whom he had started an affair.
February 8th, 2011 | 10:07 am
“Really queer are the dogmatists who continues to believe that God will justly torment their gay sons or daughters in hell for eternity…. it’s a vile and hateful thing that you believe…. the Church has tormented you with the choice between this and apostasy.”
This is simply the most bizarre comment I’ve read yet. I have gay friends and relatives, and children whose relationships with Divine Love have broken down in various other ways. I pray that they (and myself when I fall) are reconciled to the Love of God. I NEVER EVER think or imagine that people are being “tormented in hell for eternity.” You must have Catholics mixed up with some sort of weird fundamentalist cult. I don’t know ANYONE like this and if you do, they have misunderstood their faith, profoundly.
The Church has NEVER EVER presented this false dichotomy to me – apostasy or love! The Church has presented me with mercy, forgiveness, and hope. As in Dante’s Purgatorio, people have as long as they live to embrace the love of God, and at the end of their lives whisper their “Ave” – it is not I who am their final judge. I may sadly condemn sinful acts (my own or others) but what the Church has given me is the ability to love them with all my heart, to see Christ in them, to see the image of God in them no matter how broken or distorted that image is (I include myself in this).
Basically, you’re just makin’ stuff up.
February 8th, 2011 | 11:03 am
I’m happy see such vehement rejection of the idea that God will justly torment homosexuals in hell.
Will any of the non-Catholic evangelicals around here join us in rejecting this vile and hateful idea?
February 8th, 2011 | 11:40 am
The handy saying, “Hate the sin but love the sinner” is not that difficult to understand or practice. The misinterpretation of this idea is willful.
If one is committed to justifying a certain activity, such as acting on same-sex attractions, then it helps to remain purposely ignorant of our doctrine, no matter how many different ways we proclaim it.
It is legitimate to have a rational discussion about whether gay sex is “gravely disordered.” It is illegitimate to deliberately misrepresent the position of one’s opponent. This misrepresentation is an indication of the quality of their argument: if they are not willing to meet our actual position, it becomes more and more apparent that they have no answer for it, and engaging them in civil discourse therefore becomes less and less fruitful except to reiterate our thoughts accurately.
“I have an uncle who is gay” or “How dare you condemn my gay daughter to hell” substitutes for a reasonable discussion. They seem to think one cannot acknowledge the sin of our loved ones (and ourselves!) out of anything but mindless hatred. So the very idea of considering certain behaviors sinful becomes prima facie evidence of our own, much worse sin of pride and usurpation and condemnation.
I have no doubt Anne Rice loves her child more than words can express. It’s helpful to remember that such ineffable superlatives which describe a mother’s love is but a shadow of God’s love for us. As a Christian, Anne Rice knows this too. But to import that unarguable love into a difficult controversy, to attach it inextricably to one’s opinion of another person’s behavior, is to essentially dare her opponents to hate so that we might effect a cleansing clarity to our seemingly intractable difference of opinion.
Guess what? We’re not biting. We love Anne Rice and we love her son. We love them enough not to confuse that love with our imperfect knowledge of worldly activity. And God loves them infinitely more. “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard.” To see such an undeserving gift of boundless charity misappropriated to our petty squabbles is an profanity.
February 8th, 2011 | 12:09 pm
“I’m happy see such vehement rejection of the idea that God will justly torment homosexuals in hell.
“Will any of the non-Catholic evangelicals around here join us in rejecting this vile and hateful idea?”
*sigh*
CErlich, A little understanding of Christianity might be very helpful to you. The Bible instructs as does the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic Evangelical Denominations do, that only *you* can cut yourself off from God. God doesn’t cut you off.
You obviously understand this on some level of your simplistic reasoning as you earlier stated:
“Dropping religion is sometimes the most decent thing to do.”
The only trouble is the gay lifestyle – not an homosexual orientation – is not considered decent by Christian standards as is a whole laundry list of other things. So don’t consider gays singled out by God or the Catholic Church or the Non-Catholic Evangelical denominations. because they aren’t. Rather beautifully when it comes to sin, gays are really like everyone else
February 8th, 2011 | 1:18 pm
“The Bible instructs as does the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic Evangelical Denominations do, that only *you* can cut yourself off from God. God doesn’t cut you off.”
This is absolutely not true. I don’t know enough about the Catholic position. And you are right that some free will Arminian evangelical types argue this. But any reformed/evangelical sect that teaches the doctrine of election disagrees with this. Election teaches God selects His elect to save, not the other way around.
Re what the Bible actually teaches, it’s debatable. Roman Catholicism v. reformed Protestantism and every single letter of TULIP are debatable on biblical grounds.
February 8th, 2011 | 1:20 pm
Try answering this question:
Would it be just or would it not be just for God to condemn someone’s gay son to hell for trying to marry another man?
Resist the temptation to avoid this question by talking about all these pretty distinctions instead.
February 8th, 2011 | 1:25 pm
Maybe the reason that many, some, a few Christians would choose homosexuality over Christianity relates to a phenomena that has bugged me for some time. Despite the many proscriptions that the Church has voiced over the ages the primary pronouncement has been “The Good News” that our salvation has been secured. This was necessary because of our inability to” Love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves”. Sin was and is the fly in the ointment. Of the many opportunities for sin those relating to sex have played a large role. The exception to this seems to be our present ages dwindling understanding of sex as even having a moral dimension. No where is this more apparent than in the homosexual community. With the exception of forcing someone to have sex there seems to be no other proscription. Over the years I don’t recall having read a single thing that even implied that there should be or is any check on sexual impulse. This doesn’t mean that individuals maynot have aversions to certain acts but by and large sex in the Homosexual community is seen as a free for all, unrestrained by any ethical considerations except ones own. Andrew Sullivan in his advocacy for Gay marriage added the caveat that of course because of things particular to the gay community their understanding of what marriage meant would be different than what straights thought it did. Which kind of flies in the face of one of the arguments for gay marriage; that it would stablize gay relationships, unless one is inclined to believe that open marriage is conducive to stability. It is almost as though they think that sex has no moral dimension unless appetite has morphed into morality. It is this seeming freeing from constraint and thus from judgement that would make the trade from Christianity to homosexuality such a bargain,oye.
February 8th, 2011 | 1:48 pm
Anne Rice has the freedom of speech to criticize the Catholic Church.
And other folks have the freedom of speech to criticize Anne Rice’s criticism of the Catholic Church.
Nothing wrong with this. Of course people get heated and insults are sometimes exchanged, but that’s the worthwhile price of open honesty and open clarity.
February 8th, 2011 | 1:49 pm
Ehrlich–I haven’t seen the entire check list and from what I understand it is pretty long. From what I have seen all indications are that this would be a bad move. All of us Christians are having a who goes to hell meeting soon. The list of prospective candidates is pretty long so the meeting might take awhile. After we tally the votes we’ll get back to you and oh by the way how do you spell your first name. Just kidding, we already know it, God told us.
February 8th, 2011 | 2:02 pm
Amazing how Christians suddenly become unable to draw any inferences from their theological beliefs–all of them innocuous and lovely to be sure.
February 8th, 2011 | 2:04 pm
Per:
“”The Bible instructs as does the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic Evangelical Denominations do, that only *you* can cut yourself off from God. God doesn’t cut you off.””
“This is absolutely not true.”
*Sigh* Let’s look in the Old Testament to see if it is us who cut ourselves off or separate ourselves from God and how we accomplish this? Hint – it involves sin:
NIV:Isaiah 59:1-2
Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save,
nor his ear too dull to hear.
2 But your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear.
King James: Isaiah 59:1-2
1Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
New American Isaiah: 59 1-2:
Behold, (A)the LORD’S hand is not so short That it cannot save; (B)Nor is His ear so dull That it cannot hear.
2But your (A)iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does (B)not hear.
Again, let’s review – it is our sin is that cuts us off or separates us from God. He can’t hear us. Happily we can return from him. What were those words Christ said? Go and sin no more?
Yeah, those are the words. Put down our sins and wow- we’re not separated or cut off from God. Imagine that?
By the by, the Catholic Church is really wonderful on this with the sacrament of reconciliation – great graces are bestowed upon you to help you with your struggles because see God is funny. He doesn’t demand we are perfect, he wants to see effort on our part. That we try.
Anne Rice gets all of this. She really does. How do we know? Because she’s upset that the gay lifestyle -according to her “good authority”– with a “reasonable estimate” of “75% of its hierarchy and clergy are gay” that the Catholic Church still maintains it is sinful behavior.
February 8th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
Would it be just or would it not be just for God to condemn someone’s gay son to hell for trying to marry another man?
No less unjust than condemning to hell a man who committed adultery. The words of Jesus are not reassuring: I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. (Matthew 5.28-29)
We are all sinners. Salvation comes from God’s grace, which we receive in repentance, not from being already “okay”.
February 8th, 2011 | 3:25 pm
C. Ehrlich,
“Would it be just or would it not be just for God to condemn someone’s gay son to hell for trying to marry another man?”
As written, this is a complex question, and thus unfair, in that it presumes that we have a right to judge God for the justice of his actions. Rather, reality works the other direction: God tells us what is just and what is not.
Nevertheless, I’ll assume that you meant to write something more along the lines of: “Will God in his justice condemn someone to hell for trying to marry a person of the same sex?” Well, this question is still too vague to really admit a the precise answer that you want. Still, one could reasonably respond:
(1) one can only truly marry (by definition) someone of the opposite sex, so the entire question is hypothetical and without answer
(2) but if by “trying to marry,” we really mean “engaging in homosexual intercourse with”, then, yes, because that behavior is a sin, and sin (as others have pointed out above) separates us from God, that person will stand condemned by their own actions, as will every one of us on God’s green earth;
(3) however, the good news is that God has offered salvation to all of us who, by our own choices, are under judgment. He did this through the life, death, and resurrection of his glorious Son, our Lord Jesus.
February 8th, 2011 | 3:42 pm
“*Sigh* Let’s look in the Old Testament to see if it is us who cut ourselves off or separate ourselves from God and how we accomplish this? Hint – it involves sin”
The Bible, or at least, the orthodox understanding of it, does not teach than man has a choice in whether he cuts himself off from God by choosing to sin. Rather it teaches man cannot help himself BUT to sin. It teaches men are reconciled in Christ; and there is debate as to whether Christ frees men from sin’s consequences or from sin itself; and it’s also entire debatable whether the Bible teaches God selects His elect or whether — you could quote just as many verses and chapters of scripture — or whether men choose to accept or reject God via their freewill.
This can be tricky; many homosexuals, for instance, use their freewill to “accept” God and accept their homosexuality. To which an orthodox believer might counter, but you really didn’t “accept” God. Likewise a Mormon qua Mormon “accepts” God. To which the orthodox believer counters the very same thing.
OR, maybe the homosexual “Christian” and the Mormon just were selected by God to be part of His Elect.
So no, Mrs. Jackson, you haven’t answered the question, but begged it.
February 8th, 2011 | 3:48 pm
A question to traditional believers: Are you happier with the gay and abortion embracing Anne Rice inside the Catholic church and presenting her ideas under the rubric of “Christianity” or outside.
I know a number of gay folks and sympathizers who were former traditional believers and now have embraced something like militant atheism or reject the Christian label/the Bible, etc.
However, I know MORE gays and pro-gay folks who embrace their Christianity along with their homosexuality. Again they don’t, or at least they don’t claim to reject God any more than you do.
February 8th, 2011 | 4:29 pm
Sorry that should have read “OR, maybe the homosexual ‘Christian’ and the Mormon just were NOT selected by God to be part of His Elect.”
This presumes Mormons are not Christians and that no practicing homosexual really “accepts” God, which, again, is quite presumptuous.
To wit:
“(2) but if by trying to marry,’ we really mean ‘engaging in homosexual intercourse with’, then, yes, because that behavior is a sin, and sin (as others have pointed out above) separates us from God, that person will stand condemned by their own actions, as will every one of us on God’s green earth;….”
How do you know that homosexual Christians like Bishop Robinson and Andrew Sullivan are going to Hell? I understand the argument that homosexuality is sin. But they are your professed brothers in Christ and no one is without sin, accordingly.
Likewise, unless you believe in, I think it’s called the Holiness doctrine — that once you are saved you no longer sin — if you really think about it there are all sorts of things which you do that you are confused, mistaken, or unaware of that you’ll find out when you die really ARE sins.
February 8th, 2011 | 4:38 pm
Ah, Jon Rowe, that all Anne Rices, gay folks, and sympathizers were inside the church, we do pray fervently!
But, “being in the church” also obliges obedience to the Lord of the church. “If you love me, keep my commandments,” Christ said, and so we must endeavor to do. Of course, all of us–in and out of the church–fall short of this obligation. This is the very reason that Christ came–to reconcile us to God in spite of our disobedience.
Thus the wish of this “traditional believer” is an invitation to Anne Rice, to gay folks, and to straight folks alike. In the words of St. Paul: “Be reconciled to God.” But realize that by this reconciliation we become “new creations” and must “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” by leaving behind our sinful ways and thoughts.
So, come; taste and see that the Lord is good! Find the freedom that comes from obedience made perfect in Christ!
February 8th, 2011 | 5:34 pm
“How do you know that homosexual Christians like Bishop Robinson and Andrew Sullivan are going to Hell?”
Easy. Because I know that, apart from God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness, all of us are bound for Hell! As far as I can tell, +Robinson and Mr. Sullivan are human beings. Ergo, they too must give account for their sin.
“Likewise, unless you believe in, I think it’s called the Holiness doctrine — that once you are saved you no longer sin — if you really think about it there are all sorts of things which you do that you are confused, mistaken, or unaware of that you’ll find out when you die really ARE sins.”
Right on! So… finish reading my post. It’s all there. Point (3).
God’s grace covers our sin, strengthens us in our sanctification, perfects us for salvation. But as St. Paul says, “Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!”
Look, none of us knows the final judgment of God with respect to Anne Rice, gays, straights, or, if they exist (which I doubt), extraterrestrials. We do know that sin separates all men from God. This includes–but is hardly exhausted by–homosexual activity.
Can we continue to live in open sin, flaunting God’s commands, and still find a place in heaven? God alone knows. I am certain, though, that the safest place is humble repentance from the sins I do know and continual supplication for forgiveness for the sins I commit in ignorance.
February 8th, 2011 | 6:01 pm
C. Erlich,
Tim C. pretty much beat me to the punch. However, I will second his thoughts. You are being a bit shallow and silly asking for a yes or no answer to that question. There can be any number of factors involved in that situation that only God can know and only God can judge. We mortals don’t get to decide who goes to hell and who doesn’t. Having said that though, with no more information than you gave in your hypothetical, if, as Tim says, “attempting to marry” means “having sex with” then yes, it is just. The law is what it is regardless of whether it comports with our desires. That may offend your liberal sensibilities, but somehow, I doubt God had your liberal sensibilities in mind when He created the universe and all its laws, physical and moral.
February 9th, 2011 | 7:22 am
Innocent X – From the Constitution “Cum occasione,” May 31, 1653 –
1. “Some of God’s precepts are impossible to the just, who wish and strive to keep them, according to the present powers which they have; the grace, by which they are made possible, is also wanting.”
Declared and condemned as rash, impious, blasphemous, condemned by anathema (anathemate damnatam), and heretical.
February 9th, 2011 | 12:06 pm
Commenters’ attempts to provide a remedial education in church doctrine to a single internet troll are laudable but ineffective. Please acknowledge this method’s vanishingly small possibility of success — and the concomitant frustration that must attend your efforts — so that you don’t put your own faith in danger.
Plant the seed, move on, and pray. Proclamation of the Gospel is not forensic science. It is our example of mercy and love that persuades. The Word has been breathed upon the world, and our mortal efforts are as nothing in comparison.
Anne Rice, Mr. Ehrlich: know that you are our brother and sister, know that our understanding of the power of sin is necessarily incomplete, know that we may disagree until the Lord returns in glory. But let none of our petty squabbles keep us from our fundamental union to the truth, our love for God and for each other. I pray Ms. Rice and her son and the whole world see God’s face and live, I pray they step on my sinful shoulders and enter The Master’s House before me, and I pray they hear, “Well done, my good and faithful servant” in advance of my own devoutly wished salvation.
February 9th, 2011 | 2:17 pm
Some here insist that Ms. Rice should believe that, because her son’s lover happens to be man rather than a woman, her son deserves to suffer condemnation in hell.
Here’s the small seed I plant: you have a Fred Phelpian conception of parenting.
February 9th, 2011 | 4:00 pm
C. Ehrlich,
I think problem is with orthodox notions of deserving “condemnation in Hell” to begin with. I think if there is a God, He sent Fred Phelps to this world to show how badly the traditional Christian doctrine of eternal damnation condemnation really is. Perhaps it’s just a matter of misinterpreting and mistranslating the original biblical passages on Hell.
The traditional teaching on Hell doesn’t just teach Anne Rice’s son deserves Hell for taking on a male lover, but that we deserve Hell for stealing a candy bar when a little kid, telling our parents or significant other a gray lie on where we were the other night, or the “lust” that a typical male feels in his heart some woman who is not his wife.
We may deserve *some* kind of punishment for each of these things, but my conscience — the law that God wrote on my heart — tells me NO ONE deserves to be tortured or tormented for all of eternity for ANY of these things.
This is just something I know, and I think most traditional believers know, to be true, regardless of what they, on the surface might claim.
The Bible says a lot of interesting and provocative things on its surface, but, as Roman Catholics — but not Sola Scriptura Protestants, might note, it needs some kind of theory to supplement or perhaps even undergird its interpretation.
Again, Fred Phelps is a five points Sola Scriptura believing Calvinist. And every thing he and his claim is justified by a knowledge and hermeneutic that is as biblically accurate and learned and logically defensible as that of any other conservative evangelical. They just have a theory that undergirds the interpretation of going for the meanest understanding possible.
Sorry but that’s not God and neither is the traditional orthodox teachings on Hell.
February 9th, 2011 | 7:02 pm
C. Erlich, I do not have a Fred Phelps conception of parenting, just because I believe that sin estranges people from God.
Gay rights advocates have relied far too much on using false comparisons with disturbed, violent, or “hateful” people.
The question of what is or is not a sin – and why – does not change based on the argumentum ad misericordium feelings of the person who’d like to engage in the behavior in question.
February 9th, 2011 | 11:47 pm
Jon Rowe, you put it well.
Although the problems with the traditional teachings about Hell are quite general, just as Mr. Rowe observes, I suspect they do a good deal of harm in perpetuating vile attitudes and policies towards gays. Prejudices towards gays are not helped by the suspicion that an all-knowing and all-loving God looks upon a same-sex union as an abomination worthy of eternal condemnation (as if people weren’t already sufficiently prejudiced before having to rationalize what it might be about about gays that God regards as so wicked).
The traditional doctrines put devout Christian parents of gay children in an awful bind. Firsthand, I’ve seen otherwise wonderfully loving parents completely alienate their son during his most desperate and vulnerable moments–all while thinking that they were acting with complete love towards their poor, sin-blinded and hell-bound son. These parents, no doubt, were more than once advised by their simple church friends to “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” As the son quickly discovered, however, a love that insists upon condemning one’s most valued and legitimate relationships is difficult to tolerate. The parents’ hearts no doubt broke for their son–much in the way that the hearts of Jared Loughner’s parents break for little Jared. But, of course, the son I have in mind was no Jared Loughner, and it was hard for him to understand being regarded in a parallel way.
Those advising Christians parents should put the shoe on the other foot: if someone judged that you deserved to be severely tortured and put to death for your way of life and closest relationships, what would you think of that person’s concomitant profession of love towards you? If such love doesn’t warm you, then maybe you understand why certain traditional Christian doctrines may pose a greater threat to families than anything James Dobson has ever decried.
February 10th, 2011 | 6:07 am
C Ehrlich, I’m sorry you find Christianity offensive and destructive.
Please, however, recognize that every religion in the world is recognized as offensive and/or destructive by those who happen to believe something else.
You have spoken about how my beliefs are bad based on how they make gay people feel. When are we going to have the evaluation of how YOUR beliefs affect MY self-image? After all, YOU think I am a bad person – in fact, your argument leads directly to the conclusion that people like me should not be allowed religious freedom, or the right to political participation, because we’re bad people.
So when do we talk about that? Or am I just not entitled to the same love and concern that gay people are, just because Christians are icky?
February 10th, 2011 | 10:13 am
I think we need a corollary to Godwin’s law for spurious invocations of Fred Phelps.
February 12th, 2011 | 2:52 pm
C. Ehrlich wrote:
“Some here” are weasel words. To whom are you referring in that “you”? Address commenters directly (and use HTML code for bold) so they might notice and respond directly to your calumny. Otherwise, you are jousting with straw.
And TimC has it precisely correct above. The invocation of Fred Phelps is an indication of intellectual surrender. Fruitful conversation has ceased.
Not that the internet would have it any other way. I pray that Anne Rice would engage the more charitable and articulate defenders of the opposition, if only to test her own conclusions against the strongest fire. Let’s take it as a hopeful sign that she regularly visits the web entries of those who publicly disagree with and criticize her. We welcome her congenial participation in a dialogue.
I also pray she does not succumb to the fallacies of fellow-travelers like C. Ehrlich and become a mere combox troll, though I acknowledge how difficult that can be when faced with a seemingly endless opposition, the pernicious illusion of blog comment sections. If you want to feel good about your unexamined position, exchange e-mails with a PR stuntman like Fred Phelps (and his phantoms). If you want to find a way to love despite our disagreements, talk to us.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact