A Dictatorship of Sentimentalism
Aug 2, 2011
Elizabeth Scalia
It was just about a year ago that Anne Rice—who two years earlier had chronicled her return to the Catholic church in the best-selling Called Out of Darkness; A Spiritual Confession—announced via Facebook that she was “quitting” Christianity:
I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or being a part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. 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.
At the time Rice was writing, we were well into the summer of Tea Party unrest preceding the 2010 elections, and mainstream media were disseminating the usual mean Christian caricatures spouted in any election year. In 2010 patently false claims that Christians hate gays, women, and science had been given new force by the Proposition 8 drama in California and the identification of prominent Christians as Tea Party supporters.
Some were quick to dismiss Rice’s resignation as the result of a “re-version,” the nearly inevitable outcome of her long formation as a secular humanist. After all, in Called Out, Rice expressed surprise that it might be thought radical “for a deeply orthodox Catholic to hope for the eventual ordination of women, or for a Catholic to believe that our gay Christian brothers and sisters would soon be accepted into the fold . . . but these did prove to be radical suggestions.”
Others wondered if Rice was simply falling victim to a shoddy catechesis that had failed to fully articulate the carefully nuanced, generous, and supernaturally grounded reasoning behind the Church’s counter-cultural positions.
Certainly, both of those explanations are possible, and even likely. It is also likely, because caricatures and stereotypes are distortions often founded upon realities, that Rice had encountered the sorts of Christians who seek constantly to confront and correct others, forgetting that the key to the Christian life begins with confronting and “fixing” the self—a job for grace, if ever there was one—and found them off-putting in the extreme.
But I suspect the largest part of Rice’s boisterous resignation has to do with the dictatorship of sentimentalism, which I have described elsewhere as “the force behind ‘feel-goodism’ . . . Convinced that the people he loves cannot possibly be denied anything they want by a just God, or that the same just God would not permit deformities, illness, war, childhood abuse or any of the human sufferings common to us all, he will not participate in a church so fault-ridden and out-of-step with so generous and enlightened a generation as . . . his own.”
In 2005, in his last homily given to the College of Cardinals before being elevated to the papacy, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger famously warned, “we are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” As Pope Benedict XVI he revisited that idea last September during his wildly successful visit to London, and charged that “a ‘dictatorship of relativism’ threatens to obscure the unchanging truth about man’s nature, his destiny and his ultimate good.”
In both cases, we say “rem acu tetigisti”; he has touched the matter with a needle. But I wonder if the dictatorship of relativism would be so comfortably entrenched within our society, were it not resting upon a bed of snuggly sentimentalism weaved through prosperity and mindless ingratitude. In a sense we are a Society of Eves in Eden drawing upon evidence of such giftedness and material abundance that we cannot imagine wanting something—for oneself or those we love—and not having it, without there being an injustice, somewhere.
The antidote to relativism, Ratzinger taught, is “a faith which does not follow the waves of today’s fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature.” And perhaps it is (in sad combination with other well-covered failings) our Church’s scandalous lack of a formal adult catechesis—designed to nurture and form her members into spiritually mature adulthood—that is behind the easy tossing-off of Eternal Truth by so many.
In her confession, Anne Rice referred to herself humbly as “a baby-Christian,” like Eve in an infancy of spiritual wondering, and I fear many adult Catholics are still very much “babies” in their understanding of the faith, and their relationship to Christ. If so, this cannot be permitted to continue unaddressed; a serious program of adult catechesis—something beyond, “now you’re confirmed, please join our youth group; we have dances! And pizza!”—must be devised and undertaken, posthaste.
This is not simply a matter of maturity; it is a matter of spiritual life and death. Imperfect reason, unassisted by adult formation, leads to the suppression of critical thinking by our feelings and desires. It encourages a headfirst dive into the waters of sentimentalism which, while shallow, are deep enough for an infant to drown in.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Called Out of Darkness
Rice on Facebook
Proposition 8 Voters
Ratzinger Homily to College of Cardinals
Benedict in UK
Essay on Sentimentalism
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.2.2011 | 8:39am
ferd says:
Elizabeth,
The idealogical junction points of "the dictatorship of relativism" and your "snuggly sentimentalism" can be traced to its psuedo-Christian roots in the widening corruption of the Social Gospel movement--between 1840-1940. This was followed by post-modern, pliable, flabby, feel-good Christianity that was militant against the true Rock. Then when the storm came (1955-1975), much of that weakened house of Western Christianity collapsed.
The idealogical junction points of "the dictatorship of relativism" and your "snuggly sentimentalism" can be traced to its psuedo-Christian roots in the widening corruption of the Social Gospel movement--between 1840-1940. This was followed by post-modern, pliable, flabby, feel-good Christianity that was militant against the true Rock. Then when the storm came (1955-1975), much of that weakened house of Western Christianity collapsed.
8.2.2011 | 8:50am
Michael Wulfers says:
I strongly agree with the need for better adult catechesis in the Catholic Church. In my experience most Catholics and non Catholics alike have no understanding of the churches position controversial issues such as contraception, the papacy, etc. When fully informed of the reasoning behind the churches position, most people can, even if they don't agree fully, see that the orthodox Catholic position is logical, reasonable, and charitable. In the United States our bishops, unfortunately, are not leading as they should. I see more leadership from the laity than the Catholic hierarchy in regard to better adult catechesis.
8.2.2011 | 8:54am
Edward Alleyn says:
Excellent essay. Sentimentalism and relativism are indeed problems for our era.
Another problem, in my humble opinion, is that, having severed our connection with our traditions, we have reduced ourselves to bundles of clichés. I do not intend to suggest that everyone should become a creative thinker (another cliché); nor do I want to champion extreme individualism. But we could give more thought to the ways in which we think about the world and ourselves and about the ways in which we speak and write our thoughts. This would include a good understanding of the history of our culture and of the best that our ancestors have left us.
I know nothing of Ann Rice, but based on what you have said here, she seems to be a grand cliché.
Another problem, in my humble opinion, is that, having severed our connection with our traditions, we have reduced ourselves to bundles of clichés. I do not intend to suggest that everyone should become a creative thinker (another cliché); nor do I want to champion extreme individualism. But we could give more thought to the ways in which we think about the world and ourselves and about the ways in which we speak and write our thoughts. This would include a good understanding of the history of our culture and of the best that our ancestors have left us.
I know nothing of Ann Rice, but based on what you have said here, she seems to be a grand cliché.
8.2.2011 | 8:59am
Monica says:
Elizabeth,
There is an adult catechetical program entering its fourth year in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul, Minneapolis. The Harry J. Flynn Catechetical Institute. It is a two year program built solidly on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the scriptures and other good theological books. All lay men in the archdiocese are required to take this course as a first step in discernment for becoming deacons. It is a mighty tool in the adult catechesis toolbox.
There is an adult catechetical program entering its fourth year in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul, Minneapolis. The Harry J. Flynn Catechetical Institute. It is a two year program built solidly on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the scriptures and other good theological books. All lay men in the archdiocese are required to take this course as a first step in discernment for becoming deacons. It is a mighty tool in the adult catechesis toolbox.
8.2.2011 | 9:15am
teomatteo says:
Many seem to adhere to the "NO to the three D's"
No doctrine.
No dogma.
No demands.
No doctrine.
No dogma.
No demands.
8.2.2011 | 10:22am
David Nickol says:
Suggestion
One of the most often repeated assertions on blogs dealing with religion is how poorly catechized Catholics are. Why doesn't someone come up with a list of, say, five solid (but non-scholarly) books that can be reasonably read in a year that would give Catholics at least a basic foundation in their faith. It would not be the equivalent of a Catholic education through the college level, of course, but it would be something. The question in my mind is whether the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be one of the books. On the one hand, it's an obvious choice. But on the other hand, is it really suitable for reading all the way through, or is it more suitable as a textbook for a course?
Perhaps there could be a web site devoted to the five books.
I offer this idea free in the next 24 hours to someone who wants to take it, and if no one is interested, I may make it a project for myself. I am sure the thought of *me* taking on the task of catechizing Catholics is frightening enough to induce someone else to take it on. :P
Who wants to recommend books?
One of the most often repeated assertions on blogs dealing with religion is how poorly catechized Catholics are. Why doesn't someone come up with a list of, say, five solid (but non-scholarly) books that can be reasonably read in a year that would give Catholics at least a basic foundation in their faith. It would not be the equivalent of a Catholic education through the college level, of course, but it would be something. The question in my mind is whether the Catechism of the Catholic Church should be one of the books. On the one hand, it's an obvious choice. But on the other hand, is it really suitable for reading all the way through, or is it more suitable as a textbook for a course?
Perhaps there could be a web site devoted to the five books.
I offer this idea free in the next 24 hours to someone who wants to take it, and if no one is interested, I may make it a project for myself. I am sure the thought of *me* taking on the task of catechizing Catholics is frightening enough to induce someone else to take it on. :P
Who wants to recommend books?
8.2.2011 | 12:13pm
HENRY says:
David - great idea, I'm game. When I return from my trip (August 19) I will list 5 books and I will revive my blog "Bumping Elbows with Christ" and discuss them there. Peace.
8.2.2011 | 12:25pm
Dr. Vendermann says:
Oddly enough, the whole relativistic idea, that would allow a certain flexibility in dogmas, came from the Bible itself; especially the theology of "love" in the writings attributed to John.
Historically it seems from biblical evidence, the early churches were often rather firm - rather too firm, many thought - in their rules. And they were excluding too many people from their churches. Indeed, perhaps some churches followed the OT, and admitted only Jews, for example. THis was felt by Paul for example, to be too strict, too dogmatic. ANd in fact? If non-Jews had been dogmatically excluded from the first churches? Then Christianity - which is composed largely of non-Jews - would never have started. Some flexibility about traditional Jewish/OT rules - or "law" as Paul called this - was required, to admit non-Jews into table fellowship and communion. And to form a Christianity that could admit Greeks, and Romans, etc..
Too much rigid dogmatism almost ended Christianity several times. As another example? It seems that many early churches, were fighting about who and what they admitted; what their firm rules should be. And they were quarreling about supporting other churches. So that their doctrinal rigidity was Making unity in the churches impossible. Making "CHristianity" impossible in fact.
It was to fix precisely, a divisive, too-rigid dogmatism, that by 90-110 AD - the time frame of "John" - that finally, a "liberal" formula was inserted into the BIble itself. A formula that would allow a certain looseness, a certain flexibility, in the rules. That would allow more people into the churches. And that would allow some firm "laws" to be relaxed. But more specifically, what was the device, the formula, the idea that John used, to allow this necessary flexibility? Was the command to "love" one another. As part of this love? We are to 1) have humility about the possible failings of our own understandings of rules and laws; and to have 2) a certain desire not to turn into a police state, but to try to forgive and get along with - love - "one another." With love, came a degree of tolerance. And ... inclusivity.
Today, among many dogmatic Christians, "tolerance" is a bad word. But ironically, if this flexible tolerance had not been achieved early on - through John's theology of "love" in part - Christianity would never have been formed, scholars now suggest. The churches would never have grown, or united; instead early Christianity would have perished, in sectarian wars and narrow exclusivity.
Historically it seems from biblical evidence, the early churches were often rather firm - rather too firm, many thought - in their rules. And they were excluding too many people from their churches. Indeed, perhaps some churches followed the OT, and admitted only Jews, for example. THis was felt by Paul for example, to be too strict, too dogmatic. ANd in fact? If non-Jews had been dogmatically excluded from the first churches? Then Christianity - which is composed largely of non-Jews - would never have started. Some flexibility about traditional Jewish/OT rules - or "law" as Paul called this - was required, to admit non-Jews into table fellowship and communion. And to form a Christianity that could admit Greeks, and Romans, etc..
Too much rigid dogmatism almost ended Christianity several times. As another example? It seems that many early churches, were fighting about who and what they admitted; what their firm rules should be. And they were quarreling about supporting other churches. So that their doctrinal rigidity was Making unity in the churches impossible. Making "CHristianity" impossible in fact.
It was to fix precisely, a divisive, too-rigid dogmatism, that by 90-110 AD - the time frame of "John" - that finally, a "liberal" formula was inserted into the BIble itself. A formula that would allow a certain looseness, a certain flexibility, in the rules. That would allow more people into the churches. And that would allow some firm "laws" to be relaxed. But more specifically, what was the device, the formula, the idea that John used, to allow this necessary flexibility? Was the command to "love" one another. As part of this love? We are to 1) have humility about the possible failings of our own understandings of rules and laws; and to have 2) a certain desire not to turn into a police state, but to try to forgive and get along with - love - "one another." With love, came a degree of tolerance. And ... inclusivity.
Today, among many dogmatic Christians, "tolerance" is a bad word. But ironically, if this flexible tolerance had not been achieved early on - through John's theology of "love" in part - Christianity would never have been formed, scholars now suggest. The churches would never have grown, or united; instead early Christianity would have perished, in sectarian wars and narrow exclusivity.
8.2.2011 | 12:33pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
May I suggest the YOUCAT, the youth catechism that has been released this year? It is a stunningly well-done breakdown of the formal catechism of the church. I am reading it right now and enjoying it immensely -- it would be a mistake to dismiss it because of its youthful focus. It is, in fact, a terrific inducement to refer to and read the "big" catechism. A great start for "baby Catholics" just getting back into things. I write about it here: http://www.patheos.com/community/theanchoress/2011/07/22/when-young-faith-is-tested/
8.2.2011 | 12:49pm
Mary says:
As if Christ was utterly untainted by being "quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious." I bet no one drove her out of the church with a whip.
But He's a lot easier to censor to suit, having lived a long time ago.
But He's a lot easier to censor to suit, having lived a long time ago.
8.2.2011 | 12:55pm
Alex says:
Who is Anne Rice? Why do her views matter? Her decision to quit Christianity was announced on Facebook - which suggests, at least to me, that she hasn't any serious religious convictions that she would be prepared to defend on rational grounds.
The excuses she gives for her incomplete apostasy are the juvenile sentiments of a liberal sophist.
The excuses she gives for her incomplete apostasy are the juvenile sentiments of a liberal sophist.
8.2.2011 | 1:16pm
Gretchen says:
I wonder if Dr. Vendermann is projecting modernist ideas onto the early Church a bit too much.
It seems from my reading of the early Church that there were great numbers of new Christians; so many in fact, that the need to formalize what constituted a Christian needed to be grappled with almost at the start. Hence the Holy Spirit's admonition to Peter regarding eating unclean food among gentiles, the circumcision issues and so forth.
Regarding the concept of tolerance as being a virtue of 'liberal' Catholics and not 'dogmatic' Catholics, I have found more intolerance and dogmatic behavior among the liberal and progressive leaders in my parish than among those who, for instance, desire a mass in the Extraordinary Form, or those who desire regular adoration. It is worse than pulling teeth to get our leaders to grant what should be readily forthcoming.
It seems from my reading of the early Church that there were great numbers of new Christians; so many in fact, that the need to formalize what constituted a Christian needed to be grappled with almost at the start. Hence the Holy Spirit's admonition to Peter regarding eating unclean food among gentiles, the circumcision issues and so forth.
Regarding the concept of tolerance as being a virtue of 'liberal' Catholics and not 'dogmatic' Catholics, I have found more intolerance and dogmatic behavior among the liberal and progressive leaders in my parish than among those who, for instance, desire a mass in the Extraordinary Form, or those who desire regular adoration. It is worse than pulling teeth to get our leaders to grant what should be readily forthcoming.
8.2.2011 | 1:18pm
JDD says:
Michael Wulfers wrote:
"I strongly agree with the need for better adult catechesis in the Catholic Church. In my experience most Catholics and non Catholics alike have no understanding of the churches position controversial issues..."
I would go further in saying that - never mind the controversial issues - most Catholics and non Catholics, (those that I have met in any case,) have little or no understanding of foundational beliefs of our faith, such as who do we say Jesus is. We run a risk by expending disproportionate energy on the former at the expense of the later.
I highly second Monica's recommendation of the Harry J. Flynn Catechetical Institute, and wish I could attend it myself:
http://www.stthomas.edu/spssod/continuing/catecheticalinstitute/default.html
"I strongly agree with the need for better adult catechesis in the Catholic Church. In my experience most Catholics and non Catholics alike have no understanding of the churches position controversial issues..."
I would go further in saying that - never mind the controversial issues - most Catholics and non Catholics, (those that I have met in any case,) have little or no understanding of foundational beliefs of our faith, such as who do we say Jesus is. We run a risk by expending disproportionate energy on the former at the expense of the later.
I highly second Monica's recommendation of the Harry J. Flynn Catechetical Institute, and wish I could attend it myself:
http://www.stthomas.edu/spssod/continuing/catecheticalinstitute/default.html
8.2.2011 | 1:37pm
David Nickol says:
Alex,
You say: "The excuses she gives for her incomplete apostasy are the juvenile sentiments of a liberal sophist."
Isn't this kind of like if the Good Shepherd said, "Stay lost, you stupid sheep! If you don't have the good sense not to wander off, I'm certainly not coming to look for you!"
Shouldn't there be sorrow, not anger and contempt, when someone leaves the Church?
You say: "The excuses she gives for her incomplete apostasy are the juvenile sentiments of a liberal sophist."
Isn't this kind of like if the Good Shepherd said, "Stay lost, you stupid sheep! If you don't have the good sense not to wander off, I'm certainly not coming to look for you!"
Shouldn't there be sorrow, not anger and contempt, when someone leaves the Church?
8.2.2011 | 1:40pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Historically, the deep divide between the laity and the priesthood often gave Catholics in the pews the impression that deep study and communion with God were for the "religious professionals." Growing up Catholic that was certainly my tacit understanding. I think the Church as improved in this by encouraging the laity to take seriously their walk with God. In this they have something to learn from we Protestants. Literally every Sunday in our church and every Sunday I can remember in years past, we in the pews are/were encouraged to read the Bible, pray, study, become part of a small group, go to classes, etc. My experience, of course limited in recent years, is that homilies by priests tend to be more morality lessons than serious challenges to grow in the faith. I think it's more important than ever that Catholics are challenged to become serious about knowing their faith, their theology and their God.
8.2.2011 | 1:51pm
Karen in Denver says:
Nice Reflection, Ms. Scalia.
Alex asks, "Who is Anne Rice?" Well, she's someone to whom we have a fraternal obligation (even still). We must continue to love and pray for her, and not dismiss her, even in her wrong-headedness...
Anchoress, I appreciate that you mentioned the tendency by some toward constant confrontation and correction (and almost always, may I add, in the name of faithfulness and orthodoxy).
When I first moved to Denver 15 years ago, I was vexed by what I perceived as the strident and not-very-nice tone of the local Church. I believed then that love and making people feel good were the same thing. What helped me grow? It was definitely NOT those given to constant confrontation (and there were many of those). It was, instead, the gentle and unwavering teaching and love of our Pastor here -- Archbishop Chaput. He really is a wonderful model for those hoping to convey the Truth in love.
Alex asks, "Who is Anne Rice?" Well, she's someone to whom we have a fraternal obligation (even still). We must continue to love and pray for her, and not dismiss her, even in her wrong-headedness...
Anchoress, I appreciate that you mentioned the tendency by some toward constant confrontation and correction (and almost always, may I add, in the name of faithfulness and orthodoxy).
When I first moved to Denver 15 years ago, I was vexed by what I perceived as the strident and not-very-nice tone of the local Church. I believed then that love and making people feel good were the same thing. What helped me grow? It was definitely NOT those given to constant confrontation (and there were many of those). It was, instead, the gentle and unwavering teaching and love of our Pastor here -- Archbishop Chaput. He really is a wonderful model for those hoping to convey the Truth in love.
8.2.2011 | 2:00pm
Ann says:
Catechesis is an offering and I do agree that the church must teach better than it has
in the last 60 years. The listener has to have a willingness to hear and to accept. That is the other huge component in the process.
in the last 60 years. The listener has to have a willingness to hear and to accept. That is the other huge component in the process.
8.2.2011 | 2:26pm
Elastico says:
I think I may depart from the "need more catechesis (education)" solution as the initial step. I think we need better Catholic hearts first before better Catholic minds. As Catholics, I think there is a profound reason we reference the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary rather than the sacred mind of Jesus or the immaculate mind of Mary.
8.2.2011 | 2:35pm
Health Care Sister says:
Many lay Catholics of my acquaintance find Why Catholic very edifying and educational. http://www.whycatholic.org/ And let's not forget the catechetical value of the liturgy. The new translation of the Missal will be an opportunity for many to grow in faith.
As for Anne Rice, I was, and remain, saddened by her alienation from the Catholic Church and hope that she may yet find her way home, again. Whatever the future may hold, two of her books are masterful reflections on the life of Jesus. Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt and Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana are works of historical fiction that brought Jesus to life for me in a way that traditional catechetical materials never have. Catechesis has its place, abosulutely. So do powerful works of art and literature.
As for Anne Rice, I was, and remain, saddened by her alienation from the Catholic Church and hope that she may yet find her way home, again. Whatever the future may hold, two of her books are masterful reflections on the life of Jesus. Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt and Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana are works of historical fiction that brought Jesus to life for me in a way that traditional catechetical materials never have. Catechesis has its place, abosulutely. So do powerful works of art and literature.
8.2.2011 | 2:40pm
Sergio Méndez says:
I wonder why christians complain of being charicaturized and yet they do the same thing with non christians. So if one is a feminist, or pro abortion, or left leanning, or or thinks that faith is a poor ground to base one moral beliefs, one is a "realtivist"? I am all of those things and is not because I have rejected the idea of truth or cause I follow some fashion or shallow "spirit of the times". I hold those positions because I believe they are moral or epistemic imperatives (in other words, cause I consider them true and just). I am be wrong (as christians may, even if they never seem to consider the possibility seriously), but then what you don´t have the right is to generalize and explain my beliefs using an unidimensiontal concept as the "dictatorship of relativism".
8.2.2011 | 3:10pm
What is our presumption for those who claim conversion and then deny it?
There is this from scripture:
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." --1 John 2:19
and this:
"Some [seed] fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root." --Matt 13:5-6
On the other hand, there is this:
"When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?'
'Yes, Lord,' he said, 'you know that I love you.'
Jesus said, 'Feed my lambs.' "
Only God knows what is in Ann Rice's heart, but I'm sure of one thing: God has seen the likes of it before, and has given us all the guidance we need in his word and through his Spirit.
I think it goes something like this: pray for Ann Rice, and don't follow her (current) example.
There is this from scripture:
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." --1 John 2:19
and this:
"Some [seed] fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root." --Matt 13:5-6
On the other hand, there is this:
"When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?'
'Yes, Lord,' he said, 'you know that I love you.'
Jesus said, 'Feed my lambs.' "
Only God knows what is in Ann Rice's heart, but I'm sure of one thing: God has seen the likes of it before, and has given us all the guidance we need in his word and through his Spirit.
I think it goes something like this: pray for Ann Rice, and don't follow her (current) example.
8.2.2011 | 3:35pm
Magistra Bona says:
Also, do not forget what Rice shares in Called Out of Darkness: She's dyslexic. She learns best from the spoken not the written word. Odd for a writer. But, that's what she says.. If books are hard to read, for mechanical reasons beyond one's control, it is unlikely that so literate a person would have ever begun her own program of self-education in the Church's official teaching (particularly as it is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church). Sentimentalism? She's loaded with it. A love for saint statues and holy cards, insence and peppermints. As an artist, she naturally gravitates to those things. It distracts her from the, as Blessed Newman put it, "fancy repressing" task for really learning what the Church teaches. She needs adult formation for the dyslexic. There are tools and methods that help adult dyslexics. Why not combine them with the Catechism? Just an idea.
8.2.2011 | 3:38pm
Beth says:
@Karen in Denver
Amen to your assessment of Archbishop Chaput! David O'Brien bemoaned Chaput's appointment in Philadelphia saying, among many other things, that he wasn't pastoral. I never met him, but sent an e-mail to his Denver address regarding an article he wrote in First Things and about which I was confused. I could have written a letter to the editor, but I didn't. Lo and behold, this busy man wrote back clarifying his ideas and thanking me for keeping his intentions in mind.
Re: the need for robust adult catechesis makes me think of the scripture "the harvest is plentiful, the laborers few." There's a crying need for us to educate each other. Father Robert Barron and his colleagues at Word On Fire have archived a large collection of video and audio resources, especially useful for those raised in the digital age.
Thanks, Elizabeth, for a great column.
Amen to your assessment of Archbishop Chaput! David O'Brien bemoaned Chaput's appointment in Philadelphia saying, among many other things, that he wasn't pastoral. I never met him, but sent an e-mail to his Denver address regarding an article he wrote in First Things and about which I was confused. I could have written a letter to the editor, but I didn't. Lo and behold, this busy man wrote back clarifying his ideas and thanking me for keeping his intentions in mind.
Re: the need for robust adult catechesis makes me think of the scripture "the harvest is plentiful, the laborers few." There's a crying need for us to educate each other. Father Robert Barron and his colleagues at Word On Fire have archived a large collection of video and audio resources, especially useful for those raised in the digital age.
Thanks, Elizabeth, for a great column.
8.2.2011 | 4:48pm
Gary says:
In addition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I highly recommend Frank Sheed's incomparable "Theology and Sanity" for adult catechesis. Although, pace' Anchoress, Sheed's classic *is* written to address the mind rather than the heart. :-)
8.2.2011 | 5:02pm
Todd says:
While I wouldn't dismiss some of the above suggestions outright, I think there is a misdiagnosis afoot.
My childhood memories of Catholicism are full of the sentimentalities of my home parish: kitschy statues in church, syrupy devotional songs, images of Jesus invoking a certain comfortable piety. Sentimentality is very much a part of the American landscape, and some Catholics have bought into the comfort quite fully. Sentimentality runs back centuries, not decades. Catholics have long embraced a culture of entitlement: we are the Way, so why should we go out and evangelize? People should come to us!
If anything, the social gospel runs counter to comfort and to the culture of entitlement: it demands sacrifice of those who are grateful for their surplus, and is often uncompromising in what it asks of its followers.
I'm also not prepared to lay blame at the feet of catechesis. We know biblical catechesis was incomparably shoddy before Vatican II--and that was just the clergy.
I'm disinclined to suggest that the best we can do in clucking about Ms Rice is to say, "If only she were better educated." Creeping pelagianism, anyone? We cannot guarantee faith by educating people--even ourselves--better. That's not to say that catechesis for any of us couldn't improve. What I'd like to know is: where is Ms Rice's sponsor--the person responsible for accompanying her on her faith journey?
My childhood memories of Catholicism are full of the sentimentalities of my home parish: kitschy statues in church, syrupy devotional songs, images of Jesus invoking a certain comfortable piety. Sentimentality is very much a part of the American landscape, and some Catholics have bought into the comfort quite fully. Sentimentality runs back centuries, not decades. Catholics have long embraced a culture of entitlement: we are the Way, so why should we go out and evangelize? People should come to us!
If anything, the social gospel runs counter to comfort and to the culture of entitlement: it demands sacrifice of those who are grateful for their surplus, and is often uncompromising in what it asks of its followers.
I'm also not prepared to lay blame at the feet of catechesis. We know biblical catechesis was incomparably shoddy before Vatican II--and that was just the clergy.
I'm disinclined to suggest that the best we can do in clucking about Ms Rice is to say, "If only she were better educated." Creeping pelagianism, anyone? We cannot guarantee faith by educating people--even ourselves--better. That's not to say that catechesis for any of us couldn't improve. What I'd like to know is: where is Ms Rice's sponsor--the person responsible for accompanying her on her faith journey?
8.2.2011 | 6:08pm
Eduardo says:
Rice's backsliding after her embrace of Christianity was disheartening to me. I bought and read her "reconversion" story in Called Out of Darkness and was genuinely and deeply moved by it. This backsliding business by Rice, the seemingly endless priest molestation scandles, and John Corapi's troubles in 2011 have left me feeling like I need something - anything - to boost my faith a little. You know, a bit of encouragement never hurts. But maybe trying times are what tests our faith and these discouraging things are simply what's needed to make us stronger. I dunno..............
BTW, how can Rice "embrace Jesus" yet reject His Church? How is that even possible???
BTW, how can Rice "embrace Jesus" yet reject His Church? How is that even possible???
8.2.2011 | 9:58pm
The Moz says:
Rice's departure just made her look like a loon. There really isn't much left to say about her leaving the Church.
8.2.2011 | 10:08pm
Patrick says:
Dr. Vendermann makes an interesting point. Nietzsche blamed Christianity for the rise of nihilism, and I do think he was on to something. I think it is reasonable to suggest that Christianity created the cult of the victim and, historically, if not logically, is directly responsible for relativism today. It is the replacement of law and logic with love. "Unto the Jews a stumblingblock [scandal], and unto the Greeks foolishness," indeed.
Rene Girard is, I think, very illuminating on this issue. He really clearly shows how much of a radical break Christianity was with what we would today call the "realism" of pagan religion. Christianity exalted the victim, which led directly (again, historically, but perhaps not logically) to the humanist critique of Christianity as itself being a victimizer. There was never any other religion that worshiped a victim. Even Buddhism, a meek and self-effacing school of thought, considers the Buddha to be of a kind of superhuman intelligence -- no victim, certainly.
Who watches the watchmen? Secular humanism sets itself up as a kind of super-Christianity, more Christian than the Christians themselves. This is the problem. Sergio Méndez's comment is a good example of this way of thinking. He makes reference to the "true and just" and implies that there is some criterion outside of Christianity in which these concepts are taken seriously. But the only reason anyone cares about truth and justice at all is because of Christianity. In essence, Mr. Méndez is saying, "I am more Christian than you." Ms. Rice's line of thought is similar.
Much of Western thought today is Christianity without Christ and the Church, which have been deemed to be not quite Christian enough. I think it is time for the Church to make it known that it is the source of Western civilization, and that appeals to tolerance, or whatever, only make sense in light of the blood of the martyrs. Christian martyrs are the reason that Westerners have the luxury of debating the rights of homosexuals, women, et al. Cold Greek reason and Jewish legalism do not have a place for the victim.
Rene Girard is, I think, very illuminating on this issue. He really clearly shows how much of a radical break Christianity was with what we would today call the "realism" of pagan religion. Christianity exalted the victim, which led directly (again, historically, but perhaps not logically) to the humanist critique of Christianity as itself being a victimizer. There was never any other religion that worshiped a victim. Even Buddhism, a meek and self-effacing school of thought, considers the Buddha to be of a kind of superhuman intelligence -- no victim, certainly.
Who watches the watchmen? Secular humanism sets itself up as a kind of super-Christianity, more Christian than the Christians themselves. This is the problem. Sergio Méndez's comment is a good example of this way of thinking. He makes reference to the "true and just" and implies that there is some criterion outside of Christianity in which these concepts are taken seriously. But the only reason anyone cares about truth and justice at all is because of Christianity. In essence, Mr. Méndez is saying, "I am more Christian than you." Ms. Rice's line of thought is similar.
Much of Western thought today is Christianity without Christ and the Church, which have been deemed to be not quite Christian enough. I think it is time for the Church to make it known that it is the source of Western civilization, and that appeals to tolerance, or whatever, only make sense in light of the blood of the martyrs. Christian martyrs are the reason that Westerners have the luxury of debating the rights of homosexuals, women, et al. Cold Greek reason and Jewish legalism do not have a place for the victim.
8.2.2011 | 10:18pm
Austinne says:
I think Anne Rice is very well read about biblical theology and she keeps up with blogs because sometimes she comments. In my experience, people agree with current arguments concerning divorce, the gay lifestyle, and other challenges because there is a media censorship of 'our side.' You just arent going to hear anything negative about the gay lifestyle...who wants to be demonized?....Our apologetics are offensive to many who are more persuaded by images and stories than reason and classes--and most people don't like swimming that much against the tide . The theology of the body movement may help; I hope so.
8.2.2011 | 10:23pm
Margaret says:
I think Rice is over-generalizing. I too am deeply disturbed by aspects of modern Christian culture that appear more politically partisan than religious. I have no doubt that some Christians are indeed quarrelsome, anti-science, and all the other things that Rice accuses them of being. I am absolutely certain that there are wolves in sheep's clothing who cynically manipulate the more gullible Christians for their own economic and political gain. However, these are but a subset of all Christians and their Christianity is based on a shaky foundation. I feel sure Rice could have found sincere, compassionate, and intelligent Christians if she'd kept trying.
8.2.2011 | 10:26pm
David Galalis says:
(1) Rejecting Christianity but purporting to "follow Christ" (an increasingly common trend) means that Christ is now just an idea in one's head and a label that we can slap on whatever ideology we are already inclined towards. Following Christ means to follow an historical event that has Christ at its origin and Christ as its present reality. That is to say, the Church.
Those like Rice, however, in addition to not understanding that taking a moral position doesn't make you anti [fill in the blank], are scandalized by the sin of this Church, thinking that where Christ is, there must be perfection. I would recommend T.S. Eliot's "Choruses from the Rock" to Rice as a possibility for re-re-conversion.
(2) You say that we need "a serious program of adult catechesis—something beyond, “now you’re confirmed, please join our youth group; we have dances! And pizza!"
I agree wholeheartedly. And, to a very great extent, the various officially recognized lay movements of our Church are doing just that. The Holy Spirit has blessed the modern Church with a multitude of Charisms. These experiences should not be overlooked.
Those like Rice, however, in addition to not understanding that taking a moral position doesn't make you anti [fill in the blank], are scandalized by the sin of this Church, thinking that where Christ is, there must be perfection. I would recommend T.S. Eliot's "Choruses from the Rock" to Rice as a possibility for re-re-conversion.
(2) You say that we need "a serious program of adult catechesis—something beyond, “now you’re confirmed, please join our youth group; we have dances! And pizza!"
I agree wholeheartedly. And, to a very great extent, the various officially recognized lay movements of our Church are doing just that. The Holy Spirit has blessed the modern Church with a multitude of Charisms. These experiences should not be overlooked.
8.2.2011 | 10:27pm
Dan says:
Education is the least effective way to promote change. Most folks aren't as poorly educated as they are selective about that which they educate themselves. While some folks memorize baseball rosters, scoring patterns, etc and dominate sports radio with a level of historic sophistication that boggles the mind, I suspect many of the Catholics in that audience have chosen to be ignorant.
I was raised in the Northeast US in the 1970's and my family taught me extensively about my religion. It was not left to others and oen was encoraged to know about Saints, the Bible, and the Sacraments. I attended public school, was taken to the varied religious events in our parish, was an altar boy, and knew my Catholicism.
Two points: childhood education is the responsibility of the family and cries otherwise are politically motivated potshots at some favorite targets: the local diocesan bishop, the USCCB, some DRE who the conservative doesn't like. It it a family's failure if the religion isn't well-learned in childhood. This would be a consistent philosophy for the conservative movement, but such commentary seems to be taboo. Second point: in the "bootstrap"-mythos-beleiving right wing, why is bad "catechesis" again anyone's fault but the individual? This is the same person who may very well be an expert on some minutiae of sport.
Finally, I suspect religious education now, while not as strong as maybe 50 years ago, could match many many periods, such as medieval France.
"Poor catechesis" is a position oft-used as a weapon among conservative Catholics.
I was raised in the Northeast US in the 1970's and my family taught me extensively about my religion. It was not left to others and oen was encoraged to know about Saints, the Bible, and the Sacraments. I attended public school, was taken to the varied religious events in our parish, was an altar boy, and knew my Catholicism.
Two points: childhood education is the responsibility of the family and cries otherwise are politically motivated potshots at some favorite targets: the local diocesan bishop, the USCCB, some DRE who the conservative doesn't like. It it a family's failure if the religion isn't well-learned in childhood. This would be a consistent philosophy for the conservative movement, but such commentary seems to be taboo. Second point: in the "bootstrap"-mythos-beleiving right wing, why is bad "catechesis" again anyone's fault but the individual? This is the same person who may very well be an expert on some minutiae of sport.
Finally, I suspect religious education now, while not as strong as maybe 50 years ago, could match many many periods, such as medieval France.
"Poor catechesis" is a position oft-used as a weapon among conservative Catholics.
8.2.2011 | 11:14pm
Mary De Voe says:
David Nichol,
Start with the Baltimore Catechism, all issues in grade school. The Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Let one of the books be religious art. Let the fifth book be the commentor or student's choice. The Ten Commandments for God, Himself, keeps the Co-mmandments. The First Commandment tells us Who God is and who we, God's children are.
Elizabeth Scalia,
I believe you are correct in assigning a youth catechism for baby catholics. YOUCAT is a terrible name. Try to get it changed to: "Instructions for "lesser gods", a term the Lord of Heaven and Earth uses to address us as His children in the Old Testament. I do not have the book or verse.
Start with the Baltimore Catechism, all issues in grade school. The Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Let one of the books be religious art. Let the fifth book be the commentor or student's choice. The Ten Commandments for God, Himself, keeps the Co-mmandments. The First Commandment tells us Who God is and who we, God's children are.
Elizabeth Scalia,
I believe you are correct in assigning a youth catechism for baby catholics. YOUCAT is a terrible name. Try to get it changed to: "Instructions for "lesser gods", a term the Lord of Heaven and Earth uses to address us as His children in the Old Testament. I do not have the book or verse.
8.2.2011 | 11:45pm
Mary De Voe says:
Patrick,
The Victim is GOD. Jesus Christ is TRUTH, JUSTICE, and LOVE. The only reason some people are looking outside of Christianity is because they refuse to recognize and acknowledge that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
Austinne,
The human being is composed of body and soul. The practicing homosexual ignores the soul of his partner. The soul of man is compassion and mercy, reverence and respect of one another. Reverence and respect for another fulfills the soul in all walks of life.
The Victim is GOD. Jesus Christ is TRUTH, JUSTICE, and LOVE. The only reason some people are looking outside of Christianity is because they refuse to recognize and acknowledge that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
Austinne,
The human being is composed of body and soul. The practicing homosexual ignores the soul of his partner. The soul of man is compassion and mercy, reverence and respect of one another. Reverence and respect for another fulfills the soul in all walks of life.
8.3.2011 | 12:19am
Mary De Voe says:
They shall stand up to be condemned. Sergio Mendez says:
“I am(sic) be wrong (as christians may, even if they never seem to consider the possibility seriously (my emphasis)), but then what you don´t have the right is to generalize and explain my beliefs using an unidimensiontal concept as the "dictatorship of relativism". Then what kind of dictatorship dictates a right to generalize and explain my beliefs using a unidimentional concept and to write: (“even if they (Christians) never seem to consider the possibility (of being wrong) seriously”)?
“I am(sic) be wrong (as christians may, even if they never seem to consider the possibility seriously (my emphasis)), but then what you don´t have the right is to generalize and explain my beliefs using an unidimensiontal concept as the "dictatorship of relativism". Then what kind of dictatorship dictates a right to generalize and explain my beliefs using a unidimentional concept and to write: (“even if they (Christians) never seem to consider the possibility (of being wrong) seriously”)?
8.3.2011 | 6:37am
Raymond Nicholas says:
Taken at face value, it is my opinion that Rice’s comments reflect someone who is confused about what it means to be a follower of Christ, at least concerning the Roman Catholic Church.
Take her first and last sentences. It is impossible to be committed to Christ without being a follower of Christ, hence to be a Christian. To put it in liberal terms, it would be the same as saying you are committed to Obama without believing in Obama’s values. It would be a falsehood.
Clearly, Rice does not like the Church’s teachings on Christ and has decided to become a Church of One, herself. Of course she has a righ to disagree, but I am more concerned with her logic.
Does Rice’s Church of One sufficiently reflect Christ’s Words and the Bible taken in its totality in ways that are more inspired and correct than the Church?
She refuses to be “anti-life”. Does this mean she is “for-life”? I would like Rice to explain how being for artificial birth control, which prevents life, is “for-life”. I would like her to explain how being a feminist, which generally connotes a liberal interpretation in favor of abortion under all circumstance, which denies life, is “for-life”. I would like her to explain how being a democrat, which party favors an unrestrained permissive approach to all sexual matters without responsibility or consequence, hence promotes contraception and abortion to achieve freedom from obligation, is a party of “for-life” ideals that genuine Christians should be attracted.
If she believes that Christ was “for-life”, does she believe that Christ would have been in favor of her interpretations? What is her theological basis and reasoning?
Is there a theological basis in the Words of Christ and Bible Tradition that favors homosexual lifestyles and marriage over marriage between a man and woman and having children? In Rice’s Church of One, does the Holy Family have any meaning?
I would like her to articulate succinctly those Words of Christ wherein He favors secular humanism, the antithesis of the Last Word of God.
I would like Rice to explain how the Church is anti-science when it has been the major force the West, historically speaking, promoting education and science, and believes that science reflects God and is not a denial of Him. The Church has the right to speak out against scientific initiatives if they are contrary to the Words of Christ, as understood and applied by the Church. For example, stem-cell research, cloning, euthanasia, etc.
If Rice cannot explain these things as understood in Christ, how can she be committed to Christ? How can anyone elst, for that matter, who believes like her?
Take her first and last sentences. It is impossible to be committed to Christ without being a follower of Christ, hence to be a Christian. To put it in liberal terms, it would be the same as saying you are committed to Obama without believing in Obama’s values. It would be a falsehood.
Clearly, Rice does not like the Church’s teachings on Christ and has decided to become a Church of One, herself. Of course she has a righ to disagree, but I am more concerned with her logic.
Does Rice’s Church of One sufficiently reflect Christ’s Words and the Bible taken in its totality in ways that are more inspired and correct than the Church?
She refuses to be “anti-life”. Does this mean she is “for-life”? I would like Rice to explain how being for artificial birth control, which prevents life, is “for-life”. I would like her to explain how being a feminist, which generally connotes a liberal interpretation in favor of abortion under all circumstance, which denies life, is “for-life”. I would like her to explain how being a democrat, which party favors an unrestrained permissive approach to all sexual matters without responsibility or consequence, hence promotes contraception and abortion to achieve freedom from obligation, is a party of “for-life” ideals that genuine Christians should be attracted.
If she believes that Christ was “for-life”, does she believe that Christ would have been in favor of her interpretations? What is her theological basis and reasoning?
Is there a theological basis in the Words of Christ and Bible Tradition that favors homosexual lifestyles and marriage over marriage between a man and woman and having children? In Rice’s Church of One, does the Holy Family have any meaning?
I would like her to articulate succinctly those Words of Christ wherein He favors secular humanism, the antithesis of the Last Word of God.
I would like Rice to explain how the Church is anti-science when it has been the major force the West, historically speaking, promoting education and science, and believes that science reflects God and is not a denial of Him. The Church has the right to speak out against scientific initiatives if they are contrary to the Words of Christ, as understood and applied by the Church. For example, stem-cell research, cloning, euthanasia, etc.
If Rice cannot explain these things as understood in Christ, how can she be committed to Christ? How can anyone elst, for that matter, who believes like her?
8.3.2011 | 8:36am
A.M . says:
Glad to have revisited this site for the good quality comments - esp. @De Voe , about the 'terrible ' name of 'you Cat ' , good to see that there are others out there who also feel the same about such a name , that allows the 'beast like a leopard ' of subtle scorn of the sacred to creep in , to destroy the same !
Interesting comments about the basic tenets of faith of Christianity too , the
confusion on how mercy and forgiveness can be seen as condoning evil , mercy at a priceless price , that one accepts from a Lord who has earned the merits for same for oneself and others , thus setting one free from the 'footholds' of the enemy that can come in , even in one night when one lets the sun set on one's anger /hatred !
A 'Victim' who lets us bring meaning and power into all suffering that is offered along with His, to bring forgiveness and mercy , love for the perptrators, in the form of wanting their conversion - thus defeating the enemy plan to tie up more people in despair , hatred and violence !
Christians have the awesome privilege of knowing how holy God is , yet how merciful !
Without that cross like truth , it would be an 'impossible ' faith !
Yet , that cross like truth also helps to keep us in praise, adoration and gratitude that gets celebrated at every Liturgy , along with all of heaven - which itself is heaven !
Interesting comments about the basic tenets of faith of Christianity too , the
confusion on how mercy and forgiveness can be seen as condoning evil , mercy at a priceless price , that one accepts from a Lord who has earned the merits for same for oneself and others , thus setting one free from the 'footholds' of the enemy that can come in , even in one night when one lets the sun set on one's anger /hatred !
A 'Victim' who lets us bring meaning and power into all suffering that is offered along with His, to bring forgiveness and mercy , love for the perptrators, in the form of wanting their conversion - thus defeating the enemy plan to tie up more people in despair , hatred and violence !
Christians have the awesome privilege of knowing how holy God is , yet how merciful !
Without that cross like truth , it would be an 'impossible ' faith !
Yet , that cross like truth also helps to keep us in praise, adoration and gratitude that gets celebrated at every Liturgy , along with all of heaven - which itself is heaven !
8.3.2011 | 9:05am
Wendy says:
Christ in fact, is far more liberal, far more open, far less overdetermined, than churches are. For example? When asked where his authority, his ideas came from? Jesus said that ideas come from the "wind."
Jesus also was not at all certain about his own divinity. When asked if he was Christ, he most often responded with a question: "who do you say I am?"
If we really follow Christ therefore? We might well HAVE to abandon institutional Christianity to do it; Jesus seems like a very, very different person from the false, dogmatic Christ that we heard about all too often, in church and in conservative religious talk shows.
Jesus also was not at all certain about his own divinity. When asked if he was Christ, he most often responded with a question: "who do you say I am?"
If we really follow Christ therefore? We might well HAVE to abandon institutional Christianity to do it; Jesus seems like a very, very different person from the false, dogmatic Christ that we heard about all too often, in church and in conservative religious talk shows.
8.3.2011 | 10:27am
Margaret says:
Wendy, I agree. I think this is why "home churches" are becoming so popular. I really believe that there's a money trail somewhere leading to the indoctrination of so-called Christians into a particular political mindset. With over 30 well-funded right-wing think tanks in the country, I think there are people like Ted Haggard who are/were paid to go out and recruit Christians, whom they regard with contempt as "useful idiots," to believe that "Christianity" = unquestioning faith in ideas that have nothing to do with Christianity. Look at the prevalence of global warming deniers in the Christian community. Why would a scientific theory need to be embraced as some sort of religious article of faith? It's antithetical to Christianity to deny the laws of science that God created and to fail to address an issue that is potentially life-threatening. I wish, though, that Anne Rice could have stuck around to try to change the culture she complains of. Instead she rejected it altogether.
8.3.2011 | 6:50pm
JDD says:
"Jesus also was not at all certain about his own divinity. When asked if he was Christ, he most often responded with a question: "who do you say I am?""
As in Matthew 16:13, and Mark 8:27. And then when Simon Peter responded, "You are the Christ," Jesus said
http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/matt1613.htm
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."
As in Matthew 16:13, and Mark 8:27. And then when Simon Peter responded, "You are the Christ," Jesus said
http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/matt1613.htm
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."
8.4.2011 | 12:15am
edmond says:
Wendy-"If we really follow Christ therefore? We might well HAVE to abandon institutional Christianity to do it"
Nah, not if you want to be faithful to Christ who specifically stated:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matt;5:17-18
"Institutional Christianity" as you put it is about the Law of God, His commandments and doing His will with your whole heart, strength and mind. Anything outside doesn't count.
God has a thing for compliance.
Nah, not if you want to be faithful to Christ who specifically stated:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Matt;5:17-18
"Institutional Christianity" as you put it is about the Law of God, His commandments and doing His will with your whole heart, strength and mind. Anything outside doesn't count.
God has a thing for compliance.
8.4.2011 | 11:04am
Christian says:
"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."
I'd think that Rice could find a church that meets her personal standards. So why doesn't she just quit Catholicism and pick a church more to her liking?
I'd think that Rice could find a church that meets her personal standards. So why doesn't she just quit Catholicism and pick a church more to her liking?
8.4.2011 | 4:28pm
Scott says:
There certainly is a catechetical issue in the Church. I actually tend to agree that it is the duty of the family (specifically, the parents, laid down on them at Baptism) to instruct children in the faith.
But this is about adult education of the faith. We are at a point where the childhood education of Catholics has failed, and we have an entire generation of Catholics who may not be properly educated in the faith.
In an attempt to answer Ms. Scalia's call, I will recommend books that aided me in my own adult education of the Catholic faith.
First and foremost, Holy Scripture.
Second, the Catechism.
Thirdly, and this may seem odd... C.S.Lewis's Signature Classics. This entire article reads like a chapter from The Problem of Pain. While C.S.Lewis was not Catholic, 99% of what he says is correct doctrinally, and the other 1% he refuses to comment. The main reason I recommend him over Chesterton is that he seems to be much more readable.
Fourthly, anything by G.K.Chesterton.
Finally, anything by Dr. Peter Kreeft.
But this is about adult education of the faith. We are at a point where the childhood education of Catholics has failed, and we have an entire generation of Catholics who may not be properly educated in the faith.
In an attempt to answer Ms. Scalia's call, I will recommend books that aided me in my own adult education of the Catholic faith.
First and foremost, Holy Scripture.
Second, the Catechism.
Thirdly, and this may seem odd... C.S.Lewis's Signature Classics. This entire article reads like a chapter from The Problem of Pain. While C.S.Lewis was not Catholic, 99% of what he says is correct doctrinally, and the other 1% he refuses to comment. The main reason I recommend him over Chesterton is that he seems to be much more readable.
Fourthly, anything by G.K.Chesterton.
Finally, anything by Dr. Peter Kreeft.
8.6.2011 | 11:50am
Gil Costello says:
Five books I consider essential for contemporary catechesis:
John Paul II's "Theology of the Body"
Philip Rief's "Triumph of the Therapeutic"
Hans Urs von Balthasar's "Elucidations"
Henri de Lubac's "The Drama of Atheistic Humanism"
Hans Urs von Balthasar's "Prayer"
John Paul II's "Theology of the Body"
Philip Rief's "Triumph of the Therapeutic"
Hans Urs von Balthasar's "Elucidations"
Henri de Lubac's "The Drama of Atheistic Humanism"
Hans Urs von Balthasar's "Prayer"
8.18.2011 | 7:54pm
Anne says:
I agree, of course, that there's a crying need for better catechesis, etc., etc., etc. But to conflate "sentimentalism" with taking seriously the age-old "cries from the heart" in the face of suffering -- whether by one's friends or anybody else -- may in itself explain why so many who haven't been educated in the faith lack the motivation to look any closer. "See how they love" was supposed to be the response we invoke in people, not "Boy, are those guys tough."
9.18.2011 | 5:39am
Rayna Riveroll says:
Only God knows what is in Ann Rice's heart, but I'm sure of one thing: God has seen the likes of it before, and has given us all the guidance we need in his word and through his Spirit. Who is Anne Rice? Why do her views matter? Her decision to quit Christianity was announced on Facebook - which suggests, at least to me, that she hasn't any serious religious convictions that she would be prepared to defend on rational grounds.
Catholic Church is like the mother of the prodigal son , wishing for his return , to all the good that is his and exhorting him on , for the long , tiring journey back , into the Father's embrace .
The truth and wisdom , to recognise that it is one's own deep fear /hatred of goodness and truth ( very likely induced by the enemy of all good ) , that gets projected onto The Church as being hostile , may be difficult to get when one might still be in the company of the drunken friends !
The Church knows and trusts, that in Him , His children can have the power , to be all that they can be - holy men and women , for the joy and peace , meaning and strenght that can come with it , for the rich connections that lasts through all eternity !
Like bringing up a baby , with the night time feedings and diaper changes , the early part of spiritual life might seem esp. difficult , with the temptaion to want to give up ; having a good , comforting , loving Mother close by , can help !
There are the mysterious words of the Father , to the older one , in the parable of the prodigal son - 'all I have is yours ' ; The Church has been like the gracious Mother , to whom , through the power of the keys , has been handed over the affairs of the Kingdom , to guide all , to His truth , ways and wisdom; She can do no less and those of us who thus trusts Him , in her , can be very grateful !