Friday, August 06, 2010

Bill Donohue on Anne Rice’s departure from Christianity

| »
Anne Rice
Anne Rice

The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue is not happy that author Anne Rice (Interview with the Vampire) publicly left organized Christianity (despite “remaining committed to Christ”), though not before throwing some excellent choice barbs at the anti-gay, anti-science, anti-liberal, anti-feminist and generally anti-reality super-cult. As you all know, saying that Catholicism is anything less than the shining light in the sky for all people on Earth makes poor Donohue cry and his face grows red in warning that another nonsensical diatribe is on the way.

Rice said this week that when the American bishops opposed homosexual marriage, that was the "last straw." She offered, "I didn't anticipate in the beginning that U.S. Catholic Bishops were going to come out against same-sex marriage." Did she think they would be silent on one of the most contentious moral issues of our day? Or that they were silently cheering for gay marriage all along? Either way, her virginal views are startling.

Maybe she thought (naively) that they would keep quiet and stay out of other people’s business. Except that meddling in other people’s business is their business.

Here's another beauty. She said this week that "I refuse to be anti-gay," thereby separating herself from all those awful Catholic bigots. But when she was asked two years ago on ABC-TV whether the Catholic Church condemns her gay son to hell, she said, "I don't think anybody in my church would say that. I think our view is far more compassionate." She got that right. But does she have any idea how she looks now?

Like someone who (very belatedly) realized the truth?

Last night, Rice told Joy Behar "I myself am anti-abortion." It didn't take long before the pro-abortion and anti-Catholic Behar snapped, "You would deny other women the choice to have an abortion?" To which Rice said, "I would not deny them the choice." Yet in the same breath she added, "I do think it's the taking of a human life."

That’s not a contradiction, Bill, however it may seem so on the surface (at least to people like you with a facile grasp of logic). There’s a critical difference between how one feels about abortion, and whether one thinks abortion should be allowed. You see, it’s common for people to be anti-abortion in principle, yet to not want to deny others the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies if they wish so. My mother is one such individual: She is repulsed at the idea of abortion (though she wouldn’t go so far as to call it “murder” for the simple reason that she isn’t a bloody idiot), but she absolutely would not take abortion rights away from anyone else just because of how she feels about it. The fact that people like she and Anne Rice are able to distinguish between personal feelings/opinions and what is morally permissible and applicable to others is, I believe, laudable.

Rice came back to the Catholic Church in the 1990s, but only the day before yesterday did she learn that the bishops are not fond of guys marrying. She said in 2008 that Catholicism is not anti-gay, but in 2010 it was so anti-gay she had to quit. She is pro-life, knows abortion kills, but sides with the agenda of Planned Parenthood. She wants Christ without the Christianity. This is more than an odyssey—it's a tragedy.

The only thing remotely “tragic” here – other than the fact that people like Rice feel compelled to leave an organization that claims moral authority because of its highly and revoltingly archaic, irrational and bigoted stances on social issues – is that this sort of silliness is what passes for a logical analysis in Bill Donohue’s mind. Also, the astute reader will notice that though Donohue tried to rebuke Rice’s charges against Catholicism being anti-gay and anti-abortionist, not once did he even mention her other accusations (namely that the Church is anti-science, anti-feminist, anti-liberal, etc.). A simple lapse in attention? Or does this show a disregard for the truth in her charges: that Catholicism simply is anti-reality?