I had a number of reactions to this interview of novelist Anne Rice that were too involved and too off-topic to post as a comment at the original blog. The purpose of the original post was to give example of an objective investigation into the claims of the Christian faith resulting in belief and to challenge nonbelievers to fully investigate the faith.

And my preference is to be critical of the interviewer even more, but I'll simply express my belief that he ought listen to Ms. Rice's remarks, not only her words about the catholic Faith but also about a writer's technique of substantiating assertions with evidence or reason, about maintaining a little objectivity.

Clearly, Ms. Rice cannot go back to the church of her youth because, as she acknowledges, the cultural Catholic church she left has disappeared from contemporary American life. She doesn't sound disappointed about that and she shouldn't be.

I agree with Rice's assessment of the Bible, that it is powerful - "the dogma is the drama" - but I disagree with her on the state of modern biblical scholarship. I'm not sure who she's reading, but she doesn't mention a single Catholic biblical scholar. Not Brown, not Luke Timothy Johnson, not Robert Karris, not Daniel Harrington, not Donald Senior, not Raymond Collins, not Eugene LaVerdiere. Are these guys the problem? Certainly not.

Her description of the gift of faith, the transcendent way in which faith comes to us, is, I think, an experience to which we can all readily relate. And she talks about "preparing the ground" for that faith to come. I can imagine Horton having a hard time with that notion - the idea that we can do anything to make ourselves more receptive - but, the part we play is only recognizable in hindsight, in the light of faith. He probably had a problem with her claim that she was a seeker and that most people are searching for God.

At 28 minutes, 24 seconds into the 30-minute program, Horton poses a question to Rice in a rather jumbled way and I've transcribed his words as best as possible after numerous hearings:

"You would distinguish the Apocrypha from, uh, for instance, the apocryphal writings included in the Roman Catholic New Testament, you would distinguish that from the Gnostic Gospels that are being used today as practically equivalent source material to the New Testament ..."

His question is significant because there are Christians who believe that Catholics have "extra books" in their New Testaments. I don't believe that Horton thinks this, I think he merely misspoke. But, unfortunately for the listener who does think this, Horton's words have confirmed their misunderstanding. Horton really ought to retract or clarify his intention for the sake of his listeners.

Among the "Related Articles" to the Rice interview at The White Horse Inn, is "The Author's Note," taken from her recent novel, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, hosted at "alphaforcatholics.org".

"Alpha For Catholics!" ... good grief ... the Protestant's trouble with Catholicism is that it isn't Protestantism.