Posted on 06/29/2007 6:59:43 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
“POLYTHEISTIC, degrading and idolatrous”: that was how John Henry Newman described Catholicism after visiting Rome in 1833. Later in life he revised his views, converting to the faith in 1845 and becoming a cardinal in 1879.
When Tony Blair travelled to Rome for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI on June 23rd, he brought antique photographs of Newman as a gift—an appropriate gesture to signal imminent conversion to Catholicism. At least on doctrinal matters, he will have no harsh words to recant. He is deeply familiar with the faith; he regularly attends Mass with his wife, Cherie, a cradle Catholic; and he sends his children to one of London's best-known Catholic schools.
Converting from Anglicanism to Catholicism is not common—only 3,981 adults were received into the Roman church in England and Wales in 2005 (the most recent figure available). It is a low number for a country where 1m attend Mass each Sunday, 4m are Catholic by background (however fuzzy their beliefs may have grown) and congregations have been boosted by an impressive influx from pious places like Poland.
Some people switch their allegiance to Rome simply because they want to marry a Catholic, or to make life easier after they have already married one, says Francis Davis of Cambridge University's Von Hügel Institute. Others are attracted by the church's hard line on divorce, contraception and homosexuality, or are seeking refuge from moral relativism in a religion which promises certainty—even, in some circumstances, infallibility.
Whatever attracts Mr Blair, it does not seem to be doctrinal rigidity. When the late Cardinal Basil Hume asked him to stop breaking the church's rules by taking communion with his wife (in defiance of the ban on communion for non-Catholics), the prime minister retorted: “I wonder what Jesus would have made of it?” Nor has he been drawn to Rome by his conservative leanings on social issues; his government introduced civil partnerships for gays and gave generous funding for stem-cell research. Indeed, during his recent visit to Rome, it was politely but firmly pointed out that that his record in office was hardly that of a conscientious Catholic.
More attractive to Mr Blair is probably the Roman church's vast international reach and professed interest in the poorest people in the world. Catholic activists may sometimes line up with opponents of economic globalisation—but the Church is itself a global agency with a view on everything that goes on in the world. And although he shows little sign of having a sense of the mystical, Mr Blair has an intense curiosity about matters theological, including the questions which divide Christianity from Islam. In a country that is embarrassed by open allusions to faith, he once startled a television interviewer by saying that he would be judged by God over the war in Iraq.
As recently as 50 years ago, when Catholicism seemed exotic and alien to the British mainstream, conversion to Rome created a certain frisson which celebrity English converts—such as the writers Evelyn Waugh and Graham Greene—may have half-consciously relished. Perhaps today's equivalent is conversion to Islam, a route taken by about 14,000 Britons, according to one estimate: they range from dons and diplomats who embrace Sufi mysticism to angry inner-city youths who see in radical Islam a way of rejecting authority with a vengeance.
In modern Britain, though, the most striking schism is between those of faith—any faith—and those of none. In the face of secularism, believers make common cause, rather than emphasising doctrinal differences. On one side of this divide is Prince Charles, who has let it be known that on becoming king—and therefore head of the Anglican church—he would like to take the title “Defender of Faiths”, rather than, as is traditional, “Defender of the Faith”. On the other is Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion”, who claims that moderate believers make the world safe for fundamentalists. Nowadays, rather than seeking salvation, those who convert between religions may just be looking for a more congenial home.
Membership in a man-made corporation will not by itself provide salvation.b'shem Yah'shuaOnly a personal relationship with the Elohim of Abraham,
Isaac and Israel will provide salvation as revealed in His Holy Word.
The word “corporation” comes from the Latin word “corpus”, meaning “body”. The Church is indeed a “body”, as St. Paul taught -— “we are many members, but one body”. Salvation is not just a one-on-one, me-and-God-only relationship with God. That is a modern individualistic conception of faith. Faith is indeed personal and individual, but it is also communal -— or if you will, “corporate”. One is saved with, in, and through a community of faith. By being “incorporated” into the Body of Christ, we are joined to God and to each other in bonds of love and fellowship. Even in the Old Covenant, God chose a people, not just individuals. Is the “Body of Christ”, i.e. the Church, “man made”. It pleases you to assert that; but it is the same Church in which the Apostles ministered. One cannot find any break or discontinuity between the Church of the Apostles and the Church of today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.