Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Did You Choose “Catholic? (Why do adults become Catholics?)
CE.com ^ | January 27th, 2012 | George Weigel

Posted on 01/27/2012 9:11:21 PM PST by Salvation

Why Did You Choose “Catholic?”

January 27th, 2012 by George Weigel

Why do adults become Catholics?

There are as many reasons for “converting” as there are converts. Evelyn Waugh became a Catholic with, by his own admission, “little emotion but clear conviction”: this was the truth; one ought to adhere to it. Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote that his journey into the Catholic Church began when, as an unbelieving Harvard undergraduate detached from his family’s staunch Presbyterianism, he noticed a leaf shimmering with raindrops while taking a walk along the Charles River in Cambridge, Mass.; such beauty could not be accidental, he thought—there must be a Creator. Thomas Merton found Catholicism aesthetically, as well as intellectually, attractive: once the former Columbia free-thinker and dabbler in communism and Hinduism found his way into a Trappist monastery and became a priest, he explained the Mass to his unconverted friend, poet Robert Lax, by analogy to a ballet. Until his death in 2007, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger insisted that his conversion to Catholicism was not a rejection of, but a fulfillment of, the Judaism into which he was born; the cardinal could often be found at Holocaust memorial services reciting the names of the martyrs, including “Gisèle Lustiger, ma maman” (“my mother”).

Two of the great nineteenth-century converts were geniuses of the English language: theologian John Henry Newman and poet Gerard Manley Hopkins. This tradition of literary converts continued in the twentieth century, and included Waugh, Graham Greene, Edith Sitwell, Ronald Knox, and Walker Percy. Their heritage lives today at Our Savior’s Church on Park Avenue in New York, where convert author, wit, raconteur and amateur pugilist George William Rutler presides as pastor.

In early American Catholicism, the fifth archbishop of Baltimore (and de facto primate of the United States), Samuel Eccleston, was a convert from Anglicanism, as was the first native-born American saint and the precursor of the Catholic school system, Elizabeth Ann Seton. Mother Seton’s portrait in the offices of the archbishop of New York is somewhat incongruous, as the young widow Seton, with her children, was run out of New York by her unforgiving Anglican in-laws when she became a Catholic. On his deathbed, another great nineteenth-century convert, Henry Edward Manning of England, who might have become the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury but became the Catholic archbishop of Westminster instead, took his long-deceased wife’s prayer book from beneath his pillow and gave it to a friend, saying that it had been his spiritual inspiration throughout his life.

If there is a thread running through these diverse personalities, it may be this: that men and women of intellect, culture and accomplishment have found in Catholicism what Blessed John Paul II called the “symphony of truth.” That rich and complex symphony, and the harmonies it offers, is an attractive, compelling and persuasive alternative to the fragmentation of modern and post-modern intellectual and cultural life, where little fits together and much is cacophony. Catholicism, however, is not an accidental assembly of random truth-claims; the creed is not an arbitrary catalogue of propositions and neither is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It all fits together, and in proposing that symphonic harmony, Catholicism helps fit all the aspects of our lives together, as it orders our loves and loyalties in the right direction.

You don’t have to be an intellectual to appreciate this “symphony of truth,” however. For Catholicism is, first of all, an encounter with a person, Jesus Christ, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). And to meet that person is to meet the truth that makes all the other truths of our lives make sense. Indeed, the embrace of Catholic truth in full, as lives like Blessed John Henry Newman’s demonstrate, opens one up to the broadest possible range of intellectual encounters.

Viewed from outside, Catholicism can seem closed and unwelcoming. As Evelyn Waugh noted, though, it all seems so much more spacious and open from the inside. The Gothic, with its soaring vaults and buttresses and its luminous stained glass, is not a classic Catholic architectural form by accident. The full beauty of the light, however, washes over you when you come in.

 
George Weigel is author of the bestselling books The Courage to Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church and Letters to a Young Catholic.

This column has been made available to Catholic Exchange courtesy of the
Denver Catholic Register.

 



TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; converts; saints
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 461 next last
To: Legatus

Read one of Chesty Puller’s biographies. “Marine” or “Chesty.”

During both WWII and Korea, Marine (read Navy) chaplains from the various protestant denominations came to him complaining that Marines were leaving them to become Catholics. Chesty, an Episcopalian himself, investigated and found out why that was happening.

The fault laid in the protestant chaplains themselves, the way they were recruited by their denominations and assigned to the various military units, and their own actions in combat situations with respect to the men....as opposed to the way the Roman Chatholics did those things.


101 posted on 01/28/2012 9:31:36 AM PST by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Just pointing out the history for other perusers of the thread.


102 posted on 01/28/2012 9:33:53 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
So everyone that was baptized a Catholic is a Catholic no matter what?

Everyone who is baptized is a Catholic until they embrace some heresy or schism. In the case of adults who are baptized outside of the Catholic Church that happens almost immediately of course. (Remember this is obviously from the Catholic POV)

It's why converts are handled one of two ways, the non-baptized are merely baptized whereas baptized Christians seeking to enter the Catholic Church "have" to go to Confession to reconcile themselves with the Church to which in some way they have been connected since they were baptized.

103 posted on 01/28/2012 9:33:53 AM PST by Legatus (Keep calm and carry on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

You wrote:

“Worded as follows the substance of your question can be answered:How do you know that Scripture, e.g. the Gospel of Matthew, contains the words of God?”

That is NOT the substance of my question. I did not ask “How do you know...”. I specifically said “Using scripture alone”.

Then you wrote:

“We know God’s words when we hear them. We don’t need any creature to tell us. If and when we did need that, then we were not yet Christian.”

That is the eventual - and completely subjective - fallback for Protestants who can’t answer objective questions. It also doesn’t work. I have no objective reason to believe Protestants hear the Word of God when it is spoken.


104 posted on 01/28/2012 9:49:43 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Maybe you could rephrase your questions as to exactly what it is you are asking.

He is not asking anything ... he is telling you that the gospel of Matthew does not have apostolic authority outside the authority (code word for 'tradition') of the RCC.

105 posted on 01/28/2012 9:51:57 AM PST by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto
Why would anyone stay in an apostate, dead protestant church when they can go to the original apostate church?

Could be my new tagline ... may I? ... lol

106 posted on 01/28/2012 9:54:56 AM PST by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“the symphony of Truth”

A beautiful explanation of Catholicism. Thanks for this thread, Salvation. My heart’s desire is that my husband will hear the music.


107 posted on 01/28/2012 10:00:34 AM PST by Melian ("Where will wants not, a way opens.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

You wrote:

“Church of the Nazarene.”

Okay, a recent sect - and one that officially believes in sola scriptura:

4. We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

By the way, look at program 302 here: http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?pgnu=11&SeriesID=-6892289

“I don’t care what was asked for, I AM however confused by the term “Sola Scriptura.” What do you mean by this?”

Look to your own articles of faith. It is enough even if weaker in form than other sects.

“Maybe you are not asking the right questions or are asking in such a manner as to feel like “gotcha” questions.”

Nope. The questions are right, and their “feel” is subjective and therefore irrelevant.


108 posted on 01/28/2012 10:01:50 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

He was a wise man indeed. As St. Francis expressed it: Preach the Gospel at all times and, when necessary, use words.


109 posted on 01/28/2012 10:03:35 AM PST by Melian ("Where will wants not, a way opens.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

You wrote:

“He is not asking anything ... he is telling you that the gospel of Matthew does not have apostolic authority outside the authority (code word for ‘tradition’) of the RCC.”

“Mind reading” is against the rules. It is a form of “making it personal”. You’re also misrepresenting what I’m doing.


110 posted on 01/28/2012 10:06:13 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
If you had asked it that way, I would say that Christians have the gift of "ears to hear." We know God's words when we hear them. Thus we know what is or is not Scripture. People who do not have that gift cannot hear Him and cannot discern the difference between the words of men and the words of God.

Isn't that basically what the Mormons and JWs and what have you say to validate their various beliefs? You (and I) don't have the gift of knowing the BoM is Scripture for instance.

I'll be painfully blunt: I earnestly believe that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh and that no one comes to the Father except through Him but I when confronted with the Shepherd of Hermes and 2 Peter (for example) couldn't tell which is inspired and which isn't. Does this mean I'm damned because I accept the authority of the Roman Church to tell me what is and isn't canonical?

And yet there's nothing more I hope for than to see God face to face. Just let me see Jesus and throw my unworthy self at His feet and I will be happy for all eternity.

111 posted on 01/28/2012 10:10:22 AM PST by Legatus (Keep calm and carry on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Why would I appeal to the doctrine of 'sola scriptura' to prove WHAT books are in the Bible? Its a 100% strawman question.

Sola scriptura has nothing to do with WHAT books are in there ... it has everything to do with WHAT we do with the books that are.

Everything essential to doctrine and practice is in there, there is nothing essential that has been left out. If its not in there, its not essential.

112 posted on 01/28/2012 10:15:03 AM PST by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; Just mythoughts; Dr. Eckleburg; metmom; boatbums; xzins; P-Marlowe
To the contrary, the way you phrased it was "begging the question" - a logical fallacy.

You asked:

Using scripture alone show that Matthew wrote a gospel and that it is inspired.

The "Matthew wrote" assumes without proof that Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew, i.e. that it contains Matthew's words as compared to the words of someone else such as God.

And if Scripture alone were used in reply to the issue of "inspired" then the reply would also be a logical fallacy, i.e. circular reasoning.

And so, in the hopes this quandary was unintentional on your part, I rephrased your question for a more direct reply from a non-Catholic Christian like me:

How do you know that Scripture, e.g. the Gospel of Matthew, contains the words of God?

If that question does not satisfy you then there is nothing more I can add because I choose to not answer a baited question.

113 posted on 01/28/2012 10:15:59 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

This thread is starting to take on the flavor of Geraldo Rivera and Al capone’s vault(check it on youtube if that’s before your time).


114 posted on 01/28/2012 10:22:48 AM PST by kingcanuteus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

“As a Protestant he could have simply said he was forgiven by God and every Protestant would have to accept that or be a hypocrite.”

Not quite so loosey-goosey in most Protestant denominations, but some do have a similar interpretation. Protestant denominations are anything but monolithic, but you knew that already.

“The annulment has nothing to do with anything. Newt could have civilly married without the annulment and he could have run for president without the annulment.”

No question he didn’t “need” to do this - but it also would have hindered his presidential ambitions. You only have to point to his response early in the primary when asked - he directly referenced the Catholic Church saying basically (and I’m paraphrasing) “they said it was OK, and so I’m not talking about it further”

It was a political ploy to give him cover. It seemed to have worked for him.


115 posted on 01/28/2012 10:22:49 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Comment #116 Removed by Moderator

To: dartuser

You wrote:

“Why would I appeal to the doctrine of ‘sola scriptura’ to prove WHAT books are in the Bible?”

You don’t have to do anything, unless you’re trying to answer the question I asked.

“Its a 100% strawman question.”

No, it is not.

“Sola scriptura has nothing to do with WHAT books are in there ... it has everything to do with WHAT we do with the books that are.”

Your reasoning is flawed. If sola scriptura is to be used, then how can it when you can’t even know what books belong in the Bible in the first place.

“Everything essential to doctrine and practice is in there, there is nothing essential that has been left out. If its not in there, its not essential.”

Canon must be essential to a sola scripturist. How can you use sola scriptura without a definition of what belongs in the Bible from the Bible itself? Sola scriptura is self-refuting.


117 posted on 01/28/2012 10:31:24 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

Either sola scriptura works or it doesn’t. You’re proving it doesn’t.


118 posted on 01/28/2012 10:33:23 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

You wrote:

“No question he didn’t “need” to do this - but it also would have hindered his presidential ambitions.”

Nope. No annulment changes the fact that the public views him as thrice married and twice divorced with several affairs thrown in for good measure.

“You only have to point to his response early in the primary when asked - he directly referenced the Catholic Church saying basically (and I’m paraphrasing) “they said it was OK, and so I’m not talking about it further””

And that works for an overwhelmingly Protestant nation? You’re way off.

“It was a political ploy to give him cover. It seemed to have worked for him.”

No. It was no ploy. And people generally are not horrified by affairs or divorces these days.


119 posted on 01/28/2012 10:37:03 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

Comment #120 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 461 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson