Why Did You Choose “Catholic? (Why do adults become Catholics?)

CE.com ^ | January 27th, 2012 | George Weigel

[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.

 

[RFEngineer]

“Reagan was pretty close, but not as close as W was to becoming a Catholic.”

Maybe, I don’t know, because they didn’t convert.

One is not required to be Catholic to be pro-life or have any number of socially conservative viewpoints that Catholics also have.

If what you are saying that their social views (Reagan and W) are consistent with the social views of the official views of the Catholic Church, I’d agree. Perhaps their views were more consistent with the Catholic Church than many Catholics hold (e.g. Democrat politicians)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your concerns and your question, dear Legatus!

Your first hearing of the words of God may very well come with the testimony of other believers - e.g. Catholic Church, evangelist, minister, family member, friend.

Praise God!!!

But it is not their testimony which enlivens you "in" Him - it is His own words that do that:

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. – Matt 4:4

Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11

I am that bread of life. – John 6:48

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. – John 5:24

And again,

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. - Colossians 3:3

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20

Don't sweat the disputes between Christians. The important part is knowing Who God IS, loving Him whole-heartedly, receiving His words spoken to you.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. – Matthew 22:35-40

And again,

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. – Deuteronomy 4:2

Focus on God, not the ones you brought His words to you.

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. – I Corinthians 3:1-7

When we know "Who God IS" and we hear His Names then we can never deny Him:

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:7-8

And again,

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6

Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10

We cannot be deceived by strangers, e.g. religions which deny His Names:

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5 To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[RFEngineer]

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

Sure it worked. This Protestant nation is very tolerant of other religions - and if Catholics say it’s ok, Protestants generally will accept it. He knew that. That’s why he did it.

Otherwise, he’d have had to have something like a “Jimmy Swaggart” moment - and that just wouldn’t have worked with his presidential ambitions.

“... people generally are not horrified by affairs or divorces these days.”

Of course not, it’s a fact of life. But they also are free to judge their politicians - and do judge their politicians by their divorces. Reagan was looked at as somewhat of a victim in his divorce, Newt, an opportunist - he neutralized it (no pun intended) by joining Rome and getting an annulment so he could defer all questions essentially to Rome..

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Sure it worked. This Protestant nation is very tolerant of other religions”

No, this nation is simply tolerant of every vice. Reagan divorced, remarried, no problem. He was elected more than 30 years ago when people were much more conservative. Bill Clinton repeatedly cheated on his wife - and everyone knew it - and he was still elected.

“Otherwise, he’d have had to have something like a “Jimmy Swaggart” moment - and that just wouldn’t have worked with his presidential ambitions.”

He has already had several moments where he has had to say on live television, at debates, in interviews, that he had done wrong things. So, apparently the grand strategy you’re putting forward ain’t working as you explained.

“Reagan was looked at as somewhat of a victim in his divorce, Newt, an opportunist - he neutralized it (no pun intended) by joining Rome and getting an annulment so he could defer all questions essentially to Rome..”

But that isn’t what has happened. Have you watched the debates? He didn’t defer to Rome, buddy. You’re just making things up.

[Zuriel]

**Biblically illiterate.**

Nomatter one’s age or how little, or how much, scripture one retains to memory, the ability to rightly divide it for teaching, for edification, and for instruction in righteousness is the bottomline. That ability is what the devil seeks to derail at every turn. The Apostle Paul testified that Satan is transformed into an ‘angel of light’, and that the devil’s ministers transformed into ‘ministers of righteousness’.

Paul was among the elite in scriptural study, yet because of his spiritually blinded eyes, he could not see that the Lord Jesus was indeed the Christ until the Lord himself literally blinded him. Paul went on to be the most effective witness because he could talk to the most scripturally educated person or the ‘average joe’. The willingness to obey God is what brings the end result.

One of my wife’s friends from childhood, a very vain person, became RC in her late 20’s “because of the grandure and elegant rituals, the statues to Mary and others seem so religious. And the looooonnngg tradition”. She wasn’t draw by conviction of sin, she was draw by the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.

The more one is indoctrinated, the tougher the willingness to change their position; whether from good to bad doctrine, or bad to good. The lesser educated are easier to teach, with similar results; good to bad, bad to good.

Some folks, thoroughly trained in aircraft piloting, still kill themselves by making a deadly error in judgment. Those unacquainted with the instrument panel of, say, a aircraft capable of flying in instrument weather conditions, can be taught by anyone that may even appear to be an expert. Therein lies the folly. Many, with almost infinite range of biblical knowledge (from a little to a lot) claim to know the Lord. The Lord is going to say to many, “I never knew you”.

[RFEngineer]

“You’re just making things up.”

Let’s keep it simple for you.

Are you saying that Newt NEVER took cover under his annulments in this primary season?

Unless your answer is “yes” I didn’t make it up.

[Zuriel]

THe RCC does not baptise word for word as per Peter’s instructions in Acts 2:38. Therefore, if you follow Peter’s instructions, you then have followed Jesus command in Matt. 28:19

That’s why, if a ‘sect’ doesn’t teach baptism in the name of JESUS for the remission of sins, then they are in disobedience the the Lord’s hand picked and properly instructed apostles. They knew that the name (singular) in Matthew 28:19 is Jesus, for:

The Christ declared his name to not be his own, but his Father’s. JN 5:43

The writer of Hebrews declared the son received his name by INHERITANCE. Heb 1:4

The Son’s name is not ‘Son’, it’s JESUS, for he was named that by God’s order to both Joseph and Mary. Matt. 1:21 and Luke 1:31

The Christ declared that the Holy Ghost, WHICH PROCEEDETH from the Father (JN 15:26), is sent by the Father “in MY NAME”.

Yep, them there apostles knew what they were instructed to do, and went forth baptizing in the name of JESUS, as several instances in Acts bear record to that fact. It’s the only name that can save from sin.

But, contrary to God’s will, men, either ignorantly or willingly, choose not to follow the lead of God’s apostles.

It’s not strange that people decided, even by the end of the first century AD, to REPEAT Jesus’ command in Matt. 28:19 (instead of following the lead of his ordained apostles who understood the command), and that such erroneous teaching would be spread around. Just look at the MSM, and how they manage to dominate the airwaves, just like a certain ‘prince of the power of the air’ (Eph. 2:2) has always been glad to use his power to tranform himself into an ‘angel of light’, and his ‘ministers also be tranformed as ministers of righteousness’ (2 COR 11:14,15).

[Zuriel]

(Why do adults become Catholics?)

If the title is implying that adults might be more mature mentally, just look at POTUS, FLOTUS, and liberals in general.

There is no age that cannot be mislead.

[anglian]

Matthew 23

23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Sounds pretty basic to me.

[Tramonto]

So you would have been one of those who walked away when Jesus said it is His flesh?

Thankfully, we can read the words John recorded and understand what Jesus was saying in context. Jesus is comparing himself to the manna that fell from heaven saying that he is the spiritual bread from heaven.

He ends the discourse explaining that he is speaking about the spirit not the flesh.

John 6
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62 What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

The Alter-Christ claims that the physical body of Jesus gives life, Jesus said it profits nothing. Who should I believe, Jesus or the Alter-Christ?

[Tramonto]

In John 10:9 Jesus said:

I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

Shouldn't walking through a door that you worship as being the physical body of Christ be one of the sacraments? Is the physical door to your church Jesus?

I personally wouldn’t call Jesus a ‘cracker.’

Catholics do believe that Jesus comes to earth in the form of a cracker. I didn't call Jesus a cracker, I said he wasn't one.

[Tramonto]

Sure

[Grunthor]

So.....yes?

[Grunthor]

Ok.

[Legatus]

So.....yes?

Now I have to clean all this pepsi off my screen.

[Grunthor]

My apologies. I just get a kick out of people that post a volume to answer what should be a very simple question.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Let’s keep it simple for you.Are you saying that Newt NEVER took cover under his annulments in this primary season?”

Yes. He never took cover. He merely explained the truth.

“Unless your answer is “yes” I didn’t make it up.”

You made it up.

[Just mythoughts]

By allowing you to show you can’t answer the simple questions I already have. That was the point. Thanks for helping.

Allowing me???? Wow, come down off the mountain and speak in a language that is understandable..

[RFEngineer]

“He merely explained the truth.”

That’s taking cover as I describes. It works, but it’s taking cover and cynically using the Catholic church for politics.