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]

“No, I see no reason to have posts deleted. I’m sure you can handle it.”

I’m not asking for anyone to delete anything - in fact, I don’t want anything deleted.

I just want you to make your case for prejudice.

So go ahead, make your case.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I’m not asking for anyone to delete anything - in fact, I don’t want anything deleted.”

It wouldn’t be up to you in any case.

“I just want you to make your case for prejudice.”

I see no logical reason to.

“So go ahead, make your case.”

Nope.

[RFEngineer]

“He converted after being married for about 9 years to a practicing Catholic.”

This would be a gross abbreviation of the relationship that glosses over the sordid details. See, you just wrapped the Gingrich scandal (how he and his present wife were involved previous to their marriage) in Catholicism to cloak it from accountability - just like Gingrich did.

That is a cynical use of your religion escape political accountability.

This really is some fancy footwork- just like Gingrich.

[RFEngineer]

“I see no logical reason to.”

What you mean is that you see every logical reason NOT to. It doesn’t look good.

“Nope.”

I know that is as close to an apology and admission of wrong as you ever give.

[Zuriel]

**I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.**

So was I, as a 12 yr old in the Presbyterian church. Then God sent a witness when I was 24, telling me that baptism was in the name of Jesus, and that it’s done for the remission of sins, I refused to obey, thinking I was quite well educated in the Word, and could quote Matt. 28:19 instantly.

Rebaptism is scriptural. In Ephesus (Acts 19) Paul encountered 12 disciples who had obeyed the baptism that John the baptist taught. He rebaptized them in the name of Jesus.

In 1Cor. 1:10-17 we read where Paul rebuked the Corinthian church members that were bragging about WHO baptized them instead of who they were baptized INTO, saying in vs 13, “..was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”

You see, ‘trinity’ baptism has been performed for as long as men with carnal understanding of the Godhead have been a place of authority,....since some blockhead decided that God should be compartmentalized into ‘three separate and distinct persons’. One argument for ‘trinity’ baptism is the “Well, I’d rather obey the words of Christ than the words of Peter and the other apostles”, as though Christ had utterly failed to instruct them on who he was: The only all-powerful, infinite God, dwelling in the body of a man that he created, complete with the mind a man. In Jn 4:24 the Christ defined God as a spirit, not three of anything.

Earthly understanding says that for a man to exist, there must be another man for a father. But to be born of God, one must be born of the water, and of the Spirit. The result being a man (or woman) filled with the spirit of God; just like Jesus Christ, except that only he was born sinless, and only he has been given the fulness of the Godhead.

If the RCC wants to take credit for proclaiming the concept of the ‘three separate and distinct persons of God’ aka the ‘trinity’, then any water baptism using the three titles as the name of God is connected to the RCC, whether you’re Lutheran, Calvinist, Methodist, Foursquare, etc.

Jesus didn’t fail to teach his disciples, and they didn’t fail to teach his baptism. The first sermon on the birthday of the Spirit filled church is climaxed with this interruption by the convicted souls of the lost, “Men and brethern, what shall we do?” Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts 2:37-39

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“This would be a gross abbreviation of the relationship that glosses over the sordid details.”

There are no sordid details in his conversion. His relationship (and even his affair) with his Callista are not the heart of his conversion by any means.

“See, you just wrapped the Gingrich scandal (how he and his present wife were involved previous to their marriage) in Catholicism to cloak it from accountability - just like Gingrich did.”

No, I merely discussed his conversion - and his wife played a role in that. The fact that you can’t (apparently) see a man’s reconciliation with the Church but rather only the sinful mistakes he has made shows prejudice on your part and not reason or fairness. I was right from the beginning.

“That is a cynical use of your religion escape political accountability.”

Nope. You still have not showed a single scrap of evidence for your point of view. Nothing at all. Why is that?

“This really is some fancy footwork- just like Gingrich.”

No, it looks like a genuine conversion experience for Newt. And it looks like prejudice from others.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“What you mean is that you see every logical reason NOT to. It doesn’t look good.”

No, actually I meant exactly what I said.

“I know that is as close to an apology and admission of wrong as you ever give.”

It was neither. I was neither wrong, nor admitting to wrong, and I committed no wrong to admit to anyway.

Gee, post some more prejudice about Gingrich’s conversion. That should make you feel better.

[mdmathis6]

I know what they had in 325 ad, It’s the stuff they have added since that era which has become the problem; but don’t think I’m dumping on Catholics... the leadership in mainline Protestant churches have been drinking the same wine of the Harlot, Mystery Babylon! Anytime, I hear some supposed believer Catholic or Protestant, saying that all religions are the same, even Muslims and Buddhists are worshipping the same God in the end, then I know the spirit of Anti-Christ has deluded them.

“You’re completely off. I am not claiming what you falsely say I am claiming.”

No I am responding sarcastically to how you are writing and how you are attacking the faith and motives of those Protestants you disagree with...without you even having the courage to sign your real name to your attacks. You come across as though you believe your-self to be the pope himself. If you believe yourself to be a champion of “TRUTH”(sounds of klaxons and warning bells)...then don’t hide a pseudonym. We might still disagree, but I’ll certainly take you more seriously...perhaps even more respectfully!

[RFEngineer]

“No, it looks like a genuine conversion experience for Newt. And it looks like prejudice from others.”

You just told me that you didn’t say I was prejudiced over Newt’s Catholic Conversion, now you say I am. Make up your mind. I know I’ve got you a bit rattled, but this is getting ridiculous.

I wonder if you would also support making allowances to have Newt elected Pope, seeing as how nothing seems to faze your lofty opinion of him. (I’m sure you’ll see the humor in this statement, as I am just kidding)

[mdmathis6]

“then don’t hide a pseudonym”

should read “hide behind a pseudonym”!

[RFEngineer]

“No, actually I meant exactly what I said.”

Actually, you are on both sides of your own argument.

Get it together, decide what you’re going to whine about, and come back when you aren’t so flustered.

Gingrich isn’t worthy of the presidency due to his continuously variable political temperament. Catholics decided that he could be one of them, but they will see the true political motives after the Convention, if not before - and I feel sorry for those Catholics who must now share their faith and tolerate the political bureaucracy of their church (without complaint) to accommodate someone like Newt.

[Just mythoughts]

If you don’t question the Septuagint... you might be a Catholic... as most of your Protestant brothers discount the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books in the OT. I applaud your understanding of John 1, I hope and pray it extends to John 6 as well.

Deuteronomy 4:2 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.

Repeated again Deuteronomy 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Jeremiah 23:28-40; Ezekiel 2:5-7; and John repeated again for those who ignore the prophets Revelation 22:18-19.

Of course John 6 was 'given' by the Heavenly Father, as even Christ Himself specifically stated in John 6:35-37 comes from the Father not Peter, an object, church, or anyone else ... Christ said All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me; and him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out....

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I know what they had in 325 ad, It’s the stuff they have added since that era which has become the problem; but don’t think I’m dumping on Catholics... the leadership in mainline Protestant churches have been drinking the same wine of the Harlot, Mystery Babylon! Anytime, I hear some supposed believer Catholic or Protestant, saying that all religions are the same, even Muslims and Buddhists are worshipping the same God in the end, then I know the spirit of Anti-Christ has deluded them.”

I have no reason to take your view seriously.

“No I am responding sarcastically to how you are writing and how you are attacking the faith and motives of those Protestants you disagree with...without you even having the courage to sign your real name to your attacks. You come across as though you believe your-self to be the pope himself. If you believe yourself to be a champion of “TRUTH”(sounds of klaxons and warning bells)...then don’t hide a pseudonym. We might still disagree, but I’ll certainly take you more seriously...perhaps even more respectfully!”

I use an online name and always have. I am glad to do so because in past years I had one Protestant anti-Catholic stalker on the internet who followed me from one website to another, and I had another anti-Catholic Protestant (who was mentally ill; which seems quite common) who threatened my with violence and clearly meant it. Because of these and other experiences I concluded long ago that Protestant anti-Catholics are often unhinged and potentially dangerous. I have no desire to expose myself, or my family members, or my friends to possible acts of violence committed by unhinged Protestant anti-Catholics. Thus, I continue, and will always continue, to use a pseudonym. I could care less if you take me less seriously or have no respect for me. I don’t trust you, will not trust you, and from hard experiences have learned that Protestant anti-Catholics should never be trusted.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You just told me that you didn’t say I was prejudiced over Newt’s Catholic Conversion, now you say I am. Make up your mind.”

I made no contradition. I corrected you on your mistake. Learn to read.

“I know I’ve got you a bit rattled, but this is getting ridiculous.”

A bit rattled? No, I’m use dto dealing with prejudiced anti-Catholics and they don’t rattle me.

“I wonder if you would also support making allowances to have Newt elected Pope, seeing as how nothing seems to faze your lofty opinion of him. (I’m sure you’ll see the humor in this statement, as I am just kidding)”

My view of Newt is simple: he is a flawed man and sinner like everyone else. There is no reason to doubt his conversion. He is neither a perfect man nor a perfect Republican. I have never met a perfect man nor a perfect Republican. You have yet to present any actual evidence for your view. Why is that?

[RFEngineer]

“A bit rattled? No, I’m use dto dealing with prejudiced anti-Catholics and they don’t rattle me.”

More nonsense. I am sympathetic to Catholics that have to tolerate a politician like Newt in their midst. He is without a doubt a sinner, as you point out - like all of us, but his sin continues as he converted to your religion for political gain.

You should be more sympathetic towards your fellow Catholics who, apparently unlike you, take their faith seriously.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Actually, you are on both sides of your own argument.”

No, I am not.

“Get it together, decide what you’re going to whine about, and come back when you aren’t so flustered.”

I have never been flustered online. Why would anyone get flustered posting online. The very concept makes no sense to me.

“Gingrich isn’t worthy of the presidency due to his continuously variable political temperament.”

I understand why someone would conclude that. I would say that I would rather have him than Romney or Obama, however.

“Catholics decided that he could be one of them, but they will see the true political motives after the Convention, if not before - and I feel sorry for those Catholics who must now share their faith and tolerate the political bureaucracy of their church (without complaint) to accommodate someone like Newt.”

No one accomodated Newt. He had to accommodate himself to the Church. Newt is a politician and he may indeed one day cynically use the Church. I see no evidence of him having done that yet.

[Salvation]

**Deuteronomy 4:2 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.**

And yet, Luther ADDED and SUBTRACTED from the Bible.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“More nonsense.”

No, just the truth. I’ve had people curse at me, mess with my job, and threaten to kill me. Quite frankly your flailing around in this forum doesn’t even rate.

“I am sympathetic to Catholics that have to tolerate a politician like Newt in their midst.”

I don’t think they’re in need of or seeking your sympathy. Most Catholics in America don’t even know he’s Catholic.

“He is without a doubt a sinner, as you point out - like all of us, but his sin continues as he converted to your religion for political gain.”

You keep saying that and never offer a scrap of proof. Prejudice.

“You should be more sympathetic towards your fellow Catholics who, apparently unlike you, take their faith seriously.”

I have no logical reason to offer sympathy to those who are objectively wrong. A serious Catholic would give Newt the benefit of the doubt unless or until evidence to the contrary is offered. Last Wednesday was the Feast Day of the Conversion of St. Paul. No serious Catholic wants to be like Ananias. I think you know no more about serious Catholics than you do about Newt’s conversion.

[RegulatorCountry]

No more than the Council of Trent did, in declaring the Deuterocanonical books canonical. They were not regarded as inspired scripture before.

[Just mythoughts]

And yet, Luther ADDED and SUBTRACTED from the Bible.

I do not study Luther, know a 'few' Lutherans but that is the extent of my knowledge. God did not say only Luther would be held to account. And for all you know Luther is keeping company with Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, Christians.