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.

 

[Quix]

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for those beautiful Scriptures, dear sister in Christ!

To yours I will add that when Christ was tempted of Satan, each time He replied "it is written."

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. - Matthew 4:4

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. - Matthew 4:7

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. - Matthew 4:10

You said:

Another glaring inconsistency is that The RCC claims to derive its authority from Scripture and yet also claims to have written Scripture. The only way that the RCC could have that authority is if it was given it from an outside source, not a source which it claims to have authored.

That is also a logical fallacy: circular reasoning.

God's Name is I AM.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your encouragement, dear brother in Christ!

[metmom]

This just hit me.....

When Satan tempted Eve in the garden, he started with *Did God really say....?*

The first thing he did was twist Scripture. Where Adam and Eve went wrong was that they didn’t bother to correct him, either by Eve going to Adam or both going to God. And they were depending on the spoken word.

When Jesus was tempted, Satan tried THE SAME THING....

He twisted Scripture but this time Jesus, the second Adam, replied appropriately with *It is written....*. Jesus didn’t argue or rationalize with him, He just appealed to the Word of God, as Adam should have done, and He appealed to the WRITTEN word.

He overcame where Adam failed.

[presently no screen name]

Yes!! AMEN!!

We are to rebuke satan with THE WORD for THE WORD has the power in IT. We know satan will come so we are to be ready in season and out. Satan hates the WORD of God - so he created his own man made words to deceive ‘many’ on his wide road of destruction which is away from GOD/HIS WORD - TRUTH.

That’s why HIS CHURCH stands on HIS WORD alone! For His children would never listen to another.

[Gamecock]

Exactly!

Jesus never appealed to tradition.

[CynicalBear]

>> This is the church of the living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth.<<

What exactly does a pillar or foundation do? Doesn’t it “uphold” rather than being the “source” as you try to say? The church is to uphold the truth found in the scripture not add to it or give interpretations that don’t agree with what scripture teaches.

[metmom]

The word of God is truth. Anything outside of that is a lie - Satan's territory.

Once he can get someone to believe him instead of God, his battle is half over.

Psalm 119:89 Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.

[presently no screen name]

AMEN!

All he needs to do is create doubt to deceive like he did from the beginning. When they didn’t stand on TRUTH of what God said...they conceded to satan. Like everyone does who doesn’t stand on HIS WORD ALONE.

God’s Word is the FINAL authority, always was and always will be.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

!ABSOLUTELY INDEED!

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

!ABSOLUTELY INDEED!

Certainly The Lord opening an opportunity is a priority. Though sometimes, it seems like He places us in situations and expects us to sieze, even BY HIS SPIRIT, HELP CREATE an opportunity rather than wait for Him to

HIT US OVER THE HEAD WITH IT

or throw a needy child or person literally

IN OUR LAPS.

However, as the closeness of His coming and the wrap-up of the era races toward us . . .

I feel increasingly compelled to reach

OUTSIDE

my sensibilities, my comfort zone and my habits . . . to engage those in line at Walmart or the waiter at the restaurant etc. in whatever conversation may afford an opportunity to say something redemptive and pointing to Christ.

I am skeptical that on the other side, Jesus will pat me on the head and say to me . . .

"Yes, there, there, I understand that you didn't see yourself gifted in evangelism. You were right to leave it all to the professional evangelists. Those missing the boat to Heaven for whom you were the only brief glimmer of light in their lives--no big deal. Your Heavenly abode will muffle their hell-bound cries quite well."

I don't think I'll hear:

"Yeah, you were right to walk on by the other side with the publican and leave them in their misery. Not your affair. What's hell compared to the paragon priorities of personal sensiblities and decorum!"

I hear instead . . . much more frequently the . . .

"Go ye into byways and hedges and compell them, implore them to come in!"

Maybe it is only a

"Your little boy seems tired. Can I help you carry your things to your car? May The Lord bless you with patience and resilience. And may a good nap catch up with both of you as soon as workable!"

or

"I see you're stocking up. That's sure a wise thing to do in these END TIMES with Jesus coming soon!"

or

"You look weary. Is there something I can pray for in your life and family?"

or

"You seem to be struggling with many things. Is there a particular struggle you'd like me to pray most for?"

or

"You look like your last dog died. How can I comfort and pray for you, briefly?"

or

"Your eyes and face seem to say you're really struggling these days. I'm very familiar with that level of suffering. The only solution I ever found was to burrow deeper into the arms of Jesus--to lay myself repeatedly at His feet, on His altar and cry out to Him for His comfort, mercy and help.

or even such as

"AS I've watched you and prayed for you just now, I felt in my heart and spirit that you are headed for a deeper and deeper ditch and greatly more pain than you are already in. I hope you turn around as soon as possible. If you want to talk about it, You can reach me at this number or find me at this church most Sunday mornings at 10:30."

Sometimes we need 'God with skin on' as the little boy said. There's some loving accepting people at our church that meets at . . . "

################################

I don't think evangelism requires much more than the HEART OF JESUS within our heart reaching out warmly to those He loves and died for.

I think it is a deception of satan that only those particularly gifted for evangelism need to bother. They may have a larger harvest field and a smoother time of it for their giftings.

That's no excuse, however, to us. I know of ABSOLUTELY NO Scripture that lets any of us off the hook for reaching out to those within our broadest field of influence in caring redemptive ways that could result in folks meeting and walking with our Savior eternally.

I can't think of a single case where we'll say on Heaven's shore . . . welll, that lost soul didn't matter, I was late for my hair appointment.

or

That lost soul didn't matter because my mascara was mushed and embarrassing.

or

That lost soul didn't matter because

--my shoes didn't match my blouse.
--my buddies might have seen me.

--my hearing aid had a low battery.
--it was looking like rain any minute.

--what would the neighbors have thought.
--I might have made a scene.

--I didn't want to risk embarrassing them.
--they might have thought I was a religious nut.

Certainly there were many Christ did NOT reach out to.

But it was never for shallow 'reasons.'

And no one gets off the hook for not being a professional evangelist. No one.

Cannot our hearts still burn relative to the assertions by these great preachers excerpted in the following video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDolHW7CfA4

[daniel1212]

I have other things waiting but the Scriptures were not accepted by blind faith but upon evidence, which is confirmed by believing, and the Divinely inspired writings were essentially established as being Divinely like men of God were, based upon their Divine qualities, effects and attestation, with truth being preserved before there was a pope in Rome and without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men.

The authority of the latter rests not on Scripture, as RCs cannot allow assurance of doctrine by that, but while Rome may invoke Scripture, what her claim to assured infallibility effectively rests upon her own infallible declaration that she is infallible, when speaking according to her infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria (thus assuring her own decree on infallibility is infallible). Thus her interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and history have certitude (if she indeed does interpret actual verses, which is rare), and disallows any one else from being right if in conflict with her.

While RCs attack Prots based on their lack of assured infallibility (while at the same time accusing them of being popes), RCs themselves make a fallible decision to trust in an self-asserted infallible magisterium, and engage in fallible human reasoning in deciding which decrees are infallible, and to some degree what they mean, as well as non-infallble teachings (the bulk according to some).

In the end truth is established by Divine power, in conformity with Scripture in text and testimony, not on the basis of formal decent of office (which does not assure spiritual authority or perpetuity). Thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, and who thus challenged the authority of the Lord and apostles, and who appealed to Scripture and the attestive means of establishing truth.

In contrast, the Catholic model of sola ecclesia based on assured infallibility and formal decent is akin to those who presumed as much and rejected Christ, and thus it nukes the church before it began.

See recent exchange in this area: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2834651/posts?page=1111#1111
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2834651/posts?page=1167#1167
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2834651/posts?page=1120#1120

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2834915/posts?page=131#131
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2834915/posts?page=157#157

[Quix]

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“How about when you say “It seems quite common” when referencing Protestants who you say are crazy?”

I never said that about those who are merely Protestant. That is the third time you have made the same sort of false claim. And, again, I don’t think you’ll stop doing it.

“How are crazy Protestants any more or less common than, say, Catholics, Jews, Mormons? Mental illness doesn’t care what religion you are.”

Again, I never said that about those who are merely Protestant. That is the fourth time you have made the same sort of false claim. And, again, and again, I don’t think you’ll stop doing it.

“That’s how you roll.....you construct self-selecting delusions and then claim “I’m 100% correct”.”

1) I was absolutely correct. You may dispute it, but you apparently have been completely unable to show a single time where I went wrong in post 253. I have pointed that out too. And still you make the same false claim.

2) You have repeatedly made a particular false claim - four times now at least. Even though I point out it was false the first two times, it didn’t stop you the next two times. That’s not a delusion.

“Yours are delusions though. But they have nothing to do with you being Catholic.”

Again, you keep making false claims and you keep violating board rules by making this personal. I guess there’s not much else left, huh? When someone can’t possibly make an argument, he’ll just make stuff up? Is that really the way of it now?

“It is sad, and our dialog evokes not anger or resentment, but pity and a wish for healing and sanity on your part.”

Again, you’re making it personal. Buddy, I’m perfectly sane. Most likely you’ll respond by ONCE AGAIN making a false claim saying I said something I never said. It won’t work. What is it they say about people doing the same thing over and over again - even though it fails each time - and expecting a different result?

[smvoice]

AMEN, Quix! "So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." 1 Cor. 3:7.

One of us may plant the seed. And another may water it. If we wait until we're able to plant it, water it, feed it, etc. that time may not come. It is God who sends the right ones at the right time. We are not all called to minister. But we are all called as ambassadors for Christ, and He leads us where He would have us go. For HIS GLORY!

[Quix]

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

PRAISE GOD FOR THE INCREASE.

BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE LORD.

[RFEngineer]

“I never said that about those who are merely Protestant. That is the third time you have made the same sort of false claim. And, again, I don’t think you’ll stop doing it.”

Stop prevaricating. The post is there for all to read in #253, exactly as I quoted it, and exactly in the context I explained it. I am not being unfair to you.

Yours are increasingly desperate attempts to paper over your indefensible bigotry with subsequent excuses. You cannot run away from it.

You can withdraw it, you can apologize for it. Nobody will hold it against you if it was misinterpreted and you at least admit that error.

But you won’t do that because you irrationally hate Protestants, as is clearly on display with that post.

So if you will not withdraw the statement, it is yours to be accountable for by anyone who chooses to read it and make their own judgement of you. It is your shame to wear forever.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

I'll take a stab.

The book of Matthew records Jesus prophesying events that would happen after His death and resurrection, some of which were fulfilled in 70AD.

Since we are told that all prophecy did not come from men, but from the Holy Spirit, we have to conclude that the book of Matthew is divinely inspired, simply from the fulfilled prophecy contained within it.

In fact, fulfilled prophecy is major proof of the fact that the Bible is divinely inspired, inerrant, and absolutely true, word for word.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

That should read "no prophecy came from man but from the Holy Spirit".