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.

 

[Just mythoughts]

Er, if I may, the question you asked is not phrased in a way that a non-Catholic Christian can answer it directly. You asked:

Newt said that every American should speak and read English.... apparently in some circles that will not help. It has not occurred to me that I should seek a denominational sanction that claims authority to stamped Matthew's WORDS the Gospel. All I have gotten from the discussion is 'confusion' and a headache.... ICorinthians 14:33 uh-oh think using 'sola scripture' will be allowed?

[mdmathis6]

Sola Scriptura means by the “Scriptures Only” or The Bible as sole and final authority. Some Catholics feel that Catholic church traditions or Papal pronouncements can “instruct”(using as justification, the Bible’s injunction that its scriptures were not subject to “any private interpretation”) one as to how certain Bible scriptures must be viewed or interpreted or even ignored...especially in areas where the Bible may contradict established Roman Catholic church doctrines and practises.

[Just mythoughts]

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.

But that is just plain wrong. Psalms 22 gives the Gospel of Matthew far more 'authority' than any denomination erected by flesh beings. At least I can verify what Psalms 22 prophesied many many years before the event occurred. I really do not understand a need to hand over to flesh the authority that is the Heavenly Father's alone... Well of course in the Name of His Only Begotten SON.

[gghd]

Thank you for your reply. Catholics do NOT refer to the Eucharist as a cracker. Transubstantiation is the what happens & it is possible to read about it in the documents of the early Church. The Eucharist is real. Praise God that we both do NOT think of Jesus as being a ‘cracker.’

Jesus in the Bible instructed us to become as small children. (Which means to have child like trust). God in his infinite Wisdom did not want us to wander-lost like a motherless-child. Jesus Christ built a Church (It’s in the Bible) & we like children trust in Holy Mother our Church to teach us the difference between a Sacrament & an allegory.

I like your tagline & I ‘stole’ a bit of it for my tagline. I didn’t use it for personal gain but to remind people we all need to ‘steal away’ to Jesus in the USA.> & Vote Pro-life.

[mdmathis6]

[“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”]

Vladdy baby you don’t get it...it’s not a Protestant thing or a Catholic thing in “coming to faith by the hearing of God’s word”...but the shepherd and sheep principle...as in “My sheep hear my voice”(Jesus Christ)

[Legatus]

denomination erected by flesh beings

Just so we're all on the same page here, obviously from the Catholic point of view we don't belong to a "denomination erected by flesh beings" but to the Society, or Body, or Church, established and headed by Christ.

[Just mythoughts]

Just so we're all on the same page here, obviously from the Catholic point of view we don't belong to a "denomination erected by flesh beings" but to the Society, or Body, or Church, established and headed by Christ.

It has been my experience after 30+ years of interaction with Catholic inlaws what is claimed and what is practiced. I have been told the program of who is who and what is what. But the program has some big glitches because of what is thrown in the trash basket, completely ignored as if 'flesh beings' have that authority. The 'church' was NEVER intended to be the object of worship, or any flesh beings including Mary.

[metmom]

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.

Can you say *Teddy Kennedy*?

He granted a Catholic funeral, was he not?

And I seem to recall some issues with JFK's womanizing.

And vice in the priesthood? Naw, doesn't exist, does it? Of course, everyone knows the answer to that.

Our nation isn't the only organization tolerant of vice. The Catholic church's problem is that it's not tolerant of vice in the poorer laity. Apparently everyone else is exempt.

[vladimir998]

you wrote:

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

I think you understood.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

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

You apparently have no evidence for what you’re saying. It seems rooted in prejudice than anything else.

[Legatus]

Do you mean "human" in the generally accepted understanding of the word when you write "flesh being" or is there some subtle difference intended? Beyond that, it seems inaccurate to call a human a "flesh being" because we are spiritual as well as flesh. I know this to be true by way of experience because I can will my body to do things that do not satisfy my glands and organs, more telling is that I can resist the impulses of my glands and organs. If I was a "flesh being" I could not do so.

My dog, for instance, is a flesh being.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Vladdy baby you don’t get it...it’s not a Protestant thing or a Catholic thing in “coming to faith by the hearing of God’s word”...but the shepherd and sheep principle...as in “My sheep hear my voice”(Jesus Christ)”

I do get it. Apparently you don’t.

[Just mythoughts]

I think you understood.

NO vlad I do NOT understand the 'program', I am NOT playing games as IF I have some inherent cause for superiority.

[verga]

I am a Protestant. I’ve never said that. I have said “In Christ alone...”

So no Bible, No church, no minister, no hymnals, Jesus Himself came down and taught you to be Christian.

Is that really what you meant to say, because that is exactly what you did say.....

[vladimir998]

you wrote:

“Can you say *Teddy Kennedy*?”

I sure can - and he too was tolerated by this Protestant country - which just proves my point. This country doesn’t really care if liberals cheat on their wives, and in Newt’s case (I don’t believe he is a liberal) the USA is simply more accepting of sexual sin than it used to be.

“He granted a Catholic funeral, was he not?”

Which has nothing to do with anything here.

“And I seem to recall some issues with JFK’s womanizing.”

But since no one in the public knew about it at the time, it doesn’t apply to what I was talking about.

“And vice in the priesthood? Naw, doesn’t exist, does it?”

Yes, it does. And how many of those priests run president? Why don’t you throw in the kitchen sink like every other Protestant? Oh, wait, you already did. Every example you’ve brought up has nothing to do with what I was talking about. Gee, you must really be desperate.

“Of course, everyone knows the answer to that.”

I don’t think you know many answers.

“Our nation isn’t the only organization tolerant of vice.”

It’s the only one electing presidents of the United States. I hope you realize that.

“The Catholic church’s problem is that it’s not tolerant of vice in the poorer laity. Apparently everyone else is exempt.”

No, pretty obviously love of sinners extends to everyone.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“NO vlad I do NOT understand the ‘program’, I am NOT playing games as IF I have some inherent cause for superiority.”

The program is truth - and you really don’t seem to understand it. I am not playing games either about superiority.

[verga]

I almost didn't post this because the assertion usually generates a LOT of heat, but I have found over the last 15 or so years that "crazy junk" usually turns out to be "groin issues". God is merciful though.

After my own return to the Catholic Church I began to engage in apologetics work and I found this to be completely true. Quite a few left so they could remarry with out having to go through the annulment process, or because their request had been denied. Many also left over the issue of contraception.

[mdmathis6]

“The locusts have no king, yet they march out in orderly bands, laying waste” Ecclesiastes

You don’t get it any of it at all!

[Grunthor]

“especially in areas where the Bible may contradict established Roman Catholic church doctrines and practises.”

You don’t say? I must belong to the “sola scriptura” vein of thinking because if I had a tradition or practice that was in contradiction to the Word of God.....boy, that’s frightening to ponder.

[Just mythoughts]

Do you mean "human" in the generally accepted understanding of the word when you write "flesh being" or is there some subtle difference intended? Beyond that, it seems inaccurate to call a human a "flesh being" because we are spiritual as well as flesh. I know this to be true by way of experience because I can will my body to do things that do not satisfy my glands and organs, more telling is that I can resist the impulses of my glands and organs. If I was a "flesh being" I could not do so. My dog, for instance, is a flesh being.

I will, thinking what I am about to say, will not be well received, because of the rejection of 'sola scripture'.

Before one WORD of the so called 'NEW' Testament was put on animal hides or plant fiber Christ Himself said. Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold I have foretold you all things. Then Christ quotes Isaiah 13:10 making Isaiah writing one and the same as the Gospel.

Now if even before Christ became the one and final for all time flesh sacrifice He could say He had already foretold us all things, then those born after are NOT speaking for HIM when they pen things that are in opposition to what was already foretold.

Even Paul gives Christ's warning a second witness in ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: (examples) and they are written for our admonition (warning) upon whom the ends of the world (flesh age) are come.

The 'script' is already written, and by the WORD of God already written we can be forewarned.

But of course we have the flesh clay pot that houses the soul/spirit through this flesh journey, but none of us in these flesh clay pots are needed to add to or take away from the WORD that Christ stated with simple clarity has already been foretold. People who need to add or take away are already on the wrong path writing their own gospels.