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 Anne 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 Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
When I decided to become a Byzantine (or "Greek") Catholic, I had a lot of what seemed like good reasons for doing so: the fractious jurisdictionalism of the Orthodox Churches in the United States, the need for a focus of unity, and above all the towering moral witness of Pope John Paul II. In retrospect, none of those seem that convincing to me today. There is just as much jurisdictionalism among Eastern Catholics (made worse by the constant interference of the Vatican in our internal affairs); there is also a confusion of identity among us sustained by the mixed messages emanating from the Holy See; and the constant need to justify one's own existence and beliefs not only to the Orthodox (with whom most of us have very cordial relations here), but with our fellow Roman Catholics, who are not quite convinced that we are kosher and are always trying to tell us what me "must" believe and do in order to be "real" Catholics.
Today, I just tell myself that I am a Greek Catholic because that is where God wanted me to be, and I have found quite a great deal of fulfillment in the vocation of the Eastern Catholics, which is nothing less than demonstrating to Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox alike the possibility of being truly Eastern in liturgy, spirituality, theology, doctrine and discipline, while remaining in communion with the Church of Rome.
As for the reasons for my conversion: I grew up in a fairly non-observant family of mixed Jewish and Protestant background, and spent most of my youth in an agnostic state of mind. Over time, I became convinced of God's existence (mainly through inexplicable acts of divine providence), and then of the historical reality of Jesus Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection. As is often the case, having children was a catalyst for action, and my wife and I decided to be baptized.
Though neither of us is of Slavic or Greek ancestry, we had been very deeply immersed in the study of Russian language, history and culture, and were deeply attracted to Eastern Orthodoxy. And, as the Russian Primacy Chronicle asserts, it was the ineffable beauty of the Divine Liturgy that drew us in to the Eastern Church, not any rational argument or structured apologetics. Quite simply, "We did not know if we were in heaven or on earth, for on earth there is no such beauty. But this we do know, that God dwells there among men". To be exposed to that beauty is to know that what the Liturgy proclaims is true, and that was quite enough for us.
But to be quite honest, I find the same truth present in both the Greek Catholic and the Orthodox Church. Today I worship at a Melkite Greek Catholic church, whose parallel is the Antiochian Orthodox Church. The latter uses exactly the same liturgy, the same calendar, the same Creed, the same theology and doctrine, the same spirituality as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church--yet for some reason, I am not supposed to receive communion there. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church has a different liturgy, a different calendar, a different Creed, a different theology and doctrine--but I am allowed to receive communion there. Such is the ambivalence of the Greek Catholic position, especially for one who espouses the ideal of being an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome.
For me, the truth of the faith will always be present in the Liturgy and the Eucharist, both of which are shared by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches equally; and I look forward to the day when I, and the rest of my Greek Catholic brethren, can return to our Mother Churches through the reestablishment of communion between the Church of Rome and the Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy.
High profile individuals who converted away from Rome constitute an equally impressive list: Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Calvin, Martin Luther. More contemporary examples: Tom Hanks, Madeleine Albright, Hugh Hewitt, Tim Pawlenty, John Kasich and Sarah Palin.
The more interesting question for Mr. Weigel would seem to be, why do so many adults become non-Catholics?
Peace.
The Church is growing by leaps and bounds all over the world except in the tired West. But give it time and they'll be back. It's been this way for more than 2,000 years now and I have a feeling will continue for another 2,000.
Stuart, chin up, the divisions that are upsetting you shouldn't be given such importance. If you regard the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, you are a Catholic as far as I am concerned, full-stop.
God bless you all.
Sarah Palin may have been baptized Catholic, but my understanding is that her family left Catholicism while she was young. Hugh Hewitt seems to have left due to the liturgical silliness and weak leadership that even faithful Catholics deplore. Tim Pawlenty and Madelein Albright appear to have left to be united in the religious profession of their spouses. I'm not saying that no one leaves the Catholic Church for doctrinal issues, or that adults don't also convert to Catholicism for non-doctrinal reasons. But if they were cards, I think George Weigel's is clearly a stronger hand. I could be wrong, but I'm not getting the impression that many of the conversions from Catholicism in your list were due to hearing some sort of symphonic harmony of truth in their new-found religion.
Maybe I'm just "tone-deaf" as it were, but all of the small-"o" orthodox versions of the gospel look to me about equally matched in their abilities to provide an environment that moves the Christian towards eternal bliss, and I've never seen any convincing evidence that the downsides of one so outweigh the downsides of another, that conversion is not just possible, but intellectually obligatory.
"From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him." There was nothing wrong with Christ's teaching, it was really the lack of understanding of those that chose to leave. Tom Hanks and the other celebs that were mentioned that left the faith never were iconic catholics so it was really their loss. Jesus did not stop the disciples from leaving, probably because they were not predisposed to serving Him at all and were hangin out because of the miracles and free lunches. Many are called...
arty: I guess my response to your concerns about the failings of the church as an institution is that, as the words of the Mass express, we are a "pilgrim" church and so are always a flawed and broken image of what we are intended to be. But the Church is also the Body of Christ: for all the failings of the people IN the church (including some of our pastors), the Church itself is where we experience and encounter Christ Himself.
"For now, though, I see too many downsides--in the actual lives of the actual Catholics I know--of the church-as-institution model, for me to hear much of the symphony Weigel hears. "
"Get thee with child a mandrake root." If one picks a church based on the actual lives of the actual members, one is going to end up disappointed whatever church one chooses "FOR ALL HAVE SINNED...."
The proper way to pick a Christian Church is to read the Bible and choose the church that meets the biblical evidence of the one church Jesus founded (First Century foundation; central organization and apostolic succession). That eliminates all protestant churches because none of them were founded in the First Century AD. As between those churches that can claim roots in the First Century AD (to simplify, concentrate on the Eastern and Western churches that at least subscribe to the First Seven Ecumenical councils), the choice is a bit more contentious. I'd suggest faithfulness to the Agreement between the Eastern and Western Churches signed at the Council of Florence-Ferrara is a good starting point for that analysis.
I'm at Transfiguration, too. I started attending about four years ago, when the Ruthenians butchered their liturgy.
So he gets counted twice.
Edward Gibbon too.
There does seems to be an "intellect first" attitude among converts. Practical matters -- will I grow spiritually?, will my children learn the faith?, will I be able to use my gifts?, will the church support the moral views I want in my family and in society? -- seem to take a back seat to a kind of nit-picky, over-intellectual assessment of the options.
Or at least that happens with some people. See this, for example.
http://dontconvert.wordpress.com/why-conservative-evangelicals-should-not-become-catholic/
Along with Rousseau and Gibbon, there is a third famous 18/c convert who later fell away: Dr. Johnson's biographer, James Boswell.
This is pretty amazing. I didn't know about either of these before. Are there any other famous converts?
In any event, I don't see what is wrong with evaluating an institution, in part, on the effects it has on its members. I would have thought that "All have sinned" was too obvious to need stating, but apparently not. On a nearly daily basis, I watch the Catholics I know deal with the negative psychological consequences of an excessive reliance on the church-as-institution: I don't think this is an irrelevant observation on my part. This isn't to say that other church models don't present their own negatives, just that I can see that one is so obviously better than another that it evince the symphony Weigel hears.
The Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Solo scriptura = multi interpretura.
†
"I was evincing skepticism as to the notion that what Jesus intended to found was an institution....Patrick's response ignores the fact that I was questioning the existence of church-as-institution in the first place. "
This is a very unbiblical view. Jesus clearly intended to found an institution with an overall pastor, to whom God spoke directly. Matt. 16:18, et seq.; Matt. 18:15-17; John 21:15 et seq. Acts:10: 9-20. That is why He left instructions with the apostles on Ascension Thursday and told them that they were to be His witnesses to the ends of the Earth. Acts 1:1-9. Indeed, His instructions to them that day are known as the Great Commission and it covered the World as a whole. Matt. 28:18-20.
The apostles clearly thought that the church was to be an institution. That is why Peter established an election process for a replacement for Judas to the apostolate (Acts 1: 15-26), and why he left the Jerusalem church to James when Peter went on the lam after his breakout from Herod's jail (Acts 12: 3-18).
That is also why Peter came back to Jerusalem at the time of the Council called to resolve Paul's issues with James's judaizers and called for a ruling (Acts 15:7-9) that would be binding not just on Antioch or Jerusalem but on the Church generally (Acts 16:3-5). The circulating letter that was the result of the institutional deliberations of the Universal Church (Acts 15: 22-29) can be said to be the first encyclical of the Catholic Church.
Paul clearly thought the Church was an institution. As Brother Luke reports, Paul saw himself as having continuing authority over the presbyters of Ephesus (exercised by calling them to the first recorded synod) even after he moved to another location and those presbyters in turn had been appointed to oversee the church that God had acquired with His own blood. Acts 20:17-28. Paul saw the authority to proclaim the gospel as having been conferred on appointed teachers through ordination. 2 Tim. 1:6,13-14, 2:2-3.
The claim that the Church spoken of in the Bible is somehow an "invisible church" falls apart when the Bible is actually read: invisible churches don't have councils and bishops and . There is more to the Bible than the false gospel of "Faith Alone" see, e.g., James 2:24) but Protestant pastors have to ignore it because if they paid attention to the real New Testament, they would have to search for the real Church founded in the First Century AD.
It's hard to explain all these cases away as simply being lack of proper formation, or too strong inclination of vice, some of them, yes, but certainly not all. I wonder what(if anything) Mr. Weigel would say that this other group of witnesses means.
This was exactly the opposite of my experience. From the outside, Catholicism has so much to offer! But it's hard to actually become Catholic without losing a lot in exchange.
I agree. Catholicism has a ton to offer and my experience is that those at my local churches are eager to have new visitors.


