I’m sure this will show my ignorance. But has there ever been a non-“controversial” famous convert to Catholicism? I’m looking at the state of affairs today and going back to Cardinal Newman. I’m probably missing someone. But seriously converts should probably just never speak anything but milk and honey regarding Roman Catholicism. There was a time when I cast a baleful eye towards, for example, RCIA. And now as one who nearly exclusively attends a TLM and has prayed the luminous mysteries maybe once I believe RCIA is nearly EXACTLY what some protestant-cum-sedevacantist converts need.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Wood Faileth 
Scott and Kimberly Hahn don’t appear to be controversial. I don’t think Ed Feser is controversial either though I don’t know how “famous” he is.
LikeLike
Is the point rather that converts shouldnt cast aspersions on their new home? I am a convert myself and so do not presume to neutrality on the topic, but i hold everyone to the standard of “dont say things you can’t support in vigorous discussion.” Even so, i think the convert/cradle catholic distinction is false. How many people sit in the pews without understanding? How many more consider themselves catholic but dont practice? In the end, all our hearts must be converted. In that sense, i would say *only* converts–those ‘on fire’ for their faith– can speak intelligently on the big issues facing the Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim Finnegan,
How are you? I was selfishly glad to see you back posting after your discernment. Re: Scott Hahn is an interesting case. I certainly read nearly everything he published during my own conversion. But he’s not entirely without controversy in the pertinent sense either.
– Had trouble with the link initially. Should be fixed now – Wood
LikeLike
Scoot,
All your points are well taken, and I would mostly agree – specifically regarding the need for conversion of the heart regardless one’s upbringing. However, in the spirit of the OP I must disagree with this:
Even so, i think the convert/cradle catholic distinction is false.
I’ve written about this before, but Catholicism obviously teaches that sin wounds us deeply. Formal heresy is grave sin, and therefore the extent to which one was involved in all that – the extent to which one was pious in, say, Protestantism – is in some measure the extent to which one was wounded by grave sin. From my perspective folks have lost the holy horror of formal heresy. Cradle Catholic pseudo-pagans have their own fish to fry. Well and good. But those fish are of a different nature than your local Southern Baptist convert who spent summers witnessing Costa Ricans out of Catholicism. Frankly I don’t trust converts. I say this as a convert.
LikeLike
Hi Wood,
If I may, I would summarize your argument as resting on 1) the nature of sin and 2) the quality of formation. Would you say that is accurate? My response rests on this assumption!
Regarding the nature of sin, yes, heresy is a grave sin. As a conversion gift, my sponsor gave me a 1916 prayer manual from the council of baltimore, and in it is included a gut wrenching, groveling renunciation of heresy. It is truly incredible, and reflects the former “holy horror” we used to have and indeed have lost. I digress: Sin comes with two components, as I understand it: The wound, and the mark. The wound is like putting a nail through a block of wood. When we go to the sacrament of confession, the nail is removed, but the mark remains, the hole. The wound can be healed through confession, the mark can be healed through just punishment. By way of another metaphor, if you commit a crime, your victim may forgive you in court, but you still have to do the time. We all have to do the time, in this life or the next, through penance or purgatory.
[NB: I know you are already familiar with these concepts, but if our understandings differ it will affect subsequent arguments so I’m making sure we are on the same page.]
Formal heresy is a grave sin–a very big nail. Christ can remove the nail through the sacrament of reconciliation. We must do substantial punishment for the mark that remains. The magnitude of sin does not itself disqualify someone. Someone properly formed (which I’ll get to in a moment) who repents and reconciles himself is free from that sin. I would say I distrust people who fail to repent from a state of sin. Flamboyant homosexuals are a very apparent example of this: They live in sin and are proud to say so. Indeed, if this is the basis for saying “I don’t trust converts”, then would you trust any sinner? Is a masturbator more trustworthy than a liar? Is someone who is rude to their parents more trustworthy than someone who is rude to their employer? After all, if sin (of any magnitude) is all it takes to distrust someone, who can we trust? We can’t even trust ourselves!
I don’t think this is what you were getting at though. I think what you were primarily concerned about is Formation. I’m going to further subdivide this into two parts: Religious education of any kind, and propensities to sin.
Regarding the first, religious education of any kind: You are absolutely right, religious education I do not believe does a good job evaluating the spiritual state of the student. RCIA was a lecture series, a box I had to check in order to get slapped by the priest and told I’m in the club. I could easily–and I’m sure there were some in my class who did–sit through the entire program and get nothing out of it. These people will not shine brightly, aflame for their faith, I am sad to say. It used to be that in order to convert, you had to have one-on-one sessions with a priest who would talk to you and have a personal relationship with you and tell you when you were ready, in a process without a rubric (Thomas Merton has an account of this in his book Seven Storey Mountain). But RCIA is not alone in this by any means. The religious formation of youth is structured very similarly, and will differ from parish to parish. By their fruits ye shall know them and there are many rotten trees out there producing rotten fruit. Whether a Catholic or a Convert, formation is the crux of the problem, even among the pseudo-pagans you mention. The Church must invest heavily in forming the faithful.
Regarding the second, and this I think will really get to the heart of the matter, is propensity to sin. There is a saying that Converts bring a bit of their old faith with them, and this can work to good or ill. A fire-and-brimstone southern baptist who speaks in tongues and plays guitar with his pastor-friend on sunday will have a higher standard of formation than someone like me who was inadequately formed in any faith (NB: I converted from Anglicanism, which I am thankful is very close in appearance though completely foreign in theology). That same baptist who is inadequately formed will not have enough new material to lean on, and so will fill any gaps with what he brings with him. The tendency for converts to bring pieces of their faith with them into Catholicism is what i mean by ‘propensity to sin’. Likewise with someone who struggles with sins of purity, when things get difficult they will tend to revert to their old habits unless they are committed to what they say in the act of contrition: Amend your life, and sin no more!
Converts do get a bad rap because of an equal and opposite problem. All of this so far has been pretty negative. But Converts do also have positive qualities. Many (not all, but many) converts are interested in and enthusiastic about matters of faith, and will to a certain extent form themselves, and form themselves quite adequately too. This is why you see many converts in public places: They have an infectious enthusiasm they want to share. “Look what I found, how can I bring this to you too?” Converts have a tendency to join some public or prominent position because of their enthusiasm for the real deal.
If prior to encountering one of these loud and enthusiastic converts, your experience with converts has been negative, then you are likely to be turned off by them. If, prior to encountering one of these converts, you are not adequately formed, and they are speaking with frank boldness that you can do better, you will be turned off even more.
THIS is what I meant when I said the crux of the matter is conversion of heart. Conversion of heart will make formation easier, will make forming others easier, and will generally add more value to the body of the Church. I think mistrust of ALL converts is misplaced. I will concede mistrust of SOME converts is probably reasonable, but on those grounds I would argue there are many cradle catholics equally deserving of mistrust.
In response I think a lot of loving thy neighbor is due, especially wishing their good, and praying for conversion of their hearts.
LikeLike