John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2008-03-21 14:02:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
I thought I should tell you
After three years of prayer, thought, and debate, and an honest attempt to follow where the spirit leads me, I am joining the Roman Catholic Church this Easter.

Normally, I would keep this private, since I am not inclined to stir up sectarian debates between the two or three parts of the shattered church; but since several people on this website have said I was Catholic, and since I corrected them and said I was not Catholic, I did not want anyone who trusted me what I said that, to be surprised when that information turns out to be out of date.

For my Protestant friends, all I can do is assure you that that Church you broke away from in centuries past has been reformed of the abuses you complained of at that time. The Pope no longer sells indulgences. The theological differences are minor enough that Christly love, if you imitate His love, will cover them. I was raised Lutheran, and drank in anticatholicism with my mother's milk, so I assure you I am aware of most or all the objections, subtle and obvious, which you consciences in good faith might raise. The shock that came to me when I looked into Catholicism is that the Catholics do not teach what my teachers told me they teach. In any case, Protestant friends, I will be closer to you than I was when I was an atheist, so please consider this progress.

For my pagan friends, rejoice! My Protestant friends tell me my Catholic friends are pagans anyway! So I will be closer to you than I am now. And there is certainly some truth in the idea that Catholicism is a child of Jewish and Hellenic thought: the ancient civilization of Europe is still alive in the Catholic Church. If you worship Brigit, and I revere St. Brigit, this will be a common bond between us.

For the Atheist friends, give thanks! You may think of Catholicism as the most backward and obscurantist of the Christian sects. Not so! Not only does the Catholic Church acknowledge Darwinian evolution, the approach of at least some of the writers (St. Aquinas, for example, or St. Justin Martyr) is as rigorous and as rational as even the best of atheist writers, and darn mile more clear and rational than the worst of atheist writers (who are the only ones we hear about these days). Catholicism, in many of its branches, is not given to the religious enthusiasms of revivalism that so many atheists find disquieting. (Whether this lack of revivalism is a good thing or not, I leave for the reader to decide. Certainly more enthusiasm and crusading spirit would not be a bad thing for this Church at this hour of history.)



(Read 146 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]davidns84
2008-03-21 07:51 pm UTC (link)
You so totally gave off a Catholic vibe. From a Protestant brother, may Lord bless you and keep you.

Believe it or not, many Protestants are not anti-Catholic. Look at all the Protestant-loving JP II received after he died. It's a lot different than when you were growing up.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2008-03-21 08:41 pm UTC (link)
It was that Catholic vibe that several people saw that started me wondering if there was something in Catholicism that was meant to fit me, or me to fit to it, if you take my meaning.

I have to admit I was deeply impressed with the thoughtfulness and balance of the catechism. Both law books and Aristotle have the same discipline of thought, the same reservation about falling to extremes, I saw on display in those writings. Very legalistic; and in my mouth that is a compliment. The opposite of 'legalistic' is not 'spiritual', the opposite of 'legalistic' is 'sentimental'.

The Catholics were unsentimental when I heard them talk about love. How could my flinty stoic heart not leap for joy in reply?

If Vulcans had a church, they'd be Catholics.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]davidns84
2008-03-21 09:54 pm UTC (link)
You've seen me give enough spankings over Libertas to know I like logic...

There's quite a bit of Catholic thought I like, but I still have my disagreements with the Church of Rome. I've also encountered one or two Catholics who still had the ol' attitude of "you're not really Christian," but that's few and far between. The one nagging thing is when they keep calling it a "conversion." Guys, it's a "conversion" when you enter the Christian faith...*grumble grumble* Anyway, they're just separate neighborhoods in the City of God. As Augustine put it, "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ellameena
2008-03-22 12:43 am UTC (link)
Don't take that personally. The idea of a lifetime of continuing conversion is a part of the Catholic viewpoint and lifestyle. You're supposed to convert every time you go to confession. It does not mean you weren't a Christian before if you "convert" from a protestant denomination.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]davidns84
2008-03-22 12:56 am UTC (link)
I don't. But let's face it, it does sound of confusing when someone says, "I converted to Catholicism." Conversion, in its general denotative meaning, usually signifies a singular event. I convert currencies, voltages, systems of measurement, et al. In Protestant circles, we would refer to it as an "ongoing process of sanctification."

Another really annoying one, usually done by non-Christians, is to refer to the "Catholic and Protestant religions." Same religion, people. A little thing called the Council of Nicaea articulated the central doctrines of the faith. All three major branches of the Church--Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox--acknowledge it.

Anyway, they're just pet peeves. Nothing major.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]westmarked
2008-03-22 05:06 pm UTC (link)
As someone who has "converted" to Catholicism from Protestantism I dislike using that term as well, for similar reasons. Converting is what the pagans do.

Of course, my preferred term is "trading up" so I'm not certain that anything works better as a value-neutral term.

A little thing called the Council of Nicaea articulated the central doctrines of the faith. All three major branches of the Church--Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox--acknowledge it.

Well, no. My parents (my father is a Baptist minister) would not affirm the creed except so far as it "conformed to scripture"--that is, their interpretation of it. Baptists certainly don't believe in one baptism [they re-baptize people all the time] for the forgiveness of sins [baptism is just a symbol]. A friend of mine, when we were attending an Anglican church together, would keep her mouth shut at the "for the forgiveness of sins" part, for similar reasons.

For that matter, that particular church would say "We believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" rather than "We believe in One Holy ..." for reasons I cannot, upon reflection, justify. The creed is a bit more malleable in Protestant circles than traditionalists might want to admit.

Of course, the Orthodox think the whole of the West went to pot after the filioque ...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]davidns84
2008-03-22 07:27 pm UTC (link)
Well, no. My parents (my father is a Baptist minister) would not affirm the creed except so far as it "conformed to scripture"--that is, their interpretation of it.

There are the "anti-creedal" types, which comparatively few and far between. Yes, there are a few quibbling details here and there, but most of it has to do with fine points ("finer points" being relative, in some cases), not gross differences, as best as I understand it. If I may offer an opinion, the ridiculous part of the "anti-creed" position is that any "statement of faith," systematic theology, commentary, and summation given of what Scripture teaches is a creed! And the Nicene Creed is just about the most basic and essential distillation of Scripture that we have all have.

Baptists certainly don't believe in one baptism [they re-baptize people all the time] for the forgiveness of sins [baptism is just a symbol]. A friend of mine, when we were attending an Anglican church together, would keep her mouth shut at the "for the forgiveness of sins" part, for similar reasons.

Well, it's not so much that baptism forgives sins (we all agree that's what Christ sacrifice on the cross was for), but rather that the moment of regeneration occurs at baptism and with the act, the person then enters the Church (to anyone who might know better, forgive me if I'm mangling that). The point of disagreement is logistical, really. When, precisely, does it occur? I, too, think baptism is a symbol.

For that matter, that particular church would say "We believe One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" rather than "We believe in One Holy ..." for reasons I cannot, upon reflection, justify. The creed is a bit more malleable in Protestant circles than traditionalists might want to admit.

The essential doctrines--the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc.--are agreed upon (and where it becomes "malleable" on those matters, then we enter the realm of heresy). For instance, we all believe in one universal Church, correct? Who's in charge is just an ongoing debate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]westmarked
2008-03-22 07:47 pm UTC (link)
There are the "anti-creedal" types, which comparatively few and far between. Yes, there are a few quibbling details here and there, but most of it has to do with fine points ("finer points" being relative, in some cases), not gross differences, as best as I understand it. If I may offer an opinion, the ridiculous part of the "anti-creed" position is that any "statement of faith," systematic theology, commentary, and summation given of what Scripture teaches is a creed! And the Nicene Creed is just about the most basic and essential distillation of Scripture that we have all have.

I think you've managed to completely miss my point, but explicating it further would require me to go into a anti-Sola Scriptura rant, upon which I think the Management would frown. However, I'm a bit confused that you consider Baptists (and most of the Evangelical movement, and the official leadership of the "mainline" churches, etc.) "few and far between". What did you have in mind?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]davidns84
2008-03-22 08:12 pm UTC (link)
Maybe I am misunderstanding. Most Protestant denominations don't object to the use of creeds. There are a few groups, mostly among Charismatics, but some Baptists as well, that reject creeds altogether (theoretically, at least) and the take "Scripture alone" to an absurd extreme. Instead, they do a little semantic sidestep call them "statements of faith" when giving a summation of their beliefs. But 99% of the time, it just ends up re-expressing what was already laid down in the Nicene Creed, give or take a few finer points. That is what I thought you were referring to. My apologies if I was mistaken.

The idea that a creed should conform to what Scripture teaches is pretty basic Protestant stuff, but the issue of Sola Scriptura varies between Protestant branches. Some, usually historically "low church" denominations, take it to an extreme that ends looking a lot like PoMo deconstruction, where it's all about "What is this saying to me right now?," regardless of what the text was actually saying. The less reckless idea of Sola Scriptura is that it should be interpreted with respect to its context, intent, and tradition, though tradition is not absolutely authoritative. Apologies, again, if I'm not explaining that clearly enough, but before we get into any rants, there is sometimes a lot of misunderstanding between what Catholics and Protestants teach, especially in debate, so let's be charitable and give each other the benefit of the doubt.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]westmarked
2008-03-22 08:20 pm UTC (link)
Ah, we are using anti-creedal to mean different things. By your definition of anti-creedal, my father wouldn't qualify (although some in his congregation, and perhaps my mother, would). By my definition, he would, but I have a more broad definition of the term.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]headnoises
2008-03-21 11:13 pm UTC (link)
If Vulcans had a church, they'd be Catholics.

Heh...and here I was wondering if that fan fic I did with a Vulcan Pope was too out there....

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Oh, you silver-tongued charmer, you
[info]deiseach
2008-03-21 11:58 pm UTC (link)
"If Vulcans had a church, they'd be Catholics."

That's probably the nicest compliment I've heard about the Church in a long, long time.

Hey, I just remembered: since you're coming in this Easter, you'll be all set to get the plenary indulgence at the Urbi et Orbi blessing Easter Sunday! Just tune in to your local television or radio station carrying it (or over the Interwebs should be okay too), stick around until the end of all the messages for the Latin bit - and you're sorted!

And as you pointed out in your campaign speech, er, I mean, explanatory post, the Pope doesn't sell indulgences any more so it won't even cost you one red cent :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Live long and prosper
[info]ladyhobbit
2008-04-01 01:52 am UTC (link)
Finally, someone who sees the Vulcan-Catholic connection! Chesterton saw it, too--I mean the logic and reason in Catholicism, rather than the specific Spockishness. Mr. Spock was always my favorite Star Trek character--I guess there was a reason for that!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]anne1204
2009-12-11 02:18 pm UTC (link)
If you decide to welcome Jesus in your heart, then you are a part of Jesus church. It should matter less if you are a catholic or a protestant as long as you love him and follow his way and his way is full of love.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Read 146 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…