Some of you may have encountered Rod Dreher and his departure from the Catholic Church. It’s been all over the Catholic Blogosphere for a few days now. I, however, don’t get out much, so I didn’t see it until yesterday.
I’m not going to comment on Rod or his departure directly. I know Rod, though not well. Our sporatic correspondence goes back two or three years to around the time he moved to Dallas. I’m not going to comment directly here because I’ve already commented directly to Rod himself. Anything I say here may get painfully close to disclosure of private information, and I don’t really want to risk that.
But Rod’s well publicized departure brings up an interesting point on the submission of an individual to the Church. The Pontificator has an excellent post on the subject. There are plenty of others as well. But the important matter for a potential convert is this: properly understood, conversion to Catholicism is a one-way trip.
To become Catholic is to accept Catholicism totally, and submit your personal judgment to the Church. If you do that, and accept the infallibility of the Church, then your trip to Rome is one way. There is no logical means by which you can turn back.
Was this presented to me in RCIA? Was I told that this was a one-way trip once I accepted the Church? I was not. It wasn’t until a few years later that I encountered the idea of submitting my will to the Church with regards to its teachings. I was not deterred by this, and with my free will I accepted the Church under those terms as well. No convert should entertain the idea of Catholicism as a simple change of venue for their Sunday worship. It’s far more profound than that.
While reading about Rod’s re-conversion, I was reminded of an article in Crisis magazine from a couple of years ago. The author was aiming at political issues before the 2004 election, but there are a few quotes that are very apt to this situation. Oh, by the way, the author is Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver. He’s one of the most orthodox around, and would get my vote for the finest bishop in the US.
Whenever I hear people talking about the need for Church reform, the first thing I ask is how they feel about obedience. Francis of Assisi was a strong, shrewd man, and he was nobody’s fool—but both he and St. Clare insisted on being obedient to the Church because Jesus was obedient to His Father, and they understood that our salvation comes through that submission of obedience.
...
Just as it was 800 years ago, the structures of the Church are so much easier to tinker with than our own stubborn heart, or the large, empty space where our faith should be. Make no mistake: The root problem in the Church today isn’t a crisis of organization or even of sinful behavior, as terrible as that can be. The root problem is an issue of faith—and the lack of it.
...
Reforming the Church, renewing the Church, begins with our own repentance and conversion, our own submission to God’s will, our own humility and willingness to serve—and that’s the really hard work, which is why so little of it seems to get done.
There have been many a time that I’ve sat in the pew on Sunday and wondered what on earth the priest was thinking. “Was that actually heresy, or did I hear that wrong?” The Church isn’t perfect. It’s made up of a collection of fallible human beings. Individuals within the Church are capable of doing evil, just like everyone else on earth. That’s ok. The Church herself is not capable of teaching false doctrine. That fact is ensured by the Holy Spirit. For that reason, I willingly submit to the Church. No one should swim the Tiber without understanding what it means to stand on this bank. It sounds a whole lot scarier than it really is, but it is something that needs to be considered.
When I was reading my way back into belief, the question of contraception was vexing me -- I just couldn't "get" the teaching. Finally, I just gave up and made a conscious decision to just accept the Church's teaching, figuring it was silly to accept transubstantion and the Virgin Birth just to quibble over latex and pills.
And a few weeks later, I found myself "getting it."
I converted from Anglicanism and couldn't agree more.
I am one of those oddballs that had a full grasp of my conversion being a one-way ticket prior to entering the Church. I was actually disappointed that my RCIA program did not present this rather profound aspect of conversion.
I understand the idea that we all need to be charitable and gracious to those who are not yet fully Catholic, but in my limited experience, it seems like the general tone of the RCIA is to avoid offending the Protestant senses of inquirers.
...it seems like the general tone of the RCIA is to avoid offending the Protestant senses of inquirers.
It depends on the parish, but overall I'd have to agree based on what I've seen personally.
Interesting you mention Francis. I became a member of an Anglican Franciscan fraternity, but the more I learned of Francis' passion for the One, Holy Church, the more I was drawn back to her. I have since joyfully returned home to the Catholic Church (and incidentally, am in formation with the SFO).
To become Catholic is to accept Catholicism totally, and submit your personal judgment to the Church. If you do that, and accept the infallibility of the Church, then your trip to Rome is one way. There is no logical means by which you can turn back.
Permit me to disagree just a little. To my mind, my faith in Christ is more immediate and logically prior to my recognition that his church, the body of Christ uniquely and fully subsists in Catholicism.
Submitting to the magesterium does not remove us from reason, but rather shifts its place of emphasis from the specific doctrine to the Church herself; we ask whether the Church is who she claims to be- when we say yes, everything flows from that statement. But if (God forbid) we are no longer able to agree, then one can no longer rationally be Catholic.
As a side-note: I would say that reason must be corrupted in some manner in order to cease to see Catholicism as the church Christ founded.
Mark Windsor's post is basically what Newman said in his sermon, "Faith and Doubt," found at:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse11.html
In sum, Newman points out the rather commonsensical, but often dismissed, point that faith by definition does not entail doubt. Once doubt has entered, faith has ceased. Of course, as Newman said elsewhere, "A thousand difficulties do not make a doubt." So, we must recognize the important distinction between doubt and difficulties. Doubt is when one questions the validity of a certain thesis, such that the claim, "I know such-and-such to be true" is rejected, even if the opposite, "I know such-and-such to not be true," is likewise rejected. If I am doubting the existence of God, for example, I am rejecting the claim, "I know the existence of God to be true," even if I am not accepting the claim, "I know the existence of God to not be true." Many Christians believe doubt to be necessary, if not beneficial, to a life of faith. However, Newman argues that such is not a life of faith at all. At least, that is how I interpreted Newman. In the essay, he applies this principle of faith vs. doubt to the question of the claims of the Catholic Church.
:it seems like the general tone of the RCIA is to avoid offending the Protestant senses of inquirers.:
Yes. As an RCIA dropout, I'm not sure if this was good or bad. But frankly, if when I went to the lay leader and said, "I think I should quit instead of continuing into the Church," and he had said something like, "This is the One True Church and you're imperiling your soul by dropping out," I might be Catholic day.
Again, whether this would have been good or bad I'm not sure. (I know of course that this is different from the issue you're talking about--but the whole thing was presented as one more step on a "faith journey" to be accepted or rejected at will.)
Sorry--I meant "I might be Catholic today."
John,
John Paul II was against the war in Iraq. I was in favor of it. At what point did the Catholic Church tell me what to think? It never happened. The Church does have the right to tell me what to believe as a matter of faith. It doesn't tell me what to think.
I've deleted your comment as Catholic bashing isn't really appropriate here. There are plenty of other blogs for you to vent your frustrations.
Edwin,
It's never too late. I went through RCIA with a woman that took four goes before she finally made it through. Keep an open heart and open mind, and maybe you'll still end up in Rome.
Also, it wouldn't have been appropriate for them to have said you were endangering your soul at that point. That can only come after you accept the Church and are welcomed into full communion.