What is it about converts?

[Joamy]

Scott Hahn is a fine convert and you bet we Americans are pseudo-Calvinists. But Hahn if he did nothing else, wrote a book about the Apocalypse and how it is the Liturgy of the Mass, and in it has accomplished much for the restoration. I was curious about his book as we were taught this in seventh grade for Confirmation. Father used a little mis-direction with us and told us boys he if we got through the material quickly, he would teach us all he knew about the Apocalypse, and we could ask any questions we would like, about it. Ergo the Mass, not the secrets we thought he knew. I've seen Scott Hahn on EWTN and he did a good job, though I never read the book.

The Lamb's Supper is a fascinating book.  As you may know from seeing him on EWTN, Scott Hahn came to write it by a happy coincidence: he was working on sermons about Revelation / Apocalypse when he decided to check out daily Mass for ideas on adding liturgical practices to the services at his church.  He sat in the back, feeling uncomfortable about being at a Catholic Mass, but once the Mass got going he saw that Apocalypse is the Liturgy of the Mass, which rocked his view of Apocalypse and of Catholicism.  He describes how he sat there wanting to shout out what verse they were acting out as the Mass progressed.

To his chagrin, when he talked to a priest about his "discovery," he learned that the Catholic Church had always taught this, that he had reinvented the wheel because he hadn't seen a wheel before.  But he was later encouraged to write the book, anyway, and it has taught a lot of cradle Catholics as well as converts something they never knew before.

I think you were lucky to have been taught "the secret" in seventh grade, wonder how many confirmands were taught it.  The friend who lent me the book had never heard this before and she's a cradle Catholic who was born in 1917 (yes, 1917, she's 92!) and educated in Catholic schools.  I tend to doubt it's widely taught in Catholic schools or CCD today, either.

I haven't read any of Hahn's other books but I can recommend The Lamb's Supper.  I've seen him on EWTN once or twice, and his speaking style reflects his background as an evangelical Presbyterian minister, which I don't care for.  But the substance of what he said is more important and it was good.  He didn't say anything out of line with orthodox Catholic teaching.

Side note and a bit off topic - anyone read  anything by Thomas Howard?  His book called On Being Catholic is excellent.

[Satori]

I've read Evangelical Is Not Enough by Thomas Howard. Another convert.

[Arturo]

I would have to second the notion that the "problem" (if you even want to call it that) with converts has little to do with the converts themselves and more with the culture in which they convert. If an evangelical Protestant converts say, in Mexico (unlikely since the trend seems to go the opposite direction), no one would think anything of it since that civilization has been Catholic now for half a millenium, and even Protestants carry Catholic holy cards in their wallets, and some still pray the rosary. (The writer Octavio Paz once commented that the Mexican people, after five centuries of experimentation, have come to believe in only two things: the Virgin of Guadalupe and the National Lottery.) Everyone just expects their grandmother's bedroom to be a veritable shrine of cultural kitsch and questionable religious art. (Santa Muerte, rosemary branches to ward off evil, etc.)

Come north across the border, and you enter an entirely different religious culture, and it is one dominated by the "altar call" and the all-American quest for the "true Church", from the Pilgrims, to the Shakers, to the Mormons, to Jim Jones' People's Temple swigging punch in the jungles of Guyana. If you really study the phenomenon of the spread of evangelical Protestantism in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, you will find that these ecclesial cultures could care less about such questions: they are more quests for personal improvement on the one hand, and "signs and wonders" on the other. But for Americans, there has been an obsession since the beginning of "finding the true Church", of finding the "true religion", and sharing with others how much you have "been saved and bathed in the blood of the Lamb". That is why EWTN, Catholic radio, and virtually all of Catholic blogdom in the U.S. degenerates into one massive virtual "altar call", and that is why it is still, in a real sense, "culturally Calvinist", to use the phrase coined by Cardinal George. Everyone needs to look at me while I am converting, everyone needs to write their own version of Newman's "Apologia pro vita sua". And RCIA of course doesn't help. Read an account of conversion before the Council, and it reads almost like a shameful account of accepting a black sheep back into a family: a renunciation of heresy at the altar rail and profession of Faith, a quick confession in a dark confessional, and a discreet Holy Communion, then bang, you were accepted into the Church as if you were always there. Not now: now you have to be accepted by the community in your "faith journey", be told that you are entering into "full communion" with the Church, and if heresy is even mentioned...

So it is really a cultural problem. Modern American culture is self-absorbed, and thus, the entire ecclesial culture, convert or otherwise, is self-absorbed. Maybe we should all just realize in the grand scheme of things that Catholicism is much older and much bigger than any one of us, and has been around, really, since the Garden of Eden. Thus, we should read our own miniscule stories of "coming to the truth" against the vast expanses of Catholic history and culture. Even St. Augustine in his Confessions was not trying to write a lurid, "tell-all" book about how he came into the light, and even if he was, I would only counsel people to follow his example if they had his humility and discernment.  All Catholics in the U.S., whether convert or otherwise, need to be less absorbed in themselves, in their own "faith journey" and understanding, and more absorbed in history and tradition. In some cultures, being Catholic means going with the flow. It is my contention that in this culture more than most, it is about swimming against it.

[ResiduumRevertetur]

Ill tell you why as a convert myself. Do you know how many cradle catholics I met that dont know a damn thing about catholicism except "i have to go to church on sunday" Im not saying you are all like that but in general, Ive encountered many who basically just accepted the faith they were raised in and never really went out to find out the true teaching and history of the church.I was a cradle catholic but not taught anything by anyone in a huge catholic falmily. What happened? I converted to protestantism. Why? Nobody taught me anything about the church. I was raised a catholic and knew nada!

So once a protestant I damned the church to you know where. Long story short, after 7 years I came back to catholicism. But I did so through apologetics. And when I started learning and reading everything and anything about the church, I was elated. I couldnt believe how much there was to learn and how true it is that the Catholic church is the "one and only"

So most converts who feel loaded with guilt for bashing the church go out and find the real truth, turn the libraries upside down to get it. And when they find it its like a treasure that you want to show the world. You want to go out to all the protestants and catholics who were worthless in knowledge and say " look at what I found! What I learned, the truth!!" It becomes exhilirating and you fall head over heels in love with your faith.Your on fire with truth

Its not meant to bash catholics. All the teaching and defending I do nowadays is to convert other denominations to "come home" So cradle catholics shouldnt take the conversions so personally but be happy another soul found the right path.

Are you my long-lost sister?   

[Joamy]

I would have to second the notion that the "problem" (if you even want to call it that) with converts has little to do with the converts themselves and more with the culture in which they convert. If an evangelical Protestant converts say, in Mexico (unlikely since the trend seems to go the opposite direction), no one would think anything of it since that civilization has been Catholic now for half a millenium, and even Protestants carry Catholic holy cards in their wallets, and some still pray the rosary. (The writer Octavio Paz once commented that the Mexican people, after five centuries of experimentation, have come to believe in only two things: the Virgin of Guadalupe and the National Lottery.) Everyone just expects their grandmother's bedroom to be a veritable shrine of cultural kitsch and questionable religious art. (Santa Muerte, rosemary branches to ward off evil, etc.)

Come north across the border, and you enter an entirely different religious culture, and it is one dominated by the "altar call" and the all-American quest for the "true Church", from the Pilgrims, to the Shakers, to the Mormons, to Jim Jones' People's Temple swigging punch in the jungles of Guyana. If you really study the phenomenon of the spread of evangelical Protestantism in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, you will find that these ecclesial cultures could care less about such questions: they are more quests for personal improvement on the one hand, and "signs and wonders" on the other. But for Americans, there has been an obsession since the beginning of "finding the true Church", of finding the "true religion", and sharing with others how much you have "been saved and bathed in the blood of the Lamb". That is why EWTN, Catholic radio, and virtually all of Catholic blogdom in the U.S. degenerates into one massive virtual "altar call", and that is why it is still, in a real sense, "culturally Calvinist", to use the phrase coined by Cardinal George. Everyone needs to look at me while I am converting, everyone needs to write their own version of Newman's "Apologia pro vita sua". And RCIA of course doesn't help. Read an account of conversion before the Council, and it reads almost like a shameful account of accepting a black sheep back into a family: a renunciation of heresy at the altar rail and profession of Faith, a quick confession in a dark confessional, and a discreet Holy Communion, then bang, you were accepted into the Church as if you were always there. Not now: now you have to be accepted by the community in your "faith journey", be told that you are entering into "full communion" with the Church, and if heresy is even mentioned...

So it is really a cultural problem. Modern American culture is self-absorbed, and thus, the entire ecclesial culture, convert or otherwise, is self-absorbed. Maybe we should all just realize in the grand scheme of things that Catholicism is much older and much bigger than any one of us, and has been around, really, since the Garden of Eden. Thus, we should read our own miniscule stories of "coming to the truth" against the vast expanses of Catholic history and culture. Even St. Augustine in his Confessions was not trying to write a lurid, "tell-all" book about how he came into the light, and even if he was, I would only counsel people to follow his example if they had his humility and discernment.  All Catholics in the U.S., whether convert or otherwise, need to be less absorbed in themselves, in their own "faith journey" and understanding, and more absorbed in history and tradition. In some cultures, being Catholic means going with the flow. It is my contention that in this culture more than most, it is about swimming against it.

+1

Just a thought after reading through this thread - wonder how many converts end up being trads?  (Coming from another convert.)

[WanderingPenitent]

I would have to second the notion that the "problem" (if you even want to call it that) with converts has little to do with the converts themselves and more with the culture in which they convert. If an evangelical Protestant converts say, in Mexico (unlikely since the trend seems to go the opposite direction), no one would think anything of it since that civilization has been Catholic now for half a millenium, and even Protestants carry Catholic holy cards in their wallets, and some still pray the rosary. (The writer Octavio Paz once commented that the Mexican people, after five centuries of experimentation, have come to believe in only two things: the Virgin of Guadalupe and the National Lottery.) Everyone just expects their grandmother's bedroom to be a veritable shrine of cultural kitsch and questionable religious art. (Santa Muerte, rosemary branches to ward off evil, etc.)

Come north across the border, and you enter an entirely different religious culture, and it is one dominated by the "altar call" and the all-American quest for the "true Church", from the Pilgrims, to the Shakers, to the Mormons, to Jim Jones' People's Temple swigging punch in the jungles of Guyana. If you really study the phenomenon of the spread of evangelical Protestantism in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, you will find that these ecclesial cultures could care less about such questions: they are more quests for personal improvement on the one hand, and "signs and wonders" on the other. But for Americans, there has been an obsession since the beginning of "finding the true Church", of finding the "true religion", and sharing with others how much you have "been saved and bathed in the blood of the Lamb". That is why EWTN, Catholic radio, and virtually all of Catholic blogdom in the U.S. degenerates into one massive virtual "altar call", and that is why it is still, in a real sense, "culturally Calvinist", to use the phrase coined by Cardinal George. Everyone needs to look at me while I am converting, everyone needs to write their own version of Newman's "Apologia pro vita sua". And RCIA of course doesn't help. Read an account of conversion before the Council, and it reads almost like a shameful account of accepting a black sheep back into a family: a renunciation of heresy at the altar rail and profession of Faith, a quick confession in a dark confessional, and a discreet Holy Communion, then bang, you were accepted into the Church as if you were always there. Not now: now you have to be accepted by the community in your "faith journey", be told that you are entering into "full communion" with the Church, and if heresy is even mentioned...

So it is really a cultural problem. Modern American culture is self-absorbed, and thus, the entire ecclesial culture, convert or otherwise, is self-absorbed. Maybe we should all just realize in the grand scheme of things that Catholicism is much older and much bigger than any one of us, and has been around, really, since the Garden of Eden. Thus, we should read our own miniscule stories of "coming to the truth" against the vast expanses of Catholic history and culture. Even St. Augustine in his Confessions was not trying to write a lurid, "tell-all" book about how he came into the light, and even if he was, I would only counsel people to follow his example if they had his humility and discernment.  All Catholics in the U.S., whether convert or otherwise, need to be less absorbed in themselves, in their own "faith journey" and understanding, and more absorbed in history and tradition. In some cultures, being Catholic means going with the flow. It is my contention that in this culture more than most, it is about swimming against it.

Alright, I think this was a much better point than what SoCalLocal was making. And I think it's the reason I feel strange when people ask me for my conversion story. I tell them but in the end I want to just quote Chesterton in saying, "The Catholic Church is True."

Having been to Mexico I am quite familiar with the things mentioned here. And overall that culture tends to be more charitable and communal than our own, Catholic or otherwise.

[QuisUtDeus]

Converts are a joy to God, they are the Prodigal Sons (as are lapsed Catholics).  Every convert is proof of God's grace and His desire that all shall be saved.

When certain converts seem to retain some of their former beliefs and practices, it is probably too harsh to blame them completely (not that anyone here is doing that, but it's something I've seen before).  Really, the problem is most likely they were not Catechized properly.  Combine that with a fresh zeal for discovering the truth and an honest desire to work for the Church and help it, and you get a lot of converts writing and speaking with a Protestant odor about some of the things they say.

And the reason they were not Catechized properly is because of the false ecumenism and lack of demand for doctrinal purity on the part of some of the current members and hierarchy of the Catholic Church. 

To pick one example, I think Dr. Scott Hahn is completely well-meaning, loves the Church, ignites the fire of a love of God and the Church in many, many people.  On the other hand, I think some of the stuff I've heard him say or read is either pseudo-Protestant (like Prima Scriptura) or outright, well, kind of nutty (like Adam and the Dragon).    Ideally, what should happen is a bishop should take Dr. Hahn aside and 1) tell him that speculative theology should be circulated in academic circles so it goes through a proofing process before it is mentioned in a wider arena, and, 2) put a tighter rein on the Imprimatur examinations and his public speaking; Imprimaturs can be denied for lack of prudence or confusing thoughts, not just outright heresy.

So, at the end of the day, I don't blame the converts outright even though they are certainly responsible for their own actions.   Converts are great - they love the Church so much, they have a fire and zeal having been infused with the Faith and the Holy Ghost, etc.  They are blessings on the Church.  The real problem is how the Church has lately been dealing with odd theologies, etc., and that is not limited to converts when we see some of the things non-converts (and priests and bishops) have said with no correction from the lawful authorities.  And I'm not talking about burning at the stake.  I'm talking about a bishop or priest having a one-on-one conversation with someone to give them guidance.  Most of these people are good hearted and would be open to a bishop or priest clarifying something.

[WilfredLeblanc]

Come north across the border, and you enter an entirely different religious culture, and it is one dominated by the "altar call" and the all-American quest for the "true Church", from the Pilgrims, to the Shakers, to the Mormons, to Jim Jones' People's Temple swigging punch in the jungles of Guyana. If you really study the phenomenon of the spread of evangelical Protestantism in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, you will find that these ecclesial cultures could care less about such questions: they are more quests for personal improvement on the one hand, and "signs and wonders" on the other. But for Americans, there has been an obsession since the beginning of "finding the true Church", of finding the "true religion", and sharing with others how much you have "been saved and bathed in the blood of the Lamb". That is why EWTN, Catholic radio, and virtually all of Catholic blogdom in the U.S. degenerates into one massive virtual "altar call", and that is why it is still, in a real sense, "culturally Calvinist", to use the phrase coined by Cardinal George. Everyone needs to look at me while I am converting, everyone needs to write their own version of Newman's "Apologia pro vita sua". And RCIA of course doesn't help. Read an account of conversion before the Council, and it reads almost like a shameful account of accepting a black sheep back into a family: a renunciation of heresy at the altar rail and profession of Faith, a quick confession in a dark confessional, and a discreet Holy Communion, then bang, you were accepted into the Church as if you were always there. Not now: now you have to be accepted by the community in your "faith journey", be told that you are entering into "full communion" with the Church, and if heresy is even mentioned...

So it is really a cultural problem. Modern American culture is self-absorbed, and thus, the entire ecclesial culture, convert or otherwise, is self-absorbed. Maybe we should all just realize in the grand scheme of things that Catholicism is much older and much bigger than any one of us, and has been around, really, since the Garden of Eden. Thus, we should read our own miniscule stories of "coming to the truth" against the vast expanses of Catholic history and culture. Even St. Augustine in his Confessions was not trying to write a lurid, "tell-all" book about how he came into the light, and even if he was, I would only counsel people to follow his example if they had his humility and discernment.  All Catholics in the U.S., whether convert or otherwise, need to be less absorbed in themselves, in their own "faith journey" and understanding, and more absorbed in history and tradition. In some cultures, being Catholic means going with the flow. It is my contention that in this culture more than most, it is about swimming against it.

I think this is an excellent analysis, insofar as it captures the risible irony that conversion to Catholicism in the U.S. can in fact originate in Puritan motives. Mea maxima culpa: I was quite conscious, during my path to conversion, of seeking the most authentic expression of Christianity, and I still experience a certain regrettable smugness, from time to time, in comparing the church experience I grew up with (as a garden-variety, basically nominal Episcopalian, enjoying its conceits but increasingly nauseated by the metastases of feminist and gay rights movements) with the richness, grandeur, antiquity, and moral seriousness of what's available to me now.

[SanctiDominici]

Ill tell you why as a convert myself. Do you know how many cradle catholics I met that dont know a damn thing about catholicism except "i have to go to church on sunday" Im not saying you are all like that but in general, Ive encountered many who basically just accepted the faith they were raised in and never really went out to find out the true teaching and history of the church.I was a cradle catholic but not taught anything by anyone in a huge catholic falmily. What happened? I converted to protestantism. Why? Nobody taught me anything about the church. I was raised a catholic and knew nada!

So once a protestant I damned the church to you know where. Long story short, after 7 years I came back to catholicism. But I did so through apologetics. And when I started learning and reading everything and anything about the church, I was elated. I couldnt believe how much there was to learn and how true it is that the Catholic church is the "one and only"

So most converts who feel loaded with guilt for bashing the church go out and find the real truth, turn the libraries upside down to get it. And when they find it its like a treasure that you want to show the world. You want to go out to all the protestants and catholics who were worthless in knowledge and say " look at what I found! What I learned, the truth!!" It becomes exhilirating and you fall head over heels in love with your faith.Your on fire with truth

Its not meant to bash catholics. All the teaching and defending I do nowadays is to convert other denominations to "come home" So cradle catholics shouldnt take the conversions so personally but be happy another soul found the right path.

Are you my long-lost sister?   

How long ago did you convert back to the Church. Ive been a die hard catholic for 7 years. So Im not exactly "new" to the faith or a new convert. Whats interesting is im "still on fire" after 7 years.  ;D

[ResiduumRevertetur]

Ill tell you why as a convert myself. Do you know how many cradle catholics I met that dont know a damn thing about catholicism except "i have to go to church on sunday" Im not saying you are all like that but in general, Ive encountered many who basically just accepted the faith they were raised in and never really went out to find out the true teaching and history of the church.I was a cradle catholic but not taught anything by anyone in a huge catholic falmily. What happened? I converted to protestantism. Why? Nobody taught me anything about the church. I was raised a catholic and knew nada!

So once a protestant I damned the church to you know where. Long story short, after 7 years I came back to catholicism. But I did so through apologetics. And when I started learning and reading everything and anything about the church, I was elated. I couldnt believe how much there was to learn and how true it is that the Catholic church is the "one and only"

So most converts who feel loaded with guilt for bashing the church go out and find the real truth, turn the libraries upside down to get it. And when they find it its like a treasure that you want to show the world. You want to go out to all the protestants and catholics who were worthless in knowledge and say " look at what I found! What I learned, the truth!!" It becomes exhilirating and you fall head over heels in love with your faith.Your on fire with truth

Its not meant to bash catholics. All the teaching and defending I do nowadays is to convert other denominations to "come home" So cradle catholics shouldnt take the conversions so personally but be happy another soul found the right path.

Are you my long-lost sister?   

How long ago did you convert back to the Church. Ive been a die hard catholic for 7 years. So Im not exactly "new" to the faith or a new convert. Whats interesting is im "still on fire" after 7 years.  ;D

Formally, I began the journey back about three years ago. Informally, about 25 years ago.

I'll tell you how here, 'cause I think it's a good thread for conversion/reversion stories. It fits the theme of the OP, anyway. I'll try and make it quick.

All my siblings went through CCD, but fell away after Confirmation, then my mom had me in the early seventies and said, Whatevah, had a shotgun baptism for me when I was 6 months old, started sending me to VBS at the Lutheran Church when I was school age, to Awana in the Baptist Church when I got a little older, and finally to "tract revivals" (my term) in neighbors' yards during the summer. Though all the while everything she knew was Catholic, or an American 1950s flavor thereof, and that's what we got at home. One strange thing I remember was she warned me about the "horrors" of purgatory (oh, crap, I sure didn't want to go THERE!), we kept our crucifixes and her Catholic parents' antique Last Supper painting in pride of place. I was a seriously confused Christian, so were my siblings, and so was my poor mom. I think she was terribly misled by a rogue ecumenical movement that took hold in the 60s. All religions are equal paths to God and all that. Well then, if one is good, five must be FANTASTIC! After this hodgepodge I mostly identified with the Baptists and that's how I stayed off and on for years. Some of their members had brought me to a love of our Lord through St John, and I loved them for that, but I could just never go to their services and witness or whatever, and where the heck were their priests anyway? I always had a respect for priests that I could never shake. My mom did, too, I think.

Anyway, most of my siblings, and I, were also all married in the Church, those of us that married other Catholics, that is. We were also, kinda, Christmas and Easter Catholics, and THAT is what brought me back. Finally, finally.  Because while everyone else in my family was celebrating Easter, it was something I could never do. It didn't sit well with me at all. Christmas was fine, actually great, it was another chance at a new beginning. It was hopeful. But there was something shameful to me about us E/C&W/F Catholics celebrating Easter. We hadn't earned it. I knew instinctively that we had not sacrificed during the year and that sacrifice was everything to worship. That type of thinking can only lead back to the Church, really. I just didn't know how.

I sat in the pews studying the Mass and the people on and off for a few years, got my hands on my first Catechism for Inquirers in 1991 and then read the catechism and sat in the pews and studied the people for many more years, more off than on, and skipping ahead--finally went to a TLM a few years back for the first time, saw the priest--for the first time--elevate the Sacred Host to the Crucifix and not to us. Ooooooooh! A sacrifice! Finally, a sacrifice, I got it, that first time. It was like the classic I coulda had a V8 moment. I celebrated Easter for the first time the next year when I had my FHC and Confirmation. Deo Gratias. And now I'm in the process of bringing my dear mother back into the Church and preparing my oldest son (who is unbaptized because his parents were a bunch of religious-hippie spiritchwel-nutjobs for so many years) for baptism and full reception next Easter. How great is that?

So now I get to be an annoying convert with all youse guys because I'm so in love with our Lord and I want everybody to know it. Yippeeeeee!