What to do when converts convert (again)
News broke this weekend that Episcopal-turned-Catholic priest Al Kimel, who used to run the blog Pontifications, was to be received into the Orthodox Church on Pentecost Sunday. Fr. Kimel gained blogging fame a few years ago when he detailed his journey into the Catholic Church after 25 years as an Episcopal priest. Now he has left the Catholic Church to become Orthodox. In some ways this parallels the path of well-known blogger Rod Dreher, who converted to Catholicism in the 1990′s, then became Orthodox a few years ago.
Whenever someone converts to Catholicism after seriously practicing his previous faith, there is among Catholics a great rejoicing. We are happy that the convert has accepted the fullness of the Christian Faith and become mystically united with us in the Eucharist. We are confirmed in our own beliefs because usually these converts only come into the Church after much soul-searching, intellectual study and deep prayer.
However, how should we react when the same convert – who clearly knows and loves the Christian Faith – later leaves the Catholic Church? How do we handle the “double-convert”? This is a much more awkward time, and often one does not know how to react to it. Here are a few reactions one will encounter, each of which I would consider deficient:
1) Disparage the intellect or the emotional make-up of the double-convert.
This is the most common reaction in the blogosphere. People will call the double-convert’s reasons “worthless” or “intellectually bankrupt” or claim that the person is emotionally unstable. Unfortunately, this works both ways – if the person is emotionally unstable now, who is to say he wasn’t unstable when he converted to Catholicism? If his reasons are worthless for becoming Orthodox, why were they not so when he became Catholic? People convert for a wide variety of reasons, and no one can ever know ALL the factors that go into a conversion. The fact remains that some emotionally stable, intellectually capable people leave the Catholic Church. We may not like that fact, but it is dishonest to deny it.
2) Strongly imply (or explicitly state) that the double-convert is going to hell.
You’ll sometimes see Catholics in this situation quote a Church document that states that one who leaves the Catholic Church is doomed to damnation and leave it at that. Yes, it is true that one who knowingly and with full consent leaves the communion of the Catholic Church cannot be saved (Lumen Gentium 14). However, simply quoting Lumen Gentium or Pope Boniface VIII does nothing to help bring reconciliation. We can (and should) acknowledge the seriousness of leaving the Church, but we cannot make a judgement on the soul of another person. We do not know their understanding of the Faith, nor the state of their heart when they decided to leave the Catholic Church – only God can judge them. Catholic moral teaching as always stated that one must give full consent of the will and have full understanding of one’s actions in order to commit mortal sin – and only God can know when this occurs. We are obliged to acknowledge the grave seriousness of leaving the Catholic Church, but must do so without declaring the certain damnation of those who do leave.
3) Act like leaving is no big deal.
On the opposite end of the spectrum of those who damn the double-convert to hell are those who minimize the importance of leaving the Catholic Church. “Well, he is following his heart”. Or, “I understand why he left and God will surely be with him in his new church”. The problem of minimizing someone leaving the visible bounds of the Catholic Church is that it leads to a false irenicism which considers the Catholic Church just one of many legitimate Christian denominations. But as Catholics we must acknowledge the uniqueness of the Catholic Church: even though the Orthodox Churches and many Protestants are united in some (deficient) way with the Catholic Church, it is only in the Catholic Church that Christ’s Church subsists. We do not want anyone to leave the Catholic Church for any reason, for we know the Catholic Church, although made up of sinful human beings, is the best and fullest way to follow our Lord Jesus Christ.
So how should we react whenever someone leaves the Catholic Church? In these situations Catholics should be filled with humility. First, because we must acknowledge that the sins of Catholics – including our own – help drive people away from Catholicism. We must strive every day for holiness so that we are never even a remote cause of another person leaving the Catholic fold. Second, because we realize that it is only by the grace of God that we are Catholics ourselves. Whether we were baptized Catholic as an infant, or converted later in life, it is a gift of God that allows us to be Catholic – it is not in any way a merit of our own doing. And it is with this humility that we approach the double-convert: praying for his soul and encouraging him to join us in drawing closer every day to our Lord.
Great reflection, Eric! It’s sad to see people resort to name-calling and personal attacks when these situations arise. Your call to humility — and recognizing our own culpability in failing to reflect the call to holiness — is exactly right.
Mr. Sammons, surely you are correct that full consent of the mind and will are necessary for the commission of a mortal sin. However, it does not seem that such a person as the one you mention could be excused by means of ignorance.
“Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.” (Letter from the Holy Office August 8, 1949, http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm)
Of course, the above does not provide absolute grounds for saying that the man mentioned in your article committed a mortal sin. It would seem, however, that it could not be said that such a person could be excused because of ignorance.
Of course, I’m not a theologian and I’m open to being corrected on this point.
My answer to that question?
Mind our own business.
When someone rejects the Church which is the fullness of Christianity, they are rejecting truth. The real question is what could make someone reject even part of the truth.
I would say that, at the inner core, the reason is tied to sin (he person’s and/or possibly someone else’s), though this may not always admitted. Even if there is perceived sin of someone else (pope, bishop, priest,etc.), there is at least the sin of pride on the part of the person leaving.
This can often be masked by rationalizations. One sees similar phenomenon when a person rejects an aspect of the Church to become a “cafeteria Catholic.” They may have reasons they can articulate, but at the root it is to hold onto a sin rather than let it go.
The right response is prayer for the person, that they be reconciled to God for their sin – because rejecting His Church is rejecting at least part of His Truth, and the thought of doing so is something which should cause us all tremble.
So, Lisa, you would assert, with Cain, that we are NOT our brother’s keeper??
Eric, I disagree with referring to these people as “double converts”. Once they have with full knowledge accepted the Catholic Faith and then chose to leave it, they become either apostates, if they abandon Christianity altogether, or schismatics if they leave Catholicism for some other Christian community. Thus the actual question is “What to do about apostates and schismatic?”
Matthew
One thing I appreciate in the Orthodox Church is the saying that “we know where truth is, but we cannot know where truth is not.” It lends a certain humility, without relativism, to never judging to know the mind of God.
I was a life long Catholic. While I believe in all she teaches, the way these teachings are lived (or not) in the parishes is a far cry from that which is on paper. It’s sad when Catholics argue over the language of the Mass, while others sit in the pews and text all throughout Mass. In the past ten years, it had become more and more difficult to find a parish that felt like home. One near my home, the priest was constantly repeating his ‘part’, so that the congregation would respond. Another’s homilies not once contained anything spiritual, but instead liked to comment on sports and politics. My most recent parish home’s pastor would only tell me to ‘follow your heart’ when I would go to him for spiritual direction.
Long ago, I was in a parish whose pastor loved all things icon. So when the new church was built, instead of stained glass or ‘contemporary’ paintings, he had the church installed with many icons. That’s where my journey with Orthodoxy and the eastern wing of Catholicism began. After many, many months of reading and praying, I one day went to an Eastern Catholic parish and fell in love. The familial bonding of the parishioners reminded me of what I envisioned Christianity looking like at its inception. The Liturgy was reverent. I felt as if I were on holy ground. I remained there for many months until my job took me out of the urban area where I lived to a more rural one. There was no EC parish there. The EC pastor said it would be ‘okay’ to go to an Orthodox church during those in between weeks that I couldn’t get to the EC parish. And do you blame him? My RC pastor didn’t even recognize the EC parish as being ‘fully Catholic’!
I found myself in the local Orthodox parish and my soul was at rest. Despite the fact that my fervent online Catholic friends telling me I was going to Hell and other Christian name-calling. Despite my pastor up near my new home telling me I had to make my own decision but not helping at all or giving any tools for making that decision. Despite him telling me that the Catholic Church, in the parishes, is falling apart and hemorrhaging members, but there’s nothing to be done about it. (I even had one Catholic tell me that, yes, the Church is in a horrid state right now, but that’s okay, all those that leave are ‘good riddance’ and the Church Militant will rise again stronger. Really? Good riddance? How about FIXING the problems within? If a pipe is busted in your house, do you say ‘good riddance’ to the water? Or do you go purchase a new pipe and fix the problem? Sweet Lord, I’m so tired of the RC hierarchy and parishioners hiding their heads in the sand when it comes to all the issues within, and no, I’m NOT talking about the ‘abuse issue’. Yes, that’s an awful problem, but I’m talking about how theology is lived within the Church, spouting new age theology and female ordination from the ambo, acting sanctimonious while watching people leave ranks, treating the Holy Eucharist like it’s just a piece of bread, etc.)
Do you know that when the Church boasts its numbers it’s talking about anyone who’s ever been Catholic, not those who still remain? If they don’t go to Mass but there’s a Baptismal certificate around, they’re Catholic. If they’ve left the Church, converting elsewhere, they’re Catholic. Hardly an appropriate numbering of her members.
I’ve read many blogs and articles from priests and the like, discussing those who have left the Church, but none talk about perhaps fixing those issues that caused them to leave in the first place. Now THAT would be a blog well worth leaving, especially if those ideas bore fruit in the parishes.
Thanks for the post.
Oops, I meant blog well worth READING, not leaving.
As a convert from Lutheran to Assembly of God to Roman Catholicism, I may have a glimpse into the ‘why’ … because I’ve often thought of ‘reverting’ to Judaism since Jesus was born a Jew.
I believe humans desire to know ‘the rules’ and want them set out in an orderly fashion so that they can be followed. A ‘religion’ or denomination which stresses “following their rules” appeals to that part of the human condition which wants to know exactly what to do to ‘enter the kingdom of heaven’ … even if those rules don’t make much rational sense.
The Roman Catholic Church got ‘pwned’ by protest-antism which attacked ‘the rules’ as laid out by the Catholic Church, froze them in time, ridiculed them, and polarized anyone who followed them. When someone says “99 Theses” we immediately think “selling of indulgences” and not much else. Indulgence selling was a miniscule incident which could/should have been dealt with on a local level within the Church, and probably would have been … but because of Luther’s tactics [... he used the same ones Saul Alinsky later wrote down in his book "Rules for Radicals" and I refer you to read who that book was dedicated to so that you can understand where this type of radical thought originates ...], “indulgences” became the buzzword for leaving the Catholic Church and starting ones own denomination. And what was the first thing those new denominations did? They set up their own set of ‘rules’ for their followers! They did exactly what they claimed they were against. Because human nature wants to ‘know the rules’ so that they can follow them.
I believe that when Catholics leave The Church, a part of their ‘search’ is for ‘rules to follow’ so they can measure their lives up against some kind of code to see how they’re doing. The Catholic Church has been too lax since Vatican II in teaching the Doctrines of the Church, especially the Ten Commandments, in favor of a more generous gospel. Unformed consciences cannot assimilate Matthew 5 into their human condition until they have the basic foundation of the Ten Commandments and the other Doctrines of The Church ingrained in their spirits, souls, hearts and lives. THIS is a failure in the Catholic Church.
Let me leave you with a verse from Hebrews which I always wanted answered since the first time I read it as a Lutheran teenager: Hebrews 6
1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings, about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
Those ‘elementary teachings’ were “The Rules” which Early Christians already knew to follow and which are not being diligently taught in The Catholic Church today.
They’re here in The Catholic Church, of course, [which is why I am a Roman Catholic] but uninformed consciences … most of those people sitting in the pews or who claim to be Catholics … are ignorant of these elementary teachings. Until The Church returns to her roots, her basic doctrine, and insists that this doctrine be taught in every homily in every Mass, people [including those you'd think 'knew' better] hungry for ‘the rules’ will convert to a more rigorous form of religion, some to other Christian religions, some to cults with ‘rules’ so heinous I will refrain from mentioning them.
Denise’s comment reinforces mine, I believe.
Let me add that the lack of modesty within The Church allowed by Priests or overlooked by them, is appalling. Short shorts, bare shoulders, spaghetti straps, dresses that look like petticoats or nightgowns, slacks so tight every crevice shows, plunging necklines … I don’t mind the flip-flops, the Bermuda shorts, the tee-shirts [as long as the decoration is not blasphemous], or the women not wearing a head covering, but the lack of respect shown to Christ in the American Catholic Church is downright embarrassing and an indictment against The Church.
I am reminded by a witticism directed at the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (author of “After Virtue”) who also changed his “faiths” (Marxism, Catholicism, etc) many times: “To change your mind is a sign of maturity, to change it so many times is a sign of carelessness.”
I disagree on point #1. The individual has been “all in” or enthusiastic about his various churches, and there are very high exit costs (friendships, bureaucracies, time, research, etc.) in leaving. The person is obviously volatile (which is fine, many saints have been volatile), and is struggling with the alienation that comes from sin. He needs to make himself small, he must decrease and Christ must increase, and he needs to stop focusing on his “needs”. In many ways, his behavior resembles men who keep leaving their latest squeeze. Just contemplate the fact: a priest in three different churches…
A person who thinks his way into the Church can think his way out of it. An intellectual conversion is still about me and what I think. A true conversion is a matter of faith.
Being a member of the Eastern side of the Catholic Church, I can understand why someone might leave the Western side of the Catholic Church; even though I always pray that this never happens.
The issue has to do with the type of Theology being taught in the majority of Catholic formation institutes, which is generally linked to the abuse of the Historical-Method. What is taught goes against Catholic Doctrines and Dogma, and tries to render all stories about the life of Jesus as Mythological fables. The other issue is the liturgical abuses and laxness that are witnessed in the Churches and in the Religious Institutes.
I wouldn’t be surprised that if you asked him, he might point out one of these issues as the reason why he left. The only solution to this and the primary responsibility of the Holy Church is to bring these issues under control.
they convert ( again) , because they have realized that the ‘catholic church’, or rather the church of Rome, has converted to the anglican church!
Matthew:
Not at all.
I just don’t include “gossiping about other people’s lives on a blog” in being “my brother’s keeper.”
Carry on.
It reminds me of an anecdote I’ve heard from a Russian Orthodox priest: after his reception ceremony, a convert from Catholicism was told by the celebrating priest, “Welcome to the Orthodox Church where everybody is a pope!” Apart from this individual self-righteousness, Orthodoxy is a beautiful creed, often much more spiritual and metaphysical than the present-day Catholicism. Personally, however, I’ll stick with just one pope…
However, simply quoting Lumen Gentium or Pope Boniface VIII does nothing to help bring reconciliation. We can (and should) acknowledge the seriousness of leaving the Church, but we cannot make a judgement on the soul of another person.
You do realize that these two statements are unrelated, I hope? The first statement also seems to make an unrealistic assumption that what is written in blogs will have an an important effect in either returning the wayward Catholic to the fold or in preventing his return. The second statement reminds me of the people saying we should hope that in the fraction of a second before a bullet ended his life, maybe Osama bin Laden made an act of perfect contrition and is now in Purgatory. Both are technically true; we don’t know the state of the soul of either the schismatic or the terrorist. By the same token, we don’t really know that they’re not advanced androids that just look and act a lot like a human being, do we?
When it comes to double-converts like Dreher et al, one should (a) pray for them and (b) disregard anything they have to say about Christianity thereafter as they clearly have no ideal of what they are talking about.
Every time I see something by Dreher in print, I am reminded of the John Cleese character in Monty Python’s Life of Brian: “‘E’s the messiah, and I should know! I’ve followed a few!”
ideal>> idea
It really all depends on why the converted, until you know that, you’re assuming. Objectively speaking, it’s a form of apostasy and thus mortal sin, so their soul is in jeopardy.
One rule of thumb is that you leave them alone in terms of online heckling as long as they don’t go posting things faith related. As soon as they post their ‘conversion’ story or attack the Catholic Church, or even just blog about their own ‘new’ faith, they’re free game to objectively and tactfully critique.
It seems to me one of the biggest reasons why ‘informed’ Catholics leave is through scandal (which the Bible warns about), often from dissident clergy. There is only so much abuse some people can take before they become disillusioned. In the case of folks going Eastern Orthodox, the biggest factor there is that many bypass Catholicism because they have a bias, where as Catholics who go EO usually feel they’re getting a more reverent liturgy (especially considering the Novus Ordo isn’t Apostolic and in 99% of parishes is not even done by the book) and that “Western” thinking and heritage is corrupt and inferior to ‘pure’ Eastern thought.
In my experience, in every situation I can think of when a person leaves the Catholic faith, there is an anti-Catholic sentiment of sorts, meaning an unfair or double standard being imposed.
Being more or less in the category discussed here (albeit less learned and famous than Father Kimel) I obviously disagree with much of what is said. But I do particularly appreciate your third point. Virtually all the Catholics who have reacted to my conversion have sought to downplay its importance and implied that it is no big deal. And, reflecting on it, I actually find that more offensive than being told that I’m an apostate. Do they really think that I would have gone through so much agonising and tearing my life apart if it wasn’t a matter of the utmost importance?
However, I have also encountered a similar manifestation of this “it’s no big deal” attitude and that was from people who pressured me to stay in the Catholic Church and insisted that it was no big deal that I didn’t believe in Catholic dogmas.
A couple of things to note. Whatever Fr. Kimel’s reasons are, he certainly didn’t leave because of some “bias.” against Catholicism. From years of interacting with Fr. Kimel he was thoroughly convinced of the line of arguments from Newman. And it showed.
Whether its apostasy or merely schism, really matters not for Catholics. Discussing those things really is irrelevant for Catholics. Given that he was a high profile convert from Anglicanism, his conversion to Orthodoxy could be a more potent problem for Catholics who work for the conversion of Anglicans than is being realized. Playing this down won’t help. It would be in Catholic interests to figure out what caused an ardent supporter of Peter to leave.
That said, Catholics need to get their story straight and stick to it. Either Orthodoxy is heresy or merely schismatic. It won’t do playing double time against Protestants with Orthodoxy and caricaturing Orthodoxy as something Protestant (when Protestantism is really a Latin theological product). If Protestants convert to Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism, Catholics should be happy since that is a sigificant step up. So significant that recent popes have said that there is the smallest bit of difference between us. How Fr. Kimel can count as an “apostate” thenseems to run aground here. If Fr. Kimel is apostate, then the entire Eastern Christendom is as well, and I find it hard to see how apostates even on Catholic grounds can have valid sacraments and orders.