Discovering Catholicism

In February 1989, after some nine months of deep questioning and vacillation, my wife and I left the Episcopal Church and started attending Mass at the Mission San Juan Capis­trano. It was a hard move for me. Some in my family were upset; few understood. We left behind many good Anglican friends. I was fortunate to have Paul Ford, Peter Kreeft, and Thomas Howard for guides. My reasons for converting were hardly new or unusual. Be­tween the Episcopal Church’s hemming and hawing on basic doctrines of Christianity and the inexorable question, “What is the Church?,” it was more or less a matter of honesty. Anything I could say on the subject of “why?” has already been better said by Tom Howard and Sheldon Vanauken, but there are some discoveries I have made that bear telling.

Discovery is the proper word. In encoun­tering the immensity which is Roman Catholi­cism, I feel as if I have touched land on an enormous continent and find myself in un­charted terrain. Certainly, this continent is well inhabited, but I am just now beginning to learn the language of the natives and the paths they walk. My first discovery has been pain. There is pain in leaving an old friend like Anglicanism. Her ways were familiar and one felt linked to all Christendom. What I loved most about Anglicanism was its Catholic elements, notably the liturgy.

Being an Anglican was like living with a woman out of wedlock: It had the advantages of marriage with none of the inconveniences. The forms and appearances of Catholicism were largely present — but without the com­mitment to the disciplines of Catholicism. Yes, Anglicanism was a comfortable place to be. My evangelical and fundamentalist friends might cast a leery eye, but ultimately we An­glicans passed the Protestant litmus test. To­ward Catholics, we Anglicans felt a certain kinship, mixed, to be sure, with some enjoy­able condescension.

Another aspect of the pain was the final reason for leaving. What is the use of having Apostolic Orders if present-day bishops smile benignly on heresy? If a bishop can do no more than make vague, inoffensive comments while elements of the church blithely dismem­ber the Gospel, let’s off with the miter and call him what he is: an elected official, a poli­tician. But enough of this nonsense of citing Apostolic Orders when the teachings and traditions passed on by the apostles are called into question!