Why Catholic?

On Saturday evening Vigil on the 15th August 2015 at the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, I was received into the Roman Catholic Church. A year has elapsed since then, and I thought it might be helpful for the sake of my evangelical friends to give a brief account of the reasons for my conversion to the Catholic faith.

For an evangelical, the crossing of the Tiber is a momentous development, which opens me - along with all other converts - to misunderstanding and criticism. However, the factors which contribute to such opprobrium are for the most part either illusory, mistaken or downright false.

Throughout my life, I'd had a love-hate relationship with the Catholic Church; I loved Mount Saint Bernard Abbey, a local Cistercian monastery which we first visited as a class of 8-year-olds. I was intrigued by the Church's ancient pedigree, with its Latin prayers, its historical roots and its saints, but having been brought up in a Pentecostal environment, I heard about the incense, the prayers to Mary and the saints, the idea of penance and Pope, and - along with the various stories like Father Chiniquy's "Fifty Years In The Church Of Rome", I was put off the idea of Catholicism.

When I was 29 years old I went through a spiritual conversion and for many years became steeped in Bible teaching and evangelical culture. Catholics were regarded as either heretics, misguided Christians or worldly religious types who worshipped images, prayed to Mary and invoked the saints. The Pope was regarded with suspicion as a shrewd political manipulator, working to further the interests of his ecclesiastical empire. One Reformed theologian (Lorraine Boettner, in his book "Roman Catholicism") went as far to conclude that the Catholic church was not a church at all - at least, within his terms of reference as a Bible-believing Presbyterian Protestant.

Having become established in Reformed evangelical doctrine and serving in the office of a church elder, I shared these reservations, and the fundamental issue as far as I could see was the matter of authority. The evangelical Church holds the Bible as the only source of divine authority, whereas the Catholic Church (as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church) appeals to the authority of the Church Tradition as well as Holy Writ. I had many lively discussions about this with a good Catholic friend, whose own profession also made a favourable impression upon me.

Following a turbulent time in the life of the church I'd attended and served for 27 years, I resigned my membership and attended an Anglican church. Since I'd been familiar with the liturgy from my early years as a Christian, I soon settled into the tradition, although I had substantial doubts about the direction of the Church of England in its more recent developments in doctrine and practice. Nevertheless, I was happy to enter a wider space. Although I was open to re-evaluate my attitudes to many aspects of the Christian life, my position concerning the Catholic church remained intact.

Despite this, my wife and I often loved to visit Mount Saint Bernard Abbey, and appreciated the peaceful ambience of the place. One day I bought a book from the Abbey which opened up a whole new vista for me in my understanding. The book was "By What Authority?" by Mark Shea (Ignatius Press). Shea is an evangelical Christian who had converted to Catholicism; in the book he sets out the case for the authority of Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church. For me the watershed in his argument was concerning the canon of Scripture; if the Bible is the sole authority, then does the Bible itself set the table of contents for its own canon? The answer has to be no. The canon was established by a body of church leaders and theologians who decided what was to be included or omitted from New Testament Scripture. On what basis did they make their decision? It had to have been through a mutually understood tradition, which already had been in operation since the days of the Early Church.

When I let this conclusion seep into my understanding, I realised that this had to be true. No evangelicals had satisfactorily addressed this question, since the idea of the providential provision of the Bible was as far as their doctrine would take them. The implications of this were shockingly clear to me: if the tradition of the Catholic Church had set out the New Testament canon, it must have existed before Scripture, and it must still be in place. Despite Protestant claims of corruption in the doctrine of the Early Church, there was no evidence of this from the writings of the post-Apostolic Fathers. Furthermore, the classic Protestant doctrine of "sola scriptura", which roots the authority of the church in the Bible alone, couldn't be defended from the Bible itself, so the fundamental premise upon which evangelical doctrine rests is intellectually flawed and inconsistent. From that point I accepted the Catholic Church, and started to attend Sunday Mass. I immediately knew that I had taken the right course.

I also quickly came to realise that in the light of tradition, the Eucharist is not simply the memorial of Christ's death celebrated in the symbols of bread and wine, but is a participation in the actual body and blood of Christ. When Jesus said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I give for the life of the world is my my flesh" (John 6:51 ESV), He was stating a literal fact, and not merely speaking metaphorically. I therefore understood the Mass, which has been part of the Church's life since the very beginning. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr bore this out.

I realised for the first time the extent of the Communion Of The Saints - a doctrine found in the Nicene and Apostles' creeds. This describes a clear connection between the living members of the Church and those who have already completed their race and gone before. Prayer to the saints is asking for their intercession before the Lord in the heavenly realms.

And what about Mary? The idea of her being honoured as the Theotokos (God-bearer) had seemed outrageous to me in earlier years, although latterly, even as an evangelical I'd started to realise that Mary carried far more significance than I'd previously thought. Reading Revelation chapter 12, I came to the conclusion that she had to be the personification of spiritual Israel, and thus the entire body of redeemed humanity. As a Catholic, I came to recognise her place as the second Eve, whose obedience to the angel's message in the Annunciation enables the effects of the first Eve's disobedience to be reversed by Christ. She embodies the redeemed church, and with the spirits of just men made perfect, is able and willing to pray for the Church on earth.

Although the core message of the Gospel is no different from that preached in evangelicalism - repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ - I now realise that salvation is not an existential once-for-all event, but rather a process that continues all life long. The Israelites were saved when they passed through the Red Sea, but most of them failed to reach the Promised Land, owing to their disobedience and unbelief. Conversion is a God-given grace that is part of that process as He deals with us.

When I came to know Catholics in the church, I was very surprised to find out that many of them were also converts, mainly from Anglicanism. Some were High Church people, for whom the transition to the Roman Catholic faith was relatively easy. After my reception into the Church I started to attend a Scripture and Tradition study group, where my Bible understanding has already been put to use. Coming into the Church from the outside has given me a deep appreciation of the wonders if its deep spirituality and the sublime and heavenly glory of the Eucharist. This sets me at an advantage over most Catholics who have known nothing else, as I have a fresh pair of eyes.

This is by no means a comprehensive explanation of Catholic teaching, but a succinct account of my journey across the Tiber. Soli Deo gratia.

The Theatre Of The Absurd

Never is there a time in the calendar when there is such a concentration of utter meaninglessness than the Party Conference season. Each year brings the autumnal parade of delegates, party leaders and the faithful to the various rallying points around the coastal compass, and of course, the inevitable entourage of news crews and reporters, jostling each other for the latest titbit of hot political gossip. No conference would be complete without the 'fringe' events, where those who sail closer to the edge of the received orthodoxy meet and exchange their radical views. And then there are the speeches. Exercises in oratory, hyperbole and rhetoric are brought to the ears of the enraptured, crafted to raise them to their feet for the inevitable ovation and stir them into a frenzy of unswerving devotion and service for another year. The public affirmations of affection from Ed Miliband to his brother David at the Labour Party Conference in Manchester have borne all the hallmarks of a theatrical sentimentality. More skeptical bloggers and journalists have put a less favourable gloss on this, analysing David Miliband's body language, which displayed scantily concealed displeasure at having been defeated in the leadership contest by his younger sibling.

For the disinterested or uninterested onlooker like myself, the party conference season is merely an opportunity for parties and their leaders to showcase their talents to mesmerise, deceive and entertain those who are naive (or deluded) enough to attend them - despite the interjection by the occasional dissenter who heckles from the back during the critical address. They also provide a springboard for the occasional Bright Young Thing, flushed with the bloom of youthful idealism to make a favourable impression on the grandees and delegates. Some careers in politics have been forged through such conference appearances.

If ever there was a Vanity Fair, this must surely encapsulate it. Naturally, the party faithful would accuse me of cynicism, but - regardless of the political party - the theatre is the same. Why does this all convey the meaninglessness of a French existentialist novel? Perhaps it is because there is a perceived sense of disengagement on the part of members of the public. There have been false or broken promises. There have been expenses scandals at a time when many people have lost their jobs. There have been draconian laws, which have fuelled the suspicion that the apparatus of a police state is being constructed. There has also been the continual evasion of pertinent questions in interviews by politicians of all parties. Combined with the increasingly evident chasm between stated intent and actual deed, these observations aggregate a sense of frustration and distrust in the public towards a political machinery and elite which basks in its own self-congratulation, privilege and hauteur. But - perhaps more important than this - there is a disengagement from truth itself. Every party – in common with every corporate body and most individuals - wants to portray its cleanest and brightest side to the public gaze. This is only natural. However, the obsession with presentation and image has resulted in a pathological fear of being perceived as anything short of its desired image. To maintain the illusion of principled resolution, accord and authority, the party whips coerce the MPs into line. Cabinet ministers are diligent in ensuring that they avoid falling into the various verbal traps set for them by journalists and members of the public and resort to parroting the party line - even if it is not germane to the matter at hand. Image is self-serving.

In the Book Of Revelation in the Bible, the beast is worshipped through an image. Given that the beast depicted in the Apocalypse is generally believed to be a political system, one can easily be drawn to some conclusions..

A Challenge

Here is a challenge: can anybody provide one single example where ordinary working and law-abiding people have directly benefited from government? And by 'government' I mean any policy from any administration within living memory, and the benefit needs to be one that is of lasting value.

They Need Us..

They need us:

• To earn money that they can extract from us in large proportions through direct and indirect taxation - to support their opulent lifestyles;

• To be in awe of their pompous institutions and courts;

• To treat us as if we were people who are as criminally degenerate as themselves through CRB checks;

• To systematically remove our Common Law rights and hold us for indefinite periods of time under the guise of 'terrorism';

• To criminalise us with more draconian and stupid laws - so that they can screw more money out of us through fines;

• To dictate how we live our lives, precisely what we eat and drink - and in what quantities;

• To tell us how evil the motor car is - and to cajole us into using inadequate public transport;

• To make us fear them and become guilt-ridden neurotics;

• To lecture us about the evils of smoking - and those who indulge in this satanic habit;

• To tap our phones, constantly watch us through CCTV cameras and monitor our internet usage;

• To frighten us with apocalyptic stories of climate change, global terrorism, Islamic jihad and monetary collapse;

• To make us spy on each other and thereby remove any sense of community and social cohesion;

• To give our children nightmares by showing Robert Peston on the news before the 9:00pm watershed;

• To indoctrinate us through the BBC into the Fabian ideology that they want to inflict upon us;

• To influence our opinion as to which communitarian collective of criminal incompetents should be mishandling our economy and destroying our lives in Westminster;

• To subsidise through taxation myriads of petty bureaucrats, quangoes, tyrannical councils, the 'diversity' industry, Common purpose losers.

They need us. But we don't need them. Ever.

Another Front in the Battle

The battle for the shape of the Church has manifested itself recently in the ranks of the Roman Catholic church - in view of the impending visit to the UK by Pope Benedict: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7987774/Catholic-group-accuses-Church-of-intolerance-ahead-of-Pope-visit.htm

For the record, I'm no fan of the Catholic church - in fact, I'm one of its card-carrying detractors. There are various reasons for this: primarily, I have serious doctrinal issues with its claims and beliefs in all areas where they've replaced Scriptural teaching by papal decree. Since the RC church is constitutionally unable to reverse its historically-established doctrines (e.g. papal authority, the priesthood, celibacy of the clergy, the authority and exclusivity of the church and its teachings, the doctrines of the Virgin Mary, transubstantiation among many others), it's stuck with them. It is literally a prisoner of its own history, tied up by the bonds of its own decrees. Furthermore I find it difficult to summon any respect for an institution which for years has systematically concealed the gross sexual misconduct of its ministers - some of them high-ranking - towards the vulnerable and weak. Without doubt this is wickedness and betrayal of the highest order.

Despite all this, I recognise that there are many fine Christians in its ranks, and must admit a certain amount of sympathy for them through these times; their church has had a lot of (albeit deserved) bad press. But it's also noticeable that such an organisation - notoriously inflexible - now shares with the protestant churches the steady corrosive attack of the secular age and its values. It has become fair game for the homosexual lobby, who have been whittling away at the Church of England for years. It's a sad feature of many of the protestant denominations that they have generally failed to fend off their secular assailants by a vigorous and determined grasp of scripture. There is a morbid fear of appearing to appear to be irrelevant or bigoted to the proponents of the zeitgeist. Many of the aforesaid proponents of political correctness and so-called 'diversity' have been among the ranks of the church, so the attack has been from within.

As I perceive it, the secular battle against the Roman Catholic church is a lost cause. The Pope and his cardinals won't budge on the matters of homosexuality and similarly contentious issues. They won't move on abortion either. This at least earns from me a glimmer of respect - but I suspect that their reasons for fending off these issues differ from my own. I oppose them for one reason: Scripture, which is the revealed word of God - proscribes them, either by plain textual statement or by doctrinal weight where textual statements are not present. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic church opposes them for no other reason than the fact that it always has - since its traditions are as immutable as the laws of the Medes and Persians.

An Open Letter To Sandwell Council

To Whom It May Concern

I understand from the press and legions of political bloggers that I read that once again you have excelled yourselves in your zeal for keeping a tidy district. I am sure that you are proud of your efforts to achieve this. I use the term 'once again,' because I understand that on various occasions you taken decisive action against people who have by their behaviour - knowingly or otherwise - transgressed your precise (or might I say 'exacting'?) standards, and who have been victimised accordingly.
Your action against a widow - whose 'offense' was to pinch out a cigarette she was smoking at a bus stop, thus dropping the lighted end on your immaculate street - has proved that you are a council that leads the way in mercilessness and malice. It is abundantly clear for all to see that you hold these qualities to the highest degree.
Permit me to courteously remind you of a few facts:

First of all, as a council, you are the servants of the area. You are not their lords/masters/despots/satraps/kings. This may not be how you would like it to be, but that is how it is. Please consider this - as painful as it may be to you.

Secondly, your local populace earns money which, through their hard work or investment, goes to pay for your wages. In other words, you are beholden to those whose living subsidises your way of life - and, doubtless the sumptuous premises in which you work and from where you issue your diktats and generate the various trendy 'diversity' projects upon which you lavish taxpayer's hard-earned cash.

Thirdly, this is still nominally a free country. It is not a Soviet Socialist republic or a fascist dictatorship - yet. I realise that as a Labour council, there are people in your ranks who have qualified as Common Purpose 'graduates,' and who have enthusiastically imbibed the anti-democratic values and practices that it is intended to subvert. That this country has not yet fully circumvented the vaguely democratic values that has under-girded it may not be to your liking, but again - that's how it is. Deal with it. This is still a free country. There are still regular, law-abiding people who pay your substantial wages who abhor the petty vindictiveness which you have displayed to the lady in question along with others who have also fallen foul of your nastiness. There are doubtless those in your very district who fought in the Second World War to oppose the very principles which you have so enthusiastically applied - authoritarian fascism. You have betrayed them - and all the others of the same generation who endured bereavement and a myriad of hardships and made sacrifices to fight oppression and tyranny for the sake of you and I. I hope you are pleased with yourselves.

Finally, let me remind you that until this country becomes a repressed third-world, third-rate vassal state of an emerging totalitarian socialist Utopia, there will continue to be people like this present writer who will vehemently oppose you and your despotic ways and will take every opportunity to publicly register their undying contempt for the supercilious attitude and inhuman ways in which you operate. And until we are silenced by some secret police force, we will continue to do so.

A Gauntlet To Government

• Until leading politicians speak the truth at all times, I won't believe anything they say (unless they pledge to raise our taxes, which is a promise they never fail to keep).
• Until the aforesaid politicians answer simple questions honestly and without evasion, I won't give them an ounce of credence. They are professional liars, and the truth is not in them.
• Until political parties withdraw the 3-line whip that keeps their MPs in the party line, I won't support any of them. They are merely thinly-disguised flavours of the same establishment.
  
• Until the primary purpose of Government changes from being the handmaiden of vast commercial and financial interests to maintaining the interests of the citizens of the so-called United Kingdom, I won't even tentatively regard it as our representative.
• Until the Government through its agencies commits itself to the protection of all elements in society who are weak, vulnerable and defenceless, I shall oppose it.
• Until the priority of Government is the restoration of our ancient civil rights as codified in the Magna Carta and other historical legal instruments, I can't begin to lend it any moral support.
• Until the great number of laws enacted by the repressive Labour regime are repealed, I will regard any subsequent administration as equally repressive and vindictive - if only because it has failed to right a momentous series of wrongs.
• Until Government ceases to favour small and vociferous minorities at the expense of the majority, I will regard it with the same measure of the contempt that it displays to the opinions of the majority of the public.
  
• Until Government commits itself to encouraging enterprise, hard work, integrity and personal responsibility, I won't support it. It is morally bankrupt.
• Until the BBC's charter is dissolved because of its unswerving bias in favour of communitarian Marxism, I will oppose its continuation and will not take it seriously as a responsible broadcasting medium.
• Until Government treats individuals like responsible adults who are able to make sensible and informed choices concerning their own lives, I will vigorously oppose it - whatever its partisan flag.
• Until Government stops banning things for the sake of it - and to further its control over the details of the peoples' lives, I will not support it.
• Until the Government fears and respects the people of this country, I will continue to regard it with contempt.
• Until Government allows complete and unqualified freedom of speech, association and religion, I cannot support it.
  
• Until Government allows a referendum for the public concerning our future in Europe, I will regard it as de facto - and not de jure. Europe has no business here.
  

Until these conditions are met - I will remain a (responsible and Common Law-respecting) anarchist.