Words: "Conversion"

Well, it's happened. Someone has made me think! ;) Blogging around this afternoon--something I have neglected this week--I discovered this post by Entropy on the subject of being a "Cradle Catholic" vs. a Convert. Now, this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart, so I couldn't help adding my $0.02. I think it becomes a particularly relevant question to Catholic converts, or should, whether converting is "better," somehow, than being raised in the Faith, since practicing Catholicism involves choosing Catholicism for one's children, which is not something that can be said of most Christian churches, and which is in contrast to the experience of some (many?) coverts to Catholicism. In particular, the churches I was exposed to as a child required a personal conversion experience, and in fact, many tried ("revival"-style) to induce a conversion experience (in the manner of Langston Hughes' "Salvation," which has always been a favorite short story of mine). So I was "touched by Jesus" several times when visiting weird youth-groups with friends, only to realize when I returned home that what I mistook for "repentance" was actually guilt for some minor or imagined teenage transgression, and that I had been duped into feeling something that was not, in fact, genuine. Over the years, one of my issues with the churches I had attended (the more mainstream ones, that is) was this emphasis on the Ultimate Conversion Experience--that is, the moment of Being Saved. It struck me as being so intangible as to be unreliable, first of all (child of reason that I was), and second, so wrapped up in emotion as to be, to my mind, distasteful. (I've said before that I've had to gradually "grow into" spirituality, in part because I had been warm & fuzzied to death over the years. . .) I wondered how one recognized the One Moment, what happened if one lapsed (this from observing the "Saved" around me, or the hairdresser who declared her son to be "Saved" anew every time he came back home needing money), and any number of other things. I believe I understand things a bit better now, but suffice it to say that I was skeptical, and rejected the whole concept out of hand. I came to wonder if not everyone was capable of the Ultimate Conversion Experience, so when I was looking for a conversion experience, I looked to reason rather than the lightening bolts I was told to expect. (Is it any wonder I liked the Hughes story?)

Now, this is not to say that my conversion experience, when it came, was not recognizable as something unique and momentous, and suffused with emotion, but that's not where I'm going with this. Rather, I want to think about the difference in the way "conversion" is represented within Catholicism. Certainly, "conversion" is the act of becoming Catholic--or Christian, if one is not Catholic. It involves Baptism if one is not Baptized already, and in Catholicism, it involves the acts of receiving the other Sacraments of Initiation--First Communion, First Reconciliation (if one is already Baptized) and Confirmation. But I was surprised to find, within Catholicism, a discourse of conversion that went beyond initiation into the membership of the Faith--something beyond that first acceptance--of the individual by the Church and of the Church by the individual. During Lent in particular, there was a discourse of "turning away," of "converting"--turning one's mind and actions away from sin and toward God. Those Catholics who had turned away from the Church, but returned were described as having "conversion experiences" (though they were not called "converts"), and even those who had never left the Church were sometimes referred to as having a conversion of mind, heart, spirit, etc., sometimes to a new acceptance or a closer understanding of Church doctrine. In addition, the Eucharist is a means toward our continual conversion. I found comfort in this expanded definition of "conversion" which placed emphasis on a continual affirmation of faith rather than a one-time faith event that was supposed to sustain the love of God and the will to remain relatively sinless. It placed more responsibility on the individual and acknowledged the individual's weakness simultaneously. It also somewhat modified my understanding of what "conversion" means.

Thinking about Entropy's post, then, my initial response addressed the question of what I gained from being a convert, and what I thought my children stood to gain from being raised Catholic rather than being allowed to convert later, in the manner of many Protestant denominations, which teach that Baptism should follow the individual conversion experience rather than being chosen by the parents. I did value my choice, but this was from the perspective of rejecting organized religion (int he form of all Christian churches). However, I do think that even had I been raised Catholic (as I "should" have been, given that my parents were Catholic and were married in the Catholic Church), I would have rebelled at some point. But perhaps I would have had a better vantage point for converting, that is, for turning back. I still would have had the ability to "claim" my faith, and perhaps (ideally) I would have had a better idea of what I stood to gain or lose. Who knows? But this is my point: that what we really mean by "converting" when we talk about the Ultimate Conversion Experience (or even Being Saved) is the act of Claiming one's faith. And though Catholics are Baptized at birth, all Catholics have various opportunities to claim our Faith. Inevitably, it is (or should be) an act of will to convert--to claim one's faith; however, everyone should at some point exercise their own will in choosing their faith, even to choose the faith that they were given from birth by their parents.

Babies & Baptism

I have been knowing since I took a course on Dante in grad school in '98 that Limbo was not an official Catholic Doctrine. Presumably, some Catholics, the general public, and the Associated Press did not know that. Bound up with my reservations about the Church in general and Baptism in particular was a deep suspicion in a Church that believed that unbaptized babies were excluded from heaven--after all, how could a just & loving God condemn innocents? Especially if some of the more decadent Hebrew Patriarchs were to be retroactively released from Hell? When I did come to accept that Baptism was indeed a Sacrament, not just something you did to prove to your church that you were "Saved" (which was what I had learned from my experiences at the churches I attended as a child--not meaning to offend), the question persisted--what happened to those who remained unbaptized by no fault of their own? I knew what C. S. Lewis said (in The Last Battle), but he was not Catholic (emphatically not, at times). But gradually I saw that there had to be room in God's mercy for innocents and honest truth-seekers, and that the Church in no way contradicted that realization. While awaiting Baptism myself, I was comforted by the idea of "Baptism of Desire," uncertain though that might be (knowing whether I was covered by that provision seemed as vague as knowing whether I was "Saved"). I don't know when I first rationalized that unbaptized babies must be subject to God's mercy, but I am happy to find that I am supported by Pope Benedict XVI.

From Yahoo! News:

VATICAN CITY -

Pope Benedict XVI has revised traditional Roman Catholic teaching on so-called "limbo," approving a church report released Friday that said there was reason to hope that babies who die without baptism can go to heaven.

. . . . .

"We can say we have many reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies," the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general, told The Associated Press.

. . . . .

Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians have long taught, however, that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God.

Pope John Paul II and Benedict had urged further study on limbo, in part because of "the pressing pastoral needs" sparked by the increase in abortion and the growing number of children who die without being baptized, the report said.

In the document, the commission said there were "serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and brought into eternal happiness."

It stressed, however, that "these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge."

Ladaria said no one could know for certain what becomes of unbaptized babies since Scripture is largely silent on the matter.

Catholic parents should still baptize their children, as that sacrament is the way salvation is revealed, the document said.

I like that final phrasing, that "that sacrament is the way salvation is revealed." I particularly like the fact that it does not imply that infant Baptism achieves or guarantees salvation in any way--rather, it establishes a firm foundation for the Christian life of the individual.