Phil said: “The issue for me, I guess, is “how convinced is ‘convinced’”; what exactly does this mean? Is a certain amount of faith asked for? What level of conviction is required for faith to be expected?
Sorry to butt in, but I hope a Catholic can answer these corollary questions for me as well.”

I can only think of the Prodigal Son whose first reason for returning home was that his father’s servants had more food than he did! And what was the father’s response? To run to him, to embrace him, to dress him, to put a ring on his finger, to throw a party for him and to defend him against a hard-done-by older brother.

I’m not saying, Phil, that you’re the Prodigal Son but what amazing love the Father showed when his son arrived home – and the reasoning/conviction the son had was not so strong!

Home was the best place for the son to experience that love. Just like the Catholic church (imho) is the best place to experience Our Heavenly Father’s love.

Mercy, mercy, mercy.

I hope this helps.

Blessings.

PS On the point of blessings… Theologically and within tradition they may not have a strong basis, but my Dad received a blessing every week for over 30 years. He converted 10 years ago. My question would be: why stop at a blessing when you can be fed and nourished by the truly life-giving Body and Blood of Jesus? Kind of like having a sip of water instead of the best champagne.

2. It should be. Unfortunately an entire generation of American Catholics in the baby-boomer generation bought into the notion that the Second Vatican Council was about enthroning the individual conscience to the exclusion of all prior teaching of the magisterium. Vatican II merely recognized the role of the conscience in the acquisition of belief in a way the Church hadn’t previously. So individuality in belief (when backed by the claims of libertarian social movements of the time) has become more secure in some Catholics than obedience to all sources of teaching, including those that exist outside the individual.

3. Your journey into the fullness of Truth cannot be forced or coerced under threat of sin; pray for the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who will nourish seeds planted in fertile soil.

4. The practice of receiving a blessing in lieu of Communion is not universally observed, though its meaning can hardly be denied: the gesture says to non-communicants, “You are loved and blessed too.” It also emphasizes, without intending to, that you are clearly NOT in full communion, a fact that may have been overlooked if you’d merely stayed in your pew. I suggest praying for Holy Communion with Jesus at this time during the mass rather than shuffling up for a blessing. Your prayer will be answered in the fullness of God’s time. The fact that you’re not partaking in communion is clear evidence that you do not seek reception. Why is that so? Consult Jesus in prayer.

5. Loaded question, Mr. Monk. Clearly you’ve been giving way too much thought to the subject for someone “not” seeking reception. But I digress…

Husband and wife are given to each other– not even the priest can sunder the two once joined. If a non-Catholic marries a Catholic, that spouse has already made a submission, for the Catholic spouse cannot do otherwise. If both are non-Catholic and one wants to join, that should be the occasion for much prayer on the part of both. Ultimately we are all free children before God. It would be a heartlessly unfit husband who would prevent his wife if she truly believed Christ was calling her home.

You see, the Church does not teach union to the point of individual dissolubility. Both must come to the sacrament freely. And both live out their faithfulness to Christ in each other. Catholic marriage means self-donation to the other, who represents Christ. So— your scenario figures remarkably well: if Christ has willed the wife to fulfill her communion with Jesus, then husband must obey as he would obey Christ himself.

1. Valid ministers of what? The sacraments? No. God’s grace? Interesting question. I thought Protestants believed that no intermediary between the individual was necessary or possible. I don’t understand the Protestant theology of ordained ministry. But as a Catholic, I can readily believe that God wants you, a Protestant minister, to help bring people to Him.

2. My view is that a Catholic is obligated to accept all of the authentic Magisterial teachings of the Church. Now, there can sometimes be legitimate debate about just what those include, but for the most part it’s pretty clear. A Catholic, to take a common example, who rejects the Church’s teaching that the use of artificial contraception is a grave sin, is choosing to place his own preferences above the teaching of the Church founded by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit. The essence of Catholic faith is the idea that God is able to provide us an institution, which, through its Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition, is capable of reliably preserving and teaching the truth throughout the ages. To me, rejecting any part of that deposit of faith, or improvising any new part, rejects that essential kernel of what the Church really is.

3. Yes, and a mortal sin, too. If you know that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and teaches the divine truths passed down from the Apostles, and yet leave it or refuse to enter, that’s a sin of pride and aloofness of (to me) appalling degree.

4. It strikes me that, if you were to seek a blessing (but not Communion) from a Catholic priest, it would indicate your acceptance that the priest is, in some sense, a minister serving the same God you work to serve. If I were to witness such an occurrence, I would take it as a gesture of respect to the celebrant, a statement of Christian solidarity (though not complete communion) with the congregation and, not least, an act of worship of God.

5. I’m not competent to authoritatively give the Church’s teaching in such a matter, but my opinion is this: If a woman were to be convinced that the Catholic Church was where she belonged, what sort of husband would prevent her from following her conscience?

I hope you find these answers interesting, useful, and/or entertaining, and may God bless you. I probably won’t check back here, but please feel free to email me if you should want to discuss these comments further.

This brings me to the second point: conversion also occurs in stages and is viewed as a continual life long process of sanctification. Thus you are not expected to fully grasp or agree with all of the Churches teachings. You are only expected to believe the Creed, have faith in the Church, and to continue your education as you deepen in faith and practice.

Further many (including me) will never fully understand all the doctrine and we don’t need to. Today is the Feast of Saint Joseph of Cupertino who although Holy, was never strong on doctrine, rather his faith was childlike in it’s purity. As an official Saint the Church recognizes his heroic virtue is possible without intellectual understanding. We don’t reason our way to Christ we open ourselves to Him through faith. Faith first understanding comes later as needed. To be Catholic you have to trust the worldly representatives of the faith even over personal revelation (conflicts between personal revelations and the Church occur in the lives of several Saints such as St. Faustina).

Over time you learn the reasoning behind the rules you begin to appreciate the time and care that went into formulating the documents that clarify the faith. Whether is the Theology of the Body or Pope Benedict’s “God is Love” encyclical there is more there than can be picked up in a typical Journey to Catholicism class.

I was raised Catholic but would hardly call myself educated or informed enough to address any of Michael’s questions. A couple comments, however:

Derek writes: Understanding what the Church believes is essential to furthering Christ’s mission in the world. Unfortunately we have not done a great job in that department recently.

I have to say, I don’t think that fault for that can be laid at the feet of the Church. The reformulation/republication of the Catechism in paperback form was a great step, but while its existence is now part of USA awareness, actual cognizance of its contents lags seriously behind because, to be honest, the USA is not currently a culture of readers.

(Moment of silence.)

That’s the fault of the people, not the fault of the hierarchy, but nevertheless that leaves the Church with two choices: either promote the book even more heavily and hope that more people will be willing to crack it open, or expand to other media. Video runs a great risk of looking silly, unless it takes the Mormon approach of “affirming good values” without engaging in discussion of doctrine — which would eliminate the point of the exercise. Podcasting, perhaps?

Which sort of points to a big problem inherent to the RCC in America: democratic spirit and top-down dogma don’t always mix well. And considering the breadth and depth of RCC doctrine, I can’t help wondering that if all American Catholics really, truly knew all of what they were expected to believe and endorse, 50% of them, or more, would fly the coop.

Which brings me to my other comment. Carrie writes: As a person seriously looking into the RCC, this frustrates me, too. I can’t take the church dogmas lightly, and won’t join unless I can support them. I know plenty of cafeteria Catholics, but I can’t rationalize joining the church if I thought I’d be one, too.

Amen, sister. I love the RCC and, living in a thickly Protestant culture of semi-rural/suburban Indiana, often find myself defending her even when I don’t agree with her (in the same sort of spirit as those people who quote the Second Amendment: “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”). But I just can’t go back to her in good conscience; maybe I’m just too Americanized (or too Protestantized ), but I can’t promise to surrender my discernment to the Guy in Rome, even understanding the limitations placed on ex cathedra papal infallibility.

(Which reminds me of another problem the RCC faces in the USA right now — speaking to a public who have no interest in learning arcane terminology in English, much less in Latin. But I digress.)

2. Well, if the Church has infalliably taught a doctrine then all Catholics must accept it. However, the vast majority of what the Church teaches on social issues, etc, has not been taught infalliably, and there would be a difference of opinion among Catholics on whether one can be a good Catholic while disagreeing on certain issues. If a teaching involves ‘grave matter’ and the Catholic knowingly disobeys that teaching, the Catholic is likely in a state of mortal sin and should participate in reconciliation before receiving Communion.

3. That’s a good question. The Church doesn’t teach that baptism by water is strictly necessary for salvation, but I would expect that anyone who believes what the Church teaches is true would consider it prudent to seek baptism. I don’t see why you would be required to, but it would be prudent, because the Church also does not teach that people necessarily can be saved without baptism (although most scholars agree that there is solid support for the idea that people who are not baptized Catholic can still be saved).

Of course, if this person had full knowledge of the teachings of the Church, this person would be committing a mortal sin if he disobeyed the teachings involving grave matter.

4. It means you’re blessed. You don’t have to be Catholic, Christian or even human to be blessed. The priest will often bless pets on St. Francis’ feast day. People have their cars blessed. Usually, at Communion this is offered as a way to make people welcome even if they can’t receive Communion.

5. The Church would encourage everyone to convert to Catholicism. The Church would not encourage someone to remain Protestant to please her husband. However, the Church equally doesn’t permit divorce, so if the marriage was valid her parish would almost certainly provide counseling and assistance for her marriage.

The Church views marriage, like any relationship between the sexes, as a relationship of equality and a woman is not expected to submit to her husband.

As for baptism, even a non-Christian can be a valid extraordinary minister of the sacrament.

We should still persist in encouraging them to accept Church doctrine whole-heartedly. But complaining about or insulting someone isn’t the way to draw them into the path you think they should be on.