Check out Paul Williams,
The Unexpected Way: On Converting from Buddhism to Catholicism.
He is a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism, and used to practice Tibetan Buddhism until he converted to Catholicism. He presents reasons for why he converted, and his reasons are very sophisticated; I would say that his book is the most in-depth analysis of Buddhist thought from a Catholic conversionary, apologetic perspective. Thomas Merton, to give a counter example, was more monastic in his emphasis. One good aspect of Williams’ situation is that it might lead to the incorporation of Buddhist logic into Christianity, comparable to the incorporation of Greek logic in the early Church. From a book review:
It will be interesting to observe Williams’s future work. He is a man of obvious intellectual gifts and burgeoning theological interests. He may become a serious contributor to the enterprises of Catholic philosophy and theology, and if he does, his contributions will inevitably be flavored by his knowledge of Buddhism. This, too, is something the church needs: as Catholic thought was transformed by its appropriation of the Egyptian gold of Aristotelianism in the thirteenth century, so it may be transformed by the riches of Buddhism in the third millennium. If it is, then Williams could be an important contributor. In this book, though, he is mostly concerned to show how clear and deep are the divergences between Buddhism and Catholic Christianity, and this is important to emphasize against the easy syncretism of our times. There are also hints of the fruitfulness that Buddhist concepts and patterns of argument might have, if applied to the tasks of Christian theology. Williams begins to sketch, for example, how Christian understanding of the unacceptability of prideful self-righteousness might look, if done with the help of the battery of Buddhist concepts developed for the presentation of the doctrine of no-self–the idea, that is, that none of what we take ourselves to be essentially and permanently is in fact what we are. He stops almost as soon as he begins; but this is precisely the kind of question it would be fruitful to ask and answer at length, with care, and with the kind of precise technical knowledge that Williams has. I hope the church will find ways to encourage such contributions by Williams, and that he will find time and energy to make them. He is right that Buddhism and Christianity are utterly incompatible in everything of moment; but this does not mean that the thought of the church cannot be seeded by Buddhist thought.
