To the non-Catholics and Catholic Converts here

[JRKH]

No offense taken, James. I meant my post just as a reminder that we’re complex and varied creatures.

No problem One of the thing that we should be able to do is to listen to correction from a brother Christian when so obviously offered with charity. To listen and to take it prayerfully to heart and accept it if sound.

**I also would hope people would be open to the idea that what seems crystal clear to one person—so clear that they’d have to suppress their conscience to ignore or deny it----may, for various reasons, seem far from clear to another equally soul-searching and honest person despite that second person’s genuine openness to the Holy Spirit, holy life, and honest scholarship. **

I know people much more knowledgeable of Christian history, the history of Jewish religious practice, the Early Church Fathers, and the Bible than I am. A number of them have seriously explored Catholicism with an open mind and heart. Every one that I know who has done that has come away with a respect for Catholicism. Yet, they haven’t converted to Catholicism for a variety of reasons. It would be wrong to assume that those reasons are just self-deceptive rationalizations or ignorance on their part.

Understood. And it is in relation to the bolded section above that I came to my real epiphany regarding Church and Authority…The question being, of course, what does one do when two equally sincere, honest, open, genuine Christians disagree - to the point where it touches on doctrinal matters or is serious enough to threaten a schism…I found the answer in the Bible - Just as clear as could be, yet for many years I just never made the connection…the AHA moment.
When I discovered this, it really “sealed the deal”. If I was to be a follower of Christ, then I had to be Catholic.

For me, if I ever were to convert to Catholicism, though I don’t foresee that happening, I would hope I would respect the integrity of those more knowledgeable and righteous than I who have explored Catholicism and stayed non-Catholic. I hope I would remember that they may be right to stay where they are, and that none of us–absolutely none of us —will know till Judgment Day if our spiritual choices and beliefs were correct. The Lord Himself will judge us rightly.

Yes and truthfully I am usually better at showing respect. Today was a case of “open mouth - insert foot” I’m afraid…:shrug:

Peace, James. That was a kind post from you.

It’s a pleasure to communicate with you.

Peace
James

 

[AbideWithMe]

No problem One of the thing that we should be able to do is to listen to correction from a brother Christian when so obviously offered with charity. To listen and to take it prayerfully to heart and accept it if sound.

Understood. And it is in relation to the bolded section above that I came to my real epiphany regarding Church and Authority…The question being, of course, what does one do when two equally sincere, honest, open, genuine Christians disagree - to the point where it touches on doctrinal matters or is serious enough to threaten a schism…I found the answer in the Bible - Just as clear as could be, yet for many years I just never made the connection…the AHA moment.
When I discovered this, it really “sealed the deal”. If I was to be a follower of Christ, then I had to be Catholic.

Yes and truthfully I am usually better at showing respect. Today was a case of “open mouth - insert foot” I’m afraid…:shrug:

It’s a pleasure to communicate with you.

Peace
James

Hi James–

What was your “aha” moment? It seems like this would be an appropriate thread to share that.

In my first paragraph that you quoted in bolded letters, what I was thinking of was more questions of conversions within Christianity —such as one person feeling their research and conscience are leading them to convert to Orthodoxy from Catholicism, or to Catholicism from Orthodoxy, or to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy from a Protestant church, or to a Protestant church from Catholicism or Orthodoxy. I didn’t really have questions of how to determine what other doctrines to believe, though in hindsight I can see my wording could have seemed to be about that. I was just thinking about the fact that there are people who are more mature Christians than I am who have made one or more of all those types of conversions that I listed. For example, I’ve seen mature, very knowledgeable, well-taught Christians convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, but then ultimately after more research and conscience-searching, convert to Orthodoxy from Catholicism. I am to judge their hearts and minds, as if they had some sort of character flaw that lead them from Catholicism? Absolutely not; I have no business trying to assign some sort of moral weakness to my elders to explain why they would make spiritual choices different than my own.

Or, again to restate what I tried to say before, there are plenty of people ----more mature and knowledgeable than I—who have sincerely investigated Catholicism, for example, with open hearts and minds, but have felt led to stay where they are, as non-Catholics. Ultimately we are all responsible for our own choices, of course, but it does carry weight with me that better, more educated and righteous, non-Catholic Christians have explored Catholicism but remained as they were. In a sense, I would be “Pope Abide” to dismiss or denigrate all their reasons for not converting to Catholicism, as if I knew better than they.

 

[hannajomar]

I think I’m called a Catholic “revert.” In college, I essentially gave up the Church in order to follow mainstream “niceness.” (“As long as I’m a nice person, I’m fine. I don’t need anyone to tell me what to do…” great theology) Senior year, I read a book about Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta. At a specific moment while reading this book, I became struck that what she wrote, said, and did was Truth, The Truth. I felt a huge pull to return to the Church.

Two issues really held me up from initially jumping in with both feet. Abortion and the priest abuse scandal.

Simply thinking logically lead me to see how true the Church’s position on abortion is. I simply could see no other time to declare person-hood than at conception. And the priest abuse scandal still bothers me to this day. But I came back to walk with Christ, not for the priests. My faith is not wrapped up in people, but in Jesus Christ, Who for some reason uses people to run His Church. Those people are sinful, and over the centuries have done some really horrible things. I still don’t understand this, but these priests weren’t the first people to do horribly sinful things, and I’m sure they won’t be the last.

 

[JRKH]

Hi James–

What was your “aha” moment? It seems like this would be an appropriate thread to share that.

Well - - - - at the risk of “derailing” the thread…I will share. Please be patient with me as I go through the steps. It may get lengthy…

In discussing “church authority” I had long been aware of the Catholic apologetic argument taken from Mt 16:17-19 - “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church…” While I did not disagree with the Catholic understanding, I was also aware that this particular argument seemed to have little effect on most protestants who held to a position of (mainly) locally independent church communities built around Sola Scriptura. So I became curious about how various other pasages supported one view or the other. In particular I was curious about the term translated as “Church” in the NT and in particular in the Gospels. I discovered that the term “Church (Ekklesia)” is used just twice in the Gospels. Both times in Matthew and (here comes the first aha moment) both times it is used By Jesus and in connection with the granting of authority.

The two places where “Ekklesia” appears are in Mt 16:17-19 and in Mt 18:15-18. Both times it is Jesus who speaks and both times Jesus is granting authority.
In Mt 16:19 is the statement, “…whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” This is clearly giving authority.
This identical statement is made in Mt 18:18. This caused me to look very carefully at the Binding and Loosing statement and frankly I couldn’t find any real limit or “loophole” in it. Setting aside for the moment the singular “Papal” issues, it was VERY clear to me that since “Church” was associated with “Binding and Loosing” both times that it fell from Jesus lips, that Jesus was founding an “Authoritative Church”. That we are to “Tell it to the Church”, and we are to “Listen to the Church”(Mt 18:17)

Now - When I brought this up to some protestants, their response was that Mt 18:15-18 is talking about “sin”, not doctrine, and that “Church” in the passage referred to the local community. So - I needed to do a bit more research…
I first looked up the Greek for “sin” used in the passage and found this:
Sin = Hamartano, (Greek)
To be without a share in; to miss the mark; to err, be mistaken; to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honor; to do or go wrong; to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
It was clear from these definitions (taken from Strongs - a non-Catholic source) thatnone could not limit the term “Sin” in Mt 18 to simply issues of personal sin = disobedience to the ten commandments. It must include Doctrinal issues, that is errors, unless one is willing to say that teaching doctrinal error is not a sin and I found no one willing to say that.

So that clarified the first objection in the matter. Sin DOES include doctrinal issues.

The Second issue in Mt 18 then was the assertion that “tell it to the church” indicated the local community…

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

To me the issue of limiting “Church” in Mt 18 to just the local community seemed logically flawed on it’s surface. I could not see how “local independent communities” could square with Jesus’ prayer that we be “One as I and the Father are One” (John 17:20-21). What happens when one “local church” arrives at a different “truth” than another “local church”

Then came the second and really big “aha” moment for me…The answer lay not in a teaching but in an example and it is contained in Acts 15. This was more than “aha”, this was “Eureka!!!”.
Matthew 18 is the “Instruction” and Acts 15 contains how the “instruction” were understood and put into practice by the first century Church. The steps in Mt 18 can be seen in the steps described in Acts 15.
The issue of circumcision and, more generally, of the keeping of Mosaic Law, began being discussed between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Obviously this had to start with one person taking issue with one other person (Go and tell your brother in private). The issue was not quickly resolved so others were brought in…(Bring witnesses)…It finally got to Paul and not even Paul could resolve the matter. So it was determined to send representatives from One city to another to lay the matter before the Apostles and Elders of “The Church”…These men went and “Told it to the Church”. Then after much deliberation, “The Church” made a decision, codified the decision in a letter, and sent it out to be read among the communities. The decision reached at the council of Jerusalem did not simply bind Antioch. It bound the universal Church.

Now compare this instruction and example as recorded in Holy Scripture - to the Protestant model of locally independent communities. We have communities within blocks of each other who hold radically different Doctrinal beliefs. Just to sort of parallel the Acts issue, we have some communities who hold firmly to the necessity of water baptism and other communities who fervently deny it’s necessity. We have Christian communities who hold firmly to the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist and communities who deny it.

BUT - And this, for me, is the real clincher…

The Protestant model, by denying the clear grant of authority from Christ to His One Church, cannot fulfill Jesus desire that we be one as He and the Father are one.
The Protestant model precludes the possibility of “Telling it to the Church” and then “Listening to the Church” in a way that firmly resolves a given issue, because at it’s very foundation and from it’s inception, the Protestant model is founded on the rejection of Church authority. It denies this authority even though it is clearly given and demonstrated in Scripture - which is the one Authority that the Protestant model Claims is inerrant.
So using Scripture Alone for evidence - it is obvious from Scripture that the Protestant position and model is completely untenable.

Many more things fell into place after this.

• Christ prayed for unity - to be “ONE” as he and the Father are ONE. I found at least 5 additional verses in the NT letters calling for the faithful to be one one mind, all agree in the same judgement, unity of mind, one spirit…
• That indeed Scripture IS useful, but it is the Church that is the Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)
• that, “…through The Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” (Eph 3:10)

So - this was my “aha” moment - or more correctly my “aha” journey.

I have asked my protestant brothers on several occasions to demonstrate from Scripture an equally convincing layout for the protestant model, but have been met more often with silence but occasionally with an attempt to show how I am misinterpreting the passages I use…But nothing has come close to being convincing.
It simply all hangs together too well.

Then - as if this is not enough - when we look at the historical development of the Church and the doctrines and the Structures of the Two most Ancient Christian Churches we find no inkling of this idea of “invisible church”, “local independent communities”, “Sola Scriptura” etc…The Ancient Churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox, Both teach the Primacy and Universality of the Authoritative Church built on the Councilior model, as shown in Scripture and as passed down from the apostles.

One can perhaps argue over certain specifics within that councilior model, but both Scripture and 1500 years of Christian history demonstrate that Christ intended his Church to be One and to be Authoritative.
So - If I am to be a “bible believing” Disciple of Christ. I have to be either Catholic or Orthodox. I believe that Catholicism is closer to what Christ intended, plus ti was the faith of my childhood, so - I am Catholic.

Sorry to be so long - But you asked for it…:shrug:
I hope you are able to follow my trail.

Peace
James

 

[AbideWithMe]

Good morning, James–

Thanks for the reply. It’s not too lengthy. I just skimmed it because I’m heading out for the day, but I want to give it my full attention when I’m home.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

So I have something I’ve been curious about, to those of you here who are not Catholic (yeah, all 5 of us ) and those who converted for whatever reason, what was your main obstacle(s) to becoming Catholic (As in, disagreements with church teachings, family, etc)?

The question if the RCC truly is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The fact that I love the eastern rite yet none is available near me. Doubts about papal supremacy and infallibility, doubts on the filioque and Anselmian understanding of original sin. Probably forgot a bunch, but whatever

 

[AbideWithMe]

To me the issue of limiting “Church” in Mt 18 to just the local community seemed logically flawed on it’s surface. I could not see how “local independent communities” could square with Jesus’ prayer that we be “One as I and the Father are One” (John 17:20-21). What happens when one “local church” arrives at a different “truth” than another “local church”

Then came the second and really big “aha” moment for me…The answer lay not in a teaching but in an example and it is contained in Acts 15. This was more than “aha”, this was “Eureka!!!”.
Matthew 18 is the “Instruction” and Acts 15 contains how the “instruction” were understood and put into practice by the first century Church. The steps in Mt 18 can be seen in the steps described in Acts 15.
The issue of circumcision and, more generally, of the keeping of Mosaic Law, began being discussed between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. Obviously this had to start with one person taking issue with one other person (Go and tell your brother in private). The issue was not quickly resolved so others were brought in…(Bring witnesses)…It finally got to Paul and not even Paul could resolve the matter. So it was determined to send representatives from One city to another to lay the matter before the Apostles and Elders of “The Church”…These men went and “Told it to the Church”. Then after much deliberation, “The Church” made a decision, codified the decision in a letter, and sent it out to be read among the communities. The decision reached at the council of Jerusalem did not simply bind Antioch. It bound the universal Church.

Now compare this instruction and example as recorded in Holy Scripture - to the Protestant model of locally independent communities. We have communities within blocks of each other who hold radically different Doctrinal beliefs. Just to sort of parallel the Acts issue, we have some communities who hold firmly to the necessity of water baptism and other communities who fervently deny it’s necessity. We have Christian communities who hold firmly to the “Real Presence” in the Eucharist and communities who deny it.

BUT - And this, for me, is the real clincher…

The Protestant model, by denying the clear grant of authority from Christ to His One Church, cannot fulfill Jesus desire that we be one as He and the Father are one.
The Protestant model precludes the possibility of “Telling it to the Church” and then “Listening to the Church” in a way that firmly resolves a given issue, because at it’s very foundation and from it’s inception, the Protestant model is founded on the rejection of Church authority. It denies this authority even though it is clearly given and demonstrated in Scripture - which is the one Authority that the Protestant model Claims is inerrant.
So using Scripture Alone for evidence - it is obvious from Scripture that the Protestant position and model is completely untenable.

Many more things fell into place after this.

• Christ prayed for unity - to be “ONE” as he and the Father are ONE. I found at least 5 additional verses in the NT letters calling for the faithful to be one one mind, all agree in the same judgement, unity of mind, one spirit…
• That indeed Scripture IS useful, but it is the Church that is the Bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)
• that, “…through The Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” (Eph 3:10)

So - this was my “aha” moment - or more correctly my “aha” journey.

I have asked my protestant brothers on several occasions to demonstrate from Scripture an equally convincing layout for the protestant model, but have been met more often with silence but occasionally with an attempt to show how I am misinterpreting the passages I use…But nothing has come close to being convincing.
It simply all hangs together too well.

Then - as if this is not enough - when we look at the historical development of the Church and the doctrines and the Structures of the Two most Ancient Christian Churches we find no inkling of this idea of “invisible church”, “local independent communities”, “Sola Scriptura” etc…The Ancient Churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox, Both teach the Primacy and Universality of the Authoritative Church built on the Councilior model, as shown in Scripture and as passed down from the apostles.

One can perhaps argue over certain specifics within that councilior model, but both Scripture and 1500 years of Christian history demonstrate that Christ intended his Church to be One and to be Authoritative.
So - If I am to be a “bible believing” Disciple of Christ. I have to be either Catholic or Orthodox. I believe that Catholicism is closer to what Christ intended, plus ti was the faith of my childhood, so - I am Catholic.

Sorry to be so long - But you asked for it…:shrug:
I hope you are able to follow my trail.

Peace
James

James–

Your posts were clear, candid, and charitable. Thanks.

I want to re-read them again before replying more fully. I’m not having difficulty following your line of thought–you wrote well. I’ll reply tomorrow.

 

[JRKH]

James–

Your posts were clear, candid, and charitable. Thanks.

I want to re-read them again before replying more fully. I’m not having difficulty following your line of thought–you wrote well. I’ll reply tomorrow.

Take your time my friend. I’m glad that you find them worth deep consideration.

Peace
James

 

[AbideWithMe]

Take your time my friend. I’m glad that you find them worth deep consideration.

Peace
James

James, thanks for believing my slow response springs from the fact that I’m trying to thoughtfully consider what you have to say. I’m trying to follow the words of your namesake—“My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen and slow to speak…”—but sometimes on forums I worry that my delay in answering might look like I’m annoyed and ignoring a post. In reality, it’s the opposite—it’s hard for me really be quiet, listen and consider someone else’s perspective if I’m in a hurry to reply with my own perspective.

My brother’s name is James. I used to wonder why the Spanish form of James is Santiago till I learned that James is a form of the name Jacob…Santiago=Santo Iago (Iago being from Jacob). But I wonder by what route James morphed into its Anglicized form from Yaacov or Jacob?

 

[RebeccaJ]

So I have something I’ve been curious about, to those of you here who are not Catholic (yeah, all 5 of us ) and those who converted for whatever reason, what was your main obstacle(s) to becoming Catholic (As in, disagreements with church teachings, family, etc)?

Atheism was my main obstacle. I studied a lot, in the end, the last obstacle was the believing “all the seen and unseen”. Finding God was hard enough, believing in angels or other unseen beings was over the top for me.

 

[fif1189]

Thank you to everyone who replied here. I will say that it was comforting that a few of you echo some of my own obstacles.

Also, the thread was never de-railed

 

[JRKH]

Thank you to everyone who replied here. I will say that it was comforting that a few of you echo some of my own obstacles.

Also, the thread was never de-railed

You are welcome.
Yes it is nice to know that one is not “alone”.
Many others have struggled with the same, or similar “obstacles.”.

So - don’t be afraid to ask questions here. You will receive many good answers.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

James, thanks for believing my slow response springs from the fact that I’m trying to thoughtfully consider what you have to say. I’m trying to follow the words of your namesake—“My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen and slow to speak…”—but sometimes on forums I worry that my delay in answering might look like I’m annoyed and ignoring a post. In reality, it’s the opposite—it’s hard for me really be quiet, listen and consider someone else’s perspective if I’m in a hurry to reply with my own perspective.

No problem. I appreciate your posts letting me know that you are considering carefully what I wrote.

If I may offer one more thought - not really a biblical reference, but more of a “common sense” argument. It goes like this:
True Christians should be driven towards visible, doctrinal unity by their desire to follow Christ humbly. The structures of “Church”, that which we Catholics refer to generally as the “Magisterium”, are natural outgrowths of the true Christian desire to protect the Truth and to project that truth consistently and universally.
Humility, Love for Truth, and the desire to Follow Christ in Love and “With one Mind and One voice”, as He prayed for us, should drive all True Christians to seek council, with each and, with the universal ekklesia, to discern humbly and in unison, that which is deeply and universally true and then to proclaim it, “With One Mind and with One Voice.

Not to “overload you” but I spoke to this in a “blog” that I wrote on another site. It’s not the best blog, I wrote it in the midst of another discussion and I was trying to get my points lined up and communicated…But if you are interested in reading it, It’s HERE

My brother’s name is James. I used to wonder why the Spanish form of James is Santiago till I learned that James is a form of the name Jacob…Santiago=Santo Iago (Iago being from Jacob). But I wonder by what route James morphed into its Anglicized form from Yaacov or Jacob?

Interesting. I’ve never really thought about it. I’m James because my folks named me so…I’m not sure why. I don’t recall there being anyone else in my family background named James.

Anyway - I look forward to any insights you have to offer.

Peace
James

 

[Geist]

So I have something I’ve been curious about, to those of you here who are not Catholic (yeah, all 5 of us ) and those who converted for whatever reason, what was your main obstacle(s) to becoming Catholic (As in, disagreements with church teachings, family, etc)?

Coming from an atheistic scientific background the Catholic church fits very well actually; it uses logic and reason in its arguments, and if you love to read, well, this is the church for you…

My biggest obstacle I suppose was not so much the idea of a God (in all honesty keep digging in physics and/or biology and you’re gonna wind up there anyway), but the idea of an involved God that cares about me and others. Before I had a transformative experience I was at least comfortable with a Deist idea of God even if not believing in one.

 

[TrueLight]

So I have something I’ve been curious about, to those of you here who are not Catholic (yeah, all 5 of us ) and those who converted for whatever reason, what was your main obstacle(s) to becoming Catholic (As in, disagreements with church teachings, family, etc)?

Mary.

In fact, I went through a little crisis of faith regarding the whole Mediatrix/Co-redemptrix discussion and a very kind CAF member, who unfortunately is now banned, helped me through it.

 

[fif1189]

Well, since this is my thread I feel i have the right to derail it Once again, thank you everyone for your answers. That said I have a small question, what is the protocol for meeting with a priest? I’ve been going to Catholic church in my area but would like to discuss some of my qualms with Catholicism with one of them.

Do i just approach them after the service and ask if we can meet at some point? (also, something about priests intimidates me, not sure why. Need to remind myself that they don’t bite )

 

[JRKH]

Well, since this is my thread I feel i have the right to derail it Once again, thank you everyone for your answers. That said I have a small question, what is the protocol for meeting with a priest? I’ve been going to Catholic church in my area but would like to discuss some of my qualms with Catholicism with one of them.

Do i just approach them after the service and ask if we can meet at some point? (also, something about priests intimidates me, not sure why. Need to remind myself that they don’t bite )

No real “protocols” necessary. Priests are generally quite approachable - especially after mass. Most are “just plain folks”, so I would suggest that you DO approach him and tell him your interested in exploring Catholicism further but have some questions and would like to meet with him. That right there should make his day!! He will most likely suggest that you call the office to set up a time. He might also suggest that you talk to someone else, a deacon or the DRE (Dir. of Rel. Ed.) .
Don’t be put off if he does suggests that you talk to another. Our priests are very busy and there are a lot of demands on their time. He might feel that one of these other people would be able to give you more time etc…If you are not comfortable with that idea, don’t be afraid to say that would like to meet with him first and then go from there.

This is wonderful news. Praise God
Peace
James

 

[DeaconTimm]

Another used-to-be-confusing thing is that some people think Jesus had brothers and sisters. But the references to brothers and sisters just mean family member (i.e. cousin; some of my friends from other cultures call their cousins brothers and sisters) and they are children of another Mary. The biggest giveaway is when Jesus gives his mother to John the Baptist to be under his care. If Mary had other children, they would obviously have been younger than Jesus, since she was a Virgin when she gave birth to Him. In that culture he would have never given his mother to someone else if she had another son alive. Her husband Joseph was obviously dead by that point or it wouldn’t have been necessary to hand her over to someone else’s care. So giving her over to John, the son of his mother’s cousin Elizabeth, only made sense if he was the closest relative.

Hi-
I am enjoying all the posts and interactions y’all have on this site…
Just had to make 1 comment… It wasn’t John the Baptist Jesus charged with Mary’s care… the Baptist had long since been beheaded and was no longer in the picture so to speak. Jesus charged the Beloved Disciple, John - one of the Apostles - not a relative, with her care.
God Bless… and keep up the good work.

 

[Elizabeth_C]

Well, since this is my thread I feel i have the right to derail it Once again, thank you everyone for your answers. That said I have a small question, what is the protocol for meeting with a priest? I’ve been going to Catholic church in my area but would like to discuss some of my qualms with Catholicism with one of them.

Do i just approach them after the service and ask if we can meet at some point? (also, something about priests intimidates me, not sure why. Need to remind myself that they don’t bite )

If you still have qualms about approaching the priest despite JKRH’s reply, consider the RCIA director or even start the program at the Parish you live in. The first part of it is Inquiry. Your questions can be answered and may even help others. You are free to leave at any time. There is a point in time when you state your intention to become Catholic formally. But even then, if you are not ready, you do not have to when the rest of the class does.

My answer to your post is probably secularism. I had parents who had left their childhood churches (Father: Roman Catholic, Mother: protestant, denomination unknown.) I celebrated Christmas and Easter- the secular way - but knew about Jesus being the Son of God, but not how that was important. I sang Christmas Carols and other hymns in public school before political correctness changed that (along with other types of songs.) I attended what would now be called Vacation Bible School one year. I attended Mass with friends a few times, participated in a Quincenera celebration. But I also learned science (which is NOT the opposite of religion!) But I did learn evolution and perhaps that would have been a stumbling block had not the priest in my RCIA class said that Creation and Evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I can combine my scientific mind with my religious heart and soul.

Probably my biggest obstacle was inertia! I married a Catholic man. My mother even once said that if I ever joined a church, it should be the Catholic Church! I made a partial decision to take RCIA when my first daughter was born (after we had been married 8 years!) She was almost 6 by the time I finally did and that was due to my husband realizing she needed to start CCD/RE and he asked about the RCIA program for me!! This Easter will mark 9 years as a Catholic, as a baptised Christian. I hold to the teachings of the Church, even if I can’t always defend them to my Protestant friends.