Did Harriet Miers "Apostasize" When She Left the Catholic Church to Become Evangelical?
It is fairly common knowledge by now (at least amongst the Catholic bloggers who have blogged on the subject) that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers left the Catholic Church to join an Evangelical denomination.
While there are plenty of avenues of criticism with regard to the Miers nomination, I think one that is out of bounds is the claim I have seen made by several bloggers - including some bloggers who I respect and read daily - that Harriet Miers is somehow suspect because she "apostasized" and left the Catholic Church for a "protestant sect".
I suspect that the primary reason most Catholics leave the Church and join Evangelical denominations has more to do with poor catechesis over the last 40 years than it has to do with outright apostacy by those who have left the Faith. Furthermore, I strongly believe that it is better for a former Catholic to be a devout "born-again" Evangelical than to remain a spiritually dead fallen-away Catholic. Many times, these folks return to the fold of the Catholic Church better Christians for having been brought closer to Jesus through their Evangelical experience.
I will continue to be outspoken in my criticism of the Miers nomination. But Ms. Miers' leaving the Catholic Church to become Evangelical will NOT be among the reasons.
posted by Pro Ecclesia 1:22 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
When I wrote about this, my point was simply to say not that she shouldn't be confirmed because she'd left the Catholic Church, but rather that telling me that she was a convert to evangelicalism did not speak well to me of her legal reasoning skills, which were apparently not applied to her decision to become an evangelical.
I have no doubt that, as you say, Jay, poor catechesis is a big part of her situation at the time of her "conversion experience".
As someone pointed out on my blog, though, it's rare for someone to leave the Catholic Church because their in-depth study of Catholic teaching and history has led them to become an evangelical. There are no protestant analogs to Scott Hahn, or Avery Cardinal Dulles, or any of the many who've sought the historic faith of the Apostles and found it in the Catholic Church.
Paul,
Myself being a convert to Catholicism, I'd have to agree that all of the most intelligent converts are converts to Catholicism rather than away from it.
;)
But I also look at Faith as a journey. Hopefully, as we continue along our journey, we get closer to the Truth. I suspect that Miers is probably a lot closer to the Truth now as a devout Baptist than she was merely warming the pews (or warming her bed) on Sundays as an improperly formed Catholic.
If that is indeed the case, I don't necessarily see it as a negative that she left the Church from which she had fallen away in order that she might become a MORE devout Christian as an Evangelical.
Rather, I see that spiritual growth as a sign that she is gaining in wisdom (as I hope that I am). I pray that her spiritual journey may be completed by returning to the Church that she left as a more fully developed follower of Christ than she might otherwise have been.
How bigoted can you commenters be?
Catholics are intellegent and evangelicals and bible-thumping idiots from Arkansas with missing teeth and a lack of reasoning skills.
I don't want to reaffirm your view of evangelicals, but could it be that we all love Jesus, we're just loving Him in different ways? Or is that proving I'm a simpleton.
I get as incensed at protestant bigotry as I get at Catholic bigotry. But this is just a pathetic school-yard arrogant taunt. At least when the protestants make bigoted comments about Catholics, they quote doctrinal differences rather than just implying that, "You catholics are stooopid. Tee-hee," as both commenters have declared regarding protestants.
That being said, thank you for the POST. I appreciate it.
You know, I was concerned that someone would take this post and the comments (especially my joke about intelligent converts) that way.
Please know that I am a convert to the Catholic Church from an evangelical Southern Baptist background. Despite my newfound Catholic faith, I still consider myself "evangelical". My immediate family in East Texas are still Southern Baptists. I do not look down on them or think them any less intelligent for not being Catholic.
That being said, I do believe that the Catholic Church is where the fullness of the Christian Faith is to be found. And I am not ashamed to say that. I wouldn't have converted otherwise.
Jay,
Of course. We're all where we are because we think that is where we are most close to God. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. The fact that you think that is a given. It's the exortation of it that makes me take your comments 'that way.'
Of course you beleive that. You wouldn't be a Catholic otherwise. It's the need to state that you are right and not ashamed to be right that makes me feel persecuted.
"It's the need to state that you are right and not ashamed to be right that makes me feel persecuted."
Heavens, Jay! In the future please be wrong---or if you insist on being right, don't say so---or if you do say so, at least be a little bit ashamed of yourself. Otherwise, think of all the good people who will feel persecuted by your reckless pursuit of truth!
Zach-
Fine, trample all over the body of Christ and imply that everyone who is a beleiver but not Catholic is not pursuing truth. Please, be more hateful. Being hateful towards your brothers and sisters is pleasing to God. /sarcasm
I work closely and under the auspices of several Catholic organizations, often as the lone evangelical. I have a deep and abiding love for the Catholic church and its followers. I sidewalk counsel as one of two non-catholics. I am used to being asked my parish and having to respond with my non-denomination church instead. I have been greeted with love and respect and likewise demonstrate it, praying silently during the rosary, crossing my arms over my chest at mass during communion and the like. I don't imply their doctrinal differences make them less intellegent, or in a lesser pursuit of truth, or heretical, etc. When such things are discussed, they are done with love.
Let's demonstrate: "I do believe that the Southern Baptist church is where the fullness of the Christian Faith is to be found. And I am not ashamed to say that."
How would you respond to that? By saying that I am asserting everyone else's very Biblical faith is not full or half full or half empty.
It's not so much the language but the hateful tone and arrogance displayed in it that I oppose.
"It's not so much the language but the hateful tone and arrogance displayed in it that I oppose."
It's odd that in a post I made in order to defend Evangelicalism against what I consider to be unfair attacks from some Catholics, that I am accused of being hateful and arrogant.
I didn't realize that I was being "hateful" by proclaiming that the reason I converted is that I believe what the Catholic Church has always claimed for itself - that in it is to be found the fullness of the Christian Faith.
Are you equally offended on behalf of non-Christians when your God claims to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one can be saved except through Him?
I categorically deny the charge of being bigoted.
I personally know several highly intelligent evangelicals, and it's possible that Harriet Miers is another.
My opinion is that evangelicals, highly intelligent or otherwise, don't apply their keen intelligence to the biblical text without first screening it through an evangelical filter.
Further, I have never heard of a Catholic who converted to Evangelicalism after studying the teachings and claims of the Catholic Church. By contrast, Pat Madrid's Suprised by Truth books are full of Evangelicals whose study of their own evangelicalism led them to the Catholic Church.
And too, Harriet Miers conversion story includes nothing about her seeking answers in the teachings of the Church of her birth, but only about her going to her boyfriend's church with him, and liking it well enough to join.
There's nothing there to tell me anything good about her decision-making skills, how she weighed the conflicting claims and teachings of evangelicalism vs. Catholicism, how she considered the evidence, scriptural, theological, historical, etc.
No, her jump to an evangelical church was seemingly an emotional one. That's fine, this is America, she gets to do that.
But having made such a momentous decision in such a fashion is not a qualification for the Supreme Court, although I feel that it has been presented as such.
Not only is her evangelicalism not a qualification, it's not even a reassurance. Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton are all pro-choice evangelicals from southern states.
Finally, I have a question for "View from the Sidewalks":
...could it be that we all love Jesus, we're just loving Him in different ways?
If that's your position, how do you interpret these scripture verses:
John 17:20-3
Eph 4:1-6
1 Cor 1:10-12
Matt 18:15-7
and many others that discuss Church unity and the need for all Christians to be visibly united in what they believe and say?
Can I say one other thing?
"I do believe that the Southern Baptist church is where the fullness of the Christian Faith is to be found. And I am not ashamed to say that."
If you're a Southern Baptist, I don't take offense at you saying that. On the contrary, I hope you feel that way, because otherwise, you need to be over here checking out Catholicism.
The only reason for any thinking person to subscribe to any religious faith is because they believe it's true. And they shouldn't be afraid to say so.
Now, I've never met a Southern Baptist who believed that Southern Baptist contained the fullness of the faith. The ones I've spoken with tell me they don't think any one church has it completely right.
I don't understand how anyone could hold such a "faith". "I'm Catholic, but I might be mistaken" is just not a sentiment you'll hear me express. If that offends someone, gee, that's too bad.
Sorry to clutter up your comments section, Jay.
A View,
I just don't understand what is so objectionable about what anyone here has written. To Paul's point, I am not at all offended if you say that you think Baptists have it right and Catholics have it wrong. In fact, I would assume that you believed that based on your Baptist affiliation.
When I was a card-carrying Calvinist, I thought that the Presbyterian Church was right--otherwise I wouldn't have been there. We are called to seek the truth. Saying that I think I have found it in the Catholic Church is not hateful or inherently mean. It certainly doesn't imply that non-Catholics are failing to seek the truth.
No one has behaved uncharitably in these comments, so I would just encourage you to exhibit the same thick skin here that you so admirably display on the sidewalks. And thank you for your work in the defense of life.
Woah woah woah...Do not lump me with Bill Clinton. I do not lump you with Edward Kennedy, do I?
And I am not a Southern Baptist...I was merely pointing out how claring a denomination as the fullness of Christianity negates all others. If you say that you are not a denomination, I can find hundreds of thousands of Orthodox who would claim you are.
I appreciated the post, and went to comment nicely and then discover, direct quotes:
"telling me that she was a convert to evangelicalism did not speak well to me of her legal reasoning skills, which were apparently not applied to her decision to become an evangelical"
Read that as "evangelicals are unreasonable and illogical"
and
"I'd have to agree that all of the most intelligent converts are converts to Catholicism rather than away from it.
Read that as "evangelicals converts are not as intellegent as Catholic converts"
and
"I do believe that the Catholic Church is where the fullness of the Christian Faith is to be found.
Read that as, "evangelicals faith is only half-full or half-empty"
and
Otherwise, think of all the good people who will feel persecuted by your reckless pursuit of truth!
Read that as "Catholics are the only ones recklessly pursuing the truth."
and
Are you equally offended on behalf of non-Christians when your God claims to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that no one can be saved except through Him?
Reply: This is basic Christianity, truth from God's Word. I know some Catholics that do not beleive this, like you can find some protestants that do also. I would argue that they are not Christians. My point was unity within the faith. Loving Jesus, having a relationship with Him, but worshipping differently- some in mass with repetition and priest leading, some with arms raised and a ponytailed man wailing on guitar. Both of which, by beleiving in Christ and surrendering to his Lordship are brethren. Unity in the body of Christ isn't fostered by claiming your denomination has the lion's share of intellegent people with legal reasoning skills who are seeking truth any more than the idiots that accuse you of Mary worship and idolatry because of your use of the crucifix. If you will notice, in all my comments, I have not said anything negative about Catholicism/Catholics. Yet, protestants are (see above). Although it would be easy to refute such comments (like the next one, italicised) by type-casting Catholics as I have been so cliched.
Next comment:
My opinion is that evangelicals, highly intelligent or otherwise, don't apply their keen intelligence to the biblical text without first screening it through an evangelical filter.
I wouldn't say we have the market cornered on schemas or 'filters.' Perhaps Catholics have a filter as well. This is irrelevant to your assumptions about Harriet Miers because of her conversion.
and
If that's your position, how do you interpret these scripture versesand many others that discuss Church unity and the need for all Christians to be visibly united in what they believe and say?
What have I been saying? Unity is not fostered by anything you've said. Quite the opposite.
and
Now, I've never met a Southern Baptist who believed that Southern Baptist contained the fullness of the faith. The ones I've spoken with tell me they don't think any one church has it completely right.
I don't understand how anyone could hold such a "faith". "I'm Catholic, but I might be mistaken" is just not a sentiment you'll hear me express. If that offends someone, gee, that's too bad.
Paul, you are right about everything? How can that not be construed as arrogant?
Now that I've explained myself, I don't see why everyone seems so blindsided that a Christian non-catholic would be taken back by these comments.
Context.
It is unfair to take a single quote, or even several quotes, out of context and then say "I am offended by that."
Let's take a look at an example that you mention:
"I'd have to agree that all of the most intelligent converts are converts to Catholicism rather than away from it."
What you left out: (1) the context of my own background as an evangelical, which background I was, in fact, defending against what I saw as unfair criticisms from my fellow Catholics; and (2) ;).
That ;) generally signifies a wink and a nudge, i.e. that one is not being completely serious.
In that context, my comment should have been seen as the fairly inoccuous comment that it was - most definitely NOT the "persecution" that it was described as.
Let's look at another example:
"I do believe that the Catholic Church is where the fullness of the Christian Faith is to be found."
Again, let's take it in context: an explanation for my decision to convert. This is what is known in evangelical circles as a "profession of faith". I cannot imagine a fellow Christian who is secure in his or her faith being offended, much less feeling "persecuted" by, another Christian's profession of faith in the context of making an apologia for his conversion.
Once again, context is important.
View,
Woah woah woah...Do not lump me with Bill Clinton. I do not lump you with Edward Kennedy, do I?
Nor did I lump you in with anyone at all. I noted that "she's an evangelical" was being touted as a reason I should like Miss Miers for SCOTUS. But "she's an evangelical" doesn't tell me how she'll rule about the law; some evangelicals (I listed three famous examples) are pro-choice. None of which says anything at all about you (I gather that you are pro-life, which I applaud).
Read that as "evangelicals are unreasonable and illogical"
As Shakespeare said (in Henry V, III, ii): "Look you, if you take the matter otherwise than is
meant, Captain Macmorris, peradventure I shall think
you do not use me with that affability as in
discretion you ought to use me, look you..."
Or to put it another way, if you really want to take offense, I'm sure you'll find a way to do it.
The quote of mine you cited was, again, about one person, neither yourself nor all evangelicals, who (it is reported) was not practicing the Catholic faith in which she was raised, and when she happened to visit an evangelical congregation she decided to join that instead. We are not told of any intellectual effort on her part to learn the differences in teaching between the two traditions nor the theological & historical reasons behind those differences (I trust you will grant that there are differences between Catholic and Evangelical teaching).
Now, I will readily grant that there are many, many Evangelicals who have made an intellectual study of their faith and can discuss at length and with great knowledge the differences in teaching and the reasons for those differences. But from the reports we've gotten, our new SCOTUS nominee is not one of those.
You quoted me to say:
My opinion is that evangelicals, highly intelligent or otherwise, don't apply their keen intelligence to the biblical text without first screening it through an evangelical filter.
And you replied:
I wouldn't say we have the market cornered on schemas or 'filters.' Perhaps Catholics have a filter as well. This is irrelevant to your assumptions about Harriet Miers because of her conversion.
You're welcome to disagree with my opinion. This is America. But how do you interpret John 6:53? My reading of the scripture is that Jesus meant exactly what he said, word for word. I am supported in this by over 90% of all the Christians who ever lived (that's Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and even some Protestants), notably including the early church fathers like St. Justin Martyr who wrote in the midst of the 3rd century (c. 250 AD). But -- please correct me if I am wrong -- as an Evangelical, you believe that Jesus was speaking figuratively in John 6:53. Why is that?
What have I been saying? Unity is not fostered by anything you've said. Quite the opposite.
I suspect that we have different definitions of "unity". To me, it's a visible communion of people in the same organizational church, following the same leadership and believing the same doctrines. I'm getting the impression (possibly mistaken) that you'd say that "unity" is our common belief in certain "core" points, the rest of our disagreements being unimportant.
Paul, you are right about everything? How can that not be construed as arrogant?
I most assuredly am not right about everything. But the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church are right about everything, just as Christ promised they would always be. I am only right, insofar as I accept and succeed in embracing those teachings
I may be arrogant, even in admitting to being fallible. But Jesus, who is not fallible, who is always right, is He arrogant? Doesn't St. Paul tell us it's OK to boast in Christ?
Unity in the body of Christ isn't fostered by claiming your denomination has the lion's share of intellegent people with legal reasoning skills who are seeking truth...
Once again, that's not what was asserted. Nobody said Catholics are smarter. What was asserted is that converts to Catholicism tend more to be so for intellectual and theological reasons than do converts to Evangelical denominations.
Finally,
Although it would be easy to refute such comments (like the next one, italicised) by type-casting Catholics as I have been so cliched.
I don't believe you were ever "type-cast"; we made some general remarks about Protestants which you took personally.
I'd welcome hearing about a convert from Catholicism to an Evangelical denomination who practiced his faith, studied it, knew it from a Catholic viewpoint and then was led for positive reasons to become an Evangelical.
Most converts I know were lapsed Catholics like Harriet Miers who fell in with someone who led them to become Evangelicals (which Jay keeps saying is an improvement), or else something bad happened. I don't know of anyone who, studying the issues, left for theological reasons. Perhaps you do.
But I have John Cardinal Neumann, Avery Cardinal Dulles, Fr. Ronald Knox, Dr. Scott Hahn, G.K. Chesterton, and a long list of others as examples of my (and Zach's) "easy to refute" point. Who do you have?
Throughout this, you've been talking a lot about feelings, and I've avoided mentioning feelings and talked instead about ideas. I haven't looked at your profile so I have no idea of your sex, but I suspect you're female. Your point is that the ideas we've discussed made you feel bad. I'm sorry, they weren't meant to.
But if you consider the ideas presented as they are meant, perhaps you needn't be so offended.
Apparently this isn't going anywhere.
I apologize for my inflammatory choice of words in the first comment, as I've now realized that that did not contribute to positive discussion, but rather put you all in a position to defend yourselves-likewise making me feel like I needed to defend myself.
I am indeed female. I'm as girly as they come. My emotional response was partly a consequence of that, and mostly because I unfortunetly have to spend time correcting Catholic-bashers. Catholic bashing is on my top 5 most unsexy things a guy can do (a long with being proabortion, making racist comments, and having ungroomed fingernails, and saying that Michael Moore makes a few good points...) I don't like similar comments forth from the Catholic side.
I do not believe I took anything out of context. The implication was definitely that she was ignorant of the teachings of the one true holy Catholic and apostalic church, because she would otherwise never become an evangelical. Furthermore, we can make assumptions about her performance on the court based on her heretical faith, because her self-excommunication "did not speak well of her legal reasoning skills which were apparently not applied to her decision to become evangelical."
Come on y'all. I remember HATING protestants with a passion when I was growing up because "our church was so much older than their church" and "our church is full of all the smart, educated people and their church is filled with country bumpkins who lacked the capacity to finish 8th grade" But then there was my great aunt from Oklahoma who had the closest relationship with Christ. She studied her scriptures and just GLOWED. She had no education, her grammar was poor, and she'd lived her life in a town with 200 people-but this lady LOVED the Lord and other people. Whereas my brilliant, educated and very religious father spewed blastphemies, quoted church history and latin, and barely loved himself let alone others. My church was filled with educated, brilliant people, yes...but they were fruitless. My aunt explained that you have to surrender your life to Christ. I never heard that in my life. I was 19 before I started following the Lord.
Jay, you converted. Did you hold negative stereotypes about Catholics before becoming one? I had a TON about evangelicals. But my best Catholic friends did their deeds, their confession, their rosaries, and had no relationship with Christ. That's when I had to seek fellowship with those that did, and I found them in the evangelical church.
Point being, I grew into one of those educated, successful people that I was sure didn't exist in the protestant church. (They were all greasy, gray-haired, shouting used-car salesman types and women in Mother Hubbard dresses, right?) I beleive I am indeed intellegent, I have an M.S., and I have been through catechism, and I am not self-conscious about my legal reasoning skills or my intellegence.
Now perhaps you can see, how as a reverse-convert, someone could take offense to your benign indictments of Harriet Miers, benign maybe, but indictments nonetheless.
A View from the Sidewalks,
Thank you for your comments. I hope you will feel welcome coming to this blog and posting your comments. I think you have a viewpoint - as a convert from Catholicism to Evangelicalism - that will offer some unique insights.
To answer your question: "Jay, you converted. Did you hold negative stereotypes about Catholics before becoming one?" No I did not have negative stereotypes. But I did think that they had their theology all wrong. Similarly, now that I am Catholic, I do not hold negative stereotypes of Evangelicals, but I do disagree with their theology.
But what Evangelicals do seem to have that many Catholics lack - as you have pointed out - is a fire for Jesus and a knowledge of Scripture. Those are things we Catholics can learn from our ecumenical dealings with our Evangelical brothers and sisters.
And for what it's worth, I really was joking around when I wrote this:
"Myself being a convert to Catholicism, I'd have to agree that all of the most intelligent converts are converts to Catholicism rather than away from it. ;)"
For me to write something like that and NOT be joking would make me a presumptuous, self-satisfied, arrogant prick, which I hope that I am not.
Thanks again for your input.
View,
I beleive I am indeed intellegent, I have an M.S., and I have been through catechism, and I am not self-conscious about my legal reasoning skills or my intellegence.
Nothing you've said about your conversion calls into question your legal reasoning skills or your intelligence. Your conversion story, as briefly conveyed here, is a testimony to your love of Christ. This is, undoutedly, a Good Thing. Even the Best Thing.
However, it is not a demonstration of your legal reasoning skills, either. On the basis of this story alone, I can't say, "Hey, let's put View from the Sidewalk on the Supreme Court!"
Another example. I was at CarMax, looking at a late model gray Kia Rio sedan with low mileage. Instead, I bought (for the same price) an older bright red Mazda Miata convertible coup with 96K miles on it. Why? I liked it better.
This is not an endorsement of my SCOTUS candidacy.
In the case of Harriet Miers, I feel she was presented to us without qualifications, and we were told, "don't worry, she's an evangelical".
Well, we weren't promised an evangelical, we were promised another Scalia or Thomas. I didn't take that as a promise to nominate only Catholics (Scalia and Thomas both being Catholic), but as a promise to nominate high-quality scholarly originalist thinkers. That's not Harriet Miers.
That's not a slam on Evangelicals. I readily grant the possibility -- I don't know -- that one or more of the big names being kicked around in the media as top-drawer choices might be an Evangelical.
View, I appreciate hearing your conversion story, particularly:
Catholic bashing is on my top 5 most unsexy things a guy can do (a long with being proabortion, making racist comments, and having ungroomed fingernails, and saying that Michael Moore makes a few good points...)
But what I'm saying about conversion stories from Catholic to Evangelical is only borne out by your story. You didn't mention any effort to learn the Church's traditional avenues of spirituality, you didn't study the lives of the saints, great mystics like St. Therese of Liseaux or St. Hildegard von Bingen or St. Francis de Sales, or many others. You didn't mention the time you spent in Eucharistic adoration, or trying to learn more about what takes place during the mass. You seem to have presumed that what you saw around you was all there was (in Catholicism, that's almost never true), and finding that lacking, followed the example of a non-Catholic relative who had what you were looking for: a "relationship" with Jesus, that you seem to have thought was unavailable in the Catholic Church.
Well, I have a relationship with Jesus; He lives in me and I in Him when I eat his flesh and drink his blood and He will raise me up on the last day (c.f. John 6:54, 66). I am a member of His body, the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (c.f. 1 Tim 3:15).
Does the fact that you didn't seek out the Catholic arguments for staying in the Catholic Church mean you're stupid? Certainly not. But I would argue that it was an occasion when you didn't employ your smarts. Who knows? If you'd studied the arguments, read Chesterton and Neumann, studied the progress of moral theology through history, read the Church fathers, prayed the rosary and worn a scapular and gone to Eucharistic Adoration, you might still have made the same decision; however, you don't describe an intellectual process, but an emotional one that I frankly find typical of people who leave the Church.
Basing such decisions on emotional criteria is, I suspect, also typical of people who buy convertibles.
Sometimes, you just have to decide based on how you feel.
Were you wrong to make the conversion to become an Evangelical? That's not for me to say; that is, as a priest recently remarked to me, "above my pay grade".
There are good and intelligent people whom I love who are proudly and ardently Evangelicals. And so I worry about them, and about John 6:53.
And so I keep bringing this stuff up, lest I be found lacking for not having tried:
Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds. (Rev 22:12)
I showed this discussion to my wife, remarking that I'm sure I'd like View from the Sidewalks if I knew her.
She replied, "she sounds like a wonderful lady, I'm sorry you pissed her off!"
I'll just go trim my fingernails.
Post a Comment
<< Home