“Convert” Revisited
Posted by Rita Ferrone
One of the little-known (and oft-ignored) directives of the U.S. National Statutes for the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults is found in number 2, which states unambiguously that baptized Christians who are received into the full communion of the Catholic Church are NOT to be called converts. The term convert is to be strictly reserved for those who pass from non-belief to Christian belief.
What’s going on here?
This is one of the places where the American bishops, via the National Statutes, aim to practice the ecumenism the Second Vatican Council preached—an ecumenism still only gradually being incarnated in our day-to-day experience of the Church today, more than forty years after the Council.
The thinking goes like this: Anyone who is baptized is a member of Christ’s Body, the Church. Now to be sure, baptized individuals have an ongoing spiritual journey, and there are moments of spiritual awakening and promptings of the Spirit along the way. These experiences may lead an individual to enter the full communion of the Catholic Church. But they don’t make her a convert, because she already belongs to Christ.
All the baptized are called to ongoing conversion, but to be termed a convert is to say that you converted to Christ. In the immortal words of Ron Oakham, speaking on how the ritual text uses these words, “Conversion is not to Catholicism; it’s to Christ.”
Sadly, the word convert is still the only term in the English dictionary for members of other Christian communions who have become Catholic. The word is short. It’s handy. But we should save it for those whom it more aptly describes.
It’s good to see you again. If you enjoyed this post, please share with a friend or colleague. Thanks for visiting!
Click here to:
Subscribe
Copyright © 2008, Team RCIA. All rights reserved.
This entry was posted on Friday, June 20th,
2008 at 9:54 am
and is filed under Candidates.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a
response, or trackback from your own site.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Rita, I even hear some RCIA team members, who used to belong to another denomination, call themselves “converts.” Maybe if we all think real hard, we can come up with another way of designating such folks. Perhaps we could make use of “née,” as some married folks do when they want to reveal a former identity.
“Hi I’m Jane. I’m a Catholic née Methodist.”
June 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Nick, I’d love to see a new coinage. It’s too bad that nee means born! And to quote Aidan Kavanagh (whose words are even more immortal than those of Ron Oakham), “Unlike those of other persuasions, Christians are made, not born.” How about former?
June 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am
Coining a word is very hard to do. It may be best to avoid using a noun at all. “Are you a convert?” “No, I was already baptized when I joined the Catholic Church.” That’s a better description.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Hi, my name is Jim.
I like to describe myself as a Catholic by Choice.
I became a Catholic in 2000 after being in the Church of Christ for ten years and the Southern Baptist church for twenty-five years. I never thought of myself as a “convert” (even when some who were in my RCIA group called themselves “converts”) as I always considered converts as those who convert from other religions such as Judaism to Christianity. I chose to become a Catholic because of all that the Catholic Church is. After eight years, and in all of it’s Truth, History, and Tradition the Catholic Church is still unfolding something new in Herself for me every single day. I believe I made the right Choice!
Thanks,
Jim
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:58 am
Thanks, Jim, for sharing your perspective. You’ve enlarged our discussion!
November 18th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Some might like the adjective “completed”, as Deacon Alex Jones does: “When I became Catholic, I did not cease to be Pentecostal; I became a completed Pentecostal.”
November 20th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Ken,
Thanks for offering another example. It’s great that Deacon Jones has found fulfillment of his Pentecostalism in the Catholic Church. But I wouldn’t recommend the expression “completed” for general use. Although it’s intention is to affirm the background of the person who became Catholic, it could come across as quite the opposite: a put-down. “I’m complete, you’re not.” When we talk about these things we should, as much as possible, put ourselves in the shoes of the person we are talking to. How will that person hear what we are saying? Will we seem to be puffed up with pride? I like to talk about the ongoing journey of faith because it suggests that none of us is complete yet!