Why I'm A Catholic Christian

Why? Well, to begin, I am flat out humbled by the mystery of reality, the riddle of the One and the Many, which confronts my intellect; as Peter Kreeft said, "One… specifically Christian mood [is] of joy and wonder at the sheer fact of existence... I love a quotation by Kirkegaard. He said, ‘I am terrified by everything, from the smallest gnat to the mystery of the incarnation.’” I feel no need to reduce reality purely to my own limited number of “clear and distinct ideas”; this is a Cartesian criterion which has become synonymous with “rationalism”, but is in fact an arbitrary and truncated perspective.

In addition to the confrontation of my intellect with the “sheer fact of existence” I also find, thrust upon my experience, the longing for an heretofore “unattainable ecstasy” which, by it’s very nature, cannot be found in the reality given to my senses or any subjective state of my being, and which is the ultimate object of my will.

I consider these two facts of my conscious existence akin to “non-reductive primitives” of the physical world like space and time; that is, they form a fundamental context and general qualification to all other knowledge and action I may consider. I must therefore -- compelled by the undeniable nature of these facts -- live my life driven by a “thirst for a wilder beauty than earth supplies”, beyond the limited scope of my abstract intellect, in pursuit of the mystery at the heart of reality.

Any theory, philosophy or religion which conflicts with these primary data – data which, by the way, include their own implicit philosophies – will a-priori fail to do justice to all the given facts and are, for that reason, automatically suspect to my mind.

These facts taken alone might predispose me to seek Divine Revelation (supra-rational knowledge) as a sort of aesthetic capstone, a pleasant looking cherry on top to complete my worldview. However, I simply cannot take these facts alone, and, though I’ve so far given the impression that these data are convictions chronologically prior to my acceptance of Christianity, quite the opposite is in fact the case.

C.S Lewis, in Mere Christianity, writes, “[there are] two facts [which] are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in: We know the Law of Nature; (we) break it." He goes on to explain why, once given a God-who-is-perfectly-good exists, this “fact” -- which I consider the third “non-reductive primitive,” so to speak, of our conscious existence -- must lead us, in so many words, to either despair or revelatory hope.

When I look back at my experience, first becoming an Evangelical Christian, I see all of these elements implicitly present. My (intellectual) humility, beginning as a child, together with my admitted failure to appease the voice of my conscience and my longing to be happy made me ripe for the reception of – and subsequent and repeated rededications to -- the message of Jesus Christ. Everything else that I accept as revelation is tied to this existential need for a savior met by the factual, historical figure, actions and claims of Jesus Christ.

Now, as to the “why” of Catholicism in particular (from Evangelicalism, Quakerism and Episcopalian-ism – all routes I formerly traveled and from which I gained much)? There are many reasons I chose Catholicism among the various denominations of Christianity, but I can boil it down to one important reason: antinomies of revelation (contradictions in interpretation) need to be resolved by a first principle; a principle which I just touched on and which emphatically determines my choice.

Here’s the dilemma. The Catholic looks to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium as vehicles of revelation and interpretation; as the ways in which, to put it in specifically Christian terms, the Holy Spirit speaks to us. The conservative Protestant looks to the Bible alone as the vehicle of revelation, which he then presumes to be able to interpret alone. These are both fine and good as far as they go, and both work – they prove what they want to prove -- if they are just assumed. However, just assuming them begs the question which can only be answered with circular reasoning, which only serves to infinitely beg the question. Neither one, therefore, can be the first principle for grounding revelation (revelation primarily consists of things about God and man we cannot know by experience and reason alone).

Now, all knowledge proceeds from first principles. Common-sense knowledge about matters of fact assumes continuity from the senses to the intellect as it's first principle. Moral knowledge takes the fact that we only desire happiness for itself, combined with the matter of fact knowledge concerning specific desires common to our human nature, as it’s first principle. But what about faith knowledge, that is, knowledge revealed to us (at least in principle)?

Well, to touch on what I mentioned earlier, the first principle, the principle for accepting any further authority (whether Tradition, the Magesterium, and Scripture together, or simply Scripture alone) can only be found in the personal conviction that Christ has offered you grace, you need it, you have received it in faith, and that part of what you have received from the assumed historical reliability of the words Christ spoke includes the promise of your respective authority. In other words this principle must be found reflected as an inherent need in human nature, anchored in our very nature, so that the degree to which the authority of the Good News of Christ speaks to one’s soul and meets this need is the degree to which one will accept the extension of authority given as part of that Good News. It is clear to my mind that the authority Christ extended resides in Catholicism.