A disturbing, religious-themed phenomenon has been noted by many people.   Many assumed or supposed converts to Roman Catholicism have yet created adverse speculation, in the minds of certain Catholics, that not all have really converted correctly or fully in actual terms of the known and essential requirements of the Faith.   There seem to be certain peculiar Catholics who simply will not convert to their new religion because they do not really understand what true conversion is supposed to mean.

To create two possible neologisms, there seem to be many “quasi-verts (short for quasi-converts),” “trans-verts (short for trans-converts),” and, of course, true converts.  The last named category is most easily understood; they have, in fact, truly and basically converted in fundamental terms of wanting to theologically become and remain, one hopes, good Catholics. 

Some rather famous past examples have, e.g., included G.K. Chesterton, Christopher Dawson, Lord  Kenneth Clark, Ronald Knox, and John Henry Cardinal Newman, among many numerous others who could be cited, of course.    Newman’s forever splendid Apologia Pro Vita Sua is, for instance, the type of writing composition that yields a very good understanding, at a minimum, of how one ought to properly convert as to an actual, authentic conversion, thoroughgoing adherence, to the true Faith.

As defined here, a quasi-vert is someone who wishes to think that he (or she) is simply becoming much more of what spiritually speaking he mainly was; thus, for instance, a famous contemporary Lutheran convert, such as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, thinks he, in effect, has logically become just an advanced kind of better “Lutheran” Christian by, thus, becoming a Catholic.   How is this meant?

Massive empirical evidence, for what is being asseverated, can be readily gained from most of the books and other writings that he has produced, such as his Catholic Matters: Confusion, Controversy and the Splendor of Truth (2006); and, back to his The Catholic Moment: The Paradox of the Church in the Postmodern World, done many years, as highly  illustrative of his peculiar mode of heterodox thinking; it can be fairly said of Fr. Neuhaus, nonetheless, that he has been so consistently inconsistent with his Catholicism, especially as to his (assumed) conversion.

He has attempted to create, to conjure, a kind of incorporation or, perhaps, a better term would be a special synthesis of a type of improved, surpassed, enlightened Lutheranism, a supposed supra-Lutheranism, that came to be seen as his version of (a personalized) Catholicism.  

This viewpoint, of course, is in both theological and philosophical terms of reference completely illicit and anti-theological, illogical and absurd, as it is based partly on wish fulfillment and mostly on emotionalism, not reason and the many clear teachings of the Catholic Faith.   Truth, especially Catholic truth, is dependent heavily upon its objectivity  –  or else, it is just meaningless.

There can be no Catholicized Lutheranism nor the true horror of an assumed Lutheranized Catholicism, regardless of Fr. Neuhaus’ hopes or, shall one more correctly say, so fully errant, subjective beliefs.  These absurd (read: nominalist) beliefs revolve or, better yet, wildly spin ever bizarrely around a deranged vision of a perfected or higher (subjectivized) form of transformational “Lutheranism” as a then, thus, supposed “Catholicism.”   This is (as an understatement) truly very weird stuff to behold, to obviously observe in his own extant writings.

An entire category of quasi-verts, as yet another and important instance, would be the so-called Hebrew Catholics group who practice/retain parts of Judaism; this is while assuming that they had, somehow or other, become better Hebrews by then becoming Catholics.   Of course, St. Peter’s adopted view that Gentiles, for instance, did not have to become Hebrews before becoming Christians does not inform the Hebrew Catholics group on the religious need and, therefore, theological and logical obligation to fully convert. 

And, St. Paul, also in line with the valid and authoritative teachings of the Church, says clearly that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.   Thus, the incorrect thinking of these Jewish converts is not, at a minimum, consistent with Catholicism.   They appear to only wish to subjectively “convert” on their peculiar terms, which is not the true and requisite spirit of being renewed in their own souls by Baptism, meaning, in fact, to become a new person, in Christ.   But, of course, they, in retaining aspects of their Judaism, would be among the very first to deny that their conversions weren’t genuine.

A further and interesting illustration can be rendered as to a notable Christian quasi-vert.   Scott Hahn, given as yet another prominent and individual example, he being a former Protestant Evangelical, sincerely believes likewise that he became an improved or much more spiritually enlightened or advanced “Evangelical” Christian as a Catholic convert; this was, thus, accomplished by his willing (personalized) conversion to Catholicism.    

His unfortunate efforts (as also with Fr. Neuhaus) to retain what he thinks is best about Protestantism, as provided evidence for his quasi-vert viewpoint and attitude, can be observed so manifestly, most evidently, in such works of his as The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth.   

Hahn’s additional problem, unfortunately, is that he does not acknowledge that he is obviously a heretic because, among other reasons, of his obstinate refusal to stop trying to feminize  –  or, at the least, make a feminist image/symbol out of  –  the Holy Ghost, the third male person of the Holy Trinity.

What might be termed an adult understanding and comprehension of religion qua theological order within one’s very soul has been rejected because, ultimately, the philosophical nominalism inherent in such juvenile (read: subjective) cognition reigns supreme.   More plainly put, the typical quasi-vert   seems to wish to convert solely on his own terms of what a conversion may be supposed to mean, rather than what it ought to be, meaning total and needed renunciation of all error and, also, absolute acceptance of all (ultimate) truth, meaning the veracity of the Faith.

A trans-vert, as given here by definition, is someone who only conditionally converts, as with, e.g., those often ironically referred to as cafeteria Catholics (so-called “cradle” Catholics or not) who think that they can freely pick and chose what they wish to believe and, usually in a related manner, how or if they wish to practice their own or, one could say, personalized Catholicism.  They go in and out of various stages of belief and partial unbelief as their often agitated spirits seem to move them. 

Emotionalism eventually surpasses reason, while, in contrast, Catholicism is forever to be a unity of faith and reason, neither separate nor ever divided one against the other, as with Protestantism.   A trans-vert seeks to transverse, one way or another, a full range or spectrum of beliefs that can be (and usually is) tangential to any reasonable comprehension of Catholic belief and practice, of true Catholicism itself.

One easily sees much of this, for instance, among those called the Charismatic Catholics, as they do basically place feelings much above thought or reasoning ability.   For quasi-verts, however, there may even be a certain ardent amount of egotism involved, whether consciously or unconsciously considered is yet another question to, perhaps, be critically resolved.

Fr. Neuhaus would, of course, certainly deny any diminished conversion on his part; but, words have meanings, as ideas have consequences.  [St. Thomas More had refused to take an oath, which, as no little matter, had cost him his life.]   There is a here noted serious character flaw that could be termed chronic intellectual impetuosity (CII); it covers what is called the noetical attitude of “thinking out loud” as an insouciant condition of emotively winsome writers who remain so perpetually fascinated by what they are capable of scripting onto paper or, these days, e-paper. 

Every last (precious) thought must be axiomatically committed into the (made available and) publicly printed word; though he had frequently recanted, the late William F. Buckley, Jr., as another example (though not a convert, of course) had suffered grievously from the aforementioned CII “disease.”    

It is not simply loquacity leading often to imprudent logorrhea seen manifested in print; most of the current crop of popular Catholic writers exhibit a failure to morally exercise a proper self-restraint and self-discipline; this consideration covers a profound cognitive and respectful circumspection and deliberation, in terms of at least two of the four cardinal virtues, meaning prudence and temperance; one ought not to possibly give any scandal that may be created in the minds of many of the believers.   

As is so noted in this brief article, Hahn, Neuhaus, and some others, therefore, exhibit the problem, therefore, to an extreme degree beyond most such writers.

But, whenever Fr. Neuhaus (or Hahn) tries to somehow bring about any attempted clarification of his pronunciatory prolixity, it only tends, on average, to make the problem appear that much more worse.    This has been, moreover, overtly seen in lively exchanges between, e.g., Neuhaus and an editor, which have occurred in a highly combative and controversial publication known as the New Oxford Review.

The real problem is that true conversion is not meant to make someone feel that he is merely or otherwise becoming more of what he thinks he was (meaning, for instance, Fr. Neuhaus’ belief); to genuinely convert from, e.g., Lutheranism to Catholicism means, among other things, that one is totally rejecting the false church founded by the heretic Martin Luther because, by definition, of the morally harmful heresies involved in being a Lutheran versus being a Roman Catholic.  

This is absolutely not, however, to suggest any hatred of Lutherans (or others), only hatred of the morally pernicious, anti-Catholic, beliefs held, of course, by any Protestants or, by definition, such nonbelievers.   Contrariwise, Protestants, Jews, etc. are free to believe that various Catholic notions are similarly terrible, of course. 

But, the objective nature of truth, defended by the Faith, classical Natural Law tradition, and classical reason, means that both opinions cannot be true; false beliefs do, in fact, necessarily exist, regardless of subjective attitudes.  Possibly stating, e.g., the subjectivity of truth is plainly idiotic in that, by logical definition, no basis for such an illogical and irrational statement can, thus, exist.

The general kind of temperate spiritual perfection desired is willing and informed adherence to the true Faith, regardless of the moral failings of mere human beings.   Either one believes that Catholicism is absolute religious Truth or one does not; there really is no middle ground, no middle way, especially for converts who, presumably, are necessarily seeking the greatest fullness of truth, of religious authenticity itself.

Thus, as with the foregoing and prominent example of Fr. Neuhaus, one perceives clearly that he has not, and apparently will never, fully wish to actually convert to the requisite complete teachings, integral meaning, and spiritual comprehensiveness of Roman Catholicism.   While this, meaning as long as this condition, remains true, he then will immaturely stay as a mere quasi-vert as to his actual religious beliefs.   Theologically speaking, this ought to be a most serious concern and issue (for him).

The quasi-verts wish to retain and cherish, perversely, many of those things or traditions that had once held them in their former beliefs, which makes one wonder why they really wanted to convert.   Why?  Because heresies are to be hated in that millions of souls have been and will be going to Hell, according to the explicit teachings of the Church, as a result of acting, directly or indirectly, in accord with them.     

A non-Christian faith or belief is to be appropriately rejected because it inherently lacks, by definition, the always wanted and forever needed fullness of the Truth, meaning belief in Jesus Christ and His only authentic Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that is.  And, if the Roman Catholic Church should ever deny this theological, historical, and empirical assertion of fact, it ought to cease at once to exist because it would be (religiously) superfluous in nature.   

As a result, it is, thus, illogical and improper, absurd and unreasonable, to wish to have anything less than the unvarnished Truth, meaning, of course, the salvific belief in Jesus Christ and His Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that is. 

A Lutheranized or Evangelized Catholic is an oxymoronic term, therefore, having no functional nor substantive basis in sane reasoning, logical assertion, pertaining to an always wanted desire for both requisite and absolute theological veracity.   Any beliefs having their existence within or due to heresies are to be, moreover, categorically and without any rational hesitation rejected as hateful lies and supreme errors, untruths and falsities, in religious thought.

Quasi-verts, though in a much smaller way, commit, essentially speaking, the same kind of atavistic sin of Lot’s wife in looking back at Sodom.    A Catholic baptism (or true assent to the Faith) is to be thought of as a type of actual spiritual liberation, certain enlightenment, and forceful revelation of the greatest and grandest magnitude of comprehensive axiological, epistemological, and ontological truth leading toward a chance at salvation by the ultimate Truth.  

Thus, genuine deathbed conversions lead not only to a chance but, in actual fact, the full gaining of Heaven itself, according to the known doctrines of the Faith. 

One seriously wonders, as to further cognate speculation,  if the spirit of a false understanding of ecumenism has unwisely gripped the imaginations of too many people;  a false ecumenism leads, necessarily, to religious indifferentism and, finally, to a form of nihilism; true ecumenism acknowledges both those things held in common and matters of observed difference; the former are applauded by both sides seeking greater understanding for the sake of truth; the latter are deplored as things that divide people as believers in the united search for a true future unity of theological reality, meaning as to the truly vital need for common belief.  

Conversion is, therefore, appreciated as the logical and reasonable requirement for properly affirming the best understanding and comprehension of ultimate Truth.   Would this aforementioned false apprehension of ecumenism have been possible in the pre-Vatican II era?   That is, of course, an important and significant question to properly bring forward here; the probable and fair answer is – probably not.

Another matter of speculative wonder is if the same “conversions” by people such as Hahn or Neuhaus would have occurred in the preconciliar Church as supposedly opposed to the postconciliar Church, though such a distinction ought to be irrelevant since the Roman Catholic Church has been, is, and will be the same one institution; there was not, therefore, a different ecclesiastical organization (in existence) before Vatican II. 

Thus, neither, as examples, Vatican Council I nor II – or any other such council past – or in the future – can, in fact, really change the nature and substance, truth and reality, of the Church.   So, would the pre-Vatican II era, it might be asked, have easily allowed for such a tremendous (and growing?) number of existing quasi-verts?  

That is, of course, a highly important and intriguing question to properly posit; the probable and eminently fair answer is – probably not.   It is yet suspected, however, that the actual unvarnished answer ought to be, without qualification, definitely not.

No less a personage than Pope Benedict XVI, when he was a cardinal, had stated clearly, moreover, that the Second Vatican Council was just a pastoral council, meaning that absolutely none of the dogmas and doctrines, the fundamental core teachings, of the Church had been changed or even slightly modified in any way whatsoever; he has not, further to the important point raised here, ever altered his correct theological and historical opinion since becoming the Holy Father.  

Many other Church authorities, moreover, have and do agree totally with the current Vicar of Christ on earth as to the true nature of Vatican Council II, regardless of any or all contrary and, thus, completely erroneous opinions.

Therefore, all quasi-verts and trans-verts are here rightly, properly, admonished, for the sake of their immortal souls, to cease being false converts and, instead, willingly accept the actual fullness of the true Faith.  (And, Fr. Neuhaus, among many others, please take note.)

Athanasius contra mundum!

	Web useless-knowledge.com