I’m not a convert to the Catholic faith, but I have known lots of converts. You get to know lots of converts if you’ve worked in Catholic apologetics for, oh, 47 years.
Most converts settle into the Church quite comfortably, and in a year or two you can’t tell, at first meeting, whether or not they’re converts. They act and think just like other Catholics (with all the ups and downs implied by that).
But some converts turn out to be what Msgr. Ronald Knox, in his 1950 magnus opus Enthusiasm, called “enthusiasts.” That term wasn’t meant as a compliment. It didn’t mean people who simply were “enthusiastic” or “overjoyed” or, as Hubert Humphrey might have put it, “pleased as punch” to be Catholics.
It meant people of a certain (and sometimes intellectually fatal) mindset.
At first, everything seems all right with them, but in transitioning from A to B, they don’t know when to stop, and they pass right through C and D and eventually run out of letters. Some of them “convert” right out of the Church, and others end up adopting positions (often in politics or culture) that seem sensible to them but harebrained to nearly everyone else.
I’ve known—and even have worked with—converts who couldn’t stop converting and who ended up leaving the Church.
Gerry Matatics is one example. That name may not register with younger readers of this post, but in the late 1980s he was best buddy with Scott Hahn and entered the Church, from conservative Presbyterianism, at about the same time as Hahn.
Matatics worked at Catholic Answers for seven months in 1990 and 1991, then left to start his own apostolate. After a while, he announced that he had “converted” (his term) to Catholic Traditionalism, but he couldn’t stop converting.
He decided that the former English-language consecratory formula for the wine (“for all” instead of “for many”) was so defective that the entire Novus Ordo Mass was invalid. After that, he reasoned that Vatican II had to be invalid, and that there hadn’t been any valid popes since at least Pius XII (died 1958).
Then Matatics decided that all then-living bishops had been consecrated invalidly, except for a few centenarians who had been consecrated by Pius XII. A few years later, he concluded that there were no valid priests because they had been ordained after Vatican II. The result was that Matatics became a Church of One, even while still claiming to be Catholic.
His is an extreme example, but I’ve known of other converts who either went in his direction in terms of religion, though not as far, or who seem to have remained steady religiously but who hopped onto “enthusiastic” political or social causes.
What seems common to all these people is a conspiratorial mindset. By that, I mean that their first instinct is to imagine that the true explanation of an event or condition is to be found in an underlying conspiracy. No straightforward answer will suffice. (That Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk can’t be true, because that idea is too simple to be true.)
There is a kind of innocence in their thinking. They seem unable to imagine how something could have occurred by otherwise normal, fallen people doing normal, sinful things. No unhappy event is the result of a single person’s actions. It’s always a committee effort, and most members of the committee belong to The Secret Power Structure, or something like that.
A common denominator is that people with this mindset may develop or accept convoluted theories, but almost never are they able to name the supposed culprits. They know a committee (as I call it) is behind the thing, but they can’t name any members of the committee.
I have noticed this in recent months and particularly in recent days. There are converts with not-insignificant Facebook (or elsewhere) presences who have signed up as believers in one or more political or social conspiracies.
Among their newly touted positions is the notion that what people take to be extraterrestrials (UFOs) actually are demons pretending to be flying saucers (or at least UFOs). Another is a sudden interest in, and promotion of, conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.
I have tried to engage in discussion with several such converts. I ask them to name names or to cite new facts that have come to light, but they never do so. They hem and haw, or they tell me to do my own research or to watch a particular video (which invariably adds nothing to what was known decades ago).
This is par for Catholic “enthusiasts.” They have glommed onto something new (at least new to them). Like the ancient Gnostics, they think they have discovered something that was in plain sight all along but had been overlooked or misunderstood by nearly everyone else.
They are happy in their secret knowledge, which they willingly share with others—but, again, not to the extent of naming names or citing new facts. Whatever may be in their minds about an incident, they leave their readers with nothing more than suspicions—and no proof of the veracity of those suspicions.
Yes, there have been and are conspiracies: religious, political, social, whatever. But nearly every incident that occurs can be explained without resorting to a conspiracy theory, if one has a solid understanding of the vagaries of human nature (and some insight into the workings of ecclesiastical and political institutions).
What will happen to the Catholic converts I have in mind? Will they stop at promoting one or two conspiracies? Will their penchant for conspiracies end up distorting their religious beliefs, to the point that they too some day will be outside the Church even though they will think themselves still in it?
I’m not a prognosticator. I can’t predict where these people will end up. All I can affirm, from decades in apologetics and from wide reading in other fields, is that “enthusiasts” all too often end up where they originally had no intention to go.
(Editor’s note: This essay was first published on the author’s Facebook page, in slightly different form, and is posted here with kind permission.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I know of two converts to the Catholic Church from fundamentalist backgrounds. They were single young men and shortly after their entry into the Catholic Church, made application to the diocesan priesthood. In retrospect, I thought the decision of the bishop to admit them to seminary after only a short time of being Catholic an unwise one. Both were ordained to the Catholic priesthood. Both wound up leaving the priesthood and leaving the Catholic Church as well. Faith in the Catholic Church is something to be nurtured over a period of time. What one does with one’s Faith is something that needs to be under the direction of one’s pastor – and hopefully a wise and prudent priest.
Do you know why they left the priesthood? And secondarily what are they doing now?
Do you know why they left the Church-and secondarily, where are they now? Back to fundamentalism or something else.
I’ve seen circumstances in the secular world where a new employee, member or other associate exhibits extraordinary zeal for the organization and purpose-especially if they are the idealistic type. The hard truth, as my late grandmother used to say is “new brooms sweep clean”. I can imagine a fundamentalist realizing how Sola Scriptura produces a herd of cats (like libertarians or open source software advocates) being scandalized by Bishops and Cardinals such as Cupich, Marx, McElroy, or priests like Jimmy Martin.
One is now dead. The other married and with children.
One reason for the conspiracy-mongering is the sexual abuse scandals that rocked the Church. The culture of secrecy and dissembling have left a lot of hurt Catholics looking for answers.
The answer is simple: Man is sinful. What many of the people you describe fail to acknowledge is that far more Protestant clergy have been guilty of sexual abuse than Catholic. That doesn’t excuse the latter, mind you, but it isn’t in just our house. The Church? She is perfect. Some of those inhabiting it are not.
I agree Augustus. It’s all about our fallen nature, not our denomination. Sometimes though Catholic clergy abuse looks a little different than the Protestant variety.
I’m not familiar with the form “clergy abuse” took among the protestants. What I do know, however, is that among Catholic clergy the preponderant abuse was homosexual in nature
And, why isn’t Pope Leo doing something about the problem of James Martin SJ?
Actually, there was a paper by a Penn State (I’m a graduate, so I understand the irony, the paper if I recall correctly was published before the Sandusky revelations) that indicated that priests actually had a lower rate of “abuse” than other faith traditions. If the detractionary misappropriation of the grand jury process by then PA Attorney General Josh Shapiro had any socially redeeming value, it was revealing how early the rot infiltrated and how it was furthered by the episcopal malfeasance of “musical parishes”. (also known as rehabilitating offenders back into society)
If I can find it, I’ll link it.
The quotes around “abuse” indicates the difficulty of defining it, not my disbelief in the occurrence.
Case in point:
Decades ago, I had an in-law who was a cradle Methodist. The pastor of the local church, a married man had an affair with a congregant woman he was counseling.
This is certainly abuse in the form of a person exploiting spiritual authority, but since it involved “two consenting adults” (and I presume two nonconsenting spouses) it would be many things, but not I suspect “abuse” as we count it.
Is this it? Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (Oxford University Press, 1996).
True, but it is important to note that it is not the Faithful who are responsible for the heinous sexual abuse crisis, the Faithful affirm Christ Teaching on sexual morality grounded in respect for The Sanctity and Dignity of the HumanPerson.
While the claim has been made that Vatican II did not change The Dogma of The Catholic Faith, but this statement is simply not True.
“You cannot be My Disciples if you do not Abide In My Word.” – The Charitable Anathema Of Jesus The Christ
Vatican II no longer affirming Christ’s Charitable Anathema, which serves for The Salvation of Souls, allowed for all sorts of error to be brought up for debate making it appear as if The Word Of God is not Divine and that it is possible to have Sacramental Communion without Ecclesiastical Communion, changing the very Essence of The Word Of God by creating a false magisterium that is still attempting to subsist within The One Body Of Christ which is impossible due to The Unity of The Holy Ghost.
It is short-sighted to paint only converts such a broad brush. It is more a characteristic of a certain kind of personality. For instance, I know a priest, a cradle Catholic, who fits this description perfectly. Most converts I have met are far more faithful to the Church and her teachings than many life-long Catholics.
It is not just converts who go this route. I have a relative, a cradle Catholic, who has gone off the deep end. The Church has not been the Church since Vatican II, no valid Popes since then, no valid priests since then, if you’re not traditional you’re not Catholic, Communion is not valid unless placed on the tongue, etc…. I liken it to analysis paralysis. Typically overly intelligent people over-analyzing things to the point that they are lost. Leave it be. The Church is perfect. God would allow nothing less.
I know folks like that, too Augustus & not just converts. The first time I ran into that sort of thing was in the 1970’s.
A dedicated sedevacantist was making the nursing home rounds back then with photos of Pope Paul. She claimed he’d been secretly replaced by an imposter & she had the evidence. She said you could tell that because in a more recent photo his ears were longer.
People’s ears can appear that way as they age but she wouldn’t be unconvinced of the secret plot. I guess nursing homes can have less skeptical audiences.
I am certain, upon further reflection, that Karl Keating will realize that by virtue of the fact that the scandalous synod report exists, Baptized Catholics have conspired to deny God’s Divine Law regarding Sexual Morality, which is a Betrayal of Trust because it first and foremost is a blasphemy of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ , Who Proceeds From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, In The Ordered Communion Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Complementary Love, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, AND by virtue of the fact that the charitable anathema of those responsible for the Scandalous Synod Report, all those who contributed to it or accommodated this blasphemy, which is, In essence, apostasy, in its denial of Divine Love, and thus its denial of The Divinity of The Most Holy Blessed Trinity, is certainly evidence enough.
No doubt, those who have affirmed this conspiracy exists, by their conspiring to deny the essence of Divine Love, are certainly not in communion with Christ, for they have most certainly aligned themselves with atheist materialistic over- population alarmist humanism which denies The Sanctity and Dignity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, and thus God’s Revealed Will that we respect the inherent Sanctity and Dignity of all Human Life from the moment of conception, while those who are in communion with Christ and His Church have a responsibility to call for their charitable anathema, which exists for The Salvation of Souls.
One can only have A Great Apostasy from The True Church Of Christ, thus we can know who are True Followers of Christ by their desire to Abide In Divine Love.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/05/17/the-scandalous-synod-report-a-betrayal-of-trust/
I was a bit surprised to see the UFOs-as-demons idea lumped in as a “conspiracy theory”. Depending on one’s standards, EVERY opinion whatsoever about UFOs could be labelled such, simply because every theory is thus far unproven.
I first heard the idea from an Eastern Orthodox priest in the early 2000s (in other words, it’s not new at all, it’s just in the current news cycle) and found it to be a uniquely valuable Christian contribution to the whole UFO discourse — and one of the best escape hatches *away* from conspiracy theories about them, many of which draw people into New Age beliefs and away from a Christian world view.
That doesn’t prove that it’s true. I’m just saying that from what I’ve seen in my 35-ish years with a passing interest in UFOlogy, the theological interpretation is a lot more level-headed and less prone to gnostic tendencies, compared to the alternatives that treat X-Files and Spielberg movies as if they’re documentaries.
I’ve heard the demonic link to UFOs since middle 1960s as a possible sign of the always just-around-the-corner “end times”, along with speculation Henry Kissinger may be the anti-christ, and too many others to list.
As for UFOs, anyone who can cross interstellar/intergalactic gulfs will have mastered time as well as space, normal physics will not apply to them, and the thought they’d even think of playing peek-a-boo with lower animals or be so bumbling as to crash into planets is simply ludicrous, they’d be too advanced for such primitive games or incompetence. They would exist on another plane physically and mentally.
To “convert” is to go from pagan/agnostic/atheist to baptised Catholic, to “reconcile” is to go from baptised Christian to confirmed Catholic. I reconciled over 30yrs ago. I do not deny anything of the Roman Catholic Church except that which flies in the face and contradicts all which came before. While not denying the council, I see some things in Vatican II which showed far more clever sophistry than wisdom inserted by clever sophists bent on remaking the Roman Catholic Church in their own image which opened innumerable previously closed doors which has led to the fragmentation and extreme damage to the institution.
And it persists because the institution is incapable of flatly admitting that it made any mistake at all, and is too busy guarding reputation by trying to legitimize conflicting views through more “nuancing” word games, and paralyzes itself.
The Roman Catholic Church is not what it presented itself to be back when I reconciled, and instead is more as we said in the Army, “The Army isn’t what it used to be, but then, again, it never was.”
WOW! Very disappointing piece from Karl! Before I read it I expected a lot more.
His basic premise is on target, and his inclusion of the Matatic story is a good example supporting that.
(DeaconEd’s example in his comment also does the same).
However from that point on his other examples are completely off point.
Karl’s decision to insert and overplay a “conspiracy” component into his analysis is fairly obviously ludicrous as evidenced especially by inserting our government’s JFK’s assassination story as something that he implies that we are to believe or we are “conspiracy nuts”. No one I know believes Oswald was a lone rogue assasin.
So Karl inserts that into his piece and then precludes any pushback by claiming no one has ever presented him any compelling evidence to the contrary, therefore ipso facto there was no conspiracy. AND anyone who thinks there probably was is a certifiable nut case.
OK, Karl – even though you already pooed on anyone disagreeing with you – just for one, watch the testimony of James Files who claims to have taken the kill shot from the grassy knoll. His knowledge of every minute detail is staggering. I’ve never read any plausible denial of his story other than 100% ad hominems. He names names, Karl!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-8DGv6KSBZI&t=107s&pp=ygUMamFtZXMgZmlsZXMg
Here’s another. It’s a large book (so don’t buy it if you’re not willing to put in the time to read it) that Bobby Kennedy Jr. recommends as what he believes. It definitely supports a conspiracy theory!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062276174?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_dt_b_asin_image
It’s also very telling that Karl inserts Tyler Robinson to help “prove” his thesis and not Thomas Crooks the late Butler, Pa attempted assassin of DJT. The entire Crooks government story and post assassination ttempt chain of findings and events stinks to high heaven. Most people I know think there is MUCH more behind this. Of course in Karl’s mind the “conspiracy” word immediately pops up and I am therefore immediately dismissed as well.
As well, read the “conspiracy supporting” books by Fr. Charles Murr and Julia Meloni detailing – and naming names, Karl, real conspiracies that have been and continue to inflict great harm on our Church.
I totally agree with the overall premise of this article but Karl’s explication falls flat.
Interesting analysis . . . which agrees in large measure with mine (which no doubt relieves your mind no end). Enthusiasm, as Knox defined it — an excess of charity that threatens unity — is (as I understand it) a form of modernism, a rejection of reason in favor of religious sentiment often labeled “faith” but is really fideism, at least according to St. Pius X; fideism is to faith as scientism is to science, much of the language is similar, but entirely different meanings are assigned to the words. Not surprisingly, the late Dr. Ralph McInerny claimed fideism is the single greatest danger to the Church today, to say nothing of its effect on the rest of society.
As Knox described the phenomenon, the enthusiast rejects “man’s miserable intellect” (reason) in favor of personal opinion. Eventually, those who disagree with the enthusiast or don’t agree the right way or with sufficient enthusiasm (in the other sense) have no rights and ultimately are not truly human.
This was seen in the strange case of Félicité de Lammenais, one-time head of the ultramontane neo-Catholic movement following the death of de Maistre. De Lammenais’s “theory of certitude” exaggerated papal infallibility beyond all bounds and eventually resulted in the first social encyclical, Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos in 1832. When the pope rejected de Lammenais’s theories, he repudiated his priesthood, renounced Christianity, and founded his own “Religion of Man” with himself as head and possibly sole communicant.
After de Lammenais attacked the pope in a small pamphlet (“Small in size, but great in evil”), “Words of a Believer,” Gregory XVI issued the second social encyclical, Singulari Nos, in 1834. He referred to the rei novae, “New Things” de Lammenais advocated — socialism, modernism (Charles Perin who coined the term in its Catholic sense considered de Lammenais the first modernist) and the New Age — later referenced by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum (not the first social encyclical, but the first of a new kind of social encyclical).
The confusion spread by de Lammenais was responsible for Catholic social teaching as a discrete field, and was the primary reason for calling the First Vatican Council. Most people today (as well as at the time) are not aware that the definition of infallibility was intended not to expand the concept but to rein it in. (Newman objected to the definition not because he disagreed with it, but because he felt it was politically inopportune and possibly threatened his “Second Spring” initiative. He should have known better, having seen the Oxford Movement disintegrate in large part due to the New Things, to say nothing of the attacks he suffered from Charles Kingsley, the socialist-modernist, which resulted in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua. As an anti-Catholic Newman damned de Lammenais with faint praise; after his conversion, he was disgusted with the man’s antics — as was Alexis de Tocqueville, who declared de Lammenais had “pride enough to walk over the heads of kings and bid defiance to God.”)
Another thing many people miss about the First Vatican Council is the definition of the role of reason to counter the modernist reliance on fideism. In Canon 2.1, the Council Fathers declared that it was heretical to deny that knowledge of God’s existence and of the natural law written in the heart of every human being can be known by the force and light of human reason alone. (Not that it necessarily has been so known, just that it can.) This was repeated in the first Article of the Oath Against Modernism and in § 2 of the encyclical Humani Generis.
Pope Leo XIV’s upcoming encyclical Magnifica Humanitas will no doubt address some part of this, especially since His Holiness is consciously following the lead of Rerum Novarum — of New Things — but a little background with which many people are unfamiliar might be useful in understanding the broader context. It might even be a good time to start thinking about a follow-up to Quadragesimo Anno, the centenary of which is coming up in 2031.
De Lamennais. That’s what I get for not checking my spelling.
I did the same spell error a few years ago.
De Lamennais was in the group with Montalembert and Lacordaire. Lacordaire was greatly reconciled but according to WIKIPEDIA (right now) he later supported the French invasion of the Papal States and accepted if it meant the fall of the Pope. The “gattopardo” business “the ending of the old guard” wasn’t about a singular vision or motive. The particular novel embodying its own stylization of the Risorgimento trading (I think) on various social-religious “interpretation”.
The “gattopardo” business “the ending of the old guard” COULD NOT HAVE BEEN about a singular vision or motif.
No single MOTIF there.
Lay off Gerry Matatics. He may have been mistaken about all sorts of things, but he had more integrity in his little finger than the entire collection of nincompoops and perverts making up the current hierarchy. Lay off.
I’m a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism, in which ecclesial community I was an ordained minister for nearly 40 years. I have been a Catholic priest for the past 14 years through the Ordinariates established by Pope Benedict XVI of blessed memory. I love being a Catholic. My only regret is that I didn’t convert much earlier. One observation I have made is that many Catholics know so little about their faith and many more don’t realise how lucky they are to be Catholic. I’m also disappointed by the number of longtime priests who are so lackadaisical about the priesthood and the liturgy. But fortunately the Church herself remains focused on her Saviour and on the Mass as the source and summit of the life of the Church, and as the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Most of us as converts do our best to proclaim this wonderful reality.
Sins against the flesh is an encompassing phrase, including lust, sloth and gluttony.
It’s possible that our Lady at Fatima was warning most of all about contraception, since this would explode in the next 100 years and it is the nullifying of the sex act, converting it purely to lust and reserving the body (bodies) to oneself over the Holy Spirit, right there in the heart of the home the domestic church. Similarly, homosexualism, trans things, mutilations of the body and IVF.
As home life then became undone with rampant elective divorce the latter got overtaken by “private enterprises” and the State and “social care”.
Sloth and gluttony have their own respective story lines.
Well, some members of the hierarchy do not want to be “harping all the time” about sexual sins. This “harping all the time” is a caricature, it began as a caricature. Both sin and sexuality are meant to be taught and governed responsibly in the home and beyond; so if the matters are getting designated for censorship in the parish and this idea is filtering back into homes and the general society, everyone is getting played from the parish. The reason the caricature happens is to cover for those who want to teach wrong things – precisely what needs countering/remediating when it shows up, or, at least, precisely what needs to be brought out into the light of day.
This caricaturizing didn’t begin in the parishes. It began in lodge homes a very long time ago; coming through “enlightenment society” and expressed at large as we see demonstrated for example in works like The Leopard.
When someone is facing these kinds of problems in the parish it can happen that he is demoted as being too divisive or as being a “gattopardo” or as being “too enthusiastic” or what have you. It could be it is nothing like that. Such a person is not necessarily “telling the priest what he must do”. Nor “telling the Archbishop” he is more the Archbishop than the Archbishop. The responsibility for it rests with them not him.
One such person is telling you that the caricaturizing is widespread not restricted to his own Archdiocese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leopard