Let's take a swing at the first paper tent:
Objection #1: Hypocrisy
'Oh, you know how Catholics live: they can do whatever they want and confess it to the priest and everything is good.'
This is often tacked onto the next phrase for consideration, tacked on as a sort of acerbic chuckle. I mention this one first because it's easy to address; it's probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever said or heard as a rational human being. 'Catholics can just confess it to their priest and go on' ... as opposed to, what? just confessing it to 'God alone' in silence and moving on? What absolute nonsense. Even on a threadbare 'psychological' scale, whose confession of sin seems to be the more painful and memorable? Of course, this little jewel is said with the understanding that Catholics are lawless hogs, unlike those of us who are shining, pious Protestant people. ...Which is also revealed to be either sheer nonsense or a contradiction when the time comes to denounce those Catholics for their overbearing legalism. (...Ring around the rosey...)
'Catholics have a horrible reputation in the world. They cheat, smoke, drink, cuss, and generally live horrifically hypocritical lifestyles. How can this be the one and only "Church"? Why associate with these people?'
Well, okay - this really isn't an objection to converting. Actually, most of our Protestant objections to converting aren't, strictly speaking, 'objections.' They are nit-picking doubts to pit holes in the substance of the Church. However, out of all the objections, this seems to be the first and most tightly-clad/clung-to grenade intended to keep that damned Catholic Church at Her distance from our position on the field.
In answer to the objection: Yes, I've noticed hypocrisy among Catholics, and I will address this. However, to begin with, maybe it would help for the Protestant to consider a few overlooked inconsistencies in the hurled indictments. Basically, in the first place, the Protestant (I've found) automatically assumes that her/his definition of Christianity - in all its large and minute details - is the prism through which Catholicism should be viewed. The result is a few true snowballs developing into an overwhelming and self-fulfilling avalanche. For example, the Protestant assumes that (in the endangered event of the Catholic faith ever being lived out) there will be some kind of a cohesion between a largely Protestant-based mindset (i.e. American Christianity) and the Catholic faith lived out - and alcohol is a good example of why this is a false assumption. Alcohol is generally (and generally subconsciously) understood by American Protestants (specifically: those traditions based in Puritan and pietistic traditions) to be good for one thing: getting drunk. Even if the denomination of the hypocrite hunter isn't thoroughly 'against' alcohol as a concept, the teachings against consuming alcohol (at least in how I've experienced Nazarene abstaining) creates a huge stigma around consumption of any kind. Hence, many of the 'hypocrite sightings' I hear are from Wesleyan-Holiness types generally involving someone with a cigarette or a glass of beer ... and that's pretty much the extent of the evidence. And perhaps the hypocrite was behaving 'impolitely' - getting loud with her/his friends, etc., which is obviously sin. Again, I don't deny that there are actual hypocrites in the Church, but let's get serious and push aside some of the fluff that puffs up our cases against the Church.
Furthermore, who is this 'they' category that the entire Church is subsumed under? The Protestant should seriously consider the fact that everyone who calls herself/himself a Catholic might not be on the same terms with the Catholic faith as, say, the Pope might be. At this particular juncture, I'm often amused and frustrated. The examples acquaintances/friends give for 'Catholic hypocrisy' are typically those nominal Catholics who have strayed so far from the Faith to be within the line-of-sight of Protestants deep in the hinterlands of Christianity; that is, what I've noticed is that most Protestants encounter Catholics who are, shall we say, in 'deep orbit' around the Church. Unless the Protestant is actually active in leaving strictly Protestant circles, he/she encounters what could be considered the 'free radicals' of the Church. It has apparently never occurred to the hypocrite hunter that, before passing judgment, perhaps someone should take some kind of meaningful step into the Catholic community and really observe.
Now, here's the shocker: both Jew and Gentile have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. However, double-standards abound. If I were to use hypocrisy as a reason to avoid converting to the Church, I would have left the Nazarene denomination a long time ago. There are plenty of hypocrites everywhere. The shocker is as follows: strictly speaking, from the dictionary definition, 99% of us are hypocrites; and among all of us who fall short of the mark we aspire to live up to, there are blatant hypocrites scattered like so many weeds throughout the one Church and (horrifying, but true!) even the immaculately white-washed communities of Protestantism. I've noticed that Catholic hypocrisy is more easy to observe than Protestant hypocrisy, but that seems to be because (at least in my particular tradition of Protestantism) we've all but equated good visible behaviour/manners with holiness. Pornography and gossip may be running rampant, but at least we're not like those heathens having a beer with friends at the tavern.
So what about the hypocrites that actually do exist - those blatant hypocrites? Again, I don't deny they exist. Furthermore, I offer no defence for them; the Church and Holy Scripture makes it clear that they are reaping judgment for themselves. However, notice the use of the word 'they' there; there's a lot of distancing in that sort of language that tends to help us forget that we, too, are sinners saved by God's grace alone. Also, please regard the fact that the Catholic Church believes God has vested His Spirit's doctrinal/governmental guidance in the bishops of His Church; this does not mean that the layperson is 'scott free' in regard to hypocrisy, but how can the Protestant use the individualised context of her/his community to condemn the Church? I would toss out this little bit of flippancy: let's look at Christ's ministry on earth before we start railing against the existence of hypocrites in His Church. In relation to this, I would also offer one tiny insight I've noticed about human behaviour: the closer one gets to the Truth, the harder it is for the human to approach it. ...The Light pierced the darkness, and the darkness did not understand/comprehend it, etc. etc. As Chesterton wrote in his The Catholic Church and Conversion, 'Christianity was not tried and found wanting; it was found difficult and left untried.' If a scientific study showed that more persons baptised into the Catholic Church were (in percentages) more hypocritical than those baptised (or given a handshake or whatever) into other communions, it would not surprise me. Being a good Catholic is so much more treacherous and full than being a good 'saved by my personal decision' Christian. The stakes are very much higher.
As to the 'associating with those people' aspect of this objection, the hypocrite hunter inadvertently raises a corollary issue (that doesn't have to do with the argument, but is indeed food for thought): am I 'too good' to associate with those dirty Catholics? Yes, the Catholics may be a bunch of curs who are hardly worthy of the Protestant hypocrite hunter's notice or association, but Jesus did say something about coming to those who needed salvation.
-Rick
