Comparing theory with practice? (Hahn)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_J

Guest
The other day I was thinking about Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book “Rome Sweet Home” – first I was discussing it with an Orthodox poster, then I was looking at reviews of it posted on Amazon.

One thing which caught my attention was a review which complained about “Hahn’s comparison of Roman Catholicism in theory to other Christian Churches in practice” – something that didn’t really occur to me when I read the book (about 10 years ago). The reviewer continues “Any Church is most appealing in the words and lives of its most saintly practitioners. It is when those ideals get transferred to the pews on a weekly basis that things get a little messy.”

(There’s also a related discussion in the “Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??” thread.)

So I thought I’d ask:
  1. Do you see this in either the writings of the Hahns and other Catholics, and/or in the writings of non-Catholic Christians (in reverse, obviously)?
  2. How would you address these complaints?
 
Peter_J said:
The other day I was thinking about Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book “Rome Sweet Home” – first I was discussing it with an Orthodox poster, then I was looking at reviews of it posted on Amazon.

One thing which caught my attention was a review which complained about “Hahn’s comparison of Roman Catholicism in theory to other Christian Churches in practice” – something that didn’t really occur to me when I read the book (about 10 years ago). The reviewer continues “Any Church is most appealing in the words and lives of its most saintly practitioners. It is when those ideals get transferred to the pews on a weekly basis that things get a little messy.”

(There’s also a related discussion in the “Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??” thread.)

So I thought I’d ask:
  1. Do you see this in either the writings of the Hahns and other Catholics, and/or in the writings of non-Catholic Christians (in reverse, obviously)?
Click to expand...
Sure, it happens all the time. Theory is most always most attractive; and practice is most always more messy. So, if someone wants to argue for a particular religion, that person often emphasizes the theory of that religion, and compares the nice theory of that religion, to the messy practice of some other religion.
  1. How would you address these complaints?
Click to expand...
I’m not Catholic, but I would address those complaints by asking, would you want (1) attractive theory and messy practice – both of which represent the fullness of truth; or (2) attractive theory and messy practice – both of which are incorrect in some way or other? (“Fullness of truth” refers to whichever religion you believe to possess fullness of truth.)
 
Peter_J said:
The other day I was thinking about Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s book “Rome Sweet Home” – first I was discussing it with an Orthodox poster, then I was looking at reviews of it posted on Amazon.

One thing which caught my attention was a review which complained about “Hahn’s comparison of Roman Catholicism in theory to other Christian Churches in practice” – something that didn’t really occur to me when I read the book (about 10 years ago). The reviewer continues “Any Church is most appealing in the words and lives of its most saintly practitioners. It is when those ideals get transferred to the pews on a weekly basis that things get a little messy.”

(There’s also a related discussion in the “Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??” thread.)

So I thought I’d ask:
  1. Do you see this in either the writings of the Hahns and other Catholics, and/or in the writings of non-Catholic Christians (in reverse, obviously)?
Click to expand...
Naturally. Any Theological belief system is going to present some ideal. The greater the ideals, the more difficult it will be for believers to live up to them. In additon, the more widespread a belief system, the more adherants, the greater the chance of meeting a less than stellar example of the belief system.
There are, of course, many other reasons that can enter into the equation. For instance in some non-catholic churches the emphasis is on conversion. This means that a greater percentage will be 1st generation members and, as such, will tend to be more enthusiastic. People who are born into a particular faith may tend to be less so.
To me the question is less what my fellows in the pews are doing, or how they view their personal walk, but how well am I doing.
  1. How would you address these complaints?
Click to expand...
I guess I really answered this above. 🤷 Can’t think of anything to add.
 
SedesDomi and JRKH,

Thanks, those are both excellent posts. (SedesDomi, are you sure you’re really non-Catholic? 😉 😃 )
 
This reply is more regarding your by line Peter J, from the Mikado.

I think this is a fence sitting position (I am right and you are right…)

Two ideas cannot be both write if they are arguing from contrary positions. Something cannot be both black and white at the same time. This position is too PC and relativist.

As to the content of your OP. I think we are talking here about ortho praxis and orthoxy (right practice and right doctrine). Some think doctrine is boring but practice proceeds from doctrine. Unfortunately, the translation into the pews of this doctrine can largely be blamed on the failure to explain doctrine.

For example, how many attack Humanae Vitae without having understood, much read the document.

Furthermore, we are all sinners called to be saints and we stumble and fumble our way to that goal. The OP seems to me asking us to be a perfect Church here and now.

I am reminded of a story about a priest who everyone in the congregation knew to be a scoundrel. Whilst giving a brilliant homily, he was heckled by a few on the pew with taunts like “Yeah, you hypocrite. You do not practice what you preace!”.

And the priest countered: “Would you rather I preached what i practiced?”
 
benedictus2 said:
This reply is more regarding your by line Peter J, from the Mikado.

I think this is a fence sitting position (I am right and you are right…)

Two ideas cannot be both write if they are arguing from contrary positions. Something cannot be both black and white at the same time. This position is too PC and relativist.
Click to expand...
Hi benedictus2,

I’m glad you provided that explanation. Who knows, there may be two or three people out there who hadn’t already figured that out for themselves.

🙂
 
benedictus2 said:
…
For example, how many attack Humanae Vitae without having understood, much [less] read the document.
…
Furthermore, we are all sinners called to be saints and **we stumble and fumble our way to that goal. **
…
Click to expand...
I think that what is stated above is the most correct answer, personally.

We are all called to the perfect ideal, yet we are all very weak, very fragile.

The way is narrow and straight that leads to salvation, and few there are that find it. The way is broad that leads to hell, and many go in thereby. The Church is composed of both wheat and tares, good and evil. I think that seeing the messy application of the Church’s teaching is inevitable…at least until the end of time, that is.

[Hmm, just caught the question. Sorry about that. Theory of one vs. the practice of another. Honestly, I didn’t have this complaint when reading Dr. Hahn’s book. I was far too surprised by the information that was presented. Bowing out of thread. 😉 ]
 
Peter_J said:
Hi benedictus2,

I’m glad you provided that explanation. Who knows, there may be two or three people out there who hadn’t already figured that out for themselves.

🙂
Click to expand...
Ok so mock me. But the whole statement comes across as one of those all faiths are equal, all opinions are equal, let’s not rock the boat and let’s not step on toes.

All too new agey nonsense:-)

So being your signature, not sure if this is a deeply held conviction or tongue in cheek.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top