Extreme Caution to self-learners in Catholic faith (Scott Hahn, Frank Sheed)

  • Thread starter Thread starter G.Frege
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

G.Frege

Guest
This past weekend I had the occasion to buy a new book by a prominent Catholic apologist. His name shall remain anonymous, but sufficed to say he is beloved on this website and within nearly all orthodox Catholic circles. He is a Catholic convert with little formal Catholic theological training. His book is endorsed by guys who, IMO, do know-- or should know-- their theology. Anyway, on a very basic treatment of a fundamental Catholic doctrine this author gave an explanation that was perfectly wrong. I will be kind and chalk this up as a reversion to his Protestant rationalist training. Anyway, while I might be sufficiently educated to pick up on this important, albeit subtle, error, I wonder how many less-informed Catholics might be vitiated for life but such an error. I couldn’t help but think of Aristotle’s insight regarding little errors in the beginning…

I can recall reading in the writings of Sir Anthony Kenny and the late Fr. Herb McCabe a similar criticism of Frank Sheed (they both, independently, pointed out the egregious error Sheed made regarding the doctrine of Creation in his book Theology and Sanity).

The bottomline is this: your Catholic faith and education is too important to leave in the hands of anyone but the very best. The great Dominican scholar Fr. A.D. Sertillanges, OP, wrote that Catholics [and all readers] should only read and study the works of first-rate minds of the past and present. What was true in Sertillanges’ day is triply true today, where we are flooded with third, fourth, even fifth-rate minds and their books. Fortunately, we Catholics have more first-rate minds, past and present, than any one of us will ever need. You’ll never have to worry about Oxford theologians like Aidan Nichols, OP, or Brian Davies, OP, or the late Fr. Herbert McCabe, OP, getting some Catholic doctrine wrong, or misunderstanding a fundamental theological point. They might be a little hard at first, but after a little work their superior mental habits will rub off and the reader will be raised to a higher and more exacting intellectual understanding of the faith.

Here’s a good website to bookmark: christendom-awake.org
 
As a point of guidance, it would be helpful to know the nature of the error. Thanks.
 
Anyway, on a very basic treatment of a fundamental Catholic doctrine this author gave an explanation that was perfectly wrong.
You are presenting your opinion here without any justification for doing so. What qualifications do you have to say that the explanation was wrong. At the very least, you should identify the doctrine and the error in explanation. At the most, you should identify the author and the book so he can defend himself.

ILO
 
I would also like to know the error in Sheed’s book. I think Theology And Sanity was one of the greatest books (apologetic or otherwise) I have ever read.
 
Thanks for letting us know how educated you are to catch an error…but WE are too dumb to share in your knowledge…other than throwing out crumbs…for us to “beware”… If you truly cared about people being misled, you would tell people what the “error” is, what the book is and also who the author is… otherwise you cannot be taken seriously. 😦
 
I’m kinda interested in the “error” too. Perhaps you could provide some info so that we can discuss this?

Peace and all good,

Thomas2
 
I would think that an “error” as dangerous as this would have been caught and publicly pointed out.
 
I am going to mention neither his name nor the work. I will discuss this issue via private mail. I will send private messages to the posts on this thread. But frankly, who and where and what was said is not germane. Perhaps I should’ve merely referenced the “ex nihilo” error of Sheed as a means of instruction. Sheed, whom I believe was a convert, studied law and had no formal Catholic theological training. I should also point out that Sheed wrote, before the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, that the Catholic Church would allow contraception (an error that no Catholic moral theologian worth his salt would’ve made). Again, there is something to be said for formal theological training. Theology in general, and Catholic theology in particular, is far from simple and straightforward. Mortimer Adler in his first autobiography remarked that theoretical physics and theology are the two most abstract, sublime subjects. Catholics who chose to get their education in the faith from websites and converts with no formal Catholic theological training receive, at best, shared ignorance.
 
If the information that you site is published information then there is no obligation to withhold either the title of the book or the authors name. You must have known that your criticism of this “beloved” apologist would peek everyones interest and curiosity. Further more, since most of us are under the influence of such poor exegesis, I would think that your first obligation would be to save us from our ignorance instead of protecting the object of your criticism.Give us poor souls the full scoop!!
 
I am at a loss for what to do with this information. There is no way for me to guarrantee the 100% accuracy of what I read, and yet I must trust trusted apologists to give good inormation. I also cannot shrink from sharing what I believe to be true, although I have been corrected in the past, whether in word or written text.

What is your recommendation. Being on watch for errors is a given. If the author and book in question is reputable, that is all the more reason to make the correction public.

Regards,
Chris
 
Books use to post an Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat to state that they were approved by the Church and contained no errors. Does anyone know why this practice was stopped.
 
Chris W:
I am at a loss for what to do with this information. There is no way for me to guarrantee the 100% accuracy of what I read, and yet I must trust trusted apologists to give good inormation. I also cannot shrink from sharing what I believe to be true, although I have been corrected in the past, whether in word or written text.

What is your recommendation. Being on watch for errors is a given. If the author and book in question is reputable, that is all the more reason to make the correction public.

Regards,
Chris
First off, read Fr. Sertillanges’ The Intellectual Life (CUA Press). A key point he makes is to only read first-rate minds (e.g., Aquinas). And when looking for expositors, there too only choose first-rate minds (e.g., Frs. McCabe, Davies, Nichols). You can be sure that anyone whose reaches the level of faculty at places like: Angelicum (Rome), Gregorianum, Georgetown Univ., Catholic Univ. of America, Notre Dame, Blackfriars Hall, Oxford Univ, et al., will not make egregious errors in fundamental theology and doctrine. Some of their theology might be disagreeable to the purists (reactionaries), but you’ll never have to worry about their aptitude or knowledge of the subject.
 
G. Frege:
I am going to mention neither his name nor the work. I will discuss this issue via private mail. I will send private messages to the posts on this thread. But frankly, who and where and what was said is not germane. Perhaps I should’ve merely referenced the “ex nihilo” error of Sheed as a means of instruction. Sheed, whom I believe was a convert, studied law and had no formal Catholic theological training. I should also point out that Sheed wrote, before the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, that the Catholic Church would allow contraception (an error that no Catholic moral theologian worth his salt would’ve made). Again, there is something to be said for formal theological training. Theology in general, and Catholic theology in particular, is far from simple and straightforward. Mortimer Adler in his first autobiography remarked that theoretical physics and theology are the two most abstract, sublime subjects. Catholics who chose to get their education in the faith from websites and converts with no formal Catholic theological training receive, at best, shared ignorance.
Sheed was trained as an Apologist by a Catholic Group. Yes, he did have formal theological training. No, I don’t think he had a Ph.D.
 
Faithful 2 Rome:
Thanks for letting us know how educated you are to catch an error…but WE are too dumb to share in your knowledge…other than throwing out crumbs…for us to “beware”… If you truly cared about people being misled, you would tell people what the “error” is, what the book is and also who the author is… otherwise you cannot be taken seriously. 😦
Well, some people like Scott Hahn, and he is loved by many: Even though I think he is a poor Apologist. Why would someone not mention a name like Scott Hahns? Reprisal.

Secondly, who rates “first rate thinkers”, is another matter all together. Who does this rating, the Pope? Concensus amongst Theologians? I think how a first rate thinker is determined, is another matter all together needing examination.

Thirdly, quite often when an Apologist is tailoring his statements to his audience, he uses loose language - but gives the kernel doctrine. We can’t expect ever Apologist to write as if he is addressing and audience of scholars with Ph.Ds - that simply isn’t the audience that buys the bulk of Apologetics material.

Lastly, some people would think that Notre Dame theologians have no place being rated first rate, especially given the hooplah about their liberalism in Hierarchical circles.
 
40.png
Redeemerslove:
Sheed was trained as an Apologist by a Catholic Group. Yes, he did have formal theological training. No, I don’t think he had a Ph.D.
Catholic doctrine and theology is not sophistry. In fact, there is a reason that all prominent Catholic orders (OP’s, SJ’s, OSB’s) require a minimum of 2 to 4 years of concentrated philosophical education *before *beginning theology.

All I’m suggesting is that sincere Catholics be snobs about whom they trust, read and study. There is nothing more important than your Catholic faith and education, why on Earth would you entrust it to anyone but the best? What if your life, let alone your immortal soul, rested on you knowing the specific reality of phenomenon within quantum physics (e.g., state vector collapse). Would you trust some neighbor who has read some popular books on it or some office co-worker who majored in a closely-related field, or would you be on the phone to MIT or Cal Tech to find out whose forte is quantum physics?!!
 
40.png
Redeemerslove:
Thirdly, quite often when an Apologist is tailoring his statements to his audience, he uses loose language - but gives the kernel doctrine. We can’t expect ever Apologist to write as if he is addressing and audience of scholars with Ph.Ds - that simply isn’t the audience that buys the bulk of Apologetics material.

Lastly, some people would think that Notre Dame theologians have no place being rated first rate, especially given the hooplah about their liberalism in Hierarchical circles.
This reminds me of a quote by a prominent professor of physics who said the goal in teaching physics to undergraduates was to lie a little less each semester. I think this can work with theology too, but again, we are talking about professional academic theologians within the academy (the university), not fringe forums or Catholic colleges.
 
But we as the uneducated Catholic faithful need to start somewhere. I could not hope to understand even a fraction of what the highly educated quantum physicist was to try to teach me, if I hadn’t spent some time on my own researching, and developing questions.

True, depending on literature from less educated individuals to answer some more developed questions, or delve into the deep philisophical nature of our Faith is an error. But I don’t think I could get to the point where I was asking efficient questions until I had explored some of the other ‘basic’ literature.

Baby steps for me. If it doesn’t contain gregious errors, or other flimsy doctrine- and is supported by apologists I trust to be on the right track (who I may add get their knowledge from literature written by the really educated people) I will read it, just to push out the boundries of my knowledge until I can grasp the heavier concepts with ease.
 
G. Frege:
Georgetown Univ., Catholic Univ. of America, Notre Dame, will not make egregious errors in fundamental theology and doctrine. Some of their theology might be disagreeable to the purists (reactionaries), but you’ll never have to worry about their aptitude or knowledge of the subject.
I guess I’m a reactionary (by your definition, anyway) because I wouldn’t put ANY credence in theologians from these three institutions.
In fact, if I were the ordinary of the dioceses in which any of these institutions reside, I’d declare them to be secular institutions.
Read Charles Rice for some of the reasons for Notre Dame, and scan the Newman Society website for ample explanation of the others.
Snobbery is never a good idea. It can give one the imressioon that apostacy is dogma.
We still don’t know who the beloved apologist is or the error he made. Until we do, how can we make a rational judgement (assuming all of us ignorant reactionaries can be rational)
 
G. Frege:
This reminds me of a quote by a prominent professor of physics who said the goal in teaching physics to undergraduates was to lie a little less each semester. I think this can work with theology too, but again, we are talking about professional academic theologians within the academy (the university), not fringe forums or Catholic colleges.
Aspersions are not helpful. Tailoring your statements to an audience has nothing to do with misrepresenting Catholic Theology, but rather with simplifying one’s statements.

I would not teach undergraduates using the same level of terminology, that I would to graduate students. For the undergraduate students must first learn the terminology. This is the same technique Apologists use with those who inquire about the Faith.

We don’t throw around terms like Hypostatic Union, or Transubstantiation, we simply say Jesus is both God and Man and leave it at that. Simply because an Apologist doesn’t give a rigorous explanation of the faith, satisfying to a high-brow Catholic - doesn’t mean it doesn’t satisfies the needs of a person educated to the sixth-grade level.

You ought to engage in Apologetics, and see how many people you bring into the Church. With your standards, only PhD.s would be interested in talking with you.
 
40.png
Redeemerslove:
Aspersions are not helpful. Tailoring your statements to an audience has nothing to do with misrepresenting Catholic Theology, but rather with simplifying one’s statements.

I would not teach undergraduates using the same level of terminology, that I would to graduate students. For the undergraduate students must first learn the terminology. This is the same technique Apologists use with those who inquire about the Faith.

We don’t throw around terms like Hypostatic Union, or Transubstantiation, we simply say Jesus is both God and Man and leave it at that. Simply because an Apologist doesn’t give a rigorous explanation of the faith, satisfying to a high-brow Catholic - doesn’t mean it doesn’t satisfies the needs of a person educated to the sixth-grade level.

You ought to engage in Apologetics, and see how many people you bring into the Church. With your standards, only PhD.s would be interested in talking with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top