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

[Redeemerslove]

paxvobiscum:

Oopsy! make that HAS more than most!

Now your statement makes sense. And yes Hahn has more than most, but his presentation, Apologetically, simply doesn’t meet my needs. I think Patrick Madrid, who only has a Masters compared to Hahn’s doctorate, is a much better public speaker, Apologetically.

But these are simply preferences.

 

[penitentman22]

JohnDeP:

I think G. Frege is misrepresenting apologetics; he (or she?, sorry) likens it to a pyramid, with the best on top. Therefore, why not just learn from the top?

I disagree; I see it more like a circle or a pie chart. Each piece has its own speciality. One poster, vangrosh, doesn’t need Hahn because he’s already a convert, but others who are Protestants would find him very useful.

Aquinas may be good to G. Frege, but may be too deep for others; that doesn’t mean they should be abandoned as hopeless. A kindergartner can’t read the great books of Western civilization, but that doesn’t mean you take away their primer because it’s “insufficient”. If there are errors in the primer, then point them out, explicitly.

-JohnDeP.

That is a great point! I think many people do misinterpret or have a false notion of apologetics. Plus, knowledge isn’t everything, holiness and union with Christ is, and that is an apologists job, to bring people to the fullness of the faith. In the words of my patron St. Chalres Borromeo: "If teaching and preaching is your job, then study diligently and apply yourself to whatever is necessary for doing the job well. Be sure that you first preach by the way you live. If you do not, people will notice that you say one thing, but live otherwise, and your words will bring only cynical laughter
and a derisive shake of the head.

Another point, he mentions Notre Dame College, isn’t that where Fr. McBrien is from, the noted Catholic dissenter?

 

[G.Frege]

Poisson:

I find it sort of funny that the site recommended prominently links the offending author.

It’s a great website with lots of good stuff.

 

[sandyeggo]

Posted by G. Frege:

*And as for your attacks on Chesterton’s favorite university, well, try to get a grip on your hate *

Saying “And if the theologians at Notre Dame are so special…why is that institution in support of GAYS?” is a very reasonable question, and does not at all qualifiy as “hate”. That is a staw man argument.

When you said:

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.

I could not disagree with you more. The error would be in blindly assuming that " anyone who reaches the level of faculty" at some of these colleges would not make eqregious errors in Catholic doctrine.

BTW, I agree with other posters here who say that if you see possible error, the best course of action would be to post the questional cite in toto with references.

 

[Redeemerslove]

potterygirl:

Scott Hahn surely knows how to reach those of us in need of Catholic Teachings. Regardless of what background he came from, he is NO idiot to theology. The man truly has a gift for teaching the Catholic Faith.

It’s sad but I am now beginning to see(understand) what someone had said here before that “converts make the best Catholics…”

I never said he was an idiot in Theology, I said I don’t think he was a good Apologist: These are two different skill sets. Read my comments two of my posts above.

 

[Redeemerslove]

squirt:

Possibly. But even he wrote things that would currently be considered to be heretical. If you’re interested, I’ll pull out an example tonight.

Yeah, start with the Immaculate Conception error.

 

[sandyeggo]

JohnDeP:

Also, your quote: “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” doesn’t help your credentials any. Lets pick Georgetown University just for starters, you think that Donna Brazile (from the GU website: Adjunct Assistant Professor for Women’s Studies at GU. Donna Brazile, is Chair of the Democratic National Committee’s Voting Rights Institute. Brazile, a veteran campaign strategist and former Campaign Manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000, has served as Chief of Staff and Press Secretary for Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and worked on the campaigns of Carter-Mondale and Rev. Jesse Jackson among others) won’t make any egregious errors?
-JohnDeP.

I picked up on that same statement, but I didn’t do it nearly so well as you.

 

[Redeemerslove]

G. Fregel:

And as for your attacks on Chesterton’s favorite university, well, try to get a grip on your hate.

Chesterton has been dead many years now, think his University has changed? I don’t think Chesterton’s favorite University is the same today as it was in his time. Universities are not static, they go through constant change.

 

[Redeemerslove]

Theology Myth: Intellectual Capacity provides immunity from error.

Strange, I thought that was the Magisterium’s Role. And I thought faithfulness to the Magisterium provided the most sure bulwark against error, not the intellect.

 

[ralphinal]

Redeemerslove:

Yeah, start with the Immaculate Conception error.

Don’t hold that against him. He was holding to the science of his day that said the soul was infused at the time of Quickening. He did feel that The Blessed Virgin was sinless from that point, though

 

[Redeemerslove]

sandyeggo:

BTW, I agree with other posters here who say that if you see possible error, the best course of action would be to post the questional cite in toto with references.

Exactly, this is not gossip, it is instructing the ignorant - a Spiritual Work of Mercy. As I said I think he doesn’t present who this is, for fear of reprisals. Must be Karl Keating?

 

[Redeemerslove]

ralphinal:

Don’t hold that against him. He was holding to the science of his day that said the soul was infused at the time of Quickening. He did feel that The Blessed Virgin was sinless from that point, though

It still proves my point that intellect provides no immunity - despite the intellectual culture of his day.

 

[squirt]

ralphinal:

Don’t hold that against him. He was holding to the science of his day that said the soul was infused at the time of Quickening. He did feel that The Blessed Virgin was sinless from that point, though

I don’t hold this against him. Write as much as he did, and chance are you are going to say something that is wrong. He was very specific, though, about Mary being cleansed of sin in the womb in his Exposition of the Angelic Salutation …

 

[G.Frege]

Thomas2:

Personally I find your comments and critique of another’s work uncalled for and your reasoning rather un-Christian. While I’ve not read all of Theology and Sanity, it seemed to me to be a rather well written book. Perhaps you’ve provided incentive to look it up again. Since you refuse to provide the details of your findings, I can only surmise that this is pure conjecture on your part, and mere gossip.

Do you always have such nice things to say for your brothers and sisters in Christ or do you have a personal problem with Mr. Sheed? I’m just curious.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

The criticism of Frank Sheed was made by Fr. Herbert McCabe, OP, ([late-- d. 2002?]] professor of theology at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford Univ.) and Sir Anthony Kenny (former Gregorianum Jesuit and Warden of Rhodes House, Oxford Univ.). See Fr. McCabe’s God Matters (specifically the chapter on Creation) for criticism of Sheed’s error in his explication of “ex nihilo”. Sir Anthony Kenny points out this same theological error in his Path From Rome (he left the Jesuit order and the Church-- over loss of faith, not this issue).

 

[gomer_tree]

It may be true that Hahn got something wrong. Let him know. Perhaps there is more to the story that needs to be formulated more completely, perhaps there isn’t.

This is an internet discussion board. For crying out loud, just give us a post like “I really think Dr. Hahn was wrong in blah blah…” I mean, isn’t that the whole point to an apologist forum?

I agree that nothing is more important than our faith. I appreciate sound criticism. I also appreciate focusing on the greatest theologians of the Church. But please take off your blinders: not everyone is able to digest many of their writings. Many or most of us need someone to take this stuff and put it into a dumbed-down language. Apologists today may occasionally err when doing this. In my opinion, today’s faithful apologists are leading so many people to the Church and getting people interested in the faith that I think we need to criticize appropriately. By appropriate, it’s good to remember how much good these people are doing, and we all have a responsibility to correct any errors that might creep in.

Despite your criticism, I very much appreciate Dr. Hahn. He has been instrumental in rekindling my own interest in the faith. Before him, I never, ever, would have read St. Thomas Aquinas or Augustine. Now that I have a better understanding of my faith, I feel better prepared to take on some of these old documents.

And I do think it’s questionable to think Dr. Hahn is not a scholar. I mean, huh? And do you think Franciscan University is not a worthy institution? And Notre Dame? Maybe someday, but not today.

 

[Karl_Keating]

This has been a peculiar thread. May I make a few points?

1. If a public figure is to be criticized, the criticism should be explicit. The man should be named, the writing in question should be quoted, and an explanation of the perceived error should be given.
2. By not naming him, G. Frege left the identity of the person he was referring to to the imagination of the reader. Many–perhaps most–Catholic apologists of national repute happen to be converts. I can think of several who no doubt are known by everyone participating in this thread. Had Scott Hahn not eventually been identified as the mystery man, the charge that he gave “an explanation that was perfectly wrong” might have settled on any or all of them. This would have been unfair.
3. But Scott’s name finally did come out. G. Frege admits only that the matter in question is in Scott’s new book and has to do with a sacrament being a sign. He gives no further information. Now that the person being criticized is known, the precise problem should be known too. I think G. Frege should give a sufficiently extended quotation from the book so that readers of this thread may judge for themselves. Perhaps Scott is in error; perhaps not. If the error is as plain as G. Frege believes it is, it will be plain to others once the quotation is given.
4. I see that there is another thread at these forums about Scott Hahn’s theology, this one concerning a critique printed in the current issue of “The New Oxford Review.” In that article the author plainly states who it is he is critiquing and why he thinks certain ideas are wrong. This is the right way to address such matters: by being explicit. (I am not judging here whether the author is right or wrong in his criticisms. I’m just saying that he is being aboveboard about them.)
5. With respect to Frank Sheed readers are left hanging again. Sheed’s writing about “ex nihilo” creation, in his book “Theology and Sanity,” is said by G. Frege to have been in error, but we are given no more information than that. Again, an extended quotation is in order.
6. As for Fr. Herbert McCabe’s criticism of Sheed, it would be good to see an extended quotation there too. I have at hand “Theology and Sanity” but not McCabe’s book. Maybe Sheed was wrong; maybe McCabe was wrong. One can’t tell without precise references.
7. G. Frege says, “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).” Elsewhere, G. Frege says, “You’ll never have to worry about Oxford theologians like … the late Fr. Herbert McCabe, OP, getting some Catholic doctrine wrong, or misunderstanding a fundamental theological point.”
8. The irony is that Fr. McCabe was “one of the signatories to the October 1968 ‘Letter of the fifty-five to the Times,’ criticising – even denouncing – *Humanae Vitae.” *This quotation is from an obituary written by McCabe’s friend Giles Hibbet, O.P., who notes that McCabe was a theological radical who had plenty of personal and personality problems. See c-c-c.freeserve.co.uk/nr6-03.htm
9. Let’s say, arguendo, that Sheed was in error. At least he wrote before “Humanae Vitae.” McCabe came out against the encyclical after its promulgation, a far more egregious fault theologically.
10. Lastly, about G. Frege’s approbation of all who teach at Oxford, Notre Dame, Catholic University, and other schools: I find his confidence in them touching but unrelated to reality. At each school there are good scholars and poor, orthodox and heterodox. I long ago gave up thinking that everyone seated behind the bench was a legal scholar, that everyone in a Roman collar was a saint, or that everyone teaching at a university knew his stuff.

 

[NDIrish]

Redeemerslove:

Chesterton has been dead many years now, think his University has changed? I don’t think Chesterton’s favorite University is the same today as it was in his time. Universities are not static, they go through constant change.

As a graduate of Notre Dame, I wuold have to agree with this. Sadly, and aside from the gridiron, the University has embarrassed me on a number of occassions. Let’s leave ND out of this though…we can pick on Georgetown

 

[Rae]

Thomas2:

Hello Mr. Frege!

Just keep in mind that Peter had no credentials except his skill at catching fish and mending nets. Matthew may have been educated as he was a tax collector, well, at least enough to keep the books balanced. In fact, I’d venture to say that not one of the Apostles has any letters at all after their names. The education they got was hands on and not until they had been given the Holy Spirit were they fully qualified to teach in God’s name.

An education doesn’t prevent error nor do credentials provide for proper teaching - a good look inside many Catholic Colleges these days is proof enough - plenty of Phds but not much authentic Catholicism taught. In fact, there is plenty of error being taught and not just by mistake!

What do you consider a “qualified” teacher of the faith? Am I as a parent qualified to teach my daughter about the faith?

Personally I find your comments and critique of another’s work uncalled for and your reasoning rather un-Christian. While I’ve not read all of Theology and Sanity, it seemed to me to be a rather well written book. Perhaps you’ve provided incentive to look it up again. Since you refuse to provide the details of your findings, I can only surmise that this is pure conjecture on your part, and mere gossip.

Do you always have such nice things to say for your brothers and sisters in Christ or do you have a personal problem with Mr. Sheed? I’m just curious.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

I ask a legitimate question about Notre Dame and gays and I am accused of HATE?

Gee…doesnt that smack of liberal views and their arguments of us Christians and Catholics who are “intolerant”???

Good points brought up by Karl… especially about Mccabe AFTER Humanae Vitae… I wait with baited breath for Mr. Frege to answer in a professional, point by point manner, reflective of his high credentials.

 

[Shari]

G. Frege:

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).

I am sure you are aware of this, but before humanae vitae came out alot of people including bishops and priests were telling people that the pope was going to O.K. Artificial birth control.
There was a commitee appointed to talk to the Drs. and get all the facts and weigh a decision and give it to the pope. After they made their decision, which was to allows AB and gave it to the pope somehow the decision leaked out and got to the public, and to the priests, ect. Now it came as a big suprise when the pope said no despite what the counsel said I still don’t think it good. And then came Humanae Vitae. So you are wrong to say that no catholic moral theologian would have said that. Unless you of course don’t consider priests to be on the same plain as theologians.
G. Frege:

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.

I guess I am ignorant then. It’s been said before and I am sure it will again.