Scott Hahn Article in "New Oxford Review"

[GemologyProf]

The latest issue of “New Oxford Review” includes a controversial 12-page article about Scott Hahn’s theology.

At this site and at some Catholic blogs there has been quite a bit of discussion about the article even though most people discussing it haven’t read it.

“New Oxford Review” has a web site but hasn’t updated its content for a year, so I thought I’d scan the article and attach it to this message so everyone can read it. (Please forgive any errors you might find in the scan. My OCR software isn’t perfect.)

 

[EENS]

If you can, I think it’d be beneficial to also scan “Putting Catholic Men on Ritalin.” If you could do that (it’s only 2 pages), I think many people would appreciate that article. God bless.

 

[Tarcisius]

Thanks for scanning the article. I read it again and I think the biggest issue is covenant. Dr. Hahn looks at everything in terms of covenant.

I think he stretches it too much but he is being true to his promise. When he was a teenager he promised to look at everything in the Bible in terms of covenant and he has. I think covenant is OK for some things but doesn’t make sense for others. He doesn’t seem to know when to let go.

People think they have found a key that explains everything. Marx said the key is economics and Darwin said the key is evolution. Hahn says the key is covenant. I don’t think there is a key but there are lots of keys that explain things. You can’t spend your life using one key only.

 

[system]

Tarcisius:

Dr. Hahn looks at everything in terms of covenant. I think he stretches it too much but he is being true to his promise. When he was a teenager he promised to look at everything in the Bible in terms of covenant and he has. I think covenant is OK for some things but doesn’t make sense for others. He doesn’t seem to know when to let go.

I have trouble understanding a lot of his stuff. I often wonder “where did he get that idea from?” His EWTN series on family life (Mrs. Hahn appeared in an episode or two) often baffled me. A lot of it did not sound like Church teaching, and perhaps should have had a disclaimer with it.

The article says

Hahn has an infectious enthusiasm for the Catholic faith and a passion for explaining it in ways that ordinary people can understand

I have to admit, his “enthusiasm” often rubs me the wrong way. Many EWTN shows are hosted by former ministers and I have the same reaction (Grodi, Steve Wood, Curtis Martin, etc.). For what that’s worth.

 

[steve_b]

Melman:

I have trouble understanding a lot of his stuff. I often wonder “where did he get that idea from?” His EWTN series on family life (Mrs. Hahn appeared in an episode or two) often baffled me. A lot of it did not sound like Church teaching, and perhaps should have had a disclaimer with it.

The article saysI have to admit, his “enthusiasm” often rubs me the wrong way. Many EWTN shows are hosted by former ministers and I have the same reaction (Grodi, Steve Wood, Curtis Martin, etc.). For what that’s worth.

Personally, I find he and Kimberly to be extremely enjoyable, effective, and tireless in their enthusiastic efforts to spur Catholics on to know and spread the faith. And what I find most compelling about them, is their charity towards others even while wrapped in the passion of spreading the faith. The true test is during debates. Which, as everyone knows, brings severe tests to one’s charity. And many fail at it. I applaud them, and wish them success in their efforts, and may they have long life. The same for the others mentioned.

 

[SeanG]

Thanks for putting the article in the forum. I just hope that doing so conforms with various copyright laws. Now I’m off to…um…download and read the article. (I almost feel like I’m using Napster in the old days.)

 

[Middlefork]

steve b:

Personally, I find he and Kimberly to be extremely enjoyable, effective, and tireless in their enthusiastic efforts to spur Catholics on to know and spread the faith. And what I find most compelling about them, is their charity towards others even while wrapped in the passion of spreading the faith. The true test is during debates. Which, as everyone knows, brings severe tests to one’s charity. And many fail at it. I applaud them, and wish them success in their efforts, and may they have long life. The same for the others mentioned.

I agree. I don’t consider myself a “Hahn-vert” but I am a convert

 

[whit]

Tarcisius:

Thanks for scanning the article. I read it again and I think the biggest issue is covenant. Dr. Hahn looks at everything in terms of covenant.

I think he stretches it too much but he is being true to his promise. When he was a teenager he promised to look at everything in the Bible in terms of covenant and he has. I think covenant is OK for some things but doesn’t make sense for others. He doesn’t seem to know when to let go.

… Hahn says the key is covenant. I don’t think there is a key but there are lots of keys that explain things. You can’t spend your life using one key only.

You say that Scott’s deal is that he puts everything in relation to covenant. Well, he is right in that he is explaining things in the NT in relation to the OT, the old covenant vs. the new covenant. That is something that we as Catholics don’t normally think of. We tend to look at the NT and not necessarily look at the whole picture. Yes, we know that Jesus was prophesied in the OT but most of us are not Bible scholars and don’t normally look at the way the whole Bible works together. Scott is very learned and I enjoy hearing him teach the Bible as a whole story.

I listen to Catholic radio often and there is a series on Catholic bible study which brings the Old and New testaments together and if I remember correctly, Scott is one of the presenters of the two. It’s an interesting series. And if anyone thinks that he is not on track you might remember that he has extremely good theological credentials. Both from before and after he entered the Church.

Pax et bonum
Whit

 

[Catholicguy]

The article saysI have to admit, his “enthusiasm” often rubs me the wrong way. Many EWTN shows are hosted by former ministers and I have the same reaction (Grodi, Steve Wood, Curtis Martin, etc.). For what that’s worth

Dittoes. I find the “men” rather feminine and too enthusiastic.

 

[system]

whit:

And if anyone thinks that he is not on track you might remember that he has extremely good theological credentials./QUOTE]But what the article is saying, is that he uses those credentials and a folksy writing style to sell books. Books that contain some theological ideas that I look at and scratch my head. Now it turns out that some in the “professional theologian” community are saying the same thing, and explaining why.

I only wish the article could be boiled down into a one-page summary version. I kept falling asleep while reading it.

 

[Melchior]

Regarding the “Covenant” thing:

Hahn is doing the Catholic community an incredible service by rawing attention to the covenantal relationship. All of Salvation history in Scripture is Covenantal. God made a Covenant with Abraham that was fulfilled in Christ. He made a covenant with, Noah, Israel, David etc. Indeed they way God has always dealt with man in through covenants.

Bringing a covenantal worldview into the home is extremely beneficial. In fact it has been personally been wonderful for me and my family. When a father realizes he is a covalent head of his household (the covenant he made on his wedding day) he will also begin to see God’s faithfulness to his children through is covenantal promises made to faithful parents (Acts 2:38-39).

Just look at Holy Communion not only do you receive the Body and Blood of Christ but you perpetually ratify the Covenant God brought you into at Baptism. Just as circumcision and the Passover meal were covenant signs in the Old Testament, so much so are the Sacraments signs and seals of the New Covenant (which the OT sacraments shadowed). Other covenant signs were the Rainbow, which was a covenant sign of promise to Noah and humanity. The blood of lambs at Passover delivered God’s people from the angel of death. The pillars of smoke and fire guided the Children of Israel, etc. All these are wonderful covenant signs of which the Sacraments are the realized fulfillment.

The entire Christian life is a Covenant. The New Covenant in His blood. So it makes sense to look at things as the Apostles did - Covenantally.

That’s how I see it anyway.

Mel

 

[whit]

Yo Melman,
Melman:

whit:

And if anyone thinks that he is not on track you might remember that he has extremely good theological credentials./QUOTE]But what the article is saying, is that he uses those credentials and a folksy writing style to sell books. Books that contain some theological ideas that I look at and scratch my head. Now it turns out that some in the “professional theologian” community are saying the same thing, and explaining why.

I only wish the article could be boiled down into a one-page summary version. I kept falling asleep while reading it.

Well, if I was him, and had his background and capability I would use my credentials, and a folksy atitude to sell books too. What’ s wrong with that. If he is correct in what he is saying I see no problem. And so far he seems to be a heck of a lot more correct than many of our “professional theologians”. Remember that most of them who spend most of their time “teaching” at our “Catholic Institutions of Higher Learning?” refuse to sign the letter stating that they agree to teach according to the Magisterium, as requested by the Vatican. If you remember who came out against Mel Gibson’s movie after having reviewed a stolen copy of the script it was “professional theologians” using USCCB letterhead which they were not given permission to use and which the USCCB stated that they had not given permission and disagreed with the determinations that the “theologians” had come up with. And if you remember what they said in that report is that the script shoulc not follow the gospels so closely, that the gospels should be re-written to make the Jews look less culpable in the death of Jesus.

Now I know that these are only three theologians but when things like this come up I right away wonder if the real reason they are being this way is that they are envious of his success. I mean everyone knows Scott Hahn and his wife Kimberly. What do you know about any theologian who teaches at, let’s say Notre Dame? If you are like me, who is at Notre Dame? After all, I don’t even consider Notre Dame a Catholic school any more. I know they call themselves that but when you hear that they have pro aborts and others spouting non-catholic ideas being brought on campus for speches and such. Nah! To me they have for the most part lost their Catholic identity. Steubenvilee, on the other hand is just fine and that is where Scott Hahn hails from.
Now Melman, I know this is a long post, so don’t read it in bed. You will fall asleep.

God bless,
Whit

 

[system]

whit:

And so far he seems to be a heck of a lot more correct than many of our “professional theologians”.

But neither you nor I have the training to make that judgment. Anyway, read the article. Hahn IS a professional theologian. That’s all he’s ever done.

People like Hahn. He writes readable books and he looks good on TV. Does that mean everything he teaches, should be believed and incorporated into daily living? As an example, his comparison of the family (mom, dad, kids) to the Trinity always made me a little nervous.

The article raises some good questions about it too. It makes clear, in a long-winded way, is that many of his ideas aren’t “really” Magisterial teaching. They are new ideas, they are in a grey area, they have not been “peer reviewed” like new academic ideas ought to be. I thought it was interesting reading.

 

[Hlebear]

It is a nice gesture for you to put the article up here, and I know you have good intentions, but do you realize that you are breaking copyright law (title 17) by scanning and posting it electronically? The fines are horrendous ! I’m in the library business so I thought I would let you know. I’m sure you didn’t realize it.

 

[kallen]

From a staunch Presbyterian part of the country, I applaud Scott Hahn. He is more understood, I think, by Protestants than cradle Catholics.

Coming from a Presbyterian background, trust me, Scott Hahn is doing a great job.

K

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think that Scott Hahn, and all Theologians at Steubenville, have the mandatum from their bishop required for that office. I wonder how many of those at Notre Dame do. I think they claim that is a private matter, and we are not to know whether or not they have been certified by the Church.

This is just my recollection. Comment or correction is welcomed.

 

[whit]

Joe Kelley,

                                   **                     Notre Dame to Parents: We Won´t Tell                    
                 **                     by Tim Drake                    
                  
                  Canon 812 states: “It is necessary that those who teach theological disciplines in any institute of higher studies have a mandate from the competent ecclesiastical authority.” Does Notre Dame comply?

That is from National Catholic Register article.

**

You are right, Notre Dame theology dept. has basically said none of your business whether we teach the Magisterium or not. (And according to the article they don’t.)

And you are right that the theology teachers at Steubenville have all signed the mandatum and that would include Scott Hahn.

Now Melman,****

As to the article in the New Oxford Review. I looked at it and took notice of the author of the article, a Mr. Edward O’Neill. According to the NOR, his credentials are as follows: he taught religion at college level. No mention of what college, how long, when, or anything. I “googled” his name + religion teacher and the only thing I found was someone with that name as a computer science teacher at Fairfield College in Connecticut. It is a Jesuit school but this guy didn’t teach religion.

I looked at the article and from what I could see part of his dislike was that Scott wouldn’t answer everyone who disagreed with him, that he was defended by friends and specifically Bishop Bruskewitz who brought him into the Church, and that the only defense Scott has put up was against a claim of some kind by the editor of America magazine, that woderful left wing unorthodox rag put out by the Jesuits which also, I understand, could basically care less about the Magisterium for the most part.

Continued…
**

 

[whit]

Continued from last post…

	 	 	 	  **While looking at the article briefly, (I wasn't going to go over 11 pages of stuff which for the most part I couldn't verify or argue because I don't have all the references he is speaking about) I did see one item where he was upset about something Scott said in "Rome Sweet Home" which I have.  I went to the reference he was speaking of and couldn't figure out any problem with it and he admitted in the article that he wasn't sure what it said; he wasn't sure it was wrong, or something like that.  It was a thing to argue about.  I'm not going through it all but basically this guy was trying to be specific about something that Scott was being very loose about and yet trying to draw a rough comparison.  I had no problem with it.  It was conceptual rather than dogmatic.

I went to the New Oxford Review and searched for anything about Scott Hahn on the site and found that the editor of that publication was having similar problems with an article in Envoy magazine and I looked at what that was all about and again it was a misinterpretation of what Scott was saying. I had no problem with what he said Scott said in the article at all but this editor was being too specific in what he was getting at and he was also being negative about Envoy magazine. I think a little editor envy/competitiveness too.

I think there is a lot of envy going on here as I mentioned before. I think there are people who don’t like Scott’s success. I could be wrong but from the two items I looked at that were being complained about that I could figure out and/or had reference material for I had no problem.

And again, I have no idea who this guy is and I really don’t have a lot of respect for a lot of our “theologians” when they refuse to have someone looking over “their” shoulders to see that they are doing things right but they want to look over someone elses’ shoulder who has agreed to let his work stand for itself and teach to the Magisterium.

Have a good night and God bless.
Whit**

 

[Peg]

I have read almost all of Dr. Hahn’s books and enjoy watching him on TV. He is a great gift to the Church. I do not understand why we spend so much time being negative. If you do no appreciate his style or personality, the do something else. It does not seem very christian to me for so many to be detractors of a person who is trying to spread the word of God and to stir up enthusiasm.

 

[snuffy]

I totally agree with Peg.
I’ve read a few of Scott’s books-The Lamb’s Supper (excellent book); Rome Sweet Home; A Father who keeps his promises-this is the book where he talks about covenants, it is an excellent book, both my husband and I enjoyed it, and had never considered some of the things he says.
I’ve also heard Scott Hahn speak, excellent speaker. He is obviously a very intelligent man, but also humble.
Our priest encouraged my husband to read Scott’s books when he became Catholic.
I think the real problem is, is that we need more men like him.
to Scott Hahn
Jeanette