Scott Hahn

[Mimi]

Hi all!

I’m just jumping in here. I might say I have some of Dr. Hahn’s books (though have not read them all) and enjoy his recorded talks. I recently listened to one of his early talks (before Kimberly was confirmed a Catholic) and found it inspiring. His enthusiasm is contagious. I’ve seen him speak in person twice & actually spoke to him briefly.

I also have heard Frank Sheed recommended by apologists (such as Patrick Madrid).

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1104-heck
Here’s a link to (part of) an article responding to “Scott Hahn’s Novelties” newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0604-oneill. One needs to be an online subscriber in order to view entire articles.

And another:

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0503-miller
Shall We Feminize the Holy Spirit? The Gender of the Holy Trinity by Monica Migliorino Miller. She is a former classmate of Hahn’s and (and was present at his dissertation defense). She is an Associate Professor of Theology at St. Mary’s College in Orchard Lake, Michigan, and is author of Sexuality and Authority in the Catholic Church (University of Scranton Press) and The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church (Crisis Books).

There are some interesting Letters to the Editor here:
newoxfordreview.org/letters.jsp?did=0105-letters You’ll need to scroll down to get to them.

Dr. Hahn did eventually respond to the articles. I’ve been a regular subscriber to NOR for about 10 yrs and wondered why it took him so long to do so, but I’m sure he’s a very busy man. I’m sure he spends time responding to others who argue with him on other matters as well (like Mr. Sungenis who promotes the idea that the sun revolves around the earth; he has a web site).

God bless,
Mimi

 

[Chancellor]

I was raised in a town with several colleges and a major school of theology. So here is the inside scoop on scholars in general and theologians in particular…

1. A “bad” theologian is one whose books are popular and who consequently makes money on his/her writing.

2, A “good” theologian is one who writes for a small audience of other specialists and is consequently impoverished.

The fact that Benedict XVI is considered a good theologian and was a popular writer even before he became Pope show that the above is not always true.

BXVI is indeed a wonderful theologian with an incredible grasp of western philosophy as well.

Most of BXVIs books would be unnecessarily dense and off-putting for a convert without previous knowledge of Catholicism. For converts, and especially for converts from evangelical protestantism, I can think of no better place to start than Scott Hahns books. Scott displays in a direct and impactful way the biblical foundation of the Catholic church. In my opinion Dr Hahn should not be your only source for Catholic theological writing, but then maybe no one writer should be the only source.

For indepth advanced study I think that Misha’s post on this thread has some excellent references.

The Chancellor

 

[Cinette]

I would suggest adding Frank Sheed to your list. I recommend two of his books for those interested in theology: Theology For Beginners and the more advanced Theology And Sanity. Sheed has one of the best expositions of the Holy Trinity (IMHO) that I have ever read.

Also, his To Know Christ Jesus is an excellent devotional read.

Thank you so much

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m sorry if I left several people hanging, especially in regard to top journals and my own issues with Scott Hahn.

The top theology journals that I have found very solid, and very interesting, are “Communio”, “Modern Theology,” and “The Catholic Philosophical Quarterly” (which is only sometime theological, but very very good). “Homiletic and Pastoral Review” is not 100% theology either, but it is generally very solid.

As I said before, Scott Hahn is not considered a theologian by theologians. He would do better not to present himself as such.

My other issues with him are more related to his attitude and way of presenting himself. I have no issue with him making money (I’m really not sure how that got started) though I do wish he would slow down the book writing and take some time to edit.

Pax et bonum,
Masha

Did you miss the link to Dr. Hahn’s published academic articles?

By definition, anyone with an advanced degree in theology (Masters, Doctorate, or their equivalents) is considered a theologian. Certainly, both Dr. Hahn and Dr. Schreck qualify.

You could argue that Dr. Hahn is a bad theologian, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he is not a theologian. He is.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Hi Ron,

You’re incorrect.

Theological speculation “NOT =” Substantial theological errors.

Dr. Hahn has committed no theological errors if you mean doctrinal errors. If you do not mean doctrinal errors then your assessment is a matter of perspective not fact. It would be better to say you disagree but you are not poised to pronounce error.

Some of Hahn’s substantial theological errors:

he claims that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree because Satan threatened them with death.

he claims that the original sin of Adam was in not engaging the serpent (which was really a dragon or other monster) in the garden in mortal combat, at the sacrifice of his own life, for the sake of his beloved (Eve).

he claims that the wine mixed with gall (corrupted wine), on the sponge, the wine that Jesus rejected, is the fourth cup of the last supper (the first Mass). There are numerous theological problems with this claim, including that it equates corrupted wine with the earlier consecrated wine (the Eucharist), that it was rejected by Christ, yet included by Hahn as if equal to the other three cups, that this idea is not found in Tradition, nor does Scripture support the idea of even three cups at the last supper.

he represents the Holy Spirit as feminine, in contradiction to Liturgiam Authenticam, in contradiction to Tradition and Scripture.

Hahn calls the Holy Spirit “mother,” “motherly,” “maternal,” “feminine,” “womanhood,” and “bridal,” (New Oxford Review, newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0207-notes-gnosticism)

See also this article:
newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0604-oneill

But since Father, Son, and Spirit have one and the same Nature, it cannot be in the nature of the Holy Spirit to be motherly, maternal, feminine, etc.

In addition, Hahn’s theology is often plagued by novelties, not found in Tradition, Scripture, or Magisterium. It is as if he is reinventing the Christian Faith.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Hi Joe,

I agree that anyone with an advanced degree in theology is considered a theologian- especially when I looked this term up in the dictionary.

Someone made the comparison of the criterion for a theologian and a philosopher to say that not every Professor of Philosophy is a philosopher (asserting the same holds true for a Professor of Theology). So, even if we ignore the dictionary which does not allow this comparison, we can say that Dr. Hahn is a scholar in Theology based on his substantial publications in peer-reviewed articles and related attainment of the status Professor of Philosophy.

Either way, he has the professional obligation to do more than teach. He is obliged to test theory against the scriptural data (as a scripture scholar) and to theologically speculate.

Theological speculation that stays within the realm of Church doctrine cannot be pronounced an error. It does not take a scholar to see this.

Likewise, we cannot pronounce that he is “misleading” others even if they miss the point that he clearly makes… that at times he attempts to explain scriptural nuances with educated theological speculation. Who is going to hell for believing in his Four Cups explanation? Is he doctrinally a heretic? No way!

Did you miss the link to Dr. Hahn’s published academic articles?

By definition, anyone with an advanced degree in theology (Masters, Doctorate, or their equivalents) is considered a theologian. Certainly, both Dr. Hahn and Dr. Schreck qualify.

You could argue that Dr. Hahn is a bad theologian, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say that he is not a theologian. He is.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Here is a description of his educational and career accomplishments from a flyer for “The Bible and the Lliturgy” conference that is coming up:

Dr. Scott Hahn was born in 1957, has been married to Kimberly since 1979, and has six children. An exceptionally popular speaker and teacher, Dr. Hahn has delivered numerous talks nationally and internationally on a wide variety of topics talks related to Scripture and the Catholic faith. Hundreds of these talks have been produced on audio and videotapes by St. Joseph Communications. His talks have been effective in helping thousands of Protestants and fallen away Catholics to (re)embrace the Catholic faith. Dr. Hahn received his Bachelor of Arts degree with a triple-major in Theology, Philosophy and Economics from Grove City College, Pennsylvania, in 1979, his Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 1982, and his Ph.D. in Biblical Theology from Marquette University in 1995. Scott has ten years of youth and pastoral ministry experience in Protestant congregations and is a former Professor of Theology at Chesapeake Theological Seminary. He was ordained in 1982 at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Fairfax, Virginia. He entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil, 1986. He is currently a Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, where he has taught since 1990, and is the founder and director of the Saint Paul Center for Biblical Theology. In 2005, he was appointed as the Pope Benedict XVI Chair of Biblical Theology and Liturgical Proclamation at St. Vincent Seminary in Latrobe, Pennsylvania.

If he can’t be called a theologian, then who can?

 

[Squanto]

Ron,

On a different note, I’d like to learn something that you may be able to teach me if you have the time. As I said, I have not made my way to the best theology journals.

Would you happen to know of a theologian who is doing exciting work in a top tier journal? I’d like to have a better understanding of what is truly exciting in the most scholarly circles of Catholic Theology. (Anyone else is welcome to answer this- I’m here to learn as much as anything else).

Dr. Janet E. Smith, a renowned theologian, has published in top tier theology journals. aodonline.org/SHMS/Faculty+5819/Janet+Smith+9260/Dr.+Janet+Smith±+Published+Articles.htm

So, has Dr. Hahn, as is posted in this thread, somewhere.

Basically, any real theologian will follow the convention - get a job at a Catholic seminary or College, research, teach, and publish in top tier journals, subject to review and critique of their peers. Beware of any teacher/theologian who is not doing this.

 

[manualman]

Wait a second. This is not a small statement you’re making here. In fact, it illustrates the error in Hahn’s approach on this.

What you’re describing is not a sin of pre-meditiation, but a sin committed under duress, which relieves the guilt of a formally mortal sin. If this were the case, then Adam’s sin would be venial, not mortal. Consequently, Genesis and every book following it, every bit of revelation following it, including the Gospel, up until Apocalypse, would be demonstrably false.

I’m not theologian, but I’ve got a potential refutation for you.

Objectively speaking, ALL sin is mortal. The reason we have distinctions (venial vs mortal) is that our fallen nature makes us susceptible to certain sins to the point that our culpability is reduced - and God is just and so acknowledges that reality. Before the fall, Adam was not fallen. He had no extenuating circumstances to mitigate his guilt for ANY sin. Thus, any sin he committed at that point would be mortal.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I’m not theologian, but I’ve got a potential refutation for you.

Objectively speaking, ALL sin is mortal. The reason we have distinctions (venial vs mortal) is that our fallen nature makes us susceptible to certain sins to the point that our culpability is reduced - and God is just and so acknowledges that reality. Before the fall, Adam was not fallen. He had no extenuating circumstances to mitigate his guilt for ANY sin. Thus, any sin he committed at that point would be mortal.

Yes, but not for the reasons that you cite.

For Adam and Eve before the Fall, any sin would result in the loss of original innocence and in the passing of original sin to the whole human race, so any sin would be grave matter. Culpability would not be reduced in Adam and Eve before the Fall because in the state of original innocence their minds and hearts were unclouded by original sin or personal sin, so they had a clear understanding of right and wrong, and their decisions were made with full knowledge and consent.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not theologian, but I’ve got a potential refutation for you.

Objectively speaking, ALL sin is mortal. The reason we have distinctions (venial vs mortal) is that our fallen nature makes us susceptible to certain sins to the point that our culpability is reduced - and God is just and so acknowledges that reality.

I am pretty sure that this is not orthodox Catholic theology.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hmm…

What is your definition of theologian, may I ask?

I think this might be our problem.

The definition of Theologian that I’m working from is a very limited one (as it should be really). It’s similar to philosopher:

In the professional guilds, neither “theologian” nor “philosopher” is used in the narrow way you describe. Professors of theology are called theologians, and professors of philosophy are called philosophers. Shucks, people even call me a theologian because I’m currently teaching Systematic Theology, even though my degree is in church history.

I think that as a rule narrowing profession-related words and giving them a qualitative sense (i.e., equating “theologian” with “an important theologian everyone should study”) is a mistake. It’s like the use of “poet” to mean only someone who produces top-quality poetry, or “Christian” to mean only someone who lives according to Christian teachings. These semantic shifts seem plausible, but they create chaos and confusion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Julia,

The claim was made on this blog that he did not publish in top tier journals, so I asked what journals in his area are top tier?
I also asked what journals does he publish in? Simple questions, but no one answered… until now.

Catholic Biblical Quarterly is one of the most respected journals in Biblical studies.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

Yes, but not for the reasons that you cite.

For Adam and Eve before the Fall, any sin would result in the loss of original innocence and in the passing of original sin to the whole human race, so any sin would be grave matter. Culpability would not be reduced in Adam and Eve before the Fall because in the state of original innocence their minds and hearts were unclouded by original sin or personal sin, so they had a clear understanding of right and wrong, and their decisions were made with full knowledge and consent.

Ron, those ARE the reasons I was trying to cite. Maybe my first line needs revising some?

Edwin, where did I go wrong? Catholic teaching on mortal vs venial sin all presupposes our ACTUAL condition which is fallen. I’m not sure it directly applies to pre-fall Adam and Eve. Everything I’ve ever learned about heaven says we will be totally sanctified there: no sinfulness of any kind left in us. If somebody told a “little white lie” in heaven it wouldn’t be heaven, right? Seems like the same would apply to pre-fall Eden.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Objectively speaking, ALL sin is mortal. The reason we have distinctions (venial vs mortal) is that our fallen nature makes us susceptible to certain sins to the point that our culpability is reduced - and God is just and so acknowledges that reality. Before the fall, Adam was not fallen. He had no extenuating circumstances to mitigate his guilt for ANY sin. Thus, any sin he committed at that point would be mortal.

All sin is not objectively mortal. That claim contradicts the clear and definitive teaching of the Church. Some sins are objectively mortal and some objectively venial.

Reduction of culpability can sometimes make an objective mortal sin into an actual venial sin. The act itself is objectively grave, but lack of full knowledge or fully deliberate consent can reduce culpability.

You are correct that our fallen state is much to blame for reduced culpability. But your premise that all sin would be mortal if there were no reduction in culpability is not correct. Some sins are venial even if done with full knowledge and deliberation.

A classic example in moral theology: you are hiding and protecting Jews in your house, and Nazis come to the door looking for them. If you lie to protect their lives, with full knowledge that lying is wrong and with full deliberation, it is still only a venial sin, never a mortal sin.

 

[anon52328184]

how did we go from the topic of scott hahn to venial and mortal sin?

 

[manualman]

Good critique. I must ponder some.

I still think that before the fall, ANY sin would have to be mortal. I just need to think through a better way to say it.

IMO, we are on topic as we are seeing if a previous critique of Dr. Hahn applies or not.

 

[De_Maria]

Don’t get me wrong, Scott Hahn is my favorite Catholic Apologist, author and theologian.

However, I don’t like that he belittled a humble woman who speaks to her Marian Statue? Where does he come off? The Spirit blows where it will and he doesn’t have any business belittling a humble Catholic. I heard him say this at a Fullness of Truth seminar, but here is a webpage that has it recorded:

** I’ve got to apologize because they learn of the many Catholics who do weird things, like one ex-Catholic whose Mom has a life-size statue of Mary that she dresses and undresses every day. She’s got no real prayer life. She never reads the Bible, but she continually dresses and undresses her little statue; it’s not so little.
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/sts.html

** In the same breath, he belittles Catholics who can’t explain Catholic doctrine. That really irks me. 1. Because we aren’t all born with a silver spoon in our mouth. 2. Because it isn’t required by the Church. 3. For centuries, we have followed St.Francis teaching, “Evangelize always, use words if you must.”

And often Catholics not only don’t have a balanced perception of what the veneration of saints is in relationship to Christ but they’ve got little capacity to articulate what they are really doing if it is balanced.
Newman Apologetics Resource

In addition, I don’t like his belittling the misallettes of old. He seems to expect everyone to carry a Bible to Mass. Why? They read the Scripture to you. Why carry a Bible. Its not as though we’re going to have a full blown Scripture study in the middle of the Mass:

**** I’d much rather be called a Scripture junkie. I want to deepen my addiction to God’s Word, I want to encourage you to as well. A bold suggestion: bring your Bibles to Mass. An even bolder suggestion that I scratched out of my sheet here: consider getting rid of cheap throwaway missalettes which I truly suspect condition people to regard God’s Word as disposable.
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m1/bbl.html**
**
I guess with fans like me, Dr. Scott Hahn doesn’t need enemies. But I do admire him quite a bit. I just think he hasn’t shed all the Protestant baggage.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[anon52328184]

i couldn’t agree with you more de maria.

i know protestants criticize Catholics for not reading Bibles, but i order the Magnificat and take that with me to mass. that way i have the daily readings in a small prayerbook. i have many Bibles at home for Bible study.

i have tried bringing my Bible to the episcopal, Anglican and Catholic church.
but i would either have to have the readings marked before mass or then fumble to find them. meanwhile, i am missing the reading while i am looking for the scripture.

my magnificat does just fine and i keep it. they are not disposable at my house.

once a protestant, always a protestant i say. he might be roman catholic,
but i am sure he brought many protestant ways with him.

and i know he is a folk hero to many people so i won’t say anymore.

 

[De_Maria]

Ron, those ARE the reasons I was trying to cite. Maybe my first line needs revising some?

Edwin, where did I go wrong? Catholic teaching on mortal vs venial sin all presupposes our ACTUAL condition which is fallen. I’m not sure it directly applies to pre-fall Adam and Eve. Everything I’ve ever learned about heaven says we will be totally sanctified there: no sinfulness of any kind left in us. If somebody told a “little white lie” in heaven it wouldn’t be heaven, right? Seems like the same would apply to pre-fall Eden.

I disagree. Adam and Eve were perfect human beings. But they were neither impeccable, infallible, nor omniscient, obviously.

What is the difference? Well, lets consider a car. Can a perfect car fly? No. It wouldn’t be a car. It would be a missile or a plane.

In the same way, if Adam and Eve were impeccable (i.e. incapable of sin) or infallible (i.e. incapable of error) or omniscient, they would either be machines or gods. In either case they would not be human beings. I’m afraid impeccability, infallibility and omniscience are compromised with limited knowledge and free will.

It is true that our fallen nature has affected the nature of venial and mortal sin. Since our knowledge and nature are weaker, and God’s justice is inclined to mercy, then more sins are venial. However, even Adam and Eve could make mistakes. And mistakes do not imply full consent of the will by definition. Therefore, Adam and Eve were capable of committing venial sins.

Sincerely,

De Maria