Scott Hahn

[JimG]

And in my view, Hahn also makes many theological errors. I also think that he still uses the approach that is common among some Protestant preachers, they start with Scripture, but use it merely as a springboard for their own novel ideas.

I haven’t read a lot of Scott Hahn’s works, but what I have read seems at least not heretical. Some of his writings about Adam and Eve, which have been discussed above, are speculative in nature. But some of Ron Conte’s writings about theological matters are also speculative in nature!

In any case, I don’t take the story of the Fall in a particularly literal manner. Was there really an actual tree called the Tree of Life and another tree called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? What sort of botany is that? I rather suspect the trees were metaphorical. But that in itself is speculative.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

You can be for 99.9% of what a theologian teaches–that doesn’t mean you agree with everything he says.

I don’t buy the Holy Spirit as mother theology of Hahn–other than that I’d have to say that he has done much good for the Catholic Church.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’ve learned a lot from the writings and presentations of Dr. Scott Hahn. He is co-author of the Ignatius Study Bible series, which has an Imprimatur from Cardinal William Levada, who is now Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Roman Curia, Joseph Ratzinger’s old job.

What I don’t understand is I’ve seen several messages on this forum making snide remarks about Dr. Hahn (he’s not trustworthy, etc.). There is never any evidence presented to back these detracting comments up.

I’d really like to hear why anyone would say Dr. Hahn’s teachings are not faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, as has been implied in several messages on here. Specifically,

and

I’d like these people to present some evidence from Scott Hahn’s writings that show that he is teaching contrary to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I find Dr Hahn nothing short of fascinating–his writings, and lectures…and discussions with Fr Pakwa, and others on EWTN. He could be looked at with scrutiny, because he thinks outside the box when trying to convey the ‘hidden’ messages of Scripture. He is a refreshing font of knowledge, for our present day, if you ask me.

 

[anon52328184]

i was curious to what prodigal son said that as a protestant theologian he was set for life. what did you mean by that? other than scott hahn being a presbyterian i am not familiar with his background or even how long ago he converted. what did he do as a protestant theologian if you could enlighten me a bit about scott hahn. since i am a new convert, i do not know all about him. thanks.

 

[anon52328184]

i read a bried biography about scott hahn. he has been catholic i guess for about 20 years.
i would think he was would be someone who would be good for evangelizing protestants to why they should be catholic.

does he devote a lot of time to that?

he certainly is an educated man.

 

[juliamajor]

Even the famous Church Father Origen speaks of the Holy Spirit as being feminine, when saying:

Paidiske de kypias tou hagiou Pneumatos he psyche.

The soul is handmaiden to her mistress, the Holy Spirit.

Another illustration is found in the now lost Gospel of the Hebrews (cf. The Lost and Hostile Gospels by Rev. S. Baring-Gould, London, 1874, pp. 130-1), probably one of the first ever written by Christian hands, extracts from which have survived in the writings of Origen and Jerome. This particular passage is quoted by Origen and runs as follows:

Arti elabe me he meter mou to hagion pneuma, hen mia ton trichon mou, kai anenenke me eis to horos to mega thabor.

Straightway my mother the Holy Spirit took me in one of my hairs and bore me to the great mountain Thabor. – Homily xv, on Jeremiah and on John.

Similarly Jerome, another Church Father, wrote (Micheas, vii, 6):

Modo tulit me mater mea Spiritus Sanctus in uno capillorum meorum.

Then my mother the Holy Spirit took me in one of my hairs.

 

[runandsew]

Here is a defense by Scott Hahn on the charges he wrote that the Holy Spirit was female:

Scott Hahn Defends Himself

In response to your New Oxford Note “A Little Bit of Gnosticism” (Feb.) about me, I have to wonder whether you read what I wrote about the Holy Spirit.

First, I expressly deny that the Holy Spirit is feminine, in both the hardcover and paperback editions of my book First Comes Love. In this connection, I cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and its teaching about God: “He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband” (#370).

Second, I always refer to the Holy Spirit as “He” – never “She” – in all my writings and teachings.

Third, it is absurd to say that modern defenders of Gnosticism (such as Elaine Pagels) derive any support whatsoever from exploratory study of maternal aspects of God and the Holy Spirit, whether by me or the orthodox Catholics I cite (e.g., St. Ephrem, St. Methodius, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Louis Bouyer, Matthias Scheeben).

Fourth, what you imply about me supporting lesbian marriage is unspeakably vile and slanderous. And on what basis do you argue: That if the Spirit has a maternal function, then Jesus had two mommies? The same twisted and perverse logic could be turned right around to show that Dale Vree, the Editor of the NOR, must support gay marriage between men: “If the Spirit’s role is really paternal, then Jesus had two daddies – at least (the first and third Persons of the Trinity), not to mention St. Joseph.” As I said, this is twisted and perverse.

Your readers deserve better. Indeed, I invite them to read my chapter and judge for themselves, which they can now find online (courtesy of Doubleday).

Scott Hahn
Steubenville, Ohio

 

[anon52328184]

thanks for posting his defense. so he did respond to the criticism.

 

[rlg94086]

Here is a defense by Scott Hahn on the charges he wrote that the Holy Spirit was female:

Scott Hahn Defends Himself

In response to your New Oxford Note “A Little Bit of Gnosticism” (Feb.) about me, I have to wonder whether you read what I wrote about the Holy Spirit.

First, I expressly deny that the Holy Spirit is feminine, in both the hardcover and paperback editions of my book First Comes Love. In this connection, I cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and its teaching about God: “He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband” (#370).

Second, I always refer to the Holy Spirit as “He” – never “She” – in all my writings and teachings.

Third, it is absurd to say that modern defenders of Gnosticism (such as Elaine Pagels) derive any support whatsoever from exploratory study of maternal aspects of God and the Holy Spirit, whether by me or the orthodox Catholics I cite (e.g., St. Ephrem, St. Methodius, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Louis Bouyer, Matthias Scheeben).

Fourth, what you imply about me supporting lesbian marriage is unspeakably vile and slanderous. And on what basis do you argue: That if the Spirit has a maternal function, then Jesus had two mommies? The same twisted and perverse logic could be turned right around to show that Dale Vree, the Editor of the NOR, must support gay marriage between men: “If the Spirit’s role is really paternal, then Jesus had two daddies – at least (the first and third Persons of the Trinity), not to mention St. Joseph.” As I said, this is twisted and perverse.

Your readers deserve better. Indeed, I invite them to read my chapter and judge for themselves, which they can now find online (courtesy of Doubleday).

Scott Hahn
Steubenville, Ohio

Thanks for finding that runandsew. A while back there was another thread attacking Dr. Hahn regarding his views on Traditionalists. While I did not get a direct response, one of his staff sent me a very clear explanation and defense of his statement. It was much ado about nothing. I suspected these charges were as well, but it really helps to have it in his own words.

I’m not going to say that Scott Hahn is always 100% right. As a theologian, not all of his theories/explanations will be endorsed by the Vatican. However, to claim he is teaching heresy is a different story. From what I have read, Dr. Hahn is in line with Church teaching. As I stated before, his works, along with others, have helped me tremendously in becoming more orthodox in my beliefs.

 

[allhers]

Nice article you linked to. It ends by ridiculing the Pope. I definitely don’t recall Scott Hahn saying things like that about the Successor to Peter.

The neo-Catholic establishment is a house built on the shifting sands of celebrity, including the celebrity of a hugely popular Pope who will not rule his Church, but rather basks in the adulation of a profoundly disoriented laity whose plight he does not seem to understand. The Church cannot be sustained in her mission by celebrities who hunger after novelty, whether it be carnal or theological. The Church does not need knights in shining armor from Washington, or books that make Hahn-verts instead of old fashioned converts, or even a Pope who is always celebrated but never feared.

Right Mea Culpa, I read that too, so Ron, what the heck is that about? Plus, on that same site, as is already posted, Dr. Hahn defends and explains himself and then still, after he did that, he is told that what he says isn’t what he says. How ridiclous is that?

 

[anon52328184]

i read the link and the articles that ron conte posted. now i am really confused. if you read the articles, he definitely refers to the holy spirit as feminine, but if you read his statement, he denies it, so i am at a loss here to know what to believe.

i did notice that he has written a book a year since 1998 except for 2000 so he has a good deal with his publisher and i am not being sarcastic so please don’t start accusing me of anything.

i wasn’t skeptical of him to begin with because of his writings because i have only read 1 of his books. i understand some people are critical of him as a neo-Catholic. as i am a new convert, i feel like i am in over my head in this argument with scott hahn and whether his writings are heretical.

i think prodigal son made a prophetic statment - however, probably unintentionally.

 

[runandsew]

You can read the chapter from Scott Hahn’s book that is in question for yourself from this link - First Comes Love - . I opened it in PDF format, when I choose HTML it gave me an error.

Read what Scott wrote for yourselves, don’t rely on others telling you what Scott wrote.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

i was curious to what prodigal son said that as a protestant theologian he was set for life. what did you mean by that? other than scott hahn being a presbyterian i am not familiar with his background or even how long ago he converted. what did he do as a protestant theologian if you could enlighten me a bit about scott hahn. since i am a new convert, i do not know all about him. thanks.

At a younger age than most, Scott was offered the position of dean. His career was more than off and running.

Coincidently, Scott was on EWTN last night, on the program Journey Home. He retold his story of studying Revelations under the Protestant perspective which was interpreted as the apocalypse. He attended a second study group because of the complexities of understanding Revelations. The second group had the same perspective with some differences. After that, he said he gave up on Revelations and went back to studying the Gospels.

The first time Scott attended a Mass, he had his Bible and notebook with him. He was attending for anti-Catholic purposes. As the Mass unfolded before him, he recognized what was happening as written in scriptures, especially Revelations. Scott was alone and a “walk-in” at this Mass, he sat in the back as an observer. Because of his discoveries, he kept attending and became more and more convinced that the Mass was scriptural.

If you listened to his coversion story, it’s interesting to learn he converted himself. No one, on earth, was leading him towards the Church.

Because he was offered this position at a time he found he had questions that couldn’t be answered by his colleagues, Scott refused the position to pursue the truth. When he made his decision to convert, his career choices disappeared. He could no longer teach at the seminary, much less serve as dean. He explains this situation on his conversion CD.

You can order his conversion story on CD free at this website. They do ask for a donation, but if I remember correctly, I ordered several CDs and donated a dollar for each CD I ordered. There are several by other people that are worth ordering.

 

[juliamajor]

Once upon NOR used to be a great mag now it’s a rag. It’s reduced to nasty remarks innuendo creating controversy -where there is none. Hahn is exactly right God (being pure Spirit) there is no gender .The anthropomorphism of God is an old tale.Difficult to think of God as an"it".So we give God aspects to relate to. As I have shown some of the ECF ‘felt’ that way about the HS. In a way they are as correct or incorrect as any other term.Because of the importance in Gnosticism of the feminine , female attributes were denigrated.Baby goes out with bathwater. .The problem is just because is used in something not sound doesn’t mean the term is in itself evil . Take the term we use for Mary-“Queen of Heaven”. ancient term refering to a goddess.That makes it ‘suspicious’ in some people’s minds. But it makes perfect sense to us-as we look to the Theotokos.Similarities do not mean same!

 

[Ron_Conte]

NOR does exaggerate from time to time, and Hahn replies to some of NOR’s exaggerations.

But my main concern is unanswered by his reply. Hahn clearly does attribute a feminine role and feminine attributes to the Spirit, but not to the Father and Son. There are two problems with this concept. First, the Divine Nature is One, so the Spirit cannot have attributes or roles pertaining to Nature that the Father and Son do not also have. Second, the Persons of God are Three, but the distinctions of the Persons are based on procession. But there is no basis for claiming a feminine role or attributes based on those distinctions. For example, the Father is called Father partly because the Son proceeds from Him. But no person proceeds from the Spirit, so a role of parent, father or mother, is not atttributed to Him. Nor does the Spirit have a feminine role in the Incarnation, since Mary is the mother of Christ.

It seems to me, and this is just my opinion, that Hahn over emphasizes the feminine because he is influenced by the errors found in Protestantism and in secular society. When one reads St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, one finds no such attempt to attribute feminine roles or attribuate to the Spirit.

 

[Bridge]

Here is a defense by Scott Hahn on the charges he wrote that the Holy Spirit was female:

Thanks. I had been under the impression that Mr. Hahn hadn’t responded to any of the criticisms. But after reading his response and skimming through the chapter, it is evident to me that the criticisms, especially the harshness of the criticisms, were beyond the pale. And i look forward to reading more of his work.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

NOR does exaggerate from time to time, and Hahn replies to some of NOR’s exaggerations.

But my main concern is unanswered by his reply. Hahn clearly does attribute a feminine role and feminine attributes to the Spirit, but not to the Father and Son. There are two problems with this concept. First, the Divine Nature is One, so the Spirit cannot have attributes or roles pertaining to Nature that the Father and Son do not also have. Second, the Persons of God are Three, but the distinctions of the Persons are based on procession. But there is no basis for claiming a feminine role or attributes based on those distinctions. For example, the Father is called Father partly because the Son proceeds from Him. But no person proceeds from the Spirit, so a role of parent, father or mother, is not atttributed to Him. Nor does the Spirit have a feminine role in the Incarnation, since Mary is the mother of Christ.

It seems to me, and this is just my opinion, that Hahn over emphasizes the feminine because he is influenced by the errors found in Protestantism and in secular society. When one reads St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, one finds no such attempt to attribute feminine roles or attribuate to the Spirit.

I really think you’re reading too much into this or possibly misinterpreting what Scott is saying. By your last paragraph, and repeated references to Scott’s association with Protestantism, it appears you might have some concerns because Scott is a convert.

Scott is using analogies but does not make claims or teach the Holy Spirit is feminine.

Below is what Scott states in his book:

We discover Who the Spirit is by what He does.

Below is what Scott said in his letter:

“He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective ‘perfections’ of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband”

Second, I always refer to the Holy Spirit as “He” – never “She” – in all my writings and teachings.

Scott constantly stresses the importance of family in most of his writings. This is also evident in his analogies of God’s covenant with man, as he compares the covenants to the covenant between a man and a woman.

Please provide us with references showing exactly where, as you say, “Hahn clearly does attribute a feminine role and feminine attributes to the Spirit, but not to the Father and Son”.

 

[anon52328184]

At a younger age than most, Scott was offered the position of dean. His career was more than off and running.

Coincidently, Scott was on EWTN last night, on the program Journey Home. He retold his story of studying Revelations under the Protestant perspective which was interpreted as the apocalypse. He attended a second study group because of the complexities of understanding Revelations. The second group had the same perspective with some differences. After that, he said he gave up on Revelations and went back to studying the Gospels.

The first time Scott attended a Mass, he had his Bible and notebook with him. He was attending for anti-Catholic purposes. As the Mass unfolded before him, he recognized what was happening as written in scriptures, especially Revelations. Scott was alone and a “walk-in” at this Mass, he sat in the back as an observer. Because of his discoveries, he kept attending and became more and more convinced that the Mass was scriptural.

If you listened to his coversion story, it’s interesting to learn he converted himself. No one, on earth, was leading him towards the Church.

Because he was offered this position at a time he found he had questions that couldn’t be answered by his colleagues, Scott refused the position to pursue the truth. When he made his decision to convert, his career choices disappeared. He could no longer teach at the seminary, much less serve as dean. He explains this situation on his conversion CD.

You can order his conversion story on CD free at this website. They do ask for a donation, but if I remember correctly, I ordered several CDs and donated a dollar for each CD I ordered. There are several by other people that are worth ordering.

i will have to see if i can catch the journey home with scott hahn as that is one of my favorite programs. thanks for the background. i guess this would be a title for another thread, but i would be interested to know the differences between the protestant perspective on revelations and the catholic perspective. thanks.

 

[allhers]

i will have to see if i can catch the journey home with scott hahn as that is one of my favorite programs. thanks for the background. i guess this would be a title for another thread, but i would be interested to know the differences between the protestant perspective on revelations and the catholic perspective. thanks.

Here is a link to that site, the coming home network, (NOT the journey home), up in the upper right hand corner you can click on past shows.

chnetwork.org/Journey%20Home.html

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here is a link to that site, the coming home network, (NOT the journey home), up in the upper right hand corner you can click on past shows.

chnetwork.org/Journey%20Home.html

Thanks for the link, I didn’t realize they had their own network. I was calling it by the program name on EWTN, Journey Home.