Scott Hahn

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

I love Scott Hahn’s tape on his conversion. I have used some of
his quotes when I am in conversation with non-catholics because
I understand where they’re coming from (in their thinking.) I have
yet to have the other party respond negatively when I do this, so
for that I thank Scott… I’ve heard Scott many times (on EWTN and in person) and I’ve never heard him say those types of things
except to describe an event, never as a teaching.
Why should it matter if he is in Opus Dei? We know that it is a
legitimate organization santioned by our Church…or is it still a
“secret” organization with malevolent goals as described by
Dan Brown and his elk in your mind?
Scott will be the main speaker at a Marian Conference here in
early Oct. I have already bought my ticket! ($10)

 

[Mea_Culpa]

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.

You are taking something and vastly oversimplifying it. Hahn doesn’t claim that they ate the fruit “because” Satan threatened them. He claimed that Satan threatened them, and that was part of what led them to eat the fruit. The other part was that the serpent “says, too that they will be like “gods who know what is good and bad” (see Genesis 3:5).” Hahn is putting the decision to eat the fruit in the context of being frightened.

Here is what Scott Hahn has published on his website salvationhistory.com:

c. Scared Unto Death?

To put it bluntly: Adam was scared to death, scared of dying. He saw the serpent as a threat to his life.

We know that Adam understood what death was. How do we know that? Because God warned him that he if he ate the fruit he would die (see Genesis 2:17). If Adam didn’t know what death was, God’s warning wouldn’t have made any sense.

Adam was scared that if he didn’t do what the serpent wanted he would be made to suffer and die.

This story, this understanding of Adam’s failure, may be behind a passage we find in the Letter to the Hebrews. It says the Devil has “the power of death” and says also that “through fear of death,” the human race had been held “subject to slavery” (see Hebrews 2:14-15).

That doesn’t mean Adam didn’t have any moral choice or responsibility in the matter.

He chose to save his life, but wound up losing it. He feared dying more than he feared disobeying the Father who loved him and gave him paradise. And in this he plunged the whole human race into slavery.

Hahn is not saying that Adam didn’t have any choice in the matter - he is putting his choice in context. He says later in the same lesson:

Seduced into trying to be like God without God, they died the death. Yes, they chose the fruit freely, like God they exercised free will. But their freedom only led them into slavery. Their eyes were indeed opened, and they discovered their nakedness and were ashamed.

They chose the fruit freely. Hahn is not trying to minimize the exercise of Adam’s free will because he was scared. He is putting his willful disobedience in context.

Hahn also contrasts Adam’s disobedience with the “New Adam,” Jesus:

Jesus enters a garden and experiences the curses of Adam - the dread of death, falling to the dirt, sweating blood from his face in His agony (compare Genesis 3:17-19 and Matthew 26:36-46; Luke 22:44).

Even in the face of death, Jesus is obedient (as opposed to Adam), saying “Not as I will, but as You will” (see Matthew 26:39).

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).

This is incorrect. Hahn says on the same website as above:

What’s going on here in the Garden? Adam failed a test of his love - not only of his love for Eve, but his love for God.

God gave Adam the responsibility of guarding the garden sanctuary, the dwelling place of God and man.

In the confrontation with the serpent, he failed in his duties. He didn’t protect the garden or his wife or himself.

Why did God test him like this? Because covenant love requires total self-giving. Self-sacrifice is essential to fulfilling the obligations of the human relationship with God.

Hahn relates Adam not protecting Eve to his not protecting the Garden or himself - he failed in all three areas. Again he contrasts this with the “New Adam,” Jesus -

He (Jesus) does not grasp at “equality with God” as Adam did (see Philippians 2:5-11), but lays down His own life in sacrifice for the sake of the “garden” - the world, for His bride, the Church.

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.

I’ve never seen this in Hahn’s writings or presentations. Can you give some citations?

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.

Can you give some examples and citations for this blanket statement? As I said above, I’ve learned a lot from his writings and presentations, and would seriously like to know if they are flawed in some way. But just having you state it as a fact with no evidence is not very convincing.

 

[notsmart]

I love Scott Hahn’s tape on his conversion. I have used some of
his quotes when I am in conversation with non-catholics because
I understand where they’re coming from (in their thinking.) I have
yet to have the other party respond negatively when I do this, so
for that I thank Scott… I’ve heard Scott many times (on EWTN and in person) and I’ve never heard him say those types of things
except to describe an event, never as a teaching.
Why should it matter if he is in Opus Dei? We know that it is a
legitimate organization santioned by our Church…or is it still a
“secret” organization with malevolent goals as described by
Dan Brown and his elk in your mind?
Scott will be the main speaker at a Marian Conference here in
early Oct. I have already bought my ticket! ($10)

I have no problem with Opus Dei. I researched it. I think many people do have a problem with Opus Dei. I have read pro-con on it, and it seems even some catholics dont like them. Which, I find odd.

 

[Squanto]

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.

I think the problem is not with Scott Hahn, but with what some claim are Scott Hahn’s ideas. The Adam/Eve Garden of Eden idea was already addressed above. Just remember that Hahn was a former Protestant, offered a Deanship, and left to become a Catholic. It was the reading of the Church Fathers that caused him to realize that the Roman Catholic faith was the True Faith. In addition, he has published at least 15 books, with real Catholic publishers. So, if he has three or four controversial ideas - even if some of them are flat wrong - is that so bad? We are fallible, right? St. Augustine believed that unbaptized babies go to Hell, and some great Saints had some beliefs that we find, today, are errant

Back to the above quote, what Hahn states is that Jesus Himself, and the sacrifice of Jesus, was the Fourth Cup of the Passover. Jesus left the Passover feast after three cups and his sacrifice on the cross was the Fourth Cup. There are many parallels to Passover and the crucifixion - an innocent unblemished lamb sacrificed at Passover, an innocent God/Man sacrificed on the cross. Jesus is the Passover lamb and, therefore, the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world.

He does not claim that the corrupted wine was the fourth cup, but that Jesus was the Fourth Cup.

So, I think that those who criticize Hahn must be more familiar with his writings. The fact that he packages and presents it in a somewhat novel manner, for a 21st Century audience, will assist in his outreach. If he wrote like Aquinas, would anyone read and learn from him?

I do think the motherhood/feminine part is mistaken. I think he goes too far with the idea of a “covenant family,” but, as I wrote above, a few errors in thousands of pages of books, and tireless lecturing, is hardly unsurprising.

Peace.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Hahn claims that Adam was the first priest, and that therefore all his descendents, merely by being his descendents, are a preistly people:
salvationhistory.com/online/beginner/class1_lesson2_1.cfm

The Catechism teaches that Baptism is what makes us a priestly people, not merely being descendents of Adam:

1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” [73] By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” [74] Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

On original sin:
Hahn says:
“Adam was scared that if he didn’t do what the serpent wanted he would be made to suffer and die… He chose to save his life, but wound up losing it. He feared dying more than he feared disobeying the Father who loved him and gave him paradise. And in this he plunged the whole human race into slavery.”
salvationhistory.com/online/beginner/class1_lesson2_1.cfm

Since Adam’s fear of death is said to be what plunged the whole human race into slavery, Hahn is claiming that the original sin of Adam is his refusal to fight out of fear of death. This idea is nowhere to be found in the teaching of the Church on original sin.

Also, Hahn greatly deemphasizes the sin of Eve, putting the blame for original sin on Adam chiefly. He claims that Adam was also there when the Serpent tempted Eve, so that they were tempted at the same time, in contradiction to Scripture:

[1 Timothy 2]
{2:13} For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
{2:14} And Adam was not seduced, but the woman, having been seduced, was in transgression.

So Adam was formed first, but Eve was seduced (led astray) first, not at the same time.

And there are numerous other errors in his writings. I think it is only because so many among the faithful are so poorly informed about the Faith that Hahn has gained such popularity.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Hahn claims that Adam was the first priest, and that therefore all his descendents, merely by being his descendents, are a preistly people:
salvationhistory.com/online/beginner/class1_lesson2_1.cfm

The Catechism teaches that Baptism is what makes us a priestly people, not merely being descendents of Adam:

1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” [73] By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” [74] Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

Hahn doesn’t say his descendants are a priestly people, but that they were intended to be a priestly people.

What we find, then, in Genesis’ account of the creation of mankind is God’s original intent for the human race - it is to be a family of God and a priestly people.

There’s a little thing called the Fall of Man that changed things. Hahn says

In fact, because the human race was so weakened by Adam’s original sin that no one could give himself completely to God. And because of Adam’s sin, humanity lost its birthright - its divine inheritance, its membership in God’s family.

Christ’s death and resurrection and our baptism have made it possible for the Church to return to the state of being a “priestly people.”

On original sin:
Hahn says:
“Adam was scared that if he didn’t do what the serpent wanted he would be made to suffer and die… He chose to save his life, but wound up losing it. He feared dying more than he feared disobeying the Father who loved him and gave him paradise. And in this he plunged the whole human race into slavery.”
salvationhistory.com/online/beginner/class1_lesson2_1.cfm

Since Adam’s fear of death is said to be what plunged the whole human race into slavery, Hahn is claiming that the original sin of Adam is his refusal to fight out of fear of death. This idea is nowhere to be found in the teaching of the Church on original sin.

He says that part of Adam’s original sin is his failure to protect the Garden, his wife, and himself because of his fear. Also part of his sin is that he was seduced into wanting to be like God:

Seduced into trying to be like God without God, they died the death. Yes, they chose the fruit freely, like God they exercised free will. But their freedom only led them into slavery. Their eyes were indeed opened, and they discovered their nakedness and were ashamed.

It all adds up to disobedience and failure to trust in God. That was his real sin.

Also, Hahn greatly deemphasizes the sin of Eve, putting the blame for original sin on Adam chiefly. He claims that Adam was also there when the Serpent tempted Eve, so that they were tempted at the same time, in contradiction to Scripture:

[1 Timothy 2]
{2:13} For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
{2:14} And Adam was not seduced, but the woman, having been seduced, was in transgression.

So Adam was formed first, but Eve was seduced (led astray) first, not at the same time.

And while Eve was being led astray, Adam was doing what? In Exodus 3:12, Adam tries to blame Eve for his transgression, then she tries to blame the serpent. God curses them all as responsible.

And there are numerous other errors in his writings. I think it is only because so many among the faithful are so poorly informed about the Faith that Hahn has gained such popularity.

Nothing you’ve pointed out is an error on the part of Scott Hahn. It’s either you twisting his words to mean something other than what he actually says, or interpreations of Scripture that do not deviate from any teaching of the Magisterium of the Church.

I would say Scott Hahn has gained such popularity because people are genuinely hungry for knowledge about the Holy Scriptures that is taught in conformity with the teachings of the Church.

It’s a blessing to have someone with his knowledge, enthusiasm, and faithfulness to share his knowledge of the Holy Scriptures in a way that is accessible to the non-academic faithful. I don’t know why you would want to tear him and his efforts down. Jealousy?

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Mea Culpa,

Ron,
Have you voiced your questions to Scott, or to anyone who
could put light on the subject?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Christ’s death and resurrection and our baptism have made it possible for the Church to return to the state of being a “priestly people.”

So you are saying that the priesthood is of Adam, and that Christ merely returned us to the priesthood of Adam? There is nothing in Tradition or Scripture or Magisterium to support such claims by Hahn.

Christ does not return us to a priesthood established by Adam. Christ Himself is the first priest, with all Jewish priests before him being merely prefigurments, and all true priests (ordained in the Sacrament of Holy Orders) stand in persona Christi, they represent Christ. As for the priesthood of all believers, much the same can be said. Christ is first. Christ’s role was not to return us to Adam, but to make us holier than Adam, giving us a higher calling.

As for the sin of Adam, Hahn teaches, in contradiction to Tradition and Scripture, that Adam was present when Satan tempted, and that Adam sinned first by refusing to risk his life to defend Eve. But Catholic teaching is that Satan tempted Eve, and then Eve tempted Adam subsequently. Also St. Thomas (and many others) teach that the sin of Adam and Eve was pride. The idea of refusing to fight to the death to defend Eve (making Adam guilty first and foremost) is not found in Tradition, Scripture or Magisterium.

As for other errors of Hahn, see the online New Oxford Review, which has several articles on the topic.

 

[Bridge]

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).

That’s interesting. It seems CS Lewis also shared this view, at least from what i remember reading in his book Peralandra.

 

[anon52328184]

wow, after reading those articles from the new oxford review, i can see now that i was right to acknowledge my “gut instinct” about being skeptical.

i am a recent convert and don’t want to turn into a “hahn-vert”.

it has been a profitable move for him to say the least. i don’t doubt his enthusiasm of the new faith after reading the early church fathers, but it is a little disturbing that he puts a femine trait to the holy spirit.

interesting about the presbyterian background and pushing the envelope.

thanks for your posts ron conte and the links you provided.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

I’m not sure I would base too much of what is Catholic teaching
on the New Oxford Review. Instead I would look things up in the
catechism and send questions to catholic answers’ apologists.
There is a definite bias to the New Oxford Review IMO.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

So you are saying that the priesthood is of Adam, and that Christ merely returned us to the priesthood of Adam? There is nothing in Tradition or Scripture or Magisterium to support such claims by Hahn.

Christ does not return us to a priesthood established by Adam. Christ Himself is the first priest, with all Jewish priests before him being merely prefigurments, and all true priests (ordained in the Sacrament of Holy Orders) stand in persona Christi, they represent Christ. As for the priesthood of all believers, much the same can be said. Christ is first. Christ’s role was not to return us to Adam, but to make us holier than Adam, giving us a higher calling.

You spend a lot of time refuting something neither Scott Hahn nor I ever said. Show me where Scott Hahn says the “priesthood is of Adam.”

As for the sin of Adam, Hahn teaches, in contradiction to Tradition and Scripture, that Adam was present when Satan tempted, and that Adam sinned first by refusing to risk his life to defend Eve. But Catholic teaching is that Satan tempted Eve, and then Eve tempted Adam subsequently. Also St. Thomas (and many others) teach that the sin of Adam and Eve was pride.

That’s not what the Catechism says.

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

The way I read it, Hahn’s point is that Adam was disobedient toward God in eating the forbidden fruit, but he was also disobedient in not living up to the responsibilities God had given him as husband and keeper of the Garden. The Catechism in 390 says, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” It says it uses figurative language - in other words, things like symbols, etc. It doesn’t say the account in Genesis 3 is a strict, chronological retelling of the event as it would be recorded by a camcorder. What Scott Hahn is teaching here is in no way in opposition to Catholic Tradition or the Magisterium of the Church.

The idea of refusing to fight to the death to defend Eve (making Adam guilty first and foremost) is not found in Tradition, Scripture or Magisterium.

The Catholic way of reading the Bible is to read it in context. Read it in the context of the literary genre it is written in, in the context of the time period it was written in, and read each individual part in the context of the whole of Scripture. The Old Testament can only be understood in light of the New Testament. With that in mind, we have to look at Genesis 3 in light of the whole of Holy Scripture and of the New Testament. The idea that Adam is a type of Christ is very common. The Catechism says

411 The Christian tradition sees in this passage (the protoevangelium) an announcement of the “New Adam” who, because he “became obedient unto death, even death on a cross,” makes amends superabundantly for the disobedience of Adam.

In other words, Christ accepts death (the death that Adam feared and rejected), and by so doing crushes the serpent under his heel as had been promised in the protoevangelium. Christ is willing to die for his Bride (the Church), unlike Adam, who shirks his God-given responsibility and thereby disobeys God. Also from the Catechism 411:

Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevangelium as Mary, the mother of Christ, the “new Eve.” Mary benefitted first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin; she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God commmitted no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.

Christ’s obedience, even unto death, benefitted Mary, the new Eve, “first of all and uniquely,” just as Adam’s disobedience in refusal to defend his bride from the serpent hurt Eve first of all and uniquely. He stood by and let her be taken in by the liar, the father of lies, because he was afraid. This is what the New Testament reveals to us about Adam.

As for other errors of Hahn, see the online New Oxford Review, which has several articles on the topic.

No thanks, you have to pay $$$ to look at those articles. I’m saving up to buy some more Scott Hahn CD’s, so I don’t want to waste my money!!

 

[anon52328184]

$$$$$$$$$$ and scott hahn will thank you for that!

 

[Mea_Culpa]

wow, after reading those articles from the new oxford review, i can see now that i was right to acknowledge my “gut instinct” about being skeptical.

i am a recent convert and don’t want to turn into a “hahn-vert”.

it has been a profitable move for him to say the least. i don’t doubt his enthusiasm of the new faith after reading the early church fathers, but it is a little disturbing that he puts a femine trait to the holy spirit.

Can you cite where he puts a feminine trait to the Holy Spirit? I am genuinely curious as to what he says, but am not familiar with this in his writings or presentations.

interesting about the presbyterian background and pushing the envelope.

St. Paul came from a background of actively persecuting the early Church, and he definitely pushed the envelope. I for one am not going to point fingers at people based on who they were before they were Catholics. I have a suspicion that a lot of us have worse things in our past than being Presbyterian.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Yes, it costs a little to buy his tapes, that is his living.
Bugs me when this comes up. What does it have to do
with his adherence to church teaching?
I know that both he and his wife are frugal and use a lot
of their income to support their ministries. Thank God.
He has been instrumental in making a series of bible
studies very interesting to Catholic teens and helping
them stay in the Church.

 

[Ruthie]

I have mixed feelings about Scott Hahn - but not because of his theology.

I subscribe to the Oxford Review, and enjoy it, but I thought their articles about Hahn were over the top. They picked two minor thoughts of his and blew them out of all proportion, making it seem as if they were the sum of everything he thinks and believes.

I admire him because, among other things, he really delves into the OT and relates it to the new. He’s a true scholar, and I have learned a lot from him.

What do I dislike? Well, two things about his popular books (like Hail, Holy Queen) irritate me. Not the content!

The lack of footnotes is first. I like having the sources right at the bottom of the page, like the CCC. Or, at least, numbered, so I can easily look 'em up in the back of the book.

The other is the shortness of the books. They are more like long essays, and I do feel cheated a bit to pay $30 apiece for them. If he single-spaced them, they’d all fit into one large volume. I doubt they’d dare to charge $210 for it! (That’s based on the 7 little books of his I can see from where I’m sitting.)

I won’t even address the punning chapter titles… argh!

Overall, I’m quite happy with him, warts and all.

Ruthie

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Yes, it costs a little to buy his tapes, that is his living.
Bugs me when this comes up. What does it have to do
with his adherence to church teaching?
I know that both he and his wife are frugal and use a lot
of their income to support their ministries. Thank God.
He has been instrumental in making a series of bible
studies very interesting to Catholic teens and helping
them stay in the Church.

He also has a lot of children. Is it wrong of him to make a living so he can support his family?

Attacking Scott Hahn as somebody who is profiteering off the faithful is, first of all, not true. Secondly, it’s really low, something I’d expect on an anti-Catholic hate website, not here.

I’d really prefer to focus on what his ideas are, than attack him for charging money for his books and CD’s. When I bought the Pope’s book Jesus of Nazareth, it wasn’t free. I had to pay for it. Does that make the Pope a cynical money-grubbing profiteer? I don’t think so.

 

[anon52328184]

it bothers me because i avoided organized religion for 30-35 years. i knew of the televangelists. then 10 years ago i decided to jump in and figure this whole church thing out. i started in the protestant church. i saw the christian bookstores inundated with all of the books by the televangelists, and then there was the Left Behind series and then there was the Prayer of Jabez. it just makes me kind of sad to see people marketing Jesus like they do. it is a business. i guess you make a point, if these materials help lead the young people to Christ, or keep them interested, or help someone at any age become interested in Jesus or the Bible it is good. sometimes, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. i am not singling out scott hahn, so please be aware of that. i had barely begun my inquiries into the Catholic church, when they were pushing me to read scott hahn, and i was a little disappointed. reading the Catechism, or something put out by the church or the Pope is one thing, but making me feel like i have missed out on an important part of being Catholic by not reading scott hahn sort of put me off.
i hope you can understand the point i am making since i am a new convert.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I have mixed feelings about Scott Hahn - but not because of his theology.

I subscribe to the Oxford Review, and enjoy it, but I thought their articles about Hahn were over the top. They picked two minor thoughts of his and blew them out of all proportion, making it seem as if they were the sum of everything he thinks and believes.

I can only read the very beginnings of the articles. What ideas did they focus on?

If one of the ideas was about the femininity of the Holy Spirit, does it say where he (Hahn) writes about that? I’m curious to read it.

Thanks.

 

[anon52328184]

no, but the Pope is the head of the church. i also have purchased books written by the Pope before he was Pope and after. i would much rather put my money towards what the Pope has written than what Scott Hahn has written.

i became Catholic to join the Roman Catholic church not to join the Scott Hahn fan club.

why should i be made to feel that to be fully Catholic you have to read all of the scott hahn books and listen to his audio cassettes. am i not capable of finding my own way in the Catholic church without reading or listening to Scott Hahn? there are books about the saints and books about the doctors of the church and books by the Pope.