Scott Hahn

[tm30]

Again, I think Hahn is clear about when he is theologically speculative. He has not said something that conflicts with tradition or scripture, but his hypotheses that tie together Biblical data can be tested and evaluated objectively.

I understand that he’s couching this as “speculative”, but most of his devoted audience takes it as “fact”. That’s why it’s SO IMPORTANT that someone in his position has their feet held to the fire on matters like this. I don’t think Hahn is a heretic. I believe he’s being merely speculative. But when one has a loyal following, it’s natural that people tend to believe everything that comes out of your mouth. This is the immensity of the responsibility he has elected for himself, and why great theologians like Origen were never canonized. His works, like Hahn’s, were enormously edifying, but he went askew in various ways that cost him the esteem of a St. Bonaventure or a St. Thomas Aquinas. No one gets on this forum arguing that Origen should be a saint, but dare to question Scott Hahn, and suddenly the word “bigotry” gets humorously trotted out.

Scott Hahn is a good man. I’ve been to his talks. I’m grateful for the good he’s done, not only in theology, but in bringing his Protestant colleagues into the fold. But we can’t let the cult of personality get in the way of a discerning spirit. Hard questions need to be asked about certain of his speculations. It’s not wrong to do so.

 

[Joe_5859]

I haven’t read the whole thread, but I never pass up an opportunity to come to Hahn’s defense.

Most of the “Hahn detractors” spend too much time reading NOR. (Okay, that’s a little dig at NOR, but all in good fun ). Seriously, though, NOR has a series of articles on Dr. Hahn. Articles that are (to me) filled with unfair (and inaccurate) accusations and logical gymnastics. Hahn has replied to many of their accusations before. His book First Comes Love was even re-edited to avoid the confusion that NOR had with what he was saying.

I think one thing that many people fail to grasp is the Dr. Hahn is a theologian. He is not the Magisterium of the Church. Everything a theologian writes is not something that has already been clearly and infallibly defined by the Church. Theologians are allowed to explore. Yes, they explore within the boundaries of Church teaching, but they explore nonetheless.

This is what makes a theologian different from a catechist. The job of a catechist is to faithfully hand on all that the Church teaches, and nothing more. There is no personal opinion. Theologians, on the other hand, are allowed to explore areas and mine the depths of the deposit of faith. In so doing, they may say things that aren’t opposed to Church teaching, but neither are they necessarily Church teaching per se.

None of the so-called “errors” of Dr. Hahn are in any way contrary to any Church teaching. First all, most of the time, Hahn’s opponents do not accurately present his point of view. Thus they are responding to something he is not even saying (the whole “feminization of the Holy Spirit”, for example).

Second, even when his views are represented fairly, it is on issues where Catholics are perfectly free to have a variety of opinions. The whole “Adam and Eve being threatened by death” interpretation. If Hahn was saying that Adam and Eve were entirely coerced and thus did not freely choose to sin, then there would be problems with it. This is not what he is saying. He is simply saying that, in his educated opinion, there was an implied threat of death from Satan and that fear played a role in the Original Sin. You can agree or disagree with that interpretation, but there’s nothing that contradicts any Church teaching on Original Sin.

 

[Joe_5859]

I understand that he’s couching this as “speculative”, but most of his devoted audience takes it as “fact”. That’s why it’s SO IMPORTANT that someone in his position has their feet held to the fire on matters like this. I don’t think Hahn is a heretic. I believe he’s being merely speculative. But when one has a loyal following, it’s natural that people tend to believe everything that comes out of your mouth. This is the immensity of the responsibility he has elected for himself, and why great theologians like Origen were never canonized. His works, like Hahn’s, were enormously edifying, but he went askew in various ways that cost him the esteem of a St. Bonaventure or a St. Thomas Aquinas. No one gets on this forum arguing that Origen should be a saint, but dare to question Scott Hahn, and suddenly the word “bigotry” gets humorously trotted out.

Scott Hahn is a good man. I’ve been to his talks. I’m grateful for the good he’s done, not only in theology, but in bringing his Protestant colleagues into the fold. But we can’t let the cult of personality get in the way of a discerning spirit. Hard questions need to be asked about certain of his speculations. It’s not wrong to do so.

You bring up another point in my mind that I think should be said. Much of the theological speculation of Hahn’s that people have a problem with are from the stuff he has written or said years ago. It seems to me that he is much more careful now in how he says things. If you look at his excellent book Understanding the Scriptures, you see that he has left out pretty much all of those elements of speculation that were in some of his earlier books (A Father Who Keeps His Promises and First Comes Love, for example).

With someone like Hahn (who can barely say “Hello” without it being recorded and sold by St. Joseph Communications), everything he writes and says sticks around for a long time. And if he refines his thought through the years (as I assume he does) it does not necessarily get disseminated as much as the original.

 

[pia]

:bounce: :blushing:

 

[Joe_5859]

Prophet? Sheesh. Now that kind of reponse is reason #1 it’s important not to let controversial positions go unaddressed. Here we have a person who is so enthralled with Mr. Hahn, he/she will declare him a prophet before questioning his views.

That’s frightening, and it has nothing to do with a “male superiority” complex.

I take it you’re in favor of women priests, too? (since you oppose “male bigotry”)?

Just an FYI, Dr. Hahn does have a PhD. He didn’t write a 500+ page dissertation to be called Mister!

(Sorry, just giving you a hard time!)

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Joe,

You did a mighty fine job summarizing what I think as well.

What I would like to occur here is a separation between the personality and the hypotheses.

Even if Scott as the author stated a hypothesis that is in correct, it is more appropriate to speak to the hypothesis and leave him out of it.

People can say his hypothesis for which he finds corroborating scriptural evidence is incorrect, but it is more fruitful to offer an alternative explanation.

Moreover, I have yet to read anyone specifying a doctrine that he is undermining.

Theological speculation by a PhD in theology is to be expected. What I like about Scott is that he provides us some of this theological scholarship. None of the arcane theological points others make in peer reviewed journals are shared with those of who are not theologians. It’s more condescending to think that the educated public is not interested in such speculation.

I believe that he specifies clearly what is theologically speculative and, yes, some people will simply believe what he says. This latter group: are their souls in peril for believing in the four cups explanation? Really? There’s no conflict here with doctrine.

I haven’t read the whole thread, but I never pass up an opportunity to come to Hahn’s defense.

Most of the “Hahn detractors” spend too much time reading NOR. (Okay, that’s a little dig at NOR, but all in good fun ). Seriously, though, NOR has a series of articles on Dr. Hahn. Articles that are (to me) filled with unfair (and inaccurate) accusations and logical gymnastics. Hahn has replied to many of their accusations before. His book First Comes Love was even re-edited to avoid the confusion that NOR had with what he was saying.

I think one thing that many people fail to grasp is the Dr. Hahn is a theologian. He is not the Magisterium of the Church. Everything a theologian writes is not something that has already been clearly and infallibly defined by the Church. Theologians are allowed to explore. Yes, they explore within the boundaries of Church teaching, but they explore nonetheless.

This is what makes a theologian different from a catechist. The job of a catechist is to faithfully hand on all that the Church teaches, and nothing more. There is no personal opinion. Theologians, on the other hand, are allowed to explore areas and mine the depths of the deposit of faith. In so doing, they may say things that aren’t opposed to Church teaching, but neither are they necessarily Church teaching per se.

None of the so-called “errors” of Dr. Hahn are in any way contrary to any Church teaching. First all, most of the time, Hahn’s opponents do not accurately present his point of view. Thus they are responding to something he is not even saying (the whole “feminization of the Holy Spirit”, for example).

Second, even when his views are represented fairly, it is on issues where Catholics are perfectly free to have a variety of opinions. The whole “Adam and Eve being threatened by death” interpretation. If Hahn was saying that Adam and Eve were entirely coerced and thus did not freely choose to sin, then there would be problems with it. This is not what he is saying. He is simply saying that, in his educated opinion, there was an implied threat of death from Satan and that fear played a role in the Original Sin. You can agree or disagree with that interpretation, but there’s nothing that contradicts any Church teaching on Original Sin.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

One of the biggest problems with Scott Hahn’s writing is the way he presents his material. He writes pop-theology for a crowd of converts or re-verts, his style is so basic so as to be almost banal.

This condescending attitude is common to all the people that have written on here to criticize Dr. Hahn. Do you think only people with Ph.D.'s in theology should be allowed to read about the Faith? I also detect more than a little jealousy of Dr. Hahn’s success in evangelizing both those inside and outside of the Church.

Instead of trying to tear down Dr. Hahn with gossipy stories about the books he assigns in his classes, you should try to build up the Church. In the process, you might find you also have something to say that people want to hear.

Envy of another’s spiritual good is one of the six sins against the Holy Spirit.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This condescending attitude is common to all the people that have written on here to criticize Dr. Hahn. Do you think only people with Ph.D.'s in theology should be allowed to read about the Faith? I also detect more than a little jealousy of Dr. Hahn’s success in evangelizing both those inside and outside of the Church.

Instead of trying to tear down Dr. Hahn with gossipy stories about the books he assigns in his classes, you should try to build up the Church. In the process, you might find you also have something to say that people want to hear.

Envy of another’s spiritual good is one of the six sins against the Holy Spirit.

For those who missed the new age teachings I posted in this thread, read back we have much larger problems to be concerned about.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

I agree. We must not confuse the theological speculation with the person, and moreover, attacks on Scott in no way advances the notion that his theological hypotheses are wrong. They are simply ad hominem.

We should not malign a man who has brought so many to the faith, a man clearly aspiring to be orthodox and encouraging other to do the same. Father Michael Scanlan (past president of Steubenville) would never support a theologian who had gone off the deep end- nor would EWTN.

This condescending attitude is common to all the people that have written on here to criticize Dr. Hahn. Do you think only people with Ph.D.'s in theology should be allowed to read about the Faith? I also detect more than a little jealousy of Dr. Hahn’s success in evangelizing both those inside and outside of the Church.

Instead of trying to tear down Dr. Hahn with gossipy stories about the books he assigns in his classes, you should try to build up the Church. In the process, you might find you also have something to say that people want to hear.

Envy of another’s spiritual good is one of the six sins against the Holy Spirit.

 

[WaltLove]

While I respect and admire most of Dr. Hahn’s works I always seem to have a problem with people that charge for their preaching. (I saw him speak for $25) I understand the costs that are associated with travel, food, etc. yet I believe that Dr. Hahn along with Steve Ray and some of these recent mainstream Catholics are cashing in. What are your thoughts? I know Jesus never charged people for His teaching. How about JPII or Padre Pio? It is just something I struggle with. Am I wrong? Your opinions?

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

A husband and father of a large is tugged around the country to speak at the expense of a would-be professional life unfettered with anything but teaching and research. He request some modest form of compensation. In fact, sometimes nominal pricing is set to control demand: a simply economic principle. When I do work on the side people pay me. I really do not have an issue with this. Is he supposed to blow off his family and travel around the world to evangelize for free? I am in no way scandalized here.

While I respect and admire most of Dr. Hahn’s works I always seem to have a problem with people that charge for their preaching. (I saw him speak for $25) I understand the costs that are associated with travel, food, etc. yet I believe that Dr. Hahn along with Steve Ray and some of these recent mainstream Catholics are cashing in. What are your thoughts? I know Jesus never charged people for His teaching. How about JPII or Padre Pio? It is just something I struggle with. Am I wrong? Your opinions?

 

[rinnie]

What I love about him is when he started out he said he got into his research to dis-credit, what ever word you want to use, but he wanted to prove the faith wrong. And the more and more he tried the more and more he was doing the opposite. The faith was the proof that kept making him wrong. So as a result he started out against the faith, and in his research became one of the best believers. What i also like about him he shows us why and how protestants see things, and why he believed them also, and why they were both wrong. But he makes it easy to understand, and the best way to understand something is to be able to explain it in easy terms that make sense. And he does that.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

He is a MASTERFUL teacher! God has clearly blessed his life! His wife has had many children at her bodily expense, and she notes his consistent support as a husband simply because they understand this to be obedient to God.

I once went to speak with him, and he tried to be cordial but seems aloof. I became aware of how taxing it was for every stranger to be tugging at him. I cut him a lot of slack for not really being able to speak with me. It must be very hard to be sought after by so many people. It does require sacrifice and must be very stressful. Imagine.

What I love about him is when he started out he said he got into his research to dis-credit, what ever word you want to use, but he wanted to prove the faith wrong. And the more and more he tried the more and more he was doing the opposite. The faith was the proof that kept making him wrong. So as a result he started out against the faith, and in his research became one of the best believers. What i also like about him he shows us why and how protestants see things, and why he believed them also, and why they were both wrong. But he makes it easy to understand, and the best way to understand something is to be able to explain it in easy terms that make sense. And he does that.

 

[anon52328184]

While I respect and admire most of Dr. Hahn’s works I always seem to have a problem with people that charge for their preaching. (I saw him speak for $25) I understand the costs that are associated with travel, food, etc. yet I believe that Dr. Hahn along with Steve Ray and some of these recent mainstream Catholics are cashing in. What are your thoughts? I know Jesus never charged people for His teaching. How about JPII or Padre Pio? It is just something I struggle with. Am I wrong? Your opinions?

i know i will be greatly criticized for this, but i also struggle with this. it looks like he has published one book a year since 1998, except for 2000. i think someone mentioned the high price for such a thin book. since other people had recommended scott hahn to me, i did go to the nearest catholic bookstore and i really wanted to read a lot of the books, but they were quite pricey. before your fingers start typing, i do realize there is the public library where i could go check out the books. i am one of these people that if i see a book i am really interested in, i want to own it. we have several used bookstores here, perhaps, i might find one there.
i have seen the christian bookstores flooded with books by joyce myers, joel
o’steen and many other televangelists - who i also struggle with - and i was hoping it would be different. to me, the protestants and non-denominationals have found a way to market Jesus which i see as very sad.

he does have his Ph.D. and maybe he saw a market to bring Catholicism to the everyday Catholic as well as the convert and re-vert outside of what was already there. i know he has a big family to support. with sales of books, cd’s, audiocassettes, speaking engagements, it must be lucrative for him.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

Have you tried Borders or Barnes and Nobles? Small Catholic book stores should be supported by those who can, but I’m sure the books would be less costly at a major book chain. His books are regularly carried by these chains. You can even use a 25% off coupon from either the two I mentioned to save money. I do.

Regarding how lucrative it is: You know medical doctors make good money, but many work insane hours. Scott works insane hours too- sacrifices a lot. So what if he is compensated. Sometimes when I hear people mention this, and I’m NOT talking to you specifically, I hear envy. It concerns me.

i know i will be greatly criticized for this, but i also struggle with this. it looks like he has published one book a year since 1998, except for 2000. i think someone mentioned the high price for such a thin book. since other people had recommended scott hahn to me, i did go to the nearest catholic bookstore and i really wanted to read a lot of the books, but they were quite pricey. before your fingers start typing, i do realize there is the public library where i could go check out the books. i am one of these people that if i see a book i am really interested in, i want to own it. we have several used bookstores here, perhaps, i might find one there.
i have seen the christian bookstores flooded with books by joyce myers, joel
o’steen and many other televangelists - who i also struggle with - and i was hoping it would be different. to me, the protestants and non-denominationals have found a way to market Jesus which i see as very sad.

he does have his Ph.D. and maybe he saw a market to bring Catholicism to the everyday Catholic as well as the convert and re-vert outside of what was already there. i know he has a big family to support. with sales of books, cd’s, audiocassettes, speaking engagements, it must be lucrative for him.

 

[anon52328184]

oh, i am sure if i thought hard enough i could find a way to use religion to market a book about a story or some religious topic. maybe i will. i am not sure how i would feel about myself afterwards though. if i thought my book was really beneficial i could justify it. if i became a celebrity, maybe not.

people do this everyday. i look at the author james patterson who has to write a book once a year and they are hardly worth buying, but he always seems to make the best seller list, so there is a market for them.

 

[AnyoneAnybody]

It’s one of the benefits of capitalism. I’ll bet Scott tithes obediently to the church.

oh, i am sure if i thought hard enough i could find a way to use religion to market a book about a story or some religious topic. maybe i will. i am not sure how i would feel about myself afterwards though. if i thought my book was really beneficial i could justify it. if i became a celebrity, maybe not.

people do this everyday. i look at the author james patterson who has to write a book once a year and they are hardly worth buying, but he always seems to make the best seller list, so there is a market for them.

 

[rinnie]

i know i will be greatly criticized for this, but i also struggle with this. it looks like he has published one book a year since 1998, except for 2000. i think someone mentioned the high price for such a thin book. since other people had recommended scott hahn to me, i did go to the nearest catholic bookstore and i really wanted to read a lot of the books, but they were quite pricey. before your fingers start typing, i do realize there is the public library where i could go check out the books. i am one of these people that if i see a book i am really interested in, i want to own it. we have several used bookstores here, perhaps, i might find one there.
i have seen the christian bookstores flooded with books by joyce myers, joel
o’steen and many other televangelists - who i also struggle with - and i was hoping it would be different. to me, the protestants and non-denominationals have found a way to market Jesus which i see as very sad.

he does have his Ph.D. and maybe he saw a market to bring Catholicism to the everyday Catholic as well as the convert and re-vert outside of what was already there. i know he has a big family to support. with sales of books, cd’s, audiocassettes, speaking engagements, it must be lucrative for him.

Go to www.amazon.com You can buy some books used, they are like brand new too. I learned this too late when my last one graduated from college. You will save tons of money, and they come right to your house. Fast too! good luck! Jesus of Nazarath by the pope is UNREAL, Best book i ever read in my LIFE! But once you go on there they will suggest other books on Catholic faith. You wont believe how many there are.

 

[notsmart]

While I respect and admire most of Dr. Hahn’s works I always seem to have a problem with people that charge for their preaching. (I saw him speak for $25) I understand the costs that are associated with travel, food, etc. yet I believe that Dr. Hahn along with Steve Ray and some of these recent mainstream Catholics are cashing in. What are your thoughts? I know Jesus never charged people for His teaching. How about JPII or Padre Pio? It is just something I struggle with. Am I wrong? Your opinions?

Parish priests don’t take a vow of poverty. And, in the church I am closest to, there are no adult formation classes past RCIA. Who is willing to do this job? There are many people who give presentations for a fee teaching catholic theology to people.
Christopher West does it too. I can think of more…

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

For what it is worth, Scott Hahn expressly denies that the Holy Spirit is feminine as was so scandalously misrepresented by NOR. Here is his letter to their editor:

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

I’m sure Scott Hahn appreciated our Holy Father’s words in his book Jesus of Nazareth, where he talks about the maternal-like love of God, His mercy, which is spoken of in Scripture in verses such as Is 66:13 “As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you” and Is 49:15, “Can a woman forget her suckling child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you”. Our Holy Father rightly states, and clearly Scott Hahn agrees, that “God is neither a man or a woman, but simply God, the Creator of man and woman.”(p.140) Yet, He is described in scripture in a maternal sense. Pope Benedict points out, " The mystery of God’s maternal love is expressed with particular power in the Hebrew word rahamim. Etymologically, this word means “womb,” but it was later used to mean divine compassion for man, God’s mercy."(p. 139). I would be willing to bet that Scott Hahn knew that before Jesus of Nazareth was ever published.