Sungenis calls Karl Keating and Catholic Answers cowardy

  • Thread starter Thread starter armydude12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dislike reading Mr. Sungenis because of what I regard (my opinion) as his arrogant, triumphalistic, “crush my enemies, drive them before me, and hear the lamentations of their women” tone that he takes in his dealings with others. I get a creepy feeling when I visit his site, so I don’t anymore. I think Our Lord desires that we be gentle and humble, something I don’t pull off myself all the time, as well as forthright and honest.
 
I do not know about Scott Hahn’s writings on the Holy Spirit, but students of his have told me that he considers his work speculative and submits it to judgement by the Church.
 
40.png
armydude12:
WOW KARL KEATING!!! I AM SHOCKED AT WHAT YOU WROTE AND I AM ALSO SHOCKED AT THE WAY THESE PEOPLE “KISS YOUR BUTT” ON THESE FORUMS—let me first say I am on no one’s side–I do not know Sungenis or Mr. Keating personally. Now Karl, you know that just because your organization is bigger does no necesarily mean it is better. It may be an indicator, but it doesnt mean it is better… I also understand that you said that in response to Sungenis’ comment about you “keeping the money rolling.” You said Sungenis said this out of jealousy—I dont know whether he did or but, I agree that comment is a little over the line. Karl some of your comments “beg the question.” I don’t know if you did it on purpose or just misunderstood what Sungenis was getting at–I THNK IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT SUNGENIS DID NOT MEAN C.A. DIDN’T TACKLE TOUGH ISSUES IN REGARDS TO ABORTION, HOMOSEXUALITY, CONTRACEPTON, FORNICATION ETC–C’MON KARL!!! It is obvious that Sungenis’ point is that FOR SOME REASON YOU OR CATHOLIC ANSWERS WONT TALK ABOUT HAHN’S VEIWS ON THE HOLY SPIRIT…(SUGESTION: YOUR NEXT E-LETTER–DISCUSS HAHN’S VEIWS) The topic has been talked about and talked about yet no direct public comment by you or Akin or Staples. As far as your statment that you didnt include Hahn in your above list because “he doesnt consider himself an apologist.“KARL WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, GET A LIFE ON THAT ONE–Hahn may be a theologian but he is and cetainly was an apologist for years–his books such as” Rome Sweet Home” defend the faith and he has engaged in public formal debate(against Bob Knudeson Justification and Sola Scriptra)–Karl JUST COME OUT AND TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL ABOUT HAHN’S WRITINGS IN REGARD TO THE HOLY SPIRIT-- If you don’t then don’t be surprised if people call you cowardily at least in this regard.
Click to expand...
I have never been one to kiss Mr. Keatings bottom but here is his E-letter from 12/2004:

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_041221.asp

I think that he implies that he does not agree with Scott Hahn’s interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

In addition Mr. Keating has been a strong supporter of the New Oxford Review which has been a vocal critic of Scott Hahn’s creative theology!

The topic of Scott Hahn’s theology has been beat into the ground in previous threads. If you are interested do a search.

To give Scott Hahn his due he has responded to the NOR with a very humble letter thanking those for their criticism so that he may continue to grow.
 
40.png
armydude12:
People please read what I actually wrote–I never said that Hahn’s veiws were heretical—so the person, I think his name is (in one of the above posts) michnce or something like that, who said I was engaging in hear say is wrong–what I said was it is a fact that many people, including Sungenis, have critcized(publicly) Hahn’s veiws on the Holy Spirit—I merely asked, since this has gone on for some time now, if C.A. would comment–I was surprised that when Karl .(and people posting actually didnt see this mistake) was critcized,by Sungenis, for not takin on the “tough issues” (which obvioulsy meant the crtique of other apologist’s veiws) Karl seemed to use a smokescreen argument (see karl’s above post) and tried to say C.A. tackles the tough issues such as Abortion, Homosexuality, etc._ A point which is obvious and had noting to do with what Sungenis said. (by the wayI have no ax to grind)
Click to expand...
I think that this came up on the forums a while back, in fact I know it did. Did you try the search engine? Karl can not personally comment on every item that Sungenis thinks is important, and I’m sure that Sungenis does not comment on every thing that Karl thinks is important. So, you are asking Karl to take up what Sungenis thinks is important? and for what reason? Have you read Hahn’s work? If so, then feel free to start a thread and discuss it, that is what the forums are for. This forum does not exist to force Karl or anyone else to voice their opinions on what is personally important to themselves. Sungenis has not, apparently, convinced very many people the importance of this tough issue with any of the other apolologists, or he would be confronting them also. Has Sungenis confronted Steve Ray, Dave Armstrong, Al Kresta, Jeff Cavins, Pete Vere, Patrick Madrid, Marcus Grodi, Jim Burnham, Jimmy Akin, Rosalind Moss, Fr. Vincent Serpa, Tim Staples, and Jim Blackburn about this abuse he sees? Have they answered him? If he isn’t consistant across the board, could this not seem to be a personal attack?
 
40.png
armydude12:
People please read what I actually wrote–I never said that Hahn’s veiws were heretical–what I said was it is a fact that many people, including Sungenis, have critcized(publicly) Hahn’s veiws on the Holy Spirit… Karl seemed to use a smokescreen argument (see karl’s above post) and tried to say C.A. tackles the tough issues such as Abortion, Homosexuality, etc.
Click to expand...
If the view expressed on the Holy Spirit was never claimed to be heretical, but just an exceptable theological variance, then why is it such a “tough issue?”
 
Church Militant:
Y’know… I was just thinking. If so many are so concerned with what Dr. Hahn has said about the Holy Spirit, then why hasn’t someone bothered to contact him about it and asked for some clarification. Here’s your chance: ScottHahn.com!

It doesn’t bother me one way or the other, since I don’t really think that God has any “gender issues” or that we as human beings can completely comprehend the mystery of the essence of God. This is not blind faith, but a lack of faith in my own human capacity to get my mind around all that the Most High is.
After all…this is the God who told us that His name is “I AM”.
Pax vobiscum,
Click to expand...

Just what is all the fuss about ?​

 
NO it is not that I want Karl to respond to what Sungenis thinks is important—This issue has been discussed by many(much more than Sungenis and alot of people think it is important) and i think Karl and CA by now should explicitly deal with the issue–his E-letter is very vague, at least in my opinion, and does not come right out and offer a detailed account of the matter—Your statement that Keating supports The New Oxford Reveiw, and that that magazine critiques Hahn, --therefore Keating is indirectly, being critical of Hahn is well, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (you fill the blanks in–i begin with b and ends with s) cmon please that argumnt is just foolish–All anyone is asking for is a clear article or dialogue—is that to much to ask–???
 
40.png
armydude12:
i think Karl and CA by now should explicitly deal with the issue-----All anyone is asking for is a clear article or dialogue—is that to much to ask–???
Click to expand...
Why? You have already said there was no heresy involved. Why is this discussion so important to you? I am wondering because it seems that Mr. Keating has a better grasp on what “tough” issues are.
 
I never said there was no heresy involved–I am not sure if there is or is not—there is a difference!!! There maybe–some have implied (if not downright assereted) that Hahn is in def. error if not hersey----that is precisely why I would love to see more comments on this by good old KK.
 
40.png
armydude12:
that is precisely why I would love to see more comments on this by good old KK.
Click to expand...
Apparently Mr. Sungenis agrees with you. I guess Mr. Keating believes administering his ministry in a *sucessful *manner is a greater priority than responding to minor issues, like what Scott Hahn is up to, which way the sun moves and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Maybe “hard” issues are not addressed here, but the important ones are.
 
40.png
pnewton:
Apparently Mr. Sungenis agrees with you. I guess Mr. Keating believes administering his ministry in a *sucessful *manner is a greater priority than responding to minor issues, like what Scott Hahn is up to, which way the sun moves and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Maybe “hard” issues are not addressed here, but the important ones are.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity,… what hard questions will be answered on the next Apologetics Cruise by Michael Medved???:hmmm:
 
I don’t go around looking for things like this, but I find it interesting that whenever I find an argument in the CAF, which is not often, by the way, one of the parties to the argument seems to have posted less than a dozen or so messages, total.

From that I infer, that rather than examining the thousands of messages that have been posted here, that individual may just as likely have come in here with an axe to grind before any of the messages posted here have been read. 😦
 
I am reminding all posters on this thread to self edit before you click that “submit” button. :yup:
 
40.png
armydude12:
On Bob Sungenis’s web site, Sungenis calls Keating and C.A .cowards because thy refuse to critique other catholic apologists–namely Scott Hahn-=-(Hahn’s views on the femine nature of the Holy Spirit and his views on orginal sin(Adam Eve) are said to be in conflict to the Church’s understanding) The person who e-mailed Sungenis about this claimed Catholic Answers wont even allow it to be discussed on the forums. Sungenis further criticizes Karl Keating because, according to Sungenis, Keating has made a “pact” no to critique other apologst’s work who are “freinds” with Keating–the information is on Sungeis’s web site under the questons and answers section on the home page- does anyone have thoughts about Hahn’ views and Keating’s (Catholic Answers) apparent silence on this mater.
Click to expand...
Please provide a link so that we can see for ourselves what is said.
 
I have been on my journey home for about a year now, after being baptized at birth but raised minimally Protestant. Part of my journey has involved reading, forum haunting(these forums) and listening to Catholic radio. I have read Scott Hahn and I have read Karl Keating, early church fathers, etc. At one point, I was attempting to read so much that it began to take the place of prayer and personal communion time with God. It also caused an information overload. Particularly harmful was all the bickering on these forums. It was coming close to causing me to doubt my direction. So, I stopped haunting the forums for a while, and stopped all the extra reading except for the Bible and Vatican related material (but I still listen to the radio) I also began to pray for a pure road to God through the Catholic church. Consequently, I am blissfully ignorant of many of the controversies, and after reading these posts, I am glad that I am. I think certain people are getting carried away and forgetting that no one is ever going to conform 100% to what we think is right. Hairsplitting such as this is destructive.

Peace,
Sherilo
 
Karl:
I remember not too long ago Bob Sungenis was friends with you and the other apologist mentioned on this thread, and all of you had great respect for each others talents as Catholic Apologists.
Now there is name calling, finger pointing, accusations, and all that other uncharitable rhetoric. WHAT HAPPENED?
When I first became interested in apologetics, you and the staff at Catholic Answers, along with Bob Sungenis were my heroes. Nothing has changed I still admire all of you, and your teachings have been very beneficial to me.
It hurts to see all of you at odds with each other.
 
I hardly know Bob. I met him just once, twelve years ago. He wrote some good stuff in those days. Despite that, I didn’t think he was a good fit for Catholic Answers (personality issues, mainly). Ever since he has nursed a grudge and has laid the blame for his not being hired on what he calls the Soy Sauce Incident.

(He says Catholic Answers bases its hiring on whether a prospective employee properly uses soy sauce at Japanese restaurants–a test unknown to any of the 42 people who work with me but one that Bob thinks he took and failed.)

In recent years Bob has promoted eccentric ideas, such as geocentrism, and has gone so far as to claim that Einstein was wrong about relativity while he, with only a bachelor’s degree in physics, knows the truth about the issue.

Bob’s unfortunate forays into science have heightened his querulousness and have thrown a cloud over his apologetics. Not surprisingly, people wonder whether they can rely on a religious argument that comes from a man who thinks he is right and all of today’s physicists are wrong.
 
Karl Keating:
I hardly know Bob. I met him just once, twelve years ago. He wrote some good stuff in those days. Despite that, I didn’t think he was a good fit for Catholic Answers (personality issues, mainly). Ever since he has nursed a grudge and has laid the blame for his not being hired on what he calls the Soy Sauce Incident.

(He says Catholic Answers bases its hiring on whether a prospective employee properly uses soy sauce at Japanese restaurants–a test unknown to any of the 42 people who work with me but one that Bob thinks he took and failed.)

In recent years Bob has promoted eccentric ideas, such as geocentrism, and has gone so far as to claim that Einstein was wrong about relativity while he, with only a bachelor’s degree in physics, knows the truth about the issue.

Bob’s unfortunate forays into science have heightened his querulousness and have thrown a cloud over his apologetics. Not surprisingly, people wonder whether they can rely on a religious argument that comes from a man who thinks he is right and all of today’s physicists are wrong.
Click to expand...
Boy have you gone overboard with this whole thing… hope you don’t go overboard on your cruise…

I know Bob fairly well… he has never, never said anything about Soy Sauce (or dissed you either for that matter)… so it must bother you more than it bothers him(if at all).

Did you really write this post yourself and say that “all of today’s physicists are wrong” which declares they all disagree with a theory the RS supports??

Heaven forbid that anyone who doesn’t please you is declared eccentric. Although, Einstein (the “father of the atomic bomb” who never even worked on it) was labeled such, so maybe you were complimenting RS.

By the way… your Catholicism/Fundamentalism was most helpful in my personal journey back to the Catholic Church, and I thank you for that, … you wrote some good stuff in those daysimages/icons/icon12.gif. RS, in the meantime (since you met him 12 years ago) has written a few more things since then… have you ever desired to critique them? Or is the implication such that they are not that good. Personally, I would bet you have your own set of his books, and may even use them as reference from time to time.

Guess I better stop now before I earn a suspension for my opinions and feelings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top