What's Wrong With Scott Hahn?

[excubitor]

I apologize, Excubitor, if I came off as aggressive. I don’t feel that I did, but we are often unaware of our own foibles, so it is quite possible that I am mistaken. Forgive me for any lack of charity I may have displayed. God Bless.

Apology accepted Nathan.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Apology accepted Nathan.

Blessings.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I think, at the end of the day, both sides have good intentions. Cradle Catholics need to be aware of what it is that they already have (as well as what they are neglecting), and converts need to be aware of what they are actually getting into (as well as what they are leaving behind). Both sides need to give ground, as it were. I rather imagine that God is using converts to help restore the Church, and initially restoration is zealous. However, at some point, it needs to ease into a middle ground, or the scale runs the risk of tipping too far in one direction. As for myself, I need to get off and finish my Scott Hahn study on the Gospel of Luke

 

[Whiggamore]

The prejudice and stereotypes of “all” cradle Catholics on this thread is appalling, completely inaccurate, and extremely uncharitable – far exceeding whatever has been said (not by me) of anyone converting from another Christian tradition. Those engaging in such contemptuous remarks should be ashamed of themselves.

Elizabeth502, Peter Kreeft (another one of those pesky converts) argues that there’s really nothing wrong with stereotyping. Nobody has suggested everybody baptized as an infant has spoiled their inheritance, just that many have. And nobody is being prejudicial; nobody is judging any individual Catholic as poorly catechized because they were born into the faith. We’re simply saying that cradle Catholics are, generally, poorly catechized, certainly when compared to converts from Protestantism. This has been our experience. I’m sure the statistics, if they exist, would support this. And it’s just common sense. For obvious reasons, converts to anything are better learned in general. And how much more true for a certain kind of convert from Protestantism who, as a Protestant, placed so much value on the study of Scripture? Scripture is the largest depository of revealed truths, which are the subject matter of the Sacred Science, of Catholic teaching.

Nathan Wagar points out that this focus on Scripture can sometimes be a stumbling block, and we’ve seen that in this very thread, but I think it is preferable to the stumbling blocks before cradle Catholics, stumbling blocks that are hurting the Latin church and sending millions of souls down a twisted, wide road.

 

[mark_a]

G They want Catholicism, indeed they love Catholicism, yet they embrace all of the fringey protestanty frills which they are convinced - for some strange reason - brings in new members.

Would you elaborate??

Thanks!

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I think the discussion here has been quite charitable, on all sides. Perhaps we have differing views on appalling?

Abortion = appalling
Hearty debate = not appalling
Murder = appalling
Contrasting points of view = not appalling

Eight pages of hatred = appalling.

Just throwing this out there, but try reading every post, carefully. I don’t think you have, or you wouldn’t be making surprisingly dramatic accusations.

Just “throwing this out there,” but YOU have not read most posts carefully, apparently, including your own recognition of what’s been going on, referring to below…

IThere are many people who have been Catholic all their lives who don’t know jack. Converts bring a new fire and life into the church and get people into Scripture more…

It’s not protestant converts that are the problem, it is cradle catholics who have had attrocious catechesis, who know nothing about the church, nothing about Vatican 2, nothing about Scott Hahn; and yet think they know everything about the spirit and intent of Vatican 2. These are the wreckovaters of the church who have basically destroyed the church in the name of Vatican 2.

When protestants convert it is because they want to become joined with the one holy apostolic catholic church. If I am anything to go by, then I would say that most converts feel cheated when what they get instead is a crude copy of a protestant church which sings English hymns badly, plays guitar and drums badly, plays hillsong badly, and has almost entirely lost its cultural identity.

What is so dreadful to see amongst Catholics is this cultural cringe. They feel almost embarrassed about their Catholic heritage. They try to downplay it by avoiding Catholic things like the rosary, headcoverings, litanies, novenas, altars, statues, processions, pilgrimages and the sign of the cross, and set Catholic prayers. They think hillsong is something to aspire to, to attract the youth. Trust me, the youth are not attracted. If they were attracted by hillsong they would go to hillsong.

Please Catholics, just be Catholic. You can’t sing, you can’t do happy-clappy properly, you can’t do coffee and cake after the service properly; but you can pray very well, you can worship very well, you can be sobre and reverent in a sacred place well. So be Catholic, do Catholic things, believe Catholic teachings and be thoroughly pleased to be Catholic. The Catholic church has the richest heritage of any church. Why not desire it as something to be sought for, as Jacob sought after the heritage and blessing of his father.

the converts are the life of the church, the ray of hope for the new age.*** The cradle Catholic grows up Catholic and many despise it and leave as soon as they can. Those that don’t leave don’t value what they have because they’ve always had it. “Familiarity breeds contempt”. Whereas the convert comes from a fresh perspective. His eyes are opened to magnificent treasures. He values it like a pearl of great price that a man finds for the first time in a field and goes away and sells all that he has to buy the field***.

(Important disclaimer: I understand that we are both talking in gross stereotype and that these are very broad generalities so I hope that no particular cradle Catholic is offended. Indeed the people I admire most in my life are particular cradle Catholics who are standouts head and shoulder over the generalised cradle Catholics of which I speak)

I am VERY offended. I am not a stereotype, and I am exceptionally well educated in my faith – as a cradle Catholic – and my scriptural knowledge, interpretation, and understanding rocks.

the possibility of a protestant convert being atrociously learned is far less than that of a cradle Catholic. If protestants are atrociously learned it may well be because they were corrupted in their RCIA class which in the vast majority of cases are conducted by atrociously learned cradle Catholics.

But I blame this all on the cradle Catholics shocking cultural cringe and identity crisis. The cradle Catholic of today does not really know what it is to be Catholic anymore, so he/she is easy prey to every cultural influence that washes over him.

You cannot blame the state of the church on newcomers and converts. The blame lies squarely on the cradle Catholics who have horribly neglected their faith.

There is probably one knowledgable cradle Catholic in a thousand…The standard of knowledge among Catholics is woeful. I have observed this first hand and have heard and read numerous anecdotal examples of this.

And therefore, you are the great authority able to extrapolate statistically to all the cradle Catholics whose knowledge you are in fact woefully ignorant of, and whose fidelity to their faith you are unjustifiably judgmental about.

 

[Elizabeth502]

protestant converts to Catholicism are a very select group and are on the whole very informed of their old faith, and of the new catholic faith.

Catholic teachers whine. Well we put on classes but nobody comes. Of course they don’t, because they know they will receive sub-standard and often dangerous instruction. I know it must seem like I am ranting on, but really its just not possible to understate the enormity and the peril of the situation.

And really it’s just not possible to understate the enormity of your ignorance about a world larger than your own.

Surely even the cradle catholics are chuckling at this suggestion. In fact as I said before in my previous post, it is the cradle Catholics which have this crashing cultural cringe, who feel that then need to kowtow to their protestant neighbours by taking communion in the hand, ripping out altars and putting in tables, facing the people instead of the altar; shall I go on?

Catholics can operate their x-boxes and computers which are highly complex and technical devices and yet they can’t master their scriptures and catechisms.

Protestants are on the whole far more educated in their faith than are Catholic’s in theirs. Protestants are also pretty well versed in how to argue against the teachings of the Catholic church. But the vast majority of Catholics, if they encountered an argument against their faith directed at them by a protestant, would not know how to respond, and might even start to doubt their faith.

The apostles grew in knowledge far beyond their capacity and background. This is what astonished those who heard them preach
*Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
*
This is what Catholics have been called to do since Vatican 2 and their failure has been almost completely total. Any wonder then that protestant converts are stepping into the breach and filling the vaccuum.

So are you agreeing that cradle catholics are spiritually indifferent and largely ignorant of their faith?

You are right that it is a journey, but this is my complaint. Catholics are NOT progressing on that journey.

And you, having the omniscience of God unlike ignorant cradle Catholics, are in a position to know that as a whole, Catholics are not progressing on that journey, whereas Protestants are. Who knew?

By contrast, a rare comment supporting my own observations:

Excubitor. You started out charitable but it seem to have taken very little for you to make somewhat…“self-righteous” comments about the spiritual journey of another person’s family. In essence, your point of view is exactly what my original posts were all about. You see yourself and other converts as the shining white knight, restorer of the Church’s original pristine state. This is highly obnoxious to people, and rightly so. Your disdain for the very people that you have become one of is positively palpable. Does one member of the body look down on another or say “I do not need you?” Blessed Saint Paul warned about this very problem when the Gentile converts tried to boast over the Jews…

 

[Elizabeth502]

The fact is that a new convert does have a zeal for the faith which cradle Catholics lack. This is a readily observed phenomenon that is even mentioned in scripture as the “first love”. You are just so self righteous that you don’t think that you can learn anything from converts.

I do not disdain Catholic’s.

Then here’s a clue: Stop speaking disdaining words, and your message will not be interpreted other than how you (supposedly) think.

I agree with you wholeheartedly…I find that reverts and converts are more emphatic and know more about Catholicism than those cradle Catholics who claim they do. Praise the Lord and the Holy Spirit for Protestant converts.

As Protestants we had a burning desire to know, and we still do. It is a major part of our faith. And it is for many Catholics, and rightly so. But not for cradle Catholics.

The sad thing about some cradle Catholics is that they get piqued when the Protestant converts steal their thunder.

These people convert after reading a lot about the Church. They can certainly teach a lot of “cradle” Catholics more than a thing or two.

I completely agree that cradle Catholics, who are in control of most of our churches and our bible studies and out RCIA programs and yiou name it, seem stagnant. They do seem to be caught in a sort of muddled middle. They want Catholicism, indeed they love Catholicism, yet they embrace all of the fringey protestanty frills which they are convinced - for some strange reason - brings in new members.

Originally Posted by atmmgraves
I say all this because I completely agree that cradle Catholics, who are in control of most of our churches and our bible studies and out RCIA programs and yiou name it, seem stagnant. They do seem to be caught in a sort of muddled middle. They want Catholicism, indeed they love Catholicism, yet they embrace all of the fringey protestanty frills which they are convinced - for some strange reason - brings in new members.

Not only that. They even blend in some New Age thought into their teachings.

I cannot grasp why our cradle Catholic leaders want to re-create in the Catholic Church a sort of quasi-protestant-Catholic hybrid. …Seems to me we’d be better off strengthening our understanding, appreciation, love, and reverence for our ancient, great, and holy Catholic faith rather than diluting it. Hard to accept and disappointing as it may be, this is the status quo at this time, and it is unquestionably our cradle-Catholic leaders taking us down this road.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And nobody is being prejudicial; nobody is judging any individual Catholic as poorly catechized because they were born into the faith. We’re simply saying that cradle Catholics are, generally, poorly catechized, certainly when compared to converts from Protestantism. This has been our experience.

An overgeneralized, non-statistically valid “experience,” reflecting narrow exposure.

I’m sure the statistics, if they exist, would support this. And it’s just common sense.

Then provide them.

For obvious reasons, converts to anything are better learned in general.

That is a huge myth. Converts often have enthusiasm. That enthusiasm sometimes urges them to greater actual knowledge. But I have yet to see, on CAF, or on EWTN, or in any Catholic media, a convert who “instantly,” or in the space even of several years, can match a well-taught cradle-ANYTHING, but especially of a truly ancient tradition such as Catholicism, Judaism, or Islam. It takes years to truly understand it, and that is mostly because with Catholicism (for example), the theology is built on Catholic philosophy which is highly intellectual and not for novices. To be able to explain the theology, defend it, and apply it – instead of rattling on “What Bishop so-and-so says,” you have to truly grasp the intersection of the philosophy and the theology together.

As I said before, I’m neutral on Scott Hahn, because none of his “discoveries” would be new to absolutely anyone well-catechized in Catholic biblical theology. As I said a couple of times on this thread, he serves a very valuable purpose for converts if he is able to be that bridge, scripturally. (My personal opinion, listening to him every week on EWTN for several years, is that his grasp of the philosophy behind Catholic systematics remains somewhat weak.) However, I think Jeff Cavins rocks. I can never get enough of him, because of my biblical studies on the graduate level.

(Unlike many here, I am not prejudiced, and have done a tremendous amount of scripture study with and of Protestant scholars, and a few Jewish scholars as well/)

And I think an awful lot of people on this thread owe some major apologies for their offensive remarks, and owe that apology without the repeated back-pedaling, rationalizations, and excuses.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Elizabeth, I really have nothing to say. I think you’re right. I am truly curious about your thoughts regarding Dr. Hahn’s use of Catholic systematics, and how his studies compare to the studies you do under Jeff Cavins? I have a preference for Dr. Pitre, as I’ve stated earlier.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, I think we are on the same page here. I think all of us are, in varying degrees, attempting to say the same thing, but coming from different backgrounds which affects how we are saying it.

No. I am not on the “same page” as most of you are, as I do not support the lack of charity here. All I hear is more rationalizations.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Above statement edited after further reflection.

 

[PJD1987]

I don’t know what is wrong with your RCIA instructor, she is wrong.

This is why I believe we need major, major reforms in catechism and RCIA, I know personally, my catechism was absolutely awful and I didn’t learn anything that was absolutely CENTRAL to the Catholic faith, and it was so detrimental to my formation as a young man when I was growing up. Only now, in my early 20’s am I learning what it truly means to be a Catholic…I literally didn’t know of the True Presence in the Eucharist until last October. To me it’s absolutely unconscionable that this could happen, and one of my very best friends who was thrown out of her CCD class prior to her confirmation because she (my friend) asked too many questions the teacher didn’t like and couldn’t answer. So now my friend is an enemy of the Catholic Church and a staunch non-denominationalist.

I know this is all slightly off topic, but it just gets me so upset that our faith can be entrusted to people like this teacher and the teacher that turned my friend away and the teachers who didn’t even bother to teach me any of the CORE, FUNDAMENTAL beliefs of our faith. It’s sad because I see how people get turned away by stuff such as this, and I don’t know if it is, but it must be addressed, in my humble opinion.

 

[atmmgraves]

Would you elaborate??

Thanks!

Greetings!

This thread is getting a little heated, beyond what it should for what has been said, and my comments seem to have contributed to this. My apologies if I have offended you, too.

Someone said in an earlier post - summed it up much better than I have - about Vatican II being a catalyst to many in our Church to become more liberal and to embrace protestant styles such as singing and guitar playing and feel-good stuff. I am not saying this is what Vatican II said to do or advocated - indeed, it did not. However, it is indisputable that many, many of our Catholic brethren took Vatican II to mean this.

That’s the bottom line for me. I want old school Catholicism, and apparently a whole bunch of others do as well, as witnessed by the rise in popularity of the traditional Latin Mass. Meanwhile, where I attend, we have a special “teen Mass” where the music is edgy and basically top 40 style and the dress is lax and the reverence not what it should be. And for what, really? To make a specific demographic happy? To “modernize?” I just don’t see it. Call me old school (which I am!) but aren’t we supposed to conform to the Church, rather than have the Church conform to us, be we teens, converted protestants, or cradle-Catholics worried about losing people to the Baptist church down the street due to their having spaghetti suppers and more socializing?

As witnessed by the comments on this thread, these endeavors may be creating the unintended consequences of actually turing people off. I am simply stating that I believe we’d get more to stay and more to come in with a projection of a strong, muscular, orthodox, and traditional (small and capital T) Catholic Church, unafraid of its mystery and its history and its appearance, rather than adapting to the times and bending over backwards to make everyone happy.

I don’t see anything insulting or uncharitable in what I have said here, or before, but again if I have hurt anyone with what I have said here, I apologize. My wife is a cradle-Catholic (and she’s learned a lot from me, a convert, and I still have only scratched the surface). Just stating my own worthless opinion.

God bless.

 

[sweetashoney]

I personally think Scott Hahn is very good at introducing the scriptures to a Catholic Culture which has not been properly introduced to the scriptures at all. A protestant view of scripture study was the only one accessible to lay Catholics for a very long time. His desire to bring a Catholic perspective of Scriptures to the average layperson is his true calling, and given the need for such, it’s no wonder he became such a blazing success.

I do agree that he is not the end of the road in this regard. He is only the beginning. It’s important to keep going further into study once his writing has been read.

Most importantly, as I think one or two others have alluded to, it should be recognized that SCRITURAL Theology is only one aspect of what the Church can offer. There is also a PHILOSOPHICAL Theology which can illumatinate the scriptures in the same way that a second leg helps a one legged man walk. Frank Sheed is a great introduction to that line of study. Both aspects are necessary for a full Catholic worldview.

I would also recommend, as have others, that you DO NOT NEGLECT the spiritual side of your studies. When I re-verted back to Catholicism I was lucky enough to stumble into all three areas in short order. I was introduced to Frank Sheed in one book, then Scott Hahn in another, and St. Theresa of Avila (via Fr. Dubay) in another, one right after the other. These three aspects (four if you include the liturgy and sacramental life) of the faith flesh each other out. I highly recommend that approach to anyone as they go about their growth as a Catholic.

On a side note, I don’t have a problem with scholars using protestant scholarly works since Pope Benedict does so in his Jesus of Nazareth books. But one should be cautious to make sure that nothing contradicts Doctrine as you go about those studies. As long as nothing contradicts you are free to ponder it, just keep in mind that until an aspect of the faith is made into a Doctrine, that line of thought could turn out to be erroneous in the end. But you are still free to consider it until then.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t see anything insulting or uncharitable in what I have said here, or before,

Yours were among many quotes which included those of many other posters as well. Yours were included in one of my three long examples of the generalizations. Most people, when seeking an apology, would rather have an acknowledgement that the offender recognizes how the offense could have been perceived (even without an overt apology). That is actually more important to most people than hearing, ‘I’m sorry [several times] but by the way I didn’t do anything wrong.’

All of you: if you do not see how offensive your quoted contributions were, I think you need to do a lot of reflecting on how stereotyping depersonalizes and dehumanizes. That is separate from the fact that in this case, the generalizations are also inaccurate. One can’t have a fruitful debate when the premises being used are bogus.

 

[excubitor]

Originally Posted by excubitor
(Important disclaimer: I understand that we are both talking in gross stereotype and that these are very broad generalities so I hope that no particular cradle Catholic is offended. Indeed the people I admire most in my life are particular cradle Catholics who are standouts head and shoulder over the generalised cradle Catholics of which I speak)

In that case I will happily put you specifically in the category of particular cradle catholics who are standouts head and shoulder over the generalised cradle Catholics of which I speak. I’ve already stated that Catholic Answers has a very high standard of very knowledgable Catholics who are genuinely involved and interested in their faith. However the vast majority of cradle Catholics could not care less about the faith to go so far as to participate in a Catholic forum.
Surely we understand that we must from time to time talk in generalities, otherwise how would any communication be possible at all.
Even the apostle Paul spoke in generalities.
*Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
*
I’ll rebuke cradle Catholics too that they may be sound in the faith.

And therefore, you are the great authority able to extrapolate statistically to all the cradle Catholics whose knowledge you are in fact woefully ignorant of, and whose fidelity to their faith you are unjustifiably judgmental about.

I’m not saying anything that cannot be readily observed by any unbiased clear thinking person. Massive divorce rates, skyrocketing annulments, wide scale birth control, increased abortions, unparalleled doubt in the Real Presence, record levels of low attendance at Mass, shocking catechism in the schools, endless anecdotal evidence of sub-standard RCIA formation, almost universal destruction of altars, altar rails, sacred objects formerly used, appalling music with drums and guitars, horrendous liturgical abuse, vestments thrown together on someones Singer, no genuflecting before our Lord in the sacrament, plummetting rates of conversions from protestantism and other faiths, unparalleled apostasy with Catholic youth abandoning the church at record levels, immorality with Catholics living in sin as a norm, churches throughout Europe almost empty,newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.vietnamese/2008-06/msg00878.html vocations utterly decimated with monasteries and convents closing down. Nuns abandoning their habits and wearing civilian clothes.

Shall I go on? Shoot the messenger if you like, but if you can’t recognise that there is a crisis in the church then you have your head in the sand. Besides, all you have done here is abuse me. That’s fine. I can take it. Jeremiah got thrown into the dungeon up to his arm pits in mud
*Jeremiah 38:4Therefore the princes said unto the king, We beseech thee, let this man be put to death: for thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them: for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt. 5Then Zedekiah the king said, Behold, he is in your hand: for the king is not he that can do any thing against you. 6Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech, that was in the court of the prison: and they let down Jeremiah with cords. And in the dungeon there was no water, but mire: so Jeremiah sunk in the mire. *

So what? You think I seek the hurt of the people of God do you? No I seek their welfare, so that they turn from their sin and seek the old paths.

*Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
*

Go back to your old ways, the ways of your fathers. There you will find rest for your souls. Don’t listen to the people who love the pleasures of sin who want to be just like the nations around about, who love novelty and innovation and who spurn ancient traditions of the church. Face it. Your grand experiment to protestantise the Church HAS FAILED.

 

[excubitor]

Yours were among many quotes which included those of many other posters as well. Yours were included in one of my three long examples of the generalizations. Most people, when seeking an apology, would rather have an acknowledgement that the offender recognizes how the offense could have been perceived (even without an overt apology). That is actually more important to most people than hearing, ‘I’m sorry [several times] but by the way I didn’t do anything wrong.’

All of you: if you do not see how offensive your quoted contributions were, I think you need to do a lot of reflecting on how stereotyping depersonalizes and dehumanizes. That is separate from the fact that in this case, the generalizations are also inaccurate. One can’t have a fruitful debate when the premises being used are bogus.

You need to reflect on how to use stereotyping as a necessary form of communication and how not to take personal offence to it where none is intended.
If indeed the premise of a generisation is faulty then I suggest you just calmly explain how that premise is in error instead of launching off into an hysterical tirade of wounded emotion.

 

[Whiggamore]

Elizabeth502, thank you for your response. I was going to reply in full, but I think it’s best if I don’t. As I said before, I have no problem with stereotyping. Nobody has said ALL cradle Catholics are poorly catechized. That would be wrong, epistemically speaking. And nobody has pre-judged any individual cradle Catholic. That would be wrong, deontically speaking.

 

[Whiggamore]

Excubitor, I couldn’t agree more. Have you read Peter Kreeft’s “Socratic Logic”? His little defense of stereotypes is brilliant. I’d suggest it to anyone. But he’s just a simple convert like us, so maybe his opinion doesn’t count.

As for statistics, what about the rise of Pentecostalism in Latin America? Surely we’re not expected to believe these were all little doctors?