Yay! Scott Hahn will be teaching at Mundelein!

More good things happening as a result of Fr. Robert Barron’s work.

Chivalry is Not Dead
Congratulations to John C. Wright and Mike Flynn...
Holocaust Survivor...
Jean Vanier wins Templeton Prize
  • Janie Aita

    yah, as long as he teaches them that Adam and Eve’s sin was a sin of pride not a sin of ‘not protecting Eve and the garden’. That’s the biggie— I know he has toned down his language on that since he received a lot of legit criticism from other theologians on that subject. He has some theological speculations (which is fine)– I just wish he wouldn’t test and publish his theories to the Masses of populations (and classrooms of students). Instead he could engage other intelligent theologians in discourse over his very intelligent but NEW theories.

    • Charles Ryder

      I don’t think that Scott Hahn ever says that Adam and Eve’s did not commit the sin of pride or that pride was not the main reason for the Fall. He has, however, pointed out that Adam also failed to act as a good steward to his wife and to the garden. Dr. Hahn has pointed out that in Genesis 3:6, Adam seems to be present while Eve is tempted. As such, he failed to protect his wife. In Genesis 2:15 we see that “The Lord God took man and put him in the garden to till it and keep it”. I don’t think it’s an act of speculation to suggest that the Lord gave Adam dominion of the garden and as such he had the authority to kick the serpent out. By remaining passive, he also fails in his stewardship of the garden.

      Msgr. Charles Pope, hardly a heterodox man of the cloth, basically comes to the same conclusion as Scott Hahn does (http://blog.adw.org/2010/08/why-is-the-first-sin-called-the-sin-of-adam-not-the-sin-of-adam-and-eve/).

      In a time where there is so much subjectivism and sheer imagination in theology, I think Dr. Hahn’s “speculations” are pretty tame. I think a case can be made for them from the text. Beyond that, while Dr. Hahn is not above criticism, compared to many heterodox theologians who teach at Catholic universities, he is an utter champion of the Faith.

      • Janie Aita

        I do think he does a lot of great things for the Church I just wish he would bounce his ideas off of other intellectuals like most intellectuals do instead of publishing it to the masses (which is his main audience). As I said in recent years he has calmed down his description of the Fall a lot. But in Genesis he will still say that Adam was afraid of the “nahash” (serpent) which is part of the reason he didn’t protect his wife/garden and with that he sins. But it would be impossible (in Thomistic thinking) for him to have that type of irrational fear pre-fall. That type of fear would be from the result of our fallen nature with ill-ordered appetites and emotions. Furthermore, if he had that type of fear it would take the culpability away from the sin that made all of humanity fall out of God’s grace. It doesn’t add up. I know he has received a lot of criticism for this and I’m still hoping he’ll come around as he has some already. People also tend to have problems with his discussions involving the Holy Spirit being feminine. He has calmed that down a lot too. There are other things that bother me as well. But all in all I think he has been great for the Church and he is way more orthodox than a lot of other so called theologians. One more thing:: I agree he is not above criticism but that’s what other orthodox theologians kind of get irritated about. They would rather he publish his stuff to them in intellectual journals again to discuss and for them to critique like other theologians do before he brings his thoughts to everyone else. And– I do admit I’m thankful that someone is publishing for the average joe Catholic (who doesn’t have their theology degree) because we did/and do need that. Everyone needs to grow in knowledge of their faith and holiness.

        • Charles Ryder

          Thanks for sharing, Janie.

          I remembered that “The New Oxford Review” attacked Scott Hahn for claiming that the Holy Spirit was feminine. So, I just researched incident. Scott Hahn vigorously defended himself against the charges. Here is the link of his response to NOR:


          NOR fired a salvo back reiterating their claims. What strikes me is that, whether NOR was right about Hahn or not, they were a bit nasty. It was a great magazine back in the 1980s but they became very cantankerous along the way. They don’t seem quite so strident today as they were in the previous decade but I only read their free stuff now.

          Not be contentious, but can you name some orthodox theologians who had problems with Scott Hahn’s work? I’d like to read their criticism. I know of liberal theologians who have been critical of him — one branded Hahn a member of “the new apologists”. Thanks.

          • Janie Aita

            I’m trying not to sound too cavalier in my approach and criticism of Hahn. I had not read that article before. It was mean-spirited and not helpful. Ad hominem only weakens arguments. I do not doubt that Hahn’s intentions are very pure and good. He’s extremely gifted in revealing the scriptures and exploring typology themes throughout the Bible. I think it would behoove him to read some Thomas Aquinas. Thomas gives one a fantastic philosophy and base/lens to see the world through and interpret the scriptures with. In the meantime, I do know of several orthodox theologians who taught me this viewpoint in both my undergrad (2005) and graduate school (2010). It’s a little close to home for me since I know my brother (who specializes in Thomas and moral theology) wrote on it a few years ago. I can call him tonight no problem. :)

          • An Aaron, not The Aaron

            The NOR response to Dr. Hahn’s defense was hilariously inept. First, they accuse him of calling the Holy Spirit feminine, but can only produce quotes where he indicates the words in gendered languages referring to the Holy Spirit are feminine. How that translates to the Holy Spirit Himself being feminine is anyone’s guess. Oh, and the last statement in that first section was a quote from Edith Stein – not Hahn’s words and no indication of whether Hahn took them to mean that the Holy Spirit should be thought of as feminine. I love the rapier thrust with what turns out to be a wet spaghetti noodle: “You wrote it. How can you deny it?”

            Second, they say “No ‘He’ (the Holy Spirit) can be bridal or maternal.” Apparently they are forgetting Hahn is talking about God, who is neither male nor female. He, as neither, can act bridal or maternal as much as He likes (which is what Hahn is saying – not “being” bridal or maternal, as NOR alleges). He is not restricted to gendered actions as gendered beings, like humans, are restricted.


            • Charles Ryder

              I subscribed to NOR in the 80s when they had luminaries like Walker Percy and Dr. Robert Coles writing for them. Sometime after that they embraced a bitter and resentful tone. I think, but am not sure, that they have softened their tone over the last several years.

              I’ve learned a lot from Scott Hahn and think he is a great gift to the Church. That is not to say that he is always right or that he should be immune to criticism. I also love Father Robert Barron, but don’t hang on his every word. But sometimes the criticism of these guys (and I’m not talking about Ms. Alta here) is like saying – “Tim Duncan, one of the two or three great power forwards in the history of the NBA, is lousy at the free throw line so I don’t want him on my team.” Our attitude should be — “Tim Duncan is a poor FT shooter, but his overall dominant play can help my team win a championship.” An uninspired metaphor, perhaps, but hopefully it makes a modicum of sense.

          • Janie Aita

            This apparently was someone’s thesis at Christendom College. I thought it was well worded in explaining the issue with Original Sin and Hahn. And your description of completely discrediting Hahn for a few ideas people think need to be tweaked is spot on. http://www.christendom.edu/graduate/pdfs/papers/Brendan%20Graves%20Virtues%20paper.pdf

            • Charles Ryder

              Thanks, Janie.