The late\u00a0<\/span>Steve Hays<\/a> (1959-2020) was a Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) apologist, who was very active on his blog, called<\/span> Triablogue<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>(now continued by Jason Engwer). His 695-page self-published book,<\/span>\u00a0Catholicism<\/em><\/a> \u2014 a collection of articles from his site \u2014 has graciously been made available for free. On 9 September 2006, Hays was quite \u2014 almost extraordinarily \u2014 charitable towards me.<\/span> He wrote then<\/a>:<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever accused him of being a traitor or apostate or infidel. . . . I have nothing to say, one way or the other, regarding his state of grace. But his sincerity is unquestionable. I also don\u2019t dislike him. . . . I don\u2019t think there\u2019s anything malicious about Armstrong\u2014unlike some people who come to mind. In addition, I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever said he was unintelligent. For the record, it\u2019s obvious that Armstrong has a quick, nimble mind.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Two-and-a-half years later, starting in April 2009 and up through December 2011 (in the following quotations) his opinion radically changed, and he claimed that I have \u201can evil character,\u201d<\/span> am<\/span> \u201cactually evil,\u201d <\/span>\u201cego-maniac, narcissist,\u201d \u201cidolater,\u201d<\/span> \u201cself-idolater,\u201d \u201chack who pretends to be a professional apologist,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0given to <\/span>\u201cchicanery,\u201d<\/span> one who doesn\u2019t<\/span> \u201cdo any real research,\u201d \u201ca stalwart enemy of the faith . . .\u00a0 no better than [the atheists]<\/span> Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens,\u201d<\/span> with an intent to<\/span> \u201cdestroy faith in God\u2019s word,\u201d \u201cschizophrenic,\u201d \u201cemotionally unhinged,\u201d<\/span> one who<\/span> \u201cdoesn\u2019t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation,\u201d<\/span> \u201chas no peace of mind,\u201d \u201ca bipolar solipsist,\u201d \u201csplit-personality,\u201d<\/span> and a<\/span> \u201cbad\u201d<\/span> man. He wasn\u2019t one to mince words! See<\/span> more gory details<\/a>.<\/p>\n I feel no need whatsoever to reciprocate these silly and sinful insults. I just wanted the record to be known. I\u2019ve always maintained that Hays was a very intelligent man, but habitually a sophist<\/a> in methodology; sincere and well-meaning, but tragically and systematically wrong and misguided regarding Catholicism. That\u2019s what I\u2019m addressing, not the state of his heart and soul (let alone his eternal destiny). It\u2019s a theological discussion. This is one of many<\/em> planned critiques of his book (see<\/span> my reasons why<\/a> I decided to do this). Rather than list them all here, interested readers are directed to the \u201cSteve Hays\u201d section of my<\/span> Anti-Catholicism web page<\/a>, where they will all be listed. My Bible citations are from the RSV. Steve\u2019s words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n [Chapter 5: Convert Syndrome]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n [H]e<\/span> [Cardinal Newman] rejects the Vincentian canon. He repudiates the threefold criterion of catholicity as a hyperbolic idealization. It\u2019s quite ironic that the man who said \u201cTo be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant\u201d is the very same man whose appeal to historical theology flunks the triple test of antiquity, unanimity, and ecumenicity. Moral of the story: a Catholic convert or apologist has to choose between two divergent slogans: \u201cTo be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant\u201d or \u201cWhat has been believed everywhere, always, and by all\u201d, for Vincentian continuity is antithetical to the theory of development. [p. 194]<\/span><\/p>\n Here Hays reveals his profound, stupefied ignorance of development of doctrine: both its nature and the fact that Vincent of Lerins was undeniably the very Church father who wrote the most explicitly<\/em> about \u2014 and in favor of \u2014 development of doctrine (in his Commonitorium<\/em><\/a>). He<\/em> didn\u2019t see it as contrary to his dictum at all. He held both concepts together in harmony, in this one work of his. So did St. Cardinal Newman, and so does the Catholic Church. Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff wrote along these lines:<\/p>\n Not that Vincent is a conservative who excludes the possibility of all progress in doctrine. In the first place, he admits that it has been the business of councils to perfect and polish the traditional formulae, and even concepts, in which the great truths contained in the original deposit are expressed, thereby declaring \u2018not new doctrines, but old ones in new terms\u2019 (non nova, sed nove<\/i>). Secondly, however, he would seem to allow for an organic development of doctrine analogous to the growth of the human body from infancy to age. But this development, he is careful to explain, while real, must not result in the least alteration to the original significance of the doctrine concerned. Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [1 Timothy 6:20] \u2018guard the deposit\u2019, i.e., the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church\u2019s unerring tradition.\u00a0(Early Christian Doctrines<\/i>, HarperSanFrancisco: revised edition of 1978, 50-51)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n St. Vincent stated:<\/p>\n The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the\u00a0stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. (Commonitorium<\/i>, XXIII)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Weathercock apologetics<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n To take another example, traditionally, suicide was treated as a damnatory sin. According to the Baltimore Catechism<\/em>: \u201cIt is a mortal sin to destroy one\u2019s own life or commit suicide, as this act is called, and persons who willfully and knowingly commit such an act die in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of Christian burial.\u201d [this is from some version after 1885. It\u2019s not in the original version]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n But the post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church introduces eventuating circumstances that mitigate the guilt of suicide. [p. 195]<\/span><\/p>\n The original 1885 version of the Baltimore Catechism<\/em> delineated the difference between mortal and venial sin:<\/p>\n 54. Q. What is mortal sin? A. Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.<\/p>\n 57. Q. What is venial sin? A. Venial sin is a slight offense against the law of God in matters of less importance; or in matters of great importance it is an offense committed without sufficient reflection or full consent of the will. (Baltimore Catechism No. 1<\/em><\/a>, 1885)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that there are three elements required for one to be personally or subjectively<\/em> (as Catholics say) guilty of mortal sin:<\/p>\n 1) a matter of \u201cgreat importance\u201d (or what we usually call \u201cgrave matter\u201d),<\/p>\n 2) \u201csufficient reflection,\u201d<\/p>\n and<\/p>\n 3) \u201cfull consent of the will.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Failing any or all of those, the sin is not<\/em> subjectively mortal. Suicide in and of itself (as a species of murder) is an objectively<\/em> mortal sin, but a person may not be subjectively guilty<\/em>: the type of deeper sin and guilt that places them in danger of separation from God and indeed eternal hellfire.<\/p>\n In other words, there was always this understanding of mortal and venial sin in Catholicism, and thus, it\u2019s too simplistic to say that Church taught or teaches that \u201canyone who commits suicide goes to hell.\u201d That was true in 1885 Catholicism and is just as true today. There simply is no contradiction, as Hays vainly wished and\/or mistakenly thought was the case. Hays claimed that the new Catechism <\/em>\u201c<\/span>introduces\u201d<\/span> these distinctions that I just explained. This is the sort of sophistry and (deliberate or not) intellectual dishonesty that he constantly exhibited. The Catechism of the Catholic Church <\/em>stated:<\/p>\n 2282<\/a><\/b> . . . Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.<\/p>\n 2283<\/a><\/b>\u00a0We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n #2282 outlines the sort of thing that would reduce this sin from subjectively mortal to venial. It simply goes into more depth than the old Catechism, but doesn\u2019t contradict it. If someone is suffering from \u201cgrave psychological disturbances\u201d or \u201canguish\u201d or \u201cgrave fear of hardship\u201d or \u201ctorture\u201d etc., then it can cause them to act contrary to the full consent of their will and sufficient reflection on what they are doing. Either of those things \u201cdiminishes\u201d their \u201cresponsibility\u201d and hence the necessity of being damned for mortal sin.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Baltimore Catechism used the description of a person \u201cwillfully and knowingly\u201d committing this sin. That refers to \u201cfull consent of the will\u201d and \u201csufficient reflection\u201d which would cause them to die in a state of mortal sin. But failing these things, they do not die in subjective mortal sin, and there is hope for their salvation (noted by the new Catechism in #2283).<\/span><\/p>\n Again, nothing whatsoever has changed. If Hays wanted to argue that venial and mortal sin was some new concept at Vatican II, he was free to do that. That\u2019s the only way I can see that he could have plausibly charged \u201creversal of doctrine!\u201d Otherwise, this is a bunch of hot air and unworthy and erroneous, ignorant speculation.<\/p>\n Bryan\u2019s stalled chess game<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n If the mother of Jesus must be immaculately conceived so that she doesn\u2019t transmit original sin to Jesus, then the same principle applies to the mother of Mary, and Mary\u2019s grandmother, and great-grandmother, &c. [p. 211]<\/span><\/p>\n But this is not Catholic teaching, which holds that Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception was not necessary per se, but rather, \u201cfitting.\u201d God performed an act of special and unique grace at her conception that had nothing whatsoever to do with her mother or grandmother or father. See my papers:<\/p>\n Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception: Necessary or \u201cFitting\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0[12-8-17]<\/p>\n Lucas Banzoli Wars Against Mariological Straw Men (Was Mary Full of Grace and Therefore Sinless? And If So, Was This\u00a0Necessary<\/em>\u00a0or Only\u00a0\u201cFitting\u201d<\/em>?)<\/a>\u00a0[9-9-22]<\/p>\n Svendsen\u2019s Dissertation on Mary: 1. Preliminaries (Including Explicit Biblical Indications or Analogies for Mary\u2019s Universal Intercession and the Notion of \u201cFittingness\u201d)<\/a>\u00a0[2-2-23]<\/p>\n Conversely, if God can simply intervene to prevent the transmission of original sin, then Mary\u2019s immaculate conception is superfluous, [p. 211]<\/span><\/p>\n Nothing God does is \u201csuperfluous.\u201d He deemed it appropriate and fitting that the Mother of God the Son was freed from all actual and original sin. He simply made her the \u201cNew Eve\u201d by His grace.<\/p>\n because God could skip over Mary by to intervene one step further down the line at the conception of Jesus. [p. 211]<\/span><\/p>\n Sure, He could<\/em> have. He could have done many different things. He could have created life on Mars instead of earth. But this is what He did<\/em>, and as a result, the angel Gabriel said to Mary: \u201cHail, full of grace.\u201d<\/p>\n Short of divine revelation, how would anyone be in a position to know that Mary was immaculately conceived? Where\u2019s the evidence that such a revelation was ever given? [p. 211]<\/span><\/p>\n Luke 1:28 and the use of the word kecharitomene<\/em> (\u201cfull of grace\u201d contains the essence of the doctrine (Mary\u2019s sinlessness). Scriptural analogies include many others who were sanctified in the womb (e.g., Jeremiah and John the Baptist).<\/p>\n To whom? [p. 211]<\/span><\/p>\n St. Luke. Pious reflection and development through the centuries brought about the compete doctrine<\/p>\n To all appearances, the immaculate conception is a legend that hardened into dogma. [p. 211]<\/span><\/p>\n Biblical revelation isn\u2019t \u201clegend.\u201d<\/span> Nor is legitimate doctrinal development the \u201charden[ing]\u201d<\/span> of legend.\u00a0 Hays is looking at the wrong topic. Sola Scriptura<\/em> and sola fide<\/em> are the legends that are completely absent from Scripture; hence, not based on revelation but rather, arbitrary extrabiblical traditions of men. Martin Luther only adopted sola Scriptura<\/em> as a desperate ploy or last resort, having been backed into it by the rigors of a formal debate: the Leipzig Disputation of 1519.<\/a><\/p>\n [T]he immaculate conception . . . [is] not based on good historical evidence but raw church authority. Indeed, an ecclesiastical fiat is a necessary makeweight to compensate for the lack of credible historical evidence. [p. 214]<\/span><\/p>\n The visitation of Mary by the angel Gabriel is historical, and it happened in Nazareth. We know this from revelation (Luke 1:28). Sola Scriptura<\/em> is not based on good biblical evidence but rather, arbitrary Protestant rejection of the infallibility of apostolic tradition and Church authority. Indeed, Martin Luther\u2019s desperation and being caught on \u201cthe horns of a dilemma\u201d in a debate in 1519 was a necessary makeweight to compensate for the lack of credible biblical evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n The less and the lightest<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Even assuming that these are the best and the brightest, we have to examine the arguments. [p. 215]<\/span><\/p>\n Why didn\u2019t Hays do<\/em> that, then? I haven\u2019t seen him examine even one conversion testimony in depth, point-by-point. He mentioned Surprised by Truth<\/em>: the 1994 bestseller edited by Patrick Madrid that contained eleven conversion stories, including my own. But he didn\u2019t take on even one<\/em> of them. He simply fired potshots from the woods and then scurried deeper into the woods and to the hills, lest he be subject to devastating counter-replies. This was his constant pathetic method.<\/p>\n Aren\u2019t conversion stories to Catholicism pretty much interchangeable? [p. 215]<\/span><\/p>\n No. Quite the contrary.<\/p>\n To my knowledge, Reformed seminaries don\u2019t generally have courses on how to respond to Catholic apologetics. [p. 215]<\/span><\/p>\n I guess not<\/em>, judging by the pathetic counter-\u201carguments\u201d offered up, even by anti-Catholicism\u2019s \u201cbest and brightest\u201d like James White, James Swan, Eric Svendsen, Jason Engwer, and Steve Hays. So that<\/em> explains it . . .<\/p>\n Peter Geach and Elizabeth Anscombe were two of the very brightest converts, but I don\u2019t think either one ever made a sustained case for Roman Catholicism. [p. 215]<\/span><\/p>\n Precisely because they were philosophers, not apologists. They don\u2019t necessarily<\/em> have to do that, nor should we expect<\/em> them to. They might<\/em> have done it, though, had they chosen that course. Hays conveniently neglects Peter Kreeft, one of the most brilliant Catholic apologists of our time, who extensively defends Catholicism and writes apologetics. He\u2019s a professional philosopher. Hays mentions him derisively on p. 236 and claims that he \u201crecycle[s] all the boilerplate arguments you encounter in Catholic apologists who are not trained philosophers.\u201d<\/span> Again on page 244, he writes condescendingly, \u201cDoes Kreeft bother to do the most rudimentary research?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This is typical of Hays\u2019 non-substantive, utterly non-comprehensive, surfacey, unserious treatments of anyone he disagreed with. Kreeft has written more than 78 books of apologetics<\/a>, including defenses of Catholicism. Hays going after him in a juvenile, patronizing fashion is a bit like trying to overcome a tank with a squirt gun.<\/p>\n Hays mentions Francis Beckwith, another philosopher who has written some apologetics, 14 times in his book, and he gets the same snobbish, petulant, superficial treatment; for example, \u201cFrancis Beckwith is fond of these cute little quips. But they\u2019re intellectually shallow\u201d<\/span> (p. 461). Such a description is far more applicable to Hays himself. Projection<\/em>, methinks?<\/p>\n Alexander Pruss is arguably the smartest Catholic philosopher of his generation, but while he sometimes toys with ingenuous defenses of Transubstantion<\/span> [sic], I haven\u2019t seen him defend Catholicism in general. [p. 215]<\/span><\/p>\n He\u2019s under no obligation<\/span> to do so, being a philosopher. The people who do this \u2014 and can be reasonably expected<\/em> to do so \u2014 are professional Catholic apologists like myself (I have over 4,300 articles online, and have authored or edited 51 books, including over twenty with \u201creal\u201d publishers, unlike Hays). But Hays had no time to seriously interact with my work (though he rather warmly complimented me at first).<\/p>\n Bas van Fraassen is a brilliant philosopher of science who takes some inept potshots at sola Scriptura in one of his books, but that\u2019s about it. Copleston debated Ayer and Russell on God\u2019s existence, but despite his prolific outlook I don\u2019t recall his writing a book or essay in defense of Roman Catholicism. Indeed, towards the end of his life he was quite skeptical. [p. 215]<\/span><\/p>\n Ditto to my previous responses. This is just silly. As an apologist who devotes himself to such things, I wrote two books about sola Scriptura<\/em><\/a> alone (both published in 2012<\/a>). I didn\u2019t see Hays ever interact with those. If he wanted vigorous, in-depth argumentation on that important topic of contention, I certainly offered it (agree or disagree). But Hays had no interest in actual serious dialogue and interaction with opposing viewpoints. By then, he was too busy characterizing me as an\u00a0\u201can evil character,\u201d<\/span> <\/span>\u201cego-maniac, narcissist,\u201d <\/span>\u201cself-idolater,\u201d \u201chack who pretends to be a professional apologist,\u201d<\/span> \u201cschizophrenic,\u201d \u201cemotionally unhinged,\u201d etc.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n While not in the same league as Pruss, Ed Feser is a very smart convert. But to my knowledge, Feser spends most of his time defending Thomism. [p. 216]<\/span><\/p>\n Since Thomism is a respectable Catholic position, then this is a Catholic philosopher doing Catholic apologetics. Even when Hays discovers an example of this, he finds an absurd way to deride it. This would be like contending, \u201cHays is a very smart Protestant. But to my knowledge, he spends most of his time defending Calvinism.\u201d Is that not still Protestant apologetics? Of course<\/em> it is (Calvinism being a species of Protestantism). It\u2019s just one particular brand<\/em>. Folks can\u2019t do everything<\/em>. They usually specialize.<\/span><\/p>\n The brightest Catholic Bible scholars like Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Meier, and John Collins subvert traditional Catholic positions. [p. 216]<\/span><\/p>\n This exactly verifies a criticism I made in one of the earlier replies. At least he was honest about it in this instance. Hays classifies Catholic dissidents as the \u201cbrightest Catholic Bible scholars.\u201d<\/span> This is the cynical, wrongheaded, fatuous game that he constantly played. He couldn\u2019t bring himself to classify orthodox<\/em> Catholic scholars in such a way. They get the treatment that he gave Peter Kreeft, or Scott Hahn, who is mentioned only once in the book and put down, along with G. K. Chesterton, Thomas Merton, Malcolm Muggeridge, Richard John Neuhaus, Frank Sheed, Adrienne von Speyr, and Evelyn Waugh, as \u201cPopularizers. Retail salesmen rather than wholesale thinkers\u201d<\/span> (p. 181). Hays was, sad to say, almost perpetually a pompous ass.<\/p>\n I myself was put in the same boat as Scott Hahn (I\u2019m honored!) and caricatured and put down by Hays in a hit piece dated 9-14-06<\/a>:<\/p>\n [M]any Evangelical immigrants to Rome bring along a certain amount of contraband theology stashed away in their luggage.\u00a0As I\u2019ve observed in the past, they are often far more conservative than cradle Catholics or the clergy. Indeed, they\u2019re often at odds with their adopted denomination.\u00a0So guys like Dave Armstrong and Scott Hahn present an artificially Evangelicalized version of Roman Catholicism. . . . they end up with a\u00a0sterile hybrid theology that isn\u2019t consistently Catholic\u00a0or Protestant.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hays wrote in the combox<\/a> about Scott Hahn:<\/p>\n At this point I don\u2019t remember what all I have or have not read of Hahn. But I don\u2019t read Catholic popularizers and lay apologetes to learn about Catholic theology. I read them to study the bad arguments for Catholicism.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He did another ridiculous comparison of myself and Scott Hahn and indulged in fantastic flights of fancy in a post dated 5-12-05<\/a>:<\/p>\n Hahn and Armstrong . . . [are] trying to carve out a little niche within the church. Theirs is a church within the church. This is not Roman Catholicism, but an inner schism\u2013a homegrown chapel within the Church of Rome. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There\u2019s quite a difference between a group which pays lip-service to the magisterium while going its own way, and one that publicly defies the magisterium. My allegation is that Armstrong is schismatic in the first sense, not the second.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hays attacked and caricatured Scott Hahn again on 5-26-07<\/a>:<\/p>\n If there\u2019s one word to summarize his method, it\u2019s \u201cequivocation.\u201d He often engages in prooftexting, but the actual meaning of the text always falls short of what he needs it to mean, which is why he then takes refuge in the church fathers\u2014which is not to say that his use of the church fathers is necessarily any better. . . . we need to keep our eye on the constant gear-shifting, as he goes from what the Bible really says to his idiosyncratic interpretations and fallacious inferences. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [H]is characterization of Roman Catholicism is utterly tendentious. . . . Hahn mouths a lot of formulaic phrases without given any thought to the nonsense he\u2019s mouthing. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n A reader who relied on Hahn for his knowledge of Catholicism would have no idea what a skewed picture he\u2019s getting. Hahn poses as a representative of Catholic dogma, but his exegetical argumentation is hardly representative of mainstream Catholicism. . . . a retrograde convert and soapbox polemicist . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here\u2019s another typical Hays attack on yours truly (dated 7-19-04<\/a>):<\/p>\n Every now and then I tune into Dave Armstrong\u2019s RC website to see what\u2019s new, if anything, in this alternative universe. . . . In a sense, then, Armstrong and his cobelligerents have never really converted to Catholicism at all. Instead, they\u2019ve founded their own little private Victorian Catholic cult, with Newman, Knox, Belloc, Chesterton, and Tolkien as their patron saints\u2013whereas the real Roman Catholicism is represented by the likes of Rahner and Raymond Brown. Theirs is not official Catholicism, but a treehouse for child actors. This is Oreo cookie Catholicism\u2013Popish on the outside, but schismatic on the inside.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hays attacked Hahn and Karl Keating as \u201cfluffy, bantamweight popularizers\u201d<\/span> on 8-8-08<\/a>. On 8-24-08<\/a>, I was lumped in with Keating, and Hays described us as \u201cInternet popes . . . These are Catholics who don\u2019t\u2019 even study Catholic scholarship. Part of the problem is that a lot of Catholic laymen aren\u2019t intellectuals. So they don\u2019t read serious historical or exegetical literature. They only read popularizers. Or watch EWTN.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He attacks Catholic apologist Bryan Cross (even after doing quite a bit of analysis of his arguments), saying, \u201cBryan\u2019s theological method is a priori and ahistorical rather than exegetical. Bryan is in love with his own mind.\u201d [p. 235]<\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/05\/WhoreOfBabylon2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n