The curious title caught my eye a few days ago because it had "Scott Hahn" and "Fundamentalist" in the title. Full points to Crisis Magazine for a clickable title and a great article by Eric Sammons (link).
I've never met Scott Hahn, but I have several of his CDs and the thought of him being portrayed as a Bible thumping Catholic Fundamentalist was interesting.
In the article Eric offers a critique of American Pope: Scott Hahn and the Rise of Catholic Fundamentalism by Sean Swain Martin. Eric asserts that:
The basic thesis of American Pope is this: Scott Hahn claims the message of the Bible is simple and clear, and that the Bible itself is inerrant; American Fundamentalists make similar claims; therefore, Scott Hahn is an American Fundamentalist disguised as a Catholic. To make the Bible accessible to the masses, as Hahn does, is akin to fundamentalism, according to Martin.
First, I think that the accusation of fundamentalism falls flat and would probably be more appropriately ascribed to the likes of the SSPX et al. After all, they're the ones who've been faithful to Church Teaching since Vatican II. Looking at the Wikipedia article (link) on Christian Fundamentalism, I found that it arose in response to the rise of modernism. Well, that's interesting. I also found the following quote particularly interesting:
A few scholars label Catholics who reject modern Christian theology in favor of more traditional doctrines fundamentalists.[10]
Ok, so colour me fundamentalist in that I happen to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. This includes what the Church Teaches concerning the contents of the Deposit of Faith ... that includes the Bible. ... While I am confident that Dr. Hahn is a faithful Catholic, I never thought of him as a fundamentalist.Then Eric highlights this:
To Martin, average Catholics reading and interpreting the Bible is a bad thing, or at least a fool’s errand. He writes, “It would be difficult to expect each individual Catholic to be prepared to offer such a careful investigation of the different literary forms employed, cultural influences manifest, etc., in the Scriptures so as to easily move from familiarity to ‘eminent knowability.”
Well, I guess Martin has forgotten all the work done by pre-Conciliar Catholic Theologians to clarify the difficult passages. But the Hubris of it is that the modern theologians don't teach with clarity, they teach with academics that don't want to make a definitive conclusion, they want academic freedom to interpret as they see fit ad nauseum.
I think Eric nails it when he writes:
In other words, Martin believes in the “Magisterium of the Theologians”—you simple-minded Catholics can’t be expected to understand the Scriptures without a bunch of PhD’s telling you what to think (unless the PhD happens to be Scott Hahn, of course). The fact that Hahn believes the Bible is for everyone apparently marks him as one of those anti-intellectual fundamentalists.Aha, perhaps modern theologians (aka Modernists) are afraid that if Catholics read the Bible they would:
- Stay Catholic
- realize that most of the work on biblical exegesis was done
- conclude we can pack off the religious theologians to monasteries
- be able to fire the lay theologians to find work in the civil service of their home countries.
Of course that won't happen, but one can dream can't they?
So, yes Catholics need to read the bible and have next to them a reputable exegesis. That will really send the Megamind Modernists shaking in their baby seal skin leather boots.
 |
| MegaMind Modernist Theologian |
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment