I see the ads for NOR in National Review from time to time, and used to read it on occasion when I worked at the Shrine. I liked their style of writing and thought them good defenders of orthodoxy. But it's clear they're just a wee bit full of themselves. And by that I mean they've gone completely bonkers.
Guys you're like at an 11. If you could tone it down to maybe 5 or 6 that would be super.
NOR has been an occasional guilty pleasure of mine. I've always put them in the same boat as Alan Keyes: "I'm, like, the only guy in the world who agrees with you, and I still think you're a prick."
Attacking Scott Hahn? Asanine.
Yeah. My wife subscribed then quickly canceled it when we read the first issue. . .too scurrilous and arrogant.
The New Oxford Review is the rabid badger of Catholic publishing. It's painted itself into a tiny corner and now, like any cornered aggressive species, all it can do is gnash and flail at anything that comes near its tiny and shrinking lair. Too bad, because its breadth used to be pretty broad, making it well worth a read. No more. What a sad rag.
Mark, this is the kind of post where you shine.
Interesting take there Jeff.
The NOR crowd have become pricks. Also one of their writers (I forget his name)accused Scott Hahn of promoting Lesbianism teaches the Holy Spirit had sex with the BVM (for some reason THAT'S ok to teach but not that the Holy Spirit is associated with the feminine). Go figure.
Logically there is nothing wrong with a JUST, FAIR and SOBER criticism of Dr. Hahn's theology & theories. Heck I'm a fan of Scott but I don't buy into his "The Serpent in Eden was a Big Dragon who intimidated Adam & Eve into eating the apple" idea. But the NOR has not done this they have smeared the man. So they deserve nothing but my scorn.
I won't even line the Cat's litter box with their rag.
Maybe they should sell the mag and get into talk radio...
BTW everyone - Scott is going to talk at my parish of SS Peter & Paul in Wilmington CA on or about Jan 7th! Stay tuned for details.
Maybe they should sell the mag and get into talk radio...
BTW everyone - Scott is going to talk at my parish of SS Peter & Paul in Wilmington CA on or about Jan 7th! Stay tuned for details.
NOR's new Slogan "We condemn spiritual Lesbianism! But we DO believe the BVM got jiggy with the Holy Spirit".
jhearn,
Keep me posted. I'll make the trip over to Carson.
Logically there is nothing wrong with a JUST, FAIR and SOBER criticism of Dr. Hahn's theology & theories. Heck I'm a fan of Scott but I don't buy into his "The Serpent in Eden was a Big Dragon who intimidated Adam & Eve into eating the apple" idea. But the NOR has not done this; they have smeared the man.
I agree. I think Hahn's interpretation of Genesis 3 is exegetically indefensible, as any of my friends can tell you, but I still like a lot of his work and I don't hold it against him as a person. The NOR accusations are just ridiculous and insulting (both to Hahn and their readers' intelligence).
I won't even line the Cat's litter box with [NOR's] rag.
Er. Hm. Not sure what to make of the capitalization here 
NOR's new Slogan "We condemn spiritual Lesbianism! But we DO believe the BVM got jiggy with the Holy Spirit".
*ROTFL*
All very true, Mark, but why bother? The NOR people are illegal aliens in the realm of civilized discourse. My advice is to take no notice of them at all. They'll swell up like toads, of course, but why should you (or anyone)care? Along the same lines, here's another datum you might want to consider: before I began frequenting your blog, I had never heard of Robert Sungenis.
Heh. Heh. Scott Hahn lobbying for gay marriage !
Now I've heard it all !
God Bless
They remind me of the Life cereal commercial: "They won't eat it! They hate everything!"
Last week they were mad at Amy Welborn because she married an ex-priest. Or something. Now: they're married, like, in the Church and stuff. And have kids and she is an apologist and really quite conservative, but NOR hates her because...
Actually I couldn't quite follow. Man, wait til they find out about ME! They'll confiscate my first communion veil fer sure.
Here's a link to part of the Sungenis piece:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/a...d=1005-
sungenis
For the times Sungenis has been referred to in NOR:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/s....jsp?
q=sungenis
Hunk:
I write about Sungenis because I know him. Dittos for Hahn and Weddell. They may not be on everybody's radar, but they are on mine.
Plus the fact that NOR did, in fact, hurt Hahn and cost him some rather painful hate mail of the "We thought we could trust you but now we know you're one of Them" variety. He's too much of a Christian gentleman to defend himself, but I'm too much of an Irishman to let NOR make its dumb smears without putting up my dukes on behalf of a friend.
And finally, there's this:
"And the controversy [about Scott Hahn's theology] just doesn’t want to go away. Christopher Ferrara joined the fray against Hahn in August 2004 at RemnantNewspaper.com. An enlarged version appeared in The Remnant (Sept. 30, 2004) along with commentary by Robert Sungenis."
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/n...0105-notes-
hahn
It's a cabal. A conspiracy. A nefarious nebula of nutballs. :0
Any magazine that is reduced to describing itself as "feisty and orthodox" is probably neither.
Oh, and a buck-fifty to read the entire article?
Yeah, that'll happen.
"We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.For in hope we were saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with endurance.In the same way, the Spirit too comes to the aid of our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings."
I am amazed that Hahn is being attacked for associating the feminine with the Holy Spirit. The fact is the Scripture ascribes to God a motherly aspect in Isaiah. Our Lord when overlooking Jerusalem described His desire to gather them in with that of a Mother Hen. And in Romans 8 the Apostle Paul describes the triple groaning that takes place; the creation, us, and the Holy Spirit. This groaning is described as labor pains just prior to giving birth which is of course a feminine association. The Spirit, as has been pointed out in commentaries, in particular NT Wright's, there is like a mother who is about to give birth to the new creation. The creation and the children of God are like the child in the womb yearning to come out. I fail to see what the problem is.
This is probably not true of Mr. Shea, but a lot of conservatives liked NOR until they bothered to state that the Church didn't back the war. The rest of the complaints are rather petty. The mag is certainly critical of Scott Hahn's feminism thing, but NOR doesn't advertise itself as a magazine for moderates.
Here is the theme of Sungenis's article; 'Normally, I associate with the traditionalist side of the post-conciliar debates, yet, at the same time, I often part company with my colleagues on Vatican II ... we must accept Vatican II as a legitimate ecumenical council, without dogmatic error, and designed for the good of the Church. In reality, 95 percent of its words are unproblematic. If the other five percent is interpreted in the light of tradition rather than liberalism and neo-Modernism, we shouldn't have too much problem ironing out any difficulties. The sooner traditionalists accept that challenge, the faster our divergent camps can move onward in cleaning up the mess of the post-conciliar church.' Do you find this view beyond the pale, Mark? and did you actually read the article before criticising NOR for printing it? Sungenis's geocentrism is demented, but he doesn't raise that issue in his article. NOR would seem prefectly justified in saying that they printed the piece because it made reasonable points, and did not discuss any of the author's crazy views. That is an exercise of the tolerance you criticise them for lacking.
B-Y and Cat:
I don't buy all of Scott's speculations either. But then, he does not demand we do. He's doing his job as a theologian and *exploring*.
John L:
NOR writes a hit piece on Amy Welborn in which the fact that she is married to laicized priest with the blessing of the Church is made into a suggestion that her fidelity and orthodoxy are rightly in question. This despite the fact of her luminous work.
Bob Sungenis, author of a swelling tide of crank crap writes one piece for NOR in which he graciously acknowledges that a Council of Holy Church meets with his approval and you want to exonerate NOR?
Suppose it had been David Duke and not Sungenis. A magazine *says* something about itself by the authors it publishes (and by the people is wantonly smears).
Mark Shea,
Indeed! In fact on one of his tapes where he made some of these speculations he said with the disclaimer "This is my OPINION if I'm wrong then I'M WRONG the Catholic Church still stands".
Now if only the NOR held this enlightened view.....
BTW why does the NOR take Scott to task for His theology but says nothing about Sungenis believing "God has emotions" & "God can change His mind" views? Both of which on the surface DENY the classic defined Dogmas of the Church.
John L:
Sungenis is a flake. I know Sungenis seems to have an orthodox view Vatican II. So what? As a supporter of Vatican II & the teachings of the Church in general I don't need nor desire such a just cause (defending Vatican II) be championed by flakes.
If David Duke wrote the exact same article ditto!
"I don't buy all of Scott's speculations either. But then, he does not demand we do. He's doing his job as a theologian and *exploring*."
Amen. And I've heard Dr Hahn say frequently on his old radio show, Scripture Matters, that if the Church ever makes definitions that show any of his explorations to be against Church teaching, he'll personally rip the offending pages out of his books. That is simply not the stance of a theologian who's overly rigid or agenda-driven.
In fact, it's called humility.
BTW E. Michael Jones to my knowlege never publically said an unkind or critical word about the late John Paul II or Vatican II & without pity slammed those who did.
He's a flake too. Bullocks him, NOR, & Sungenis.
The mag is certainly critical of Scott Hahn's feminism thing
Critical? Try "making up ludicrous and slanderous accusations out of whole cloth." Neither Hahn nor the traditional Catholic theme of the Holy Spirit's femininity promote homosexual activities like "gay marriage."
I don't buy all of Scott's speculations either.
Never said you do, Mark, and I'm very glad you don't!
...But then, [Hahn] does not demand we do.
And I never said Hahn demanded anything of the sort. Please read my comments (and B-Y's) in context! You'll note that I said "I still like a lot of his work and I don't hold it against him as a person. The NOR accusations are just ridiculous and insulting (both to Hahn and their readers' intelligence)." BenYachov likewise made his criticisms in a context of defending Hahn against those NOR nutjobs.
But while we're on the subject, I will add that while Hahn does not demand that anyone buy all his personal speculations, he's notoriously bad at clarifying that they are personal speculations rather than "what Genesis really means" or "what the Church teaches." I've spent quite a bit of time in his company, and he frequently neglects to mention "hey, by the way, this is my just personal opinion and it may be wrong." And judging from lots of personal experience with his former students, he really needs to do that a lot more often.
But that's not the subject at hand. The real topic is that NOR is accusing Hahn of (a) speaking on the femininity of the Holy Spirit and (b) promoting homosexual activity. "A" is true, Hahn does that; but it's a traditional (even ancient!) Catholic theological theme and there's nothing wrong with Hahn doing it. "B" is just slanderous nonsense and deserves unreserved denunciation.
>And I never said Hahn demanded anything of the sort. Please read my comments (and B-Y's) in context!
I reply: I don't think Mark was accusing us Cat. He was just stating the obvious.
Cat:
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply you had said Hahn demands we buy all his speculations. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Greetings, by the way, from Richard!
Small world, ain't it?
+J.M.J+
>>>The mag is certainly critical of Scott Hahn's feminism thing
Having studied "Christian feminism," I'd hardly call Scott Hahn's speculation on the Holy Ghost "feminism." I read that controversial passage in First Comes Love; Hahn explicitly denies that the Third Person of the Trinity is essentially "feminine" and states outright that we cannot call God "Mother." That would annoy any "Christian feminist."
Hahn basically cites certain Christian sources who spoke of the Holy Spirit in maternal terms over the centuries (he avoids heretical sources like Gnosticism). He then speculates that, since a mother is the "bond of love" in a human family and the Spirit is the "bond of love" in the heavenly family that is the Church, then perhaps the Spirit plays a "mother-like" role in our heavenly family. Since He also has a special bond with Blessed Mother and Holy Mother Church (the Spirit is "soul of the Church"), Hahn speculates that the Spirit's "mother-like" role may be somehow related to the Motherhood of Mary and the Church.
Nothing feminist or heretical there; just speculation. Scott Hahn may be right, he may be wrong, and one can certain question whether that book, intended for popular consumption, was really the best place to engage in such nuanced theological speculation. But he did not deserve to be slammed with feminist/pro-gay marriage libel because of it.
In Jesu et Maria,
Since, I don't really have an interest in Mr. Hahn, (This is not meant to be a commentary on him one way or the other.) I'm not going to go into a big defense one way or the other. For those that want to argue that NOR is wrong, because there is no justification in tradition whatsoever to condemn his views, I will say take a deep breath. NOR seems to argue based on their dosier that indeed there are some encyclicals condemning his views. This may not convince you, and that is fine. The part that bothers me is people saying NOR's attack is disingenuous. I really get tired of people in debates wanting to impugn other people's reputations rather than argue the point. And yes it is childish if your retort is that NOR does it too or NOR started it.
As for Mr. Sungesis, that is an area I won't comment. People often confuse me with a similarly named gentleman that worked with the man, and that would just add to the confusion.
NOR sits out there as a warning post of where an overly narrow and angry approach to orthodoxy can get you. They really used to be an astoundingly good magazine 8-20 years ago, in the period during which they converted from Anglicanism and their early Catholic period. Not quite as good as First Things is now, but actually quite close. I recall their editorial where they announced they were going to make it their special mission to wade in against liberal Catholicism, and at the time I thought "Good for them, this should be good to read." But unfortnately, as the amateur inquisition got carried away, the quality has taken a steady nose dive. I finally cancelled my subscription four years ago. It was just too sad to read it any more.
Small world, ain't it?
A wild and crazy place!
Back on topic: I share DarwinCatholic's disappointment with NOR. Back when I was converting to Catholicism, NOR was a fantastic magazine full of delightful articles by people like Peter Kreeft, Sheldon Vanauken, and our dear friend Mark P. Shea (see also). You were even wont to find very positive comments about Scott Hahn. These days I can't even look at the magazine without sorrow and disgust.
Cat:
Yup.
NOR reminds me of attorneys who adopt a "pit bull personae" in litigation. Sometimes they can't turn it off and end up alienating friends, family and sometimes even client. A sense of perspective and a sense of humor are always necessary in this life if one is not to end up very alone.
NOR has also published many who post here. I guess that puts them beyond the pail as well.
"Beyond the pail". Now that's an image to conjure with.
"I don't buy all of Scott's speculations either. But then, he does not demand we do. He's doing his job as a theologian and *exploring*."
Are you joking Mark? Do you think it's okay to "explore" in books written to popular audiences of non-academics? If it's not clearly stated that he's "exploring" I have a problem with it. I don't have time for exploration as a non-academic. I want the Truth as outlined by the Catholic Church. I personally didn't get it as a child and it irritates me that it still isn't getting out today (that is: the simple truths and beauty of the Faith). Popular Catholic books should instruct on the Faith and shouldn't explore....that's what I think, esp in the case of Scott Hahn who seems to market his books as being instructional and for the laity. Perhaps NOR is on to something but is using some extreme tactics.
Lily:
And the way a gifted teacher should teach ordinary people to explore their Catholic faith is...? Or is exploration only to be encouraged among the Elite?
I, for one, am mortally grateful for a Catholic teacher like Scott who teaches ordinary people not to be afraid to explore the Tradition and who models for them the way to do it, even when he gets hammered for it by Inquisitors at NOR.
Um ... no, Mr. Forrest. It's crap like this, not the war that caused some of us to assign NOR to Nutburgerville.
Lily,
Of course Sungenis & any of this Radtrad buddies can speculate to their hearts content over things that are just plain nuts to popular audiences of non-academics & NOR won't say boo about it.
For example Sungenis can claim God changes his mind in NOT BY BREAD ALONE when the Church teaches God wills from eternity. That's OK.
The double standard & hypocracy make me sick.
Yes, Mark, I understand what you mean to "explore the Tradition" ....didn't Newman engage in that to find the Faith? Haven't all of us? But what I would be alarmed about is "invention" and novelty. Does Hahn engage in such? And if so, to a poplular audience of non-academics who wouldn't know the nuances of theology to detect such? If he hasn't done that, fine, but if he has, I would have difficulty with that.
But, I'll leave all this to the theologians and get back to the dishes. Regards, Lily
Jim the 4th, you lost me on this: "For example Sungenis can claim God changes his mind in NOT BY BREAD ALONE when the Church teaches God wills from eternity. That's OK."
I don't understand this but I think you're making a theological point whereby Sungenis allows himself to promote theological novelties but slams Hahn when he perceives him to commit that crime??
Perhaps the pride of man circulates among theologians. Surprised?
That's why I actually enjoy my place in the kitchen.
NOR has also published many who post here. I guess that puts them beyond the pail as well.
Hmmm. Well, my own two brief publication credits in NOR were a while back, during the early to mid stages of the decline. Though when it comes to publication, my theory is generally: "If they're willing to publish me uncensored, I'll assume they're with me rather than against me." I wouldn't both to submit anything to them these days.
However, now I think about it "beyond the pail" might have a transcendental sense. After all, one "kicks the bucket" when one dies. So "beyond the pail" would after death, right?
Apparently I was overseas when NOR went over the edge. Can anybody explain what happened? I picked them up once again recently (online) only to discover that they had become nuttier than squirrel ... Well, nutty.
I have no problem with speculation of God or the Holy Spirit AS LIKE a mother. I have great problems with them as female or feminine.
I think that Scripture nowhere talks about the matter other than "as if"
+J.M.J+
M.Z. Forrest writes:
>>>NOR seems to argue based on their dosier that indeed there are some encyclicals condemning his views.
I take it you are referring to this quote from the "Burn, Baby, Burn" Newsnotes:
OK, Dr. Hahn, you are hereby notified that the Magisterium has already determined that your "findings" are unsatisfactory. The Holy See's Liturgiam Authenticam (issued in English on May 7, 2001) declared: "In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained" (#31-a). What is the truth of tradition on the gender usage for the Holy Spirit? All you need do is refer to the Catechism, which calls the Holy Spirit "he" and "him" (e.g., #683, 687, 1092, 1107, 1129, 2652).
Earlier, in 1997, the Holy See issued its Norms for the Translation of Biblical Texts for Use in the Liturgy, saying: "In fidelity to the inspired Word of God, the traditional biblical usage for naming the persons of the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is to be retained" (4/3). "Similarly, in keeping with the Church's tradition, the feminine and neuter pronouns are not to be used to refer to the person of the Holy Spirit" (4/4).
These texts forbid the use of feminine pronouns for the Holy Ghost - but Scott Hahn never called for that in the first place! He did not himself use feminine pronouns for the Spirit in his writings, and he even went one step further than these Vatican documents by stating that we should not call God "Mother" either.
So I really don't see how these documents refute his speculations. He's not at all saying that the Holy Spirit is a "she."
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
Here's an example of how Dale Vree completely misconstrues Scott Hahn's argument. In his "Burn, Baby, Burn" Newsnotes he writes the following:
"Dr. Hahn goes so far as to say the Holy Spirit is "bridal" and that "Mary's maternity is mystically one with that of…the Spirit." The imagery here is blatantly and scandalously lesbian."
Here, Vree gives readers the false impression that Scott is saying that the Holy Spirit is the "bride" of Mary. Nothing could be further from the truth! He has taken Hahn's statements grossly out of context. On page 135 of First Comes Love, Hahn writes:
"As the Father made Eve from the rib of Adam, so Methodius called the Holy Spirit 'the rib of the Word' - the uncreated principle of maternity".
This comment from St. Methodius relates to the mystery of the Church as Bride of Christ. As Eve was taken from Adam's side, so the Church was born from the New Adam's pierced side on the Cross. St. Methodius represented the Spirit as coming forth from Christ's side on the Cross as well.
What Scott Hahn is saying is: since the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church, and the Church is the Bride of Christ, in some mysterious sense the Spirit may be said to have a "bridal" relationship to the Word by means of the Church, the Bride of Christ. He relates this to Methodius' statement that the Holy Ghost is "the rib of the Word."
He is NOT saying that the Spirit is Mary's bride, but that the Spirit is the "Soul" of Christ's Bride! This is a further example of how Vree misrepresents Scott Hahn's argument, making it seem he said something which he did not in fact say!
The statement "Mary's maternity is mystically one with that of the Spirit" does not indicate lesbianism, either. It simply means that, since the Holy Spirit has a close bond with Our Lady (as St. Maximilian Kolbe taught), Mary's motherly love for Jesus and for us is imbued with the Holy Spirit, Whom Fr. Manteau-Bonamy called "the maternal love" of God the Father for the Son.
It does not mean that the Holy Spirit is a "mother of Jesus" in addition to Mary. Scott Hahn makes no such argument. When you really understand what he is saying, you'll see there is no lesbianism there at all.
Vree's malfunction is in part due to his erroneous idea that the Holy Ghost played a "sexual" role in the Incarnation. That is why he reads Hahn's work and thinks, "Lesbianism!!!" He's reading it through the lens of his own misunderstanding of the Spirit's role in the Incarnation, which was not a paternal -or maternal- role at all!
In Jesu et Maria,
Mark,
LOL. When you rock...you rock!
>I don't understand this but I think you're making a theological point whereby Sungenis allows himself to promote theological novelties but slams Hahn when he perceives him to commit that crime??
No, I'm just pointing out how NOR is hypocritical and employs double standards. Scott Hahn gets smeared because he dared to publish his theological speculations to a popular audience, yet NOR does not take issue with Sungenis when he does the same exact thing!
They can misrepresent Hahn's speculations on a "maternal" role of the Holy Spirit as "lesbianism," but they don't say a single word about a host of Sungenis' teachings which are at best questionable and at worse heterodox or proximate to heresy.
Why does NOR do this? Because Sungenis is a trad and therefore will get an automatic pass, but Scott Hahn is a "neo-conservative" and therefore is not entitled to respectful and just treatment of his works.
Thanks Rosemarie for the further explanation and defense of Hahn.
+J.M.J+
Mrs. M.Z. Forrest: You're welcome. BTW, my husband (BenYachov) again apologizes to your husband for that incident a while ago when Jim confused him with Michael Forrest (formerly) of CAI (who it turns out wasn't really a bad fellow after all). God bless you and your family.
ann writes:
>>>I have no problem with speculation of God or the Holy Spirit AS LIKE a mother. I have great problems with them as female or feminine.
I think it would be a good idea here to actually quote what Scott Hahn wrote in First Comes Love, to put to rest the notion that he is attributing actual sex or gender to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. Here are his exact words (pp. 138-139):
I must raise a caution here. This does not mean that we can call God 'Mother'; divine revelation does not call God by that name. Nor is it found anywhere in the Church's living Tradition. Ironically, to do so, on account of the Spirit, would be to undermine the very work of that same Spirit, Who is intent upon teaching us to address - and come to know - God as "Abba, Father."
Nor do I mean to imply that there are masculine or feminine qualities within the Godhead. Again, there are no bodily features of gender and sexuality in the Trinity. At most, human forms of physical gender and sexuality are reflections of the purely immaterial relations unique to each member of the Trinity. It is in the relations of the human family that the life of the Trinity is reflected more truly and fully than anywhere else in the natural order. In other words, the analogy of bridal-motherhood here is relational and familial, not physical or sexual (much less political). Thus, there is no more justification for goddess worship today than there was when the prophets condemned it in ancient Israel.
Scott's discussion of feminine depictions of the Holy Spirit, therefore, must not be understood as attributing literal femininity to Him. Hahn calls the "bridal-motherhood" stuff an analogy that is "relational and familial, not physical or sexual." The Holy Ghost is not a physical woman, not the "mother" of Christ in the Incarnation, and therefore not a sapphic partner of Mary (it sickens me to even have to type those last words).
I just wish more people would read his book for themselves to see what he actually says, rather than take secondhand reports at face value.
In Jesu et Maria,
In the October issue of NOR, Vree takes issue with an essay by Michael O'Brien in Catholic World Report (disclaimer: which I edit) that decried "The New Totalitarianism."
Vree's point? That totalitarianism is good because it stamps out things like pornography and homosexuality and same-sex marriage. In other words, it's better to live in a totalitarian state with no freedom than to live in with the freedom to make good moral choices.
It's a bit baffling to me, but then Vree says he's lived in East Germany under Communist rule so maybe he knows something I don't. He can have it.
Five years ago, when my wife was teaching for the Diocese of Savannah, we went to this diocesan teacher conference at this weird parish in Columbus. I say "Weird", because the "parish symbol" was some kind of geometric thing. The Church was like a big building, with huge hallways and stuff. The "sanctuary" looked like a movie theater, with the big "Symbol" behind the stage and table.
There was a cry room that looked like an announcers' box, and it had a crucifix on the wall, so my wife and I just knelt towards the cry room, in lieu of a tabernacle or crucifix.
On the other side of the wall from the main sancutary was a gorgeous Adoration chapel, with perpetual adoration and a huge Crucifix.. . .
Anyway, the parish had magazines for sale: _America_, _Maryknoll_, _Commonweal_, and _The New Oxford Review_.
Complaining about NOR is okay, Mark, but in fairness you should have noted that the magazine's criticisms of Scott's ideas have appeared in two forms: editorials written by Dale Vree and articles written by other people.
While Dale's editorials can be criticized as hyperbolic, the same can't be said for articles such as the one that appeared in the June 2004 issue. It was called "Scott Hahn's Novelties" and was written by Edward O'Neill.
I read that article more than once and saw no hyperbolic language or uncharity in it. It was a low-key look at some of the positions Scott has taken (some of which I hadn't been aware of), and I thought it brought up fair questions.
It seems that Michael Rose has fallen in with NOR. Someone please help me out: is that something to be regretted, or has he always been one with Sungenis et al?
I knew some people in the Catholic writing world (not me) who bought a pig once. You know, for slaughter to stock their freezers. They named it "Dale." Bad blood, I guess.
NOR has never published me, but they have published a nice piece by my husband.
I guess they forgot.
Heh.
I admit to getting a lot of enjoyment out of NOR over the years, but when they attacked David Alexander, they lost me for good.
Mark, with all due respect your ad hominem attacks on Sungenis are beneath you; I follow and admire much of your work but your constant criticism of Sungenis really bothers me. You say he's a crank. You say it a lot. I get the point. You think he is a crank. What about his work? You criticize NOR for taking one particular part of Dr. Hahn's writings and beating him up unfairly about it, despite the bulk of his wonderful work. Isn't that what you do with Sungenis, with the only exception that you only allude to it and do not really answer it?
Geocentrism. Big deal. It doesn't affect the truths of the faith. It doesn't motivate me one way or the other. But it does seem to me that he is one of the few authors out there who faithfully and consistently explicate the Traditionalist Catholic position as being consonant with the teachings of Vatican II. We should be grateful for that voice, as you know what opinions of VII exist on the other side of the Traditionalist aisle.
But Sungenis is a crank. I know, you told me.
One more thing: I am sorry if this posting has sounded a little testy. I really mean no disrespect. As I said, I do enjoy your work in general and am grateful for your work in Catholic apologetics and evangelization. That's what motivated me to write at all. See, I don't think you are a crank.
Tim,
Don't forget the holocaust denial, the smearing of Jewish Converts, the Zionist conspiracy theories............yet somehow pointing out that Sungenis has DONE all of the above is somehow an ad hominem attack?
Let me correct you Tim. If I said "Tim is a liar & a thief so don't listen to him." THAT would be both poisoning the well & an ad hominem attack.
However IF I could point to specific incidents where you seemed to have lied or to a police report that said you stole something. Then that would merely be reporting the facts.
Do you understand the difference?
Sungenis crank nonsense has been public for the last two years for all to see. I'd still be a fan of his if he had the good sense to keep it to himself.
Mr. Keating,
We should point out that the mean spirited smearing NOR does of other Catholics undermines ANY legitimate critcism of certain theories they put forth.
I don't trust anything they have to say about Scott Hahn. Until Dale Vree & NOR issues an apology I never will.
+J.M.J+
Tim: Geocentrism isn't the worst of it. In fact, that was benign compared to claiming that the Talmud permits the rape of children, plagiarizing Nazi materials, spouting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and dismissing anyone who criticizes him by claiming they have "Jewish ancestry" (as if such an ad hominem is a valid answer to their concerns).
He even claimed that my husband has Jewish ancestry, solely based on Jim's net nickname, "Ben Yachov." Actually, Jim's Messianic Jewish friends gave him that nickname; it means "son of James (Jacob)" in Hebrew. As much as my hubby would like to belong to the same ethnic group as Jesus, Mary and Joseph, he simply doesn't qualify with a 100% Italian mother and a father who's part English and part Scottish (hence Jim's last name, Scott).
Yet Sungenis just assumed he was Jewish, based on no more evidence than a net nickname - and the fact that Jim disagreed with him. After all, anyone who disagrees with Sungenis must be part of the great Zionist conspiracy, right?
In Jesu et Maria,
Karl,
As I recall, that article by O'Neill
(1) engaged in guilt-by-association by leaning heavily on Scott's past association with the theonomist movement to impugn his present views
(2) asserted the falsehood that Scott had not exposed his views to scholarly criticism (I guess Scott's dissertation defense doesn't count)
(3) criticized Scott for not being scholarly enough (while not offering any footnotes or reference to scholarly sources in his own article to back up his own contentions on theological matters).
While I won't deny that the article raises some valid questions, it was certainly not a flawless piece of criticism.
I think you need to remember that this article didn't appear in some sober scholarly journal.
It appeared in a journal run by someone an idée fixe that Scott Hahn is a danger to good orthodox Catholicism. It appeared
amidst a drumbeat of unfair and acrid criticism of Scott and his views.
I think Mr. O'Neill could have found a better forum for his article.
+J.M.J+
>>>Complaining about NOR is okay, Mark, but in fairness you should have noted that the magazine's criticisms of Scott's ideas have appeared in two forms: editorials written by Dale Vree and articles written by other people.
I should point out that my criticisms above have been limited to Dale Vree's editorials, not the article by Edward O'Neill, which I agree was more balanced.
In Jesu et Maria,
er, left out a "with":
"someone with an idée fixe"
+J.M.J+
Here's a link to O'Neill's article, BTW:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/a...did=0604-
oneill
In Jesu et Maria,
Mr. Keating,
David said it better than I could.
If Mr. O'Neill ran his article in a respectable Catholic publication like First Things, Catholic World Report, The Wanderer, or THIS ROCK 
I wouldn't suspect his good will.
But that he choose to run his piece in a rag who journalistic standards & morals are no different than that of THE REMNANT or CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS..........no very bright if you ask me. I mean would you run an article about Fatima in the National Enquirer? I think not.
Cheers sir.
Disclaimer: I once did a book review for NOR, ten years ago or more.
But I've asked the friend you gave me a gift subscription to NOR not to renew it. This issue had all sorts of subtext, not just the problem with the Sungenis article. I threw the thing out and am operating from memory: look at the ads, look at the Chartres Pilgrimage essay, look at the "I discover the Latin Mass" piece which plumps for quick and silent Masses, look at the strange reasoning (or was it a lame attempt at satire?) editorial against Michael O'Brien. What we have, folks, is a heavy pitch to Trad and even RadTrad readers to plump up his feeble circulation. Oh, yes, and the nasty slams at Fr. Neuhaus and those awful Neocons.
Does any one have a link to the anti-Amy piece, or is it not on the web yet?
If I recall correctly, Michael Dubruiel's NOR piece was about that saintly seminarian whose vocation was destroyed by bad teachers. That was indeed a lovely (and sad) article.
My own weird NOR experience was when they published an article attacking my alma mater for having an undeserved reputation for orthodoxy. The piece was a mixture of some genuine problems that exist there, some problems exaggerated or taken out of context, and a few genuine errors of fact, but I don't question their right to run it. The weird part was when the Dean (attacked by name in the article) wrote in to protest that the article was shoddily researched. Instead of defending the article, they replied in an ad hominem fashion and ended by demanding his resignation.
On Ms. Welborn:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/n...03-notes-
wrongs
+J.M.J+
From that NOR article:
>>>It turns out that Mrs. Welborn is forty-something and is, after an annulment, in her "second marriage." Hmmm. We thought Catholics could only be married once. If you have an annulment, your "first marriage" was an attempted marriage, which is to say no marriage at all, and your "second marriage" is your first marriage
Hmmm. I thought the Church makes a distinction between natural marriage and sacramental marriage. Thus an annulled marriage would be a true marriage, though merely natural, without the Sacrament of Matrimony.
In Jesu et Maria,
What do you expect from a publication which tells us the Holy Spirit had sex with the Virgin Mary.
the "parish symbol" was some kind of geometric thing.
Christianity employs many geometric symbols, from the cross to the octagon to the triquetra. I don't understand the "weirdness" factor there.
Unfortunately, the only parish in Columbus with a website is St. Anne's. That parish appears to be represented by a "geometrical symbol," but their geometrical symbol is a Celtic cross.
I'd love to see this "weird" symbol.
Anyway, the parish had magazines for sale: _America_, _Maryknoll_, _Commonweal_, and _The New Oxford Review_.
Now that is weird.
Mark, with all due respect your ad hominem attacks on Sungenis are beneath you.... You think he is a crank. What about his work?
From what I can tell, Mark thinks Sungenis is a crank because of Sungenis' work, e.g. accusing Einstein of being in on some anti-Catholic physics conspiracy, Sungenis' rabid anti-Semitism, and Sungenis' willingness to plagarize Nazi source materials, etc.
As the others have said, geocentrism is really the least of Sungenis' problems. And Sungenis would definitely not agree to your contention that "[geocentrism] doesn't affect the truths of the faith," either.
I thought the Church makes a distinction between natural marriage and sacramental marriage. Thus an annulled marriage would be a true marriage, though merely natural, without the Sacrament of Matrimony.
A null marriage is one that isn't valid, i.e. is not a true marriage, not one that isn't sacramental. A marriage without the sacrament can still be a valid, true marriage.
That being said, the NOR article is just being obnoxious. If Amy's first "marriage" was null, it's true that her current marriage is technically her first. But their point ignores the conventional use of language just for the sake of making Amy look bad. It's disgusting.
Karl:
As I mentioned above, I don't have a problem with legitimate criticisms of Scott's (or anybody's) work. That's how theology proceeds. However, I do have a problem with the weird animus toward Scott that seems to motivate NOR's editorial choices. There are a lot of problems facing the Church. Focusing on Scott's speculations to the degree that NOR has done is a classic case of majoring in minors. And stating (without retraction) that Scott is an advocate of "gay marriage" and some sort of bizarre lesbian marriage between our Lady and the Holy Spirit is simply despicable detraction.
I admit I was surprised to see NOR print an article by Bob Sungenis. The article itself had no particular problems; if someone else had written it, no one would have made comments about it.
This makes me wonder: When there is someone who has pushed goofball ideas, whether scientific, historical, or religious, is there any way for him to be rehabilitated and to have otherwise unobjectional writings be publishable? Or is it a matter of once lost, always lost?
>This makes me wonder: When there is someone who has pushed goofball ideas, whether scientific, historical, or religious, is there any way for him to be rehabilitated and to have otherwise unobjectional writings be publishable? Or is it a matter of once lost, always lost?
I reply: Isn't it obvious? The Someone in question should disavow their nutty ideas and apologize for them. They should take responsiblity for the consequences of their actions and stop blaming others for their lack sucess.
When there is someone who has pushed goofball ideas, whether scientific, historical, or religious, is there any way for him to be rehabilitated and to have otherwise unobjectional writings be publishable? Or is it a matter of once lost, always lost?
Not simply "has" pushed. Is still pushing. See these two articles dated 4-28-05:
http://www.catholicintl.com/cath...es/
politics.htm
http://www.catholicintl.com/cath...s/
politics2.htm
That's one of the problems with publishing Mr. Sungenis' work.
Mr. Sungenis hasn't, to my knowledge, retracted any of the antisemitic libels he's published under his own name.
Okay. Let's assume a writer of goofball ideas ends up retracting them. Is that sufficient, or do his earlier indiscretions make him permanently suspect, to the extent that responsible publications should not print his stuff?
(I am not suggesting that Sungenis is backing off from any of the positions he has taken, and I don't have him in particular in mind. I'm asking generic questions.)
"Apparently I was overseas when NOR went over the edge. Can anybody explain what happened? I picked them up once again recently (online) only to discover that they had become nuttier than squirrel ... Well, nutty."
I think it started when some magazines stopped taking their ads because they thought they were over the top. Instead of producing a toned-down version that would pass muster with those publications, Dale Vree decided that they weren't really orthodox, or they'd lost their nerve, or some such (I forget now exactly what the complaint was). But he just went on and on and on, issue after issue. We finally gave up on them and stopped subscribing.
It really is a shame, because they used to be a great magazine.
>Okay. Let's assume a writer of goofball ideas ends up retracting them. Is that sufficient, or do his earlier indiscretions make him permanently suspect, to the extent that responsible publications should not print his stuff?
I reply: I would give them a second change to prove themselves. Why not?
Let's assume a writer of goofball ideas ends up retracting them. Is that sufficient, or do his earlier indiscretions make him permanently suspect, to the extent that responsible publications should not print his stuff?
I don't approve of an absolute rule that earlier (yet retracted) errors or indiscretions make someone permanently suspect.
But as a Catholic publisher yourself, Karl, don't you have some obligations about who and what to publish?
I think you'd vet your writers more carefully than Mr. Vree has.
When there is someone who has pushed goofball ideas, whether scientific, historical, or religious
In Sungenis' case, this is a HUGE understatement. His ideas have not merely been "goofball" but downright offensive.
...is there any way for him to be rehabilitated and to have otherwise unobjectional writings be publishable?
Yes, repenting the evil and apologizing to those he's insulted would be a great place to start.
Okay. Let's assume a writer of goofball ideas ends up retracting them.
Again, they're not just "goofball." They're offensive and insulting. So, no, merely "retracting" (e.g. "I take that back, it was wrong") wouldn't be enough. Someone who's been publishing anti-Semitic libel and such must also --at the very least-- apologize. He must express true repentance and remorse for what he's done.
Maybe I'm off base, but the current espousal of geocentrism calls one's ability to see the world and to reason in doubt, to such an extent that a lot of people will be ready to assume that any argument you make is defective, whether they themselves have found the flaw or not.
Put crassly, some people are so stupid that you DON'T take their word for what time it is, and geocentrism would qualify as stupid in the view of most people I know.
I see alot of earnest and emphatic scolding and tut-tut-tsk-tsking here, but nothing beyond what NCR would say about CWR, or your average Chancery Rat about the Wanderer. So maybe these sorts of excomunications by Faithful Catholic Writers[TM] are all relative.
I hate to say it, but maybe NOR calculated all of this would sell more copies. I'm sure it has.
Because most people will just scroll past without checking, & if you provide e-mail& homepage it looks more authentic.
About NOR:
It was one of the best Catholic magazines, with solid Catholic and "mere Christian" Protestant contributors, standing solidly in the center.
Now? I would say they jumped the shark when they published an article by Mario Derksen....
Karl Keating: This makes me wonder: When there is someone who has pushed goofball ideas, whether scientific, historical, or religious, is there any way for him to be rehabilitated and to have otherwise unobjectional writings be publishable? Or is it a matter of once lost, always lost?
Geocentrism is a goofball idea. I think it is detrimental to a Catholic Apologetics organization to promote it, and makes Sungenis look downright ridiculous. But it's only a goofball idea.
Sungenis' espousal of anti-semitic remarks and sources (if Bill Cork's analysis has any merit) are much, much more. They are an insult to the Catholic faith and what my theology professor would call "fighting words."
If Sungenis recanted and apologized for such, he would be on his way to 'rehabilitation' in my eyes.
But he hasn't -- at least not to my knoweldge.
Yeah, I used to be stunned by Scott Hahn's lies. But then I saw a picture of him. Do you realize he HAS A BEARD. I think someone ought to do a study tracy hahn's theological divergency in relation to his facial hair. As history and reason have proven, most people with beard's cannot be trusted (like Karl Marx and Tim the Enchanter.)
I could be wrong.
+J.M.J+
I hope you didn't think I was making fun of your name. I was not; after all, it's pretty close to my name. We share the same name saint, Our Lady of the Rosary (Oct 7), and for that matter our names are the same in Italian: Rosamaria.
But in English they are different, which I point out whenever someone makes a "Rosemary's Baby" comment to me. Guess I'm a bit touchy about people making fun of my name that way!
In Jesu et Maria,
The term "troll" has absolutely nothing to do with stature or physical appearance.
Rosemary and Andrew:
Take your beef off my blog.
The NOR attacked a friend of mine, Stratford Caldecott, who runs the Centre for Faith and Culture in Oxford, England - one of the few places in England which attempt to evangelize for the Catholic faith. He is a married man with three children. The NOR attack on Stratford was analogous to the Hahn ones in that, whilst one could say, 'OK, some of Strat's speculations
are a little way out,' they didn't just say this. They insinuated he was a gay vicar. I can't imagine what they think they achieve by dumping this nastiness on a really good person.
Francesca
Commenting by HaloScan
