Sean Martin finds Scott Hahn to be unsporting

As for Dr Scott Hahn's theology, Dr Sean Swain Martin has offered some engagement with its argument, from a modern Catholic perspective. I have (accidentally, on the holiday morning) found that the engagement was commenced in a dissertation. Hence the "Dr", courtesy University of Dayton.

I haven't yet found a proper counter-engagement, not even with the dissertation which anyone may read. I found John Hanretty's pietistic nonresponse, which - frankly - triggered my sympathies more to Dr Martin. One more thing: as long as I'm addressing his thesis, I'll be treating it as if Martin were still a mere PhD candidate (cf. p. 50 on "Ratzinger" before his Papacy). Do allow me to continue without prepending the honorific. By the same token, I will further endeavour to remind myself that the thesis might not represent The Doctor Martin's thought as of 2023.

Martin's opening lays out that Hahn's approach to apologetic is to argue from the baseline scriptures, ignoring "Tradition". Martin relates (ch. 3) that Hahn argues in Covenant and Communion the Catholic canon to be inerrant scripture (Also Rome Sweet Home, 5; “Introduction,” Letter & Spirit Vol. 6 (2010), 14). Hahn takes (p. 37: "I", sic) Peter 3:15 as an exhortation to defend and to promote the Faith, among the nations as might not yet accept it.

Martin disagrees with Inerrancy. Martin suspects that this is a legacy that Hahn has brought over from his Protestant youth. Martin against this (pp. 32f) argues from Dei Verbum - a Vatican II document. Here he highlights that document's insistence on Tradition, which naturally includes itself. Martin doesn't counterpose Biblical Infallibility, meaning in dogma; here I might.

Martin also implies Hahn to be intellectually arrogant. Martin challenges the reader to find (p. 44): Where then, in the story of his own journey of faith, does Hahn, like Saint Augustine and Blessed John Henry Newman, turn away from confidence in his own abilities to fall upon the wisdom and strength of others? Here I agree: "Acknowledgements" sections in Hahn books, as opposed to footnotes, are rare. Hahn's intellectual pride poses a problem. (This sin, or foible, poses far less a problem for - say - Brant Pitre; Pitre is always thanking - for one - the bishop Barron.) Rome Sweet Home's "preface" thanks only Terry Barber and this only for materials, not for guidance. Signs of Life p. 6 notes in passing that Hahn had personally called upon the top rank of scholars; I suspect that these were secular scholars, like Crossan. If we are told of Hahn sitting amongst his Catholic peers, as he had sat among the evangelicals of his youth, I have not heard Hahn tell it. As I read Martin's summary, I'm finding that Hahn tended to fall upon "the wisdom and strength" of the Saints. Many Catholics seem to allow this. Martin wants more from Hahn, and Martin may be right.

Patristics may go toward what Hahn accepts as "Tradition". Martin will note Hahn's reference beyond Peter 3:15, to Justin Martyr and to Thomas Aquinas. Hahn cites them as defenders of the Faith, inasmuch as they took the verbal battle to the infidel. Martin here says that Hahn is doing it wrong. Justin and Thomas - claims Martin - warned the Catholic against arguing for Catholicism among nonCatholics. The true Catholic doesn't reason his way into the Faith; Christ embraces the sinner, and then the Catholic convinces himself. With the aid of a friendly pastor, and of the Assembly at large.

As we all agree, Justin and Thomas did take the offensive against "errors". That is different - claims Martin (pp. 38f) - from attacking nonbelief in Catholicism overall. Justin and Thomas presented their works as defences against errors levied as aggressions, by pagans (who slandered Christians as cannibals in a seditious superstitio) and by Jews (who accused Jesus of being a bastard and a sorcerer, thus a liar).

Where we separate attacks on slander from an overly-aggressive stance contra Gentiles, would seem (to me) a matter of degree. Some might say that Justin and (more so) Thomas, in allowing their "defences" to be widely published, had taken a rhetorical stance, presenting themselves as merely defending their case against aggressors whilst - in facto - posing some aggro of their own. Take Justin on paganism. Justin argued that the pagans were in Diabolical Mimicry. It wasn't Roman paganism which could claim antiquity; it was Judaeo-Christianity from which the demons plagiarised, to better corrupt the heathen.

Justin had a point, I'll interject: he knew that much of the Hebrew Bible preceded any text which the Latins (at least) could present in favour of their own religion. The Greeks could bring Homer and Hesiod but even our scholars would find difficult to rule their poems earlier than (say) Deborah's song in Judges 5. Justin would go further even than (I hope) Hahn, on account Justin assumed 1 Enoch 1-36 as anteDiluvian. But the specific merits of Justin's case... don't even matter, for Hahn. Hahn needs only to point to Justin's muscular approach, as precedent, for what Hahn is doing now.

Likewise, even if Martin disagrees with the merits of Hahn's case; Hahn has every right, nay the duty, to present that case law kariha al-mujrimûna if you please. And if Hahn is overstepping Peter 3:15's boundaries, he's not doing any different than Justin and Thomas did; Hahn might differ only in his level of honesty.

Thus far, Martin's first chapter. Thus far, I am reading a selective and unfair hit-piece. Thus far, if I'd been reviewing this for Dayton, I'd not read further; before sending it back to Martin for revision.