ARTICLES

Catholicism's Most Wanted

BAD APPLES, FROM CHESTERTON TO KEATING

By Lesley Payne

These are the men most dangerous to authentic Catholicism today: Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Dale Vree, and Thomas Howard.

At least according to Father Thomas Rausch, SJ, chairman of the theology department at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. In his talk, "Apologetics or Evangelization: What Does the Church Need Most?" given February 14 at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, Fr. Rausch claimed these men are the vanguard of a spreading lay movement that is misrepresenting Church teaching and history, incorporating Protestant ideas condemned by the Vatican.

Apologetics of the early centuries, said Fr. Rausch, was useful for explaining the Christian religion to foreign cultures. But with the Reformation, apologetics grew contentious, nothing more than a battle between opposing theological opinions. Apologetics just prior to Vatican II, he said, reflected the Church's "authoritarian and rationalist" position at that time. Fr. Rausch recalled in the seminary being forced to read works of three close-minded apologists, without studying any "true theology." He named G.K. Chesterton -- whom he said had a "dense prose and complicated style of argument" -- Hillaire Belloc, Frank Sheed, and Monsignor Ronald Knox as particularly offensive.

The "new apologists," said Fr. Rausch, are out of touch with "contemporary Catholic theology," influenced as they are by Protestantism (many of them are converts), and are unable to "reconcile faith with critical reason." They seek to convert those of other faiths to the Catholic Church, he said, and are therefore in violation of the Church's new spirit of ecumenism. They must be excluded from dialogue and development within Catholicism because they are "unable to enter into a real dialogue with modernity and with the critical questions it raises for faith."

This group of Catholic "fundamentalists" (he also used the term "integralists") are not authentically Catholic, said Rausch, because they "interpret Gospel sayings attributed to Jesus historically rather than theologically," and are not able to discern "the historical context of a doctrinal statement, its degrees of authority and the possibility of doctrinal development or even of change."

Said Rausch: "One wonders if any of them have read and assimilated documents such as the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1964 Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels or its 1994 Interpretation of the Bible in the Church." (Paragraph 126 (1.) of the Catechism, quoting the Vatican II document Dei Verbum, says: "The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, 'whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day he was taken up.'")

Most of Fr. Rausch's criticism was directed at Karl Keating, founder of the San Diego apologetics group Catholic Answers. Fr. Rausch said Keating's bestselling book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, "reveals his lack of sympathy for mainstream Roman Catholic theology," noting that the book's reading recommendations are mostly pre-Vatican II and "out of date," such as the 1953 Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture and William Most's Free From All Error. "Most is an ultra-conservative Catholic apologist who labors to defend positions such as the historicity of the infancy narratives of the idea that Vatican II did not reverse any previous magisterial teachings," he said.

"Keating interprets the biblical Petrine texts as the literal, historical words of Jesus," Fr. Rausch said. "Or in discussing the Eucharist, he takes the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 as the historical words of Jesus, rather than the Eucharistic theology of the Joannine Community." He ridiculed Keating for responding to Jimmy Swaggart's claims that there was no papacy in the early Church by "reciting traditions of early popes." In fact, Fr. Rausch said, the papacy did not begin to develop until 150, and Tertullian "was wrong about Clement being ordained by Peter."

"Keating's approach to Church teaching authority is particularly un-nuanced. Too easily ascribing infallibility to the Ordinary Magisterium, he maintains that the doctrine enunciated by Humanae Vitae is infallibly taught because it represents the unanimous teaching of Church authority. He argues repeatedly that no pope has ever contradicted the teaching of an earlier pope and no ecumenical council has ever contradicted the teaching of an earlier council on faith or morals. This suggests that what has once been taught by Church authority in the area of faith and morals can never change.

"Yet, today, an increasing number of studies illustrate how what has been the consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium on questions such as the impossibility of salvation outside the Church, the tolerance of slavery -- sanctioned by a number of councils -- and the justification of the use of torture, has been changed or even reversed because of the way it was received by the Church. A presentation of the Catholic tradition able to acknowledge not just development, but also change in the doctrinal tradition is a more honest approach."

Commenting on Rausch's talk in a February 28 interview, Keating said, "I was surprised at his unfamiliarity with the people he was castigating. In his printed remarks he repeatedly spelled Scott Hahn's name incorrectly, and attributed to him 'several books,' when in fact he has written precisely one. Fr. Rausch repeatedly stooped to name-calling, such as using 'ultra-conservative' to describe a Scripture scholar he disagrees with.

"When people espouse a position he doesn't hold, he wonders if any of them 'have read and assimilated' the relevant documents. He seems unable to imagine that perhaps they have, and have found good reason not to draw his conclusions. He also is ungenerous, saying, for instance, that 'some of the new apologists are genuinely concerned about the loss of Catholics to fundamentalism and ecumenicalism. Only 'some'? He forgets that these are the people who often write and speak about this exodus, and they are the only ones who are successful in bringing former Catholics back."

"Reading his remarks," said Keating, "I felt a bit embarrassed for him. He found refuge, for instance, in the tired claim that 'most theologians' hold his position on a certain issue, so his position must be true. Keep in mind that theologians do not enjoy the charism of infallibility. At times, 'most theologians' simply are wrong about a particular point. We need to examine the point itself, not take a hand count."

Keating stated that Rausch's method and his vision of evangelization have proven a failure: "Father Rausch concedes that, 'after more than 20 years of teaching theology to undergraduates in a Roman Catholic university...the language in which we try to present the Good News doesn't have much meaning to many today, particularly to young adults.' He concedes that his theology and methodology fail to win minds or hearts.

"But the theology and methodology of the 'new apologists' actually work. At Catholic Answers, for instance, we can show you thousands of letters from college students and young adults who received no spiritual sustenance from their nominally Catholic universities, but plenty from the kind of apologetics engaged in by the people Father Rausch demonizes. He complains that 'these new apologists will not be able to help contemporary Catholics develop a faith that is at once traditional and critical, able to withstand the challenges of secular moderity.' There is deep irony here, in that it has been his own side that has 'withstood' secular modernity by collapsing before it. The folks on his side cheerfully accept contraception, they succumb to every silly fad -- such as the enneagram -- and from their ranks has come not a single major opponent of abortion."

In the remainder of his talk, Fr. Rausch castigated the other "new apologists." He said that Peter Kreeft, like Keating, is a "biblicist." "For example, in his approach to Christology, he fails to distinguish the various levels in the Gospel tradition, thus taking as historical Jesus' saying, 'Before Abraham came to be, I Am," or in the crude physicalism he employs to describe Eucharistic faith." Fr. Rausch amused his audience with a droll reading of a Kreeft passage describing Kreeft's devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.

Fr. Rausch described Scott Hahn as a "fundamentalist" who retains his Protestant intellectual approach, trying to defend Catholic doctrines with biblical citations. He joked that the title of Hahn's book, Rome Sweet Home, gives "an idea of his ecumenical orientation." For his part, Hahn told News Notes he had listened to a tape of Fr. Rausch's talk and, by way of response, had sent the priest a copy of his 750-page doctoral dissertation on the issue of fundamentalism in biblical interpretation.

Fr. Rausch concluded by claiming that the "new apologists" are ignoring the Holy Father's call to work for social transformation because they are part of the "religious right" and are therefore opposed to social justice.

While most of the audience at Fr. Rausch's talk seemed to agree with him, laughing at his sarcastic attacks on Hahn, Keating and Kreeft, and groaning their dismay at these men's "errors," a substantial minority of the audience expressed disapproval with the talk during the question-and-answer session.

The first questioner, a nun in a short blue habit, said: "Father, I was shaken up when there was such room-wide laughter when you mentioned Rome Sweet Home, and I wonder if all that laughed really read the book and read it carefully." The nun criticized the view that "we vote for what the Church believes." Her remarks elicited sparse applause and a lot of mumbling from the audience. As she was leaving the room after her comments, the nun said, "I'm a Roman Catholic nun and you're not Roman Catholic. I'm getting out of here."

Several other questioners related their appreciation of Scott Hahn. One woman said she returned to the Church because of Hahn. A woman who identified herself as a charismatic dared Rausch to present his views as the SCRC Convention.

In response to one Scott Hahn fan, another female audience member stood up and said the young people defending Hahn "don't know what it was like in the last generation -- your father beat your mother... When you dropped your girlfriend off at her house five minutes late you would see her dad beat the heck out of her with a hammer because she went in the door. That was a different world. We've responded to it."

Another listener asked Fr. Rausch why he seemed critical of the idea that Protestants might come to recognize the Catholic Church as the true Church and convert, giving them access to the Eucharist and other things not available in their churches. He replied, "I think we have to be a little careful about saying we're the only ones who have the Eucharist [argument from audience members]. Lutherans and Anglicans and Orthodox [interrupted by people shouting]...I'm just responding to what you said!"

One woman interjected that his statement was contrary to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council on the Eucharist. "We've had 30 years of rather extensive ecumenical dialogues in the years since the Council," Fr. Rausch replied. "For example, in the Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, the Vatican has said there is nothing more to be said about this. We have a common understanding of the Eucharist. When the Anglican or Episcopal Church celebrates the Eucharist, they recognize Jesus present under sacrament signs in the midst of the community [mumbling from crowd]. And Lutherans have a very similar theology [other audience members clapping]."

Fr. Rausch then recognized a young woman in the back of the room. "You didn't answer the woman's question back there," she said. "Rather than seeing Kreeft, Keating, and Hahn as contrary to the new evangelism, I see them as being part of this new evangelical movement [some applause]...They're giving us the tools and language to explain why. Apologetics is defense of the faith, to give a rational explanation for your faith. I was really disheartened because I thought you were going to be in support of these particular ones that you have assaulted.

"I've been to places like Assembly of God. Catholics are flocking there, yes, but they don't know their faith. They think Catholics worship Mary! Maybe that's what they heard and took in because they hadn't had any formal education since Confirmation, and weren't encouraged to read the Scriptures...You really assaulted three people who have been integral in adults coming back to the faith and being able to explain it to their children and to really take ownership of their faith rather than have to go through a nun or a priest. Frankly, I'm disappointed that you see them being a trouble spot, rather than part of the answer."

The Loyola Maymount theologian sidestepped several additional questions. When a final questioner thanked him for his talk, most of the audience applauded in support.

Fr. Rausch gave the same talk several months ago at Saint John's Seminary in Camarillo, as part of a four-part apologetics lecture series sponsored by the Mildred and Edward Ryland Endowment for Apologetics. Karl Keating, the final speaker in the series, will address the seminarians April 15. Keating noted that the formal paper version of Rausch's seminary lecture corresponds to the tape of the Congress talk, with the Congress talk including several additional personal jibes against the "new apologists."

Fr. Rausch also spoke March 13 at the University of San Diego. His talk there was sponsored by the Institute of Christian Ministries, which has in the past brought such dissenters as Richard McBrien and Josef Fuchs to the USD campus.