Rushing to Judgment (To Understate It)
We expected that our June article on “Scott Hahn’s Novelties” by Edward O’Neill, critiquing Dr. Hahn, would elicit many irate knee-jerk responses. And it has.
We award First Prize for Pavlovian Responses to Mark Shea, as it appeared on his personal weblog (June 24). Shea says that the NEW OXFORD REVIEW and O’Neill “stabbed a brother in Christ,” and that O’Neill’s article was “a fifteen page work of character assassination.”
Character assassination? If you did read O’Neill’s article, you’d be as astounded as we were. (Indeed, Dr. Hahn replies in this NOR’s letters section, “to clarify a few misimpressions,” but also saying, “I could not hope for kinder words to be spoken of me than those he used at the beginning and end of his article,” and “O’Neill has done me a great kindness in paying close attention to a few of my works.”)
We wondered if Shea even bothered to read O’Neill’s article. We say that not only because the article wasn’t 15 pages (it was 12 pages), but because Shea almost admits he didn’t read the article. Says he: “There’s a reason I no longer read NOR. Who needs this kind of destructive bomb-throwing shit?” (Sorry, but you should see the full obscenity of what he wrote.)
If Shea no longer reads the NOR, did he read the article (it has not been posted on our website)? Apparently not, for Shea mentions absolutely nothing in O’Neill’s article.
You May Also Enjoy
The author sees no problem in his claim that "the kind of philosophical closure that Walker Percy desired — and that was still available in the 1940s — is no longer viable."
Is this a problem with "homosexual priests"? Not really, concludes Fr. James Martin.
March for Life organizer Nellie Gray had little patience with those who would solicit pro-life support simply to boost the bomb, bolster corporate profits, or get fluoride out of the water.