For the record: an exchange between Scott Hahn & Dale Vree

Scott Hahn recently responded in a letter to the editor of the New Oxford Review to criticisms of his views of the Holy Spirit as follows:

In response to your New Oxford Note "A Little Bit of Gnosticism" (Feb.) about me, I have to wonder whether you read what I wrote about the Holy Spirit.

First, I expressly deny that the Holy Spirit is feminine, in both the hardcover and paperback editions of my book First Comes Love. In this connection, I cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and its teaching about God: "He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective 'perfections' of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband" (#370).

Second, I always refer to the Holy Spirit as "He" -- never "She" -- in all my writings and teachings.

Third, it is absurd to say that modern defenders of Gnosticism (such as Elaine Pagels) derive any support whatsoever from exploratory study of maternal aspects of God and the Holy Spirit, whether by me or the orthodox Catholics I cite (e.g., St. Ephrem, St. Methodius, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Louis Bouyer, Matthias Scheeben).

Fourth, what you imply about me supporting lesbian marriage is unspeakably vile and slanderous. And on what basis do you argue: That if the Spirit has a maternal function, then Jesus had two mommies? The same twisted and perverse logic could be turned right around to show that Dale Vree, the Editor of the NOR, must support gay marriage between men: "If the Spirit's role is really paternal, then Jesus had two daddies -- at least (the first and third Persons of the Trinity), not to mention St. Joseph." As I said, this is twisted and perverse.

Your readers deserve better. Indeed, I invite them to read my chapter and judge for themselves, which they can now find online (courtesy of Doubleday).

NOR Editor, Dale Vree, replied as follows:

Yes, we read what you say about the Holy Spirit carefully, twice and sometimes thrice.

(1) Just to cite your paperback version. You do say the Holy Spirit is feminine. You say: "In Syriac as in Hebrew, the word for Spirit, ruah, is feminine, and so it ordinarily called for a feminine pronoun" (p. 160). You say: "Christians often interpreted the Bible's wisdom passages as referring to the Holy Spirit.... In the Book of Wisdom, chapters 7-9, God's Wisdom is referred to as 'holy spirit'.... The Hebrew word for Wisdom, hokmak, is also feminine..." (p. 161). You say: "Dominican theologian Father Benedict Ashley.... concludes 'it is to the Third Person of the Trinity...that the Old Testament descriptions of the feminine Wisdom are applied.' And his conclusion seems very reasonable" (p. 162). You say: "Etymology doesn't usually make for good biblical theology; but these cases might be an exception. The great Dominican Thomist Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange said: 'Since "Spirit" -- in Hebrew, Ruah -- is of the feminine gender...'" (p. 163). You say: "St. Edith Stein [said]...'Such love is properly the attribute of the Holy Spirit. Thus we can see the prototype of the feminine being in the Spirit of God...'" (p. 165). You wrote it. How can you deny it?

As for your quote from the Catechism (#370), the Catechism preponderantly says that God is our Father (#233, 238-40, 268-70, 272-74, 278, 2779-85, 2794-2802). As you say in a subtext, God is "Still Our Father" (pp. 166-67).

(2) As we said in our New Oxford Note (Feb.), Hahn says: "We know Who the Spirit is by what He does, and what the Spirit does is bridal and maternal..." (italics added). No "He" (the Holy Spirit) can be bridal or maternal. You might just as well have said the Holy Spirit is a "She."

(3) It is not just the modern defenders of gnosticism who say the Holy Spirit is maternal or motherly, it was also the bogus gnostic gospels. In the authentic Gospel of John, Jesus repeatedly calls the Holy Spirit "He" and "Him." And in the Catechism, the Holy Spirit is repeatedly called "he" and "him" (e.g., #683, 687, 1092, 1107, 1129, 2652).

(4) We would be startled if you would support lesbian "marriage," but that's where your argument leads. If Mary was female or maternal, and if the Holy Spirit is female or feminine and maternal, then Jesus had two mommies, which validates lesbian "marriage." No, Dale Vree does not support "gay marriage" between men: The Holy Spirit is paternal and Mary is maternal. That's the proper order.

We said in our New Oxford Note (Feb.) that "Hahn brings in Pope Benedict XVI to support his views.... [But] Hahn completely misreads it [Benedict's June 8, 2005, General Audience]." We noticed that you do not defend that argument -- and you can't.

Yes, we encourage our readers to judge for themselves at your website.

I would urge my readers not to jump to hasty conclusions, but to read and consider both letters with care and sensitivity for the details and nuances of truth, and, in commenting, to do so with considered charity.

[Scott Hahn is Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, a popular Catholic speaker, and author of many books, including First Comes Love: Finding Your Family in the Church and the Trinity (Image, Reprint ed., 2006). Dale Vree is founder and editor of the New Oxford Review. The two articles above were originally published under the titles of "Scott Hahn Defends Himself" and "The Editor Replies" in New Oxford Review (May 2007), pp. 10-11, and are reprinted here by kind permission of New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley CA 94706, U.S.A.]

Vree: Pickstick raises dubium concerning von Balthasar

Surrendering Oneself to Beauty

By Dale Vree
In First Things (April 2006, pp. 67-68), Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote about "Challenging a Giant," the title of his piece. The giant is Hans Urs von Balthasar. Alyssa Pitstick challenged this alleged giant. At the Angelicum in Rome, Pitstick wrote a doctoral dissertation on Balthasar, which focused on Christ's descent into Hell on Holy Saturday.

Fr. Neuhaus said that by reading Balthasar one is "surrendering oneself to…beauty." Balthasar is probably the pre-eminent theologian of beauty. Of course, Hell is not beautiful, and so Balthasar does his best to expunge Hell.

According to Neuhaus, "Pitstick contends this 'theological opinion' of Balthasar's entails grave departures from orthodox teaching," namely, that Christ suffered in Hell the fate of all unredeemed mankind, so they won't have to go to Hell. According to Neuhaus, Pitstick notes that Balthasar "misrepresents scriptural, patristic, and magisterial texts and simply ignores aspects of the tradition inconvenient to his argument…. She finally convinced me that, on the descent into hell and some other signature themes of the great man, there are, at least implicitly, possible incompatibilities with the received structure of faith…. Like the third-century Origen, to whom Balthasar was deeply devoted, Balthasar may end up with a somewhat ambiguous reputation in the history of Christian thought."

In First Things (June/July 2000, p. 99), Fr. Neuhaus expressed dismay that the NOR would contest Balthasar on the issue of Hell. Neuhaus said, "I don't know what NOR is up to by attacking Balthasar." Well, now he knows.

In First Things (Dec. 2006) there is an article by Alyssa Pitstick and a counterpoint by Edward T. Oakes, S.J., who teaches at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein, Ill., and who wrote many works on Balthasar and is a defender of Balthasar. (Alyssa Pitstick's dissertation will be published in book form by Eerdmans in 2007.)

Pitstick's book is about Christ's descent into Hell on Holy Saturday. As we said in our New Oxford Note "How Lovely!" (Nov. 2006), in Balthasar's Theo-Drama (Ignatius Press) he said: "Hell would be what is finally condemned by God; what is left in it is sin, which has been separated from the sinner by the work of the Cross" (italics added). In other words, universal salvation -- no repentance needed.

Pitstick says in her First Things article: "What then are we to think when Balthasar himself radically reinterprets a perennial doctrine of his ecclesial community, the doctrine of Christ's descent into hell? When he retains the form in its general expression but changes the content to the point of contradicting the original?… It was held universally in both Christian East and West until the Protestant Reformation; the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have continued to profess it without interruption…. It has consistently been held as an authentic and authoritative doctrine of Catholic faith. To doubt that would be to doubt not only the testimony of history but also the authority of the tradition itself and of the Church's ordinary Magisterium."

According to Pitstick, Balthasar says that Christ's suffering in Hell "must embrace all time if it is to atone for the sins of all time." Pitstick says that Balthasar "stands in opposition to the faith."

Edward T. Oakes, S.J., defends Balthasar, and in essence Oakes defends universal salvation. For all intents and purposes, Oakes admits that Pitstick is right -- which Oakes should not want to do. As Pitstick says: "It was held universally in both Christian East and West until the Protestant Reformation; the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have continued to profess it without interruption." Oakes says that Pitstick "disapproves of Protestant influence on Catholic theologians…. I will up the Protestant ante even further. In my reading, the strongest Protestant influence on Balthasar was not Luther or Calvin but Karl Barth…." Oakes quotes Barth: "we actually know of only one certain triumph of hell -- the handing-over of Jesus -- and that this triumph of hell took place in order that it would never again be able to triumph over anyone." Barth is known to favor universal salvation.

Oakes quotes 1 Timothy 2:4, that God "desires all men to be saved." Of course God, and all Christians, "desire" that all men be saved. But men have free will. Not surprisingly, Oakes leaves out the rest of the text: God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4).

Oakes quotes God as saying: "all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26). This is where Jesus says: "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 19:23). Yes, all things are possible with God, but this is no guarantee. In Matthew 19:29 Jesus says: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters…for My name's sake, shall…inherit everlasting life."

Then Oakes appeals to 1 John 2:1-2: "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you do not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Just One. He is the expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Again Oakes leaves much out. In 1 John 1:7,9: "the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin…. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (italics added). And 1 John 2:23-25: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either…. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us -- eternal life."

There was another exchange between Pitstick and Oakes in the January 2007 First Things. On the issue of universal salvation Oakes makes an about-face: "Personally, I would never assert an empty hell…. So how then do I reconcile that position with my enthusiasm for Balthasar? By citing the French anthropologist René Girard's recent book…. Girard speaks retrospectively of his work in a way that uncannily mimics Balthasar's voice: 'We have no choice but to go back and forth, from alpha to omega. And these constant back-and-forth movements force us to phrase matters in a convoluted, spiraling fashion, which eventually runs the risk of being unsettling and even incomprehensible for the reader… [Oakes omission]. I think one needs to read [my work (Oakes comment)] like a thriller. All the elements are given at the beginning, but it is necessary to read to the very end for the meaning to become completely apparent.'" Who knows what this means? Incomprehensible indeed!

Fr. Neuhaus is right: "Like the third-century Origen, to whom Balthasar was deeply devoted, Balthasar may end up with a somewhat ambiguous reputation in the history of the Christian thought."

[Dale Vree is editor the New Oxford Review. His essay, "Surrendering Oneself to Beauty," was originally published as a New Oxford Note in the New Oxford Review (February 2007), pp. 11-14, and is reprinted here by kind permission of New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley CA 94706, U.S.A.]

Can you handle the truth? Subscribe now: New Oxford Review.

NOR celebrates 30th anniversary

Dale Vree, "Our 30th Anniversary" (Editorial, NOR, February 2007). NOR was born in February of 1977. Originally it was an Anglo-Catholic publication, but broke from its Episcopalian affiliation and became Roman Catholic in 1983. In the transition, NOR helped bring many Episcopalians into the Catholic Church but also lost many subscibers -- some 3,400 -- and nearly went bankrupt. Many people wanted to buy or control the magazine, but NOR turned down their offers. Ever controversial, NOR has managed, by the grace of God, says Vree, both to maintain its independence and to survive, despite the frequently rocky road it has thus far traversed.

Congratulations, Dale, to you and your family -- and best wishes for many more years to come!