HAHN vs. MATATICS

[JM]

What's the deal between these two?

 

[Rising_Suns]

Healthy competition?

Even the great theologians of the early Church were the toughest critics of each other.

 

[PeterPaul]

They actually came into the Church together. I like them both.

 

[marciadietrich]

Are you thinking of Karl Keating and Gerry Matatics? Because Matatics worked for Keating at one time, at some point when Matatics became too traditionalist leaning for Keating's tastes Matatics was fired. Been some bad blood since then on that.

I like Matatics for what I have listened to of some tapes. A very able debater.

Marcia

 

[PeterPaul]

Hahn and Matatics were both protestant and came into the Church around the same time. They both came upon the realisation that the RC was the true Church and that the Protestant faiths did not have the answers they were looking for. Hahn discusses it in "Rome Sweet Home".

 

[geocajun]

what specifically are you referring too in the OP?

 

[NDIrish]

I would imagine that marciadietrich is right, the OP might be thinking of Karl Keating. You know, I generally like Keating, but I was very disappointed in the way he publically handled the whole Matatics thing. Matatics is a very traditional Catholic...my kind of guy!!

 

[geocajun]

what happened with Karl and Matatics?
boy do I feel out of the loop.

 

[NDIrish]

mudslinging. I've done a bit of research into the whole issue, since I am thinking about inviting Matatics to my diocese for a conference. Keating was publishing some things in This Rock basically calling Matatics a feeneyite (sp?), without giving him a chance to respond properly.

Matatics, to his credit, has backed off completely from the bickering, and it seems to have quieted down a bit. I think Keating devoted a whole newsletter to Matatics in the past year.

My understanding is that Keating does not look very favorably on the traditional Mass (but I could be wrong on that point).

 

[geocajun]

ahh found Karls letter about what happened:

January 27, 2004 GERRY MATATICS MIMICS HOWARD DEAN

The former governor of Vermont has been the object of jokes on late-night talk shows because of his now-famous scream, issued after he came in third in the Iowa caucuses.

Last week I was the object of screaming by Gerry Matatics. After thirteen years' absence, he came to San Diego to give a talk. The evening ended with him gesticulating and yelling at me at the top of his lungs. It was a weird and disturbing sight.

During the question period that followed his talk, someone asked whether an unbaptized person could go to heaven. Matatics--who a decade ago declared that he had undergone a "second conversion" and had moved from conservative Catholic to Traditionalist Catholic--gave an answer that closed heaven's gate to almost anyone who is not a formal member of the Catholic Church.

The followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was best known for his rigorist interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church," exist on a narrow but real spectrum. Some, such as Matatics's friends at the New Hampshire-based Saint Benedict Center, are at one end and say a person must be a formal member of the Catholic Church to be saved. They take the most hardline position.

Other Feeneyites permit a little more leeway but still end up with a position that is more rigorous than that taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846-848) or by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 16) or by the most conservative pope of the nineteenth century, Pius IX. Feeneyites leave either no or little room for "invincible ignorance."

Matatics, who at his seminars used to distribute literature from the Saint Benedict Center, makes a tiny distinction between that group's position and his own and uses that distinction to claim that he is not really a Feeneyite. (If not, why distribute the most hardline Feeneyite literature?)

Unlike the Saint Benedict Center, he is open to the possibility that a catechumen who desires baptism but who dies before being baptized might be saved through what is commonly called "baptism of desire." But such a catechumen's salvation is not sure, says Matatics. It might be that he is not saved after all. Anyone further removed from the Catholic Church would have even less hope--or no hope--of salvation. This would include not just the unbaptized but also Protestants. (Matatics has said in public that he expects his own parents to go to hell, because they remain Protestants.)

In Church history there cannot have been many cases of catechumens dying on the way to their baptisms. As a practical matter, therefore, Matatics's position reduces to the position of the Saint Benedict Center: Formal members of the Catholic Church are saved, and everyone else is lost.

The members of the Saint Benedict Center indisputably deserve the moniker "Feeneyite." In my opinion, Matatics does too. After all, there are Feeneyites who are more generous than he is in their interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church." He is midway along a narrow spectrum, but he is still on the spectrum.

Although for years Matatics has adopted a position almost indistinguishable from that of the Saint Benedict Center, the members of which do not object to being called "Feeneyites," he has insisted that the label should not be applied to him.

One can understand his reluctance: Being identified with a fringe movement is not a good way to ensure speaking engagements. But "pigs is pigs," and Matatics should cease objecting to a label that fits.

He has espoused the Feeneyite understanding of salvation but has been unwilling to go by the Feeneyite designation. He embraces the theory but not the name of the theory. He has not been candid with his audiences and so has done them a disservice.

THE SCREAM

Toward the end of the evening, Matatics referred to my January 13 E-Letter, which may be found at http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

In that E-Letter I wrote about "The Point," a little journal printed by Feeney's original group in the 1950s. I listed the titles of the twelve issues published in 1957. All but one was about Jews and the problems they allegedly cause. I said that Feeney's group was "preoccupied with the Jews, to the point of obsession."

Not so, said Matatics. The Feeneyites were not obsessed with Jews. They simply were concerned about the salvation of Jews. I rolled my eyes.

In the U.S. of the 1950s, Jews were outnumbered by Protestants. They also were outnumbered by people of no religion. Jews then, as now, represented about two percent of the American population. Subtract Catholics from the mix, and Jews represented about three percent of the population.

So why were eleven out of twelve issues of "The Point" focused on perceived problems with Jews? Where were the articles about Protestants, members of Eastern religions, and unbelievers? They, too, by Feeneyite standards, are not on the road to salvation. Why so much supposed solicitude for Jews but not for Baptists or Hindus or agnostics?

I reminded Matatics's audience that Feeney's men used to go to Boston Common and give public lectures. When talking about Jews, they used slurs such as "kike."

A woman in the small audience asked what "kike" meant. I explained that, with respect to Jews, it was the analogue of the "n-word."

Someone using the latter word to refer to blacks is suspected of racism--and rightly so. Similarly, someone using "kike" to refer to Jews is suspected of anti-Semitism.

Matatics turned up the volume. His friends at the Saint Benedict Center were not anti-Semites, he yelled.

I didn't say they were, I replied. I had been writing about the original Feeneyite group of the 1950s. In my E-Letter I noted that today's Saint Benedict Center reprints articles from "The Point." I asked whether today's group repudiates the anti-Semitism of the 1950s. My words were lost in the din caused by Matatics and his fans.

He was visibly agitated. His voice went from a yell to a scream and eventually broke. He was on a rant. I couldn't make out what he was saying, and I couldn't get a word in.

But I could get out. I was standing by the door, and I went through it, Matatics screaming after me. I was relieved that he didn't chase me as I made for the hotel's exit.

As I stood in the night chill, several people gathered around me, shaking their heads at what they had witnessed. One smiled consolingly and said the evening had reduced my time in purgatory.

Maybe, maybe not. But I know it reduced, almost to oblivion, the residual regard I had for Gerry Matatics, and it reaffirmed my belief that he would do the Church a favor by finding another line of work.

Until next time,

Karl

 

[bigsierra]

If that is Matatics position, I can see why there would be an issue.

 

[marciadietrich]

My take on the Keating/Matatics thing was that when Matatics took an initial traditionalist leaning, perhaps as little as attending traditional Mass (possibly approved FSSP Masses), that Keating booted him to the street with basically little notice and Keating seems to be the one more vocal on this in newsletters and around the Catholic venues. Both of them might consider giving it a rest... but I tend to be more sympathetic to matatics on this.

I have seen a defense of Matatics in this ongoing fray on his site (http://www.gerrymatatics.org/matatics.htm - that is from quite a few years ago).

Anyhow, Matatics went from working for Keating to find opportunities to work in the more traditionalist arena, because he needed to make a living and the traditionalist community was sympathetic to what he was going though, thus probably making him even more traditionalist over time.

It would be a shame if Matatics left apologetics as he is very good at what he does and I'm not sure he is actually outside of orthodox even though he leans hard to the traditionalist side of orthodox on many issues.

Personally I would not take Keating's word on that Feenyite charge without hearing Matatics view from Matatics himself ... a debate I have around here on baptism he did not expouse Feenyite viewpoint. What he does say there is you are not guaranteed a baptism of desire in being in RCIA (which I think is true), and that the further you get from the visible Church the less your chances of having a connection, which isn't unreasonable. And on his parents I believe I have heard it stated as a concern because they don't have access to the sacraments such as confession to assure not being in mortal sin and such, rather than a statement he believes they are going to hell for being protestants. Maybe that has changed over time, but for what I understand he just seems traditional leaning orthodox and not schismatic.

Marcia

 

[Anthony]

Hahn in the OP is ---> Scott Hahn

 

[Epiphanygirl]

What's the deal between these two?

??
Is there a "deal" between these two?
They were both very strong anti catholic, friends, In trying to prove the Catholic faith wrong, they both ended up converting. It's a facinating story

 

[NDIrish]

If that is Matatics position, I can see why there would be an issue.

From everything I have read though, it is not.

I went a step further in this though, as I was concerned about the reaction I might get with inviting a feeneyite into the diocese to speak. I called the diocese where Matatics lives, and spoke with the Bishop's secretary, I forget the priests name.

Anyway, he called the pastor of the parish that Matatics belongs to. This priest let me know that in his home diocese, and in his parish, he is considered a Catholic in good standing, and a good one at that.

That's good enough for me.

 

[Rising_Suns]

If that is Matatics position, I can see why there would be an issue.

Also keep in mind that Geo just posted one side of the story. It's clear Keeting doesn't like him very much, even resorting to ad hominem attacks (which doesn't speak very much about his character, in my opinion). I'm sure if Matatics had a chance to respond to this, things would be painted in a different light.

-Davide

 

[bigsierra]

If that is Matatics position, I can see why there would be an issue.

Also keep in mind that Geo just posted one side of the story. It's clear Keeting doesn't like him very much, even resorting to ad hominem attacks (which doesn't speak very much about his character, in my opinion). I'm sure if Matatics had a chance to respond to this, things would be painted in a different light.

-Davide

It was a big "if."(in my quoted post) You're right about the other side of the story.

If Keating really is worried about this being propogated, in the Church though, he would try to get the info out there. No one would have a problem with someone speaking out against Jim Jones and may speak out agaist Benny Hinn and other known preachers, without losing character.

 

[geocajun]

Keating is an equal oppurtunity exposer - he jumped on Sungenous too, when Sungenous decided that Vat II wasn't ecumenical and could be ignored in the places where he and the council disagreed. I have no reason to doubt Keating myself. I would certaintly like to hear Akin weigh in on this, but I suspect he will just keep to himself.

 

[JM]

what happened with Karl and Matatics?
boy do I feel out of the loop.

I think I'm talking about Keating and Matatics...