Recent Studies on Newman: Two Review Articles

RECENT STUDIES ON NEWMAN: TWO REVIEW ARTICLES I. REAPPRAISING NEWMAN ON DEVELOPMENT* FEW READERS OF Newman have ever been neutral in reacting to his writings: devotees frequently succumb to the convincing appeal of his arguments; adversaries usually seem unduly controlled by their own biases. Nor have Newman's works been particularly favored by the climate of theological opinion. During his Roman Catholic years (1845-90), for example, Newman frequently labored under a double cloud of suspicion-among members of the church he had left as well as among members of the church he had entered. Then at the turn of the century, the ambiguous appropriation of Newman's writings by various Modernists effectively dimmed his reputation in Roman Catholic theological circles for several decades. Not surprisingly, the earliest attempts at a theological reassessment of Newman tended to be both cautious and distorted. The caution was double-pronged: few theologians wanted to criticize a cardinal too stringently; even fewer relished attracting the attention of still vigilant anti-Modernists. The distortion frequently came through compressing Newman's terminology into conventional scholastic categories without attending to his quite varied meanings; again, distortion arose from utilizing Newman 's response without sufficient attention to his original questions and purposes. In contrast to the extensive work of their colleagues in history and literature, it is comparatively recently that theologians have re-discovered and attempted to restore the portrait of Newman the theologian.1 *Newman on Dooelopment. The Search for an Explanation in History. By Nicholas Lash. (Shepherdstown, West Virginia: Patmos Press, 1975), Pp. xii, ~64. $17.50. 1 For a bibliographical guide to Newman studies, cf. M. Svaglic, "John Henry Newman, Man and Humanist," Victorian Prose (edited by D. DeLaura; New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1973). pp. 115-165; C. Dessain, "Newman's Philosophy and Theology," ibid., pp. 166-184. On the emergence of Newman studies in Europe, see the articles by W. Becker, B. Dupuy, and A. Boekraad in The Rediscovery of Newman (edited by J. Coulson, A. Allchin; London-Melbourne: Sheed and Ward I London: S. P. C. K., 1967), pp. 147-194. 424 NEWMAN STUDIES 425 In particular, readers of An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine have tended to be more concerned about extracting a ready-made, orthodox theory of development than with understanding either Newman's personal view of diverse developments or the complex paths of doctrinal history as such (cf. pp. 145-156) .2 Given Newman's penchant for cumulative, inter-locking argumentation the apparently modest concern of Lash's study is then really more challenging than might first appear: " to understand, as fully as possible, the multiple themes and patterns of argument in the Essay so as to be able, without unfaithfulness to Newman's thought, to provide the materials on the basis of which theologians may tackle the further question: what light can the Essay cast on the significantly different situation in which christian theology today attempts to come to terms with the problem of change and continuity in christian doctrine? " (p. 4) .8 If all might agree that" Newman's aim in writing the Essay was apologetic" (p. 10), readers' expectations do not necessarily coincide with its author's purpose. First, the Essay is more practical than theoretical: Newman's quest was to locate where the apostolic church is at present, rather than to delineate what the church is or should be. Secondly, the Essay is more personal than probatory: " it was not the ' evidence ' which he was watching, but his own state of mind in regard to that evidence" (p. 11). Accordingly, readers who expect a logical demonstration of the truth of catholicism may be puzzled by the persuasive presentation of " the fruit of a complex, personally acquired appreciation of the concrete facts of christian history " (p. 17) . And theologians who are searching for a systematic theory of doctrinal development may be disappointed that Newman's so-called" theory" is really more tentative and problematic than is conventionally recognized. "What Newman needed, and what he sought to provide in the Essay, was a 'view' of christian history" (p. QO) .4 For an ecumenical revaluation, cf. J. Coulson, A. Allchin, M. Trevor, Newman: a...