Receptions of Newman ed. by Frederick D. Aquino, Benjamin J. King (review)

The coeditors stress that this book “is not an exhaustive account of the reception of [Newman’s] work” (p. 2): there is nothing on Newman as writer, and nothing on the Apologia pro Vita sua (London, 1864; Aquino and King, p. 2). There is a chapter on Newman and the French modernists but not one on his more informed reception in Germany.

Benjamin J. King shows how the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London, 1845) aroused critical, albeit very different, reactions from Evangelicals, liberals, and High Churchmen in the Church of England. Kenneth L. Parker and C. Michael Shea point out that it is not true that the Essay was rejected by the Roman Catholic Church right up until the Second Vatican Council, for ironically it was used by leading ultramontanes to justify the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, nor that it had no influence on Catholic theologians, although at first greeted uneasily by leading Roman theologians, a suspicion that was revived during the Thomistic revival under Pope Leo XIII and that entered into the standard seminary manuals.

For Frederick D. Aquino, the “crucial question” regarding the reception of the Grammar of Assent is whether in appealing to our actual mental processes Newman’s aim is to offer a “phenomenology of religious belief” or an “epistemology of religious belief” or a combination of both (p. 59); whereas Mark McInroy observes that even neo-Scholastic theologians insisted that the condemned modernists had misinterpreted the Grammar, thereby obscuring its originality.

John Sullivan refers to “the mistaken view” that Newman excluded professional education and research from the university (p. 96) but without giving any explanation or sources for these misunderstandings and their refutation. He also fails to explain that Newman’s “philosophy” or the “architectonic role” (p. 99) does not refer to academic philosophy. Colin Barr argues, without explaining how or why, that Newman “never understood why [Dublin Archbishop Paul] Cullen behaved the way that he did” (p. 126). Actually, Newman knew perfectly well that he had not been singled out for special treatment since Cullen confided in and trusted no one. Barr claims that the failure by scholars to consider “any account of events other than Newman’s own” has distorted the historical record (p. 133) but fails to show how Newman’s account was distorted. Barr claims that Cullen “never sought to intervene in the discipline of the university, nor in its appointments,” except on “a handful of occasions” and then only for “political” reasons (p. 125). He ignores Cullen’s failure to respond to Newman’s request that he be made vicar general to the whole hierarchy in order to have more independence and power, which the autocratic Cullen was not prepared to give him. Nor does he mention Cullen’s absolute refusal, again not for any “political” reasons but out of clericalism, to allow a lay finance committee or indeed any nonacademic lay involvement, which Newman regarded as crucial for the university’s success. When Cullen very reluctantly let, or was forced to let, Newman have his way, it was not for want of trying very hard to prevent him, and therefore Newman’s complaint about “constant interference” (p. 130) was perfectly justified.

Peter Nockles shows how a Tractarian idea of an “Anglican Newman” or “Newman for Anglicans” (p. 138) developed in response to his conversion to Rome, with some Tractarians blaming the university and ecclesiastical authorities, and hoping his conversion might help reunion with Rome, and other Tractarians denouncing his act of “schism,” which they attributed to an alleged restlessness and oversensitivity. In the best chapter in the book, Keith Beaumont explains the French modernists’ attempt to misrepresent Newman as a proto-modernist. Daniel J. Lattier misunderstands Newman’s comment that it was absurd for an Anglican to become an Orthodox as referring only to its impracticality. William J. Abraham points out the danger after the...