The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman ed. by Charles Stephen Dessain, Thomas Gornall, S.J. (review)

372 BOOK REVIEWS The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman (Volume XXV: The Vatican Council) . Edited by Charles Stephen Dessain and Thomas Gornall, S.J. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Pp. 507. £ 1~. This current volume is but the ~5th in a projected 30 volume series of Cardinal Newman's life-long correspondence and private diaries. And it is probably the most exciting, even though no volume published to date is wanting in interest and vividness, or in reviewers' praise. The Anglican years (volumes 1-10) will be published after the Roman Catholic period. Volume ~5 covers the important months from Jan. 1870 to Dec. 1871, a span which witnessed the Vatican Council, the Franco-Prussian war, the loss of the Papal States, and the schism of the Old Catholics. Correspondence to and from Newman makes much of this history come alive for us. And one finds informative letters about the Grammar of Assent, which Newman published in March, 1870. Rumors that the Council would define the Pope's infallibility caused Newman to write, on Jan. ~8th, to Bishop Moriarty of Kerry, What heresy calls for a decision? What have we done that we can't be let alone? Hitherto definitions de fide wel'e grave necessities, not devotional outpourings . . . . Have men who entertain such a project any regard at all for the souls of their brethren? The frogs said to the boys who threw stones at them, "It is fun to you, but death to us." Where is the Arius or Nestorius, whose heresy makes it imperative for the Holy Church to speak? Writing on the same day to his own Ordinary, Ullathorne of Birmingham, Newman observed that Rome ought to be a name to lighten the heart at all times, and a Council's proper office is, when some great heresy or other evil impends, to inspire the faithful with hope and confidence; but now we have . . . little else than fear and dismay.... No impending danger is to be averted, but a great difficulty is to be created. It this the proper work for an Ecumenical Council? . . . . What have we done to be treated, as the faithful never were treated before? When has the definition of doctrine de fide been a luxury of devotion, and not a stem painful necessity? Why should an aggressive insolent faction be allowed to " make the heart of the just to mourn, whom the Lord hath not made sorrowful? " To the Jesuit Provincial, Robert Whitty, he wrote on 1~ April 1870, You are going too fast at Rome. . . . Think how slowly and cautiously you proceeded in the definition of the Immaculate Conception, how many steps were made, how many centuries passed, before the dogma was ripe;-we are not ripe yet for the Pope's Infallibility. Newman himself had believed all along in the Pope's Infallibility, and a Definition would merely make a dogma of what he held, on personal conviction, to be true. He could not foresee God committing Revelation BOOK REVIEWS 878 to a society without giving it the grace to infallibly proclaim it. And Popes have acted, in times past, in their teaching as if they were infallible. But to define this doctrine now was inexpedient-" there are truths which are inexpedient "-and would harm many. Lady Chatterton was but one of many correspondents to whom Newman wrote, "I have ever held the infallibility of the Pope myself, since I have been a Catholic-but I have ever felt also that others had a right, if they pleased, to deny it." The Definition came on July 18th, although it was not clear to Newman and many others that it was a truly conciliar act, due to a walk-out of 88 bishops just before the vote and due to the abrupt interference of the Franco-Prussian war on July 19th. He wrote to Bishop Clifford on 12 August, Did the Bishops of the minority openly or tacitly yield now, and allow the doctrine, which has been the subject in dispute to be circulated, proclaimed, and taken for granted among Catholics, then I should think that the majority represented the whole episcopate, and that the doctrine was really defined. As...