Newman

NEWMAN STUDIES JOURNAL 79 NEWMAN BY AVERY DULLES, S.J. Newman.ByAvery Cardinal Dulles SJ.Outstanding ChristianThinkers Series.London and NewYork:Continuum,2002.Pages:xii + 176.Paper,$22.95,ISBN 0-8264-6287-1. Avery Cardinal Dulles,the Laurence J.McGinley Professor of Religion and Society at Fordham University,furnishes a concise and synthetic reading of John Henry Newman’s theological work. This book is neither an exhaustive biographical account nor a collection of essays surrounded around selected themes from Newman. Rather, the book’s goal is“to survey Newman’s teaching about the classical theological questions in a comprehensive and systematic way” (ix).Although Dulles recognizes the contextual nature of Newman’s writings, he argues that Newman’s “principal legacy to future generations consists in his writings on theological topics.His depth of thought,breadth of knowledge, and keen sense of history, combined with his mastery of English style, have given undying popularity to these writings” (15). Moreover, Dulles’ interpretive strategy attempts to render a balance of analytical precision and critical reflection.The latter comes through the standpoint of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). This book highlights Newman’s pilgrimage of faith (Chapter 1),his treatments of atonement and the Christian life (Chapter 2), the rationality of Christian belief (Chapter 3), the proof of Christianity (Chapter 4), divine revelation and doctrinal development (Chapter 5),ecclesiology and divine revelation (Chapter 6),the roles of theologians and the laity (Chapter 7), ecclesiology and ecumenism (Chapter 8), and the nature, scope, and function of the university (Chapter 9). Chapter 10,“Newman in retrospect” (which is re-published in this issue of Newman Studies Journal) functions differently in that Dulles offers a critical comparison of Newman’s thought “with the teachings ofVatican II on a series of common themes”(152).Overall,Dulles depicts Newman as a theologically creative and tensive thinker, and yet a man of his own time. The “personal method of arriving at truth” undergirds Dulles’ account, accentuating the ways in which Newman’s concrete posture factored into the formation of his theological proposals (164). Nevertheless, Dulles explores Newman’s contextual proposals through the categories of systematic theology. Chapters 3 and 9 illustrate the point.The latter is one of the most instructive parts of the book. Dulles here captures the subtlety of Newman’s conception of university education.The primary business of the university is knowledge, though the formation component can be seen through the personal influence of the professor. Connecting specific fields of inquiry with a common pursuit of truth does not suggest blurring discipline-specific ways of proceeding (e.g.,science,theology,and literature) or domains of theological reflection (e.g., church, society, and university). Dulles shows the same dynamic at work in Newman’s concept of revelation. Science and theology are both important facets of the university,but an advanced cosmology is not forthcoming from divine revelation.This would constitute a fundamental confusion of discipline-specific procedures and resources. Each domain of inquiry has its own methodological procedures,but the common endeavor is rooted in truth-conducive practices. Chapter 3 also stresses the same holistic principle. Belief-formation,for Newman,is a holistic process, involving cognitive, affective, and moral dimensions of the human person. Dulles rightly describes Newman’s methodological posture primarily as a“turn NEWMAN STUDIES JOURNAL 80 to the subject” without ignoring the connection between the subjective and objective dimensions of Christian belief (e.g., 40-42).The difference here is that the process of belief-formation is not exhausted by inductive and deductive arguments; rather the illative sense,as a natural faculty of judgment,plays an indispensable role in assessing the cumulative process of belief-formation. Though the task of tracing Newman’s influence on the Second Vatican Council is instructive, I was left wondering whether such an exercise requires imaginative insight rather than a direct point of contact. Dulles’ concluding chapter (10) realizes this problem. The significance of Newman’s thought is not found in facile connections between the past and present (e.g., Vatican II), but in imaginative possibilities actualized by constructive and complementary insights. Dulles’ concluding remarks aptly summarize my concern: After nearly two centuries, the writings of Newman continue...