John Henry Newman Controversy


#1

Hello Catholics,

I’ve been very excited about the beatification of John Henry Newman with the Pope’s trip nearing closer each day. In the process I have been reading about this great servant of God, but unfortunately I have come across some allegations that of course try to paint the Catholic Church as evil and intolerant and homophobic and whatever else you can think of that could be used to slander the Church.

Homosexuals have particular started controversy by saying that the Church is trying to remove John Henry Newman from Ambrose St John, even implying that they were possible homosexuals. When they exhumed his body the Church was “going against his wishes” and even allege the reason he chose to be buried in a wooden casket was to avoid his remains being taken for relic purposes.

I don’t know how much if any of this is true, but maybe if other people are more knowledgable would care to comment please do. There always has to be some sourpuss for such a great celebration in the Church.


#2

[quote="rben20, post:1, topic:212712"]
Hello Catholics,

I've been very excited about the beatification of John Henry Newman with the Pope's trip nearing closer each day. In the process I have been reading about this great servant of God, but unfortunately I have come across some allegations that of course try to paint the Catholic Church as evil and intolerant and homophobic and whatever else you can think of that could be used to slander the Church.

Homosexuals have particular started controversy by saying that the Church is trying to remove John Henry Newman from Ambrose St John, even implying that they were possible homosexuals. When they exhumed his body the Church was "going against his wishes" and even allege the reason he chose to be buried in a wooden casket was to avoid his remains being taken for relic purposes.

I don't know how much if any of this is true, but maybe if other people are more knowledgable would care to comment please do. There always has to be some sourpuss for such a great celebration in the Church.

[/quote]

If ever anyone deserved Sainthood in the Catholic Church it is John Cardinal Newman.
In every cause towards sainthood of a Catholic there is always the "Devil's Advocate".
The function of the advocate is to bring up legitimate reasons to prevent beatification
of that person.

In the case of Cardinal Newman's beatification it seems that the "Devil's Advocate" is good old Satan himself, still trying to destroy Jesus' Church in anyway he can. Thank God Almighty, all the rumors about Cardinal Newman are just that. There's not a modicum of truth in any of them. So, just ignore and put to rest all the false allegations that you hear about the Cardinal and trust in God and His Church to reveal the truth.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem


#3

I am not particularly knowledgeable about Cardinal Newman, but I do note with irritation the tendency in this day and age to sexualize everything, and particularly for homosexualists to take any deep friendship between two men or two women and call it gay. I think it's a safe bet that if there were any evidence to support the idea that Cardinal Newman was a practicing homosexual, he would not be beatified.


#4

[quote="Javl, post:2, topic:212712"]
If ever anyone deserved Sainthood in the Catholic Church it is John Cardinal Newman.
In every cause towards sainthood of a Catholic there is always the "Devil's Advocate".
The function of the advocate is to bring up legitimate reasons to prevent beatification
of that person.

In the case of Cardinal Newman's beatification it seems that the "Devil's Advocate" is good old Satan himself, still trying to destroy Jesus' Church in anyway he can. Thank God Almighty, all the rumors about Cardinal Newman are just that. There's not a modicum of truth in any of them. So, just ignore and put to rest all the false allegations that you hear about the Cardinal and trust in God and His Church to reveal the truth.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem

[/quote]

I disagree that losing the "devil's advocate" was a good thing. I think that Newman should not be canonized.
"Cardinal Newman is one of the most respected converts to the Catholic Church in recent times and is now up for beatification. While we appreciate his devotional books and apologies, we strongly object to making his book on the "Development of Christian Doctrine" as a tome equal to the heights of Aquinas or other Doctors of the Church, which is not only overstated but dangerous to the Faith. Newman has been raised to the height of Venerable and soon to be Beatified but this can not be assumed as an endorsement of all his writings." catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-henry-newmans-essay-on-development.html

His theory of the development of doctrine, not by intention, but materially it is in grave error especially condemned by St; Pius X in his syllabus against the errors of the modernists.(see link above)


#5

The deeper I get into the theology and teachings of the Church, the easier it is to see the ignorance of those who pit one Church teaching against another, one doctrine against another doctrine, or one Church Council against another Church Council. It is at the deep end of the theological pool that the Church inhabits and when one drags these deep and weighty matters of Her doctrine into the shallow end for a cursory examination and explanation, then the depth is lost and only the obvious can be seen and understood. It is only in their depth that the doctrines come into congruity. It is in the shallow pool that Newman, as well as Vatican II, is derided for "errors".

Newman liked to compare the Church to a tree, which grows organically from a seed to a sapling to eventually a full-grown mature tree. The essence of the tree is the same, but its outward appearance does change. Likewise, the Church does teach the same truths today that it did in previous centuries, but our understanding of these truths has developed and therefore outwardly they may appear on the surface to be different.

ericsammons.com/blog/2010/09/13/newmans-radical-theory/comment-page-1/


#6

[quote="chypmonk, post:4, topic:212712"]
I disagree that losing the "devil's advocate" was a good thing. I think that Newman should not be canonized.
"Cardinal Newman is one of the most respected converts to the Catholic Church in recent times and is now up for beatification. While we appreciate his devotional books and apologies, we strongly object to making his book on the "Development of Christian Doctrine" as a tome equal to the heights of Aquinas or other Doctors of the Church, which is not only overstated but dangerous to the Faith. Newman has been raised to the height of Venerable and soon to be Beatified but this can not be assumed as an endorsement of all his writings." catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-henry-newmans-essay-on-development.html

His theory of the development of doctrine, not by intention, but materially it is in grave error especially condemned by St; Pius X in his syllabus against the errors of the modernists.(see link above)

[/quote]

In the history of the Catholic Church it has been shown, and proven, that even Saints, and Popes, can be biased and in error. Although I have not read thoroughly or studied Cardinal Newman's "Development Of Christian Doctrine" I am quite certain that it can be, and maybe is, equal to the writings of the early doctors of the Church. If it weren't it would not hold such a prestigious place in Church literature. Also, I doubt that it can be as dangerous to the faith as it is made out to be since Catholic, and some Protestant, theologians praise, and use as a reference, this work of his.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem


#7

Perhaps the highlighted fact is one of the reasons our friend with the rabbit avatar is concerned. :wink:

Cardinal Newman is a personal hero of mine, and I do think the Gay Agenda is making a bit much out of it. It seems that many people are imprinting an early 21st century vision of male friendship on to this man of the late 19th, and have judged it ‘homosexual’ in nature. The problem with this estimation is simply that European men from about 1600-1900 didn’t particularly mind intimate relationships with one another. Platonic perfection and philia (brother-love) were considered the highest forms of affection and loyalty, modeled after the Classical world. Men would be on the most intimate and beloved of terms with one another - trying to imitate David and Johnathan, I suppose. It was a noble and extremely loyal type of bonding, and not at all sexual.

Any progressive Catholic who is an active homosexual naturally has a reason to smear his own Church with this nonsense. They want recognition for their sins, so it’s very sad, really. :frowning:


#8

[quote="GloriousOrder, post:7, topic:212712"]
It seems that many people are imprinting an early 21st century vision of male friendship on to this man of the late 19th, and have judged it 'homosexual' in nature. The problem with this estimation is simply that European men from about 1600-1900 didn't particularly mind intimate relationships with one another. Platonic perfection and philia (brother-love) were considered the highest forms of affection and loyalty, modeled after the Classical world. Men would be on the most intimate and beloved of terms with one another - trying to imitate David and Johnathan, I suppose. It was a noble and extremely loyal type of bonding, and not at all sexual.

Any progressive Catholic who is an active homosexual naturally has a reason to smear his own Church with this nonsense. They want recognition for their sins, so it's very sad, really. :(

[/quote]

It is sad that modern society has to hypersexualize everything. Love does not equal sex, and a loving relationship between people of the same or different genders does not automatically imply they are having sex.

It's unfortunate that Cardinal Newman is being tarred with innuendo about a relationship that we know nothing about, and that is taken totally out of the context of its time and place, by people with an agenda. Of course these are the same people who would say that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. So it's probably a lost cause trying to get through to them.


#9

[quote="chypmonk, post:4, topic:212712"]
His theory of the development of doctrine, not by intention, but materially it is in grave error especially condemned by St; Pius X in his syllabus against the errors of the modernists.(see link above)

[/quote]

I read through that link and keyword searched St. Pius X's encyclical. It does not seem Pius X mentions Cardinal Newman at all. It seems that the author of that blog post interpreted some of Pius X's condemnations as referring to Newman's Development of Doctrine. Did I miss the special condemnation of Newman in Pius X's encyclical?


#10

I remember my father kissing and hugging his father, and father-in-law, in greetings and my uncles ( on both sides ) kissing and hugging their father in greetings, and there was no hint whatsoever of any sexual inuendo. I hugged and kissed my father and grandfathers as well as my uncles when I was well into my adulthood. My father died at 90, and I was 65, and I still had hugged and kissed him. My sons and grandsons still follow this custom which is/ was the norm, not only in my family but with others as well. It was the onset of “political correctness” in my estimation, that brought a tragic end to this beautiful expression of
philia.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem


#11

May I remind some of our detractors that John Henry Cardinal Newman is not only a most notable convert to Catholicism but that he and his writings have caused more Protestants to "swim the Tiber" than all others.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem


#12

[quote="MarcoPolo, post:9, topic:212712"]
I read through that link and keyword searched St. Pius X's encyclical. It does not seem Pius X mentions Cardinal Newman at all. It seems that the author of that blog post interpreted some of Pius X's condemnations as referring to Newman's Development of Doctrine. Did I miss the special condemnation of Newman in Pius X's encyclical?

[/quote]

Since Pius the X published his condemnations in 1907 he was condemning the Modernist movement. Newman was already dead by 1890. Newman, at least in his book on Developments, is heretical in aspects but that does not necessarily make him a formal heretic, only mistaken in good faith.

“We shall find ourselves unable,” he says again, “to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa about the baptism of Cornelius; not at Joppa and Caesarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles; not on the death of the last apostle,..."(Developments of Doctrine pg.107)

21: Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles. --condemned. papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

This above quote of Newman is clearly seriously wrong.


#13

I do not think it is wrong, but that you are misunderstanding it. Perhaps this point from the Catechism of the Catholic Church will make things clearer:66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

When Newman writes of the growth of doctrine, he does not refer to new revelation but to an increase in our understanding of it.


#14

I agree with this and would like also to add the fact that the Apostles were a foundation to be built upon. He is not suggesting new revelation, hence the title “Development.”

p.s. chypmonk, earlier you suggested Cardinal Newman was going to be “canonized,” but I understand him to receive “beatification,” i.e. called “Blessed” and not “Saint” (yet). No?


#15

=chypmonk;7065519]Since Pius the X published his condemnations in 1907 he was condemning the Modernist movement. Newman was already dead by 1890. Newman, at least in his book on Developments, is heretical in aspects but that does not necessarily make him a formal heretic, only mistaken in good faith.

“We shall find ourselves unable,” he says again, “to fix an historical point at which the growth of doctrine ceased. Not on the day of Pentecost, for St. Peter had still to learn at Joppa about the baptism of Cornelius; not at Joppa and Caesarea, for St. Paul had to write his Epistles; not on the death of the last apostle,…"(Developments of Doctrine pg.107)

I can’t find that on page 107. What Chapter is it in?


#16

Here is the link. You need to put the page number in the top and then hit enter.

books.google.com/books?id=YRoEAAAAQAAJ&dq=%E2%80%9CAn+Essay+on+the+Development+of+Christian+Doctrine%E2%80%9D+by+John+Henry+Newman&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=lymSTK-_G4T6lwfliK2nCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false


#17

slip of the “tongue” :blush: should have said “beatification”

He is saying that there are new doctrines being created through time.

“The writer considers the growth of the doctrine [of Purgatory] an instance of the action of private judgment; whereas I should now call it an instance of the mind of the church **working out dogmatic truth from implicit feelings **, under secret supernatural guidance.”(pg.417)

St. Pius X again condemns these in his syllabus of Modernist Errors --Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907:
“22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.” – condemned

"The church went forth from the world in haste , as the Israelites from Egypt, ‘with their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs being bound up in their clothes upon their shoulders.’…”(pg. 107)
“…Thus we see how, as time went on, the doctrine of Purgatory was opened upon the apprehension of the church , as a portion or form of penance due for sins committed after baptism: and thus the belief in **this doctrine and the practice of infant baptism **would grow into general reception together.”(pg. 417)

St. Pius X again condemns these in his syllabus of Modernist Errors --Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907— Infant Baptism:
#43. The practice of administering Baptism to infants was a disciplinary evolution, which became one of the causes why the Sacrament was divided into two, namely, Baptism and Penance. – condemned

He is saying that the the apostles didn’t believe in Pugatory it was only a feeling.
Again with says the same of Original Sin:
Thus St. Justin or St. Irenaeus might be without any digested idea of Purgatory, or Original Sin, yet have an intense feeling , which they had not defined or located, both of the fault of our first nature and of the liabilities of our nature regenerate.” (pg.83)

But the Catholic Encyclopedia says the Church Father had more than a feeling:

“It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. **On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. **Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, “The International Critical Commentary: Romans”, 134, 137; Hastings, “A Dictionary of the Bible”, I, 841). It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin.

That this doctrine existed in Christian tradition before St. Augustine’s time is shown by the practice of the Church in the baptism of children… Catholics argued, too, from the ceremonies of baptism, which suppose the child to be under the power of evil, i.e., exorcisms, abjuration of Satan made by the sponsor in the name of the child [Augustine, loc. cit., xxxiv, 63; Denz., n. 140 (96)].” [newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#IV

](“http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#IV”)
and what of St. Paul: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. " (Rom 5:12)


#18

I know very little about Cardinal Newman which is surprising given the amount that I am around Catholic discussions. I do hope that the allegations of homosexuality have been properly looked at or at least properly considered (in addition to his writings). It think that it is careless if not dangerous to simply always presume that "our side" is right and "their side" is wrong.


#19

There are “new doctrines” being created through time, in the sense that the Church may use different words or images to understand and teach Revelation. The doctrine of transubstantiation, for example, did not exist in the form we currently know it until more than a thousand years after the time of the apostles.

Newman is not writing anything that contradicts Church teaching. In the example you give above, he writes of the Church working out dogmas under divine guidance. This is different from the condemned proposition that she relies on human effort,

Newman has a complex and subtle writing style that is very easily misunderstood when taken out of context. I see no reason to question his orthodoxy. Consider that when Pope Leo XIII made him a cardinal in 1879, the Pope was aware of Newman’s body of work, including the book you find so problematic.


#20

I think you may safely assume that the homosexual thing is pure bunk. :slight_smile:

Say rather that the term “transubstantiation” did not come into being until the 11th century, and was formally adopted at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Church has always believed in that which it denotes; but at some point, it became necessary to come up with a precise way of describing it in order to avoid error. Other than that, I agree with your take on Newman. In the extracts quoted above, I understood him to be saying, not that new doctrine develops over time, but that the Church’s understanding of the Deposit of Faith grows over time. The Deposit of Faith is so full of content that we cannot hope to take it all in at a glance, or even in two thousand years.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.