Robert C. CHRISTIE, ed. Saint John Henry Newman: Preserving and Promulgating His Legacy. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020. pp. xiii + 273. $86.50, hb. ISBN: 978-1527536319. Reviewed by Ryan MARR, Mercy College of Health Sciences, Des Moines, IA 50309.

One fascinating aspect of John Henry Newman’s legacy is that, since the time of his death, both conservative and liberal theologians have held him in high esteem. For conservatives, Newman was a man of deep faith, firmly grounded in the apostolic tradition and willing to do battle against the intellectual enemies of the Church. Liberals, meanwhile, have looked back to Newman as a heroic figure who pushed the Church to expand its horizons during an era when it was tempted to shut itself off from the world. Liberals especially admire Newman’s groundbreaking work on the development of doctrine as well as his emphasis on the Church’s duty to consult the faithful—seeking in some cases to carry these ideas beyond what Newman advocated, though presenting themselves as honoring the spirit of his writings. The tension at the heart of this project was captured well by the modernist theologian George Tyrrell who in 1907 wrote: “Just those Catholics for whom Newman would have felt the utmost antipathy – those, namely, who, in spite of the Syllabus, entertain sanguine dreams of ‘coming to terms’ with the modern mind – have learnt to look to him and his methods as the sole hope of their cause.” [Quoted in Aidan Nichols, From Newman to Congar: The Idea of Doctrinal Development from the Victorians to the Second Vatican Council (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 57.] The efforts of Tyrrell and other modernists took a severe blow that same year when Pope Pius X unequivocally condemned the movement. However, their cause has never completely gone away, and certain living theologians basically operate with the same goals in view, even if not explicitly identifying themselves as the heirs to modernism.

I chose to begin my article with a brief overview of this historical background, because the book under review is perhaps best understood as a riposte against misguided efforts to “liberalize” Newman. While the volume is not exactly ideologically driven, it’s clear that the editor and at least a few of the contributors believe that preserving Newman’s legacy involves actively resisting Newman’s “distorters,” to appropriate terminology that Ian Ker deploys in the final chapter of the book. The distorters whom Ker is most concerned about are “historicists” (again, his nomenclature) “who assert that Newman studies have been vitiated by theologians without a proper historical perspective” (p. 235). Ker faults these historicists not so much for their methodology as for, in his view, being poor readers of texts, for substituting “sneering for thinking,” and for “assum[ing] that loathing Newman is necessary for any objective study of him” (pp. 257 and 259). These are serious charges to level against such respected scholars as Cyril O’Regan and Colin Barr, both of whom have done important work in the field, and in my view, Ker needed to do more work in his essay to prove his case. Anyone who has heard O’Regan lecture on Newman, for instance, would be surprised to hear that the Notre Dame professor somehow loathes St. John Henry. In fact, quite the opposite is true, but the charge is so spurious that mounting a counterargument would be superfluous. If you harbor any actual doubts about O’Regan’s admiration for the great nineteenth century saint, I would encourage you to consult his scholarship for yourself, close study of which will be well worth your time.

The remaining essays in the volume do not nearly match Ker’s level of combativeness. While a concern to preserve Newman’s legacy permeates the entire book, the other contributors aim to accomplish this by developing constructive cases for the positive impact of Newman’s thought on later theologians and also by demonstrating the enduring significance of Newman’s work for the challenges that Catholics face today. One of the standout essays is Richard Liddy’s discussion of “John Henry Newman’s Influence on Bernard Lonergan.” Newman’s influence on Lonergan was massive, though the specifics are sometimes difficult to trace out because Lonergan would harness key elements of Newman’s thought without necessarily referencing sources. Generously, Liddy does some of the heavy lifting for us, drawing upon his decades of studying both figures to highlight the key ways in which Newman influenced Lonergan. For Liddy, “Newman began a process which ended up in Lonergan” (p. 70). Both thinkers were interested in the question of what constitutes justified belief. Newman engaged this topic from within “the world of common sense” while Lonergan built on Newman’s insights in order to articulate a theory of the reasoning that justifies faith (ibid.). Liddy’s chapter provides an invaluable introduction to this history.

Two other notable essays in the volume are David Delio’s chapter honoring Fr. John Ford, CSC, and Ford’s own contribution, which looks at “Personalism and Process: John Henry Newman’s Dialogue with ‘Nones.’” Ford has been a force in Newman studies for the past half century, and rightly deserves the praise that Delio lavishes upon him. What makes this chapter so eminently readable is that Delio completed his doctoral studies under Ford’s tutelage at Catholic University of America (CUA), so there is a real personal tone to the chapter. Delio’s commentary, in other words, is not a detached overview of Ford’s scholarship, but provides an intimate glimpse into how Ford went about mentoring students, thereby helping to cultivate the next generation of Newman scholars. Within this role, Ford employed an apprenticeship model that empowered students to practice the scholarly skills that he himself modeled. It would have been easy for someone with Ford’s erudition to mentor students from a distance, but Delio says that was the opposite of how Ford operated. For this reason, Ford’s legacy in the field will carry on not only through his substantial range of publications, but also through the ongoing scholarship of the students whom he trained.

Ford’s acumen as a scholar is on display in chapter two, wherein he applies Newman’s personalism to the question of how best to evangelize the “nones”—i.e., the one in four Americans who report having no religious affiliation. As Ford notes, “Newman realized that approaches and arguments that were simply intellectual or notional were unlikely to convert non-believers” (p. 47). By way of application, the “new evangelization” will have to involve not simply addressing the intellectual objections raised by atheists and agnostics, but also take into account the role of the emotions in the life of faith as well as the human desire for beauty. Newman signaled as much in his Tamworth Reading Room lectures: “The heart is commonly reached, not through the reason, but through the imagination, by means of direct impressions, by the testimony of facts and events, by history, by description. Persons influence us, voices melt us, looks subdue us, deeds inflame us” (Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects, 1878, p. 293). This reality has come into even sharper relief in our own day. Evangelization, if it is to be persuasive, must involve the lived witness of holy women and men, and incorporate the good and the beautiful as much as it appeals to what is true. Furthermore, this sort of approach does not seek to close off questioning but encourages it. In Ford’s words, “Twenty-first century evangelists might then do well to imitate Newman’s approach of both understanding the intellectual difficulties of ‘nones’ and assisting them pastorally in responding to questions about faith” (p. 47). In a Newmanian key, the goal of evangelization is not to coerce other intellects into submission; rather, it is to imitate the patient love of the Incarnate Word—who invited both Jews and Gentiles to partake in the eschatological wedding feast, while at the same time warning his closest followers that many who were invited would ultimately reject the invitation.

This essay by Ford, as well as several others in the collection, make this a worthwhile volume for seasoned Newman scholars to have on their shelf. Those who are looking for an introductory treatment of Newman’s theology may hesitate to purchase it, given the $86 listing price. Personally, I wonder if the cost of the volume could have been reduced by publishing it without illustrations. While the images are high quality and will be of interest to Newman scholars, sometimes the inserted images (e.g., on pages 36 and 76) are gratuitous and do not significantly enhance the reader’s understanding of the material under consideration. The space reserved for illustrations would have been better used for an index, so that readers could easily hunt down references to key figures and subjects. Finally, two paragraphs of material on page 237 are inadvertently repeated. Certainly, not every mistake is going to be caught during copy editing, but this is an unfortunate one, given that it occurs in an essay by a scholar (Ker) of such stature in the field. These infelicities aside, this collection of essays is a noteworthy contribution to ongoing conversations around Newman’s legacy. Given St. John Henry’s recent canonization, as well as the increasing use of English as the default language for transnational theological exchanges, Newman’s theological legacy is likely to play an even more prominent role in future Catholic discourse than it does today. This book will serve as an important reference point in that discourse, particularly as scholars look back to understand how some of Newman’s insights spurred on key developments in twentieth century Catholic theology.