Chapter 37: Advocate of an Educated Catholic Laity
CHAPTER 37
ADVOCATE OF AN EDUCATED
CATHOLIC LAITY
ONCE settled in Birmingham, Newman was free to put into action what he had long hoped for: the Oratory School, a school for laymen from the upper classes that would equal the education imparted at the prestigious “public schools” of Eton and Winchester. Till then, Catholic laymen were obliged to study with future priests at Prior Park (1830), Oscott (1794), Ushaw (1808) and St. Edmund’s (1793) in Ware, and were barred entrance into England’s universities.1 Newman had appealed to the Catholic laity in his Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England:
Your strength lies in your God and your conscience; therefore it lies not in your number. It lies not in your number any more than in intrigue, or combination or worldly wisdom … What I desiderate in Catholics is the gift of bringing out what their religion is … I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold and what they do not, who know their creed so well that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it. I want an intelligent, well-instructed laity; I am not denying you are such already; but I mean to be severe, and, as some would say, exorbitant in my demands, I wish you to enlarge your knowledge, to cultivate your reason, to get an insight into the relation of truth to truth, to learn to view things as they are, to understand how faith and reason stand to each other, what are the bases and principles of Catholicism, and where lie the main inconsistencies and absurdities of the Protestant theory.2
A group of laymen, led by Edward Bellasis, Thomas Allies and Francis Ward, promoted the plan; the group included James Hope-Scott, Lord John Acton, Edward Badeley, Henry Wilberforce and the Duke of Norfolk.3 Newman wrote to Bellasis: “We have decided to commence the School…. We have come to this decision in consequence of the wish expressed by the noblemen and gentlemen, whose names you sent me. We do not think it any presumption in us to undertake it with the sanction of such friends.”4 Bishop Ullathorne initially supported Newman’s plans. Soon, however, under the influence of Archbishop Wiseman, who had been persuaded by Faber and the London Oratorians that a school was contrary to the spirit of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, he entertained doubts about Newman’s plans. Newman feared that Fr. Faber would oppose the plans by proposing a rival school in London. Bellasis assured him “that no attempt at a rival school is likely to be made by Faber without the concurrence and aid of the Duke, and we do not think that, under the circumstances, and considering the Duke knows of your plan and even promised to aid pecuniarily [sic] towards it, he would be likely to get encouragement from that quarter.”5
Overcoming Cardinal Wiseman’s opposition, in May 1859, Newman was able to begin the Oratory School at Birmingham with seven boys, all of them sons of converts. Wiseman, however, was the cause of much suffering for Newman on other projects too; a notable one was the project for a new English translation of the Bible.6 In 1857, Wiseman informed Newman that the second Provincial Synod of Westminster celebrated in 1855 had decided to entrust him with a new English translation of the Bible. Since the Douay-Rheims translation with modifications by Bishop Challoner in the seventeenth century, there had not been another English translation. After asking Wiseman for a copy of the synod’s decree and reading it himself, Newman undertook this major project.7 He sought advice from many scholars for the undertaking, chose three Oratorians to work on it, and prepared a detailed budget and work plan, which he sent to the Archbishop of Westminster.
Wiseman, who before the synod had wished that his friends at the London Oratory would undertake the translation, delayed in replying to Newman’s letters. In the summer of 1858, Newman learned from his good friend William Clifford, Bishop of Clifton, that Wiseman had blocked the project.8 In 1859, Newman felt obliged to abandon the undertaking, for which he had made plans with great interest. Newman had used a large sum of his own money to begin the translation, but he realized that without the support of Cardinal Wiseman, the project was doomed.
Dropping the translation of the Bible engendered great disappointment in Newman, yet he reacted with respect and charity toward the English bishops, as he had done earlier toward the Irish bishops. His obedience and love for the Church was also tested in 1859, when he reluctantly agreed to take up the editorship of The Rambler. This journal had been started ten years earlier by John M. Capes, an Oxford convert. It was a publication for Catholic intellectuals that was critical of the two most circulated Catholic periodicals, the Dublin Review and The Tablet.9 The Rambler had acquired an anti-Roman tone and it challenged the Catholic bishops on subjects of public policy, such as education. At the end of 1858, Lord Acton had stirred opposition when he described St. Augustine as “the father of Jansenism.” Newman wrote to Acton, proprietor of the Rambler: “Power, to be powerful, and strength, to be strong and effective, must be exerted only now and then—I then would be strong and effective, and affect public opinion without offending piety or good sense.”10 At the behest of Archbishop Ullathorne, Newman acted as intermediary between Simpson Capes, the editor, and the bishops. Simpson agreed to relinquish the editorship, and Newman reluctantly became the editor of The Rambler.
Newman wished to support a publication of high intellectual level for Catholic laypersons, which was moderate and open to liberal opinions.11 In the May issue of the journal, he ran into trouble when he voiced the idea that if laypersons had been consulted in the preparation of the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception (1854), it would be logical that they could be consulted in important practical matters such as education. The bishops were then discussing the proposal of a royal commission on education and feared pressure from laymen. Soon negative criticism against Newman arose from a professor in dogmatic theology at Ushaw and on the part of bishops. Wiseman, who had established the Dublin Review, also did not like to see Newman at the head of a competing publication.12 As a result of all this, Ullathorne asked Newman to step down as editor, and Newman immediately followed the order of his superior. Writing to Henry Wilberforce, Newman explained that upon being asked to resign he had prayed to see God’s will. Newman thought he was writing what needed to be said, but told his friend, “I have always preached that things which are really useful, still are done, according to God’s will, at one time or another—and that, if you attempt at a wrong time, what in itself is right, you perhaps become a heretic or schismatic.… Of course it is discouraging to be out of joint with time, and to be snubbed and stopped as soon as I begin to act.”13
Upon resignation and by indication of his bishop, Newman wrote a lengthy article titled “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine,” which was published in the July issue of the magazine.14 In the article Newman explained the doctrine later called sensus fidelium. Newman distinguished between consultation on practical matters and matters of Catholic faith; in the former, the hierarchy sought advice for their decisions, whereas in the latter they only sought the verification of the existence of a given doctrine. Consultation by the Holy See or bishops did not mean submission to the laity. Newman explained, “Doubtless their advice, their opinion, their judgment on the question of definition is not asked; but the matter of fact, viz. their belief, is sought for, as a testimony to that apostolical Tradition, on which alone any doctrine whatsoever can be defined.”15 But for Newman, the consent of the faithful was more than a witness to the truth. The faithful, guided by the Holy Spirit, understood the content of the faith instinctively and were very sensitive to error or scandal. Newman offered an example from his book, The Arians of the Fourth Century in which he showed how this was a period when “the divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the Episcopate …”16
Newman’s insightful article, however, only awakened more misunderstanding, and Bishop Thomas J. Brown of Newport accused Newman of heresy before the Holy See.17 Newman wished to find out what propositions were objectionable, and he wrote to Ullathorne, who was in Rome. Informed by Ullathorne of the accusation, Wiseman expressed sadness and notified Newman that he would take care of the matter. The Congregation for Propaganda Fidei sent Wiseman a list of passages in the article that might be objectionable, or require certain qualification, but Wiseman dropped the matter and thus Newman never received this important information. The Prefect of Propaganda, Alessandro Barnabó, mistakenly interpreted Newman’s silence as disobedience.
Some years later he confided to Emily Bowles regarding the Rambler:
I not only made the best of it, but I really determined to make it my work. All those questions of the day which make so much noise now, Faith and Reason, Inspiration, etc etc would have been, according to my ability, worked out or fairly opened. Of course I required elbow room—but this was impossible. Our good Bishop, who has ever acted as a true friend, came after the publication of the first number, and advised me to give up the Editorship. He said I had caused dissatisfaction. I only edited two numbers; but I wrote enough to cause one of our Bishops formally to denounce one of the articles to Propaganda.18
Newman explained that Propaganda did not know of “the niceties of the English language.” It was a “quasi-military power, extraordinary, for missionary countries” but did not understand an intellectual movement.19
This episode saddened Newman and made him retire from public life. He was more cautious with projects that involved Cardinal Wiseman and Rome, and wished to be left alone. From 1859 to 1864, he did not publish any works. Newman felt Propaganda Fidei was on top of him or with “a chain on my arm.”20 He wrote Emily that in earlier times in history, the Holy See was a court of ultimate appeal, but now he felt that there was no freedom of opinion. Instead of having his bishop judge, someone would denounce him directly to Rome. It was a time of interior suffering for Newman. He felt he was not using his talents and was thwarted from doing so. This injustice and others, which he experienced years later, helped to purify his intentions and took him to a new height of spiritual life in which he became more detached from others’ opinions. He accepted these injustices as the spiritual Cross that he was asked to bear.21
In 1860, the year following the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, a volume of seven essays with a critical rationalist approach to Sacred Scripture and Revelation, titled Essays and Reviews, was published.22 In light of this publication, Newman began to write once more on Faith and Reason and on the certitude obtained through Faith. His writing, culminating ten years later with the publication of A Grammar of Assent, was a continuation of the University Sermons.23 Newman thought that the German theories of biblical criticism influencing Anglican writers should be criticized; this would, however, first require serious study on the part of Catholics. In 1861, Newman studied the nature of Biblical Inspiration in response to the ideas put forth in Essays and Reviews. That same year, Cardinal Wiseman began the Academy of the Catholic Religion to introduce Catholic thought into the intellectual debate. Newman excused himself from forming part of this academy, which Wiseman inaugurated with a discourse having a triumphal tone.24
In 1861, the Oratory School at Birmingham faced a grave crisis under Fr. Nicholas Darnell, assigned to this post by Newman. Without consulting Newman, Fr. Darnell threatened to dismiss Mrs. Wooten, the woman in charge of the motherly attention of the boys, over serious disagreements.25 Mrs. Wooten, who was loyal to Newman, would not allow Darnell to take complete control of the school.26 Under Darnell the school faced serious disciplinary problems and a neglect of the religious formation of the boys. After a great deal of tension, Darnell, who left the Oratory, resigned with all the staff of Masters, and then resisted entreaties to come back. Newman managed to overcome the crisis by regaining the confidence of parents, which he did by hiring new teachers and placing the reliable Ambrose St. John as headmaster. Fortunately the school did not lose any boys and even increased in numbers. Newman felt that this had been the gravest crisis experienced by the Birmingham community. He wrote an Oxford friend and convert, “But the real affliction has been the blow to the Congregation, the severance of such long and intimate ties—and the enormous scandal.”27
Newman’s health was seriously affected by the events at the Oratory School (he was unable to sleep) and he was obliged by doctors to take long periods of rest and to go away for some time. To Sister Mary Gabriel Du Boulay, who sent him a consoling letter he said: “I have not the faith, patience, and resignation which I ought to have—but this is another matter. My ailment is a physical effect, I may call it, on my mind. It is said that in a naval engagement, while the vessels near, and the men are standing quite still, the knees of the bravest shake.”28 But Newman was suffering also from many other slights and gestures of ungratefulness that had surfaced in his mind. He confided a few days later to Maria Giberne: “As for me, my writing days are for the present day over. The long cares I have had, the disappointments of religious hopes, and the sense of cruelty in word and deed on the part of those from whom I deserved other things,—a penance which I have had in one shape or another for thirty years,—at length have fallen on my nerves …”29 Newman had other reasons for sorrow: Frederick Bowles, who had lived at Littlemore and converted in 1845, unexpectedly left the Oratory in 1860, and joined the diocesan clergy. He did, however, maintain contact with Newman and remained his friend.30 In 1862, John Stanislas Flanagan, who together with Bowles had been part of the Oratory since 1848, also left the Oratory. Returning to Ireland, Flanagan joined the diocesan clergy of a diocese in his homeland.
________
1The Jesuits had established Stonyhurst College in Lancashire (1794), and the Benedictines had schools at Ampleforth Abbey (1802) and Downside Abbey (1814).
2John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England, 388-391.
3Paul Shrimpton, A Catholic Eton? Newman’s Oratory School (Leominster: Gracewing, 2005), 40-41; 60.
4LD, Vol. XVIII, JHN to Edward Bellasis (April 23, 1858), 330-332, 331.
5LD, Vol. XVIII, Edward Bellasis to JHN (December 25, 1858), 554.
6AW, 256-60.
7LD, Vol. XVIII, JHN to P. N. Lynch, Bishop of Charleston, (December 7, 1858), 531-534.
8Morales, Newman (1801-1890), 253.
9Ibid., 255.
10LD, Vol. XVIII, JHN to Sir John Acton, (December 31, 1858), 559-562, 562.
11Morales, Newman (1801-1890), 258.
12Ibid., 259.
13LD, Vol. XIX, JHN to Henry Wilberforce, (July 17, 1859), 179-180; 179.
14John Henry Newman, “On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine,” The Rambler (July 1859): 198-230, available at: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/rambler/consulting.html.
15Ibid., 199.
16Ibid, 213.
17Morales, Newman (1801-1890), 261.
18LD, Vol. XX, JHN to Emily Bowles, (May 19, 1863), 445-448; 447.
19Ibid, 446.
20Ibid, 446.
21AW, 275.
22Morales, Newman (1801-1890), 266.
23Ibid., 266.
24Ibid., 267; Robert Gray, Cardinal Manning, A Biography (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985), 183.
25Shrimpton, A Catholic Eton? Newman’s Oratory School, 116-124.
26Morales, Newman (1801-1890), 272.
27LD, Vol XX, JHN to John Hungerford Pollen, (January 21, 1862), 131-132; 131.
28Ibid, JHN to Sister Mary Gabriel Du Boulay, (August 18, 1861), 29-31, 29.
29Ibid, JHN to Maria Giberne (Miss M. R. Giberne), (August 28, 1861), 37-38, 37.
30Morales, Newman (1801-1890), 273.