Post by hibernicus on May 13, 2010 13:43:52 GMT
John Cornwell has been launching more attacks on the Pope in relation to Cardinal Newman, this time in the Sunday Times. I must say he does raise some legit questions about whether the miracle on the basis of which Newman is to be beatified really deserves that name (it boils down to relief of back pain after surgery) but some of his claims about Newman's views are utter distortions which ought to be dispelled by the most cursory acquaintance with Newman's writings. The only explanation for this is that Cornwell is so obsessed with his own brand of liberal Catholicism that he automatically projects it onto Newman without realising how much the Cardinal differed from him. Here are a couple of rebuttals, with further links, including to Cornwell's article. Below I offer my own mini-fisk.
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/attack-on-church-continues-in-uk-through-ven-jh-newman/
the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2010/05/that-toast-quote-again.html
EXTRCT FROM CORNWELL BEGINS
There are Catholics who fail to see the funny side of appropriating miracles to prove a person’s holiness. Clifford Longley, senior columnist and leader writer on the Catholic weekly The Tablet, is scathing: “The idea that God would demonstrate that a saint is truly in heaven by instantly healing someone’s fatal illness because he has been petitioned by the said saint — who is in turn responding to the petitions of the sufferer or those near to him — seems to me so simplistic, so credulous, so presumptuous, so mechanical and so manipulative, that it brings no credit to the Catholic religion and indeed confirms the worst prejudices of its enemies.” THIS SAYS MORE ABOUT THE CULTURAL PREJUDICES OF CLIFFORD LONGLEY AND CORNWELL THAN IT DOES ABOUT NEWMAN - IT AMOUNTS TO DOUBT ABOUT INTERCESSORY PRAYER AND DIVINE INTERVENTION IN THE MATERIAL WORLD. GOD IS NOT AN ENGLISH GENTLEMAN ANY MORE THAN HE IS A ROMAN ARISTOCRAT
Scientists argue that scientific explanations depend on current theories in science, which are valid only until falsified or proven otherwise. Highly placed Jesuits in Rome have long pressed the Vatican to abandon its quest for scientifically “tested” physical miracles and to look for “moral” and “spiritual” ones — the power of prayer to heal bereavement or cure an alcoholic or a drug-taker. They argue that it is more difficult to heal a hardened or broken heart than to cure a physical illness. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN MIRACLES AS PHYSICAL PHENOMENA. I MIGHT ADD THAT IT IS MUCH EASIER TO COUNTERFEIT A 'MORAL MIRACLE' But Benedict XVI, like his predecessor, John Paul II, is having none of it. The papal role as final adjudicator of the scientifically tested supernatural must stay. CORNWELL THUS SUGGESTS THAT THE PAPACY UPHOLDS BELIEF IN MIRACLES ONLY TO BUTTRESS ITS OWN AUTHORITY AND NOT FOR SUCH TRIFLING CONSIDERATIONS AS SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. THIS ASSUMPTION THAT THE OPPONENT MUST INEVITABLY BE DISHONEST REMINDS ME OF ATTILA SINKE GUIMARAES [FOR WHOM SEE MY POST IN SSPX SCHISM UP TO DATE]
Cardinal Newman would have vehemently opposed the popes on the issue. He argued that the faithful should be prepared to accept that miracles occur within nature, not outside it. TRUE, BUT NEWMAN DID NOT MEAN BY THIS THAT PHYSICAL MIRACLES DO NOT HAPPEN AT ALL. HIS WORKS CONTAIN LONG DISCUSSIONS ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF RECORDED ACCOUNTS OF MIRACLES FROM MEDIAEVAL AND PATRISTIC SOURCES; WHILE NEWMAN WAS PREPARED TO WITHDRAW WHEN CONVINCED NATURAL EXPLANATIONS WERE POSSIBLE - E.G. FOR THE PHENOMENON OF CERTAIN CONFESSORS SPEAKING AFTEER THEIR TONGUES WERE CUT OUT - HE MAINTAINED THAT MIRACLES CERTAINLY DID AND DO OCCUR AND CANNOT RATIONALLY BE DISMISSED A PRIORI. ONE OF KINGSLEY'S CRITICISMS OF NEWMAN WAS PRECISELY THAT HE WAS UNDULY CREDULOUS ABOUT ACCOUNTS OF MIRACLES, AND HONESTY COMPELS ME TO ADMIT THAT KINGSLEY WAS NOT ALTOGETHER MISTAKEN ON THIS POINT. He preached, in any case, that “nothing is gained by miracles, nothing comes of miracles, as regards our religious views, principles and habits. Hard as it is to believe, miracles certainly do not make men better”. NEWMAN WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS OF MIRACLES AS APOLOGETIC TOOLS - THEY DO NOT INSTANTLY CONVERT BELIEF INTO UNBELIEF. NEWMAN ALSO SAID THAT THE ANGLICAN CHURCH WAS NOT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AND THAT MERE BELIEF IN GOD WAS NOT THE SAME AS CHRISTIANITY - THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE BELIEVED ANGLICANS WERE NO BETTER THAN PAGANS, OR THEISTS THAN ATHEISTS. The final irony is that Newman himself was utterly opposed to the idea of his own beatification. To thwart attempts to make a cult of his remains, he ordered that he be buried in a rich compost so that his corpse would decompose rapidly — an action that cheated the saint-makers. NEWMAN WS NOT OPPOSED TO THE VENERATION OF SAINTS PER SE AS HIS WRITINGS - E.G. ON THE ORATORIAN FOUNDER ST. PHILIP NERI AMPLY PROVE. HUMILITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING OPPOSED TO BEATIFICATION PER SE. IF NEWMAN HAD ANTICIPATED HIS OWN CANONISATION - A LA FR. MACIEL WHO GAVE INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW HIS ORDER SHOULD GO ABOUT PROMOTING HIS CAUSE - THIS WOULD BE A STRONG ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS NOT WORTHY OF IT. When the clerical gravediggers attempted an exhumation to retrieve his relics in October 2008, they found nothing except the coffin’s brass plate and handles.
END OF EXTRACT
Some more responses to Cornwell's claims - Hermeneutic of Continuity discusses Pope Benedict's rebuttal of the view that Newman means by "conscience" a purely subjective process. This is a very revealing quote:
EXTRACT
In this lecture, Ratzinger also made a point which is relevant to other attempts to smear him. He tells of a particular conversation with academic colleagues concerning the justifying power of the erroneous conscience. Someone countered that if this thesis were true, then the Nazi SS would be justified and we should seek them in heaven because "they carried out all their atrocities with fanatic conviction and complete certainty of conscience". Another colleague responded with assurance that this would be the case [I.E. THIS COLLEAGUE STATED THAT SS MEN WHO TORTURED AND MURDERED THE INNOCENT IN THE BELIEF THAT THIS WAS THE RIGHT THING WOULD IN FACT CERTAINLY BE SAVED.]. Ratzinger comments:
Since that conversation, I knew with complete certainty that something was wrong with the theory of justifying power of the subjective conscience, that, in other words, a concept of conscience which leads to such conclusions must be false.
END
Ian Ker argues that Newman's thought is the key to resolving the post-Vatican II crises
EXTRACTS
Where Newman anticipated the Council in his theology, he was always careful not to exaggerate, not to lose his balance. It is well known, for example, that Newman championed the cause of the laity, but he never conceived of some kind of lay as opposed to clerical Church. From his study of the Greek Fathers he understood the Church to be primarily a sacramental communion, the organic community that Vatican II embraced in the two opening chapters of the Constitution on the Church. The Church was not primarily hierarchical, as post-Tridentine theology assumed, but nor was it a lay democracy. Again, for instance, Newman understood Revelation to be primarily the revealing of God in Christ rather than the revealing of doctrinal propositions, but because his theology of Revelation was personal rather than propositional that did not mean that he did not think doctrinal truths to be essential for our apprehension of God in Christ...
Deep in history, Newman understood very clearly that Councils move "in contrary declarations.... perfecting, completing, supplying each other". Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility needed to be complemented, modified by a much larger teaching on the Church, so, Newman correctly predicted, there would be another Council which would do just that. But equally Vatican II needs complementing and modifying. Newman keenly appreciated that Councils have unintended consequences by virtue both of what they say and what they don't say. The tendency is for the former to be exaggerated, as happened in the wake of Vatican II, when one might have supposed that the Church had no other business except justice and peace, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, and so on. But what Councils do not deal with, and therefore neglect, is also of great significance: thus Vatican II was deafeningly silent about what was to become the main preoccupation of the pontificate of John Paul II: evangelisation.
END
www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/opinion/o0000315.shtml
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/attack-on-church-continues-in-uk-through-ven-jh-newman/
the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2010/05/that-toast-quote-again.html
EXTRCT FROM CORNWELL BEGINS
There are Catholics who fail to see the funny side of appropriating miracles to prove a person’s holiness. Clifford Longley, senior columnist and leader writer on the Catholic weekly The Tablet, is scathing: “The idea that God would demonstrate that a saint is truly in heaven by instantly healing someone’s fatal illness because he has been petitioned by the said saint — who is in turn responding to the petitions of the sufferer or those near to him — seems to me so simplistic, so credulous, so presumptuous, so mechanical and so manipulative, that it brings no credit to the Catholic religion and indeed confirms the worst prejudices of its enemies.” THIS SAYS MORE ABOUT THE CULTURAL PREJUDICES OF CLIFFORD LONGLEY AND CORNWELL THAN IT DOES ABOUT NEWMAN - IT AMOUNTS TO DOUBT ABOUT INTERCESSORY PRAYER AND DIVINE INTERVENTION IN THE MATERIAL WORLD. GOD IS NOT AN ENGLISH GENTLEMAN ANY MORE THAN HE IS A ROMAN ARISTOCRAT
Scientists argue that scientific explanations depend on current theories in science, which are valid only until falsified or proven otherwise. Highly placed Jesuits in Rome have long pressed the Vatican to abandon its quest for scientifically “tested” physical miracles and to look for “moral” and “spiritual” ones — the power of prayer to heal bereavement or cure an alcoholic or a drug-taker. They argue that it is more difficult to heal a hardened or broken heart than to cure a physical illness. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN MIRACLES AS PHYSICAL PHENOMENA. I MIGHT ADD THAT IT IS MUCH EASIER TO COUNTERFEIT A 'MORAL MIRACLE' But Benedict XVI, like his predecessor, John Paul II, is having none of it. The papal role as final adjudicator of the scientifically tested supernatural must stay. CORNWELL THUS SUGGESTS THAT THE PAPACY UPHOLDS BELIEF IN MIRACLES ONLY TO BUTTRESS ITS OWN AUTHORITY AND NOT FOR SUCH TRIFLING CONSIDERATIONS AS SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. THIS ASSUMPTION THAT THE OPPONENT MUST INEVITABLY BE DISHONEST REMINDS ME OF ATTILA SINKE GUIMARAES [FOR WHOM SEE MY POST IN SSPX SCHISM UP TO DATE]
Cardinal Newman would have vehemently opposed the popes on the issue. He argued that the faithful should be prepared to accept that miracles occur within nature, not outside it. TRUE, BUT NEWMAN DID NOT MEAN BY THIS THAT PHYSICAL MIRACLES DO NOT HAPPEN AT ALL. HIS WORKS CONTAIN LONG DISCUSSIONS ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF RECORDED ACCOUNTS OF MIRACLES FROM MEDIAEVAL AND PATRISTIC SOURCES; WHILE NEWMAN WAS PREPARED TO WITHDRAW WHEN CONVINCED NATURAL EXPLANATIONS WERE POSSIBLE - E.G. FOR THE PHENOMENON OF CERTAIN CONFESSORS SPEAKING AFTEER THEIR TONGUES WERE CUT OUT - HE MAINTAINED THAT MIRACLES CERTAINLY DID AND DO OCCUR AND CANNOT RATIONALLY BE DISMISSED A PRIORI. ONE OF KINGSLEY'S CRITICISMS OF NEWMAN WAS PRECISELY THAT HE WAS UNDULY CREDULOUS ABOUT ACCOUNTS OF MIRACLES, AND HONESTY COMPELS ME TO ADMIT THAT KINGSLEY WAS NOT ALTOGETHER MISTAKEN ON THIS POINT. He preached, in any case, that “nothing is gained by miracles, nothing comes of miracles, as regards our religious views, principles and habits. Hard as it is to believe, miracles certainly do not make men better”. NEWMAN WAS ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS OF MIRACLES AS APOLOGETIC TOOLS - THEY DO NOT INSTANTLY CONVERT BELIEF INTO UNBELIEF. NEWMAN ALSO SAID THAT THE ANGLICAN CHURCH WAS NOT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AND THAT MERE BELIEF IN GOD WAS NOT THE SAME AS CHRISTIANITY - THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE BELIEVED ANGLICANS WERE NO BETTER THAN PAGANS, OR THEISTS THAN ATHEISTS. The final irony is that Newman himself was utterly opposed to the idea of his own beatification. To thwart attempts to make a cult of his remains, he ordered that he be buried in a rich compost so that his corpse would decompose rapidly — an action that cheated the saint-makers. NEWMAN WS NOT OPPOSED TO THE VENERATION OF SAINTS PER SE AS HIS WRITINGS - E.G. ON THE ORATORIAN FOUNDER ST. PHILIP NERI AMPLY PROVE. HUMILITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING OPPOSED TO BEATIFICATION PER SE. IF NEWMAN HAD ANTICIPATED HIS OWN CANONISATION - A LA FR. MACIEL WHO GAVE INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW HIS ORDER SHOULD GO ABOUT PROMOTING HIS CAUSE - THIS WOULD BE A STRONG ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS NOT WORTHY OF IT. When the clerical gravediggers attempted an exhumation to retrieve his relics in October 2008, they found nothing except the coffin’s brass plate and handles.
END OF EXTRACT
Some more responses to Cornwell's claims - Hermeneutic of Continuity discusses Pope Benedict's rebuttal of the view that Newman means by "conscience" a purely subjective process. This is a very revealing quote:
EXTRACT
In this lecture, Ratzinger also made a point which is relevant to other attempts to smear him. He tells of a particular conversation with academic colleagues concerning the justifying power of the erroneous conscience. Someone countered that if this thesis were true, then the Nazi SS would be justified and we should seek them in heaven because "they carried out all their atrocities with fanatic conviction and complete certainty of conscience". Another colleague responded with assurance that this would be the case [I.E. THIS COLLEAGUE STATED THAT SS MEN WHO TORTURED AND MURDERED THE INNOCENT IN THE BELIEF THAT THIS WAS THE RIGHT THING WOULD IN FACT CERTAINLY BE SAVED.]. Ratzinger comments:
Since that conversation, I knew with complete certainty that something was wrong with the theory of justifying power of the subjective conscience, that, in other words, a concept of conscience which leads to such conclusions must be false.
END
Ian Ker argues that Newman's thought is the key to resolving the post-Vatican II crises
EXTRACTS
Where Newman anticipated the Council in his theology, he was always careful not to exaggerate, not to lose his balance. It is well known, for example, that Newman championed the cause of the laity, but he never conceived of some kind of lay as opposed to clerical Church. From his study of the Greek Fathers he understood the Church to be primarily a sacramental communion, the organic community that Vatican II embraced in the two opening chapters of the Constitution on the Church. The Church was not primarily hierarchical, as post-Tridentine theology assumed, but nor was it a lay democracy. Again, for instance, Newman understood Revelation to be primarily the revealing of God in Christ rather than the revealing of doctrinal propositions, but because his theology of Revelation was personal rather than propositional that did not mean that he did not think doctrinal truths to be essential for our apprehension of God in Christ...
Deep in history, Newman understood very clearly that Councils move "in contrary declarations.... perfecting, completing, supplying each other". Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility needed to be complemented, modified by a much larger teaching on the Church, so, Newman correctly predicted, there would be another Council which would do just that. But equally Vatican II needs complementing and modifying. Newman keenly appreciated that Councils have unintended consequences by virtue both of what they say and what they don't say. The tendency is for the former to be exaggerated, as happened in the wake of Vatican II, when one might have supposed that the Church had no other business except justice and peace, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, and so on. But what Councils do not deal with, and therefore neglect, is also of great significance: thus Vatican II was deafeningly silent about what was to become the main preoccupation of the pontificate of John Paul II: evangelisation.
END
www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/opinion/o0000315.shtml