Post by hibernicus on Apr 16, 2010 11:19:49 GMT
While we are on this thread, John Cornwell has a piece in the NEW STATESMAN (the special issue on God - it is still in the shops today but will be replaced by a new one tomorrow) taken from his new book on Newman. This seems to be Cornwell at his worst (and he can be interesting in books like his memoir SEMINARY BOY; his book on the death of Pope John Paul I is also said to be good) - torturing his material to fit a thesis a la HITLER'S POPE.
Basically he criticises the Pope for saying that the sexual abuse crisis is primarily spiritual rather than structural, and hence that it must be addressed by spiritual renewal rather than remaking the Church a la the "spirit of Vatican II". Cornwell speaks of Ratzinger's post-1968 turn to what might vaguely be termed conservatism as if it was (a) self-evidently wrong (b) purely irrational and idiosyncratic. The trouble with this claim is that any revolution has unforeseen consequences, and some who began as revolutionaries will reassess their position in response to these consequences; quite a few of the other advocates of nouvelle theologie, such as Dulles, Balthasar and de Lubac followed the same course. Cornwell's view can only be upheld if he is (a) assuming that the most radical revolutionaries are always right in such a situation or (b) assuming that the secular worldview of his NEW STATESMAN readers is self-evidently correct, so that anything which moves towards it is good and any move away from it is bad. I suspect the latter is true, and that what we see here is salt that has lost its savour.
Cornwell praises Cardinal Newman for his emphasis on friendship and living in community as part of the life of a priest, on the grounds that the isolation of the celibate is one of the causes of clerical abuse. (I can think of quite a few notorious abusers who lived in community as monastics or canons - Fr. Brendan Smyth is an example of the latter; I wonder how Cornwell would explain those.) He accuses the Pope of distorting Newman's views on conscience to justify Papal authoritarianism. I must say this seems a bit odd on the face of it. While Cornwell quotes Newman's criticisms of the limitations of Pius IX and his exaltation by ultra-ultramontanes, he does not in the article touch upon the fact that Newman's whole mature thought is built around the impossibility of separating Christ from the Church and the duty to seek the true church and to submit to it once you are aware of its true nature, nor does he mention how in the LETTER TO THE DUKE OF NORFOLK Newman clearly states but that by conscience he does not mean merely doing whatever you feel like but the duty to form one's conscience by the mind of the Church and then adhere thereto, nor the famous declaration in the Biglietto speech (i.e. on his appointment as Cardinal) that throughout his life he had opposed the spirit of liberalism in religion - the belief that religion is a merely private matter apart from ecclesiastical authority and allegiance. I notice several Newman biographers have already denounced Cornwell's treatment as a travesty, but I will wait until I see the reviews for further details.
The reason I am posting this here is not because of Ker's treatment of Newman but in relation to another saint. Cornwell denounces the Pope's exaltation of St. Jean Marie Vianney as model priest, pointing out his extreme ascetic practices (including self-flagellation and living on mouldy potatoes), his educational limitations, and his puritanism (he prohibited dancing in his parish as an occasion of sin), contrasting this with Newman's belief in moderation and fondness for the occasional glass of good wine.
One does not have to endorse everything about St. Jean-Marie Vianney (his views on dancing do, I am afraid, remind me of a certain type of C19 Irish parish priest) to see this as a travesty. If he had been poor and ignorant, if he had been a fierce ascetic, this would not have marked him out from many of the French rural clergy of his day. The fact is that he was also a remarkably successful evangeliser, and that he struck those who came into contact with him (many well-educated and wealthy, many setting out in a sceptical frame of mind) as a remarkable combination of shrewdness and simplicity, and as a wise counsellor in the confessional. Whether this arose from divine grace, or natural gifts, or both combined, it is well-attested. To omit this aspect of him when discussing why the Pope presents him as a model for priests, is to omit the core of the matter.
Cornwell also fails to mention that Newman also advocated ascetic practices (his gaunt appearance in old age was partly due to fasting) and was a strong believer in ecclesiastical miracles and admirer of ascetic saints.
Furthermore, I do not see how the Church could function if every priest lived as an Oratorian in the style of Newman; there are many personality types and his was only one. Asceticism and self-denial, simple men speaking to simple folk, are needed if the Church is to reach out to the masses rather than being a middle-class lifestyle clique, and I am very much afraid that is where Cornwell's appproach would land her.
Basically he criticises the Pope for saying that the sexual abuse crisis is primarily spiritual rather than structural, and hence that it must be addressed by spiritual renewal rather than remaking the Church a la the "spirit of Vatican II". Cornwell speaks of Ratzinger's post-1968 turn to what might vaguely be termed conservatism as if it was (a) self-evidently wrong (b) purely irrational and idiosyncratic. The trouble with this claim is that any revolution has unforeseen consequences, and some who began as revolutionaries will reassess their position in response to these consequences; quite a few of the other advocates of nouvelle theologie, such as Dulles, Balthasar and de Lubac followed the same course. Cornwell's view can only be upheld if he is (a) assuming that the most radical revolutionaries are always right in such a situation or (b) assuming that the secular worldview of his NEW STATESMAN readers is self-evidently correct, so that anything which moves towards it is good and any move away from it is bad. I suspect the latter is true, and that what we see here is salt that has lost its savour.
Cornwell praises Cardinal Newman for his emphasis on friendship and living in community as part of the life of a priest, on the grounds that the isolation of the celibate is one of the causes of clerical abuse. (I can think of quite a few notorious abusers who lived in community as monastics or canons - Fr. Brendan Smyth is an example of the latter; I wonder how Cornwell would explain those.) He accuses the Pope of distorting Newman's views on conscience to justify Papal authoritarianism. I must say this seems a bit odd on the face of it. While Cornwell quotes Newman's criticisms of the limitations of Pius IX and his exaltation by ultra-ultramontanes, he does not in the article touch upon the fact that Newman's whole mature thought is built around the impossibility of separating Christ from the Church and the duty to seek the true church and to submit to it once you are aware of its true nature, nor does he mention how in the LETTER TO THE DUKE OF NORFOLK Newman clearly states but that by conscience he does not mean merely doing whatever you feel like but the duty to form one's conscience by the mind of the Church and then adhere thereto, nor the famous declaration in the Biglietto speech (i.e. on his appointment as Cardinal) that throughout his life he had opposed the spirit of liberalism in religion - the belief that religion is a merely private matter apart from ecclesiastical authority and allegiance. I notice several Newman biographers have already denounced Cornwell's treatment as a travesty, but I will wait until I see the reviews for further details.
The reason I am posting this here is not because of Ker's treatment of Newman but in relation to another saint. Cornwell denounces the Pope's exaltation of St. Jean Marie Vianney as model priest, pointing out his extreme ascetic practices (including self-flagellation and living on mouldy potatoes), his educational limitations, and his puritanism (he prohibited dancing in his parish as an occasion of sin), contrasting this with Newman's belief in moderation and fondness for the occasional glass of good wine.
One does not have to endorse everything about St. Jean-Marie Vianney (his views on dancing do, I am afraid, remind me of a certain type of C19 Irish parish priest) to see this as a travesty. If he had been poor and ignorant, if he had been a fierce ascetic, this would not have marked him out from many of the French rural clergy of his day. The fact is that he was also a remarkably successful evangeliser, and that he struck those who came into contact with him (many well-educated and wealthy, many setting out in a sceptical frame of mind) as a remarkable combination of shrewdness and simplicity, and as a wise counsellor in the confessional. Whether this arose from divine grace, or natural gifts, or both combined, it is well-attested. To omit this aspect of him when discussing why the Pope presents him as a model for priests, is to omit the core of the matter.
Cornwell also fails to mention that Newman also advocated ascetic practices (his gaunt appearance in old age was partly due to fasting) and was a strong believer in ecclesiastical miracles and admirer of ascetic saints.
Furthermore, I do not see how the Church could function if every priest lived as an Oratorian in the style of Newman; there are many personality types and his was only one. Asceticism and self-denial, simple men speaking to simple folk, are needed if the Church is to reach out to the masses rather than being a middle-class lifestyle clique, and I am very much afraid that is where Cornwell's appproach would land her.