The young John Henry Newman |
The “Father of the Oxford Movement” was really
John Keble who preached the famous sermon “National Apostasy” on July 14, 1833
in the University Church of Saint Mary the Virgin, Oxford, but the main driver
behind the movement—and the best known of its proponents—was John Henry
Newman. Indeed it was Newman who made
the claim—which has stuck—that it was Keble’s sermon that gave birth to the
movement.
Newman had not always been a
member of the High Church party and, in fact, was for the first thirty years of
his life tied to the Low Church or Evangelical Party. The oldest of six children of a prosperous
London Banker he was sent to George Nicholas’ Great Ealing School where the
faculty included Louis-Philip Bourbon (future King of France), and George
Huxley (father of Thomas Henry Huxley, the English Biologist and advocate of
Darwinism). Fellow alumni included
Thomas Huxley and W.S. Gilbert.) The
school was something of a hotbed of Evangelicalism and the Classics Master,
Walter Mayers, loaned the young student books on Calvinism. To be fair, Newman also read the religious
skeptics at this point—Voltaire, Rousseau, Paine, and Hume. And more significant for his later career, he
became immersed in the romantic novels of Walter Scott. The skeptics had little influence on him
other than to give him a life-long horror of Enlightenment liberalism, but
Calvinism pierced his soul immediately.
Scott was only a seed that would later bloom as Newman moved away from
Evangelicalism into High Church theology—but that is still a way off.
The particular type of
Calvinism to which Newman was exposed was, in the day, referred to as “Clapham
Sect” Calvinism. It was a movement within
the Church of England that was classically Calvinist with its emphasis on
double pre-destination and justification by faith alone but, perhaps somewhat
incongruously, it was tied to social progressivism with opposition to slavery
and the slave trade as well as to concern for England’s underclass. Newman went on to Oxford, Trinity College,
where his desire to succeed produced an anxiety that led him to flub his
exams—graduating with only third honors.
Nevertheless, he was elected a Fellow of Oriel College the following
year. A colleague at Oriel was Edward Bouverie Pusey who was to play a
significant role in the Oxford movement as well. In 1824 Newman was ordained deacon in the
Church of England and ordained priest the following year. At Oxford he met Hurrell
Froude, another young priest of the Church of England. Froude and Newman developed a particularly
intimate friendship which, while there is no evidence of sexual intimacy, would
fall today at least under the theme of “bromance.”
Our modern word, “homosexual”
only appears in the last third of the 19th century. The word is a hybrid of the Greek (‘ομοσ,
“same”) and the Latin (sexus, “sex” or “gender.”). The creation of a word to describe same-sex
attraction permitted people to organize their thoughts in a new way:
understanding the difference between a person normally attracted to members of
the opposite sex having sexual relations with a member of their same sex and a
person whose sexual attraction was normally towards a person of their own sex. In other words, the creation of the word
“homosexual” helped people understand that sexual attraction to members of the
opposite sex is not universal and same-sex attraction needs to be considered on its own terms
rather than as an aberration form some imagined heterosexual norm. Of course, this century and a half later,
there are still some—notably in the backwoods of Kentucky—who just don’t get it, but I don’t
want to wander down that path right now.
For the moment we will concentrate on John Henry Newman who, like his
contemporaries, did not have the tools to understand the deeper levels of the
human psyche but who were able to choose to conform the moral norms of both
religion and society in that day. Newman and Froude could not have understood
the probable complexities of their relationship but they did have clear sense of moral right and wrong and there is no evidence of them crossing the moral
boundaries of the day.
Froude was, tragically, ill
with tuberculosis and Newman had accompanied him and his father on a tour of
the Mediterranean in 1833 returning only just in time to hear the famous sermon
that changed the course of the Church of England.
In the latter 1820’s and 1830’s
Newman’s own theology had gradually been evolving as his scholarship led him
into reading the Fathers of the Church.
He came to see the weaknesses of Calvinism, in particular in its
ecclesiology. Calvin saw the Church as
an invisible association of those pre-destined to salvation rather than the
visible and concrete communion of the Baptized.
This overly spiritualized notion of Church made the Church irrelevant to
salvation as, since it was known only to God who were in and who were out, the
Church was of no human use. Everything
that mattered lay simply in the relationship of the individual soul to God—had
God chosen that person for salvation or for damnation. In Calvin’s scheme Church, sacraments, piety,
prayer—all is quite irrelevant to the final outcome and Newman came to
recognize that Calvinism offered him only that blind alley.
Moreover, Newman and Froude—both
fellows at Oriel—took a new approach to their role as tutors, offering
spiritual guidance as well as intellectual vision to the young men entrusted to
them. This did not go over well with the
liberal establishment in the University where Enlightenment secularism still
held sway. As Newman’s views grew more
and more “High Church,” the Evangelical wing grew equally alarmed with his
influence.
As stated in a previous
posting, Keble’s sermon “National Apostasy” triggered a series of tracts
outlining and defending the High Church position. Newman was most assiduous in his contribution
to the Tracts For The Times, writing
almost a third of the 90 Tracts. Newman
wrote the final “Tract 90” in which he asserted that there was nothing in the
39 Articles of the Church of England that could not legitimately be interpreted
in a manner consistent with the Catholic Faith.
This was too much and the outcry caused the Bishop of Oxford, Richard
Bagot, to insist on there being no further tracts published. Bagot was actually sympathetic to the High
Church party and ordered Newman and the other “Tractarians” to desist in order
to protect them from being disciplined by the Church and even possibly by the
Government as the Church was Established by Law as the State Church and the
government, from the newly ascended Queen, Victoria down to her ministers, were
quite avidly Protestant in their Churchmanship.
In all this it must be
remembered that Newman’s role at Oxford was not primarily academic but
priestly. He held the vicarship of Saint
Mary the Virgin, the University Church, which was a benefice in the gift of
Oriel College. In addition to the Tracts, Newman’s Sunday afternoon
sermons were exceedingly popular with the undergraduates and his influence over
the spiritual life of the University was quite marked. This alarmed the Evangelical Faction and
Newman was increasingly isolated from the Academic side of the University.
In all this Newman was no
ritualist. His focus was always on the
theological principals and he was no liturgical innovator but stuck quite close
to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the official rites of the Church of
England. While many others of the High Church party were rapidly introducing
Catholic practices into their Anglican parishes: Eucharistic Vestments, candles
and crucifixes on the altar, incense, processions, statues and even
counterfeiting the rubrics of the Roman Mass upon the Anglican Holy Communion,
Newman was sticking to his surplice and hood and a reverent but plain liturgy. He would later write Edward Pusey about this
stage in his spiritual journey.
The utmost delicacy was
observed on all hands in giving me advice: only one warning remains on my mind,
and it came from Dr. Griffiths, the late Vicar-Apostolic of the London district.
He warned me against books of devotion of the Italian school, which were just
at that time coming into England; and when I asked him what books he
recommended as safe guides, he bade me get the works of Bishop Hay. By this I
did not understand that he was jealous of all Italian books, or made himself
responsible for all that Dr. Hay happens to have said; but I took him to
caution me against a character and tone of religion, excellent in its place,
not suited for England.
Newman never did embrace the Italian version of
Catholicism which would appeal to so many of the Tractarians, both those who
remained in the Church of England and those who “swam the Tiber” to become
Catholics. The faith into which he was
evolving and the faith to which he would cling as a Catholic was the old
English recusant Catholicism, understated and discreet without the bells and
whistles so cherished by Mediterranean Catholics.
As Newman’s influence declined in official Anglican
circles (it was only growing among the High Church Party) he retired to a row
of cottages in the dependent parish of Saint Mary, Littlemore—an Oxford suburb
which was part of his parish of Saint
Mary the Virgin. He was joined here by
several friends who were each growing less comfortable with the Church of
England and its Protestant history. The
other men at Littlemore were John Dobree Dalgairns, Ambrose Saint John,
Frederick Oakeley, William Lockhart, and James Christie. Like the Wesleys and the first Methodists,
they adopted a sort of schema for
piety with certain times for fasting, for Holy Communion, for various
prayers. Unlike the Wesleys and the
Methodists, they were then suspected of being a “monastery.” And in fact to some extent they were trying
to adopt a common life though more on the model of Saint Augustine’s Rule for
clergy than Benedict’s for monks.
Lockhart was the first of the group to become a
Catholic. His conversion shook Newman
who, about eight months later, preached his famous final sermon as an Anglican
“The Parting of Friends” and resigned as Vicar of Saint Mary’s Oxford. He continued living at Littlemore for two
more years until his own conversion. To
be continued.
Newman's relationship with Fr. Ambose St. John is much more telling of his homo-affective tendencies. To wit:
ReplyDeletehttp://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2012/10/cardinal-newman-and-ambrose-st-john-gay.html
yes, we will get to that
DeleteNewman was an old catholic? He was a member of the most Italianate order ever, and his private chapel certainly does not evoke a recusant spirituality, although he did keep a copy of the Preces Privatae on his prie-dieu.
ReplyDeleteYes, he was very much a part of the Recusant style Catholicism, unlike his somewhat friend, Faber. His private altar in his room at the Oratory in Birmingham actually reflects the sobriety of the old tradition even if it is somewhat, like Newman himself, overloaded with sentimentality in the photos of all his old friends. he was no ultramontane. you would have to know just how extreme Manning and the others were to appreciate that.
Delete