Cardinal Newman critiqued: How Cardinal Lépicier went about it
How exactly did Cardinal Alexis Lépicier go about his criticism of Cardinal John Henry Newman – and what can contemporary purveyors of the 'anti-Newman myth' learn from him?
How exactly did Cardinal Alexis Lépicier go about his criticism of Cardinal John Henry Newman – and what can contemporary purveyors of the 'anti-Newman myth' learn from him?
Editor’s Notes
We have previously written at length about the “anti-Newman myth,” which seeks to vilify John Henry Cardinal Newman in a way that is excessive and unjust. He is accused of unsoundness and condemned for alleged crimes which are overlooked or excused in other churchmen.
Part of the myth is that Newman was systematically accused of heresy, attacked, condemned and refuted by the most orthodox and faithful Catholics of his day, including other cardinals and prestigious theologians.
The problem with this narrative is not that it invents criticism where none existed, but that it inflates the charge-sheet, underestimates the nuance with which the criticisms were normally made, and deflates the respect that Catholic theologians actually showed to Newman’s person, intentions, and obedience – and the nuance with which the criticisms were normally made.
Orestes Brownson
Previously, we examined aspects of the critique levelled by Orestes Brownson, the famous American convert and Newman’s contemporary. In that examination, we discovered that Brownson himself, having been a Catholic himself for decades, defended some of the most grotesque doctrinal errors. But this was not all: Brownson also issued a retraction of criticisms levelled at Newman, agreeing with some of the ideas in the book, admitting that he had done him an “injustice,” and that he had not even understood the problems which Newman was addressing.
In spite of this, critics of Newman do sometimes cite Brownson as saying of the former’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine:
“His essay on development was not written by a Catholic and its doctrine is not Catholic.”
While this sounds like a damning indictment to those ignorant of the matter, it is actually a well-known fact that Newman was an Anglican when he wrote that work, and that it was published with the encouragement of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, not as a statement of Catholic doctrine, but as an historical account of the process that led to Newman’s conversion. While modern Newman enthusiasts may need reminding of this fact – that the Essay is not a work of Catholic theology – it is frivolous, if presented as a criticism of Newman himself.
In short, notwithstanding the power of some of his writings, Brownson is not a credible critic of John Henry Newman.
Cardinal Lépicier’s criticism of Newman
By contrast, Cardinal Alexis Lépicier – who critically engaged with Newman’s writings throughout his work De stabilitate et progressu dogmatis – is considerably more credible.
Lépicier (1863-36) was a French Servite. At various times, he was Apostolic Visitor for the Congregation for the Propagation of Faith, and Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Religious. For a brief period, he lived in Scotland as Apostolic visitor there.
The topic of the work in question is the same as Newman’s Essay: the development of doctrine. At the time, theologians were grappling with the best ways to express the true understanding of this phenomenon, and what could and could not be admitted.
While the Anglican work already mentioned was subject to criticism by Catholic theologians, Newman seems to have contributed more to this issue than his critics are willing to admit. For example, C. Michael Shea has shown that the Roman theologian Perrone had a much more collaborative and respectful relationship with Newman than some of the more simplistic narratives suggest, and even incorporated aspects of Newman’s insights into his own teaching.1 This warm relationship continued for decades.
Shea’s work has also shown that the Essay was received with considerably greater warmth than the commonly-cited text (by the anti-Catholic Anglican Rev. Owen Chadwick) suggests, and in his A Preface to Newman’s Theology, Fr Edmond Darvil Benard writes the following:
“Catholic theologians who have touched upon the question are practically unanimous in denying, with Bishop O’Dwyer, the legitimacy of the Modernists’ claim to depend on Cardinal Newman for their teaching.”2
He adds that the “absolute vindication of Newman” and “the authoritative answer to the charge that he can be suspected of modernism” came in the form of Pope St Pius X’s letter approving O’Dwyer’s work. Nonetheless, after surveying Newman’s defenders, Benard notes the following of Lépicier:
“The only Catholic theologian we have read who seems to admit some foundation, however slight, for the Modernists’ claim is Alexius M. Lépicier, O.S.M. who remarks that Newman, always a most obedient son of the Church, would have abhorred the false conclusions which the Modernists, if sometimes rightly, most often falsely (‘si quando per fas, saepissime per nefas’) claim to derive from his works.”
Some modern critics who cite Lépicier fail to present an accurate image of this engagement, which is far more mixed and careful. While he does criticise Newman throughout the work cited, he also praises, pardons and protects him against misuse by the Modernists.
For example, he condemns the modernist Fr Tyrell for the “calumny” of claiming that “the solidarity of Newmanism with Modernism cannot be denied.” His first mentions of Newman refer to him in the following terms:
One of several “men of distinction”
“[A] most dutiful son of the Church”
“[T]hat man of great genius”
Such respect recurs throughout his criticisms of Newman’s writings. Even when he becomes more direct as the work continues, he still seems to mitigate his charges or excuse Newman throughout.
In the same section, however, he provides what he calls a “noble profession of faith” from Newman’s Apologia – calling the modernists to put aside “what is found less exact” in his writings, and to join him in this profession.
These terms – “sometimes rightly, most often falsely” and “less exact” – indicate the delicacy of Lépicier’s criticisms. For example, he says that Newman “did not always treat the question of the growth and development of dogma in a method and manner that fully corresponds to objective truth” – before adding that “pardon will readily be granted,” due to these texts having been written prior to his conversion, and his unquestionable fidelity to the Church.
Nonetheless, we must note that Lépicier himself frequently fell into the same trap mentioned above – namely, treating Newman’s Anglican writings as if they were the considered views of Newman the Catholic. The influence of the Anglican works is such that a critique by men such as Lépicier is warranted and welcome; nonetheless, it is most unfortunate that he so often refers to the work of the Anglican Newman as if it were that of the Catholic Newman, cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. This has caused much confusion, and damage to Newman’s good name.
Conclusion
Newman is not beyond critique. Some doctrinal points were framed in ways open to misunderstanding, and later magisterial clarifications (e.g., around the inspiration of Holy Scripture) narrowed the field for certain hypotheses. But the exaggerated narrative – as if he were serially condemned, or as if he was widely treated as a sinister heretic – is unjust to the sources, unhelpful to readers, and detrimental to the prestige of the Church.
The fairer account recognises both the respect accorded to Newman and the specific, argued criticisms, set within a larger acknowledgment of his loyalty and of the Church’s patience with his antecedent Anglican writings.
Contents
I: Lépicier’s introduction
2. The gravity of [the abandonment of the scholastic exposition of dogma]
Editor’s Note – the reception of the Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
3. The knowability of revelation
4. The way of immanence is set forth and refuted
Editor’s Notes: Newman’s ‘Argument from Conscience’
Section II: The ‘accumulation of probabilities’
9. The assent of faith does not rest on mere probabilities.
Editor’s Notes: O’Dwyer on the ‘accumulation of probabilities’
Section III: From a corollary on the canonization of saints.
Section IV: Catholic dogma as seed or seaven
Section V: On the Papacy
Section VI: Who should be called a ‘Father’ or ‘Doctor’ of the Church?
Section VII: On scholasticism
Section VIII: On the necessity of scholasticism
Section IX: Lépicier on the importance of the magisterium and studying under Catholic teachers
Editor’s Notes: Newman’s ‘want of scholastic formation’
Section X: On the reverence due to the scholastic doctors
Section XI: The inspiration of the Scriptures
Editor’s Notes: Newman and the inspiration of Scripture
Section XII: On the necessity of true philosophy
Conclusion
Note on the following texts
This is a long piece. What follows is a sequence of the key texts taken from Lépicier, with a extensive comments for context.
Some of the critiques are more or less justified; others are clearly not. Read in order, they show Lépicier’s approving citations, his appeals to papal testimony in Newman’s favour, his stated desire to “pardon” what belongs to Newman’s pre-Catholic phase, and, where he does argue against this or that formulation, the limited, doctrinally focused nature of those arguments. If we are to criticise Newman, then let us at least do so in accordance with what is on the record, and in a way that is accurate and just.
Many of Lépicier’s mentions of Newman are passing comments in the footnotes. Where these footnotes are relevant, we will include them in the body of the text; where less relevant, or simply including Newman’s text, they will be retained as footnotes. The translation was made with the assistance of ChatGPT, with each sentence subsequently scrutinised by a human.
The WM Review is free for readers.
This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.
However, we also provide WM+ articles—additional material for those who choose to support this work financially.
This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible to all.
If you want to ensure that this continues, join WM+ today.
(Clergy and seminarians can contact us for free membership. See our Testimonials page for what some of our readers are saying about the WM Review.)