Doubts about Newman's Beatification
#1
DOUBTS ABOUT NEWMAN’S BEATIFICATION  -  Through numerous videos available on the Internet, I followed the ceremony of beatification of Card. John Henry Newman by Benedict XVI on September 19, 2010. In a feeble voice, he nonetheless employed his apostolic authority to declare that Newman now merits the title of blessed and to authorize his public cult. As a simple Catholic layman, I am confused by this beatification. Let me try to explain my reasons.

Benedict XVI proclaiming Newman a blessed

Benedict uses his apostolic authority to declare Newman blessed

To confirm the precise conditions for the beatification process and thus avoid a superficial commentary, I re-visited the famous Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique edited by Vacant & Mangenot on this topic. I also re-read the main articles on beatification and canonization in the Dictionnaire de Droit Catholique (Dictionary of Canon Law) edited by R. Naz, which is perhaps the most comprehensive ensemble of commentaries and explanations on the previous Code of Canon Law.

As one knows, that 1917 Code was neither an invention of St. Pius X, who ordered the work, nor of Benedict XV, under whose reign it was completed and published. It was a codification of the laws promulgated throughout the history of the Church, summarized and organized by experts under the orientation of those two Pontiffs. Thence, the Pius-Benedictine Code was an authentic mirror of Catholic teaching on juridical-doctrinal matters. Since processes of beatifications are an important part of that teaching, nothing seems more opportune than to ask whether Newman’s beatification corresponds to those wise rules that governed the Church for centuries.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/126...9-2010.htm
Reply
#2
I couldn't continue reading the original article after TIA stated that Card. Newman's writings as a protestant, before his conversion, are reason enough to doubt his canonization. The links to Newman's supposed heretical teachings aren't heretical at all, especially read in context and not just the bits underlined by TIA. It is heretical to believe that Mary is our redeemer, it is heretical to believe that Mary is superior to God, it is heretical to believe that Mary is the daughter of God in the same way that Christ is the son of God. Card. Newman was right in criticizing these excesses of Marian devotion.

As for the new Blessed being a homosexual it's odd that TIA would state in their letter that no credence should be given to these rumours yet, on the very same web page, provide links and letters attesting to Newman's supposed homosexuality.
Reply
#3
(10-06-2010, 11:09 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: I couldn't continue reading the original article after TIA stated that Card. Newman's writings as a protestant, before his conversion, are reason enough to doubt his canonization.

Quite. St Augustine was a heretic once too.

Quote:As for the new Blessed being a homosexual it's odd that TIA would state in their letter that no credence should be given to these rumours yet, on the very same web page, provide links and letters attesting to Newman's supposed homosexuality.

Tabloid sensationalism.
Reply
#4
(10-06-2010, 11:09 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: I couldn't continue reading the original article after TIA stated that Card. Newman's writings as a protestant, before his conversion, are reason enough to doubt his canonization. The links to Newman's supposed heretical teachings aren't heretical at all, especially read in context and not just the bits underlined by TIA. It is heretical to believe that Mary is our redeemer, it is heretical to believe that Mary is superior to God, it is heretical to believe that Mary is the daughter of God in the same way that Christ is the son of God. Card. Newman was right in criticizing these excesses of Marian devotion.

As for the new Blessed being a homosexual it's odd that TIA would state in their letter that no credence should be given to these rumours yet, on the very same web page, provide links and letters attesting to Newman's supposed homosexuality.

So?  Newman never repudiated his idea of the "development of doctrine" and his successors and heirs have run rampant with in the English speaking world ever since. 

There are far more troubling things than his alleged homosexuality, but I have noticed that his behavior is reminiscent of one who suffers from that terrible predilection.
Reply
#5
(10-06-2010, 11:13 AM)Clare Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:09 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: I couldn't continue reading the original article after TIA stated that Card. Newman's writings as a protestant, before his conversion, are reason enough to doubt his canonization.

Quite. St Augustine was a heretic once too.

Quote:As for the new Blessed being a homosexual it's odd that TIA would state in their letter that no credence should be given to these rumours yet, on the very same web page, provide links and letters attesting to Newman's supposed homosexuality.

Tabloid sensationalism.

Hardly tabloid speculation.  Newman was a very prickly pear back in his day, and extremely uncharitable to Cardinal Manning with the latter came to visit him personally and attempt to patch things up over their public disagreements.  +Newman had one of his minions say the Cardinal wasn't at home when +Manning came to call.... totally fruity behavior.

+Manning said +Newman was a heretic.  I trust +Manning.
Reply
#6
(10-06-2010, 11:21 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: but I have noticed that his behavior is reminiscent of one who suffers from that terrible predilection.

Like what? Unless you have proof that he slept with other men then I'm not sure what other behaviour that Card. Newman exhibited you could be talking about.
Reply
#7
(10-06-2010, 11:32 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:21 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: but I have noticed that his behavior is reminiscent of one who suffers from that terrible predilection.

Like what? Unless you have proof that he slept with other men then I'm not sure what other behaviour that Card. Newman exhibited you could be talking about.

I dunno, showing up in drag for party, according to the correspondence of one of his friends, for one, in the Victorian era, for example.  But really Servus, I already cited an example of fruity behavior and his hauteur which has gone unremarked on and unaccounted by his hagiographers.
Reply
#8
(10-06-2010, 11:28 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:13 AM)Clare Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:09 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: I couldn't continue reading the original article after TIA stated that Card. Newman's writings as a protestant, before his conversion, are reason enough to doubt his canonization.

Quite. St Augustine was a heretic once too.

Quote:As for the new Blessed being a homosexual it's odd that TIA would state in their letter that no credence should be given to these rumours yet, on the very same web page, provide links and letters attesting to Newman's supposed homosexuality.

Tabloid sensationalism.

Hardly tabloid speculation.  Newman was a very prickly pear back in his day, and extremely uncharitable to Cardinal Manning with the latter came to visit him personally and attempt to patch things up over their public disagreements.  +Newman had one of his minions say the Cardinal wasn't at home when +Manning came to call.... totally fruity behavior.

+Manning said +Newman was a heretic.  I trust +Manning.
Not wanting to speak to someone is "fruity"? Not that we can expect any better from TIA. It never seems to have occurred to anyone to ask, if he was so obviously homosexual, how did he manage to escape trial for sodomy? Victorian England wasn't exactly forgiving when it came to genuine homosexual behaviour. And Blessed Newman was put on trial for his Faith once already. If the British government had anything even remotely indicating that he was gay, they'd have run it for all it was worth.
If anyone is truly interested in a biography of Newman, you can read the excellent biography Michael Davies wrote. Or is Davies not sufficiently "trad" anymore?
Reply
#9
(10-06-2010, 11:49 AM)Anastasia Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:28 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:13 AM)Clare Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:09 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: I couldn't continue reading the original article after TIA stated that Card. Newman's writings as a protestant, before his conversion, are reason enough to doubt his canonization.

Quite. St Augustine was a heretic once too.

Quote:As for the new Blessed being a homosexual it's odd that TIA would state in their letter that no credence should be given to these rumours yet, on the very same web page, provide links and letters attesting to Newman's supposed homosexuality.

Tabloid sensationalism.

Hardly tabloid speculation.  Newman was a very prickly pear back in his day, and extremely uncharitable to Cardinal Manning with the latter came to visit him personally and attempt to patch things up over their public disagreements.  +Newman had one of his minions say the Cardinal wasn't at home when +Manning came to call.... totally fruity behavior.

+Manning said +Newman was a heretic.  I trust +Manning.
Not wanting to speak to someone is "fruity"? Not that we can expect any better from TIA. It never seems to have occurred to anyone to ask, if he was so obviously homosexual, how did he manage to escape trial for sodomy? Victorian England wasn't exactly forgiving when it came to genuine homosexual behaviour. And Blessed Newman was put on trial for his Faith once already. If the British government had anything even remotely indicating that he was gay, they'd have run it for all it was worth.
If anyone is truly interested in a biography of Newman, you can read the excellent biography Michael Davies wrote. Or is Davies not sufficiently "trad" anymore?

As I said, his homosexuality is mostly irrelevant, although it might provide some insight into the errors he embraced, and never left off with after he became Catholic, as well as his behavior in the face of criticism of these.  Those who are interested in canonizing him are interested in canonizing his theology, which according to some very thoughtful of his contemporaries was suspect. 

All of your other comments are post hoc propter hoc ... you're assuming that because he was never arrested for the crime that he wasn't. He certainly did and said things that were odd and indicative of someone who suffers from that mental disturbance. 
Reply
#10
(10-06-2010, 11:56 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:49 AM)Anastasia Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:28 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:13 AM)Clare Wrote:
(10-06-2010, 11:09 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote: I couldn't continue reading the original article after TIA stated that Card. Newman's writings as a protestant, before his conversion, are reason enough to doubt his canonization.

Quite. St Augustine was a heretic once too.

Quote:As for the new Blessed being a homosexual it's odd that TIA would state in their letter that no credence should be given to these rumours yet, on the very same web page, provide links and letters attesting to Newman's supposed homosexuality.

Tabloid sensationalism.

Hardly tabloid speculation.  Newman was a very prickly pear back in his day, and extremely uncharitable to Cardinal Manning with the latter came to visit him personally and attempt to patch things up over their public disagreements.  +Newman had one of his minions say the Cardinal wasn't at home when +Manning came to call.... totally fruity behavior.

+Manning said +Newman was a heretic.  I trust +Manning.
Not wanting to speak to someone is "fruity"? Not that we can expect any better from TIA. It never seems to have occurred to anyone to ask, if he was so obviously homosexual, how did he manage to escape trial for sodomy? Victorian England wasn't exactly forgiving when it came to genuine homosexual behaviour. And Blessed Newman was put on trial for his Faith once already. If the British government had anything even remotely indicating that he was gay, they'd have run it for all it was worth.
If anyone is truly interested in a biography of Newman, you can read the excellent biography Michael Davies wrote. Or is Davies not sufficiently "trad" anymore?

As I said, his homosexuality is mostly irrelevant, although it might provide some insight into the errors he embraced, and never left off with after he became Catholic, as well as his behavior in the face of criticism of these.  Those who are interested in canonizing him are interested in canonizing his theology, which according to some very thoughtful of his contemporaries was suspect. 

All of your other comments are post hoc propter hoc ... you're assuming that because he was never arrested for the crime that he wasn't. He certainly did and said things that were odd and indicative of someone who suffers from that mental disturbance.   
No, when you have a government looking for anything and everything to prosecute him for (and the Brits certainly were), it makes no sense that they would have overlooked something that TIA says is so obvious. And we still haven't seen anything that's genuinely indicative of homosexuality.  Again, not choosing to see someone does not mean they're gay. I mean, really.
On the theology issue, you can find someone who disagreed with the theology of many great saints. St Thomas Aquinas was not universally admired in his own time.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)