A liberal theologian in Catholic garb
Newman is often celebrated as a “father of modern orthodoxy,” an example of sincere conversion, and a bridge between faith and reason. However, his theology is deeply marked by principles that anticipate the modernism condemned by Saint Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907). It is no coincidence that the French Dominican theologian Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, when analyzing the errors of emerging modernism, cites ideas analogous to those defended by Newman, especially regarding the notion of the development of dogma.
In his work An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), Newman argues that dogma can evolve analogously to the development of human ideas, through historical and cultural processes. This opens the door to doctrinal relativism, something completely incompatible with the traditional teaching of the Church, according to which revealed truth is immutable and not subject to the mutations of time (Dei Filius, Vatican I). The Catholic criterion for the development of dogma, expressed by Saint Vincent of Lérins and reaffirmed throughout the centuries, is that all progress must occur in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu eademque sententia (in the same dogma, with the same meaning and the same judgment) (Amerio, p. 559). Newman’s theory, however, in proposing seven “notes” or criteria to discern a legitimate development, shifts the foundation of certainty from the divine authority of the Church to a quasi-empirical and subjective analysis. Truth ceases to be an object to be preserved and becomes a process to be verified.
This approach risks transforming substance into modality, as if the essence of dogma could be altered under the pretext of a new formulation (Amerio, p. 559). The error lies in confusing the organic development of a principle with a mutation that turns it into something else, ad aliud.
Fr. Franzelin himself, an important Jesuit theologian and expert at the First Vatican Council, had already harshly criticized Newman’s use of the concept of “development of dogma,” considering it dangerously close to historicist theses.
Silences, omissions, and ambiguities
Newman wrote thousands of pages, but rarely spoke clearly on decisive dogmatic points. His style is known for its calculated ambiguity. He himself said he preferred not to define certain truths so as “not to hurt susceptibilities.” This posture is typical of 19th-century Catholic liberals such as Montalembert and Lacordaire, who tried to reconcile faith with the ideals of the French Revolution. Pope Pius IX condemned this tendency in the encyclical Quanta Cura and in the Syllabus Errorum (1864), to which Newman never showed explicit adherence. This style, which avoids clarity in favor of polysemy, became the characteristic method of post-conciliar theology, in which the ambiguity of texts allows for opposing interpretations, destroying doctrinal unity (Amerio, p. 62). The refusal to condemn error, preferring the "remedy of mercy," as in the opening speech of Vatican II, finds an intellectual precedent in this mentality that prefers subjective persuasion to the objective affirmation of truth (Amerio, p. 65).
The attempt by some of his defenders — such as Cardinal Avery Dulles — to absolve Newman of these accusations based on his supposed late orthodoxy ignores the fact that the core of his thought always remained contaminated by a subjectivist epistemology and a historicist ecclesiology. As noted in the study on transformations in the Church, the line that leads from Newman to Vatican II is not a deviation, but a logical development of his theology of conscience and doctrinal evolution, which provided the intellectual framework to justify post-conciliar variations (Amerio, p. 558).
An Anglican Trojan Horse?
One cannot understand the Catholic hierarchy’s benevolence toward Newman without considering the context of his conversion. Upon abandoning Anglicanism, Newman became a sort of Catholic trophy: a figure of cultural prestige who could aid in the “conversion of England.” For this reason, many of his theological errors were ignored or relativized in the name of a greater diplomatic good. Here we see the error of secondary Christianity, which judges religion by its subordinate effects in relation to civilization or worldly prestige, allowing these to prevail over the supernatural ends that characterize it (Amerio, pp. 2, 400). Ecumenical utility or the gain of cultural reputation is placed above the purity and clarity of doctrine, an inversion of the proper order.
The problem is that this complicit silence allowed dangerous ideas to enter Catholic theology. Modernism, which would become the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pius X), found in Newman not only a precursor but a model of “evolutionary thinking” on dogmas. Even the most cautious theologians who defend him, such as Ian Ker, admit that Newman was “the theologian of modern Christian subjectivism.”
The Ambrose St. John issue
Beyond doctrinal problems, there is the moral and symbolic aspect of Newman’s relationship with Father Ambrose St. John, with whom he lived for over 30 years and requested to be buried in the same tomb. Although there is no evidence of objective scandal, Newman’s letters to St. John reveal a degree of emotional intimacy that scandalized even liberal commentators — as seen in a 2008 Guardian article that spoke of a “sublimated passion.” The Vatican’s decision not to transfer his remains to a separate tomb during the beatification was, according to many, a way of avoiding the resurfacing of this issue.
The point is not to raise unfounded accusations, but to recognize that the canonization of a figure with so many ambiguous elements should have demanded greater caution and prudence, especially in light of the current moral crisis in the Church. This episode, regardless of moral judgment, is symptomatic of a relaxation of forms and a blurring of distinctions that once characterized traditional ecclesiastical discipline. The clarity of external forms reflects the clarity of internal substance; ambiguity introduced into them is a symptom of the corruption of the latter.
Conclusion
The elevation of Newman to the title of Doctor of the Church, beyond being pastorally inopportune, represents the canonization of a certain hermeneutic of ambiguity. His theology, marked by subjectivism, doctrinal evolutionism, and strategic silences, helped undermine the clarity of Catholic doctrine and prepared the ground for the disasters of the 20th century. The contemporary crisis of the Church consists precisely in the replacement of objective, immutable, and transcendent truth by a subjective, historical, and immanent process. In such a process, Newman appears not as a bulwark against error, but as the thinker who provided the intellectual tools for its justification. It is legitimate to ask whether we are dealing with a true master of the faith or a Trojan Horse who, under the appearance of orthodoxy, introduced into the Church the seeds of contemporary confusion.
References
AMERIO, Romano. Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the 20th Century. Corrected edition. September 2011.
FRANZELIN, Johannes B. De Divina Traditione et Scriptura. Rome, 1870.
GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, Réginald. La Théologie du Saint Esprit. Paris: Gabalda, 1944.
KER, Ian. John Henry Newman: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
POPE PIUS IX. Encyclical Quanta Cura and Syllabus Errorum, 1864.
POPE SAINT PIUS X. Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907.
FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL. Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, 1870.