Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 53

Sungenis and "johnmartin" Studiously Miss the Point [Guest Post on Geocentrism by David Palm]

Bob Sungenis and "johnmartin" have issued lengthy "rebuttals" to my two pieces, Neo-geocentrism: Excessive Interest in Usury Comes to Naught and Neo-geo Exaggerations: The Catechism of Trent (see here and here).  I have to put "rebuttals" in quotes because, although both men deployed a great many words and both would probably claim that I have been "answered" and decisively so, the fact remains that neither individual actually engaged the central points I was making. 

The core points that they missed are:

1) The Roman Catechism doesn't teach geocentrism, Copernican heliocentrism, or any other specific cosmological theory.

On this point, in vintage style, Bob deploys a number of debater's tricks to hide the fact that I plainly demonstrated that the Roman Catechism does not teach geocentrism or any other specific cosmological system.  As such, Sungenis totally misses the point when he concludes, "Pius V didn't say one word about heliocentrism in his catechism, so why is Mr. Palm arguing that Pius V was accommodating heliocentrism? Arguments from silence work both ways."  I've repeatedly stated that the Catholic Church doesn't teach any theory regarding celestial motion as a matter of faith, that Catholics have freedom in this regard.  The whole point that Bob studiously avoided is that the Catechism uses generic language that doesn't dogmatise any one theory.

It's a common debater's trick to try and shift the burden of proof to his opponent.  But remember that it was Sungenis who claimed that the Roman Catechism contains, "One of the clearest official and authoritative statements from the Catholic Church defending the doctrine of geocentrism..." and speaks of the "Roman Catechism's dogmatic assertion of geocentrism".  Obviously, with a build-up like that, the burden of proof is squarely on him to show just where this clear and dogmatic assertion of geocentrism exists in the Catechism.

The problem is that he can't.

As I laid out in my original article, there are a number of passages cited by the neo-geocentrists to try to find geocentrism in the Roman Catechism.  But even Sungenis has to admit that there is doubt about what these actually mean.  So he deploys what he considers to be the show-stopper—the "foundations of the earth" passage—which he claims will, "expel any doubt about what objects are revolving".  The problem is that I demonstrated that this passage has nothing to do with the position of the globe in relation to the universe, but speaks of the position of dry land in relation to water on the surface of the earth.  As I said there, "If 'earth' here means the entire globe then the passage ceases to make sense, since in the last sentence the 'earth' is specifically contrasted with the 'air' and 'water' and God certainly didn't cover the entire globe, including the air and water, 'with trees and every variety of plant and flower'."

What does Bob say to this demonstration?

Sure, I'll grant to Mr. Palm that 'mundus' could refer to the earth and earth could refer to the land. But that doesn't get him off the hook with the previous passage that says the sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth. Mr. Palm's mundus could either mean earth or universe, but the burden of proof is on him to show that it means earth since the catechism has already stated it believes the sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth.

But the careful reader will notice that Bob has added the words "around the earth" to the Catechism because that's what he needs it to say in order to support geocentrism. The fact is, the Catechism never uses such words.  Instead, it uses generic phrases like "certain and uniform course", "continual revolution", "fixed and regular motion", "motion and revolutions" with respect to the heavenly bodies.  And these would apply just as well to the pre-Tridentine theories of Bishop Nicolas Oresme and Cardinal Nicolas Cusa as they would to Copernican heliocentrism and more modern acentric cosmologies.  In other words, the Catechism does not teach anything with respect to any one scientific theory—that was not the intent of those passages.

This answers Bob's other off-point comment, "As such, Mr. Palm will also have to accept the fact that he cannot interpret land and earth literally in the catechism and then interpret the sun, moon and stars moving around the earth non‐literally."  Wrong.  There are really two ways to answer this.  First, the Magisterium teaches that the Holy Spirit did not put specifics about "the essential nature of the things of the visible universe" into sacred Scripture.  Rather, they are depicted according to "what comes under the senses" (Providentissimus Deus 18).  We cannot really expect more from the Roman Catechism than what we get from sacred Scripture itself concerning the precise details of celestial motions. But second,  the motions are literal, it's just that the Catechism does not give specifics about those motions.  Can Bob prove that the theories of Bishop Oresme and Cardinal Cusa are excluded by the Roman Catechism?  No, he can't. It is he who reads subsequent controversies and his own cosmological biases back into the Roman Catechism and adds words that are not there, to make the Catechism say what he wants it to say.

But more importantly, notice how Bob plays both ends against the middle.  He had already implicitly acknowledged that the other passages are not clear, that there was "doubt" that needed to be expelled.  So he deployed the "foundations of the earth" passage which, he claimed, will "expel any doubt about what objects are revolving".  But I proved that that passage has nothing to do with the motions of celestial bodies.  Bob did not even engage my exegetical argument.  (Neither did "johnmartin".)  Instead, he circles back around to claim that the passages that he acknowledged are doubtful are now clear enough to support the meaning of this passage: "the burden of proof is on [Palm] to show that it means earth since the catechism has already stated it believes the sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth."  The problem for Bob is that I did prove just that.

The bottom line is that the Catechism's language accommodates more than one cosmological view, because the Catholic Church does not teach any one cosmology as a matter of faith.  Bob huffs that "Even die‐hard modernists admit that the Tridentine catechism teaches geocentrism. They just don't want to accept it, but at least they are not foolish enough to force the catechism into a mold that it cannot hold."

But I categorically deny that the Roman Catechism teaches geocentrism or any cosmology at all and the arguments that I have deployed to demonstrate that apply every bit as much to the modernists as to the neo-geocentrists.  But the fact that Bob will side with the Church's enemies in order to save his "pebble" of geocentrism pretty much proves my point: "The neo-geocentrist fixation on their pet cause is like a monkey who reaches into a precious Ming vase to grasp a pebble. Intent only on holding onto that bit of rock and unable to extract his clenched fist, the monkey will happily smash the vase to get his "prize", heedless of the priceless nature of the treasure he has wrecked."


2)  There is no instance in which the Magisterium of the Church has for centuries ceased to teach a doctrine of the Catholic faith.

In Neo-geocentrism: Excessive Interest in Usury Comes to Naught I pointed to instances in which neo-geocentrists attack the very Magisterium of the Church in order to explain their anomalous position.  "johnmartin" deployed a whole list of doctrines which he claims the Catholic Church has "de facto denied" and speaks of "church [sic] silence" prompted by "inept leadership or fear of the science establishment".  Rick Delano speaks of "surrender" and "abandoning" of "binding doctrines" and "dogmas" put forth by the "ordinary magisterium".  And yet I have shown how, in each and every case, the Magisterium of the Church has explicitly reaffirmed the examples they propose, right up to the present day.  This leaves geocentrism standing in utter isolation as the lone alleged exception to the rule.  But the neo-geocentrists are simply wrong: it is not an exception at all because geocentrism is not now and never has been taught as a matter of faith by the Catholic Church, in either her ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium.  The Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches 100% of the doctrines of the Faith.  That she does not teach geocentrism demonstrates that never has been part of the Faith.  Neo-geocentrism is exactly as I have described it many times in discussions on the Catholic Answers Forum—an elaborate exercise in special pleading, both scientifically and ecclesiastically.

Now "johnmartin" and Sungenis consistently miss this point.  The former seeks to blunt my criticism of his extreme statements by appealing to what happens on the "local level".  For the record, that is not what he said before.  What he said was, "I've presented a list of doctrines that have been de facto denied by the modern church" and "I believe the church silence on the matter of geo[centrism] in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment".  I don't see any disclaimers in there about this only happening on the "local level".  As such, his new argument seems to be a tacit recognition that his original argument was false.  And it's interesting that this alleged ineptitude and cowardice didn't prevent the Magisterium from explicitly teaching on a wide range of volatile and controversial topics, from contraception to homosexuality to divorce and remarriage.  Are we to believe that this alleged failure of competence and nerve is reserved only for geocentrism?  Again, this is just one more instance of neo-geocentric special pleading.

Regardless, now "johnmartin" complains that he's been misunderstood.  For example:

It is in this context that geocentrist claim that the doctrine of the stationary earth has been dropped in practice (in so far as it is not taught at the local level),...

and

Geocentrism is then only one part of a larger problem within the church. The doctrine of geocentrism has not been taught at the local level for some time, but then again, many other doctrines have also not been taught for a long time either.

It is true that on "the local level" many things have broken down in many parts of the world in the Catholic Church.  But let's be clear.  We aren't talking about "the local level" with respect to geocentrism.  We're talking about what the universal Magisterium of the Catholic Church presents to the faithful as matters of faith.  And I demonstrated that, while the Church certainly does not teach geocentrism as a matter of faith, she has reiterated her teaching formally in each and every example that "johnmartin" presented as supposed parallels.

Similarly, Sungenis deflects from the core issue by speaking of "what is actually being taught in many Catholic institutions".  But that is not what we're talking about.  We are talking about what is taught by the Catholic Magisterium, to the universal Church.  The Catholic Church teaches 100% of the doctrines of the faith to the universal Church.  She does not teach geocentrism.  Ergo, geocentrism is not part of the Catholic faith.  Period.

If the neo-geocentrists actually could come up with a doctrine of the faith that the Magisterium had not publicly affirmed for many centuries, then they would at least have a parallel.  They can't.  Most Catholics would rejoice in the fact that, even in these dark and difficult times the Catholic Church continues to teach, publicly and solemnly, all the doctrines of our faith.

But not the neo-geocentrists (or at least not these neo-geocentrists).  This fact is a cause of great vexation to them and so they instead scramble to manufacture whatever difficulties they can imagine.  To them, geocentrism must be defended at all costs.  Why is that so?  What has led them to such fanaticism?

At least two reasons suggest themselves.  First, some of these individuals have staked their very reputations on geocentrism.  Perhaps they feel they've reached the point of no return and have no choice but to defend it to the bitter end.  Second, they've also presented geocentrism in such a way that their personal faith in the Catholic Church is dependent upon it.  In their view, if geocentrism is not true then the Catholic Church isn't indefectible.

This latter problem particularly concerns me in that others who have the misfortune of encountering such misguided neo-geocentrist fanaticism—whether practicing Catholics or those considering the Catholic faith—may also be adversely affected.  I know this from private notes I have received to date.  But this "all or nothing" approach is, of course, a product of manifest neo-geocentrist exaggeration as to the authority and nature of the ecclesiastical documents that address geocentrism.  For the Catholic who knows his faith, the truth or falsehood of geocentrism has no impact whatsoever on his trust in the Catholic Magisterium.

Unfortunately, these neo-geocentrist fanatics are heedless of the damage they may be doing to others' trust in the Magisterium—all in order to open some glimmer of plausibility for their pet theory to be part of our faith.  And this once again proves my point.  To all appearances they will do anything to hang on to the "pebble" of their private fixation on geocentrism, even to the point of making a shipwreck of their faith and the faith of others.


***

Explicit Biblical Evidence for the Veneration of Angels and Men as Direct Representatives of God

.
.

  
 Captain of the Lord's Host, Franz Stuck, 1889

Man or Men

Genesis 18:1-4, 22 (RSV) And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. [2] He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself [ shachah ] to the earth, [3] and said, "My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. [4] Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, . . . [22] So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD.

[the text in-between goes back and forth, referring to "men" or "they" or "them" (18:9, 16) and "The LORD" or first-person address from God (18:10, 13-14, 17-21) interchangeably, for the same phenomenon and personal / physical / verbal encounter]

Joshua 5:13-15 When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood before him with his drawn sword in his hand; and Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?" [14] And he said, "No; but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshiped [ shachah ], and said to him, "What does my lord bid his servant?" [15] And the commander of the LORD's army said to Joshua, "Put off your shoes from your feet; for the place where you stand is holy." And Joshua did so.

[a "man" is equated with God also in Genesis 32:24, 30] 


Angels

Exodus 3:2-6 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and lo, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed. [3] And Moses said, "I will turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt." [4] When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here am I." [5] Then he said, "Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." [6] And he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.

Numbers 22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face.

["angel of the Lord" appears repeatedly in the context: Num 22:22-27, 32, 34-35] 

Judges 6:12-16, 20-23 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The LORD is with you, you mighty man of valor." [13] And Gideon said to him, "Pray, sir, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all his wonderful deeds which our fathers recounted to us, saying, `Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?' But now the LORD has cast us off, and given us into the hand of Mid'ian." [14] And the LORD turned to him and said, "Go in this might of yours and deliver Israel from the hand of Mid'ian; do not I send you?" [15] And he said to him, "Pray, Lord, how can I deliver Israel? Behold, my clan is the weakest in Manas'seh, and I am the least in my family." [16] And the LORD said to him, "But I will be with you, and you shall smite the Mid'ianites as one man.". . . [20] And the angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the unleavened cakes, and put them on this rock, and pour the broth over them." And he did so. [21] Then the angel of the LORD reached out the tip of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes; and there sprang up fire from the rock and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes; and the angel of the LORD vanished from his sight. [22] Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the LORD; and Gideon said, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face." [23] But the LORD said to him, "Peace be to you; do not fear, you shall not die."

[the angel of the Lord is also equated with God (theophany) in Gen 31:11-13; Jud 2:1; but differentiated from God as well (representative): 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Ki 19:6-7; 2 Ki 19:35; Dan 3:25, 28; 6:23; Zech 1:8-14]

Adoration / worship of God, over against veneration or reverence or honor shown towards angels and men as God's representatives, is illustrated in several passages:

Acts 10:25-26 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped [proskuneo] him. [26] But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."

Romans 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped [sebazomai] and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

Colossians 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship [threskia] of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,

Revelation 22:8-9 I John am he who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship [proskuneo] at the feet of the angel who showed them to me; [9] but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship [proskuneo] God."

[At Lystra, after St. Paul healed a man, the crowds though he was Hermes, and Barnabas, Zeus, and wanted to offer sacrifice (Acts 14:8-18), but Paul dissuaded them, saying, "We also are men, of like nature with you" (14:15)]

* * * * *
The Bible, thus, is quite clear: there is an occasional use of angels or men as direct representatives of God, and they are "worshiped" only insofar as they represent God, as a visual image or object, through whom God is working and communicating.  But veneration is strictly separated from the adoration due to God alone. Everything has to be considered together, as a whole.

All of this explicit biblical evidence is precisely in line with what the Catholic Church teaches. It is the outright prohibition of all veneration and honor of creatures whatever in most forms of Protestantism that is a grossly unbiblical notion.

Moreover, "worship" is used in a wider (literary) sense of showing reverence or obeisance to men of authority (in this instance, a king), in 1 Chronicles 29:20: "And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped [ shachah ] the LORD, and the king" (KJV). RSV has: "worshiped the LORD, and did obeisance to the king," but it is one Hebrew word applied to both.


***

Thoughts on Protestant Lack of Understanding of the Truths About Contraception, the Pill as an Abortifacient, and NFP

Sometimes, in order to justify use of contraception, the advocate will attempt to equate NFP with it, as if there is no essential difference. It's the same dynamic as running down annulment as "Catholic divorce" as if it is not essentially different, either. I think we can state that sometimes or many times, this outlook may be in play. I know all the tactics people use to rationalize error and sin, from 30 years of apologetics. And this sometimes occurs: perhaps more widely than anyone imagines.

Contraception is a serious sin, but there are plenty of other sins to go around. Since we're all sinners, prone to sin and subject to concupiscence, and guilty of much actual sin on an ongoing basis. Christians of all stripes fall short all the time. That's why we Catholics confess and examine our conscience and repent as a group at the beginning of every Mass. Jesus didn't cease calling the seven churches in Revelation "churches" despite a host of very serious sins. Paul didn't mince words about the Galatians and Corinthians.

I would argue that it is far more sinful for Catholics, who know full well that contraception is roundly condemned by their Church, to keep doing it, compared to Protestants, who are mostly ignorant and never taught at all about it, and who don't ostensibly accept and obey the word of an infallible Church, as every Catholic ought to do. "To whom much is given, much is required."

Whether individual Protestants "know" they are wrong regarding contraception is a very complex matter. Most are simply ignorant about the matter: having never been taught anything differently. And even if they have seen some Catholic anti-contraception arguments, they are often so weak or poorly presented, that it is little better than the previous ignorance.


I am maintaining that most Protestants, insofar as they learn anything at all about traditional Catholic and non-Catholic traditional teaching on this, do not yet "know" that it is wrong. Once they get to that point, then of course they are responsible for acting accordingly, and to fail to do so entails grave peril to their souls (including possibly eternally). But I don't see that most of them have gotten even to that point yet.


I was certainly purely ignorant when we contracepted for six years in our marriage. I had never heard a rational argument otherwise until I met an articulate Catholic who explained it to me (even a priest I had talked to at a pro-life event couldn't do it). Once I heard the actual reasoning, I was persuaded. But if my case is at all typical (and I think it is), then there are many millions of Protestants out there like I was, who are profoundly ignorant of the entire matter.


Most who contracept are unaware that the birth control pill can often be an abortifacient. I had never heard this until I talked to someone who was really up on all these issues. I barely heard about it even when I was in pro-life rescues, where no one could question the participants' pro-life convictions. Protestants who contracept are rarely told that they may be killing conceived children through the Pill, so that it is the case that they don't care and keep on using it anyway. This is usually not the case, I submit, because people haven't heard this in the first place. As an avid pro-lifer when I was Protestant, I would have stopped in a heartbeat, had I heard this; if I hadn't already been convinced of the wrongness of contraception. And I highly doubt that the multiple millions of Protestant pro-lifers would act differently.


Protestants are usually ignorant of historically demonstrable truths such as that no Christian body espoused contraception as a moral choice until 1930 (the Anglicans). Like myself, they don't study the matter sufficiently enough to ever figure this out. They have to be educated in a patient and charitable fashion. 



We Catholic pro-lifers may know that the Birth Control Pill is sometimes an abortifacient; hence we are responsible for that information. But most people who use the Pill do not know this; therefore, they can't possibly be committing a mortal sin (in the fullest sense) since they don't have the subjective intent to do so; being ignorant. It's still objectively a mortal sin insofar as the act is objectively sinful, but the subjective component of knowledge is absent; therefore persons in such ignorance would not be fully guilty of committing a mortal sin with full intent, by the definition of mortal sin in Catholic moral teaching.

Now, once such a person reads this and things like this, that discuss the Pill being an abortifacient, then they know more than they did, and are responsible to study the issue for themselves and act accordingly (and I have provided a link with resources so they can do just that). If they know for sure that this is the case, and keep acting in the same fashion, then they are subjectively responsible for grave sin.

It is almost a certainty that most who contracept are as utterly ignorant of the entire matter as I previously was. We should empathize: those of us who have traveled that sad path ourselves.



We could note hundreds of cases of Christians of all stripes failing to follow Christ's teaching. Falling short and failing and sinning is part of the human condition, unfortunately. If a particular sin is mostly due to ignorance and lack of knowledge (as is very much the case here), we can counteract that through education, done with compassion and charity.


Too many Catholics, unfortunately, use NFP with contraceptive intent: not having sufficient reasons to space or avoid children. It can be used wrongly because at bottom it is a heart and a motivation issue; not just a technique. The primary evil of contraception is in the evil "anti-procreative" will or intent. The same intent can be present in the couple using NFP, lacking sufficiently serious reasons to avoid having children. It is not as serious of a sin, but it is still sin.

* * * * *
I have written about contraception and NFP in the following papers. Contraception was the initial issue, in fact, that led me to the Catholic Church, as I discovered that it's moral theology was uniquely biblical and in accord with that of the early Church and the apostles.


The Birth Control Pill Can and Too Often Does Bring About an Early Abortion: Documentary Resources
 
The Biblical Evidence Against Contraception
 
Biblical Evidence Against Contraception and For the Blessing of Many Children
Dialogue on the Ethical Distinction Between Artificial Contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP)
Contraception: Early Church Teaching (William Klimon)

Discussion Thread on my Facebook Page About NFP, Contraception, and Marriage
Mounting Scientific Evidence of the Link Between Oral Contraceptives and Breast Cancer [Links Page]
Secular Social Science Vindicates Catholic Moral Teaching / Important Evangelical Protestants Rethinking Contraception (W. Bradford Wilcox)
Protestant Compromise, Radical Secularism, and Racist Eugenics: The Contraception Debate: 1900-1940
Why Did God Kill Onan? Luther, Calvin, Wesley, C. S. Lewis, and Others on Contraception

Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? Why is Contraception Condemned by the Catholic Church?
Dialogue on Contraception
Dialogue on Contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP) (vs. "Grubb")
Replies to Questions on Catholic Teaching Regarding Contraception and Sexual Morality

The 1968 Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae: Infallible Teaching Prohibiting Contraception
Does Orthodoxy Allow Contraception Or Not?

Contraception and the "Fewer Children is Better" Mentality: the Opposition of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Other Protestants


***

Dialogue on How to Share (and How Not to Share) the Truth About Contraception, the Pill as an Abortifacient, and NFP, with Our Protestant Brethren in Christ (Including a Defense of Steve Hays!!!)

[ source ]
This came about when I became aware of a controversy over some initial remarks made on the contraceptive issue by one "cathmom5." I think she is defending truths but doing so in a most uncharitable manner, which in turn is counter-productive, because a true message is usually only effectively presented insofar as it is charitably presented, without judgment and condemnations. 
The original discussion occurred in the combox for a post on The CathApol Blog , called NFP and False Logic. cathmom's comment was the first one in the combox. The first portion of my comments below were posted in the same combox. I will also respond to comments by Steve Hays: blogmaster over at Triablogue: a Reformed Protestant anti-Catholic site (whose partisans think very little of yours truly: just for the record). 
In this instance, I think hays is correct in objecting to cathmom's remarks. This is true regardless of how objectionably he may act in other cases, and regardless of how correct cathmom's positions are, in and of themselves. I have no disagreement at all with her condemnation of contraception or defense of NFP (things I have written passionately about for over twenty years); only with how it was presented.
Her words below will be in blue.
* * * * *
I am going to respectfully disagree with several things you said (to give fair warning!). Nothing personal whatsoever . . .

It just seems to me that the attempt to compare NFP--used with the correct intent--and contraception is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to use contraceptions.

I think this does happen, yes: in order to justify use of contraception, the advocate will attempt to equate NFP with it, as if there is no essential difference. It's the same dynamic as running down annulment as "Catholic divorce" as if it is not essentially different, either. But we can't make a sweeping accusation; we can only state that sometimes or many times, this outlook may be in play.

Those "christians" who use contraception, I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong.

One has no basis for questioning the Christian commitment or "right" to the title of "Christian" because someone is engaged in a sinful activity. There are plenty of sins to go around. Since we're all sinners, prone to sin and subject to concupiscence, and guilty of much actual sin on an ongoing basis, then none of us would be able to call ourselves Christians by this logic. Let's not descend to the level of denying that millions and millions of people are Christians at all. As Catholics, we are well familiar with the mindset that illogically denies that we are Christians, based on many false premises and ignorance of what we actually believe and teach. So we ought to be sensitive enough to not deny that whole groups of people are Christians.

Whether they know they are wrong is a very complex matter. Most are simply ignorant about the matter: having never been taught anything differently. And even if they have seen some Catholic anti-contraception arguments, they are often so weak or poorly presented, that it is little better than the previous ignorance.

I was certainly purely ignorant when we contracepted for six years in our marriage. I had never heard a rational argument otherwise until I met an articulate Catholic who explained it to me (even a priest I had talked to at a pro-life event couldn't do it). Once I heard the actual reasoning, I was persuaded. But if my case is at all typical, then there are many millions of Protestants out there like I was, who are profoundly ignorant of the entire matter. And that is highly relevant to how they are approached and classified.

The FACT that the majority of contraceptives are abortifacient doesn't matter.

Most who contracept are unaware of this. I had never heard this until I talked to someone who was really up on all these issues. I barely heard about it even when I was in pro-life rescues, where no one could question the participants' pro-life convictions. You make it sound as if people are told that they are killing conceived children through the Pill and they don't care; they keep on using it anyway. This is usually not the case, I submit, because people haven't heard this in the first place. As an avid pro-lifer when I was Protestant, I would have stopped, had I heard this, if I hadn't already been convinced of the wrongness of contraception. And I highly doubt that the multiple millions of Protestant pro-lifers would act differently.

The FACT that contraceptives (the pill) causes cancers and infertility for thousands of women doesn't matter.

People are obviously ignorant of that, too. It's plain that if they knew that, many would act differently, based on simple self-interest: a thing that unites all of us. Virtually anyone will act according to self-interest and health reasons: at least if there is an alternative readily available. Since they continue to use the Pill, it stands to reason that they don't know of this connection. Again, in our case, we had never heard this.

The FACT that the legalization of the pill, historically, led directly to the legalization of abortion doesn't matter.

Again, people are ignorant of those historically demonstrable truths as well. They don't study the matter sufficiently enough to ever figure this out. They have to be educated, and the way we do that is not to condemn people en masse as wanton, deliberate sinners and not even Christians (as we are too often treated as Catholics). We need to be far more patient and charitable than that. 

Those "christians" must find a way to justify their disobedience of God's will by "taking down" the Church's moral stance--like the bully on the playground making himself feel better by making the others feel bad.

There is some truth to this (I know all the tactics people use to rationalize error and sin, from 30 years of apologetics, believe me), but to make a sweeping statement like this and deny that people are Christians at all is indefensible and the height of uncharity. It's wrong.

The general point of rationalization (that I agree with) can be made; observing that some folks do that, without the grand, sweeping nature and anti-Protestantism attached to it.

Why else would this ignorant (in the dictionary sense!) argument keep coming up?

There are usually multiple reasons for any given thing. I don't see that the present case is any different. Attaching one sole cause to a complex phenomenon is naive and simplistic.

. . . I refuse to commit a mortal sin by using other artificial means to kill my baby or slowly kill myself.

You and I know that the Pill is usually an abortifacient; hence we are responsible for that information. Most people who use the Pill do not know this; therefore, they can't possibly be committing a mortal sin (in the fullest sense) since they don't have the subjective intent to do so; being ignorant. It's still objectively a mortal sin insofar as the act is objectively sinful, but the subjective component of knowledge is absent; therefore persons in such ignorance would not be fully guilty of committing a mortal sin with full intent, by the definition of mortal sin in Catholic moral teaching.

Now, once such a person reads this and things like this, that discuss the Pill being an abortifacient, then they know more than they did, and are responsible to study the issue for themselves and act accordingly. If they know for sure that this is the case, and keep acting in the same fashion, then they are subjectively responsible for grave sin.

If you yourself were ignorant in the past in these matters, than all the more reason to understand that most who contracept are as ignorant of the entire matter as you and I previously were. We should empathize, having traveled that sad path ourselves.

Secondly, my intent was not to insult anyone.

You may not have had the intent (I accept your report), but in extreme sloppiness of terminology and in the sweeping way in which you judged multiple millions of brothers and sisters in Christ, you did indeed do so. We are responsible for our words. You can't deny that millions are Christians at all, and make out that they have no regard for preborn children at all, as if they were no different from pro-aborts, and then turn around
and say you intended no insult, or claim that they have no reason to be insulted by the words and terms that you chose to use to characterize them.

I find it ironic that certain things I say are taken personally by some protestant readers of this blog.

I don't find it ironic at all. In this case, I think they have excellent reason to be offended, having been viewed so uncharitably. You have thought the worst of many millions of fellow Christians, rather than the best, as we are commanded (1 Cor 13, etc.). Thinking the worst of someone's motives and intents is not being charitable; sorry.

I am subjected to the same sort of treatment all the time (as an apologist), so I know what that is like, and hence, I am somewhat more in tune with being judged unfairly and having unsavory motives falsely attributed to me.

I think it may be my style or my passion, but it is my intent to support the truth of the Church's teaching not offend Protestants.

Good intent has to be accompanied by care in words chosen, and charity extended to our opponents in any given issue. We don't persuade anyone by massively insulting them. It's not just "style" or "passion" but the offensiveness of some of the approaches you have taken, as I have been trying to explain.

You can have all the truth in the world, but it can be defended in an objectionable way, just as someone defending a falsehood could be charitable. Their charity doesn't make the view defended any less false; nor does lack of charity make a view less true. But the lack of charity is wrong, and the falsehood is wrong.

I think if we were to talk to each other face to face there would be less misunderstanding of motive or intent.

Probably so, but not if we deny that someone is a Christian to their face, because they contracept, or deny that they care about preborn children; when in fact most are ignorant as to the Pill being an abortifacient.

As Cathapol explained, some find it hard, I admit including me, to call those Christian who do not follow Christ's teaching.

I could note hundreds of cases of Christians of all stripes failing to follow Christ's teaching. Falling short and failing and sinning is part of the human condition, unfortunately. If a particular sin is mostly due to ignorance and lack of knowledge (as is very much the case here), we can counteract that through education. But it has to be done with compassion and charity.

As the old saying goes, "you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar." 

Now, just because a lot of women in the Catholic Church have been talked into accepting this easy way of "family planning" does not make the Church's moral stance on sanctity of life wrong. 
That's correct.

Nor does the fact that I accept and agree with the moral and Scriptural stance of His Church on this matter make my passionate defense of it necessarily make me wrong.


That's right: not necessarily wrong, but it was wrong in fact, because it was quite uncharitable.

Those who try to say that NFP is the same as ABC are just plain wrong. 
Absolutely true. I have written about it many times.

In my experience, those who are the loudest in their protest against NFP or try to pretend NFP and ABC are the same thing are the ones who know the least about NFP or ABC. 

This precisely backs up what I have been maintaining all along: the ignorance is so massive, that this has a necessary bearing on the subjective culpability for the sin in the first place. The more one realizes that profound ignorance and misinformation are in play, the less one can casually object to and condemn supposed "subjectively aware" mortal sin being committed. 

They, for the most part, want to justify their use of ABC by saying that NFP is the same--trying to take down, so-to-speak, His Church's moral stance on the sacredness of the marriage act. I don't believe that is a straw man--that is from my perspective and my experience.

I agree that this does occur. I have argued with many folks, myself, who use this tactic.

Having practiced NFP for years, I know that it is not an easy course to take. A couple who practices NFP must communicate with each other, they must be "in tune" with each other morally, they must be in agreement on being open to life, and they must work, as a couple, to make NFP work. In my experience, a couple who is practicing NFP can hardly be doing it with the wrong motives. With so relatively few couples practicing NFP, I would hardly think motives are the problem.


Too many, unfortunately, use NFP with contraceptive intent: not having sufficient reasons to space or avoid children. It can be used wrongly because at bottom it is a heart and a motivation issue; not just a technique. The primary evil of contraception is in the evil "anti-procreative" will or intent. The same intent can be present in the couple using NFP, lacking sufficiently serious reasons to avoid having children. It is not as serious of a sin, but it is still sin.

I have spoken in as general terms as possible. I have not insulted anyone personally. 

Insulting huge groups en masse is in many ways the equivalent of insulting each one personally. It's a form of bigotry (objectively considered): to make such strong judgments on the motivations of all in such a huge group. That's neither rational nor charitable. We can judge acts as wrong, of course, but getting into motivations and whether people are Christians or not, is way beyond the pale of ethical critique.

If I were to say, for example, "everyone who voted for President Obama is not a Christian, as proven by that act," then I have also insulted the Christianity of each individual who voted for Obama, no? Note that I have written many times in vociferous opposition to Christians who vote for pro-abortion politicians, but to question their very Christianity is taking it way too far.

I have expressed how I feel on the subject of NFP--From my personal experienc on BOTH sides of the "church" fence. If one feels personally insulted by anything I have said on the matter, I think they must look to themselves and wonder why what a perfect stranger says strikes such a nerve. 
To some extent that is true, insofar as you speak truth; yet I am not surprised at all that some would be offended by your choice of words, because they were highly uncharitable and judgmental in a way that is, I submit, sinful. It's bearing false witness, and that is serious sin. You don't gain a "right" to say anything, no matter how uncharitable, simply because what you defend is the truth. You don't lose all responsibility to speak charitably just because what you are advocating is profoundly true and important, as a life issue, and matter of life and death. We have to look at ourselves and how we act: not just at the other guy, as if were perfect and have no room for improvement in expression. Need I produce the numerous biblical passages about the use of the tongue and of the danger of self-righteousness (avoiding the log in our own eye, etc.)?

If our Protestant internet opponents so often fail to monitor their own behavior in approaching Catholics, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't monitor ours in response to them.

* * * * *
Steve Hays: the anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant blogmaster, responded to cathmom's initial remarks with a reductio ad absurdum argument:

Well, if that's what motivates Protestants, then by parity of logic, it just seems to me that the attempt by popes to defend "natural family planning" is just an excuse to justify the fact that they want to fornicate with nuns and hookers without wearing a condom or fathering a kid out of wedlock. Popes who defend "natural family planning," I believe, know deep down they are morally wrong. Lascivious popes must find a loophole to excuse their lechery. Why else would they concoct so many ad hoc distinctions?

This, in turn, was massively misunderstood. The nature of the reductio is to show the absurdity of an opposing view by turning the tables and applying it (by analogy) to the particulars of the opponent's position. Having thus shown the ridiculous result, it follows that the original argument must be discarded as irrational, too sweeping, etc. I use this logical argument all the time, myself. Hays' reductio works because cathmom's original argument was deficient and uncharitable.

Hays knew he was being provocative, and he loves to do that (and knew full well the reaction he would get); yet (whatever one thinks of rhetorical provocation) his logical point is quite valid and sound. In effect, he was arguing, "okay, if you want to massively impugn Protestant motives with regard to contraception, then I'll play your game and attribute the lowest motives to your popes with regard to NFP, to see how you like it."

I will now comment on Steve Hays' further comments in the combox for his post, Lecherous Popes. His words will be in green.
It's often useful to take a foolish position to its logical extreme. 
This is correct. I do it all the time, and it is rarely understood and rarely received. So his Catholic opponents (minus myself) have fallen right into his hands by not understanding the nature of his argument.

Her point was to smear Protestants by imputing the worst possible motives to them, and do so in sweeping, indiscriminate terms. . . . he was poisoning the well, not me. 
This is true.

It's called an argument from analogy. Look it up.
It was a legitimate argument on Hays' part, and it was well done.

. . . as a loyal teammate, I expect you to cheer for your own team no matter what.
This is the problem in the present instance. Few or no Catholics seem to see anything unethical about cathmom's remarks. We are defending her simply because she has the correct view on contraception and is a Catholic. But that is absolutely beside the point. Hays is objecting to her sweeping anti-Protestant remarks, and rightly so. His reductio had to do with that: not the argument per se about contraception. But the knee-jerk reaction from the Catholic camp merely provides more evidence that is mere "team play."

If we object to the behavior of anti-Catholics, who engage in the same sort of "our side can never be wrong" mentality quite frequently, as I have myself noted times without number, then to be consistent, we have to do a better job ourselves if we lack charity or blow an argument. If something is wrong, it's wrong, no matter who is guilty of it. My motivation in pointing this out is love, both for cathmom, and for our Protestant brethren, whom I hope to reach with the fullness of truth in Catholicism, and the message of the wrongness of contraception.

Likewise, what Steve Hays may happen to think of me (he absolutely despises me: has classified me as "evil" and "schizophrenic" for starters . . .) has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he is correct in this instance or not. His erroneous stance on contraception has nothing to do with whether he and his fellow Protestants by the hundreds of millions were treated uncharitably or not. If we defend truth and right ethics, we have to get beyond all this party nonsense, because reality doesn't work that way: with hundreds of millions of people all being written off as non-Christians and wicked because of one thing that is mostly a matter of rank ignorance and lack of proper education. Catholics are not always charitable, just because they are defending something true. And Protestants (or anyone else) are not necessarily subjectively wicked because they commit objectively evil acts.

A reductio ad absurdum. That's a perfectly legitimate type of argument.. . . there's nothing unethical about a reductio ad absurdum.

Correct.

The discussion continues in Hays' further related post, Team Players:
If a Catholic indulges in a blanket, prejudicial smear of Protestants by impugning the motives of all Protestants who support "artificial" birth control, even though said Catholic is in no position to know their motives, that's not anti-Protestant bigotry–but if a Protestant responds with a reductio ad absurdum, that's "anti-Catholic BIGOTRAY"!
Windsor betrays the insular mindset of the team player. The team player automatically cheers his own team and automatically jeers the other team. The team player keeps a tally of every real or imagined foul by the other team while turning a blind eye to every foul by his own team.
It's the Mafia mentality. One standard of la familia, another standard for outsiders. 

He is right again. We shouldn't stand for this sort of double standard. Unethical remarks are wrong, no matter who makes them.The fact that Hays himself has often acted in the same manner that he now decries does not wipe out the present instance of it. From his own past hypocrisy it doesn't follow that his Catholics opponents are now acting with a double standard. A double standard is what it is: no matter who points it out or no matter how they have acted in the past. All parties are prone to it, by human nature, and so we have to be vigilant to avoid it and point it out when it occurs.

He doesn't grasp the nature of a tu quoque, or a reductio ad absurdum. An argument from analogy only has to be analogous to be valid. The counterargument doesn't have to be any truer than the argument it opposes.
That's the point. For the argument works either way. If it's valid for cathmom5 to impute immoral motives to millions of Protestants she's never met, then it's valid for me to impute immoral motives to the popes. 

Notice that Scott Windsor doesn't demand any evidence or proof from cathmom5 for her defamatory allegations. That's because she's a fellow teammate, so the rules are different for her. My argument is predicated on a conditional premise: if her argument is valid, and my argument is analogous, then my argument is valid. But Scott Windsor is one of those sociopathic partisans who will fly into a rage the moment you make their team play by the same rules. A loyalist can never step out of his own viewpoint to see an issue from the viewpoint of the Other. It's the same thing we see in the political sphere every day.

Exactly. Hays now explains the nature of his argument, which was massively misunderstood and continues to be. I think he is correct in everything, minus the silly name-calling ("sociopathic partisans") that is often his wont (how well I know!).


A reductio ad absurdum is not an absurd argument. Rather, a reductio ad absurdum demonstrates the absurdity of the position it targets. It's a standard, perfectly valid form of argument. [link given]

At this point, Hays descends to his usual recourse of repeated personal insult (included insult of the intelligence of his opponents); yet his initial counter-point reductio still stands. Logic remains what it is, no matter how much personal insult accompanies a legitimate appeal to it.

cathmom5 needs to do the right thing and retract her initial prejudicial remarks about hundreds of millions of Protestants. Her statements aren't in accord with Catholic understanding of what constitutes subjective culpability with regard to mortal sin, as explained above.

* * * * *
As to my own thoroughly orthodox Catholic position regarding contraception and NFP, I have made that abundantly clear, as can be seen in the following papers. Contraception was the initial issue, in fact, that led me to the Catholic Church, as I discovered that it's moral theology was uniquely biblical and in accord with that of the early Church and the apostles.



The Birth Control Pill Can and Too Often Does Bring About an Early Abortion: Documentary Resources
The Biblical Evidence Against Contraception
Biblical Evidence Against Contraception and For the Blessing of Many Children
Dialogue on the Ethical Distinction Between Artificial Contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP)
Contraception: Early Church Teaching (William Klimon)

Discussion Thread on my Facebook Page About NFP, Contraception, and Marriage
Mounting Scientific Evidence of the Link Between Oral Contraceptives and Breast Cancer [Links Page]
Secular Social Science Vindicates Catholic Moral Teaching / Important Evangelical Protestants Rethinking Contraception (W. Bradford Wilcox)
Protestant Compromise, Radical Secularism, and Racist Eugenics: The Contraception Debate: 1900-1940
Why Did God Kill Onan? Luther, Calvin, Wesley, C. S. Lewis, and Others on Contraception

Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? Why is Contraception Condemned by the Catholic Church?
Dialogue on Contraception
Dialogue on Contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP) (vs. "Grubb")
Replies to Questions on Catholic Teaching Regarding Contraception and Sexual Morality

The 1968 Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae: Infallible Teaching Prohibiting Contraception
Does Orthodoxy Allow Contraception Or Not?

Contraception and the "Fewer Children is Better" Mentality: the Opposition of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Other Protestants


***

The Birth Control Pill Can and Too Often Does Bring About an Early Abortion: Documentary Resources

"Birth Control" Pills Cause Early Abortions (J. T. Finn, updated April 23, 2005) [Pro-Life America]

The Pill – How it Works and Fails (John Wilks) [distributed by American Life League]

Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent (Walter L. Larimore, MD; Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH) [Archives of Family Medicine, February 2000, Volume 9 Number 2, Pages 126 - 133, Copyright: March 18, 1999, American Medical Association]

Growing Debate About the Abortifacient Effect of the Birth Control Pill and the Principle of the Double Effect (Walter L. Larimore, MD) [Copyright 2004 Walter L. Larimore, MD

; An earlier version of this paper was published in the journal Ethics and Medicine (January, 2000;16(1):23-30) This paper was updated by the author October 1, 2004]

Which Birth Control Methods Cause Abortion? Some methods have abortive mechanisms; others do not. [Abort73.com]

The Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive (William F. Colliton, Jr., M. D.)

A Declaration of Life by Pro-Life Physicians [American Life League]

How do the Pill and other contraceptives work? (Chris Kahlenborn, M.D.) [Life Advocate]

The Pill: Abortifacient or Contraceptive? A Literature Review (Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, BA, MA, Linacre Quarterly, February 1995)

Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?: A Short Condensation (Randy Alcorn)

How "The Pill" Works as an Abortifacient (You Tube video)

They Never Told Us That Our Birth Control May be Killing Our Pre-Born Children (edited by Darlene Folk; Director, Ashtabula Friends for Life)

Even More Evidence That the BCP Causes Unrecognized Abortions (Dr. Walt Larimore)

The Abortifacient Effect of the Birth Control Pill (A Reading List) (Dr. Walt Larimore)

American Society of Reproductive Medicine Statement Confirms the Pill Causes Abortion (Dr. Walt Larimore)

Professor Says Women Use Birth Control Pill Wrong, Resulting in Abortions (Dr. Walt Larimore)

Vatican: Birth Control Pill Can Cause Abortion and Cancer (Hilary White, Lifesite News)

What a Woman Should Know about Birth Control (Chris Kahlenborn, MD, and Ann Moell, MD)

The New Abortionists: Chemical Abortion in Contemporary Culture: An Interview with Dr. Thomas Hilgers and Larry Frieders

Classic Anti-Catholic Lies: George Salmon's Whoppers About Cardinal Newman's Alleged Disbelief in Papal Infallibility Prior to the 1870 Conciliar Definition, and Supposed Dishonesty and Intellectual Suicide Afterwards

The Infallibility of the Church  (available online at Internet Archive and Google Books) is an 1888 work by Irish Anglican controversialist and polemicist George Salmon (1819-1904), that still is widely cited as a supposedly compelling extended argument against Catholic historical and dogmatic claims, despite having been roundly refuted by B.C. Butler's book, The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged "Salmon" (Sheed and Ward, 1954). Another Catholic refutation had been made over fifty years previously, in a series of articles in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record in 1901 (see p. 193 ff., March 1901) and 1902.

Here is a sampling of modern anti-Catholic (mostly Reformed) Protestant polemical citation and high praise of the book:

One will scan his notes in vain for any reference to any classical works on, say, sola scriptura, such as William Whitaker's late 16th century classic, Disputations on Holy Scripture, or William Goode's mid 19th century work, Divine Rule of Faith and Practice. You will not find him [Catholic convert Francis Beckwith] interacting with George Salmon's The Infallibility of the Church,. . . (James White, 8-18-10)

I would assume I was praphrasing George Salmon, from his book, The Infallibility of the Church, pp 161-162: . . . (James White, 7-2-09)

(Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, 334) (That excellent work may be downloaded or read at this link.) (The Anonymous One [TAO], 3-21-10)

George Salmon wrote . . . (Jason Engwer, 3-7-10; also 3-29-07)

Some of the best answers to the claims of Rome are from Anglicans from times past - Whitaker, Goode, George Salmon, etc.  (Ken Temple, 10-27-10)

Salmon stated it more clearly than myself . . . (David T. King, 11-18-10)

Even the great C. S. Lewis recommended Salmon's book to one Michael Edwards, according to the latter's report of a conversation, around 1959 (see: The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Volume 3: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy, 1950 - 1963, edited by Walter Hooper, New York: HarperCollins, 2007, p. 1133, footnote 24).


I read much of it myself in 1990 when I was ferociously resisting the notion of the Catholic Church's infallibility. It worked for a while, till I read Cardinal Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine , which blew Salmon out of the water, about as easily as a bazooka would dispose of a cork floating in the ocean. I was persuaded of the catholic faith before the year was out, largely as a result of that profound book.


As an illustration of the whoppers, distortions, half-truths, and flat-out lies that typify the book, I would like to explore Salmon's charge that Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman opposed papal infallibility before the First Vatican Council in 1870, and later lied about his earlier position when he stated that he accepted the view after 1870, whereas (according to Salmon's jaded cynicism) he had not before. Of course, since Salmon characterizes Newman as a liar regarding his own opinions after 1870 (implying that he committed intellectual suicide simply because he was an observant Catholic), we can assume that he would reiterate the charge with regard to Newman's opinions pre-1870, had he seen many manifestations of them brought together, as I will do shortly. 

If a man can unjustly be called a liar once, then the charge can more easily be made on successive occasions. So Salmon would just as easily dispute Newman's pre-1870 statements (having been made aware of them), if he is willing to disparage his character and disbelieve his own report of his opinions in the first place. But for fair-minded, non-prejudiced inquirers, a man's self-report is quite sufficient to end the dispute.

Much of the confusion in Salmon and many others through the years, in relation to Cardinal Newman's view of papal infallibility and the particular dogmatic definition that was arrived at, lies in failing to distinguish opposition to the dogma and opposition to de fide (highest level) definition of it at a given time (what is called in Catholic circles, inopportunism). The Church usually waits hundreds of years to define a dogma at the very highest levels. Thus, one can legitimately have an opinion whether the present is the "right" time to do so or not. Newman also opposed some of the tactics and methodologies of parties in the Vatican Council and before: the extreme Ultramontane party, who would have made the definition ( Pastor aeternus ) far more sweeping than it actually was. 


I explained the basic situation at length in my 1996 paper, Newman on Papal Infallibility, extensively citing his recent leading biographer Ian Ker, who in turn utilized many of Newman's own words. See also the last portion of my paper, Dialogue: Is the Vatican I Proclamation of Papal Infallibility Non-Negotiable and Orthodox or "Radical Papal Tyranny" and the Triumph of Ultramontanism?, for a discussion (with very severe Newman critic Tim Enloe) of Newman's views, and the issues surrounding the First Vatican Council and the extreme ultramontane party that was in effect, defeated at the Council (to  Newman's great satisfaction). 

Anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist apologist James White thought very highly of George Salmon's wrongheaded and unjust polemic against Cardinal Newman, in our first extensive written debate in 1995. Here is our exchange:

James White (6 April 1995): I would also like to ask if you have read Salmon's refutation of Newman in his work, The Infallibility of the Church?


Dave Armstrong (15 May 1995: completely unanswered by White henceforth): I suppose Newman was dishonest with himself and others, too over the issue of papal infallibility? Not quite, James. He was what is called an "inopportunist" before the definition - one who thought that the time was not right for it. Primarily, he was opposed to the ultramontane faction. The definition was actually a triumph of the center or the moderate viewpoint, so to speak, since it limited infallibility quite a bit and gave it very specific criteria. Newman had full liberty as a Catholic to question the possible future dogma before it was defined, and in so doing, showed great courage, concern for the well-being of the Church, and integrity. In fact, I believe (I'd have to verify this) he questioned only a more sweeping definition, as proposed by the ultramontanes.

He was just as consistent and honest when he submitted (what you call a "collapse" - I used to make the same argument, by the way, after Salmon) to the definition afterwards because this is how Catholicism operates. Those are the rules of the game, and those who can't abide by them (such as Dollinger and millions of liberals today) ought to get out of the game and play another one where they can avoid being disingenuous, to put it mildly. What Newman did was no different than opposing a proposal for a change in a civil statute but then agreeing to obey it if it becomes law.

Here is George Salmon's scurrilous, unsubstantiated charge of unscrupulous dishonesty, made against Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman:

I remember then how the news came that the Pope proposed to assemble a council, and how those who had the best right to know predicted that this council was to terminate the long controversy as to the relative superiority of popes and councils, by owning the personal infallibility of the Pope, and so making it unnecessary that any future council should be held. This announcement created the greatest ferment in the Roman Catholic Church; and those who passed for the men of highest learning in that communion, and who had been wont to be most relied on, when learned Protestants were to be combated, opposed with all their might the contemplated definition, as an entire innovation on the traditional teaching of the Church, and as absolutely contradicted by the facts of history. These views were shared by Dr. Newman. . . . When, however, it was proposed to declare the Pope's personal infallibility, this was a doctrine so directly in the teeth of history, that Newman made no secret, not only of his own disbelief of the doctrine, but also of his persuasion that the authoritative adoption of it would be attended with ruinous consequences to his Church, by placing what seemed an insuperable obstacle to any man of learning entering her fold.

(Lecture II: "The Cardinal Importance of the Question of Infallibility ," p. 21)

B.C. Butler (chapter 2) replies to this outrageous calumny as follows:

It will be observed that Salmon here states categorically that Newman, as a Catholic, before 1870, shared the view that the doctrine of the Pope's personal infallibility was "absolutely contradicted by the facts of history," and the unwary reader will naturally suppose that his opposition to the "aggressive insolent faction" was due to his belief that the doctrine was false. . . . 


Now Newman held that such men were trying to commit Catholic theologians to an entirely new view, ascribing infallibility to a Pope's public utterances which were not definitions of faith or morals.. . . 

It thus appears that there were, before the Council's definition, two opinions about papal infallibility, a moderate one and an extreme one. Newman on the whole held the moderate one while strongly opposing the extreme view, whose more violent upholders he stigmatised as an aggressive insolent faction. The Vatican Council itself came down on the side of the moderate opinion, . . .

It is thus that Salmon has gravely misrepresented Newman's whole attitude to the papal infallibility question. He has given his readers the impression that the dogma as actually defined was something that Newman had regarded as in absolute contradiction with the facts of history and he has represented an opposition to the dogma's opportuneness as an opposition to its content.  

Butler noted, in fairness to Salmon, that Ward's biography was not yet available for him to consult; nor were most other resources for Newman's letters (especially post-1845), as utilized below in abundance. However, he added that Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875) was indeed available to him (it was a quite famous volume). Newman's views on papal infallibility were made quite clear in that letter, as seen below, in repeated citations.

Cardinal Newman explained his inopportunism and (above all) detestation of unsavory tactics (over against opposition to the definition itself) in no uncertain terms (all bolding emphases my own):

There is a great attempt by W. G. Ward, Dr. Murray of Maynooth, and Father Schrader, the Jesuit of Rome and Vienna, to bring in a new theory of Papal Infallibility, which would make it a mortal sin, to be visited by damnation, not to hold the Temporal Power necessary to the Papacy. No one answers them and multitudes are being carried away, . . . (Ward ii, 152-153; Letter to James Robert Hope-Scott, 11 April 1867)

If it be God's will that some definition in favour of the Pope's infallibility is passed, I then should at once submit—but up to that very moment I shall pray most heartily and earnestly against it. Any how, I cannot bear to think of the tyrannousness and cruelty of its advocates . . . (Ward ii, 289; Letter to Bishop Moriarty of Kerry, 20 March 1870)

For myself, I have at various times in print professed to hold the Pope's Infallibility; your difficulty is not mine – but still I deeply lament the violence which has been used in this matter. (LD xxv, 216; Letter to Mrs. Wilson, 20 October 1870; also in POL; 185-186)

The Church is the Mother of high and low, of the rulers as well as of the ruled. Securus judicat orbis terrarum. If she declares by her various voices that the Pope is infallible in certain matters, in those matters infallible he is. What Bishops and people say all over the earth, that is the truth, whatever complaint we may have against certain ecclesiastical proceedings. Let us not oppose ourselves to the universal voice. (Ward ii, 376; Letter to Père Hyacinthe, 24 November 1870)

As little as possible was passed at the Council—nothing about the Pope which I have not myself always held. But it is impossible to deny that it was done with an imperiousness and overbearing wilfulness, which has been a great scandal . . . (Ward ii, 380; Letter to Mrs. William Froude, c. Oct. 1871)

I underwent then, no change of mind as regards the truth of the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility in consequence of the Council. It is true I was deeply, though not personally, pained both by the fact, and by the circumstances of the definition; and when it was in contemplation, I wrote a most confidential letter, which was surreptitiously gained and published, but of which I have not a word to retract. The feelings of surprise and concern expressed in that letter have nothing to do with a screwing one's conscience to profess what one does not believe, which is Mr. Capes' pleasant account of me. He ought to know better. (Ward ii, 558-559; Letter to the Guardian, 12 September 1872, in reply to John Moore Capes)

But the explanation of such reports about me is easy. They arise from forgetfulness on the part of those who spread them, that there are two sides of ecclesiastical acts, that right ends are often prosecuted by very unworthy means, and that in consequence those who, like myself, oppose a line of action, are not necessarily opposed to the issue for which it has been adopted. . . . What I felt deeply, and ever shall feel, while life lasts, is the violence and cruelty of journals and other publications, which, taking as they professed to do the Catholic side, employed themselves by their rash language (though, of course, they did not mean it so), in unsettling the weak in faith, throwing back inquirers, and shocking the Protestant mind. . . . So much as to my posture of mind before the Definition . . . (Dif. ii, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 8, 1875)

. . . it can hardly be doubted that there were those in the Council who were desirous of a stronger definition; and the definition actually made, as being moderate, is so far the victory of those many bishops who considered any definition on the subject inopportune. And it was no slight fruit of their proceedings in the Council, if a definition was to be, to have effected a moderate definition. (Dif. ii, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, Postscript, 1875)

Cardinal Newman made it equally clear that he personally believed in papal infallibility (before it was proclaimed a dogma), and that after it was proclaimed, he accepted the definition as a loyal Catholic, with no cognitive dissonance, and thought it was quite reasonable and moderate, compared to the more extensive definition that had been sought by the extreme ultramontane party (and that God's hand had brought this about). Thus, no dishonesty whatever was involved either before or after the definition; nor even a change of mind:

In June and July 1839, near four years ago, I read the Monophysite Controversy, and it made a deep impression on me, which I was not able to shake off, that the Pope had a certain gift of infallibility, and that communion with the See of Rome was the divinely intended means of grace and illumination. . . . Since that, all history, particularly that of Arianism, has appeared to me in a new light; confirmatory of the same doctrine. (Keb., 219; Letter to John Keble, 4 May 1843; referring to his views in July 1839)

Here, too, is vividly brought out before you what we mean by Papal infallibility, or rather what we do not mean by it: you see how the Pope was open to any mistake, as others may be, in his own person, true as it is, that whenever he spoke ex cathedrà on subjects of revealed truth, he spoke as its divinely-ordained expounder. . . . Popes, then, though they are infallible in their office, as Prophets and Vicars of the Most High, and though they have generally been men of holy life, and many of them actually saints, have the trials, and incur the risks of other men. Our doctrine of infallibility means something very different from what Protestants think it means. (PPC, Lecture 8, 1851)

. . . "the king can do no wrong" has a sense in constitutional law, though not the sense which the words would suggest to a foreigner who heard them for the first time; and "the Pope is infallible" has its own sense in theology, but not that which the words suggest to a Protestant, who takes the words in their ordinary meaning. And, as it is the way with Protestants to maintain that the Pope's infallibility is intended by us as a guarantee of his private and personal exemption from theological error, nay, even from moral fault of every kind; so a foreigner, who knew nothing of England, were he equally impatient, prejudiced, and indocile, might at first hearing confound the maxim, "the king can do no wrong," with the dogma of some Oriental despotism or theocracy. (PPC, Note 1, 1851)

Deeply do I feel, ever will I protest, for I can appeal to the ample testimony of history to bear me out, that in questions of right and wrong, there is nothing really strong in the whole world, nothing decisive and operative, but the voice of Him, to whom have been committed the Keys of the Kingdom, and the oversight of Christ's flock. That voice is now, as ever it has been, a real authority, infallible when it teaches, prosperous when it commands, ever taking the lead wisely and distinctly in its own province, adding certainty to what is probable, and persuasion to what is certain. ("Discourses on University Education," delivered in Dublin in 1852, pp. 27-28; cited in Ward ii, 558-559; Letter to the Guardian, 12 September 1872, in reply to John Moore Capes)

As to the Infallibility of the Pope, I see nothing against it, or to dread in it,—for I am confident that it must be so limited practically that it will leave things as they are. (Ward ii, 101; Letter to Edward B. Pusey, 17 November 1865)

As to writing a volume on the Pope's infallibility, it never so much as entered into my thoughts. . . . And I should have nothing to say about it. I have ever thought it likely to be true, never thought it certain. I think too, its definition inexpedient and unlikely; but I should have no difficulty accepting it, were it made. And I don't think my reason will ever go forward or backward in the matter. (POL; Letter to William G. Ward, 18 February 1866)

Applying this principle to the Pope's Infallibility, . . . I think there is a good deal of evidence, on the very surface of history and the Fathers in its favour. On the whole then I hold it; but I should account it no sin if, on the grounds of reason, I doubted it. (Ward ii, 220-221; Letter to Edward B. Pusey, 23 March 1867)

I have only an opinion at best (not faith) that the Pope is infallible . . . if it be true after all and divine, my faith in it is included in the implicita fides which I have in the Church. (Ward ii, 234-235; Letter to Henry Wilberforce, 21 July 1867)

I hold the Pope's Infallibility, not as a dogma, but as a theological opinion; that is, not as a certainty, but as a probability. . . . To my mind the balance of probabilities is still in favour of it. There are vast difficulties, taking facts as they are, in the way of denying it. . . . Anyhow the doctrine of Papal Infallibility must be fenced round and limited by conditions. (Ward ii, 236; Letter to Peter le Page Renouf, 21 June 1868)

The Pope's infallibility implies nothing of the kind [i.e., inspiration]. His state of mind is not unlike that of other men. He has no inward gift – but an external assistance or providence such, that, if he is going wrong, he is stopped – and his ultimate decision (ex cathedra, and in revus fidei et morum ["in matters of faith and morals"]) is overruled so as not to swerve from, to be consistent with, to be the oracle of, the Verbum Dei ["Word of God"]. (LD xxxii, 292-293; Letter to an Unknown Correspondent, 12 February 1869)

I saw the new Definition yesterday, and am pleased at its moderation—that is, if the doctrine in question is to be defined at all. The terms are vague and comprehensive; and, personally, I have no difficulty in admitting it. (Dif. ii, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 8, 1875; Letter to Ambrose Phillipps de Lisle, 24 July 1870)

For myself, ever since I was a Catholic, I have held the Pope's infallibility as a matter of theological opinion; at least, I see nothing in the Definition which necessarily contradicts Scripture, Tradition, or History; and the "Doctor Ecclesiæ" (as the Pope is styled by the Council of Florence) bids me accept it. In this case, I do not receive it on the word of the Council, but on the Pope's self-assertion. And I confess, the fact that all along for so many centuries the Head of the Church and Teacher of the faithful and Vicar of Christ has been allowed by God to assert virtually his own infallibility, is a great argument in favour of the validity of his claim. (Dif. ii, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 8, 1875; Letter of 27 July 1870)

I agree with you that the wording of the Dogma has nothing very difficult in it. It expresses what, as an opinion, I have ever held myself with a host of other Catholics. (Ward ii, 310-311; Letter to O'Neill Daunt, 7 August 1870)

As I have ever believed as much as the definition says, I have a difficulty in putting myself into the position of mind of those who have not. (Ward ii, 308-309; Letter to Mrs. William Froude, 8 August 1870)

I do not thank him for the odious words, which he has made the vehicle of it. I will not dirty my ink by repeating them; but the substance, mildly stated, is this:—that I have all along considered the doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility to be contradicted by the facts of Church History, and that though convinced of this, I have in consequence of the Vatican Council forced myself to do a thing that I never fancied would befall me when I became a Catholic:—viz.: forced myself by some unintelligible quibble to fancy myself believing what really after all in my heart I could not and did not believe, and that this operation and its result had given me a considerable amount of pain. I could say much, and quote much from what I have written in comment upon this nasty view of me. . . . (Ward ii, 558-559; Letter to the Guardian, 12 September 1872, in reply to John Moore Capes)

Within the last few years I have been obliged to adopt a similar course towards those who said I could not receive the Vatican Decrees. I sent a sharp letter to the Guardian . . . (POL; Letter to Sir William Henry Cope, 13 February 1875)

. . . nor, in accepting as a dogma what I had ever held as a truth, could I be doing violence to any theological view or conclusion of my own; . . . (Dif. ii, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 1, 1875)

It is abundantly clear by now that Cardinal Newman (far from being disingenuous, or two-faced, or viciously inconsistent, or from abjectly following Rome and throwing away his mind and judgment) was completely consistent in his views, before and after the Council in 1870, and its dogmatic definition of papal infallibility: since his conversion to Catholicism in 1845 and even six years before. It is George Salmon who has lied. Bearing false witness violates one of the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:16), and those who are characterized by perpetual lying, i.e., "liars" (I am not positively asserting this about Salmon) are said in the New Testament to be in danger of hellfire (Rev 21:8). Lying or calumny or slander is a very serious sin.



SOURCES(alphabetical by abbreviation)
Dif. ii Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 2 (contains Letter to Pusey, 1865 and Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, 1875 / 1875; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900)

Keb ., Correspondence of John Henry Newman with John Keble and Others, 1839-45 (edited at the Birmingham Oratory, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1917)

LD xxv The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, Vol. XXV: The Vatican Council, January 1870 to December 1871 (edited by Charles Stephen Dessain, Oxford University Press, USA, 1974)

LD xxxii The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, Vol. XXXII: Supplement (edited by Francis J. McGrath, Oxford University Press, USA, 2008)

POL A Packet of Letters: A Selection from the Correspondence of John Henry Newman ; edited by Joyce Sugg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983)

PPC Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England (1851; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1908)

Ward ii [Wilfrid Ward] The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman (vol. 2 of two volumes: London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912)

Twelve Seminal Alvin Plantinga Books Now Available Online

 Alvin Plantinga is perhaps the greatest Christian philosopher alive today (he's my favorite current philosopher), and certainly among the best in philosophy of religion: specifically religious epistemology (sort of a half-sister of apologetics in a sense). Here are all or mostly all of his books available online, for free:

God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (1967) [see amazon page]

God, Freedom, and Evil (1973) [see amazon page]

The Nature of Necessity (1974) [see amazon page]

Does God Have a Nature? (1980) [see amazon page]

Warrant and Proper Function (1993) [see amazon page]

Warrant: The Current Debate (1993) [see amazon page]

The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader (edited by James F. Sennett, 1998) [see amazon page]

Warranted Christian Belief (2000) [see amazon page]


Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality (2003; edited by Matthew Davidson) [see amazon page]

Knowledge of God (with Michael Tooley, 2008) [see amazon page]

Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? (with Daniel C. Dennett, 2010) [see amazon page]

Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Nov. 2011) [see amazon page]


***

Collected Quotations from Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (Mostly Non-Theological): Part II: Letters J-Z

 I originally selected these for my book, The Quotable Newman ,  but I needed to cut down the page numbers (it's over 600 pages and not yet completed, as I write), and the book is supposed to be mostly devoted to theology and Church history, so I took these out. But I think they're all great quotes. Enjoy the incredible wisdom and insight of this great man.

See also:

Part I: Letters A-I
* * * * *
Liberalism and "Progress" (Political)
The State ought to have a conscience; but what if it happened to have half-a-dozen, or a score, or a hundred, in religious matters, each different from each? . . . The Pope has denounced the sentiment that he ought to come to terms with "progress, liberalism, and the new civilization." I have no thought at all of disputing his words. I leave the great problem to the future. God will guide other Popes to act when Pius goes, as He has guided him. No one can dislike the democratic principle more than I do. No one mourns, for instance, more than I, over the state of Oxford, given up, alas! to "liberalism and progress," to the forfeiture of her great medieval motto, "Dominus illuminatio mea," . . . but what can we do? All I know is, that Toryism, that is, loyalty to persons, "springs immortal in the human breast"; that religion is a spiritual loyalty; and that Catholicity is the only divine form of religion. And thus, in centuries to come, there may be found out some way of uniting what is free in the new structure of society with what is authoritative in the old, without any base compromise with "Progress" and "Liberalism." (Dif. ii, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 6, 1875)

Is Benthamism so absolutely the Truth, that the Pope is to be denounced because he has not yet become a convert to it? (Dif. ii, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 7, 1875)

Martyrs
The most horrible tortures which imagination can fancy, the most appalling kinds of death, were the lot, the accepted portion, the boast and joy, of those abject multitudes. Not a few merely, but by thousands, and of every condition of life, men, women, boys, girls, children, slaves, domestics, they willingly offered their life's blood, their limbs, their senses, their nerves, to the persecutor, rather than soil their faith and their profession with the slightest act which implied the denial of their Lord. . . . And who were these her children who made this sacrifice of blood so freely? what had been their previous lives? how had they been trained? were they special men of fasting, of prayer, and of self-control? No, I repeat it, no; they were for the most part common men; it was not they who did the deed, it was not what was matured in them, it was that unfathomable ocean of faith and sanctity which flowed into, and through, and out of them, unto those tremendous manifestations of divine power. It was the narrow-minded slave, the untaught boy, the gentle maid, as well as the Bishop or the Evangelist, who took on them their cross, and smiled as they entered on their bloody way. It was the soldier of the ranks, it was the jailer or hangman suddenly converted, it was the spectator of a previous martyrdom, nay, it was even the unbaptized heathen, who with a joyful song rose up and washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. (PPC, Lecture 9)

Materialism (Wealth for its Own Sake)
. . . Christians are called upon to think little of the ordinary objects which men pursue—wealth, luxury, distinction, popularity, and power. It was this negligence about the world which brought upon them in primitive times the reproach of being indolent. Their heathen enemies spoke truly; indolent and indifferent they were about temporal matters. If the goods of this world came in their way, they were not bound to decline them; nor would they forbid others in the religious use of them; but they thought them vanities, the toys of children, which serious men let drop. (SD, Sermon 11: "Christian Nobleness," 22 May 1831)

Another consideration which the world urges in its warfare against religion, as I have already implied, is, that religion is unnatural. It is objected (what indeed cannot be denied, and is almost a truism) that religion does not bring the elementary and existing nature of man to its highest perfection, but thwarts and impairs it, and provides for a second and new nature. It is said, and truly, that religion treats the body hardly, and is severe with the soul. How different is the world, which conceives that the first object of life is to treat our inferior nature indulgently, that all methods of living are right which do this, and all wrong which do not! Hence men lay it down, that wealth is the measure of all good, and the end of life; for a state of wealth may be described as a state of ease and comfort to body and mind. They say that every act of civil government is wrong, which does not tend to what they thus consider to be man's happiness; that utility and expedience, or, in other words, whatever tends to produce wealth, is the only rule on which laws should be framed; that what tends to higher objects is not useful or expedient; that higher objects are a mere dream; that the only thing substantial is this life, and the only wisdom, to cherish and enjoy it. (SD, Sermon 7: "Faith and the World," 18 November 1838)

Where is trade without the love of filthy lucre, which is the root of all evil? (SD, Sermon 17: "Sanctity the Token of the Christian Empire," 4 December 1842)

Others are full of projects for making money; be they high or be they low, that is their pursuit, they covet wealth and they live in the thought how they may get it. They are alive to inventions and improvements in their particular trade, and to nothing else. They rival each other. They as it were, run a race with each other, not a heavenly race, such as the Apostle's who ran for a crown incorruptible, but a low earthly race, each trying by all means in his power to distance his neighbour in what is called the favour of the public, making this their one end, and thinking nothing at all of religion. (FP, Sermon 2: "Preparation for the Judgment," 20 February 1848)

Music
I have delayed thanking you for your great kindness in uniting with Rogers in giving me a fiddle . . . on Saturday I had a good bout at Beethoven's Quartets – which I used to play . . . and thought them more exquisite than ever – so that I was obliged to lay down the instrument and literally cry out with delight . . . I really think it will add to my power of working, and the length of my life. I never wrote more than when I played the fiddle. I always sleep better after music. There must be some electric current passing from the strings through the fingers into the brain and down the spinal marrow. Perhaps thought is music. (POL; Letter to R.W. Church, 11 July 1865)

Old Age
As years go on, I have less sensible devotion and inward life. I wonder whether it is, or rather whether it is not, so with all men, viewed as apart from the grace of God. The greater part of our devotion in youth, our faith, hope, cheerfulness, perseverance, is natural—or, if not natural, it is from a [euphuia] which does not resist grace, and requires very little grace to illuminate. The same grace goes much further in youth as encountering less opposition . . . Old men are in soul as stiff, as lean, as bloodless as their bodies, except so far as grace penetrates and softens them. And it requires a flooding of grace to do this. . . . I much doubt if I, my present self, just as I am, were set down in those past years, 1820 or 1822 or 1829, if they could be brought back, whether I now should make those good prayers and bold resolves, unless, that is, I had some vast and extraordinary grant of grace from Thy Heavenly treasure-house. And that, I repeat, because I think, as death comes on, his cold breath is felt on soul as on body, and that, viewed naturally, my soul is half dead now, whereas then it was in the freshness and fervour of youth. . . . O my God, not as a matter of sentiment, not as a matter of literary exhibition, do I put this down. O rid me of this frightful cowardice, for this is at the bottom of all my ills. When I was young, I was bold, because I was ignorant—now I have lost my boldness, because I have advanced in experience. I am able to count the cost, better than I did, of being brave for Thy sake, and therefore I shrink from sacrifices. Here is a second reason, over and above the deadness of my soul, why I have so little faith or love in me. (Ward i, 574-576; Journal, 15 December 1859)

I do not mean myself to surprise people or to be audacious, but somehow, now at the end of life, I have from experience a confidence in myself, and, (though with little of St. Cyprian's sanctity, but with more of truth, as I trust, in my cause) I am led to take to myself some portion of the praise given him in Keble's line, and to "trust the lore of my own loyal heart." I trust to having some portion of an "inductive sense," founded in right instincts. (Ward ii, 270; Letter to Fr. Henry Coleridge, 5 February 1871)

I am thankful to say that I am at present quite free from any complaint, as far as I know, but I am over eighty, and it is with difficulty that I walk, eat, read, write or talk. My breath is short and my brain works slow, and, like other old men, I am so much the creature of hours, rooms, and of routine generally, that to go from home is almost like tearing off my skin, and I suffer from it afterwards. On the other hand, except in failure of memory, and continual little mistakes in the use of words, and confusion in the use of names, I am not conscious that my mind is weaker than it was. Now this is sadly egotistical; but I want you to understand why it is that I do not accept your most kind invitations, . . . I have real reasons, which friends sometimes will not believe, for they come and see me and say: "How well you are looking!" (Ward ii, 485; Letter to Lord Braye, 29 October 1882)

Rationalism (vs. Faith)
Rationalism is a certain abuse of Reason; that is, a use of it for purposes for which it never was intended, and is unfitted. To rationalize in matters of Revelation is to make our reason the standard and measure of the doctrines revealed; to stipulate that those doctrines should be such as to carry with them their own justification; to reject them, if they come in collision with our existing opinions or habits of thought, or are with difficulty harmonized with our existing stock of knowledge. And thus a rationalistic spirit is the antagonist of Faith; for Faith is, in its very nature, the acceptance of what our reason cannot reach, simply and absolutely upon testimony. (TT #73, 1836)

. . . it is Rationalism to accept the Revelation, and then to explain it away; to speak of it as the Word of God, and to treat it as the word of man; to refuse to let it speak for itself; to claim to be told the why and the how of God's dealings with us, as therein described, and to assign to Him a motive and a scope of our own; to stumble at the partial knowledge which He may give us of them; to put aside what is obscure, as if it had not been said at all; to accept one half of what has been told us, and not the other half; to assume that the contents of Revelation are also its proof; to frame some gratuitous hypothesis about them, and then to garble, gloss, and colour them, to trim, clip, pare away, and twist them, in order to bring them into conformity with the idea to which we have subjected them. (TT #73, 1836)

The Rationalist makes himself his own centre, not his Maker; he does not go to God, but he implies that God must come to him. (TT #73, 1836)

Our private judgment is made everything to us,—is contemplated, recognized, and consulted as the arbiter of all questions, and as independent of everything external to us. Nothing is considered to have an existence except so far forth as our minds discern it. The notion of half views and partial knowledge, of guesses, surmises, hopes and fears, of truths faintly apprehended and not understood, of isolated facts in the great scheme of Providence, in a word, the idea of Mystery, is discarded. (TT #73, 1836)

Such a belief, implicit, and symbolized as it is in the use of creeds, seems to the Rationalist superstitious and unmeaning, and he consequently confines Faith to the province of Subjective Truth, or to the reception of doctrine, as, and so far as, it is met and apprehended by the mind, which will be differently, as he considers, in different persons, in the shape of orthodoxy in one, heterodoxy in another. That is, he professes to believe in that which he opines; and he avoids the obvious extravagance of such an avowal by maintaining that the moral trial involved in Faith does not lie in the submission of the reason to external realities partially disclosed, but in what he calls that candid pursuit of truth which ensures the eventual adoption of that opinion on the subject, which is best for us individually, which is most natural according to the constitution of our own minds, and, therefore, divinely intended for us. (TT #73, 1836)

He assumes . . . that clear knowledge is the one thing needful for the human mind, and by consequence that Christian faith does not really consist in the direct contemplation of the Supreme Being, in a submission to His authority, and a resignation to such disclosures about Himself and His will, be they many or few, distinct or obscure, as it is His pleasure to make to us, but in a luminous, well-adjusted view of the scheme of salvation, . . . (TT #73, 1836)

Not that the reality of the Atonement, in itself, is formally denied, but it is cast in the background, except so far as it can be discovered to be influential, viz., to show God's hatred of sin, the love of Christ, and the like; and there is an evident tendency to consider it as a mere Manifestation of the love of Christ, to the denial of all real virtue in it as an expiation for sin; as if His death took place merely to show His love for us as a sign of God's infinite mercy, to calm and assure us, without any real connexion existing between it and God's forgiveness of our sins. . . . Rationalism, or want of faith, which has in the first place invented a spurious gospel, next looks complacently on its own off-spring, and pronounces it to be the very image of that notion of the Divine Providence, according to which it was originally modelled; a procedure, which, besides more serious objections, incurs the logical absurdity of arguing in a circle. (TT #73, 1836)

But it is the way with men, particularly in this day, to generalize freely, to be impatient of such concrete truth as existing appointments contain, to attempt to disengage it, to hazard sweeping assertions, to lay down principles, to mount up above God's visible doings, and to subject them to tests derived from our own speculations. (TT #73, 1836)

. . . this narrow-minded, jejune, officious, and presumptuous human system teaches nothing but a Manifestation, i.e. a series of historical works conveying a representation of the moral character of God; and it dishonours our holy faith by the unmeaning reproach of its being metaphysical, abstract, and the like,—a reproach, unmeaning and irreverent, just as much so as it would be on the other hand to call the historical facts earthly or carnal. (TT #73, 1836)

Revivalism and Pietism (Excesses of)
The true preaching of the Gospel is to preach Christ. But the fashion of the day has been, instead of this, to preach conversion; to attempt to convert by insisting on conversion; to exhort men to undergo a change; to tell them to be sure they look at Christ, instead of simply holding up Christ to them; to tell them to have faith, rather than to supply its Object; to lead them to stir up and work up their minds, instead of impressing on them the thought of Him who can savingly work in them; to bid them take care that their faith is justifying, not dead, formal, self-righteous, and merely moral, whereas the image of Christ fully delineated of itself destroys deadness, formality, and self-righteousness; to rely on words, vehemence, eloquence, and the like, rather than to aim at conveying the one great evangelical idea whether in words or not. And thus faith and (what is called) spiritual-mindedness are dwelt on as ends, and obstruct the view of Christ, just as the Law was perverted by the Jews. . . . We do not affect people by telling them to weep or laugh; let us preach Christ, and leave the effect to God, to prosper it or not. . . . Now that no effect follows upon such representations I am very far from saying; experience shows the contrary. But for the most part it will be produced by sympathy, and will consist in imitation. Men will feel this and that, because they are told to feel it, because they think they ought to feel it, because others say they feel it themselves; not spontaneously, as the consequence of the objects presented to them. And hence the absence of nature, composure, unobtrusiveness, healthy and unstudied feeling, variety and ease of language, among those who are thus converted, even when that conversion is sincere. Convulsions are in their view the only real manifestation of spiritual life and strength. (Jfc., ch. 13)

Secularism
For is there not at this very time a special effort made almost all over the world . . . to do without Religion? Is there not an opinion avowed and growing, that a nation has nothing to do with Religion; that it is merely a matter for each man's own conscience?—which is all one with saying that we may let the Truth fail from the earth without trying to continue it in and on after our time. . . . Is there not a feverish and ever-busy endeavour to get rid of the necessity of Religion in public transactions? . . . an attempt to educate without Religion?—that is, by putting all forms of Religion together, which comes to the same thing;—an attempt to enforce temperance, and the virtues which flow from it, without Religion, by means of Societies which are built on mere principles of utility? an attempt to make expedience, and not truth, the end and the rule of measures of State and the enactments of Law? . . . An attempt to deprive the Bible of its one meaning to the exclusion of all other, to make people think that it may have an hundred meanings all equally good, or, in other words, that it has no meaning at all, is a dead letter, and may be put aside? an attempt to supersede Religion altogether, as far as it is external or objective, as far as it is displayed in ordinances, or can be expressed by written words,—to confine it to our inward feelings, and thus, considering how variable, how evanescent our feelings are, an attempt, in fact, to destroy Religion? (TT #83, 1838)

The evidence of History, I say, is invaluable in its place; but, if it assumes to be the sole means of gaining Religious Truth, it goes beyond its place. We are putting it to a larger office than it can undertake, if we countenance the usurpation; and we are turning a true guide and blessing into a source of inexplicable difficulty and interminable doubt. And so of other sciences: just as Comparative Anatomy, Political Economy, the Philosophy of History, and the Science of Antiquities may be and are turned against Religion, by being taken by themselves, as I have been showing, so a like mistake may befall any other. (IU, Part I, Discourse 4: "Bearing of Other Branches of Knowledge on Theology," 1852)

Hitherto the civil power has been Christian. Even in countries separated from the Church, as in my own, the dictum was in force, when I was young, that: 'Christianity was the law of the land.' Now, everywhere that goodly framework of society, which is the creation of Christianity, is throwing off Christianity. The dictum to which I have referred, with a hundred others which followed upon it, is gone, or is going everywhere; and, by the end of the century, unless the Almighty interferes, it will be forgotten. Hitherto, it has been considered that religion alone, with its supernatural sanctions, was strong enough to secure submission of the masses of our population to law and order; now the Philosophers and Politicians are bent on satisfying this problem without the aid of Christianity. Instead of the Church's authority and teaching, they would substitute first of all a universal and thoroughly secular education, calculated to bring home to every individual that to be orderly, industrious, and sober is his personal interest. Then, for great working principles to take the place of religion, for the use of the masses thus carefully educated, it provides—the broad fundamental ethical truths, of justice, benevolence, veracity, and the like; proved experience; and those natural laws which exist and act spontaneously in society, and in social matters, whether physical or psychological; for instance, in government, trade, finance, sanitary experiments, and the intercourse of nations. As to Religion, it is a private luxury, which a man may have if he will; but which of course he must pay for, and which he must not obtrude upon others, or indulge in to their annoyance. The general [nature] of this great apostasia is one and the same everywhere; but in detail, and in character, it varies in different countries. For myself, I would rather speak of it in my own country, which I know. There, I think it threatens to have a formidable success; though it is not easy to see what will be its ultimate issue. At first sight it might be thought that Englishmen are too religious for a movement which, on the continent, seems to be founded on infidelity; but the misfortune with us is, that, though it ends in infidelity as in other places, it does not necessarily arise out of infidelity. . . . it must be borne in mind, that there is much in the liberalistic theory which is good and true; for example, not to say more, the precepts of justice, truthfulness, sobriety, self-command, benevolence, which, as I have already noted, are among its avowed principles, and the natural laws of society. It is not till we find that this array of principles is intended to supersede, to block out, religion, that we pronounce it to be evil. There never was a device of the Enemy so cleverly framed and with such promise of success. (Ward ii, 460-462; "Biglietto Speech" upon becoming a Cardinal, 12 May 1879)

Skepticism
Now I think that controversy is Lord P's food. He is supported, as on crutches, on asking and urging difficulties on the one hand and demolishing answers on the other. The best hope of his changing lies in his having no one to combat with him. Especially no one whom he loves or knows about. There is no substance in his scepticism, and this is most likely to come home upon him, if silence is offered to his restless activity of mind . . . (POL; Letter to Lady Herbert of Lea, 6 October 1879)

I do really think it an epidemic, and wonderfully catching. It does not spread by the reason, but by the imagination. The imagination presents a possible, plausible view of things which haunts and at length overcomes the mind. We begin by asking "How can we be sure that it is not so?" and this thought hides from the mind the real rational grounds on which our faith is founded. Then our faith goes, and how in the world is it ever to be regained, except by a wonderful grant of God's grace. May God keep us all from this terrible deceit of the latter days. What is coming upon us? I look with keen compassion on the next generation and with, I may say, awe. (Ward ii, 478; Letter to Emily Bowles, 15 June 1882)

Sloganism (in Religion)
Principles are great truths or laws which embody in them the character of a system, enable us to estimate it, and indirectly guide us in practice. For instance, "all is of grace," is a great principle of the Gospel. So are the following:—"we conquer by suffering,"—"the saints of God are hidden,"—"obedience is of the spirit not of the letter,"—"the blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the Church,"—"to gain happiness we must not seek it." It is a characteristic of such statements of principles to be short, pointed, strong, and often somewhat paradoxical in appearance. Such, for example, is the political maxim, which has a clear and true meaning, but in form is startling, "The King can do no wrong;" or in physics, that "nature abhors a vacuum." They are laws or exhibitions of general truths; and not directly practical. I mean, a man will be sure to get into difficulty or error if he attempts to use them as guides in matters of conduct and duty. They mean nothing, or something wide of the truth, taken as literal directions. Proverbs, again, are of the same nature; we recognize their truth in the course of life, but we do not walk by them. They come after us, not go before. They confirm, they do not explore for us. They are reflections upon human conduct, not guides for it. (Jfc., ch. 13)

Picked verses, bits torn from the context, half sentences, are the warrant of the Protestant Idea, of what is Apostolic truth, on the one hand, and, on the other, of what is Catholic falsehood. As they have their chips and fragments of St. Paul and St. John, so have they their chips and fragments of Suarez and Bellarmine; and out of the former they make to themselves their own Christian religion, and out of the latter our Anti-christian superstition. . . . they judge of us by scraps, and on these scraps they exercise their private judgment . . . and the process ends in their bringing forth, out of their scraps from the Apostles, what they call "Scriptural Religion," and out of their scraps from our theologians, what they call Popery. . . . all this multitudinous testimony about the truths of Revelation, Protestants narrow down into one or two meagre sentences, which at their own will and pleasure they select from St. Paul, and at their own will and pleasure they explain, and call the Gospel. . . . The Catholic doctrine is after all too great to be comfortably accommodated in a Protestant nutshell; it cannot be surveyed at a glance, or refuted by a syllogism . . . (PPC, Lecture 8)

When a person goes to a fever ward, he takes some essence with him to prevent his catching the disorder; and of this kind are the anti-Catholic principles in which Protestants are instructed from the cradle. For instance, they are taught to get by heart without any sort of proof, as a kind of alphabet or spelling lesson, such propositions as these:—"miracles have ceased long ago;" "all truth is in the Bible;" "any one can understand the Bible;" "all penance is absurd;" "a priesthood is pagan, not Christian," and a multitude of others. These are universally taught and accepted, as if equally true and equally important, just as are the principles "it is wrong to murder or thieve," or "there is a judgment to come." When then a person sets out in life with these maxims as a sort of stock in trade in all religious speculations, and encounters Catholics, whose opinions hitherto he had known nothing at all about, you see he has been made quite proof against them, and unsusceptible of their doctrines, their worship, and their reasoning, by the preparation to which he has been subjected. He feels an instinctive repugnance to everything Catholic, by reason of these arbitrary principles, which he has been taught to hold, and which he thinks identical with reason. (PPC, Lecture 9)

. . . what I here speak of is professing to understand without understanding. It is thus that political and religious watchwords are created; first one man of name and then another adopts them, till their use becomes popular, and then every one professes them, because every one else does. Such words are "liberality," "progress," "light," "civilization;" such are "justification by faith only," "vital religion," "private judgment," "the Bible and nothing but the Bible." Such again are "Rationalism," "Gallicanism," "Jesuitism," "Ultramontanism"—all of which, in the mouths of conscientious thinkers, have a definite meaning, but are used by the multitude as war-cries, nicknames, and shibboleths, with scarcely enough of the scantiest grammatical apprehension of them to allow of their being considered in truth more than assertions. (GA, Part I, ch. 4, sec. 1)

Sources
[alphabetically by source abbreviations]
[multiple dates = first date of publication / date of uniform edition (preceding publisher); date of volume used for quotations (following publisher)]


Dif. ii Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 2 (contains Letter to Pusey, 1865 and Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, 1875 / 1875; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900)

FP Faith and Prejudice and Other Unpublished Sermons (1848, 1870, 1873; New York: Sheed & Ward, 1956)

GA An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (1870; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903)

IU The Idea of a University (1852, 1858 / 1873; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907)

Jfc. Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification (1838 / 1874; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 3rd edition, 1908)

POL A Packet of Letters: A Selection from the Correspondence of John Henry Newman; edited by Joyce Sugg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983)

PPC Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England (1851; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1908)


SD Sermons Bearing on Subjects of the Day (1831-1843 / 1869; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902)


TT Tracts for the Times (#1-3, 6-8, 10-11, 15, 19-21, 31, 33-34, 38, 41, 45, 47, 71, 73-76, 79, 82-83, 85, 88, 90; 1833-1840; London: J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1840; #38, 41, 71, 82, and 90 also appeared in Via Media, vol. 2; #73 in Essays Critical and Historical, vol. 1 (1871; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907); #83, 85 in Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects (1872; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907); these later versions are used here, with Newman's corrections and comments)


Ward i, ii [Wilfrid Ward] The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman (two volumes: London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912)

Collected Quotations from Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (Mostly Non-Theological): Part I: Letters A-I

 I originally selected these for my book, The Quotable Newman ,  but I needed to cut down the page numbers (it's over 600 pages and not yet completed, as I write), and the book is supposed to be mostly devoted to theology and Church history, so I took these out. But I think they're all great quotes. Enjoy the incredible wisdom and insight of this great man.

See also:

Part II: Letters J-Z
* * * * *
Allegorical Method
When the mind is occupied by some vast and awful subject of contemplation, it is prompted to give utterance to its feelings in a figurative style; for ordinary words will not convey the admiration, nor literal words the reverence which possesses it; and when, dazzled at length with the great sight, it turns away for relief, it still catches in every new object which it encounters, glimpses of its former vision, and colours its whole range of thought with this one abiding association. If, however, others have preceded it in the privilege of such contemplations, a well-disciplined piety will lead it to adopt the images which they have invented, both from affection for what is familiar to it, and from a fear of using unsanctioned language on a sacred subject. (Ari., ch. 1, sec. 3)

Anti-Catholicism (Prejudice)
On the whole then I conclude as follows:—if there is a form of Christianity now in the world which is accused of gross superstition, of borrowing its rites and customs from the heathen, and of ascribing to forms and ceremonies an occult virtue;—a religion which is considered to burden and enslave the mind by its requisitions, to address itself to the weak-minded and ignorant, to be supported by sophistry and imposture, and to contradict reason and exalt mere irrational faith;—a religion which impresses on the serious mind very distressing views of the guilt and consequences of sin, sets upon the minute acts of the day, one by one, their definite value for praise or blame, and thus casts a grave shadow over the future;—a religion which holds up to admiration the surrender of wealth, and disables serious persons from enjoying it if they would;—a religion, the doctrines of which, be they good or bad, are to the generality of men unknown; which is considered to bear on its very surface signs of folly and falsehood so distinct that a glance suffices to judge of it, and that careful examination is preposterous; which is felt to be so simply bad, that it may be calumniated at hazard and at pleasure, it being nothing but absurdity to stand upon the accurate distribution of its guilt among its particular acts, or painfully to determine how far this or that story concerning it is literally true, or what has to be allowed in candour, or what is improbable, or what cuts two ways, or what is not proved, or what may be plausibly defended;—a religion such, that men look at a convert to it with a feeling which no other denomination raises except Judaism, Socialism, or Mormonism, viz. with curiosity, suspicion, fear, disgust, as the case may be, as if something strange had befallen him, as if he had had an initiation into a mystery, and had come into communion with dreadful influences, as if he were now one of a confederacy which claimed him, absorbed him, stripped him of his personality, reduced him to a mere organ or instrument of a whole;—a religion which men hate as proselytizing, anti-social, revolutionary, as dividing families, separating chief friends, corrupting the maxims of government, making a mock at law, dissolving the empire, the enemy of human nature, and a "conspirator against its rights and privileges;"—a religion which they consider the champion and instrument of darkness, and a pollution calling down upon the land the anger of heaven;—a religion which they associate with intrigue and conspiracy, which they speak about in whispers, which they detect by anticipation in whatever goes wrong, and to which they impute whatever is unaccountable;—a religion, the very name of which they cast out as evil, and use simply as a bad epithet, and which from the impulse of self-preservation they would persecute if they could;—if there be such a religion now in the world, it is not unlike Christianity as that same world viewed it, when first it came forth from its Divine Author. (Dev., Part II: ch. 6, sec. 1)

Not believing [that] (1) priests believe what they say; (2) are continent; (3) [that] converts are satisfied—looking out for some change in them. The consequence of this deep prejudice is that from the nature of the case there are no ways of overcoming it. If Catholics are particular, devout, or charitable, etc., they are said to be hypocrites; if all things apparently simple, they think there is something in the background; they call them plausible; if nothing can be found against them, how well they conceal things; if they argue well, what clever sophists; if charitable, they have vast wealth; if they succeed, not of God's blessing, but of craft. I wish we had half the cleverness they impute to us. Hence they circulate lies about us, not inquiring the authority, and when they are disproved, instead of giving over, circulate others which can't be. When any particular lie is put out, they embrace it at once as being so likely, i.e. like their prejudice. They take not this age and place, but a thousand miles away and two hundred years ago. Catholics alone can suffer this, because they are in all times and places; they could not, e.g., treat Quakers so. . . . They say to themselves, if this is not true, yet something else is true quite as bad. . . . Now the remedy for all this is to see us . . . They cannot keep up their theories against us, but they are afraid to be puzzled with something on our side. They have a sort of feeling that if they were to see us we should contradict their prejudices, so they do all they can to keep us out of sight. Hence no person hardly who has been much abroad and lived with the people can keep up their prejudices; no one who has read much history: the strength of prejudice is with those who are not informed. (SN, "Prejudice as a Cause Why Men Are Not Catholics," 2 September 1849)

The Author repeats here, what he has several times observed in the course of the Volume itself, that his object has not been to prove the divine origin of Catholicism, but to remove some of the moral and intellectual impediments which prevent Protestants from acknowledging it. Protestants cannot be expected to do justice to a religion whose professors they hate and scorn. . . . that he has not attempted the task to which they invite him, does not arise from any misgiving whatever in his mind about the strength of his cause, but about the disposition of his audience. He has a most profound misgiving about their fairness as judges, founded on his sense of the misconceptions concerning Catholicism which generally pre-occupy the English mind. Irresistible as the proof seems to him to be, so as even to master and carry away the intellect as soon as it is stated, so that Catholicism is almost its own evidence, yet it requires, as the great philosopher of antiquity reminds us, as being a moral proof, a rightly-disposed recipient. While a community is overrun with prejudices, it is as premature to attempt to prove that doctrine to be true which is the object of them, as it would be to think of building in the aboriginal forest till its trees had been felled. (PPC, Preface)

I am going to inquire why it is, that, in this intelligent nation, and in this rational nineteenth century, we Catholics are so despised and hated by our own countrymen, with whom we have lived all our lives, that they are prompt to believe any story, however extravagant, that is told to our disadvantage; as if beyond a doubt we were, every one of us, either brutishly deluded or preternaturally hypocritical, and they themselves, on the contrary were in comparison of us absolute specimens of sagacity, wisdom, uprightness, manly virtue, and enlightened Christianity. I am not inquiring why they are not Catholics themselves, but why they are so angry with those who are. Protestants differ amongst themselves, without calling each other fools and knaves. . . . I am neither attacking another's belief just now, nor defending myself: I am not engaging in controversy, though controversy is good in its place: I do but propose to investigate how Catholics came to be so trodden under foot, and spurned by a people which is endowed by nature with many great qualities, moral and intellectual . . . (PPC, Lecture 1)

. . . Englishmen go by that very mode of information in its worst shape, which they are so fond of imputing against Catholics; they go by tradition, immemorial, unauthenticated tradition. . . . Englishmen entertain their present monstrous notions of us, mainly because those notions are received on information not authenticated, but immemorial. This it is that makes them entertain those notions; they talk much of free inquiry; but towards us they do not dream of practising it; they have been taught what they hold in the nursery, in the school-room, in the lecture-class, from the pulpit, from the newspaper, in society. Each man teaches the other: "How do you know it?" "Because he told me." "And how does he know it?" "Because I told him;" or, at very best advantage, "We both know it, because it was so said when we were young; because no one ever said the contrary . . . this, I must maintain, is the sort of ground on which Protestants are so certain that the Catholic Church is a simple monster of iniquity. If you asked the first person you met why he believed that our religion was so baneful and odious, he would not say, "I have had good proofs of it;" or, "I know Catholics too well to doubt it;" or, "I am well read in history, and I can vouch for it;" or, "I have lived such a long time in Catholic countries, I ought to know;" . . . No; single out a man from the multitude, and he would say something of this sort: "I am sure it is;" he will look significant, and say, "You will find it a hard job to make me think otherwise;" . . . the multitude of men hate Catholicism mainly on tradition, there being few, indeed, who have made fact and argument the primary or the supplemental grounds of their aversion to it. (PPC, Lecture 2)

The consequence is natural;—tell a person of ordinary intelligence, Churchman or Dissenter, that the vulgar allegations against us are but slanders, simple lies, or exaggerations, or misrepresentations or, as far as they are true, admitting of defence or justification, and not to the point; and he will laugh in your face at your simplicity, or lift up hands and eyes at your unparalleled effrontery. The utmost concession he will make is to allow the possibility of incidental and immaterial error in the accusations which are brought against us; but the substance of the traditional view he believes, as firmly as he does the Gospel, and, if you reject it and protest against it, he will say it is just what is to be expected of a Catholic, to lie and to circumvent. To tell him, at his time of life, that Catholics do not rate sin at a fixed price, that they may not get absolution for a sin in prospect, that priests can live in purity, that nuns do not murder each other, that the laity do not make images their God, that Catholics would not burn Protestants if they could! Why, all this is as perfectly clear to him as the sun at noonday; he is ready to leave the matter to the first person he happens to meet; every one will tell us just the same; only let us try; he never knew there was any doubt at all about it; he is surprised, for he thought we granted it. When he was young, he has heard it said again and again; to his certain knowledge it has uniformly been said the last forty, fifty, sixty years, and no one ever denied it; it is so in all the books he ever looked into; what is the world coming to? What is true, if this is not? So, Catholics are to be whitewashed! What next? (PPC, Lecture 2)

Fancy, then, how great has been their indignation, that we Catholics should pretend to be Britons; should affect to be their equals; should dare to preach, nay, to controvert; should actually make converts, nay, worse and worse, not only should point out their mistakes, but, prodigious insolence! should absolutely laugh at the absurdity of their assertions, and the imbecility of their arguments. They are at first unable to believe their ears, when they are made sensible that we, who know so well our own worthlessness, and know that they know it, who deserve at the least the hulks or transportation, talk as loudly as we do, refuse to be still, and say that the more we are known, the more we shall be esteemed. We, who ought to go sneaking about, to crouch at their feet, and to keep our eyes on the ground, from the consciousness of their hold upon us,—is it madness, is it plot, what is it, which inspires us with such unutterable presumption? (PPC, Lecture 9)

Most wonderful phenomenon! An educated man [Charles Kingsley], breathing English air, and walking in the light of the nineteenth century, thinks that neither I nor any members of my communion feel any difficulty in allowing that "Truth for its own sake need not, and on the whole ought not to be, a virtue with the Roman clergy;" nay, that they are not at all surprised to be told that "Father Newman had informed" the world, that such is the standard of morality acknowledged, acquiesced in, by his co-religionists! But, I suppose, in truth, there is nothing at all, however base, up to the high mark of Titus Oates, which a Catholic may not expect to be believed of him by Protestants, however honourable and hard-headed. (Apo. ii; Letter to X. Y., Esq., 8 January 1864)

Aristotle
While the world lasts, will Aristotle's doctrine on these matters last, for he is the oracle of nature and of truth. While we are men, we cannot help, to a great extent, being Aristotelians, for the great Master does but analyze the thoughts, feelings, views, and opinions of human kind. He has told us the meaning of our own words and ideas, before we were born. In many subject-matters, to think correctly, is to think like Aristotle; and we are his disciples whether we will or no, though we may not know it. (IU, Part I, Discourse 5: "Knowledge its Own End," 1852)

As St. Boniface had been jealous of physical speculations, so had the early Fathers shown an extreme aversion to the great heathen philosopher whom I just now named, Aristotle. . . . The Church the while had kept silence; she had as little denounced heathen philosophy in the mass as she had pronounced upon the meaning of certain texts of Scripture of a cosmological character. . . . at length St. Thomas made him a hewer of wood and drawer of water to the Church. A strong slave he is; and the Church herself has given her sanction to the use in Theology of the ideas and terms of his philosophy. (IU, Part II, ch. 8: "Christianity and Scientific Investigation," 1855)

Art
All true art comes from revelation (to speak generally), I do think, . . . (Moz. ii; Letter to Miss H., 31 December 1850)

Atheism and Agnosticism
A proof drawn from an interruption in the course of nature is in the same line of argument as one deduced from the existence of that course, and in point of cogency is inferior to it. Were a being who had experience only of a chaotic world suddenly introduced into this orderly system of things, he would have an infinitely more powerful argument for the existence of a designing Mind, than a mere interruption of that system can afford. A Miracle is no argument to one who is deliberately, and on principle, an atheist. (Mir., Essay One: "The Miracles of Scripture," 1826)

Why otherwise do they so frequently scoff at religious men, as if timid and narrow-minded, merely because they fear to sin? Why do they ridicule such conscientious persons as will not swear, or jest indecorously, or live dissolutely? Clearly, it is their very faith itself they ridicule; not their believing on false grounds, but their believing at all. Here they show what it is which rules them within. They do not like the tie of religion; they do not like dependence. To trust another, much more to trust him implicitly, is to acknowledge oneself to be his inferior; and this man's proud nature cannot bear to do. . . . these unbelieving men, who use hard words against Scripture, condemn themselves out of their own mouth;—in this way. It is a mistake to suppose that our obedience to God's will is merely founded on our belief in the word of such persons as tell us Scripture came from God. We obey God primarily because we actually feel His presence in our consciences bidding us obey Him. And this, I say, confutes these objectors on their own ground; because the very reason they give for their unbelief is, that they trust their own sight and reason, because their own, more than the words of God's Ministers. Now, let me ask, if they trust their senses and their reason, why do they not trust their conscience too? Is not conscience their own? Their conscience is as much a part of themselves as their reason is; and it is placed within them by Almighty God in order to balance the influence of sight and reason; and yet they will not attend to it; for a plain reason,—they love sin,—they love to be their own masters, and therefore they will not attend to that secret whisper of their hearts, which tells them they are not their own masters, and that sin is hateful and ruinous. (PS i, Sermon 15: "Religious Faith Rational," 24 May 1829)

. . . the practical safeguard against Atheism in the case of scientific inquirers is the inward need and desire, the inward experience of that Power, existing in the mind before and independently of their examination of His material world. (US, Sermon 10: "Faith and Reason, Contrasted as Habits of Mind," Jan. 1839)

I think that logically there is no middle point between Catholicism and Atheism – at the same time, holding this, I hold of course also, that numbers of men are logically inconsistent . . . (POL; Letter to Francis William Newman, 18 January 1860)

And thus again I was led on to examine more attentively what I doubt not was in my thoughts long before, viz. the concatenation of argument by which the mind ascends from its first to its final religious idea; and I came to the conclusion that there was no medium, in true philosophy, between Atheism and Catholicity, and that a perfectly consistent mind, under those circumstances in which it finds itself here below, must embrace either the one or the other. (Apo., ch. 4)

Young men must be prepared with answers to the intellectual difficulties they will meet with in the world, or in many cases where the strength of the agnostic position is first felt by them in the absence of a very special grace their faith will go suddenly and completely. (Ward ii, 491; personal conversation recorded by the author, Wilfrid Ward, 30 January 1885)

Take the first principles assumed by the unbelievers—the undeviating uniformity of nature, the unknowableness of all but phenomena, the inherent impossibility of knowing about God, the derivation of conscience from association of ideas. These are all, or nearly all, pure assumptions, and I should be inclined to say that if (which God forbid) our belief in God Himself were a pure assumption void of any proof, we should be acting not one whit less unreasonably in holding to our religion than these men in the unbelief they adhere to, based on pure assumptions, entirely unproved. (Ward ii, 494; personal conversation recorded by the author, Wilfrid Ward, 31 January 1885)

Beauty
The artist puts before him beauty of feature and form; the poet, beauty of mind; the preacher, the beauty of grace: then intellect too, I repeat, has its beauty, and it has those who aim at it. (IU, Part I, Discourse 5: "Knowledge its Own End," 1852)

Charity; Almsgiving
When men put aside a portion of their gains for God's service, then they sanctify those gains. . . . When a man who is rich, and whose duty calls on him to be hospitable, is careful also to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, thus he sanctifies his riches. When he is in the midst of plenty, and observes self-denial; when he builds his house, but builds Churches too; when he plants and sows, but pays tithes; when he buys and sells, but withal gives largely to religion; when he does nothing in the world without being suspicious of the world, being jealous of himself, trying himself, lest he be seduced by the world, making sacrifices to prove his earnestness;—in all these ways he circumcises himself from the world by the circumcision of Christ. This is the circumcision of the heart from the world. (SD, Sermon 8: "The Church and the World," 1 January 1837)

Church and Social Change
Who can deny that the treatment of prisoners has been much improved by Christianity? Who can deny that the laws for the poor are considerably influenced by its precepts? . . . Or, to come to a more apposite instance,—what greater revolution has there been in society, than the liberation of slaves? a revolution which is going on even now, as in times past. This has been owing to the Kingdom of the Saints. It has ever exalted those of low degree. It has changed the structure of the body politic all through Christendom. . . . moreover, we see from this instance of the abolition of slavery, as in the other instances I mentioned, how the Church conquers—not by force, but by persuasion. . . . she prevails, because God fights for her. (SD, Sermon 17: "Sanctity the Token of the Christian Empire," 4 December 1842)

Church and State; Caesaropapism; Erastianism
If the primitive believers did not interfere with the acts of the civil government, it was merely because they had no civil rights enabling them legally to do so. But where they have rights, the case is different; . . . the principle itself, the duty of using their civil rights in the service of religion, is clear; and since there is a popular misconception, that Christians, and especially the Clergy, as such, have no concern in temporal affairs, it is expedient to take every opportunity of formally denying the position, and demanding proof of it. In truth, the Church was framed for the express purpose of interfering, or (as irreligious men will say) meddling with the world. It is the plain duty of its members, not only to associate internally, but also to develope that internal union in an external warfare with the spirit of evil, whether in Kings' courts or among the mixed multitude; . . . (Ari., ch. 3, sec. 2)

Are we to speak when individuals sin, and not when a nation, which is but a collection of individuals? Must we speak to the poor, but not to the rich and powerful? (TT #2, 1833)

Dogma would be maintained, sacraments would be administered, religious perfection would be venerated and attempted, if the Church were supreme in her spiritual power; dogma would be sacrificed to expedience, sacraments would be rationalized, perfection would be ridiculed if she was made the slave of the State. Erastianism, then, was the one heresy which practically cut at the root of all revealed truth; the man who held it would soon fraternise with Unitarians, mistake the bustle of life for religious obedience, and pronounce his butler to be as able to give communion as his priest. It destroyed the supernatural altogether, by making most emphatically Christ's kingdom a kingdom of the world. (Dif. i, Lecture 4)

. . . if the State would but keep within its own province, it would find the Church its truest ally and best benefactor. She upholds obedience to the magistrate; she recognises his office as from God; she is the preacher of peace, the sanction of law, the first element of order, and the safeguard of morality, and that without possible vacillation or failure; she may be fully trusted; she is a sure friend, for she is indefectible and undying. But it is not enough for the State that things should be done, unless it has the doing of them itself; it abhors a double jurisdiction, and what it calls a divided allegiance; aut Cæsar aut nullus, is its motto, nor does it willingly accept of any compromise. (Dif. i, Lecture 6)

The authority of the civil power is based on sanctions so solemn and august, and the temporal blessings which all classes derive from its protection are so many, that both on Christian principles and from motives of expedience it is ever a duty, unless religious considerations interfere, to profess a simple deference to its enunciations, and a hearty concurrence in its very suggestions . . . (PPC, Dedication)

I am not at all sure that it would not be better for the Catholic religion every where, if it had no very different status from that which it has in England. There is so much corruption, so much deadness, so much hypocrisy, so much infidelity, when a dogmatic faith is imposed on a nation by law, that I like freedom better. (POL; Letter to William Monsell, 17 June 1863)

If the Church is independent of the State, so far as she is a messenger from God, therefore, should the State, with its high officials and its subject masses, come into her communion, it is plain that they must at once change hostility into submission. There was no middle term; either they must deny her claim to divinity or humble themselves before it,—that is, as far as the domain of religion extends, and that domain is a wide one. They could not place God and man on one level. (Dif. ii, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 2, 1875)

The external unity and independence of the Jewish Church remained from first to last. Even when under secular influences and secular rulers, no one could call it a department of the Roman State or an organ or function of the civil government. . . . the Jewish Church was a divine building daubed with politics, but the Anglican is a civil establishment daubed with divinity. (VM i, Lecture 14; footnotes 2 and 6 from 1877)

Church Buildings
Did our Saviour say that magnificence in worshipping God, magnificence in His house, in its furniture, and in its decorations, is wrong, wrong since He has come into the world? Does He discourage us from building handsome Churches, or beautifying the ceremonial of religion? . . . This is what many persons think. I do not exaggerate when I say, that they think the more homely and familiar their worship is, the more spiritual it becomes. And they argue, that to aim at external beauty in the service of the Sanctuary, is to be like the Pharisees, to be fair without and hollow within; that whereas the Pharisees pretended a sanctity and religiousness outside which they had not inside, therefore, every one who aims at outward religion sacrifices to it inward. . . . They who rejoice with their brethren in their common salvation, and desire to worship together, build a place to worship in, and they build it as the expression of their feelings, of their mutual love, of their common reverence. They build a building which will, as it were, speak; which will profess and confess Christ their Saviour; which will herald forth His death and passion at first sight; which will remind all who enter that we are saved by His cross, and must bear our Cross after Him. They will build what may tell out their deepest and most sacred thoughts, which they dare not utter in word: not a misshapen building, not a sordid building, but a noble dwelling, a palace all-glorious within; unfit, indeed, for God's high Majesty, whom even the heaven of heavens cannot contain, but fit to express the feelings of the builders,—a monument which may stand and (as it were) preach to all the world while the world lasts; which may show how they desire to praise, bless, and glorify their eternal Benefactor; how they desire to get others to praise Him also; a Temple which may cry out to all passers by, "Oh, magnify the Lord our God, and fall down before His footstool, for He is Holy! Oh, magnify the Lord our God, and worship Him upon His holy hill, for the Lord our God is Holy!" [Ps. xcix. 5, 9.] This, then, is the real state of the case; and when our Lord blamed the Pharisees as hypocrites, it was not for attending to the outside of the cup, but for not attending to the inside also. (PS vi, Sermon 21: "Offerings for the Sanctuary," 23 September 1839)

Hence there is an increasing cultivation of all that is external, from a feeling that external religion is the great development and triumph of the inward principle. For instance, much curiosity is directed towards the science of ecclesiastical architecture, and much appreciation shown of architectural proprieties. Attention, too, is paid to the internal arrangement and embellishment of sacred buildings. Devotional books also of an imaginative cast, religious music, painting, poetry, and the like are in request. (SD, Sermon 9: "Indulgence in Religious Privileges," 1 May 1842)

Communism
. . . it may be in the counsels of Providence that the Catholic Church may at length come out unexpectedly as a popular power. Of course the existence of the Communists makes the state of things now vastly different from what it was in the middle ages. (POL; Letter to Matthew Arnold, 3 December 1871)

Englishmen
And as the Jews shortly before their own rejection had two dark tokens—the one, a bitter contempt of the whole world, and the other, multiplied divisions and furious quarrels at home—so we English, as if some abomination of desolation were coming on us also, scorn almost all Christianity but our own; and yet have, not one, but a hundred gospels among ourselves, and each of them with its own hot defenders, till our very note and symbol is discord, and we wrangle and denounce, and call it life; but peace we know not, nor faith, nor love. (SD, Sermon 22: "Outward and Inward Notes of the Church," 5 December 1841)

An Englishman always worships 'decency and order.' Order is the first of arguments with him in favor of Catholicism. . . . Union, consistency, and the like, to know where to find a man or a party, all such things are the condition of an Englishman's respect. (LD xii, 159-160; Letter to Frederick Lucas, 20 January 1848)

. . . there are certain peculiarities of the English character, . . . the legitimate instruments for deciding on the truth of a religion are these two, fact and reason, or in other words, the way of history and the way of science; and to both the one and the other of these, the English mind is naturally indisposed. . . . all such abstract investigations and controversial exercises are distasteful to an Englishman; they suit the Germans, and still more the French, the Italians, and the Spaniards; but as to ourselves, we break away from them as dry, uncertain, theoretical, and unreal. The other means of attaining religious truth is the way of history; when, namely, from the review of past times and foreign countries, the student determines what was really taught by the Apostles in the beginning. Now, an Englishman, as is notorious, takes comparatively little interest in the manners, customs, opinions, or doings of foreign countries. Surrounded by the sea, he is occupied with himself; his attention is concentrated on himself; and he looks abroad only with reference to himself. We are a home people; we like a house to ourselves, and we call it our castle; we look at what is immediately before us; we are eminently practical; we care little for the past; . . . Now you see how admirably this temper of Englishmen fits in with the exigencies of Protestantism; for two of the very characteristics of Protestantism are, its want of past history, and its want of fixed teaching. . . . Observe, then;—the very exercises of the intellect, by which religious truth is attained, are just those which the Englishman is too impatient, and Protestantism too shallow, to abide; the natural disposition of the one most happily jumps with the needs of the other. And this was the first singular advantage of Protestantism in England: Catholics reasoned profoundly upon doctrine, Catholics investigated rigidly the religious state of other times and places: in vain,—they had not found the way to gain the Englishman; whereas their antagonists had found a weapon of their own, far more to the purpose of the contest than argument or fact. . . . Kings are an Englishman's saints and doctors; he likes somebody or something at which he can cry "huzzah," and throw up his hat. . . . It was plain, then, what had to be done in order to perpetuate Protestantism in a country such as this. Convoke the legislature, pass some sweeping ecclesiastical enactments, exalt the Crown above the Law and the Gospel, down with Cross and up with the lion and the dog, toss all priests out of the country as traitors; let Protestantism be the passport to office and authority, force the King to be a Protestant, make his Court Protestant, bind Houses of Parliament to be Protestant, clap a Protestant oath upon judges, barristers-at-law, officers in army and navy, members of the universities, national clergy; establish this stringent Tradition in every function and department of the State, surround it with the lustre of rank, wealth, station, name, and talent; and this people, so impatient of inquiry, so careless of abstract truth, so apathetic to historical fact, so contemptuous of foreign ideas, will ex animo swear to the truth of a religion which indulges their natural turn of mind, and involves no severe thought or tedious application. (PPC, Lecture 2)

It is not at all easy (humanly speaking) to wind up an Englishman to a dogmatic level. (Apo., ch. 4)

Enthusiasm, Religious (Derogatory Sense)
Nothing lasts, nothing keeps incorrupt and pure, which comes of mere feeling; feelings die like spring-flowers, and are fit only to be cast into the oven. Persons thus circumstanced will find their religion fail them in time; a revulsion of mind will ensue. They will feel a violent distaste for what pleased them before, a sickness and weariness of mind; or even an enmity towards it; or a great disappointment; or a confusion and perplexity and despondence. They have learned to think religion easier than it is, themselves better than they are; they have drunk their good wine instead of keeping it; and this is the consequence. . . . The most awful consequences of this untrue kind of devotion, which would have all the glories of the Gospel without its austerities, of course are those into which the dreadful heretics fell who are alluded to in the text; and of which it is well not to speak. Yet it must not be forgotten that even in these latter times, though not in our own Church, and not certainly among persons of high or refined minds, even immoralities have been the ultimate consequents of religious enthusiasm. . . . Christianity, considered as a moral system, is made up of two elements, beauty and severity; whenever either is indulged to the loss or disparagement of the other, evil ensues. (SD, Sermon 9: "Indulgence in Religious Privileges," 1 May 1842)

Happiness
Man is not sufficient for his own happiness; he is not happy except the Presence of God be with him. When he was created, God breathed into him that supernatural life of the Spirit which is his true happiness: and when he fell, he lost the divine gift, and with it his happiness also. Ever since he has been unhappy; ever since he has a void within him which needs filling, and he knows not how to fill it. He scarcely realizes his own need: only his actions show that he feels it, for he is ever restless when he is not dull and insensible, seeking in one thing or another that blessing which he has lost. (SD, Sermon 21: "Invisible Presence of Christ," 28 November 1841)

Infidels
Infidelity is a positive, not a negative state; it is a state of profaneness, pride, and selfishness . . . (Ari., ch. 1, sec. 3)

I think those shocking imaginations against everything supernatural and sacred, are as really diseases of the soul, as complaints of the body are, and become catching and epidemic, by contact or neighbourhood or company, (of course the will comes in, as a condition of their being caught, as, on the other hand, in the cures effected by St. Paul's handkerchiefs and aprons, faith would be a condition). But were I deliberately to frequent the society, the parties of clever infidels, I should expect all sorts of imaginations contrary to Revealed Truth, not based on reason, but fascinating or distressing, unsettling visions, to take possession of me ... This does not apply to intercourse with hereditary and religious Protestants, but to our Heresiarchs, to the preachers of infidel science, and our infidel literati and philosophers. This leads me on to recur in thought to the fierce protests and shuddering aversion with which St. John, St. Polycarp, and Origen are recorded to have met such as Marcion and his fellows—and, though it may be impossible to take their conduct as a pattern to copy literally, yet I think we should avoid familiar intercourse with infidel poets, essayists, historians, men of science, as much as ever we can lawfully. I am speaking of course of such instruments of evil as really propagate evil. (Ward ii, 477-478; Letter to Emily Bowles, 5 January 1882)

Ireland and Irishmen
Even Rome itself has its insubordinate population, and its concealed free-thinkers; even Belgium, that nobly Catholic country, cannot boast of the religious loyalty of its great towns. Such a calamity is unknown to the Catholicism of Dublin, Cork, Belfast, and the other cities of Ireland; for, to say nothing of higher and more religious causes of the difference, the very presence of a rival religion is a perpetual incentive to faith and devotion in men who, from the circumstances of the case, would be in danger of becoming worse than lax Catholics, unless they resolved on being zealous ones. . . . the Irish ever have been, as their worst enemies must grant, not only a Catholic people, but a people of great natural abilities, keen-witted, original, and subtle. This has been the characteristic of the nation from the very early times, and was especially prominent in the middle ages. As Rome was the centre of authority, so, I may say, Ireland was the native home of speculation. . . . "Philosopher," is in those times almost the name for an Irish monk. Both in Paris and Oxford, the two great schools of medieval thought, we find the boldest and most subtle of their disputants an Irishman,—the monk John Scotus Erigena, at Paris, and Duns Scotus, the Franciscan friar, at Oxford. Now, it is my belief, Gentlemen, that this character of mind remains in you still. I think I rightly recognize in the Irishman now, as formerly, the curious, inquisitive observer, the acute reasoner, the subtle speculator. (IU, Part II, ch. 9: "Discipline of Mind," November 1858)

I know well what simple firm faith the great body of the Irish people have, and how they put the Catholic Religion before anything else in the world. It is their comfort, their joy, their treasure, their boast, their compensation for a hundred worldly disadvantages . . . they do not, cannot, distinguish between their love of Ireland and their love of religion; their patriotism is religious, and their religion is strongly tinctured with patriotism . . . (Dif. ii, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, ch. 1, 1875)

Cromwell, and others have, by their conduct to the Irish, burned into the national heart a deep hatred of England, and, if the population perseveres, the sentiment of patriotism and the latent sense of historical wrongs will hinder even the more rational, and calm judging, the most friendly to England, from separating themselves from their countrymen. They are abundantly warmhearted and friendly to individual Englishmen, of that I have clear experience in my own case, but what I believe, though I have no large experience to appeal to, is, that there is not one Anglophilist in the nation. . . . Our rule has been marked by a persistent forcing on them English ways. . . . What I do know is the stupid forcing on their Catholicism our godless education. Since 1845 all English parties have been resolved that primary education and University education in Ireland should be without religion, except that . . . the Bible without comment should be allowed in the primary . . . (Ward ii, 517-518; Letter to John Rickards Mozley, 20 October 1881)

Why has not England acted towards Ireland as it has treated Scotland? Scotland had its own religion, and after a short time the attempt to impose Episcopacy on it was given up, and so indulgent has been England to Scotland, that even the Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, goes to kirk and listens to Presbyterian preachers. On the contrary, not only great sums have been poured through centuries into Ireland from England by the State and by the people, to force Protestantism on the Irish, but there were persecuting laws, . . . (Ward ii, 518; Letter to John Rickards Mozley, 24 October 1881)

The Irish Patriots hold that they never have yielded themselves to the sway of England and therefore never have been under her laws, and never have been rebels. . . . If I were an Irishman, I should be (in heart) a rebel. (POL; Letter to Gerard Manley Hopkins, 3 March 1887)

Sources
[alphabetically by source abbreviations]
[multiple dates = first date of publication / date of uniform edition (preceding publisher); date of volume used for quotations (following publisher)]

Apo. Apologia pro Vita Sua (1865; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1908)

Apo. ii Apologia pro Vita Sua (1864-1865 combined edition, edited by Wilfrid Ward; London: Oxford University Press, 1913)

Ari. Arians of the Fourth Century (1833 / 1871; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 3rd edition, 1908)

Dev. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845 / 2nd edition, 1878; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909)

Dif. i Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 1 (1850; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1901)

Dif. ii Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 2 (contains Letter to Pusey, 1865 and Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, 1875 / 1875; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1900)

IU The Idea of a University (1852, 1858 / 1873; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907)

LD xii The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, Vol. XII: Rome to Birmingham: January 1847 to December 1848 (edited by Charles Stephen Dessain, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962)

Mir. Two Essays on Biblical and Ecclesiastical Miracles (1826, 1843 / 1870; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907)

Moz. ii Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman During His Life in the English Church, vol. 2 [starting from December 1833] (edited by Anne Mozley; 1891; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903)

POL A Packet of Letters: A Selection from the Correspondence of John Henry Newman; edited by Joyce Sugg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983)

PPC Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England (1851; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1908)

PS i-viii Parochial and Plain Sermons (8 volumes: i 1834, ii 1835, iii 1836, iv 1839, v 1840, vi 1842, vii 1842, viii 1843 / 1869; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907 [i, iii, v-vii], 1908 [ii, viii], 1909 [iv])

SD Sermons Bearing on Subjects of the Day (1831-1843 / 1869; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1902)

SN Sermon Notes of John Henry Cardinal Newman: 1849-1878 (edited by the Fathers of the Birmingham Oratory; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1913)

TT Tracts for the Times (#1-3, 6-8, 10-11, 15, 19-21, 31, 33-34, 38, 41, 45, 47, 71, 73-76, 79, 82-83, 85, 88, 90; 1833-1840; London: J. G. F. and J. Rivington, 1840; #38, 41, 71, 82, and 90 also appeared in Via Media, vol. 2; #73 in Essays Critical and Historical, vol. 1 (1871; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907); #83, 85 in Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects (1872; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907); these later versions are used here, with Newman's corrections and comments)

US Oxford University Sermons (1826-1843 / 1871; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909)

VM i The Via Media of the Anglican Church: Illustrated in Lectures, Letters and Tracts Written Between 1830 and 1841, vol. 1; aka Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church (1837 / 1877; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 3rd edition, 1901)

Ward i, ii [Wilfrid Ward] The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman (two volumes: London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912)

Brief Exchange With Lutheran Nathan Rinne on Luther's Revolt and Fundamental Differences of Perspective Regarding the So-Called Protestant "Reformation"

 This very friendly yet intense discussion took place on my blog, in the combox for my post (with quite a provocative title!), Martin Luther in His Pseudo-Prophetic, Hyper-Infallible, "Super-Pope" Mode (Shocking Examples). Ben, a regular on my blog, makes some excellent comments in the combox, too, with several interesting links. Be sure to check those out, too, as a second reply to Nathan. Nathan's words will be in blue. Words of mine cited from the above paper will be in red.
Nathan's website is called Theology Like a Child .
* * *
"He actually believes these things."

I actually believe these things as well. And so should you. Seriously. : )

Really, when Luther speaks this way, it is within the context of defending doctrines of Scripture over against the doctrines of the church or canon law. The pope claimed to be right because he was pope (and maybe because he was the ruler of a massive enterprise). Luther claimed to be right because of Scripture.

He actually thought the Scriptures were clear enough and that their core message was obvious enough for everyone to see.

The nerve.

Yes, I actually believe this. I think it is true. Luther was much like the OT prophets. Where in RC doctrine is the existence for such prophets - such "out of the church mainstream" people - dealt with?

So you actually defend all of these ridiculous sayings of his?

Where in RC doctrine is the existence for such prophets - such "out of the church mainstream" people - dealt with?

We have saints who are extraordinary and who rebuked popes at times: folks like St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, and St. Francis of Assisi. But they didn't talk like Luther. They might rebuke a particular error, but they don't say that they have all truth, and everyone else for 1500 years was a dumbbell except them, and run down the Church, etc.

So you might say we have a prophetic tradition without the ludicrous excess that is so obviously apparent in Luther.

Yes, for the most part I defend his statements. If he actually said that "everyone else for 1500 years was a dumbbell" up to him, I'd disagree with him.

We have saints who are extraordinary and who rebuked popes at times: folks like St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, and St. Francis. But they didn't talk like Luther. They might rebuke a particular error....

On issues of faith or morals? As Luther pointed out, the issue was the doctrine. Likewise, in the Old Testament, people embraced false doctrines. Behavior was not really the issue for Luther, belief was. I'd like to know more about the prophets in the RCC who confronted the teachings (not behavior) of the mainstream church and still continued to be recognized by the church. I confess I do not know as much about this as I should, but from what little I have been able to gather, there aren't any. Maybe I am wrong.

Thanks again for your blog. Appreciate your desire to delve into these issues. 

* * *
Simple Christians would have always understood such clear words (like Romans 5:1 for example), and the Church Fathers, if pressed, almost certainly would have come to see the light had they been pressed more by blatant heresies to do so (as Augustine was). In any case, very few of their writings show evidence of ideas that would explicitly mitigate justification by faith alone.

So yes. Intellectuals often create systematic frameworks which overcome the clear meaning of simple statements that even children can understand. It happens all the time.

Luther was right. People, even sincere Christians, simply suppress the truth to this or that degree (this has to do with the sinner/saint thing as well, also rejected by the RCC in spite of the clear meaning of Romans 3 and 7)

I hope Dave can answer my question. I will state my point again: the RCC has no room for prophets who would call the church away from false teachings.

You can see more about how I think (roughly) by reading this paper, which is one of the better ones out there.

The Church is protected from such false (dogmatic, binding) teachings in the first place. That is what the infallibility of the Church means. Those who rebuked popes did so when they were going against clear moral stands; were being hypocrites or wimps.

In the case of Pope John XXII (1249-1334), though, he temporarily denied (unofficially) the Beatific Vision, and there was a spontaneous reaction against him from laypeople. He denied what had been held.

With Luther it is entirely otherwise. He comes around and starts denying at least 50 received doctrines and practices (as I have documented from his pre-1521 works alone).

That's not reform: it is full-fledged rebellion and revolution: such that no institution would ever, and should never, sanction.

If I went to your Lutheran church (or whatever you are) and stated that I had a special commission from God, standing on Scripture and plain reason, and that you had 61 teachings that were false and must immediately change, I would not only not be heard or taken seriously, but would be thrown out on my ear as a nut and fruitcake.

Yet we're supposed to accept as self-evident that Luther was right, and 1500 years of Catholic Apostolic Tradition wrong. It's no different. It's not even reasonable to do such a thing, even before we get to individual theological issues.

Thanks for the engagement. I appreciate the conviction with which you write even though I think it is misled.
I do wish I had more time to continue the discussion, but I don't. I will simply make a couple brief comments and allow you to have the last word (if you please).

Dave, I would be interested in knowing the 50 or 61 things that Luther denied that had been held for 1500 years (though that sounds extremely silly to me). Please provide the link if please.

In my mind, Luther clearly did not have rebellion in mind, but was a faithful son of the Church. Further, I do not think the "Catholic Apostolic Tradition" was nearly as monolithic as you say.

I think I am confirmed in my claim by your saying the infallibility of the Church protects it from false [dogmatic, binding] teachings in the first place. Indeed, in the RCC and EO conceptions of the Church there is no room for the idea that false teachings could ever be proclaimed in the highest levels of the church. I look at the O.T. and the N.T. (see the Pharisees, who sit in Moses' seat, rejecting those teachings brought by John and Jesus) and see all the confirmation I need for the Lutheran view. Not that there is no hope - the Holy Scriptures, recognized widely from the very beginning by faithful believers everywhere, do indeed guide us into all truth.

Best regards,
Nathan 
Thanks for your civility and your conviction as well. Here is a link to my "extremely silly" yet (unfortunately) stubbornly factual account:

50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)

Related papers:

Dialogue: Why Was Martin Luther Excommunicated? / Questions Concerning Luther's Expressed Obedience to the Pope's Decision Regarding His Orthodoxy

Was Corruption in the Medieval Papacy the Primary Cause of the Protestant Revolt?

Luther Was Not a Revolutionary?! Huh?!
Catholic Response to the Movie Luther (2003): "Good to Hear Both Sides of the Story"

Lutheran-Catholic Group Dialogue #2: The Nature of the True Church and Authoritative Christian Tradition / Questions on Institutional Separation

Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue #4: "Tragic Necessity" of Reform / Indulgences / Nominalism / Causes of Schism / Luther on "Papists" / Fathers' Authority

I look at the O.T. and the N.T. (see the Pharisees, who sit in Moses' seat, rejecting those teachings brought by John and Jesus) and see all the confirmation I need for the Lutheran view.

It's precisely the opposite of the way you are portraying it. Jesus was not against Pharisaism per se, but against hypocrisy in particular Pharisees: a far different thing. He Himself followed Pharisaical traditions, and Paul called himself a Pharisee twice (after his conversion).

Jesus didn't reject their teaching authority at all: quite the contrary. He stated, "practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Matthew 23:3, RSV)

It was a rebuke for hypocrisy; not false teaching (having just upheld their continuing authority on the basis of Moses' Seat, which is an extrabiblical tradition, not in the OT). It was exactly analogous to Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians for hypocrisy. They agreed in principle, but Peter was acting hypocritically.

As so often with Protestants arguing against Catholicism, you are simply reading your prior beliefs into the text, but as we see, you have distorted the meaning entirely. Therefore, your analogy to Lutheranism over against Catholic tradition and Church authority fails miserably. This text doesn't support it at all.