John Henry Newman, Oxford scholar and famous English convert to Catholicism (1801–1890), whose birthday we celebrate today, is acknowledged by most for his English prose, his lofty ideas on university education and his writings on development of Christian doctrine. We often put Newman forward as an example for the Catholic intellectual but rarely consider what he has to say to the average person striving to live a Christian life in a secular world. But Newman was also a pastor and his parochial sermons were addressed to his parishioners and students—average people striving to live a Christian life in an increasingly secular world.
One of the major themes in his sermons was faith and obedience to God. Newman urged his listeners on to child like simplicity and trust in God, which enable children to listen to and receive with awe descriptions or tales. Newman comments on how a child's mind gives us a striking pattern “of what may be called a church temper”: Children distinguish right from wrong yet are free from a proud spirit of independence. They are ready to learn from others; they don’t set themselves as the measure of truths. This makes them most receptive of faith because “Christ has so willed it, that we should get at the Truth, not by ingenious speculations, reasonings, or investigations of our own, but by teaching.”
Newman countered the Enlightenment’s understanding of reason, a reduced notion of reason, which sets itself as the judge of all truth and demands scientific evidence, arguing that faith in God is possible without formal evidence. In fact, as Newman points out, many truths are received implicitly. Often people cannot explain what they know to be true and yet this does not diminish the truth of their claims.
An Englishmen may never have traveled to the shore, but he is absolutely certain that England is an island. What’s more, knowledge held implicitly is often held most strongly. Newman did not give weight to “paper arguments” about God’s existence; as he wrote: “Many a man will live and die upon a dogma: no man will be a martyr for a conclusion. . . . No one, I say, will die for his calculations: he dies for realities.”
As a young clergyman, and even earlier, Newman gave a lot of thought to the question of faith, the assent of the mind to what God reveals through the Bible and the Church. His dealings with his brother Charles and others made him think a lot about faith in relation to revelation, Tradition, and the Church. It was, however, in correspondence with William Froude, a younger brother of his friend Richard Hurrell Froude, that Newman developed his understanding of faith. Their correspondence over many years became the foundation for one of Newman’s major works, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent.
In Grammar of Assent Newman explained that for a child, God is a real being. A child perceives the existence of God as a Sovereign Law Giver and Judge, someone outside of himself. God is not a notion or a conclusion.
By means of his moral conscience a child has an image of God; it is basic and must grow, and can be dimmed or obliterated, but it is real. “It is an image of the good God, good in Himself, good relatively to the child, with whatever incompleteness; an image, before it has been reflected on, and before it is recognized as a notion. Thought he cannot explain or define the word “God,” when told to use it, his acts show that to him it is far more than a word.” Something similar can be said for many adults: They cannot explain religious truths, but they know them because they have a moral conscience that speaks to them of right and wrong, and of a Law Giver and Judge.
In the same way, all men can have this real knowledge of God—faith—in that he creates, provides, judges, rewards and punishes. The certainty of this faith, however, is soon questioned. Over the years Newman and William Froude discussed the subject of certainty and certitude. Froude claimed the right to skepticism of any truth: “Our doubts in fact, appear to me as sacred, and I think deserve to be cherished as sacredly as our beliefs.” In a reply to Froude, Newman distinguished between religion and science: “Much lies in the meaning of the words certainty and doubt—much again in our duties to a person, as e.g. a friend—Religion is not merely a science, but a devotion.”
Unlike in science, Newman argued, evidence is not the foundation for faith. Newman defended the rationality of “simple faith.” Still Newman tried to find an adequate answer to the problem of the certitude of the assent of faith, and he dedicated part two of the Grammar of Assent to explain how a person reaches certitude. He called this the illative faculty or sense. This is a natural mode of reasoning which in unconscious and implicit; it goes from concrete thing to other things, not from propositions to propositions as formal inference or logic.
A man reaches certitude through this illative sense. A skeptic might reply that this is tantamount to a leap of faith, but there is no such leap because the assent of faith has a cumulative and pain staking dimension; we grow into a conviction, rather than leap into it. Newman used the example of a polygon inscribed in a circle. As its sides become smaller it tends to become the circle. It never becomes the circle but the mind closes the gap.
Faith is a personal act (not a subjective one) by which a person apprehends religious truths from others. As noted, for Newman, humility—a child-like spirit—is a necessary condition for belief. Without humility one is incapable of believing in God; a person establishes his own universe and close him or herself to any supernatural reality. Pride closes a person in a limited sphere of rationality.
At times belief in the indissolubility of marriage, the Pope’s authority, the Real Presence, or other doctrines are difficult to explain; and some Catholics don’t know how to explain them. Obedience of faith still holds claim of the believer’s mind, which subjects itself to God who reveals himself and speaks through the Church. Unlike theological propositions, faith is not a logical conclusion. It is a higher knowledge, which is not contrary to reason, but which admits of an order higher than that of science.
When God reveals himself man must act on God’s terms, accepting with humility what God reveals. Newman did just that in his life, making him an example for not only intellectuals and academics, but all Christians. Returning to England after a long Mediterranean journey and a life-threatening illness, Newman composed “Lead Kindly Light,” humbly asking God to lead him on. Although once “pride ruled my will,” he prays, “Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see / The distant scene—one step enough for me.”
Fr. Juan R. Vélez is co-author with Mike Aquilina of Take Five: Meditations with John Henry Newman.
Comments:
Speaking about generals, he remarked that Napoleon had the capacity on a a battlefield to grasp the enemy strengths and weakness at one glance. It is an example of what Newman calls the illative sense.
Faith without works, faith that is not rooted in love, is dead faith. Christ says that even the devils believe. It is not enough to have knowledge of God and of his commandments. People have to put that faith into practice and to 'work out their salvation with fear and trembling." To kill an innocent human being is always evil. Faith has to be lived by the exercise of the virtues, beginning with charity.
Faith in God, however, does not preclude capital punishment in very restricted circumstances after a just trial and under competent authority. Having said this, each case you mention needs to be studied; I am only partially familiar with two of them and cannot adequately comment on this.
Did those who martyred Oliver Plunket, Bishop of Armaugh, St Tomas More or St John Houghton, the Carthusian hermit who dared to speak truth to the power of Henry VIII, have the grace of a virtuous upbringing and the gift of sound reasoning? Or where they involved in some proto-utilitarian calculus designed to maximize the king’s pleasure and prevent the loss of their heads?
There has certainly been enough bloodshed to go around. I think today we are in the need of some better upbringing and sound reasoning tempered by real charity. It is really easy to throw stones (or worse) by taking things out of historical context and applying our “modern sensibilities” to them. In the famous words of Rodney King, “Why can’t we just get along?”
If we we didn’t live as much by faith as by reason, we would be incapable of going to the doctor, grocery store or restaurant, or even of driving or walking down the street. Trust in others makes all these things possible. John Paul reminds us, “belief is often humanly richer than mere evidence, because it involves an interpersonal relationship and brings into play not only a person’s capacity to know but also the deeper capacity to entrust oneself to others, to enter into a relationship with them which is intimate and enduring.”
We should remember that any true martyr does not give his or life for something (i.e., an abstract commitment to truth) but for Someone. Ultimately, the attainment of truth rests not in the understanding of an idea, but in a personal relationship with the living God. We must live by faith, perhaps not only because our minds are too small to grasp the infinite, but also because its interpersonal dimension is a better reflection of the supreme reality, which is God.
One is between a conclusion, which is only as good as its premises and an assent, which is unconditional. For Newman, “All men are mortal,” “England is an island” are examples of an assent.
He further distinguishes between real and notional propositions. Notional propositions contain a common noun as one of their terms, “as standing for what is abstract, general, and non-existing,” as “Man is a rational animal,” “An Apostle is a creation of Christianity.” Real propositions contain singular nouns, “of which the terms stand for things external to us, unit and individual,” as “Philip was the father of Alexander,” “The Earth goes round the Sun,” “The Apostles first preached to the Jews.”
Finally, he points out that the self-same proposition may be notional to one person, but real to another:
“"Dulce et decorum est pro patriâ mori," [It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country] is a mere common-place, a terse expression of abstractions in the mind of the poet himself [Horace], if Philippi is to be the index of his patriotism, whereas it would be the record of experiences, a sovereign dogma, a grand aspiration, inflaming the imagination, piercing the heart, of a Wallace or a Tell.”
The application of this analysis to religious truths is obvious enough. The Apostles’’ Creed is a series of real propositions, true or false.
I think there needs to be a distinction made concerning intrinsic behaviors that allow a child an evolutionary advantage as you mention and those that are later learned to continue that advantage. A child does not come into the world as a blank slate. On the contrary a newborn is already equipped with multiple physiological advantages and behaviors that are not learned from the parents. Multiple examples and all backed by research have proven that newborns will be preferentially attracted to the voice of the mother, have the reflex to turn towards the mother to breastfeed, preferentially smile at strangers in order to safeguard their life ( smile developed evolutionary in animals to scare off predators! showing of teeth was a defense mechanism. ) Not to mention the multiple physiological reactions that happen in both child and mother such as the release of hormones that strengthen their bond. This goes to show that although one could call those reactions behaviors, neither mother or child were taught to act or react in the manner that both human experience and science has proven. So to say that children need to believe in everything their parents tells them in order to survive is clearly a misunderstanding. Science reasons that a child is an active negotiator in his/her survival precisely because it is equipped with those intrinsic behaviors and physiological responses. So if a child is born already 'wired' to love a mother and seek her voice how much more reasonable it is to already love God.
Bierce asks a good question about the faith of those who others judge to be mistaken. Aside from the truth of whether they were mistaken or not, and also the comments of Michael Fragoso about Catholic martyrs, and historical judgment, it is important to examine what the object of faith is.
This is a complex matter and Michael PS presents well Newman's distinction between real and notional propositions. Referring to the Athanasian Creed Newman writes in the Grammar of Assent "That systematized whole is the object of notional assent, and its propositions, one by one, are the object of real." He explains that each one of the propositions of the Athanasian Creed, for example, "The Father is not the Son" admits of real apprehension. In other words, faith is the assent to concrete, individual truths. He also explains that "That whole complex is also the object of assent, but it the notional object; and when presented to religious minds, it is received in them notionally; and again implicitly, viz. in the real assent which they give to the word of God as conveyed to them through the instrumentality of His Church."
In other words, there is a faith that we have about Christ, his commandments, his Incarnation. Then there is Faith, in another sense of the word, which is mediated by the Church Christ established, ie. 'the Faith of the Church.' The latter includes notional propositions expressed in dogma and theology.
This brings us to a larger point which is the theme of Newman's Development of Christian Doctrine: how do we know, what criteria do we have to distinguish what doctrine and traditions are a true development of those established by Christ?
To conclude - so to speak- Miguel Servet, burned by order of the Calvinist council of Geneva in 1153, had real faith in God, but his theology about the H. Trinity was erroneous (he lacked real knowledge of the Catholic Faith), and a body of religious men judged that he should be put to death. They judged wrongly but thought that the danger he caused was grave. Still it is hard to judge their intentions and actions by our standards today.
Janet Rea observes as many of us that faith in God comes naturally to children, and it is strengthened by parents who also teach their children notions which they need to learn. As she writes: "True faith has a solid quality to it – if gives us the confidence to implicitly trust in not only the existence of God our Father, but in his love as well."
It is solid because children have an awareness of right and wrong. Their conscience speaks to them of pleasing or offending God, and therefore of God's existence. They know, unless deformed by adults, that there is a Being who makes things to be right or wrong. And they perceive, again if the parents and others do not destroy or disfigure this truth, that this Being is a Loving God.
Janet Madigan very nicely points out the thought of Pope John Paul II (in the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio): we believe in a Person. She writes "Ultimately, the attainment of truth rests not in the understanding of an idea, but in a personal relationship with the living God." This was the thought of Newman, and from an early age, he wrote that we perceive that there two luminous beings in the world - God and myself. Of course there are others, but each person has a real perception of the One who is greater than I, who is Goodness, Beauty and Love itself and who commands what is good and right.
Reynalda's comments refer to the rich set of intrinsic abilities and potentialities of a child along with its delicate interaction and dependence with a mother. A child naturally needs to grow and develop, but from the start that child is oriented towards loving his mother, and learning about the world. After a few years the child will learn with the help of his parents about what is good and wrong, and God will speak to his conscience long before the child has read books and gone to catechism classes.
To close I would like to return to Janet Rea's story: "After a brief millisecond of questioning our ability to get anything across to our students, I pointed out the verse in Hebrews that says ‘he who comes to God must believe that he exists.'” If someone defines the limits of what he or she believes and puts God out of those limits, that person will certainly not believe. They have closed themselves off from God.
The Grammar of Assent has never received the attention it deserves. One reason, I believe, is that, in an age when Catholic philosophy was very much in the scholastic mode of Aristotelian Thomism, Newman was a thorough-going Platonist, in the patristic tradition of Origen and the Cappadocian fathers; he loved Gregory of Naziansus, not only as a theologian, but as a great poet. Athanasius he revered, as the greatest theologian of antiquity. The only mediaeval writer he really liked was St Bernard.
In one of his earliest works, The History of the Arians of the Fourth Century, he wrote:
“What are the phenomena of the external world, but a divine mode of conveying to the mind the realities of existence, individuality, and the influence of being on being, the best possible, though beguiling the imagination of most men with a harmless but unfounded belief in matter as distinct from the impressions on their senses? This at least is the opinion of some philosophers...”
On the great issue between Platonists and Aristotelians, as to whether the Divine Fact is something given, or something inferred, Newman was, all his life, on the side of the Platonists.
Michael, you correctly identify the significant Platonist influence Newman received through the Fathers. As you know he studied Aristotle at Oxford and tried unsuccessfully much to his dismay to study Aquinas in Rome. Some of his writings show the influence of English Empirical Philosophy and reveal what Prof. John F. Crosby calls Newman's Christian Personalism. Your comments will give us food for thought.
Fr Vélez has mentioned Newman’s struggles with Aquinas and, in this essay, Newman uses Peter Abelard as a sort of peg on which to hang his objections to the scholastic method and its abuses. His personal antipathy is palpable, but he certainly regretted his inability to master St Thomas’s thought, to his own satisfaction at least. The standards he set himself were exacting.
Michael S.: I echo Fr. Velez's point that you have provided food for thought!
Faith seeks understanding and theology guided by the Magisterium offers this understanding. Fr. Oakes underlines Newman's assertion that Catholic theology is subservient to the Magisterium. Without the Magisterium theology looses its connection with faith and its Catholic reason for being.
“Many a man will live and die upon a dogma: no man will be a martyr for a conclusion. . . . No one, I say, will die for his calculations: he dies for realities.”
I’m thinking of the Singerian utilitarian calculus for which the adept will not die but may cause others to die to increase his own “pleasure”. Proving your point that we need both a virtuous upbringing and sound reasoning.