LAUSR

serious concerns. For example, in writing of Newman’s views on ‘Evangelicals’ and ‘liberals’ in the 1830s, using a single footnote reference he quotes from two letters addressed to different correspondents, separated by a period of over three weeks as though they come from a single source, making no reference to the context in which these comments were made or to whom they were addressed (p. 45). While his purpose is to refute Frank Turner’s assertion that Newman’s animus was directed at the ‘Evangelicals’ of his day rather than ‘liberals,’ Fr Ker fails to report that one of these correspondents observed to a mutual friend, ‘Mr. Newman raises a standard of thought and sentiment that elevates him immeasurably above the poor Evangelicals whom he despises’ (Newman, Letters and Diaries, 5:21n1). Unless one goes back to check the sources, it is hard to judge whether Newman’s words and thoughts are being accurately presented in support of points being made, or woven together in a form which comports with Fr Ker’s vision of what Newman ‘would have’ said or thought. Finally, at strategic points in this book Fr Ker refers to Newman as ‘the Father of the Second Vatican Council’ (pp. 1, 79, 100, 132), implicitly perpetuating a misquotation of Pope Paul VI’s 1975 speech to an ecumenical Newman symposium in Rome. The pope stated, ‘Many of the problems which he treated with wisdom—although he himself was frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted in his own time—were the subjects of the discussion and study of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.’ Citing as examples ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, the role of the laity in the Church, and the relationship between Christianity and the world, he concluded, ‘Not only this Council but also the present time can be considered in a special way as Newman’s hour’ (L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, 17 April 1975, 368). Pope Paul VI’s statement rightly emphasized that the questions Newman raised and the themes he explored may be his greatest legacy. This reviewer does agree with Fr Ker that Cardinal Newman may well be for the Church since Vatican II what Robert Bellarmine was for the post-Tridentine Church (p. 161). But unlike Bellarmine, who was born just three years before the Council of Trent began and whose theological vision was shaped during the 18 years of that protracted council and the period of reception that followed, Newman should be known best for the questions he presciently raised a century before Vatican II, in an age that ‘frequently misunderstood and misinterpreted’ his wisdom. Those who care about Newman’s legacy should—as he did—take the past seriously, and not presume to know what Newman ‘would have’ thought or done in the 50 years since Vatican II.