C. Michael SHEA, Newman’s Early Roman Catholic Legacy 1845-1854. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. pp. 244. $81.00 hb. ISBN 978-0198802563. Reviewed by Jeffrey MORROW, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ 07079.

In his study of the early Catholic reception of John Henry Newman, after his conversion, C. Michael Shea has written an important volume. The book’s slender size might mislead the reader in thinking its topic is of little importance, but in fact, Shea’s work is truly groundbreaking in Newman studies. The book grew out of his doctoral dissertation, but it stands apart from so many published dissertations both in its readability, and perhaps more important, its expert treatment of Newman. This is a book that would make any senior scholar proud to have written. Masterfully researched and argued, and beautifully written, this is a book anyone with an interest in Newman or in nineteenth century theology, would enjoy and benefit from reading.
Too often, as Shea demonstrates, scholars assume Newman’s work had little influence on Catholics in the early period of Newman’s work before and just after becoming Catholic. Scholars too often assume the great leader of the Roman school, Giovanni Perrone, was critical of Newman. This in fact was how I was taught Perrone when we read his notes on Newman’s De catholici dogmatis evolutione, the famous “Newman-Perrone Paper,” in the course of my own doctoral studies. Shea dispels the fog of received scholarly assumptions and demonstrates Newman’s real influence in the Catholic theological world of his day.
Shea’s twenty-five page introduction lays the historical context and methodological framework for the study he undertakes. His first chapter situates Newman’s conversion as well as his early discussions of doctrinal development within the theological context of Rome. Contrary to so much received scholarly opinion, Shea shows how doctrinal development was not an obstacle in the theological matrix of Catholic Rome during Newman’s time, but in fact was welcomed by many, including Perrone. It was only later, during the Modernist conflict of the early twentieth century, that Newman and his notions of development would be suspect. During Newman’s time, any concerns were primarily over philosophical underpinnings, more than development per se.

In the second chapter, Shea looks at the various receptions of and reactions to Newman’s Essay outside of Rome, including Orestes Brownson’s famous critique. In chapter three, Shea explores the Roman reception of Newman, and explains that concerns were voiced over the relationship between faith and reason more than over Newman’s articulation of the concept of doctrinal development. Chapter four takes a closer look at the theology of the Roman School, epitomized by Perrone. Shea carefully explains the Roman School’s relationship to other related theological currents, including its influence on figures like Joseph Kleutgen, Matthias Scheeben, and Heinrich Denzinger, all well-known to scholars of nineteenth century Catholic theology. The picture Shea paints is one of a more open Thomism than the Neo-Thomist movement that would emerge at the end of the nineteenth century.

The fifth chapter examines Newman’s Roman interlocutors. Chapter six focuses on the influence Newman exerted on Perrone. Shea continues to elucidate this influence in chapter seven, where he shows how almost certain it is that Newman’s thought on development influenced Perrone as Perrone was assisting Pope Pius IX in the preparations for the pope’s solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This is perhaps one of the most eye-opening chapters. As Shea notes, “After the exchange with Newman, Perrone’s position regarding doctrinal development and faith was not bound to a model of logical deduction as his previous reflections on the nature of the deposit of faith might suggest. Rather, Perrone construed the concept of sensus fidelium in a way that he had never before done” (166). Shea concludes with the seismic observation that, “It is doubtful whether the 1854 decree would have taken the form that it did on doctrine and history without Perrone’s work and Newman’s theory in the background” (185).

Shea concludes his volume with nearly fifteen pages of explanation of the broader political and historical context and the significance of the legacy of the Catholic reception of Newman’s thought. He shows why and how Newman’s thought fell out of favor, prior to the revival of Catholic interest in Newman, which had never completely been extinguished. Shea’s argument has broader implications for the study of nineteenth century theology, and history of theology, in that he successfully employs “a crossed-narrative approach to Newman’s legacy” demonstrating that such a method “has the potential to subvert established narratives in this area and provides a model for broader inquiries in this period of religious history” (2). Scholars of religious history, theology, and intellectual history in the nineteenth century, ignore Shea’s work at their own intellectual and scholarly peril.

I cannot recommend Shea’s book highly enough. It radically alters the way in which Newman’s early Catholic reception will be understood. Viewing the Catholic reaction to Newman’s work among his contemporaries as a completely negative rejection is no longer a intellectually tenable. Moreover, the methodological approach Shea takes, which is interdisciplinary and which rejects no avenue of evidence, opens up the possibility for rethinking other assured results of nineteenth century scholarship. Thus, not only does Shea’s study correct our picture of Newman’s reception, of Perrone’s theological outlook, and of nineteenth century Catholic theology, but it also points the way forward to a renewed study of theology and intellectual history in the nineteenth century, and beyond.