After Anti-Catholicism? John Henry Newman and Protestant Britain, 1845–c. 1890 by Erik Sidenvall

Abstract

99 looking for insights or who just wish to watch a master of the craft as they refine their own skills. Finally, this book will be of use in undergraduate theology or religious studies classes that discuss the history and principles of Biblical interpretation, as well as those devoted more exclusively to Newman. I think this is particularly true of the first section,“Interpreting Scripture.” That section would fit very nicely into a larger selection of readings illustrating the variety of approaches taken to the interpretation of the Bible in modern times. Gerald D. McCarthy Assumption College,Worcester, Massachusetts After Anti-Catholicism? John Henry Newman and Protestant Britain, 1845–c. 1890. By Erik Sidenvall. New York:T & T Clark, 2005. Pages: xiv + 207. Cloth, $59.95, ISBN 0–567–03076–8. When I was approached to review this book, I jumped at the opportunity because anti-Catholicism has always fascinated me—which is probably why I worked for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the early 1980s. Interestingly enough,as this work demonstrates,not much had really changed between Newman’s era and the following century. Erik Sidenvall’s volume was originally a doctoral dissertation and the revision process from dissertation to book was well executed.The author is Swedish;whether the text was originally in English or Swedish is not clear;in any case,it is an excellent rendition.1 Let’s get the requisite complaints out of the way at the outset. It might have been helpful to know whether or not the author is Catholic. The book is plagued by a pet bugaboo of mine: notes at the end of each chapter. Sidenvall’s definition of “liberalism” is “progressivism”; the Newman aficionado will have to adjust to that understanding. When speaking of making a transition from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, the author calls the process “secession,” rather than the more usual “conversion.” Admittedly,“conversion” is also an inapt term for movement from one Christian faith tradition to another, which is why post-conciliar Roman Catholicism refers to a person being“received into full communion with the Catholic Church.” Of course, “secession” is preferable to one of the more common expressions of Newman’s day when people spoke of someone “going over to an Italian bishop”! What would they say about going over to a Polish or German bishop? Sidenvall also treats “tolerance” as a positive; but, by book’s end, he seems to withdraw from that assessment. Frankly, I’ve always considered tolerance a negative judgment; or, as we used to joke in the Catholic League, sometimes the liberal press “tolerates” Catholics in the sense that the only really good Catholics are “bad Catholics.” Those concerns aside, this is a most enjoyable work, making a fine contribution to Newman studies and to a neuralgic aspect of Church history and ecumenical relations. BOOK REVIEW 1 Information about the original dissertation at Lund University (2002) is available at: http://www.lub.lu.se/cgi-bin/show_diss.pl/the_52.html. NEWMAN STUDIES JOURNAL 100 Sidenvall documents with clarity and profusely that, in Newman’s day, the equation was simple—to be an English Protestant was to be anti-Catholic: “AntiCatholic Protestantism had become an integral part of the national (English) culture” (11). One magazine simply said that to be Catholic was to be“un-English.” The union of faith and culture is something we would normally applaud as Catholics, so we should not be too hasty in condemning the phenomenon when it does not suit us. One thinks,for example,of a similar equation today:to be Polish is to be Catholic. Or, to be Greek is to be Orthodox. In many ways, however, the religious and political alliance had more to do with politics than with religion and that was certainly the case with the anti-Roman bigotry: “Anti-Catholicism had a remarkable capacity to unite society” (12). Newman was at the eye of so many storms for so long, indeed, a lightning rod, whether as an Anglican or a Catholic. His “secession” set England on its heels for many reasons, not least of all being his own former anti-Catholicism! Interestingly, while Victorian Protestants could countenance...