Talk:John Henry Newman: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Saints / Catholicism / Anglicanism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 9, 2009.

Most of the vandalism on this page has been done by anonymous users. Should the page be closed to such? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with this. Random acts of vandalism seem to be happening by individuals that are not properly signed in. There are removing sections that they do not agree with even though those sections might have correct citation and references. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still this is continuing - particularly with the text dealing with sexuality. I'd gladly accept this as a forum for debate but am concerned at those who remove large sections of text without justifying it (perhaps for reasons unbeknown to the rest of us). Contaldo80 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing proves that John Henry Newman was gay. He seemed to have been asexual most of his life. Even his male friendships show that. He certainly comdemned homossexual relashionships and acts. This doesn't prove what was his sexual orientation. but since it can't be proved I don´t think he should be included in any LGBT category.85.244.49.140 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the category. Having this doesn't mean we have concluded he was 'gay', but rather that the article is likely to be of interest to those looking at LGBT issues on wikipedia. Incidentally celibate is not the same as asexual. Nor am I sure there is any active evidence that he did condemn such relationships (certainly not from the pulpit) - but to give you the benefit of the doubt I guess you mean that as a cardinal he would have signed up in principle to Catholic doctrine of the time. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep him in the cat. Most independent (ie. non-Church) sources are happy to associate him with these issues. Malick78 (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "In July 2008 The Vatican ordered that Newman’s body be exhumed and re-interred in a marble sarcophagus, where it could be more easily venerated [17]. This has angered some gay-rights campaigners, who see it as an attempt to separate Newman from St John, with whom he is buried."

In this enlightened day and age not even the Vatican can 'order' human remains to be moved as it requires due legal process from the local council and the Ministry of Justice! More of the actual story concerning the fencing of the graveyard and the dispute over planning permission for it has been added to a previous paragraph; whether the new fence can remain around this Catholic graveyard is another matter altogether as it is situated in the 'green belt' and not even a local state school (in Rubery) has been allowed to install a security fence because of this. It looks like this is not so much a 'gay-rights' issue as a clash over whether the Roman Catholic Church will willingly accept the legal right of a local council to say 'No' [retrospectively] to a new fence having been installed - but without planning permission - in a designated 'green belt' area?

Quote: "The Vatican has decided to move his remains from The Lickey Hills, near Rednal, Worcestershire to the Oratory in Birmingham city centre anticipation of his being made a saint in due course; the move requires permission from both Birmingham City Countil and the Ministry of Justice.

The recent decision to install a security fence around the small graveyard lead to a planning permission dispute with the local Birmingham City Council as it is in a designated green belt area; the immediate area is one of outstanding natural beauty, being a large country park."

[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.149.65 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"IHS"

That's helpful information - many thanks for helping clear the debate. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am NOT of the Roman Catholic persuasion, I have lived in the immediate area almost all of my life and with some time to spare this afternoon, went looking for the Oratory country house and the graveyard - while I was most impressed by a 'new' walk into the Lickey Hills (I had never realised existed!), I was also amazed by the sheer length of new fencing which now surrounds what must have previously been wide-open land. I cannot blame the RC Church for the planned move for the other reasons cited - but somehow doubt that legally the new fencing can stay in place - without formal planning permission - in what is "green belt" land. Kind regards. "IHS" ps I will try to keep this page updated as the planned move of his remains into 'Brum' progresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.209.65 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update 0608-2008

[[2]]

Oratory planning issue resolved

Nitramrekcap (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exhumation etc agreed

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this really be part of his name? I don't know what the exact rule on WP is, but we don't put "the most holy..." before someone's name just because the church does. Why should we use "Venerable" in the first sentence? Malick78 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think we should use the article on Bede as a guide. The article is entitled 'Bede' but the first line of text states that he's also known as 'Venerable Bede'. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we don't need the parts in bracket where it says "also Venerable..." Can we take it out? Bolinda (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with the gallery The files do exist on commons they do not appear —Preceding unsigned comment added by BernhardFischbein (talk • contribs) 10:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it! BernhardFischbein (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some gay activists, such as Peter Thatchell, have argued that John Henry Newman was gay because of his friendly relationship with Ambrose St. John. However, given Newman's resolute advocacy of Catholic clerical celibacy, it would certainly be more prudent to characterize this as a latter-day form of adelphopoiesis, just a spiritual relationship between two very Christian men. One could even argue that Newman was homophobic, since he held the pro-chastity epistles of St. Paul and other scriptures to be inerrant, and since he was quite likely a sacerdotal virgin, which in itself indicates a hostility to all forms of sex and related sins. ADM (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see a contradiction here I'm afraid. You can be homosexual without being sexually active. I think you're confusing the two issues. Nor is it beyond the realms of reason to assume a homosexual can be homophobic - particularly if he is convinced that the teaching of his/her faith is firmly against the practice of homosexual acts (or at least sexual acts outside of marriage).

What is beyond debate is that Newman clearly derived a close emotional and spiritual attachment from his relationship with St. John - on the nature of this specific relationship the question ultimately is whether he viewed this as an intense friendship (perhaps adelphopoiesis) or a friendship underpinned by a physical or emotional attraction?

But even if we establish that it was the former rather than the latter, that does still not discount the likelihood that Newman was ultimately homosexual. We must forget that there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that proscribes an individual from simply have a homosexual orientation. Nor do you have to be a "gay activist" to draw that conclusionContaldo80 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, since perhaps 99.9 % of homosexuals have been sexually active at one time or another, unlike adelphopoiesis, which oftens amounts to a form of clerical celibacy/virginity. If you could find evidence that at least 10 % of self-described homosexuals were not sexually active at all, the argument would maybe hold, but it doesn't since the sexual part is intrinsic to the gay culture and the gay identity (cf word homo"sex"uality). The Catholic Church has also clearly rejected the idea that serious homosexuals can be chaste, it has even published a document about it called Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. ADM (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find hard to believe that Newman was really gay, from a NPOV, and not from any sort of homophobic reasons. I´ve read some of his writtings and about his life, like his "Apologia Pro Vita Sua", and I find surprising that he never adresses any sort of sexual issues about his youth. I suppose that if he had gay tendencies during his youth, this would have marked him, since his Anglican and Catholic beliefs wouldn´t have allowed it. I really do think that he might have been a sublimated heterossexual, like St. Paul who also didn´t have great opinion on women. We also can´t forget that all the innuendo about his homosexual tendencies were made by deeply anti-Catholic people, like Charles Kingsley, who openly disagreed with the Catholic doctrine of celibacy.83.132.107.203 (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[S]ince perhaps 99.9 % of homosexuals have been sexually active at one time or another? Yikes, that's a rather unhelpful stance. And many heterosexuals are also not sexually active so it's smarter just to back off that pointy argument that conflates being gay only with sexual acts. The Vatican has a rather laughable history concerning enlightened thoughts as to human sexual bahaviours and sexualities so let's not take their admonishments shaming LGBT people as a proper guide to anything except how they officially have characterized the subject. The core issues remain the same that we go by reliable sources and try to present the issues NPOV. We also have to put on the filters of what someone who today would be called gay would be called back then and how they themselves would self-identify. NPOV means we present the information and let the reader decide. -- Banjeboi 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Benjiboy, eminently sensible. As to the comment above that 99.9% of homosexuals have been sexually active, I had a good laugh. I would really like to see the source behind that - it seems to me extremely naive. If you are sexually orientated towards the same sex then it does not follow that you need to be sexually active with a member of the same-sex! Otherwise current Catholic teaching would quickly unravel... "The Catholic Church has also clearly rejected the idea that serious homosexuals can be chaste". What's a "serious homosexual" by the way - is it a professional qualification? Do you need a certificate to count? I don't think anyone is arguing the point that Newman would have understood himself to be 'gay' in the modern sense of the world; or that he was sexually active. Nevertheless it is legitimate to set out the case (backed by sources and references of course) that explore whether he remained a (albeit repressed) homosexual. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Newman sexual orientation remains unknown. Anyway, he sublimated it, rather then repressed it, from a Catholic viewpoint, based on the belief that celibacy is a superior state to marriage. Buddhist monks also sublimate their sexuality, in a similar and often more efficient way to Catholic priests. I repeat that there isn´t any sort of evidence that if he ever had any sort of same sex tendencies during his youth or life. He seems to have sublimated easily is sexuality, from what we can interpret from his own writtings, like his "Apologia Pro Vita Sua".81.193.190.227 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sublimate" = to divert the energy of (a sexual or other biological impulse) from its immediate goal to one of a more acceptable social, moral, or aesthetic nature or use. "Repress" = to keep under control, check, or suppress (desires, feelings, actions, tears, etc.).

I don't really see such a big distinction between the two I'm afraid - seems to me a case of semantics. I agree there is no evidence to suggest Newman was sexually active; it is, however, legitimate to set out the case that Newman was likely to have been homosexual in orientation (even though such feelings may have been repressed or 'sublimated'). Although I disagree with your assertion that it is relatively "easy" to sublimate one's sexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I´m a former Catholic and like I said before, I´ve read some of the Cardinal Newman writtings. I recommend you, since I don´t think you ever read it is "Apologia Pro Vita Sua". What I said was that "He seems to have sublimated easily is sexuality, from what we can interpret from his own writtings, like his "Apologia Pro Vita Sua"." I didn´t said it was easy for everyone, anyway, it depends of the people, their religion, their personality. Obviously also their sexual orientation. A former user did a huge confusion between "homosexuality" and "homosexual tendencies". This is far from being the same thing and it´s not the place to debate that. My point is that, from all that is known, his own writtings, his friends testimonies, even his enemies, there is nothing that points if he had homosexual inclinations during his youth or even if he was a sublimated homosexual. If he was really a sublimated homosexual, I find amazing that in any of his writtings he seems to indicate that. We can go to the definition of "asexual" more to define´s Newman sexuality.81.193.223.124 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may follow to add something as seen from his writings Newman ______ and site some examples either in the text or footnotes. We should also look to the best sourcing from those who are familiar with his work and life as well. Again through a reality filter, I wouldn't expect religious scholars to dwell much on the physical yearnings but again, they certianly might. -- Banjeboi 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I log in to Wikipedia rarely and haven't been following this debate at all closely. But I've read the majority of Newman's published writings, plus a certain amount of his letters and diaries, one full-length biography of him and several articles about him from various sources. A few things seem clear:

1. There isn't strong, unambiguous evidence about his sexual inclinations from his writings or well-attested contemporary biographical data.

2. Whatever evidence there is in said writings and biographical data needs interpretation of some kind, so we can't simply cite something from his writings as evidence of his sexuality here -- that would be Original Research.

3. So if we say anything about the subject at all, it should be in the form of attributing specific opinions about it to specific biographers or historians or whoever has said such things; and for balance we should cite more than one such opinion from more than one source, if possible.

I.e., IMO future debate here should be about what (more or less) reliable sources are worth citing on this point and how to do so, not about our own opinions about Newman's sexual inclinations, which are irrelevant to the process of editing this article. --Jim Henry (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the entire thread may be a red-herring but it's not a bad idea to have a thoughtful discussion. Looking at the current text and using your familiarity with the subject ... is there anything that should be changed? Is it basically accurate and NPOV? -- Banjeboi 03:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the section "Sexuality" is, as of today, pretty okay, except that it doesn't cite any sources arguing against Kingsley and Faber's assertions. I'm not sure offhand where to find such sources -- as far as I know most Newman biographers and scholars seem to have ignored these innuendos as not worth paying attention to, rather than trying to disprove them, but then I've read only a tiny fraction of the vast libraries of writing about Newman, vs. a pretty large proportion of Newman's own writing. --Jim Henry (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed this thread is a red herring - I've been wasting my time rather. Having read the text again it doesn't say that Newman was homosexual just that his sexuality is an issue of conjecture. I can't see anything it which is objectionable and the sources look balanced! If anything it is all very mild.... Nor sure why would expect to find clues to his sexuality in his writings either - he wasn't likely to have put them into print was he? And as far as I'm concerned there is no discernible difference between "homosexuality" and "homosexual tendencies". Contaldo80 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What people mean by the terms "gay" and "homosexual(ity)" varies a great deal from person to person; failing to have a generally agreed-upon definition, or to settle on an ad-hoc definition for any given discussion, leads to a lot of confusion (as in the thread above, where some posters were apparently assuming that if you call someone homosexual you are implying that they're sexually active). Some people have tried to popularize the term "same-sex attraction" as a more specific, less historically loaded term for a subset of what people mean by "homosexuality"; that is, indicating that someone is more or less attracted to people of the same sex, without implying that they're unchaste or that they have any subcultural affiliation with other people with similar sexual inclinations or any specific political or religious opinions about the licitness of same-sex unions or whatever... I don't have a dog in this terminology fight, but I wouldn't want to use any term without defining it in the context where I use it, because I wouldn't expect other people to understand by it what I mean by it. --Jim Henry (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're exactly right. I think there was confusion over terminology, and you've captured the issue rather succinctly above. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify, perhaps, look again at what User:ADM was saying -- their use sometimes of the term "homosexual" tout court, sometimes qualifying it as "serious homosexuals" or "self-described homosexuals"... apparently meaning, as far as I can tell, "people attracted to persons of the same sex who also think that sexual activity with others of the same sex is licit, and consider this sexual attraction and/or sexual activity to be a significant aspect of their identity". (ADM, correct me if I've misread you.) A fair number of people use the term "homosexual" to mean that or something like it, which is why it's important to define it when you use it in a narrower sense. --Jim Henry (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any collective appetite to create a separate article on the canonisation/ beatification of Newman and then link this page across? Otherwise my concern is that the section we have is slowly growing bit by bit and is beginning to distort the biographical aspect of the article. Canonisation will be of interest to Catholic readers (as well as no doubt many others) but perhaps has little directly to do with Newman the man. At some stage we will slip into WP:UNDUE I fear. If he were already a saint then the article would just say "Newman is recognised as a saint in the Catholic Church" and include little about the canonisation process unless it was particularly controversial or noteworthy. We're ending up with a running commentary on this page otherwise. Any thoughts? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section should just be cut, I think. It is discursive editorial. Such facts as link Newman and Manning should take their places in the rest of the narrative. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help in reading this article to sense a strong Roman Catholic bias. Take the sentence in the first section: "Eventually his studies in history persuaded him to become a Roman Catholic." First off this seems like a subjective comment, someone's interpretation of events rather than an actual fact. And since it is not referenced I have good reason for believing so. The comment itself gives the idea that "if people just studied history they would become Roman Catholic." I don't believe this was the intent but it sure is the ring. I understand that he rejected Anglicanism and surely the article should be clear in reflecting that, but this does not mean that the article should be used as an apologetic against Anglicanism and for Roman Catholicism.

I could give many other examples if any would like. It just seems that Newman's ideas (and they were HIS ideas) are espoused uncritically as if they are truth instead as if they are his ideas. Even the sentence at the end of the section, "Newman and Manning", is uncited and apologetic and subjective: "But Newman also changed history; by challenging the theological foundations of the Church of England, he caused many Anglicans to question their membership in that body. Quite a number became Roman Catholic." To anyone who did not know better and was merely reading this article without knowledge they would get the idea that this were a one way street or that Newman had once for all proved that Anglicans were not apostolic and that they should become Roman Catholic. Actually the road has been both ways as there are men who actually have become Anglican because of Newman's understanding of the development of doctrine in contrast to the apostolic faith which once for all has been handed down and is no longer under any serious development burt instead is guarded and passed on. It simply seems to be a one-sided and biased presentation of a controversial figure. Perhaps there should be a section giving some of the responses to Newman by Anglicans (and they are many). If not I suggest at the least citing the controverisal comments (I have only shown two that need citation) and I hope some editing is done to balance out the article to make it encyclopedic and not apologetic.