Louvain Studies 22 (1997) 59-84 Newman's ‘Lesson of the Marriage Ring': Celibacy and Marriage in the Thought of John Henry Newman Daniel Cere Introduction Newman's views on marriage have not received a very sympathetic hearing. Newman's detractors argue that character flaws undermine his ability to address this topic in a meaningful way. There are complaints about his individualism, ingrained chauvinism, and morbid sensitivity.1 Perhaps the most curious critiques are those which target Newman's “perversity,” “effeminacy,” and his homosexuality. Rumours of this type were floated by the Queen's chaplain, Charles Kingsley, during his public controversy with Newman in the 1860s. Kingsley had become a leading spokesman for the tradition of “Muscular Christianity” in Victo- rian religious thought.2 For this “manly” Christian Englishman the choice of a celibate life-style would automatically raise suspicions.3 Newman did little to rebut such personal attacks aside from noting how deeply this “prejudice” against celibacy was engrained within popular Protestant culture.4 Ward's classic biography unwittingly fuelled suspicions by 1. Valerie Pitt, “Demythologising Newman,” in John Henry Newman: Reason, Rhetoric and Romanticism, eds. David Nicholls and Fergus Kerr, OP (Bristol: Bristol Press, 1991) 13-27. 2. For a sympathetic assessment see Norman Vance, Sinews of the Spirit: The Ideal of Christian Manliness in Victorian Literature and Religious Thought (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1985). 3. Oliver S. Buckton, “‘An Unnatural State': Gender, ‘Perversion', and Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua,” Victorian Studies 35 (1992) 362; Sinews of the Spirit, 127, 36-41. 4. Newman writes: “… It is now a recognized principle with the world, that there can be no certainty of holiness except in married life, and that celibacy is all but a state of sin,” in Parochial and Plain Sermons (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1907) vol. 6, 187-188. In Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1889), he challenged the assumption that celibacy is linked to sexual immorality (133-136). 60 DANIEL CERE accenting Newman's sensitive or “feminine” side.5 Geoffrey Faber's Oxford Apostles welded these hints and whispers of possible deviance into a Freudian exploration of Tractarian sexual abnormality.6 The echoes are still found in contemporary literature.7 However, the rele- vance of these stereotypes to the study of Newman's contribution are dubious at best. First, the evidence supporting such theories is weak. Ian Ker's acclaimed biography successfully contests Ward's emphasis on Newman's “femininity” and draws out the “highly ‘masculine' side of his temperament.”8 However, even more problematic is the loaded nature of this whole controversy about Newman's “femininity” or “mas- culinity.” Oliver Buckton warns that this debate reveals more about the gender biases of Newman's critics (and sympathizers?) than anything of significance concerning Newman himself.9 A more mundane impediment to the study of Newman's views on marriage is the perception that his contributions are of such minor significance that they can be safely ignored. At first glance there appears to be some warrant for this dismissive attitude. Newman's writings on marriage form a modest part of his corpus and seem marginal to his main theological interests. However, this needs to be put in perspective. According to Newman, evidence of caution or reserve in the treatment of a theological topic may underscore its depth significance for Chris- tian faith, not its marginality. Few would deny the importance of celibacy for Newman. Yet Newman's treatment of this question is just as reserved as his treatment of marriage. In fact, the two topics are tightly linked in his work. He seldom speaks at length about celibacy without addressing the question of marriage. Moreover, when Newman does turn his attention to the question of marriage or celibacy his reflections are seldom trite. He opens up a number of theological puzzles concerning vocational commitment, love, and the relation between marriage and celibacy. 5. Wilfrid Ward, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912). 6. Geoffrey Faber, Oxford Apostles: A Character Study of the Oxford Movement (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1954). 7. See David Hilliard, “Unenglish and Unmanly: Anglo-Catholicism and Homo- sexuality,” Victorian Studies 25 (1982) 181-210. Nicholls and Kerr complain that New- man is “altogether too subtle and refined, even over-delicate and old-maidish” – “an introverted and feline character,” John Henry Newman: Reason, Rhetoric and Romanti- cism, 4-5. 8. John Henry Newman: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988) viii. P. Zeno takes issue with the view that Newman had difficulty forming stable rela- tionships, in John Henry Newman, His Inner Life (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987) 253ff. 9. Buckton, “‘An Unnatural State',” 359-383. NEWMAN'S ‘LESSON OF THE MARRIAGE RING’ 61 Finally, Newman's contributions may be more substantial than they appear. Apart from a group of sermons written during the 1830s, Newman's most significant discussions of marriage are framed by his two novels, Loss and Gain (1848) and Callista (1856). Sermons on marriage raise no theological eyebrows. However, the medium of the novel may seem odd and Newman had doubts whether his readers fully grasped his intentions.10 Ian Ker argues that Newman uses the novel as a vehicle for theological speculation.11 Ker highlights the theologies of conversion and faith developed in these stories. However, their import is not exhausted by these themes. The texts also probe into the world of marital and celibate love. Through the lens of narrative and imagery the reader encounters particular men and women living out their journeys in relation to one another. This type of approach fits with Newman's contention that theological argument should be rooted in a “real” rather than “notional” apprehension of religious truth. Real apprehension occurs by means of “image” rather than argument.12 Newman's versatil- ity as an author – his novels, poems, hymns, and autobiography – gave him the ability to communicate through mediums other than the purely notional mode of theological treatise. However, this versatility poses problems for his interpreters. ‘A Home for the Lonely' Newman's Anglican sermons table a number of perspectives on the family which seem to anticipate the concerns raised by contem- porary “communitarian” theorists.13 Newman draws a firm distinction 10. Discussing the reception of Callista Newman wondered whether “Catholics have ever done justice to the book.” He complained that “they read it as a mere story book.” The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, vol. 26, ed. C. S. Dessain and Thomas Gornall (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974) 130. 11. John Henry Newman: A Biography, 422. 12. An Essay in Aid of A Grammar of Assent, ed. Ian T. Kerr (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) 22-27. 13. See James Tolhurst, The Church – A Communion (Leominster: Fowler, 1988) 14-18; E. Campion, John Henry Newman, Friends, Allies, Bishops Catholics (Melbourne, 1980) 16-36. For contemporary communitarian accounts of the family, see Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981); Robert Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Christopher Lash, Haven in a Heartless World (New York: Basic Books, 1977); Michael J. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982). See Will Kymlicka's assessment of debates between liberals and communi- tarians in Liberalism, Community, and Culture (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989). 62 DANIEL CERE between public and private spheres of community. Each form of life is orientated towards a distinct set of ends. The public domain is the “attractive and exciting” context for the pursuit of “liberty” and “inde- pendence” – where men strive to “be their own masters.” However, autonomy and self-sufficiency do not ensure personal fulfilment and happiness: “All men, whether religious or not, find in no long time that the world is insufficient for their happiness, and look elsewhere for repose.”14 The private realm meets needs for affective intimacy and support that cannot be met in the public sphere. The outward world is found not to be enough for man, and he looks for some refuge near him, more intimate, more secret, more pure, more calm and stable. This is the main reason and a praise- worthy one, why a great number of the better sort of men look forward to marriage as the great object of life. … Supposing a man to make money, to get on in life, to rise in society, to gain power, whether in a higher or lower sphere, this does not suffice; he wants a home, he wants a centre on which to place his thoughts and affec- tions, a secret dwelling-place which may soothe him after the troubles of the world, and which may be his hidden stay and support wher- ever he goes…15 The domestic sphere also has a key role in the moral formation of an individual. Unsituated freedom is not conducive to the development of certain kinds of social virtue. Newman argues that, “Nothing is more likely to engender selfish habits (which is the direct opposite and nega- tion of charity) than independence in our worldly circumstances.” Indi- viduals “who have no tie on them, who have no calls on their daily sympathy and tenderness, who have no one's comfort to consult, who can move about as they please” are “very unfavourably situated” for the cultivation of certain virtues.16 A web of committed familial relations situates human freedom within a context that fosters the gentle habits of mutual accommodation, tolerance, sympathy, and care. This form of life can also call forth the more austere virtues of self-denial and self- giving love.