The overall purpose of this book is to demonstrate that John Henry Newman's notion of the development of doctrine had a significant influence on Roman Catholics in the nineteenth century. Its intention is to dispel past assumptions in Newman scholarship that Newman's Essay on Development was not well received by his Roman Catholic contemporaries. In pursuit of this objective, the content of the book centers on the investigation of the reception of Newman's Essay in Rome from it publication in 1845 up to the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. According to Shea, what makes this new understanding possible is the introduction of new sources, new historical methodologies, and the use of new technologies and scholarly techniques. Shea describes his study as a “crossed” or “entangled narrative of Newman's impact on the nineteenth century which focuses upon intellectual borrowings and exchanges across national, religious, and linguistic spheres” (2).
Chapter 1 is an analysis of the attention that European Roman Catholics, especially those in Rome, paid to the Oxford Movement and the hopes it elicited for the Catholic church. Chapter 2 discusses the initial excitement surrounding Newman's conversion and the publication of his Essay on Development. Chapter 3 examines Newman's writings and activities during his theological studies in Rome between 1846 and 1847. In Chapter 4, Shea describes the theological situation in Rome, emphasizing the contributions of Giovanni Perrone and the Roman School of Theology. Chapter 5 examines Newman's early encounter with Roman theology and his efforts to respond to the challenges presented to his theory on development and his notion of faith. In Chapter 6, Shea presents an analysis of Perrone's reception of Newman's Essay on Development with a focus on the “Newman-Perrone Paper.” The seventh and final chapter examines Perrone's writings related to the development of doctrine after the spring of 1847.
Although Shea makes revisionist claims, the book does not demonstrate a complete and uniform acceptance of Newman's Essay on Development by Roman Catholic theologians in the nineteenth century. It does demonstrate that there was some significant positive reception of Newman's Essay that has not been previously recognized by past Newman scholars. Yet, this positive reception was mixed with suspicion, and even rejection, of Newman's notion of the development of doctrine.
Shea's pivotal authority for his revisionist interpretation is found in the works of Giovanni Perrone (1794–1876). Yet, even in the book itself, Perrone's reception of Newman's theory of development is described in ambiguous terms. Shea admits that in the “Newman-Perrone Paper,” the majority of Perrone's views on the development of doctrine “expressed divergence” from Newman's views (163). At the same time Perrone's attitude toward Newman's theory of development is described as appreciative, solicitous in helping Newman, and not a rejection of Newman's theory in toto (163). Although Perrone's reception of Newman's theory of development remained ambivalent, the cumulative evidence presented for Shea's claim that Peronne's views on development were influenced by Newman is persuasive.
The strongest evidence presented for a Roman theologian providing support for Newman's theory of development is Giacomo Mazio's 1847 article, “Liturgia Anglicana,” in the Annali delle Scienze Religiose. As Shea correctly points out, Mazio's article is a clear and strong endorsement of Newman's Essay on Development (146).
At the same time, this study recognizes that there was strong opposition in Rome to Newman's Essay on Development. The Roman theologian, Carlo Passaglia, S.J., raised strong objections against Newman's views on development (142), and Dr. Alexander Grant, rector of the “Scotch” College in Rome, maintained that the Essay on Development contained material heresy (137). In his letters to John Dalgairns between 1846 and 1847, Newman himself provides evidence that there was strong opposition to his Essay on Development in Rome (137–138). Shea admits that Newman's suspicions were well founded but tends to downplay their significance (80–81).
One of the limitations of the book is embedded in reception theory itself. Reception theory does not possess the critical tools to determine whether an author's work is being interpreted adequately or is correctly understood by those receiving it. The question of whether the Roman theologians accurately understood Newman's notion of faith presented in his University Sermons when they identified his thought with that of Louis Bautain and Georg Hermes is never addressed.
At times, some of the arguments presented in the text are not always clear, cogent, or persuasive. One of the central arguments in the text is that the Roman theologians who questioned Newman's Essay on Development were not really questioning his theory of development, but his notion of faith contained in the Essay. No historical evidence is provided for this claim, and no theological rationale is given for justifying separating Newman's theory of development from the notion of faith upon which the theory is based.
What the book does do is provide a broader context for understanding the reception of Newman's Essay by Roman Catholic theologians in the nineteenth century. The best assessment of the book's accomplishment of its objectives can be found in the author's own words when he states that this study “has permitted a more balanced reading of the theological issues at stake” (199).
Also, the book is truly remarkable in the sources that it draws together to describe the historical situation of the nineteenth-century Roman Catholic world in which Newman's Essay on Development first appeared. The study introduces new sources that have not been taken into consideration in past studies on the reception of Newman's Essay. The book provides a boarder and richer understanding of the historical background of nineteenth century European Catholicism. It presents a thorough analysis of the works of Giovanni Perrone and the Roman School of theology. It astutely points out the differences between the Roman School and the nineteenth-century Neoscholastic movement. Based upon its impressive scholarship Shea's work makes a significant contribution to the study of the impact of Newman's Essay on Development.
