On September 10, 1963, Special Agent Hosty sent a report on Oswald to the Bureau and to New Orleans. It was the first FBI document to make it into Oswald's CIA files since the Fain report of August 30, 1962. Hosty began by acknowledging Oswald's Magazine Street address, an address everyone else in the FBI had known about for a month. Hosty then said Oswald had been working at the William Reily Coffee Company on August 5. He apparently did not know that Oswald had been fired from his job at Reily Coffee on July 19.103 Hosty did mention the April 21 Oswald letter to the FPCC from Dallas. It would appear, however, that he did not know about Oswald's arrest in New Orleans or chose for some reason not to say anything about it. Hosty did not know about the Quigley jailhouse interview.
On Monday, September 23, the employees at CIA headquarters were still catching up on the weekend's traffic when Hosty's report arrived under FBI director Hoover's signature. It was 1:24 in the afternoon when someone named Annette in the CIA's Records Integration Division attached a CIA routing and record sheet to the report and sent it along to the liaison office of the counterintelligence staff, where Jane Roman was still working. As discussed in Chapter Two, Roman received the first phone call from the FBI about Oswald on November 2, 1959.
When Jane Roman got the Hosty report, she signed for it and, presumably after having read it, determined the next CIA organizational element to whom it should be sent. The office she chose was Counterintelligence Operations, CI/OPS. The telltale "P" of William ("Will") Potocci, who worked in Counterintelligence Operations, appears next to the CI/OPS entry, along with the date that Roman passed the report on to him-September 25. Potocci presumably worked in this office, although something on the routing sheet-probably Potocci's name or some activity indicator in CU OPS-is still being withheld by the CIA.
CIA readers of the Hosty report were treated to the outlines of the story we have followed in this and the previous three chapters: how Oswald had returned from Russia to Fort Worth, Texas, where he subscribed to the communist newspaper the Worker, and then moved to New Orleans, where he took a job in the Reily Coffee Company; most important, the CIA learned that on April 21 Oswald, having moved from Fort Worth to Dallas, contacted the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New York City. The report also recounted Oswald's claim to have stood on a Dallas street with a placard around his neck that read "Hands Off Cuba-Viva Fidel."
The CIA did not put this report into Oswald's 201 file, but instead into a new file with a different number: 100-300-11. We will return to that file in Chapter Nineteen. Even as the Hosty report made its way from Jane Roman to Will Potocci, an FBI agent in New Orleans was preparing yet another report on Oswald that would arrive at the CIA on October 2. This, as we will see, was the very day that Oswald, having spent five nights in Mexico City, departed from the Mexican capital.
On his way from New Orleans to Mexico City, Oswald is reported to have visited the home of Silvia Odio in Dallas. The Odio "incident," as it has become known with the passage of time, was labeled by researcher Sylvia Meagher as the "proof of the plot," because the Warren Commission accepted that Odio was visited by three men-one of whom was "Oswald." Meagher's point was that whether it was an impostor or Oswald himself, as Odio believes, the group that visited her apartment and phoned her afterward, and their pre assassination discussion of killing Kennedy, is awkward, if not antithetical, for the lone-nut hypothesis. The Warren Commission accepted that the event occurred, but dismissed Odio's version of it. First, the commission found that a September 26 or 27 visit was not possible given Oswald's time requirements for arriving in Mexico City at ten A.M. on September 27.
Second, the Warren Commission believed it had identified the three men who visited Odio: Loran Eugene Hall, Larry Howard, and William Seymour, who was "similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald." All three were soldiers of fortune involved with the Cuban exiles. Hall was a self described gun runner." As discussed in Chapter Fourteen, Seymour was an associate of Hemming's.
Both of these Warren Commission contributions damaged the public's understanding of the facts in the case and the public's confidence in the integrity and objectivity of the Commission's work. The Hall-Howard-Seymour story, supplied by the FBI just in time to save the Warren Report - on its way to press - the embarrassment of not having discredited Odio's version of the incident, later turned out to be wholly fraudulent. No official connected to the Warren Report has ever apologized to the public or Silvia Odio for their shabby treatment of her and their acceptance of a concocted story, an egregious error given what was at stake.
On October 4, Jane Roman read the latest FBI report on Oswald's FPCC activities in New Orleans, an event that was impossible if the October 10 cable to Mexico City-which she coordinated on behalf of CI/Liaison-was true. When recently shown both the cable and the FBI report with her initials, Roman said this: "I'm signing off on something that I know isn't true." Roman's straightforward answer is as noteworthy as the fact that the CIA has released her name on these reports while redacting the names of others. One explanation might be that she was not in on the operation and therefore not in a position to question why the two cables were being drafted with such ridiculous sentences. "The only interpretation I could put on this," Roman says now, "would be that this SAS group would have held all the information on Oswald under their tight control, so if you did a routine check, it wouldn't show up in his 201 file." Roman made this incisive comment without being shown the documents lists that demonstrate that she was right. "I wasn't in on any particular goings-on or hanky-panky as far as the Cuban situation," Roman states. Asked about the significance of the untrue sentence on the "latest headquarters" information, Roman replied: "Well, to me, it's indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on a need-to-know basis."
On December 11, 1963, John Scelso (John M. Whitten), chief of Western Hemisphere Branch 3, wrote an alarming memo to Richard Helms, deputy director of Plans. In bold handwriting at the top of the memo are the words "not sent." Below this is written "Questions put orally to Mr. Helms. 11 Nov. 63." In smaller handwriting under this are the words "Dec. presumably," reflecting the obvious fact that the Helms oral briefing was December 11, not November 11. Scelso wasted no time in throwing this stone into the pond: " It looks like the FBI report may even be released to the public. This would compromise our [13 spaces redacted] operations in Mexico, because the Soviets would see that the FBI had advance information on the reason for Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy."
How could the FBI have known Oswald's reason in advance? Next to this piece of text was a handwritten clue: "Mr. Helms phoned Mr. Angleton this warning." Perhaps "this morning" was meant, but in either case this may mean that CIA counterintelligence operations were involved.
It is intriguing that anyone in U.S. intelligence would have had advance notice of Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy. Evidently the FBI report that was mentioned was worded so that its readers might conclude that the FBI had been the source of information, but from Scelso's report, it is not hard to guess that it was the CIA's operations in Mexico that had yielded "advance information on the reason for Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy." But just what exactly does this phrase mean?
Oswald had told the Soviet Consulate in Mexico City that he corresponded with the Soviet Embassy in Washington about returning to the U.S.S.R. As previously discussed, the FBI would have learned of the contents of this correspondence. But this would not have compromised CIA operations in Mexico City. The CIA station monthly operational report for October 1963 did mention Oswald's visit to the Soviet Consulate, and did so under the subtitle "Exploitation of [7 letters redacted] Information." The same seven-letter cryptonym is redacted in the line beneath this subtitle, but the last letter is partially visible, enough to see that it is the letter Y In another CIA document from the Mexico City station the cryptonym LIENVOY has been left in the clear, and it was apparently used for the photo surveillance operation against the Soviet Embassy and Consulate." If this is true, the point of the Scelso memo above might have been this: Publication of the October 9-10 cables would show the telephone intercept had been linked to the photo surveillance, and that since the phone call came first, the cable showed the Agency had advance knowledge of the reason for Oswald's (the impostor) visit to the Soviet Consulate.
It appears that the CIA had advance knowledge about more than Oswald's October 1 visit to the Soviet Embassy. There is circumstantial evidence that the CIA Mexico City station might have been watching Oswald since his arrival on September 27. This evidence, according to the Lopez Report, was the Agency's decision to investigate the transcripts back to September 27, before they had learned of that date through post-assassination investigation:" This Committee has not been able to determine how the CIA Headquarters knew, on 23 November 1963, that a review of the [redacted] material should begin with the production from 27 September, the day Oswald first appeared at the Soviet and Cuban Embassies".
This was an incisive point. So was the direction in which the Lopez Report then headed: what headquarters knew about Oswald's visits to the Cuban Consulate.
I first called Jane Roman in the summer of 1994. I told her that I worked as an editor for the Sunday Outlook section of the Washington Post. I told her I had seen her name on some new CIA records in the National Archives. Could she spare some time to review them with a colleague and me? Roman said she was going away for the summer, maybe when she got back in the fall. In October, I called her again in. I explained that it was very difficult to understand records like this, especially for some one like myself who had never worked at the CIA. I needed her help. I told her that I liked to work with a colleague, I preferred to tape record my interviews and thought we could cover everything in 90 minutes.
She agreed. She invited me to come to her house on Newark Street in Cleveland Park on November 2, 1994.
My colleague was John Newman. He was a 20-year veteran of U.S. Army Intelligence. He had worked in sensitive postings at the far-flung corners of the National Security Agency’s intelligence empire. He had expertise in analyzing the cable traffic of the Chinese armed forces. He had served as executive assistant to the director of the National Security Agency, which gave him a feel for high-level office politics. He had also written a book, “JFK in Vietnam” that was praised by retired CIA director William Colby and by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Newman had served as an adviser to Oliver Stone on the set of “JFK” and was one of the experts called upon to advise the JFK Assassination Records Review Board.
I had first met Newman two years before in 1992, at a talk he gave on his book at Georgetown University. We became friendly, sharing abiding interests in national security policymaking and the Kennedy assassination. As I learned from him how to analyze CIA cables, I did my own reading in the new JFK files and shared with him what I found. We talked about what the new records suggested, specifically about what the routing slips indicated about what the CIA knew about Oswald before the assassination. We had our theories but John emphasized to me that more information was needed.
So when Jane Roman agreed to talk to me, I knew I was going to bring John Newman along. In my phone calls to Roman, I made certain that I mentioned Newman’s intelligence training and national security background and that he would be participating.
The interview took place at Roman’s house, a classy Cape Cod cottage on Newark Street. It was a warm autumn morning. We walked up the brick path through the ivy and rang the bell. Roman greeted us graciously, ushered us into her comfortable and tasteful home and seated us at a dining room table. Newman spread out his file folders and we made small talk.
There was an awkward moment when Roman insisted I tell her how I had found her. I said, ridiculously, that I had my sources. She said she wanted to know or she didn’t see the need to go any further. I promptly folded.
“I found the property records on your daughter’s condo,” I said.
Roman nodded and seemed grimly satisfied. I pulled out my tape recorder and she balked again. Newman reassured her that taping was the best protection for all concerned. She relented.
Listening to the tape of the 75-minute interview that ensued, I am struck by several things. Above all, the tone is professional. Newman and Roman spoke as colleagues in the intelligence business. They understood what the other one was saying. Newman was assertive, well prepared, self-possessed. Roman was circumspect, thoughtful and concise.
Right from the start, Roman and Newman parried with revealing results.
Newman produced a sheath of copies of the CIA cables that Roman had signed for over the years. They were all cables about one Lee Harvey Oswald of New Orleans and his travels between November 1959 to October 1963. Roman took her time examining them.
From that point on, Roman did not dispute that she had been familiar with Lee Harvey Oswald before November 22, 1963.
Forty-two years ago, on Nov. 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas, Texas. In Bethesda, Maryland, this past weekend, a group of distinguished journalists, historians, scientists and others gathered to discuss and debate the evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case.
While the research community has often slammed the mainstream media for not covering the facts of the case, the blame must go both ways. The conference organizers offered no handouts, no summaries of what is new in the case this year, or any hook upon which a journalist might hang a story.
As one of the reporters said in a panel discussion, this is a story without an ending, and how satisfying is that?
But that is a tragedy, in light of the Downing Street Memo and other evidence that the Bush administration’s case for war in Iraq was built on a false platform. The common thread throughout the weekend was that secrecy and democracy cannot safely coexist, that the more we have of the former, the less we have of the latter.
The credentials of the speakers this year was more impressive than in previous conferences. Featured speakers included former presidential candidate Gary Hart, author James Bamford, journalists Jeff Morley and Salon founder David Talbot, and historians David Wrone and John Newman (who was a military intelligence analyst), and the former head of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, G. Robert Blakey....
Former military intelligence analyst John Newman was the only speaker willing to speculate about a potential conspirator, based on the documentary record.
Professor Newman reviewed how CIA reports of Oswald’s trips to the Cuban and Soviet embassies was a key factor in getting President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Warren Commission members to go with the Oswald as lone assassin line.
Newman described how the reports in essence created a “World War III” virus, such that after the assassination, no one wanted to look too closely at who Oswald served, lest it touch off a nuclear war with the Soviets or the Cubans.
Newman traced how false information that helped promote this WWIII virus got into Oswald’s file and concluded that the person who controlled the file at those points was Ann Egerter, one of the six or so hand-picked operatives working in James Jesus Angleton’s CI/SIG unit – the Special Investigations Group within the larger 200-man Counterintelligence group at CIA.
Newman also pointed out how many in the Agency feared Angleton, feared for their lives if they crossed him, and suggested Egerter would not have manipulated Oswald’s file on her own, but only under express instructions from Angleton himself.
It is possible that Joannides was not presented with Oswald's name prior to the assassination, but the latest declassified records confirm that a half dozen other top CIA officials were aware of the itinerant ex-Marine and interested in his movements. In September 1963, a month after confronting Joannides's assets in New Orleans, Oswald went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban consulate, seeking a visa. He passed through a CIA surveillance program code-named LIERODE. He then visited the Soviet Embassy where his voice was picked up by a telephonic wiretapping program known as LIENVOY. (These recordings of Oswald, seized from the home office safe of Mexico City station chief Win Scott, were hidden from investigators and later destroyed.) Then, in November, after he returned to Dallas, Oswald wrote a letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington about his contacts with the Cubans and Soviets in Mexico. The letter was opened by the FBI who shared it with the CIA's counterintelligence staff which had responsibility for tracking Soviet defectors.
John Newman, an Army intelligence analyst turned historian, was the first to parse the new records in his 1995 book Oswald and the CIA. "What we've learned since Stone's movie is that the CIA's interest in Oswald was a lot deeper than they have ever acknowledged," Newman wrote. "As Oswald made his way toward Dallas, the reporting about him was channeled into a file controlled by an office in the counterintelligence staff called the Special Investigations Group."
The SIG, as it was known, was the operational office of James Angleton, the first chief of counterintelligence for the CIA, a legendary controversial figure whose exploits inspired the movie The Good Shepherd. Some thought him a charming and brilliant theorist; others thought him a bully and a paranoid menace. "When Oswald shows up in Mexico City," Newman explains, "his file goes over to the Western Hemisphere division which reviews it and sends out a cable to the State Department and other agencies that is -- how can I put it? -- very selective."
This cable, dated October 10, 1963, is no smoking gun. But is one of the key new documents in the JFK paper trail whose significance is not appreciated by the mainstream media or the furious partisans of the JFK chat groups. The cable, not fully declassified until 2002, was sent after a CIA surveillance microphone picked up Oswald's name during his conversations with the Cubans and Russians in Mexico City. "Who was Oswald?" station chief Scott asked headquarters. "We don't know," replied Langley in the cable. The "latest HDQS info," dated May 1962, was that Oswald was returning from the Soviet Union and had matured politically. In fact, that was not the CIA's latest information, as one of Angleton's aides admitted to the Washington Post in 1995. Acknowledging that she helped draft this cable, this aide said in a tape-recorded interview: "I'm signing off on something I know isn't true." What the cable's authors deliberately omitted, among other things, was mention of a September 1963 FBI report on Oswald's encounters with the DRE in New Orleans.
The most senior official to sign off on the inaccurate cable was Tom Karamessines, trusted assistant to CIA Deputy Director Helms. If Helms was a master spy, the man who kept the secrets, Karamessines was the dependable sidekick who helped him do it. Karamessines was also the patron of his fellow Greek American, Miami field man George Joannides.
The interest of these senior officials does not necessarily imply anything more sinister than a bureaucracy's natural tendency to cover its ass. The CIA had ample reason to be monitoring Oswald in late 1963. He publicly supported the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a pro-Castro group, formally classified as a "subversive" organization by U.S. national security agencies. He attempted to travel to Cuba via Mexico, a signal of intent to violate U.S. law. Naturally, the Agency was paying attention. But for all this interest, no one thought to discuss Oswald with the Secret Service or the Dallas police. Little wonder that when the name of the suspect in the assassination was first heard at CIA headquarters in Langley, "the effect was electric," as one agency official put it, employing a phrase that was censored from public view for more than three decades.
What is clear is that Oswald was the person in whom the agency had taken considerable interest -- and whose interest it took considerable pains to cover up.
It is now apparent that the World War III pretext for a national security cover-up was built into the fabric of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy. The plot required that Oswald be maneuvered into place in Mexico City and his activities there carefully monitored, controlled, and, if necessary, embellished and choreographed. the plot required that, prior to 22 November, Oswald's profile at CIA HQS and the Mexico station be lowered; his 201 file had to be manipulated and restricted from incoming traffic on his Cuban activities. The plot required that, when the story from Mexico City arrived at HQS, its significance would not be understood by those responsible for reacting to it. Finally, the plot required that, on 22 November, Oswald's CIA files would establish his connection to Castro and the Kremlin.
The person who designed this plot had to have access to all of the information on Oswald at CIA HQS. The person who designed this plot had to have the authority to alter how information on Oswald was kept at CIA HQS. The person who designed this plot had the authority to alter how information on Oswald was kept at CIA HQS. The person who designed this plot had to have access to project TUMBLEWEED, the sensitive joint agency operation against the KGB assassin, Valery Kosikov. The person who designed this plot had the authority to instigate a counterintelligence operation in the Cuban affairs staff (SAS) at CIA HQS. In my view, there is only one person whose hands fit into these gloves: James Jesus Angleton, Chief of CIA's Counterintelligence Staff.
Angleton and his molehunters had always held Oswald's files very close to the vest - from the time of the young Marine's defection in October 1959 and his offer to provide classified radar information to the Soviets. That offer had lit up the counterintelligence circuits in Washington, D.C. like a Christmas tree. Angleton was the only person who knew - except for perhaps one of his direct subordinates - both the Cuban and Soviet parts of Oswald's story. He was the only one in the Counterintelligence Staff with enough authority to instigate a counterintelligence operation in the SAS against the FPCC.
In my view, whoever Oswald's direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald's files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president's assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were, their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence.
History of Newman University
The origins of Newman University can be traced to the village of Acuto, Italy, where in 1834 a young woman named Maria De Mattias founded the order of religious women, which would become the university’s sponsoring religious congregation, the Adorers of the Blood of Christ [ASC]. Following the example of Maria—who was elevated to sainthood in 2003—the ASC were primarily a teaching order. The sisters came to the United States beginning in 1870, settling near St. Louis. In 1893, they were missioned to Westphalia, KS, and by 1902, they had come as far west as Wichita, Kansas. They purchased a six-acre piece of land, which Henry Dugan, a local farmer, had donated to the Catholic Diocese when Most Rev. J. J. Hennessy was bishop of Wichita. Here the Adorers established St. John’s Institute, a boarding school for girls. The following year (1903) a boys’ school was added. This former Dugan property would eventually become the heart of the Newman University campus.
In the 1920s, a growing demand for state certified teachers led to the formation of the Sisters College of the Diocese of Wichita, a branch of the Municipal University of Wichita [now Wichita State University]. This arrangement lasted five years. In 1933, Mother Beata Netemeyer, who was named the first provincial of the Wichita Adorers in 1929, decided to establish Sacred Heart Junior College with the guidance and assistance of Leon A. McNeill, a member of the diocesan clergy and the superintendent of the Diocesan Catholic Schools.
The college officially opened on September 12, 1933, with “no personnel, no finances and very limited facilities” at the height of the Great Depression then engulfing the world. Despite the obstacles, the college steadily developed, training the sisters as teachers and providing education for lay women in teacher education, nursing, secretarial science and home economics. The objective of the college was the “development of a true and finished Christian character” to enable students to be honorable and useful citizens of the world. The first graduating class of 1935 numbered 17.
In the 1950s, Sacred Heart had expanded its curriculum, degree offerings and faculty, and the college became a four-year institution. De Mattias Hall, a facility that included a stage, gymnasium, and music and art classrooms, was also completed it was torn down approximately 50 years later. Men were admitted to the college in 1958 but could enroll only in the evening courses and summer sessions. In 1959, the college established a lay advisory board, which eventually led to the formation of a board of directors, now called the Board of Trustees.
In the 1960s, Sacred Heart became coeducational , entered intercollegiate athletics  and received accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary schools . Three campus buildings were completed during the decade: McNeill Hall , the Marciana Heimerman, ASC Science Center  and Merlini Hall .
In 1973 the college’s name was changed to Kansas Newman College to reflect the continued growth of the institution, the expanded range of educational programs, and to honor St. John Henry Newman, the 19 th century theologian and scholar known for his writings on the liberal arts and education. A 10-year development program, leading to the 50 th anniversary of the college, was launched to raise funds, update the curriculum and strengthen faculty credentials. Through the 1970s many new programs were introduced, including women’s intercollegiate athletics  and a nursing degree program .
The 1980s witnessed development of strategic plans to define the mission of the college and to guide it toward the 21 st century. These plans led to increased enrollment, development of programs for returning adults, and ushered in the 1990s, which were dominated by two major capital campaigns for campus improvements. Eck Hall , O’Shaughnessy Sports Complex , Mabee Dining Center , Gorges Atrium , De Mattias Fine Arts Center , and Beata Hall  were funded by these campaigns under the able leadership of Tarcisia Roths, ASC, who served as the 9 th president of the university. Sister Tarcisia established Newman’s Mentor Wall, housed in the Gorges Atrium she chose Sylvia Gorges, ASC, the 5 th president, as her mentor. It was during the tenures of these two women religious that the majority of the Newman campus was built and renovated.
With the growth in campus facilities, as well as enrollment, academic programs and student services, the institution changed its name in July 1998 to Newman University. Today, Newman offers more than forty undergraduate and several graduate programs and now serves more than 3,000 students. As the new century unfolds, Newman continues to focus on its mission to empower students to transform society and its Catholic and ASC heritage as well as its commitment to scholarship, academic excellence, global perspective and service. Through an inspiring vision, Newman challenges itself to become a leader in Catholic higher education in the heartland of the United States and to spread this to all corners of the world as its alumni are found on each continent of the globe and are recognized leaders in their communities. Graduates of Newman University serve as doctors, nurses, lawyers, educators, research analysts, fiscal managers, musicians, artists, journalists, authors, religious leaders and in numerous other influential roles. Alumni now total 15,959 (August 20, 2019).
In the fall of 2007, Newman welcomed its 11 th president, Noreen M. Carrocci, Ph.D., the first lay woman to serve in this position. Dr. Carrocci joined the Newman community as it completed another successful fund drive, resulting in construction of a 56,000 sq. ft. library and campus center named for the Dugan family [grandchildren of Henry Dugan, original owner of the land]. The campus had changed significantly with the rerouting of a city street that formerly ran through the campus, and the creation of a pedestrian mall housing Founders Plaza, dedicated in 2008 as NU celebrated its 75th anniversary. This plaza honors 230 ASC, who served on this campus since 1902 the first to be listed is Clementine Zerr, ASC. Clementine was a resilient Adorer, who accompanied sisters from the “Germanys” to the United States and was one of the first four sisters to come to Wichita in 1902. The plaza also displays a bronze statue of St. Maria De Mattias with a college-age student she is surrounded by the names of her daughters, who have served valiantly in this corner of the vineyard. Today, sisters work and volunteer at Newman and the religious community has additional members serving on its Board of Trustees and National Alumni Board. In addition, many ASC attend events and activities on its campus.
Students come primarily from the United States, but there are a growing number of European, Latin American, African, and Asian students who matriculate at Newman University. Two new residence halls opened in 2007, Fugate Hall and Carrocci Hall these allowed the university to house an increasing number of the student body. Dedication of the Dugan Library and Campus Center occurred on November 9, 2007 as part of the inauguration ceremonies for Dr. Carrocci. In September, 2008, the university began the celebration of its 75 th anniversary [1933-2008] the year-long events and activities concluded on September 26, 2009 with a revival of the Party on the Ponderosa. On September 19, 2010, John Henry Newman was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in England the university sponsored a Cardinal Newman Tour as part of its celebration of this momentous occasion.
As Newman University looks forward to its mission-driven and vision-focused future, the sponsorship, presence and prayerful support of the ASC are treasured by the Newman community. In this spirit the Strategic Plan 2009-2014 was written and approved it provided the blueprint leading to the 80 th Anniversary during which Newman University was cited with accolades from the state legislature and other regional and local organizations. A Campus Master Plan was approved in May, 2010 it provides a framework leading the university to its centennial celebration along with a new Strategic Plan for 2014-2019, which was completed and approved by the Board of Trustees in May, 2014. Renovation of Eck Hall was finished in August, 2016, and construction of the Bishop Gerber Science Center began in 2016 and was completed in time for classes in August, 2017. Dedication of the long-awaited building was held on September 21, 2017. The university began work on the next strategic plan during 2018.
On June 10-11, 2016, an All Alumni Reunion was held on the Newman campus. The 2017 Alumni Reunion occurred June 23-25 the All Academy Reunion was on June 22, 2017. The 2018 All-Alumni Weekend was on April 20-21. On Friday, April 20th the dedication of Heimerman Plaza, the Gerber Family Commons, and the Bishop Gerber Sculpture was held. This dedication was a chance for our Newman Community to honor a great part of our history. Alumni were encouraged to return to campus to see and experience for themselves their university, as it continues to grow and to soar. On September 12, 2018, the university celebrated its 85th anniversary.
Newman University celebrated the canonization of St. John Henry Newman by Pope Francis on October 13, 2019. The university sponsored a special tour group, who attended the ceremonies at the Vatican and visited special places which honor Newman University's heritage. The Newman Community also celebrated on the Wichita campus with many events and programs.
St. John Henry Newman: Deep in History
For many Catholics, the Church of England has a certain exotic-yet-familiar quality about it. The patrimony of Anglican liturgy and practices is Catholic in origin, of course. It was in the mid-sixteenth century that King Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church, declaring himself the head of the church in England. Prior to this move, Henry had been given the title “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Leo X for his powerful and convincing defense of the Catholic faith against the teachings of Martin Luther. Ironically, this is a title that the British monarch retains to this day, in spite of their dramatic turn away from the faith they once so eloquently defended.
Cardinal John Henry Newman was declared a saint by Pope Francis on October 13. Newman is one of the most prominent intellectual figures in the Church in the last 200 years, and his conversion from the Church of England to the Catholic Church was considered a national scandal. While some converts attribute their conversion to a movement of the heart, the story of Cardinal Newman’s conversion is one of intellectual rigor and honesty even in the face of extreme opposition.
So how did his conversion come about, and what can we learn from it? In one of his best-known turns of phrase, Cardinal Newman wrote that “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” This remarkable observation, which came from his own experience, is precisely what led Newman across the Tiber and home, to Rome.
In some ways, the English Reformation is seen as distinct from the Reformation on the continent, and early Anglicanism is even considered by some not to be Protestant. Initially, the differences between Henry VIII’s church and the Catholic Church were mostly hierarchical rather than doctrinal. Henry proudly retained his title of “Defender of the Faith,” and he was proud to mount such a defense. But by the time John Henry Newman was coming of age a few hundred years later, the Church of England had followed the theological course of the major Protestant denominations.
It was in this Protestant milieu that Newman found himself as a young man at Oxford. In fact, England had become so institutionally Protestant, that the Church hierarchy had been extinguished for hundreds of years.
When Newman was at Oxford, and even for several years after his conversion in 1845, there was no Catholic diocesan hierarchy in England. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII, the Church was persecuted to an even greater degree than before, and the Catholic hierarchy was suppressed. During the early 19th century, however, the number of Catholics in England skyrocketed, and they petitioned the pope to restore the hierarchy, which he did in 1850. This caused a significant surge in anti-Catholic sentiment among many Anglicans.
Newman’s famous line about history leading Protestants to abandon Protestantism has a further meaning as well. One of Newman’s most important and influential works was An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which was published the year of his conversion. The book painstakingly details the way in which doctrine develops over time, and how such development is different from doctrinal innovation or outright invention. In other words, by digging deep into history, Newman demonstrates that the Protestant position is untenable, and that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.
This also shows the way that human reason can seek a deeper understanding of divine revelation over time. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle but in the ensuing two millennia, we have come to a deeper understanding of many of the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith. It was not until centuries after the time of the apostles that the Church defined things such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the nature of the sacraments, the Immaculate Conception, and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. These were not innovations at the time of their definitions – but the understanding of these doctrines had developed over time until they were codified by the Magisterium.
As the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, says regarding the development of doctrine, “This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit” (8). The Catholic Church is the custodian and safeguard of divine revelation, with the help of the Holy Spirit that was promised to the apostles and their successors (cf. John 14:16-18). Dei Verbum continues: “For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (8). Certainly, to be deep in history is to be deep in the Gospels. And with this as your starting point, everything else falls into place.
We see a similar protection given to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). To the rest of the apostles, while not giving them the keys to the kingdom, he does give them the power to bind and loose (cf. Matt. 18:18-20). It is the sacred duty of the Church to hand on and protect the Catholic faith, and the Holy Spirit will not let the Church lead people astray.
With all of this in mind, the fundamental principle is established: the Catholic Church, through a special grace given it by Christ himself in the Holy Spirit, guards and conveys the truth. Working from that principle, it is clear that God would not abandon his Church, as Luther and the other reformers essentially claimed he had.
St. John Henry Newman’s conversion is a beautiful example of his astute observation in practice: To be deep in history certainly is not only to cease to be Protestant, it is to become Catholic.
Antitrust is undergoing a renaissance. New voices have emerged. Lively debate has prompted antitrust stakeholders to re-evaluate familiar concepts. Issues long considered settled have been opened for re-examination. Some have welcomed this opportunity for self-reflection. But it has also been met with hypocritical charges of politicization and populism, fallacious criticisms, and a refusal to engage with the actual core arguments of the new progressives.
These new critics have famously been labeled as “Hipster Antitrust.” What has been lacking thus far is an equivalent label for the anti-progressive attack on their work. Borrowing from a recent article by Professor Herbert Hovenkamp, this essay proposes “Reactionary Antitrust.” Reactionary Antitrust is a grouping of flawed arguments more likely to discourage, rather than encourage, debate and dialogue. These include disparagement of progressives as “political” and “populist,” the imposition of impossible burdens of proof on would-be reformers, and erecting straw-man versions of opponents’ actual positions. This essay urges an end to Reactionary Antitrust. Instead of seeking to bury the critical reform movement, antitrust discourse should welcome new voices and the renewed intellectual ferment they have inspired.
Given the tone of the current antitrust debates, additional framing may be warranted at the outset. Antitrust commentary has a long and troublesome history of attempting to associate particular individuals with one camp or another, instead of engaging with those individuals’ actual positions. This essay is emphatically not a critique of entire articles or schools of thought, and certainly not of particular authors. Instead, it identifies and responds directly to particular arguments and modes of argument. In other words, the essay strives to model that which it calls for: a return to the highest and best form of scholarly enterprise.
The Output-Welfare Fallacy
A fallacy lies at the core of the modern antitrust enterprise. The ascendance of the consumer-welfare standard is a story often told — but existing narratives neglect the key role played by output. The same scholars who successfully advanced consumer welfare as anti-trust’s goal simultaneously argued for output as the exclusive means of achieving it. This output–welfare means–ends framework quickly entered mainstream discourse, was endorsed by enforcers and judges, and served as the lynchpin for the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Ohio v. American Express opinion. Yet despite its centrality to contemporary antitrust, outputism has largely escaped notice.
Until now. When exposed to a systematic critical evaluation that incorporates modern economic learning, the supposed link between output and welfare collapses. Strategic conduct can simultaneously push output in conflicting directions and welfare in conflicting directions. Marketplace conduct can increase output while decreasing welfare. The inverse is also true: firms can decrease output while increasing welfare. Finally, conduct can reduce welfare without affecting output levels. These are not mere anomalies. They occur within markets — for social media, online search, collegiate athletics, and more — that are of great interest to legislatures and enforcers. And they comprise strategies — tying, deception, vertical intrabrand restraints, and more — that have long been focal points for antitrust law and economics.
When it is invoked, the Output–Welfare Fallacy yields decisions that are incoherent and harmful. Recognizing and avoiding the Fallacy offers multiple benefits. As an initial matter, the antitrust enterprise can safely jettison reductive outputist decisions, including the recent American Express opinion. More fundamentally, rejecting outputism allows the identification of appropriate standards for market power, anticompetitive effects, and procompetitive justifications. Discarding the Output–Welfare Fallacy yields a more coherent, efficient, and accurate approach to antitrust analysis.
Keywords: antitrust, output, consumer welfare, law and economics, tying, monopolization, restraints of trade, anticompetitive effects, rule of reason, procompetitive justifications
JEL Classification: D21, D41, D42, D61, D62, K21, L4, L40, L41, L42, L43, L44
John Henry Newman and the Meaning of History
John Henry Newman was born on February 21, 1801 and died on August 11, 1890. He entered the Catholic Church on October 8, 1845. Thus his life was divided almost equally between his Catholic and non-Catholic periods. I do not wish to say Protestant period, because Newman was in reaction against Protestantism from the middle 1830s onward, if not indeed earlier. In fact, from 1836, with the publication of the he was seeking to present the Anglican Church as possessed of definite Catholic traditions. That effort, to discover and emphasize Catholic elements in the Anglican past, was brought to an abrupt halt with his writing of in 1841. That document, which sought to interpret the Thirty Nine Articles, the Anglican statement of belief, in a Catholic sense, brought down a storm of opposition and controversy upon his head. This included the strong opposition of the bishops of the Anglican Church. It became clear that the Anglican bishops considered the Church of England to be Protestant, and that they would resist any attempt to make it appear in any sense Catholic. Thus, for four years, until 1845, Newman wrestled with his earlier prejudices against the Catholic Church, until he finally came to see that these prejudices were not in fact justified.
It must be recognized that Newman's thinking about the Church and about Christianity was always founded on a conception of History. When he came under Evangelical Protestant influence in 1816, as a result of a conversion he experienced at that time, he was led to see the Catholic Church as the Antichrist, and the Protestant Reformation as the rescue of Christians from their thousand-year bondage to Babylon, to which they had fallen victim during the medieval supremacy of the Church of Rome. It was only after many years that he was delivered from this conception. As he wrote in the
"My imagination was stained by the effect of this doctrine up to the year 1843 it had been obliterated from my reason and my judgement at an earlier date but the thought remained with me as a kind of false conscience." p. 27 of Houghton Mefflin ed (1956).
When Newman abandoned this Protestant view of the history of the Church because of his understanding of the Church as a visible institution with sacraments communicating the life of grace, his mind was still governed by aconception of history. In this conception he looked back to the early Church, the Church of the Fathers, in order to show that the Anglican Church was the true heir of the Church of Antiquity and of the promises which Christ had made to His Apostles.
The first serious blow which he sustained to this justification of the Anglican Church was when he read an article of Monsignor Wiseman in 1839 in which he perceived the force of Wiseman's argument that Rome had taken the same position against the Monophysite heresy in Egypt as she was to take later against the Church of England. Of this jar to his theory Newman wrote:
"I saw my face in that mirror [of the past history of the Church] and I was a Monophysite. The Church of the [Newman's defense of Anglicanism] was in the position of the Oriental Communion, Rome was where she now is and the Protestants were the Eutychians." p. 121
Newman's greatest work, written in 1844-45, was based upon an examination of the facts of the earlier history of the Church. In it he demonstrates that the additions to the teachings of the Catholic Church which he had earlier condemend as corruptions, were in fact legitimate developments from its original content. It was the writing of this book which led him into the Catholic Church.
Newman's written in 1864, traces the history of his own life and of the steps by which he arrived at a conviction of the truth of Catholic teaching. And in (1870), the last chapter on Natural and Revealed Religion, is essentially historical in its presentation of his arguments. And a fair number of his sermons, both in his Anglican and Catholic periods, are strongly influenced by his conception of history.
Newman's last important work, his written in 1874, which was a response to the criticism made by Prime Minister Gladstone of Vatican Council I and its teaching on Papal infallibility, draws upon the facts of the history of the Church to defend that doctrine.
There is no doubt, therefore, that Newman's thought and apologetics in behalf of both Christianity and the Catholic Faith are deeply rooted in a Christian conceptionof history. Let us now consider what are some of the major elements which helped to shape that conception. In the anthology itself we shall see Newman's enunciation of its basic principles, and their application to specific historical events and movements. [Reference here is to an anthology of Newman's view of history which the author has prepared]
When we consider Newman's conception of history, we find that it is composed of several different strands. One is a theology of history derived from Scripture, a second is a psychological analysis of human nature seen from a Christian perspective, and a third is an evaluation of the historical events that have contributed to the main course of mankind's history. Presenting his ideas on the meaning of history in the middle third of the nineteenth century, Newman includes un his view of history the religion of primitive man, Judaism and the religion of the Canaanites, the societies of Greece and Rome, and the history of Christendom and of the Church down to the nineteenth century.
But he pays very little attention to Islam, China, and India, despite the fact that these world cultures were becoming much better known to Europeans since the latter part of the eighteenth century. Thus Newman's view of history has certain limitations, as compared with the views of other and earlier interpreters of history--Voltaire and Hegel, for example, or that of the German Romantic philosopher and convert to Catholicism, Friedrich von Schlegel.
Nevertheless, the thorough saturation of Newman's mind with the thought, imagery, and events of both the Old Testament and the New, gives to his interpretation of history an intensity and a depth which more than compensate for the limited range of its survey. And, since from the Christian standpoint, it has been through God's dealings with the People of God under both the old and the new dispensations that the true purpose of history is to be realized, Newman deals with the essential elements which give history its meaning.
Newman's analysis of history is governed by the contrast and tension between two opposite principles which are at work. The most fundamental tension is between the creation of the world and of man by God on the one hand, and the Fall of Man through Original Sin on the other. The first principle indicates God's ongoing creative concern for the world by means of His providence. Where man is concerned, this is exercised through a Divine influence upon the events of mankind's history. The second principle results in the record of human sinfulness and rebellion against God of which the history of humanity gives such striking evidence.
Consequently, when Newman looks at history from a secular standpoint, he seeks in it little indication of God's overruling providence. Instead he finds that the record ofhuman striving in history leads one to disillusionment and disappointment. In one passage he tells of his own struggle--that if his own conscience did not bear witness to God's existence and to God's concern that man should act rightly, then his own contemplation of history would tempt him to become either an atheist, a pantheist or a polytheist. In Newman's opinion, the outward appearance of history--the record of historical events--reveals a world that is out of joint with the purposes of its Creator.
Yet, Newman believes that history does not run blind and that it has not been abandoned by God. God's purposes are active beneath the surface of history, bringing to fulfillment what God intends. When one distinguishes between the external appearance of history and the inner meaning of its events, a prophetic and apocalyptic view of history results. Prophetic here does not mean so much the foretelling of the future, although this is often included, as a pointing out of the real meaning of historical events, a meaning which often contradicts the surface record of history. In this sense, a prophecy concerning future events is a means of vindicating the word of the prophet, of showing how the prophet's vision perceives the deeper significance of what is taking place. In the following passage Newman contrasts the vision of the prophets with the attitude of most of mankind:
Men who are plunged in the pursuits of active life, are no judges of its course and tendency on the whole. They confuse great events with little, and measure the importance of objects, as in perspective, by the mere standard of nearness or remoteness. It is only at a distance that one can take in the outlines and features of the whole country. It is but holy Daniel, solitary among princes, or Elijah, the recluse of Mount Carmel, who can withstand Baal, or forecast the time of God's providences among the nations. To the multitude all things continue to the end, as they were from the beginning of the creation. Thus the world proceeds till wrath comes upon it and there is no escape. II, 112- 113.
A striking characteristic of Newman's thinking about history emerges from this passage. That is, his thought is very much indebted to the Old Testament prophetic tradition. Some of the most powerful and eloquent of his writings derive their inspiration form this source. This, in part, results from the influence of Protestant Evangelical writers upon him, with whom he became acquainted at the time of his first conversion at age 15. Newman never lost the influence of the Old Testament upon his thinking, which he ultimately joined with a deep sense of its fulfillment in the New Testament and in the Catholic Church. As Christopher Dawson points out concerning this development:
Throughout his life, as he wrote in his last days to the Secretary of the London Evangelical Society, his mind was possessed by those great and burning truths which [he] learned as a boy from Evangelical teaching, which he taught when a man at Oxford, and which he found at last shining in their true glory in the Catholic Roman Church. (1933), p. 42.
The apocalyptic element in history taken in itself, Newman asserts, tends to overthrow and visit destruction upon the self- sufficient societies which mankind constructs. We see this element at work in the disasters predicted by the Old Testament Prophets, which eventually did come to pass. And through these disasters, God meted out justice upon Israel herself and not only upon the nations that surrounded her. At different times, because of their practice of injustice and their worship of idols, each of the two kingdoms of the Hebrew people were led away into captivity.
The harsh prophetic reality, however, is intrinsically linked to the merciful principle of incarnation that is, Divine punishments are intended not only to manifest God's anger against human sinfulness, but also to prepare the way for new developments in which God's providential purposes can be realized. Newman sees that the history of the Jews is not simply one of punishments for their idolatry and their disregard of God's law it is also a record of restoration to their homeland, of building a more purified society dedicated to the worship of the One True God, and leaving behind the lust for idolatry which had so often characterized their forefathers. For, in God's design, the fruit of Israel's purified remnant would be he Messiah, the Savior of all nations.
Moreover, even those members of the Jewish nation who remained behind in Babylon, subject to the rule of Gentile kings, were a means for spreading a knowledge of God and His law among the Nations, serving another providential purpose.
For Newman, of course, the greatest example of this positive element in history, which overcomes the record of human sinfulness otherwise so apparent, is the Incarnation itself and it is the Catholic Church which is meant to perpetuate and fulfill the purposes of the Incarnation, by communicating its grace and truth to all the peoples of the earth.
Because the principle deriving from human sin and error lingers even within the Church herself, the Church has to define her doctrines more fully and guard them against perversion of their meaning. And it is often by means of meeting the challenge of this or that heresy that the Church herself, according to Newman, achieves a clearer and deeper expression of the doctrines which she holds. This is what constitutes development of doctrine,and illustrates how history goes forward to an ever deeper and richer realization of the Divine purpose.
For Newman, the positive incarnational element does not operate exclusively within the Church, but within human society as well. The riches of the Gentile nations, pre-eminently Greece and Rome in Newman's historical perspective, contribute not only to the Church's own growth and development, but also are vital principles for the life of society outside the Church. Newman's for example, is devoted to showing how the literary classics of Greece and Rome can become the basis for the enlargement of the mind through liberal education.
Thus, while Newman's view of history is strongly influenced by the prophetic element there is also a pronounced emphasis upon the element of divine progress in history. Through the Incarnation God's creative power and providential purposes flow out into human history and create a new hope for mankind. Christopher Dawson has remarked on this element in Newman's though:
"Newman's doctrine of development was inspired by an intense faith in the boundless powers of assimilation which the Christian faith possessed and which made it a unitive principle in life and thought. Hence, although Newman realized, like Leo XIII, that the modern world was on the verge of a great moral catastrophe, he never accepted the fundamental historical pessimism which is so common today, and which was expressed so powerfully in his own time by his great Protestant contemporary, Kierkegaard. For Newman saw that it was only in history that the process of progressive revelation and spiritual renovation could be fulfilled. pp. 292
The term "progressive revelation" as used by Dawson refers to the concept of the development of doctrine--making more explicit certain elements in doctrine that were implicit in the deposit of faith before. It does not mean the idea of "ongoing revelation" promoted by neo-Modernism, which means either something quite new, or else a reversal of what has been taught before. Newman would characterize the latter as corruptions of the Church's doctrine, not as its authentic development.
Finally, just as the Incarnation led to the Passion and Death of Jesus, as well as to His Resurrection, so too the Church must endure persecution and suffering in order to bring God's redemptive purposes to fulfillment. Here, the prophetic element in Newman's thinking remains strong, for, the kingdoms established by human power and pride are still the dominant forces in the world in every era of history in which the Church is living out her life. There is, therefore, a continuing conflict between the power ofthese kingdoms of man and the invisible influence of the Kingdom of God.
In this conflict the Church often appears to be losing, while in fact it is through her persecutions by the City of Man that she is wining the victory God's purposes for her ultimate triumph are being realized. As was said by the early Christian community, subject to intense persecution by the Roman Empire, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." In the victory of the Church, which is fully realized only at Christ's Second Coming, the incarnational principle is brought to its promised fulfillment.
As a counterbalance to this, there is Newman's sense of the imminence of Divine judgement. This reaches its complete vindication in the Last Judgment rendered by Christ at the end of the world. But it finds partial realization in the different judgments and catastrophes which take place in the course of history. Moreover since the first coming of Christ, history as Newman sees it, has entered a new dimension, quite different from what it was before. Now it is ever awaiting Christ's Second Coming in Judgment. This hangs heavily over all human plans and hopes for the future, and it is the last and greatest fulfillment of the prophetic or apocalyptic principle. For such judgment breaks in upon a world which has not been expecting it, and it contradicts the basic values by which the world has ben living its life.
Here is Newman's expression of this conception of the imminence of the Second Coming.
. Up to Christ's coming in the flesh, the course of things ran straight towards that end, nearing it by every step but now, under the Gospel, that course has (if I may so speak) altered its direction, as regards His Second Coming, and runs, not towards the end, but along it, and on the brink of it and is at all times equally near that great event, which, did it run towards, it would at once run into. Christ, then, is ever at our doors. Vol. VI, p.241
And that expectation of Christ's Second Coming leads Newman to draw forth its implications for each one's personal life. As he meditates on the parable of the laborers in the vineyeard, some called only toward the end of the day, he points out:
For we are called, as is evident, in the world's evening, not in our own. We are called in our own morning, we are called from infancy. By the eleventh hour is not meant that Christians have little to do, but that the time is short that it is the last time that there is a "present distress" that they have much to do in a little time that "the night cometh when no man may work" that their Lord is at hand, and that they have to wait for Him.
O may we ever bear in mind that we are not sent into this world to stand all the day idle, but to go forth to our work and to our labor until the evening. the evening, not the evening only of life, but serving God from our youth, and not waiting till our years fail us. Until the not in the day- time only, lest we begin to run well, but fall away before our course is ended. Let us "give glory to the Lord our God, before He cause darkness and before our feet stumble upon the dark mountains" (Jer. xiii. 16) and, having turned to Him, let us see that our goodness be not "as the morning cloud, and as the early dew which passeth away." The is the proof of the matter.
May that day and that hour ever be in our thoughts! from "The Work of the Christian" in of the Day, pp. 9 11-12.
Who was Cardinal John Henry Newman?
The 19th-century religious scholar Cardinal John Newman (1801–90) will on 13 October 2019 be declared a saint by Pope Francis, in a ceremony in St Peter’s Square in Vatican City. Newman will be the first English person born since the 17th century to be declared a saint by the Roman Catholic church. Author Edward Short explains more…
This competition is now closed
Published: October 7, 2019 at 11:30 am
Who was the soon-to-be saint, John Newman? A priest, theologian, educator, historian, philosopher, poet and writer, Newman began his career as an Anglican, converted to Catholicism and ended his days a cardinal. Here, Edward Short, the author of three highly acclaimed studies of Newman, explores his life and reveals why the cardinal fascinates our contemporaries as much as he did his own…
When news of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman’s canonisation was first announced earlier this year, some might have recalled what the liberal UK prime minister Lord Rosebery, Gladstone’s protégé, thought of the great convert. When Rosebery met the 79-year-old cardinal in 1880, he was impressed by his “deliciously soft voice” and “courtly” address. Indeed, Newman was surprised and pleased when Rosebery told him that he always kept Newman’s autobiography by his bedside.
Ten years later, when Newman was laid out on the high altar of the Oratory Church in Birmingham, Rosebery wrote in his journal: “This was the end of the young Calvinist, the Oxford don, the austere vicar of St Mary’s. It seemed as if a whole cycle of human thought and life were concentrated in that august repose. That was my overwhelming thought. Kindly light had led and guided Newman to this strange, brilliant end.”
John Henry Newman: a mini biography
Born: 21 February 1801
Died: 11 August 1890
Parents: John Newman, a private banker, Ramsbottom, Newman, Ramsbottom and Co. in Lombard Street
Jemima (née) Fourdrinier, descendant of distinguished Huguenot printers, engravers and stationers from Normandy
Education: Ealing School and Trinity College, Oxford
Conversion to Roman Catholicism: 9 October 1845
Career: Fellow of Oriel College Vicar of St Mary’s University Church, Oxford Leader of the Oxford Movement Founder of the Birmingham Oratory Founder of the Oratory School in Birmingham and the Catholic University in Dublin Made cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879 Beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010.
Motto: Cor ad cor loquitor: “Heart speaks to heart”
Quote: “If we are intended for great ends, we are called to great hazards”
– John Henry Newman, The Nature of Faith in Relation to Reason (1839)
Gravestone: Ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem: “Out of shadows and phantasms into Truth”
Of course, Rosebery was referring not only to Newman’s lovely poem The Pillar of the Cloud (now a beloved hymn titled Lead Kindly Light), but to the fact that in 1845 he walked away from everything he had known and loved as an Anglican don at Oriel to embrace the Church of Rome. Gladstone, if anything, was even more laudatory about the man with whom he had crossed swords over the First Vatican Council (1869–70), especially its adoption of papal infallibility:
“When the history of Oxford during that time comes to be written, the historian will have to record the extraordinary, the unexampled career of [Newman]… He will have to tell, as I believe, that Dr. Newman exercised for a period of about ten years after 1833 an amount of influence, of absorbing influence, over the highest intellects — over nearly the whole intellect, but certainly over the highest intellect of this University, for which perhaps, there is no parallel in the academical history of Europe, unless you go back to the twelfth century or to the University of Paris.”
What, then, was it about Newman that made him so extraordinary?
Gladstone was not wide of the mark when he said that Newman’s “influence was sustained by his extraordinary purity of character and the holiness of his life”. Yet there were other factors that contributed to his greatness. John Henry Newman left behind a body of work of exceptional acuity. His several books of sermons, written as both an Anglican and a Catholic his Oxford novel, Loss and Gain (1848) his Tamworth Reading Room (1841) Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845) Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England (1851) Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864) Grammar of Assent (1870) Idea of a University (1873) and Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1875) continue to inform our studies on religion, history, education, and philosophy.
Moreover, schooled in the prose of English writers Samuel Johnson and Edward Gibbon, Newman would become the best prose stylist of the 19th century, and this in an age that produced such redoubtable stylists as Thomas Babington Macaulay and John Ruskin. The list of later writers influenced by Newman would be too long to tally, but they include Gerard Manley Hopkins Oscar Wilde Siegfried Sassoon G K Chesterton James Joyce T S Eliot Evelyn Waugh Graham Greene Ronald Knox Muriel Spark Christopher Dawson Flannery O’Connor G M Young Penelope Fitzgerald and Alfred Gilbey – not an unimpressive lot.
Another thing that makes Newman extraordinary was his dedication to education, which he regarded as his true métier. In founding the Catholic University in Dublin, he provided the blueprint for all good liberal arts education, even though the university itself was a failure, thanks, in large part, to Disraeli refusing to grant it a charter. In any case, Newman’s book The Idea of a University is rightly recognised as the most astute book ever written on education.
When it came to giving credit to his own Oxford education, Newman was memorably acerbic. “What would come . . . of the ideal systems of education which have fascinated the imagination of this age, could they ever take effect, and whether they would not produce a generation frivolous, narrow-minded, and resourceless, intellectually considered, is a fair subject for debate,” Newman wrote, “but so far is certain, that the Universities and scholastic establishments, to which I refer [he was referring to Oxbridge] . . . these institutions, with miserable deformities on the side of morals, with a hollow profession of Christianity, and a heathen code of ethics,—I say, at least they can boast of a succession of heroes and statesmen, of literary men and philosophers, of men conspicuous for great natural virtues, for habits of business, for knowledge of life, for practical judgment, for cultivated tastes, for accomplishments, who have made England what it is,—able to subdue the earth, able to domineer over Catholics.”
Cardinal Newman’s lasting impact
Beyond his published writings, Newman also exerted a lasting impact on his world and ours by bringing the Oratory of St Philip to England and establishing the Birmingham Oratory. As an Oratorian, Newman continued to sustain and replenish the wide circle of friends that he had formed when he led the Oxford Movement, the purpose of which was to try to renew the Anglican Church at a time when its prerogatives were being eroded by successive Liberal governments. Newman’s 32 volumes of letters show the solicitude and good counsel that he would always show not only to his many friends and associates around the world but also to utter strangers who felt impelled to write to him for advice on various matters.
In his letters, one often encounters the saint in Newman, who, for all of his attainments, always made time to help others. To one friend dedicated to looking after the London poor, he wrote: “I inclose a post office order for £5. If you think Miss S. ought to have £2, be so good as to ask her to accept it, according to her letter. As to the rest, I wish it to go in a special kind of charity, viz in the instrumenta, as I may call them, and operative methods, of your own good works – that is, not in meat and drink, and physic, or clothing of the needy, but (if you will not be angry with me) in your charitable cabs, charitable umbrellas, charitable boots, and all the wear and tear of a charitable person who without such wear and tear cannot do her charity.”
As one Newman scholar remarked: “His women friends thought the world of him, were delighted when he was made a cardinal and at his death they would instantly have acclaimed him a saint if their opinion had been asked.”
After Newman’s death in 1890, Emily Bowles, one of his closest friends, actually referred to him as their “lost Saint.” Some 40 years before, Newman had written to another female correspondent: “I have nothing of a Saint about me as every one knows, and it is a severe (and salutary) mortification to be thought next door to one. I may have a high view of many things… but this is very different from being what I admire.” His friends would have begged to differ, though Newman’s demurral certainly exhibited one proof of the genuine saint: he never paraded his sanctity.
Now that Newman’s canonisation is imminent, we can see that what Rosebery regarded as his “strange” and “brilliant” end has acquired a richer meaning still. “It is the paradox of history,” G K Chesterton once said, “that each generation is converted by the saint who contradicts it most… In a world that was too stolid, Christianity returned in the form of a vagabond in a world that has grown too wild, Christianity returned in the form of a teacher of logic.” Referring here to St Francis of Assisi and St Thomas Aquinas, Chesterton could not have known that our own world would be blessed with an even more countercultural saint. Yet so it is.
Edward Short is the author of Newman and his Contemporaries (2011) Newman and his Family(2013) and Newman and History (2017). He is currently at work on his fourth book on Newman, Newman and his Critics, which will be published by Bloomsbury. He lives with his wife and two young children in New York.
JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power
One of the biggest questions surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy has nothing to do with the events in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. It has to do with a nation in Southeast Asia you have very likely heard of called Vietnam and exactly what JFK was doing and might have been preparing to do before bullets ended his life and presidency. In 1992, historian and former military officer John M. Newman offered up large pieces of the puzzle with his book JFK And Vietnam. Despite the sub One of the biggest questions surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy has nothing to do with the events in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. It has to do with a nation in Southeast Asia you have very likely heard of called Vietnam and exactly what JFK was doing and might have been preparing to do before bullets ended his life and presidency. In 1992, historian and former military officer John M. Newman offered up large pieces of the puzzle with his book JFK And Vietnam. Despite the subtitle on the cover about "Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power", there's not any speculation in the book regarding the assassination. Instead, it is more of a look into the decision-making process and how the course of the war over the three years or so Kennedy was President.
Newman worked through documents then declassified for the first time as he set out to answer the lingering questions regarding his title subjects. In doing so he covers the Kennedy administration from its earliest days to its last days, right up until the very early days of the Johnson presidency. Newman paints on a massive canvas as a result, one covering two continents and dozens of people with names both well known and obscure as it tracks events in Washington, Saigon, and in the jungles of Vietnam.
The picture Newman paints is not necessarily a pretty one either. Of particular interest to me was the look at intelligence gathering and how that information was relayed back to Washington. One of the things I'm often struck by in looking at the world of intelligence is how the information gathered can be misunderstood or hidden to suit an agenda. The book nicely demonstrates both showing how information gathered largely by-2 (military intelligence) as well as the CIA under Dulles and McCone, was largely obfuscated in an attempt to show a more positive picture of events than what was actually happening.
At least until 1963. By that point, as Newman makes an incredibly strong case for here, JFK was attempting to pull American forces out of Vietnam. Newman traces the routes of this plan back to 1962 and how the President, realizing the deception he was facing as well as calls form the military to commit a massive US intervention they had been pushing for since the earliest days of his presidency, effectively launched a fog of his own to hide the withdrawal plan until after the 1964 election. Newman also demonstrated how this plan, on the brink of bringing the first one thousand troops home despite attempts to dilute it by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was ultimately scrapped in the aftermath of his assassination and how events eventually led to Lyndon Johnson committing America to a land war that it could never hope to win.
While it may sound as though the book is entirely pro-JFK, that isn't quite the case. Newman is happy to bring rightful criticism against the President for his early inability to commit to a policy during much of 1961 as well as having allowed himself to be seen as helping instigate the coup that toppled and executed the corrupt South Vietnamese leader Diem, a move he did not support. What this warts and all portrait presents though is a more honest image of JFK than is often presented and how Vietnam gave him a series of hard-fought lessons, lessons that taught him what it took others in and out of government years to realize: that the war couldn't be won by a corrupt South Vietnam that was unwilling to fight even with American aid and support.
For a book that is now a quarter of a century old, Newman's book holds up well as more recent research backs up much of what it has to offer. Indeed, I discovered a revised edition was just published earlier in 2017 (I read the original 1992 edition that I found in a local library). Even having not read the updated edition, I heartily recommend it for those wanting a better understanding of what led to America's full involvement in Vietnam and looking for answers to how Kennedy might have avoided it. It's also a powerful and cautionary tale about politicians, the military, the world of intelligence gathering, and the need for those in power to know the truth when making decisions. . more
WikiTree is a community of genealogists growing an increasingly-accurate collaborative family tree that's 100% free for everyone forever. Please join us.
Please join us in collaborating on NEWMAN family trees. We need the help of good genealogists to grow a completely free shared family tree to connect us all.
A Place Called “Newman”
BY JOHN ORTEGA, SAS’20
“Community.” “Home.” “Blessing.” “Miracle.”
‘Newman’ means a multitude of different things to so many people who have experienced the ministry provided by the over 2,000 Newman Centers that have been established throughout the United States over the past 125 years. These Catholic campus ministries owe their origins to the first Newman club in the country, which was founded at the University of Pennsylvania in 1893 by a medical student named Timothy Harrington. He and some colleagues took inspiration from now St. John Henry Newman, who was convinced that students cultivate their faith together with their university education.
A pivotal player in this movement was himself nicknamed “Mr. Newman,” Rev. John W. Keogh. Born in “Fishertown” where he was dubbed the “Iron Duke”, he reawoke the defunct Newman Club at Penn in 1913 and grew it into a “model for the nation” by establishing Newman Hall on Spruce St. with its famed St. Bede’s Chapel. He became chaplain general for the Federation of Catholic College Clubs and served for nearly two decades, proving himself to be “the staunchest friend and bravest promoter of the Newman Movement.” He toured the country addressing national conventions, founding clubs, encouraging chaplains and pleading for bishops to help. He was considered a ‘radical’ for seeking Church approval of nonsectarian education.
Many stories could be told of Penn Newman and its different stages, as it evolved from a club to a ministry throughout its 125 years. No matter the location and regardless of the chaplain or student leaders, Newman has, is, and will always be a place where Christ-centered "heart-to-heart" relationships are formed. Harrington ensured, through the founding of Penn Newman, that there would always be a home and community for Catholics at secular universities across the United States. Many decades after the Penn Newman Club’s founding, Harrington would go on to say the following words, which echo for eternity: