The year 1907 was perhaps the highwater mark of the Modernist controverst, for in this year Pope St. Pius X published his groundbreaking encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis condemning the errors of the Modernists.
The publication of the encyclical was timely for the disciples of the late John Henry Newman. Newman had been dead for almost two decades by the time of Pius X's encyclical, but his works were stirring up controversy. Some Modernist thinkers had attached Newman's name to their own ideas to add the lustre of orthodoxy to their errors; others, in their zeal against the Modernists and suspicious of Newman's name always coming up in their company, began to suspect Newman himself may have been a proto-Modernist. There was also no small confusion caused by the circulation of quotes from Newman's Anglican period and to what degree he had still affirmed many of his earlier opinions.
One of Newman's defenders in these controversies was Edwin Thomas O'Dwyer, the Bishop of Limerick, Ireland. In the aftermath of Pascendi, O'Dwyer penned an essay comparing Newman's thought to the teaching of Pascendi with the intention of vindicating him from charges of Modernism. Bishop O'Dwyer thought it prudent to forward the essay to Pius X himself for approval. Pius X read the essay and sent a response to O'Dwyer in 1908, eagerly approving his work and vindicating John Henry Newman of any taint of error. Here follows some pertinent quotes from St. Pius X's letter:
"The writings of Cardinal Newman, far from being in disagreement with Our Encyclical Letter Pascendi, are very much in harmony with it...Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy...We therefore congratulate you for having, through your knowledge of all his writings, brilliantly vindicated the memory of this eminently upright and wise man from injustice...If anyone is competent to judge whether Newman's doctrine was Modernist, should it not be St. Pius X? Who better to discern if Newman's work is tainted with error than the sainted author of Pascendi? Will those who invoke tradition against the teaching of Newman also align themselves against the judgment of the pope whose name is synonymous with tradition?
Those who were accustomed to abusing his name and deceiving the ignorant should henceforth cease doing so. Would that they should follow Newman the author faithfully by studying his book...let them understand his pure and whole principles, his lessons and inspiration which they contain. They will learn many excellent things from such a great teacher..."
Not only do you fully demonstrate their obstinacy but you also show clearly their deceitfulness. For, if in the things he had written before his profession of the Catholic faith one can justly detect something which may have a kind of similarity with certain Modernist formulas, you are correct in saying that this is not relevant to his later works. Moreover, as far as that matter is concerned, his way of thinking has been expressed in very different ways, both in the spoken word and in his published writings, and the author himself, on his admission into the Catholic Church, forwarded all his writings to the authority of the same Church so that any corrections might be made, if judged appropriate.
Regarding the large number of books of great importance and influence which he wrote as a Catholic, it is hardly necessary to exonerate them from any connection with this present heresy. And indeed, in the domain of England, it is common knowledge that Henry Newman pleaded the cause of the Catholic faith in his prolific literary output so effectively that his work was both highly beneficial to its citizens and greatly appreciated by Our Predecessors: and so he is held worthy of office whom Leo XIII, undoubtedly a shrewd judge of men and affairs, appointed Cardinal; indeed he was very highly regarded by him at every stage of his career, and deservedly so. Truly, there is something about such a large quantity of work and his long hours of labour lasting far into the night that seems foreign to the usual way of theologians: nothing can be found to bring any suspicion about his faith. You correctly state that it is entirely to be expected that where no new signs of heresy were apparent he has perhaps used an off-guard manner of speaking to some people in certain places, but that what the Modernists do is to falsely and deceitfully take those words out of the whole context of what he meant to say and twist them to suit their own meaning.
