The shortcomings of this book are few but significant. There is virtually no atten-tion paid to CST in Europe. There are only two brief references to Catholic Action.The regression in CST between the 1960s and the early 21st century is inadequatelyanalyzed. In general, though, the book is a valuable source of information andanalysis of CST, past and present, and provides some guidance for revamping CST tobetter address the enormous challenges posed by globalization.

World Medical Association, Ferney-Voltaire, France John R. Williams

John Henry Newman: A View of Catholic Faith for the New Millennium. By John R.Connolly. Pp. 163, Lanham, MD, Rowan and Littlefield, 2005, $24.95.

In this brief but substantial book, Connolly presents a systematic and historicalanalysis of Newman’s theology of faith. He seeks to address two problems. First,while there is a revival of interest in Newman today, there is an inadequate supply ofaccessible, systematic, and relevant introductory texts about his theology for educatedCatholics, undergraduate and graduate students of theology. Second, while secondarytexts exist, none combines an integrated analysis of faith and reason that bear uponCatholic faith today. Specifically, there is little treatment of criticism in the church, therelationship between theologians and the magisterium, and the personalist emphasisin Catholic theology. Connolly’s book tries to fill these gaps. Despite scatteredtypographical errors and a rambling prose style, he succeeds. Connolly enjoys acommand of Newman’s primary and secondary literature that will convince educatedCatholic readers and satisfy theologians. Scholars seldom meticulously support everyclaim made. Connolly’s 728 footnotes for 163 pages is an exception.In a cultural climate seemingly split between postmodern skepticism and forms of

religious fundamentalism, Connolly’s nuanced examination of Newman’s view ofcertitude is welcome. Human beings can reach certitude in their daily lives about arange of subjects, including religious convictions. For Newman, certitude is a type of‘assent’. Assents can be simple or complex. Simple assents are the ‘unconsciousacceptance of the truth of a statement (p. 61)’. Complex assents are the deliberate,conscious affirmation of one’s prior simple assent. ‘Great Britain is an island,’ forexample, can be held as true in a simple sense. One might accept this without furtherthought. This is a ‘simple assent’ but not certitude. Conversely, one might choose toassent to this statement deliberatively. As Connolly states, complex (reflex) assentfollows the logic of ‘I know that I know’ Great Britain is an island (p. 61). Such acomplex assent is a certitude. Perhaps one has seen a satellite photograph, studied amap, heard numerous authorities talk about the nature of the island. Such evidencecoalesces, for most people, various probable statements that Newman calls ‘thecumulation of probabilities (p. 65)’. What leads to this complex assent of ‘I know thatGreat Britain is an island’ is reasoning.For Newman, the kind of reasoning process that leads to certitude is called

‘informal’. Though one could rigorously construct the former statement as aconclusion drawn from a logical syllogism, the act is atypical in the concrete. AsConnolly convincingly shows, Newman believes people reach certitudes by assentingto different pieces of evidence over time. At some point, what Newman calls the‘illative sense’, comparable to Aristotle’s phronesis, judges the proposition to be so ornot (p. 68). It is ‘a power of concluding that tells one the evidence is sufficient to makea conclusion (p. 69)’. This judgment is the reaching of certitude. More than just ahypothesis, the statement becomes a living thing that makes a deeper impression upona person. This is why such a complex assent or certitude is ‘real’ as opposed to‘notional’. Certitude matters because it influences a horizon of meaning and value.

340 BOOK REVIEWS

Such is the nature of all certitudes for Newman. Still, certitude does not mean‘infallible’ or immune from error. Connolly explains this point well. ‘Certitudes can befalse, not because they are not real certitudes but because they are founded on faultyreasoning. As an assent, certitude is always preceded by a process of reasoning thatpresents truth to the mind. If there is any error in certitude, it is the reasoning processthat is false and not the assent (p. 63)’. In this, one surely hears echoes of Lonergan’scognitional theory. Lonergan himself writes of Newman, ‘My fundamental mentorand guide has been John Henry Newman’s Grammar of Assent. I read that in my thirdyear philosophy (at least the analytic parts) about five times and found solutions formy problems’.This view of rationally justified belief is the primary analogy for Catholic faith -

having certitude in realities revealed by God through a personal, felt experience ofthem. The difference in reaching certitude about divine truth is qualitative. Connollystates ‘the reality of Catholic faith lies at the level of the assent of religion. In the act ofreligious assent, the truths of revelation are apprehended by the imagination andaccepted through a real assent . . . (p. 84)’. God’s grace is the determining factor inbringing one’s prior commitments, dispositions, expectations, and personal longingsinto the act of faith. For Newman, the will, influenced by grace, accept both the sourceand the content of faith. No Catholic would disagree with this. But how Newmanexplains the influence of grace upon the will and its relationship to the principal pointof contact between human beings and God – conscience – needs further elaboration.Connolly’s constructive contribution in the final chapter, ‘Significance of New-

man’s Notion of Faith for Catholic Theology Today’, articulates a view of Catholicfaith that one might describe as ‘critical fidelity (p. 133)’. One cannot be an intelligentCatholic, Connolly suggests, and uncritically accept everything that the Vaticanproposes. On the other hand, one must trust in the infallibility that God has entrustedto his church to preserve it from serious error. Connolly describes how Newman heldboth the critical and faithful dimension together in his own life experiences with theRoman authorities. The task of balancing criticism and fidelity is an importantchallenge for theologians and Catholic faithful today who still hurt from the abuses ofauthority and the hierarchy’s failure to reform in light of the clergy sex abuse scandal.There are good and suggestive insights here. In sum, the book’s rigorous reading ofNewman and its systematic focus on contemporary problems of faith, certitude,authority, and rational criticism make it important for Newman scholars and one ofthe best texts on Newman and faith available today.

University of Saint Mary, Leavenworth, Kansas Brian Hughes

BOOK REVIEWS 341