Reburying Cardinal Newman, sans friend

The canonization process for Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th Century British theologian, has taken an unusual turn: the Vatican has ordered that Newman's remains be exhumed and reburied apart from the grave of the cardinal's closest friend, the Rev. Ambrose St. John.

Church officials have described the reinterment of Newman as a relatively routine step intended to make Newman's grave more accessible to the public who may wish to venerate him after his canonization. But multiple commentators are suggesting that there is another factor at work: discomfort with the close male friendship between the two priests.

Since his death in 1890, Newman has been buried with St. Ambrose, who had died in 1875, at Rednal, a secluded property south of Birmingham. When St. Ambrose died, Newman wrote, "I have ever thought no bereavement was equal to that of a husband's or a wife's, but I feel it difficult to believe that any can be greater, or anyone's sorrow greater, than mine.'' And later, looking toward his own death, Newman wrote, "I wish, with all my heart, to be buried in Fr Ambrose St John's grave - and I give this as my last, my imperative will...This I confirm and insist on.'' But Newman is now to be disinterred, relics of his body are to be removed, and he is to be reburied, alone, in a marble sarcophagus at the Birmingham Oratory.

The reburial is causing a bit of a stir in the UK. In the Daily Telegraph, religion reporter Jonathan Wynne-Jones has the latest:

"The date of the exhumation is a secret but will take place before Newman's beatification. Undertakers will open the coffin at the graveside and Newman's corpse, wearing the vestments of a Catholic priest, will be photographed. It will then be taken to a morgue where Catholic officials from Rome and Milan will remove 'major relics' from the body - such as fingers - to send back to the Vatican so that pilgrims can pray before them. Newman's remains will be transferred to a new coffin that will go on show to the public before being placed in a marble sarcophagus at Birmingham Oratory."

In an earlier story, Wynne-Jones reported:

"The decision to separate the remains of John Henry Newman and Ambrose St John has upset figures in the Church and led some to question whether it is embarrassed about their relationship...Martin Prendergast, a homosexual campaigner in the Catholic Church, claimed the Cardinal's relationship had caused misgivings in the Vatican and slowed his path to beatification. 'I don't think they can just pretend the relationship didn't exist,' he said. 'We shouldn't be afraid of acknowledging that he had his trials and torments yet was able to deal with these in a positive manner, without compromising his commitment to celibacy.'''

Perhaps inevitably, there is now a debate in the Catholic blogosphere about what exactly the nature of the Newman-St. John friendship was, and whether it has anything to do with the contemporary debate over gay rights.

Blogger Andrew Sullivan is furious, writing:

"Newman and St John lived together, loved one another and even left express wishes that they be buried together...Whether this shared burial was a function of a deep intimacy or of a homosexual relationship in the late nineteenth century sense we do not know. But we do know that the Oxford Movement was, to put mildly, high camp as well as high church, and that Newman, like the current Pontiff, was an effeminate, delicate intellectual who had almost no real interaction with women at all and bonded mainly with younger men. St John was one such man, and Newman's and St John's deepest wishes were to be buried together for ever. Now, the Vatican, nervous that this joint burial might raise questions about Newman, and always eager to insist that gay men, even celibate ones, cannot be saints any more than they can now be seminarians, is actually exhuming Newman's body and reburying it sans St John. Reburying saints is not unknown, but violating such a core last wish of this great man is definitely suspicious. They could exhume St John too and re-bury both together, respecting their clear wishes, but that would be off-message for the now pathologically homophobic Vatican."

But, over at America magazine, Austen Ivereigh offers a rebuttal:

"The Cardinal -a hyper-sensitive, even delicate man -- had intense friendships of the sort common in that age, especially in all-male bastions such as the clergy and Oxford. We nowadays lack a word for the kind of intense association between celibates of the same sex which was common then. As Andrew Sullivan puts it, the Oxford Movement was 'high camp as well as high church.' But it is de trop to claim that Newman's passionate yet quite obviously celibate bond with the younger man was what gay rights groups nowadays mean by a 'same-sex relationship.' Some think the two bodies should be transferred together. But it would be unusual, to say the least, for pilgrims to venerate a saint who shares a tomb. And it is likely that campaigners would soon turn it into a gay shrine...If the attempt by homosexual campaigners to claim Newman as gay wasn't enough, the spokesman of the local archdiocese is suggesting he will be 'a saint for Birmingham.' Spending the latter part of his life in Birmingham - following his conversion aged 44 -- does not make the London-born Cardinal Newman a "Birmingham saint" (Ignatius of Rome? Bernadette of Nevers?) any more than being buried with a young man of whom he was deeply fond meant he had a 'same-sex relationship.' Roll on the beatification -- and the chance for Newman to rest in peace from opportunists."

One interesting local connection: one of the miracles attributed to Newman after his death is the healing of the back ailment of longtime Plymouth District Court clerk-magistrate John A. Sullivan, who is also a deacon in the Archdiocese of Boston. The Globe's Charlie Radin described the events in this story.