Should the grave of Cardinal Newman have been disturbed?

Ruth Gledhill reported a couple of days ago that Church officials were hoping to move the mortal remains of Cardinal John Henry Newman from his modest grave in Rednal, Worcestershire, to a much grander tomb in Birmingham Oratory before his expected beatification in December.

The Cardinal, who died in 1890, expressly stipulated that he wanted to be laid to rest in the grave of his friend, Father Ambrose St John, who had died 15 years earlier. Luckily for him, the damp conditions of the cemetery at Rednal appear to have turned his bones to dust; there was simply nothing left of him to move, and the grave has been filled back in. As Libby Purves said, "You would need a heart of stone not to laugh."

Going back to the original reports of the Cardinal's death and funeral, the decision to move him seems even more wrong.

The Times reported at length on his funeral and interment, and there's a striking contrast between the portentous grandeur of the Oratory service, attended by 17 bishops and crowds of the great and good, and the brief ceremony among his Oratory brothers in the country graveyard at Rednal, "the rural spot on the Lickey Hills where by his own special request Cardinal Newman was laid to rest".

The Birmingham Oratory, never rich in light or artistic beauty, had more than its natural gloom upon it yesterday ... The candlesticks were draped in black, and only the prescribed number were lighted. Flowers there were none, nor were there any on the coffin. Although a multitude of exquisite wreaths and crosses had been sent by sympathizing friends they were superfluous, as there is no provision made for them in the ritual of the office for the dead.

After the service, the hearse made the seven-mile journey to Rednal through crowds of more than 20,000, and "a posse of constables" stopped the uninvited from getting through the gate of the Oratory retreat, where

a sequestered patch of green turf, so closely masked and sheltered by yew and oak and laurel that it is visible only to the heavens, is the burial-place of Cardinal Newman. The stranger who in time to come finds out his grave will discover a simple grassy mound, only distinguished from the half-dozen neighbouring graves by the inscription on the little Latin cross which forms the headstone.

This is the resting-place which he chose for himself years ago when he was plain John Henry Newman, and he kept to his choice. His dearest friend lies in the same grave - "Ambrose St John, died 1875" - and the luxuriant bed of St John's wort in yellow flower which runs down one side of the small enclosure was grown in memory of him.

Contemporary tributes to the Cardinal stress his preference for a quiet life. Surely the Church should have left him well alone. Or do the wishes of the dead not deserve to be respected?

Comments

[Asit Chaudhuri]

Sir,

What a decision! When the last wish of such a saint had been honoured why there is any need to change it? In the name of more respect will it not show disrespect? Let them read again - "Lead kindly light keep thou my feet..."

[Rosemary]

Should the grave of Cardinal Newman have been disturbed? Of course not!
Perhaps for some serious building project such as a supermarket, housing estate or motorway, but not just so that the church can bolster its saiintly image. Shame on them!