Here is an example  of Newman's influence:

This is from the 2004 book called The Minding of Planet Earth by the Irish philosopher, theologian, writer and international speaker, Cardinal Cathal Daly (1917-2009), a clerical defender of Galileo; a book produced by the Irish Catholic Church’s publishing body. Commenting on the ex-Jesuit Annibale Fantoli’s work For Copernicanism and for the Church, 1995, Cardinal Daly wrote:

‘This book is a very detailed and remarkably balanced study, putting the Galileo “affair” in its historical context and bringing its history right up to its latest phase in the papacy of Pope John Paul II. Galileo emerges as a decisive figure, not simply in an historical conflict between science and religion, but also, and paradoxically, in the process towards greater mutual respect and understanding between the Church and science. For Galileo Galilei it was never a question of choosing between Copernican science and the Christian and Catholic faith; he remained, to the end of his life, deeply committed to both. Indeed, Galileo, particularly by his reflections on the interpretations of Holy Scripture, hoped to bring about reconciliation between faith and science. A man of unwavering faith in the truth of divine revelation, he also believed strongly in the unity of truth and was convinced that what was proved true by science could not conflict with the truth revealed in Holy Scripture correctly understood; and this, of course, is a profoundly Catholic position… Echoing Pope Leo XIII’s 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus, the same Vatican II declared: “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” The Constitution owes much of course, to the great work of Catholic scholars since the beginning of the 20th century. If the theologians who advised the Inquisition and who opposed Galileo could have had the benefit of the Vatican II’s teaching, there might never have been a Galileo case. Indeed, if they could have had the benefit of Cardinal John Henry Newman’s thinking, there might never have been a Galileo case. I have to add that if Galileo’s own principles of exegesis as set out in his Letter to Castelli and Christina had been followed by the theologians of the time, there might never have been a Galileo case. The “Galileo Affair” remains, as Fantoli says in his book, “a severe lesson in humility to the Church and a warning, no less rigorous, to the Church, not to repeat in the present or in the future the errors of the past, even the most recent past.” That such words, and a book about Galileo so frank and honest as his, could be published by the Vatican Observatory and printed by the Vatican Press, is one further augury, promising a new era of constructive and mutually enriching dialogue between Church and science.’ 

There you have it in a nutshell, the full bundle of sophistry offered to Catholics worldwide for centuries, similar to the atheist R. G. Ingersoll’s version and others found in thousands of Catholic and secular books, websites, articles, and lectures. ‘Proven true by science’ Cardinal Brady says; when physicists have long admitted it was never ‘proven true.’ Galileo is, as usual, elevated from the perjuring ‘suspected’ heretic of 1616-1633 who swore to God he was not a heliocentrist, to a Catholic martyr, correcting the Biblical geocentrism of all the Fathers; of Trent, and the popes and theologians of his time, when insisting that heliocentrism is what the Bible really meant. Note how Cardinal Daly ended his illusion, agreeing with Fantoli that the ‘Church’ that defended the geocentrism of Scripture was wrong and that Galileo taught it “a severe lesson in humility, and a warning, no less rigorous, to the Church, not to repeat in the present or in the future the errors of the past.” Cardinal Cathal Daly, a peritus at Vatican II, served as Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Armagh from 1990 to 1996 when Catholics were leaving his post-Vatican II Church in their droves.

That modernists have misappropriated/hijacked Newman is already understood.

This propensity for Judaizing young Gentiles was one of Dr. Sachar’s principal recommendations for the Brandeis presidency. The other was a repeated declaration, following necessarily from his Zionist loyalty, that America is not a “melting pot,” and that Jєωs must not only stick to being Jєωs, they must even rejoice in their Jєωιѕнness.

In order to attract Gentile students, for processing under his experienced direction, Dr. Sachar has allowed a Newman Club and a Student Christian Association to take their places beside Brandeis University’s lively Hillel chapter. Profoundly touched by the limitless opportunities thus afforded him, Dr. Sachar has resolved upon a rededication of himself to the spirit and ideals of that Rabbi Hillel for whom the Hillel movement was named — the rabbi who, until his death in 10 A.D., was head of the Jerusalem sanhedrin and who was, as such, the chief promoter of King Herod’s “slaughter of the Holy Innocents,” the first of the Jєωιѕн attempts to get rid of Jesus.

Most everyone is judaized to some degree. I am.

And Brownson took to task Mr. Francis Newman, the younger brother of Card. Newman, who was also a convert.  I give the link to the whole article after the quote:

"Clearly, then, Mr. Francis Newman's doctrine, which is not only rationalism, but mere psychological rationalism, cannot be even entertained, and would deserve no respectful consideration as a system, even if it were conceded that we have received no revelation of a supernatural order ; for without revelation and tradition, by reason alone, man is utterly unable to construct even a complete and self-coherent system of rationalism, and for the best of all reasons, because he does not exist in a purely rational order. Our preliminary difficulties in the way of Mr. Francis Newman's theory are of themselves conclusive against it. We have no occasion to go beyond his title-page. That asserts his principle and method. His principle being false, and his method vicious, his theory, though it may contain by a happy inconsistency some slight traces of rational truth, must be, as a theory, utterly worthless, and, as far as it goes, mischievous. It is entirely unnecessary for us to take it up and examine it in detail. It is clearly antichristian and repugnant to sound reason, and having refuted it in principle, we may dismiss it as unworthy of any further consideration; for a man who starts wrong, and travels in a wrong direction, is pretty sure never to reach the goal." ("Newman on the True Basis of Theology," Brownson's Review, 1851)

Article on Francis Newman