Benedict, Bonaventure and Joachim
Returning to a subject he wrote about early in his career, Pope Benedict spoke at his weekly audience about how St. Bonaventure firmly responded to heretical ideas he encountered within the Franciscan order when he served as its minister general starting in 1257. The problem Bonaventure faced was that some friars were taken with the notion that a new age of the spirit was to arrive in which the church hierarchy would no longer be needed. (For details, see the transcript of the pope’s remarks provided by Zenit.) These ideas were supposedly derived from Joachim, a mystic abbot from Calabria who died in 1202. To make a very complicated story short: Joachim envisioned three stages of history – Father, Son and Spirit – and, well after he died, some Franciscans saw St. Francis as the harbinger of the new age of the spirit.
To be fair to Joachim, the idea that the age of the spirit ended the need for a church hierarchy was not his but the work of some very imaginative imitators; Joachim was in good stead with church authorities in his lifetime.
In any case, it is especially interesting that Benedict likens the medieval friars who saw the third stage of history as bringing the end of the hierarchy to those who, with their “anarchic utopianism,” believed the Second Vatican Council meant “that the pre-conciliar Church was finished and that we would have another, totally `other’ Church.”
If I had the opportunity, I would ask Benedict what he makes of Blessed John of Parma, a sainted man known for his goodness and simplicity. He preceded Bonaventure as the Franciscans’ minister-general, heading the order in the midst of the heresy scandal in the 1250s. According to historians, Bonaventure had a hand in convicting John of Parma of heresy and sentencing him to a life of imprisonment. John was taking the fall. He had no role in this heresy, as his eventual beatification indicates, and the penalty on him was so unfair that a cardinal intervened to help him against this unjust verdict and sentence. John of Parma was beatified in 1781.
I can understand why Benedict, given his views on authority in the church, would reflect on how the great and holy mystic Bonaventure coped with dissent against the hierarchy with a firm hand. Those who feel for the victims of overly harsh or unjust crackdowns by church authorities may well wish to reflect on Blessed John of Parma when his feast day arrives on March 20.
I find early Franciscan history to be as confused and fascinating as similar chronicles of the Guelphs and Ghibellines. I tend to side with the “relaxati” and not the “sprituales” in these Franciscan conflicts so I also side with Bonaventure over John of Parma, though Bonaventure had harsh words for both sides.
In his “Theology of History in St. Bonaventure” Joseph Ratzinger quotes, without demurral, an early source to the effect that Bonaventure clearly “lost it” in connection with John of Parma: “Eius mansuetudo ab agitante spiritu in furorem et iram conversa…” (p 188), very roughly, “his (Bonaventure’s) gentleness was converted by an overwrought spirit to fury and anger.”
Aside from the intra-Franciscan conflicts there were interesting struggles between Dominicans and Franciscans during the time of John of Parma. At one point the Franciscans under John were praying for the recovery from sickness of Pope Innocent IV while the Dominicans were simultaneously petitioning the good Lord to hasten his demise, a scandal leading to the street invocation, “From the prayers of the Dominicans, good Lord deliver us.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=p5zJN7WUEaIC&q=mendicants#
see pp. 267-268. So we might ask what the Dominicans think of John of Parma as well as what Benedict thinks.
Here’s an interesting 45 min. BBC4 podcast about the origins of the Franciscans and Dominicans:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003k9dz
According to historians, Bonaventure had a hand in convicting John of Parma of heresy and sentencing him to a life of imprisonment. John was taking the fall.
Before you smear someone, you really should go read the very same source that you link to –
“Questioned as to the choice of a successor, he proposed St. Bonaventure, who had succeeded him as professor at Paris. John retired to the Hermitage of Greccio near Rieti, memorable for the Christmas celebrated there by St. Francis. There he lived in voluntary exile and complete solitude; his cell near a rock is still shown. But another hard trial awaited him. Accused of Joachimism, he was submitted to a canonical process at Cittá della Pieve (Umbria), presided over by St. Bonaventure and Cardinal John Gaetano Orsini, protector of the order. The mention of this cardinal as protector brings us to a chronological difficulty, overlooked by all modern writers, who assign the process against John to 1257. . . . Upon his acquittal he returned to Greccio, and continued his life of prayer and work. . . . Hearing that the Greeks were abandoning the union agreed upon in 1274, John, now 80 years old, desired to use his last energies in the cause of union. He obtained permission of Nicolas IV to go to Greece, but only travelled as far as Camerino (Marches of Ancona), where he died in the convent of the friars, 19 March, 1289.”
According to the very source you cite, Bonaventure did not “have a hand” as you sinisterly infer, as minister-general, Bonaventure naturally presided over the inquiry. And he didn’t have a hand in “convicting” John since John was actually acquitted. And John wasn’t sentenced to life imprisonment, upon his acquittal, he returned to Greccio, where he had previously been living voluntarily, but latter left there on a journey, during which he died.
Reading about Galileo’s dealings with the Vatican in the 1600s and Buonaiuti’s 300 years later, I am struck by the effect of a court culture on the treatment of intellectual and religious issues. Little diplomatic slips, lack of due care in cultivating the vanity of the sovereign, counted for more than any of the fundamental issues at stake. The Irish bishops’ visit to Rome showed again the limitations of this court culture.
I too would be interested in reading more information for the John/Bonaventure story.
I have to think that the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia was provided merely in order to give a brief sketch of John of Parma, and not as a source for any story critical of the church. (Look up, say, ultramontanism.)
For Bender: Yes you are right that the account in the old Catholic Encyclopedia differs from what I wrote. As Craig Kelly writes, I linked to it as the only handy resource I could find online to summarize the life of John of Parma. Also, I don’t have a problem with offering readers another point of view.
The interpretation I offer is “according to historians.” What I am actually relying on is the work of John H.R. Moorman in `A History of the Franciscan Order from Its Origins to the Year 1517,’ p. 146. Also helpful on this subject is David Burr, `The Spiritual Franciscans: From Protest to Persecution in the Century after Saint Francis,” as well as the writings of Angelo Clareno (allowing for the fact that he was part of the Spiritual faction).
As Patrick Molloy points out, it is interesting to look closely at the young Joseph Ratzinger’s scholarly work on this. Following up on Patrick Molloy’s comment: It’s true that Bonaventure was in a difficult position and had he not taken strong steps, the order might not have survived. (And thanks for the link to the podcast.)
“Another point of view”? That’s a good one. The two versions of history you and Bender cite are almost diametrically opposed.
I had no idea the Catholic Encyclopedia was so unreliable.
:-)
“I had no idea the Catholic Encyclopedia was so unreliable.”
Epihanies are always good for the soul.
It is really appalling that the old edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, dating from the bad old days, has had such a huge influence lately because it is online, while the New Catholic Encyclopedia is known only to those who consult it in scholarly libraries.