MINISTER-GENERAL.
Bonaventure was elected Minister-General of the Franciscan Order in
the year 1257. At that time the Order was passing through a serious
crisis in its history. Internal difficulties had arisen concerning the
observance of certain points of the Rule. Some of the Brethren
advocated the rigorous and literal acceptation of all its
prescriptions: others contended for a more mild and liberal
interpretation. Amongst the advocates of both views were extremists
who sought to introduce excessive rigour or undue laxity: the main
body on either side were men of moderation. These eventually prevailed
and preserved to the world the Order of St. Francis in the only
feasible way in which it could continue to exist. Those who aimed at
too great laxity, which would deprive the Order of its distinctive
features, and those who would accentuate those features until they
became impracticable or grotesque, were gradually eliminated.
The process by which this was effected was slow {31} and fraught with
the gravest danger to the Order. It could be accomplished successfully
only under the prudent guidance of a wise Superior. Bonaventure was
eminently such a man. His predecessor, John of Parma, could not cope
with the difficulties of the situation. He was possessed of great
ability, and his heroic sanctity has raised him to our altars, but he
seems to have lacked that enlightened judgment and liberal sympathy
which smooths away opposition and brings conflicting views into
harmony. Where the motive of subjection is the love of God and the
desire of perfection, the exercise of authority must be tempered with
infinite tact and kindness. The inflexible rigour of the stern
Superior is so wholly opposed to the spirit of Christ, to whom the
Religious ever looks, that instead of securing obedience it excites
resentment, and if it does not culminate in apostasy begets an abiding
spirit of bitterness and discontent. With one section of the Order the
latter appears to have been the effect of John of Parma's rule. Some
writers [Footnote 12] affirm that he was released from his office at
the express wish of the Sovereign Pontiff.
[Footnote 12: Cf. Wadding, Tom. IV, Anno 1256. Nos. 2 and 3.]
In view of his failure, Bonaventure's success is all the more
conspicuous. In order to appreciate this success at its proper value
we must consider briefly the difficulties that troubled the peace of
the Order. What precisely they were it is somewhat {32} difficult to
determine. They must be traced back to the influence of Brother Elias.
For a period, even during the lifetime of St. Francis, this man seems
to have exerted an influence in the Order second only to that of the
Saint himself. He was truly a remarkable man and the story of his life
is strange and sad.
An intimate friend and devoted disciple of St. Francis, he had been
deemed worthy by the latter to rule the Order during his absence in
Palestine. Though full of admiration for the Seraphic Father and
professing intense reverence for his saintly life and Christ-like
spirit, he appears never to have quite accepted his views concerning
the absolute poverty and rigorous mode of life he wished to impose
upon his followers. He seems to have considered that such austerity
would render impossible its uniform and continued observance by any
considerable body of men. Whilst a few chosen souls such as Francis
himself could live up to it, the heterogeneous multitude who were
flocking to the Order could not prudently be expected to do so. Hence
he advocated certain mitigations in the matter of poverty. What these
were we cannot definitely affirm. His views and actions are presented
to us from a thoroughly hostile standpoint. His biographers, generally
speaking, were his avowed opponents, and although they were men of
remarkable virtue and integrity of life, we can hardly believe that
they were free from the {33} influence of bias and party spirit. In
their eyes Elias was a wrecker--the enemy of their Order and the
destroyer of its high ideals. Hence their accounts of him must be
cautiously received and allowance made for the exaggerations of pious
zeal.
We are told that Elias sought to introduce the use of money; that in
visiting the Order he rode on horseback; that he wore a somewhat
elegant habit; that there was a general tendency to relaxation
discernible in his life. No doubt he was guilty of these things, but
in view of subsequent developments it is not easy to determine how far
they were incompatible with the spirit of the Rule. We are told that
he was a man of remarkable foresight and a born ruler. Perhaps he
wished to establish from the beginning what the natural evolution of
circumstances was eventually to achieve. He may have foreseen that
certain prescriptions theoretically feasible for all, and practically
so for a few, would actually become impracticable for the general body
of the Order. Thus by the very force of circumstances it soon became
necessary for the Friars to use money at least indirectly. Be the
country where they reside Catholic or Protestant, friendly or hostile,
there are instances where to live means to use money. Nor does the
Minister-General of the Order now visit the Order on foot, nor is the
Franciscan habit of the present day such perhaps as would meet with
entire approval from those {34} early rigorists. But there has been no
substantial defection from the primitive spirit of the Rule; these
modifications have arisen as the necessary result of changed
conditions. Nor is this to be wondered at. Christianity itself began
even as the Franciscan Order. Like to that Order it increased and
developed. In course of time, whilst theoretically maintaining its
highest ideals, it practically ceased to make them the guiding
principles of its general conduct. Thus, community of goods, prevalent
in the time of the Apostles, gradually ceased. Again, the successors
of the Apostles who were counselled to possess neither gold nor silver
nor scrip eventually appear as temporal rulers; and the Saviour's
doctrine of submission to evil gave way, when circumstances demanded,
to armed resistance. The highest ideals of Christianity were
practically abandoned by the multitude, and maintained only by the
few. Indeed, it is very questionable from an historical point of view,
whether the absolute perfection of the Gospel outlined in the counsels
of our Lord could ever be more than the ideal of the very
few--something to which one or other favoured soul might actually
attain but which was never intended to be the practical aim of society
in general. This must be borne in mind when studying the history of
the Franciscan movement, which was an attempt to restore literally and
rigidly the highest Christian ideals. Broadly speaking it succeeded
and continues to succeed. The Order {35} can never revert to the
attitude of the world towards the Evangelical Counsels although time
and circumstances may modify its interpretation of them.
The Friars have absolute community of goods; they are bound to the
poor use of the necessities of life. Whilst some interpret their
obligations in this and all other matters most rigidly, and emulate
St. Francis in every respect, others, although fully observing the
substance of the Rule, quite justifiably regard its precepts in a
milder light. They are none the less true Franciscans. Of late years
there has arisen a class of writers whom we may describe as the
academic critics of the Rule and Spirit of St. Francis. Regarding the
Franciscan movement from an extrinsic and speculative point of view,
they are particularly attracted by its more rigorous features. But
they look upon them as things of the past and discuss them with
melancholy interest. They seem to think that the Franciscan ideal has
vanished from the world, and that the modern Friar is scarcely a
representative of his prototype. Whoever is not a Francis, or a Giles,
or a Juniper, is not worthy of consideration. To the professor of the
Rule of St. Francis there is something particularly irritating in the
attitude of these writers. He knows that he is observing the Rule in
its simple literalness--that there is no precept of it which he does
not fulfil; yet because he does not realize the romantic ideal
conceived by these shallow critics he {36} receives at most only
tolerant pity or condescending regard.
But to return to Elias and the dissensions his influence created in
the Order. He seems to have gained over to his side the majority of
the Provincial Ministers, so that he was twice elected General. On
both occasions, strange to say, his administration ended in his
deposition. Still, many of his supporters adhered to him and he was
proposed a third time for the office of General. On this occasion
Elias was ignominiously rejected by the Pope, who also deprived him of
some privileges he enjoyed. Thereupon, overcome by pride and
indignation, he set the Pontiff at defiance, and sought the protection
of his declared enemy, the Emperor Frederic. He thus absolutely
abandoned the Order, but there remained behind him some who advocated
his views. We are even told that the succeeding General, Crescentius,
was one of his followers and pursued a similar policy. Certain it is
the dissensions increased during his time of office.
[Illustration:
_Photo. A liuari Pinturichio, pinx_.
THE CORONATION OF OUR LADY.
_From the picture in the Vatican, Rome._
_(St. Bonaventure is the figure to the left of the group of Saints)_.]
{37}
We have seen how John of Parma, his successor, failed to grapple with
the difficulties of the situation. Wadding [Footnote 13] represents
him as stern and uncompromising in his views, and as equally rigorous
in forcing those views on others. When at length he saw that many
Religious, who would conscientiously carry out a less lofty ideal,
were being simply forced by reason of his well-meant yet none the less
stringent insistence to a revolt against the very principle of
obedience, John summoned a General Chapter at Rome and resigned his
office. According to certain writers, [Footnote 14] Alexander IV., the
Cardinals and the Brethren assembled sought to persuade him to
continue in office. John, however, was resolute in his refusal. For a
whole day the business of the Chapter was suspended; still the
Minister-General stood firm. Then the Vocals [Footnote 15] "in view
of his determined attitude said to him: 'Father, you who have invited
the whole Order and know the merits of all the Brethren, tell us who
is the best suited to succeed you?' There and then John replied
'Brother Bonaventure of Bagnorea; no one is more worthy than he'.
Thereupon he was unanimously elected."
[Footnote 13: Tom. IV, Anno 1256. NO.2.]
[Footnote 14: Author of the Chronicles of the XXIV Generals.
"Analecta Franciscana," Tom. III, pp. 286, 287. Also Bernard of Besse.
Ibid. p. 698.]
[Footnote 15: Salimbene, p. 137.]