INCIDENTS OF ADMINISTRATION.
Bonaventure's life, for the ensuing years, is a record of
fast-succeeding events centring mainly round the work of his personal
sanctification and his exertions for the welfare of the Order. On {46}
23 October, 1257, our Saint received the degree of Doctor of Theology.
The differences between the University and the Mendicant Friars had
gradually passed away and a better spirit, prevailed. Still, the
favour bestowed upon our Saint is to be attributed principally to the
letter of the Sovereign Pontiff commanding the University to extend,
all its privileges to the Friars Thomas of Aquin and Bonaventure.
During the Pentecost of 1281 [Footnote 20] we find him assisting at
the foundation of a hospital at Pisa. In the official record of this
institution we read how "Friar Bonaventure, the Minister-General of
the whole Order of Friars Minor, was, at the command of Pope
Alexander, present at the afore-mentioned foundation; at the command
of the same Holy Father he made each and every benefactor of the
hospital a sharer in the prayers said and good works performed by all
the members of the Order".
[Footnote 20: Cf. "Opera Omnia," Tom. X, p. 52.]
Bonaventure celebrated five General Chapters--that of Narbonne in
1260; of Pisa in 1263; of Paris in 1266; of Assisi in 1269; of Lyons
in 1274. These Chapters are the most convincing proofs of his
indefatigable activity. In each of them, apart from the general
efforts made to further regular observance, some special ordination of
a remarkable kind was enacted. Thus, in the Chapter of Pisa, the
suffrages for the dead were regulated, and amongst the Masses and
prayers appointed to {47} be said for deceased benefactors we find the
Solemn Requiem for the parents of the Brethren. In the Chapter of
Assisi in 1269 the recital of the Angelus and the celebration of a
Mass every Saturday in honour of our Lady were prescribed. In the
Chapter of Paris, by the tact and prudence of Bonaventure, a somewhat
serious difference which had arisen between the Franciscans and
Dominicans was amicably settled. The disagreement arose concerning the
respective spheres of the Inquisitors of the two Orders. The office of
Inquisitor, already held by the Dominicans, was assigned to the
Franciscans by Innocent IV. in the year 1254. The settlement of this
dispute became the occasion of the consolidation of that spirit of
fraternity and friendship that has ever since existed between the two
Orders, and which, as is commonly known, originated in the reciprocal
brotherly love of Francis and Dominic.
It is asserted that it was at the Chapter of Narbonne that the
Franciscan habit received its present shape. Up to that time it
appears to have been more or less identical with the dress worn by the
Umbrian shepherds--a simple tunic with a girdle, and a hood to protect
the head. It is not, however, easy to determine the precise nature of
the alteration effected.
There is one incident of Bonaventure's administration which calls for
special attention; an incident which has deeply influenced the
historical estimate formed of him by certain writers. This is his
action {48} with regard to John of Parma--his predecessor in the
Generalship of the Order. The upholders of the rigorous observance of
the Rule pretend to see in it evidence of harshness, injustice, nay,
even of duplicity. This assumption, needless to say, is utterly devoid
of solid foundation.
Owing to the peculiar temperament of the times and some untoward
circumstances, John of Parma fell under the suspicion of heresy, and
at the request of the Sovereign Pontiff it became necessary for
Bonaventure to investigate the charge. The biographers of our Saint
are at variance in determining the year in which this trial was held.
Wadding [Footnote 21] and the editors of our Saint's works [Footnote
22] place it under the year 1257, but as Father Livarius Oliger,
O.F.M., points out in a review [Footnote 23] of Father Lemmens' recent
"Life of St. Bonaventure," the investigation is known to have been
proceeded with before Cardinal John Cajetan, who at the time was the
Protector of the Order. Cardinal Cajetan, however, was nominated
Protector of the Order "shortly after the assumption of Pope Urban,"
who was elected Pope, 29 August, 1261. This is a typical instance of
the chronological difficulties and uncertainties which are associated
with the life of our Saint.
[Footnote 21: Tom. IV, Anno 1256. Nos. 5 and 6.]
[Footnote 22: II Tom. X, p. 48. No.4.]
[Footnote 23: "Archivium Franciscanum Historicum," Annus III,
Fasc. II, p. 346.]
{49}
How a man so remarkable for learning and virtue as the ex-General
should have provoked such an accusation demands some further
explanation.
In the first place, it must be borne in mind that this was the period
when the Inquisition reigned in all the fervent zeal of its recent
institution. Whatever savoured in the least of heterodoxy, either in
theory or in practice, aroused its vigilance. It was closely
investigated and its author, no matter what admirable qualities he
might otherwise display, was regarded with suspicion and distrust.
This attitude of the ecclesiastical authorities was fully justified by
the prevalence of false mysticism, under the guise of which the
Waldenses and Albigenses were just then putting forth the most
pernicious and subversive doctrines.
True mysticism is the perfection of Christianity. Its essence is union
with God. The more perfectly it accomplishes this union, the more
thoroughly it achieves its end. It is the noblest and most exalted
aspect of religion, but, at the same time, it is attended by very
grave dangers. The mystic sees only God and his own soul--or rather he
has no direct consciousness of anything but God alone. He converses
with God and is guided directly by him--anything else is to a large
extent ignored.
The danger of this state is apparent. The mystic is at the mercy of
his imagination and of a thousand natural influences which he is
liable to {50} mistake for the voice of God. And when he thinks that
God speaks, no matter to what folly or extravagance the imagined voice
may urge him, nor how clearly it may oppose the dictates of obedience,
he considers himself bound to obey it; for is he not sure, even as St.
Peter, that he "must obey God rather than man!" Unless he possess a
sound judgment and a thorough grasp of Catholic doctrine, or, failing
these, unless he be humbly submissive to the teaching of some
competent spiritual guide, he needs must go astray. This danger,
Francis, who was a mystic in the truest sense of the word, avoided
perfectly, but as much cannot be said of some of his earlier
followers. For notwithstanding Pontifical utterances and the
enactments of General Chapters, they persisted in maintaining that
their particular views concerning the observance of the Rule were the
only permissible ones. A mild form of fanaticism seems to have laid
hold of them. Their immoderate regard for the Rule and its observance
led them to extremes. They were convinced that it was inspired by our
Lord Himself and they attributed to it an authority equal to that of
the Gospels. Contending that it was perfectly clear and intelligible,
they denied that any authority on earth had the power to explain or
interpret it. In these ideas they were strengthened by the writings of
Joachim, Abbot of Flora.
This remarkable man flourished about the latter {51} portion of the
twelfth century. He was deeply imbued with the spirit of mysticism,
and its dangers were only too fully realized in his case. In treating
of the Blessed Trinity he erred seriously, and his doctrine was
condemned by the Fourth Lateran Council. He seems to have considered
himself inspired, and he gave utterance to a long series of prophecies
concerning the Church's future. He declaimed vehemently against all
ranks of the clergy--denouncing Popes, Cardinals and Bishops for their
indifference and corruption, and predicting for them the most terrible
punishments. Turning to the relations between mankind and God he
proceeded to divide Revelation into three epochs: that of the Father,
or the Old Testament; that of the Son, or the New Testament; and that
of the Holy Ghost--a period which was to come and which would be much
more perfect than the preceding two. It was to be characterized by the
most powerful and universal sway of Divine Love, a clear vision of the
eternal truths, and the rise of a contemplative monachism.
Notwithstanding these peculiar tenets, Joachim was a man of rare
virtue and piety and he died in full union with the Church. He was
regarded by many as a saint and a prophet, and his writings were
thought to be divinely inspired. John of Parma, indeed, held him in
high esteem, but some of the Brethren with whom he was intimately
associated, and to some extent identified, exceeded {52} the bounds of
all moderation in their ardent advocacy of him. Inflamed as they were
with intense religious fervour and deeply penetrated with a spirit of
penance and self-sacrifice, the teaching of Joachim appealed most
forcibly to them. His denunciation of the worldliness of the age, his
contempt for all things temporal, his love of contemplation, and above
all, his vivid prophecy about the institution of a new Religious Order
in which the light and love of God would govern all, filled them with
unbounded admiration. They pretended to see in Joachim the precursor
of St. Francis and the realization of his prophecy in the Order he
established. Amongst the most extreme partisans of Joachim were two
intimate friends of John of Parma--Friars Gerard and Leonard. Upon
these principally rested the suspicion of heresy. They were tried,
found guilty, and condemned to perpetual confinement.
The trial of Blessed John of Parma then came on. He was accused of
leaning to the views of Abbot Joachim and of wavering in his belief in
the Trinity. The ex-General, perhaps, inclined somewhat to certain of
the Abbot's views; in any case the suspicion that such was the fact
had subjected him to many and great persecutions. The public character
of John, the immense influence he wielded over a great part of the
Order, rendered it imperative that the case should be thoroughly
investigated and a definite issue come to at a public trial. Were {53}
John guilty of heresy--the stern measure would be more than justified;
were he innocent--his name would gain lustre from the ordeal, and
malicious tongues be silenced.
The details of the trial have not come down to us. Wadding [Footnote
24] merely gives us the result, stating "that iniquity was not found
in him ". He admits, however, that John was too favourably inclined to
the mysticism of Joachim, and that he submissively retracted in the
presence of the Cardinal and assembled Fathers. A few details we have,
but it is impossible to determine how far they are coloured with
partisan prejudice. One historian states that the suavity of John's
answers so wrought on his opponents that they openly declared that as
a heretic he should be sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. To be
stigmatized as a heretic was more than John could bear in patience.
Drawing himself to his full height and looking up to heaven he
professed clearly and with ardent zeal his adherence to all the
articles contained in the Apostles' Creed. "He assumed the role of an
innocent follower of Christ," writes Angelo Clarenus, "and averred
that he did believe as he ever had believed on that question as on all
other questions what the Church holds and the Saints teach." This
further incensed his accusers; and they determined to imprison for
life their late Minister-General. That he was finally {54} acquitted
must be attributed to the intervention of Cardinal Otto Boni--then one
of the most influential members of the Sacred College and afterwards
Pope Adrian V. He dispatched two letters, one to the Cardinal
President, the other to Bonaventure, in which, among other things, he
wrote: "It is with the deepest regret I have learned of the process
instituted against John of Parma, and that party strife has led to his
arraignment on a charge of heresy. For many years--even before my
elevation to the Cardinalate--I have had personal warrant both as to
the orthodoxy of his doctrine and the holiness of his life; nor have I
yet found anyone more loyal to his creed or more faithful to his
ideals. So firmly am I persuaded of this, that I have no hesitation in
saying that his faith is my faith. Let me then most earnestly beseech
you that this trial be not conducted recklessly nor with partisan
bias. He and I are one: injustice towards him will redound on me; the
verdict you pass on him you pass also on me; his sentence, too, is
mine--and my sincerest wish is to be fully associated with him."
[Footnote 24: Tom. IV, Anno 1256. No.6.]
These letters produced the desired effect. John left the Assembly
fully acquitted, and availing himself of the choice of residence that
Bonaventure courteously extended to him, withdrew to the friary at
Greccio. There he spent many years in the practice of every virtue and
finally expired in the odour of sanctity.
{55}
Angelo Clarenus, [Footnote 25] condemns the part played by Bonaventure
in this inquiry. "Bonaventure," he states, "on the testimony of John
of Parma himself, acted wrongly in no slight degree; for whilst
discussing the question in dispute privately with John of Parma in his
cell he agreed with him, affirming that he thought as he did, but
publicly in presence of the Brethren he showed that he held the
contrary." And again he says: "Brother John enters; as one suspect of
heresy he is forced to take an oath; a wise man is cross-examined by
those less wise, an aged man by youths; one full of the Holy Ghost is
searched into by the indevout, and by those who follow the desires of
their heart. Then the wisdom and holiness of Bonaventure were obscured
and vanished, and his mildness by the agitation of his soul was
changed into violent anger. To such an extent was he carried away that
he exclaimed: 'If it were not for the honour of the Order I should
have him publicly punished as a heretic'."
[Footnote 25: Cf. "Opera Omnia," Tom. X, p. 49.]
To preside at this trial was one of the painful duties which his
position placed upon Bonaventure. At the instance of the Brethren and
the Sovereign Pontiff he was bound to undertake it. John of Parma had
acquired a great reputation for holiness, and his indefatigable
labours on behalf of the Order and of the Church had made his name
famous throughout Europe. Furthermore, he was a {56} personal friend
of Bonaventure, for was it not he who recommended him for the office
of General! In the face of these considerations it is incredible that
he should have been guilty of injustice or duplicity towards him. It
is much easier to believe that Angelo Clarenus, carried away by party
spirit, gave ready credence to the exaggerated reports circulated by
the admirers of John of Parma, who were bitterly, though unreasonably,
indignant that Bonaventure should have listened to the accusation of
heresy and lent his authority to the investigation that followed.