At 05:10 PM 12/28/00 -0000, you wrote:
>Dear colleagues,
>
>I'm sorry to have to write this to the list, but I feel it is appropriate
>given what has been sent recently.
>
>Br Alexis, perhaps you meant to say that in the medieval period it was held
>that atheists often came from broken homes, and that belief in God was
>somehow primarily linked with a notion of chaste love? If so, please do
>share your sources with us. If not, perhaps you would want to reconsider
>your position.
>
>I beseech all members to recall the simple fact that we are meant to be
>discussing medieval religion and culture.
>
>Best wishes from my fellow list owners and me,
>George
Dear George,
I'll answer your post, and the others on this point all here, for the sake
of ease for all.
You asked about pastoral approaches to atheism. Yes this is a medieval
religion list. That is why your question suprised me, since it seemed more
as if you had some need to find out this kind of information for some
colleague. What do I know? This list is supposed to be about Medieval
Religion, so when I see one of the list owners asking questions, I answer.
But if the answer is something than should be omitted from the list, then
don't ask if you don't want a frank, uncensored answer.
Perhaps I entertain a medieval view of the world, or that my response
seemed so medieval. But if a scholar (here follows a hypothetical) reads a
current study of the origin of Romanesque architecture and discusses on
this list the problems he has noticed among that group of academics who
distain the use of this term, whether on this list or not; and says he has
noticed nearly all of them have neglected a good study of latin as part of
their academic training, then what is so disappropos of repsonding to your
perfectly good question about the pastoral care of atheists, on a medieval
religion list, and it being answered to the point by a Franciscan, who has
had a good deal of experience both by correspondence and socially with
atheists (some of whom I consider among by closest friends), nevertheless
what I said was true but not of all persons at all times in all conditions.
How is it that the exrpession of medieval views is somehow verboten on a
Medieval Religion list? Or is this rather a presentist, politically
correct, reinterpretationist (under the guise of academic) discussion of
Medieval Relgion, or at least what is popularly the target for poopooing
about the Medieval period. I have no objection to serious disagreement on
fundamental issues. That's what made Scholasticism so great, academic
discussion even of extreme positions; but don't be an advocate of
censorship merely because what the other says is offends your
sentimentality or prejudice. That at least would make even the worst
imaginations of what the Inquisition was not, much more defensible; for
sentimentality is emotionalism, which is subrational, and unworthy to be
the basis of academic endeavor or discussion.
O.K. I agree that if there are any atheists on this list, you all probably
winced on that last post of mine. But I told you frankly what is done
pastorally for atheists; and though I would doubt that in the medieval
period there was a pastoral methodoloy to address atheism--not too many
medievals woke up one day and said; "I don't believe in God." -- its
generally a post-reformational phenomena in a sociological magnitude,
nevertheless, if there were, I am sure that theologians, such as Aquinas
and Scotus, who addressed the question academically, and who knows maybe
for the pastoral care of some of their studens or fellow faculty members,
would have answered the question similarly.
As to the question about chaste love: I have noticed a great intellectual
divide on this list. I am actually somewhat surprised that so many are
completely oblivious to the denotation and connotation of perfectly good
catholic terminology. The comment about chaste love has nothing
intentionally to do with any implication that there was abuse in their
families--if you thought that, it is you who read into the statement what
was not there--but rather that true love in the Medieval Scholastic
sense--and in contemporal Catholic teaching is always chaste, that's a
quality; but chaste love is in no way excluded from marriage and familiy
life; it just means, in the broad sense, love that does not exploit for the
sake of self-gratification. Ofcourse we are using modern english in 2000
A.D. and so, I perhaps should have warned you that I was going to use
English in a manner particular to the dominate religious confession of the
Medieval period (perhaps being a Franciscan isn't sufficient to warn you in
advance as to the intellectual and cultural and academic context of my
response).
In all of this, I take no personal offense by your rap on the knuckles,
George; nor was my post intended to offense anyone on this list. But I
can't help being what I am, a Franciscan, which means that you can expect
me to be very frank (using francus in the Late Latin sense) as to my
viewpoints on all topics, Medieval or otherwise. If anyone has a question
that they feel would be more appropriate in a personal letter, then let's
do that. After considering at length the results of my own post on Gow's
article, I would personally like to take this opportunity to apologize for
raising the issue in a public forum; I ought have written directly to Gow
or Prof. Landes; and by not doing so I put the latter in the uncomfortable
position of having to defend the reputation of his scholarly journal in the
sight of his pears. For this I owe him a public apology, regardless of the
merits of my comments.
Sincerely in Christ Jesus,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
The Franciscan Archive
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/
"A WWW Resource on St. Francis and Franciscanism"
62 Pilgrim Road
Mansfield, MA 02048
USA
[log in to unmask]
|