PERIPATETICUS PALATINUS (17)
Abelard's ethical views are of a piece with his view of the Atonement as
worked out in his Commentary on the Letter to the Romans. Sin was a matter
of wrong intention, and the crucifixion was above all an example of right
intention (i.e. on the part of Christ). Abelard did not have much truck
with the idea of original sin; he did not see, as other Christian thinkers
have done, that our capacity for making right choices has been damaged by
original sin and therefore needs to be helped and perfected by grace. There
was some truth in Bernard's accusation that with Pelagius, he preferred free
will to grace.
A few days ago Pat Sloane raised a question about original sin. It may be
helpful to attempt an answer here, with reference to Abelard's views. Now
teaching on this issue varies considerably from church to church, and indeed
between one Magister and another. I intend no disrespect to anyone else's
opinions in this matter; have me excusyd if I speke amys. With this
disclaimer then I proceed.
Watch the news today, or read a newspaper, and you will without doubt hear
of murders, robberies, rapes, frauds and lies. Evidently we live in a very
imperfect world; or rather, the people in it, including you and I, are very
imperfect. If we seek to make excuses for some unpleasant action, we are
apt to say, "You have to make allowances for human nature." Perhaps so; but
this is an unflattering reflection upon human nature. Genesis 1 tells us
that we were created in God's image and likeness. If so, that image would
seem to be distorted, blemished, flawed; some would even say, destroyed
altogether.
Theologians refer to this blemish in human nature, this flaw in God's image
in human beings, as 'original sin'. Its existence is a matter of common
observation and does not depend on the acceptance of any attempt to explain
it, such as the story of the Fall in Genesis 3. We can still believe in
original sin without accepting the historicity of Adam and Eve. However,
nearly all the Christians of Abelard's period did accept the historicity of
that story, so I shall regard it as historical for the purposes of this
explanation.
The first point to be made about original sin is that it is not a sin at
all. It is not culpable; we are not to blame for it; we are born with it,
indeed conceived with it (and the difference between conception and birth is
important when we come to discuss - as we shall - the Immaculate Conception
of Mary). It is as if, shall we say, a man contracted a disease through
some sinful act, for example, through an adulterous affair. The man
recklessly passes this disease on to his wife, and subsequently to their
children. The man has committed a sin, and stands in need of forgiveness.
The wife and children have not committed any sin in this matter, and do not
therefore require forgiveness. However, they are just as much infected as
the man himself, just as much subject to the effects of the disease. Thus,
we may think of Adam and Eve themselves being forgiven for their sin - they
did after all commit it. But it does not make sense to think of a 'general'
forgiveness of original sin.
Such is one way, at least, of looking at original sin. We are not
personally to blame for its existence, but we still find that it damages our
capacity for goodness, for obedience to the will of God. To give another
analogy (which I hope will not cause offence), a disabled person is in no
way to blame for his or her disability, but may still find it very
difficult, or impossible, to climb a staircase. And such, Christians
believe, is the activity in which we are engaged: many books - The Ladder
of Perfection, The Ascent of Mount Carmel - describe the journey to God as a
steep climb. We cannot make that climb by our own efforts, and are in need
of God's "grace" if we are going to get anywhere.
People have written whole books on what is meant by "grace" so let me simply
refer to the definition given in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
Church: "Grace: In Christian theology, the supernatural assistance of God
bestowed upon a rational being with a view to his sanctification." In
simple terms, it means God giving us a helping hand up that staircase. The
need for that grace is a fundamental tenet of Christian doctrine, and
perhaps no heresy is more subversive to Christian doctrine than that of
Pelagius, who taught that we could perform good works, and achieve
salvation, without the aid of grace.
This was one of the several heresies of which Bernard accused Abelard, and
as I have said there was some truth in the accusation, although I would
defend him by referring to pages 65-66 in the Penguin translation of his
autobiography:
"But success always puffs up fools with pride, and worldly security weakens
the spirit's resolution and easily destroys it through carnal temptations.
I began to think myself the only philosopher in the world, with nothing to
fear from anyone, and so I yielded to the lusts of the flesh . . . Since
therefore I was wholly enslaved to pride and lechery, God's grace provided a
remedy for both these evils, though not one of my choosing: first for my
lechery by depriving me of those organs with which I practised it, and then
for the pride which had grown in me through my learning . . . when I was
humiliated by the burning of the book of which I was so proud."
Anyone, it seems to me, who can find a signal instance of God's grace in his
own castration and humiliation needs no lecture on grace from me, or from St
Bernard.
* * * * *
The Supple Doctor.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|