750th Anniversary of the Death of St. Bonaventure: A Man of Government and Professorship

In the week leading up to the 750^th anniversary of the death of St. Bonaventure, we present a reflection by Friar Orlando TODISCO, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the Pontifical Theological Faculty of St. Bonaventure in Rome.

The Minister General, Friar Carlos TROVARELLI, asked Friar Orlando for a commemorative essay on St. Bonaventure. Here is his text! Can it be considered a possible Franciscan response to those questioning where the development of AI [artificial intelligence] will take us? Or to those wondering about how to approach the task of understanding the world? We think so. Please enjoy reading it! St. Bonaventure pray for us!

___________________________________________

BONAVENTURE: A MAN OF GOVERNMENT AND PROFESSORSHIP
On the 750^th anniversary of his death

Bonaventure was born in Bagnoregio, Italy, in 1217. He became a Master in Sacred Theology in 1257. He served as the Minister General of the Order from 1257 to 1274. He was made Cardinal Bishop of Albano in 1273 and died at fifty-seven years of age, in Lyon, France, on July 15, 1274. He was canonized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1482. On May 14, 1588 he was awarded the title of Doctor of the Church by Pope Sixtus V. He was a man of government and a man of professorship. Instead of attempting a difficult summary of his philosophical, theological, and mystical offerings, it might be preferable to discuss his guiding inspiration, which has a particular suggestive force that should be reconsidered and perhaps re-proposed.

A Man of Government

It is known that the Franciscans enthusiastically embraced the Joachimite perspective because it gave them an appealing biblical-dogmatic focus and made the popular sharing of their message understandable. Primitive Franciscanism was fueled by enthusiasm and sustained by the Gospel message, embodied by Francis. However, it was still lacking a specific biblical-theological structure that would help it carve out a certain niche in the broad ecclesial landscape of the time and serve as a distinguishing feature in comparison with other religious institutions.
Well, Bonaventure responded to that need by laying down the general lines within which the Franciscan can create a niche for his creativity, while remaining faithful to the source and at the same time showing its fruitfulness. And what about the pastoral style of the jester-like character of Francis and his early companions? Did that style vanish, perhaps? Or was it instead differently translated and re-proposed? Well, this brings us to Bonaventure’s specific contribution, which, on one hand, is in line with the conceptual and argumentative style of the philosophical-theological thinking of the time, and on the other, opens up scenarios in support of the multi-faceted beauty of the Franciscan charism.
Francis was immersed in the heart of the Middle Ages – caring for lepers who were abandoned and left to die, the struggle between rich and poor, etc. He took part in the problems of the people of his time, spreading the message of universal brotherhood like a jester. How is his charism welcomed and lived now? Mostly, one tries to free it from Francis’ time by attempting to embody it in one’s own time. Is it easy to liberate Francis’ charism from his time in order to embody it in one’s own? In light of the early conflicts in the Franciscan family between the Fraticelli [Little Brethren] and followers of the far-sighted vision of Brother Elias, it must be said that it is not, because it is easy to treat the concepts and beliefs of one’s own time as though they were absolute, obscuring the splendor of the charism and losing the relevance that it had in its original context. What is needed? The irreplaceable Franciscan school. This is what offers the growing Franciscan family a wide-ranging philosophical-theological perspective, to justify its religious distinctiveness, in substantial fidelity to its original identity. Hence the need to not just focus on Francis and his time, but to value the role of Franciscan thinkers, the authentic leading figures who carefully and creatively reflected on the originality of the message, judiciously analyzing its content while maintaining its cohesiveness and strength, so that it could withstand changing historical circumstances.
At this point, a list of writings – mostly pamphlets – by Bonaventure, then Minister General, should be compiled, beginning with Determinationes quaestionum circa regulam Fratrum Minorum,[Determinations of Questions Concerning the Rule of the Friars Minor] aimed at projecting the charism of Francis into history. In this regard, Bonaventure is the forerunner of the Franciscan school; he is not to be ignored, as though it were sufficient to focus attention solely on Francis, as is often the case. Bonaventure will be followed by other high-level writers in the philosophical, theological and political spheres, from Duns Scotus to William of Ockham, who will shed light from other angles on the explosive force of the Franciscan charism. Their valuable work has been left largely in the shadows.

Bonaventure: A Man of Professorship

It is from this perspective that Bonaventure’s philosophical-theological-mystical way of thinking should be appreciated. The philosophical-theological-mystical ideas he puts forward show that he is a “theologian from the beginning” (E. Gilson) and that he sets up “Christian wisdom” in opposition to “mundane wisdom.” We return the world to God who created it as an expression of His generosity. The events of the human world, the Church and the Order, must be traced back to the free will of God. So what is the process that Bonaventure puts into practice? He shifts from philosophia ancilla theologiae [philosophy as the handmaid of theology (Thomas Aquinas)] to theologia ancilla philosophiae [theology as the handmaid of philosophy.]
It is about activating a kind of disciplinary revolution, hidden in the depths of Franciscan thought. In fact, “if we believe that we truly know a thing if, and only if, we know the cause of why that thing is what it is―to the point of believing that it could not possibly be anything else,”^[1] we must admit that the exploration of the world, desired and planned, cannot be entrusted to reason, isolated from the divine light, bearing in mind that, abandoned to itself, reason proves to be fallible, partial, and incapable of identifying the immense richness of creatures.
Isn’t seeing the world as a neutral reality, that belongs to no one, that exists on its own, very different from seeing the world as desired and intentionally created as a garden of peace and well-being, made available to everyone? The difference is not that one is rational and the other is not. Both are rational. However, one is “only’“ rational, meaning that it has no trace of the divine. Is it not the case that the other, besides being rational, or rather, before being rational, is “desired,” imagined, freely created and freely given by He who could have chosen not to desire it, not to design it, not to give it? It is obvious that in such a hypothesis, purely rational thinking is not enough, we need divine guidance and illumination^[2], in order to see the world as a vestigium [vestige], imago [image], or similitudo [likeness] of the eternal Word who is the “shepherd and food,” and “origin” of all creatures.^[3]
From what has been said, Bonaventure specifies, it is clear that the method, which dispels any doubt or perplexity, “consists in beginning with the certainty of faith and continuing with the clarity of reason to arrive at the sweetness of contemplation.”^[4] Knowledge is a unified whole, not one part philosophical and the other part theological. Knowledge begins with a rational approach nourished by the divine presence within the world, with the signs of the creative power of God, who could have left the world in nothingness. All particular forms of knowledge remain precarious if we do not bring them back to their ultimate foundation.
Now, Christian biblical revelation, with its emphasis on creative volition, does not exclude the rational dimension, nor the potential technological uses that might arise from it, but rather places at the center the meaningfulness of the whole, as a translation of a design by the One who willed what He did not have to will. In reading De reductione artium ad theologiam [On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology], one sees “how the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10), which is brilliantly transmitted to us in Sacred Scripture, is hidden (occultatur) in all knowledge and in all nature” (no. 26)
Hence the need to embark on a disciplinary revolution, that is, not to start from the least to get to the most – from the purely rational to what is also revealed or from what is neutral to what is desired, but to start from the ‘most’ – from the real footprint, vestige, image of God – and descend all the steps of being until reaching the minimal level, realizing, along the way, what specialized knowledge gradually leaves on the margins, to be taken into account for the purposes of a correct evaluation of their scope. All this gives rise to a philosophical style that is no longer haughty and dogmatic; it is a style that is aware of its own limitations and thus prevents reason from becoming the arrogant, final judge of what is true and what is false, of what can be known through logic and what, while still rational, remains shrouded in mystery. Reason is not the ultimate authority. Reason is at the service of the will and therefore of freedom. It is not arbitrary but creative, or better, self-giving.
This illuminating perspective should be the starting point for our pursuit of understanding, as it is for Bonaventure. It should be evoked and preserved as our primary guide in evaluating specialized knowledge.

Friar Orlando TODISCO

^[1] St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, Unus est magister vester, Sermon IV. no. 7: “Since, therefore, things have being in their own genus, they also have being in the Eternal Reason; nor is their being entirely immutable in the first and second manner, but only in the third, that is, insofar as they are in the eternal Word: it remains that nothing can make things perfectly knowable, unless Christ, the Son of God, and teacher, is present.”

^[2] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Prologue, Question 1, Response: “And to the objection that things which are above reason are credible, this is true as far as acquired knowledge is concerned, but not above reason elevated by faith and the gift of knowledge and understanding. For faith allows us to accept as true that which we cannot fully understand, while knowledge and understanding help us to comprehend and make sense of the things we believe in.”

^[3] Unus est magister vester, no. 26.

^[4] Unus est magister vester, no. 15: “Philosophers have ignored this order, who, neglecting the Faith and relying entirely on reason…” Cf. Hexaëmeron, column 19, no. 15.