The Relationship between Theology and Canon Law: Another Context of Political Thought in the Early Fourteenth Century Takashi Shogimen Political thought and ecclesiology in the early fourteenth century have often been assessed as a series of responses to the question of the relationship between church and state. The conflict between Pope Boniface VIII and Philippe IV at the turn of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries acutely demonstrated the conflict between the spiritual and temporal powers. The conflict between Pope John XXII and the claimant to the imperial throne, Ludwig of Bavaria, also seems to have formed the historical background against which contemporary intellectuals expounded their political and ecclesiological thought. Two recent excellent textbooks on medieval political thought discussed the early fourteenth century from such a perspective and situated Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham, along with their papalist adversaries, in this context. 1 It is indeed a fair treatment of the period; however, it is not the only legitimate perspective. For instance, an alternative perspective can be developed through an examination of the Poverty Controversy between Pope John XXII and the Franciscans. This dogmatic dispute over the question of whether Christ and the apostles did not own anything individually or communally had a political dimension: it involved discussions on the nature of papal power over the church and resulted in the refinement of the idea of natural rights. 2 The dichotomy [End Page 417] between the papal and imperial camps can also mislead historical interpretation if the fact that each camp was not monolithic is overlooked. Just as Marsilius and Ockham embraced different political views in the alleged imperial camp, so the alleged papal ideologists did not always share the same views. It has even been argued that the doctrines propounded by “papalists” and “anti-papalists” were not irreconcilable but differed only in emphasis. 3 It is easy to see that the problem of Church and State is not the all-embracing concern of the period. What, then, are the possible benchmarks against which we can evaluate the political views of contemporary thinkers? This paper is intended to suggest that there is another context against which political thought and ecclesiology in the early fourteenth century may be assessed: that is, the relationship between theology and canon law. The contemporary polemicists’ view on the role that theology and canon law should play in an ecclesiastical dispute such as the Poverty Controversy largely determined their political or ecclesiological perspectives. To show this, I should like to compare, in the context of the poverty dispute, the ecclesiological views of two theologians in the so-called “papalist” and “anti-papalist” camps respectively: Guido Terreni and John Baconthorpe on the one hand, and William of Ockham and Michael of Cesena on the other. The comparison between Terreni and Baconthorpe will elucidate clearly that their contrasting attitude toward the role of canon law in contemporary ecclesiastical disputes determined the paradigms of their ecclesiologies, resulting in two entirely different ecclesiologies, save the fact that they were both aimed at defending the position of Pope John XXII on Franciscan poverty. The comparison between Ockham and Michael of Cesena will reveal how their contrasting views on the nature of the Poverty Controversy—theological or canonistic—determined not only the pattern of their defense of the Franciscan doctrine of poverty but also the development of their polemics. The relationship between theology and canon law had been a perennial problem ever since the latter had grown into an independent discipline. Scholastic theologians in the thirteenth century were critical of canon law studies. Bonaventure, for example, affirmed theology’s superiority over canon law: he wrote that theology questioned propter quid, whereas canon law enquired into [End Page 418] quia. Bonaventure, following Aristotle, asserted that there are higher and lower sciences, and what for the higher science, theology, is the conclusion of its enquiry is for the lower science, canon law, its starting point. 4 Thomas Aquinas considered that the intrusion of the decretalists into theological matters was disagreeable and ridiculous, 5 as did Roger Bacon. 6 These theologians’ comments testify to the antagonism between theologians and canonists in the thirteenth century. Lawyers, too, were fully aware of this situation, as seen...
Read full abstract
Sep 29, 2000
Evaldas Nekrašas 
Open Access
