In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conclusion The focus ofattention in this book has been on academic condemnations as manifestations ofteaching authority rather than as chapters in the history of medieval philosophy or the history of Christian docttine.1 In this study I have predominantly paid attention to the quasi-judicial proceedings that gradually evolved to curb false teaching, although I have not completely ignored the teaching itself. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the emergence of the faculty of theology as an academic institution and of theology as a scientific discipline went hand in hand. The professionalization ofthe status oftheologian and the development of theology as a science Significantly affected the concept of doctrinal control. Theology still had its origin in divine revelation as communicated in Sacred Scripture and tradition and had as its goal man's salvation. But its method now involved more than ever before intellectual, speculative investigation. Theology employed a scientific discourse not unlike that of other diSciplines, and the doctor of theology was its trained expert. He enquired, argued and taught by rational and analytical methods. From its very beginning, theology was characterized by an intrinsic tension between faith and reason. The history oftheology could be written in terms of limitations demanded from reason to make room for faith, or employment of faith to make room for reason. But from the thirteenth century onward, the scales had been definitively tipped in favor ofa rational conception of theology, as faith seeking understanding, as an investigation of the data of revelation with the help of the sources of reason.2 This development is also reflected in the disciplinary proceedings against academics accused ofdisseminating false teaching. The theologians watched that scholastic inquiry at the university did not harm the axioms of Christianity, but was carried out salva fide) so to speak, bringing every thought "into captivity to the obedience ofChrist" (2 Corinthians 10:5).3 Unfortunately, however, some scholars became carried away by their studies. Vain curiosity and knowledge for the sake ofsalvation were the two extreme poles between which scholars moved.4 Or, these were II4 Conclusion at least the terms in which the discussion about the goals and purposes of theological inquiry was cast. Some academics were accused ofcuriositas, of desiring to know things that were not useful to know and ofspending their time on futile research, such charges being all reminiscences of Bible passages such as I Timothy 2:14 and 5:13, Titus 3:9, and Psalms 3°:7, 37=13, 39:5, and 61:10.5 Such scholars were reproved for knowing more than was necessary (plus sapere quam oportet), a quotation from Romans 12:3.6 And finally the doctrines that were the result of these efforts were characterized as "alien:' a reference to Hebrews 13:9.7 University censures did not concern full-fledged masters of theology. John ofMonzOn seems to have been the only exception.8 He was already a master oftheology, but only just so, because it was the inception ceremony that induced the charges offalse teaching against him. Victims ofa curious mind were especially to be found among the junior faculty, that is, the bachelors oftheology and the members ofthe inferior arts faculty. Perhaps the proneness to be unduly fascinated by their own views was particularly strong among the ''youthful'' bachelors and members of the arts faculty, who, in their desire for fame, may have been less careful and, as a consequence , were more in need of some fraternal correction than the more sedate masters.9 In this respect a statute of I 366 is significant. It admonishes bachelors of theology to present their principium in an honorable way, without insults, and not to let themselves be carried away too much by emotions.lO They had to investigate the truth with cauta sollicitude, with cautious carefulness, and in a sober way.11 Another factor, besides age, that helps to explain why false teaching at the university mainlyconcerned bachelors oftheology and was corrected by disciplinary rather than judicial proceedings is that they operated under the supervision ofthe masters oftheology. In view oftheir status as not yet fullfledged members ofthe guild ofmasters, as apprentices, correction seemed more appropriate than punishment. As members ofthe university who fell under the jurisdictionofthe chancellor, ajurisdiction that was confirmed by the oaths that the young scholars had taken at each stage oftheir academic career, they were expected to comply with the correction oftheir academic superiors.12 Moreover, it would only be natural that the solutions of any irregularities that had...

Share