The Spiritual Franciscans: From Protest to Persecution in the Century After Saint Francis

6 The Council of Vienne: The Community and the Pope

IF UBERTINO WAS STILL ARGUING the case for usus pauper as part of the vow in much the same way that Olivi had thirty years earlier, does the inverse hold true as well? Was the community using the same arguments against usus pauper that Olivi had rejected? The Community on Usus Pauper The answer is that to a point they were, despite their occasional attempts to suggest that the controversy was limited to southern France and was merely a battle over terms, hence not worth arguing about at all.1 They were not disputing directly with Olivi, and thus one occasionally finds them discussing some issue he never raised. Yet on the whole, the continuity is remarkable. One finds the same basic presuppositions leading inexorably to the same conclusions. The community proceeds from the assumption that violation of a vow entails mortal sin. Thus the obligations incurred through a vow must THE COUNCIL OF VIENNE The Community and the Pope S I X THE SPIRITUAL FRANCISCANS be precisely definable, known to the vower, and capable of fulfillment by him. Usus pauper fails this test, because differing needs and situations make it impossible to establish a secure boundary between observance and violation. Usus pauper, then, would be a dangerous thing to vow. The poverty to which a Franciscan unalterably binds himself is a lack of possessions, not limited use.2 Like Olivi’s adversaries before them, spokesmen for the community assert that the act related to the vow of poverty is a mental one. They too like to quote Augustine’s dictum that guilt lies not in the use of things, but in the desire to use them.3 Nevertheless, like those earlier adversaries, they grant that the rule does entail some moderation of use. Here, we must look skeptically at the word “they.” Like “the spirituals,” “the community” is an abstraction. Various people wrote, and it is often hard to tell whether they simply expressed things differently or actually disagreed. One encounters a similar problem in dealing with Olivi’s original opponents.4 Nevertheless, the documents do display a more or less coherent position that seems to have been acceptable to a large segment of the community. According to this position, only those obligations from which the pope cannot dispense should be considered substantial parts of the vow. This criterion allows lack of ownership to be included within the vow but excludes usus pauper , since the pope can legitimately allow or even order individual Franciscans to wear shoes, dress in fine clothes, or ride horses, all of which in fact occur when a Franciscan becomes a bishop.5 On the other hand, the rule does speak of wearing vile clothing and not riding horses.6 Thus, even though the Franciscan does not actually vow such things, he is bound to them ex voto in some sense, since he is bound ex voto to all that the rule contains in obligatory fashion. Those speaking for the community are somewhat hazy on this point. The term they prefer to use for such things is usus pauperes, which might be inelegantly translated as “poor uses,” specific types of restricted use. They want to recognize a special category for those usus pauperes specifically mentioned in the rule, but they insist on separating them from lack of ownership. Only the latter cannot be suspended by papal dispensation, and thus only the latter is vowed in such a way that violation of it automatically implies mortal sin, although the community acknowledges that mortal sin is incurred when one “notably exceeds” the specific prohibitions in the rule regarding usus pauperes. Thus the community seems to settle for a position that offers more precision than Olivi’s in one way, but seems remarkably like his in another. By limiting Franciscans’ obligation ex voto to particular usus pauperes—namely, those practices specifically mentioned in the rule—they avoid the vagueness associated with Olivi’s insistence that 138 THE COUNCIL OF VIENNE: The Community and the Pope the vow entails a commitment to usus pauper in general. Yet by acknowledging that mortal sin is incurred only in cases of gross violation, they neglect to demarcate clearly the border between spiritual safety and mortal sin, and thus they could be accused of fostering the same uncertainties and anxieties that Olivi’s opponents claimed were encouraged by his notion of indeterminate vows. In 1311, as in 1279, opposing sides attempted...