Logo DBNL
The Modern Devotion (1968)

The Modern Devotion

(1968)–R.R. Post–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism


Vorige Volgende

J. Various Questions

If this love of books and continual striving to extend his own collection, even, one might say, at the expense of his last penny, can be said to signify an extremely positive attitude towards learning, the question remains whether Groote took any stand in the scholarly

activities of the time. Did he pronounce himself in favour of the realists or the nominalists, for the via antiqua or moderna, and what was his standpoint regarding the Church, especially in the difficult days of the Schism. All this can be better viewed and judged once we have dealt with Groote's struggle against the Focarists and the ‘Heretics’ as seen in his letters and works. We shall also, to this end, examine the isolated works, including the Christmas sermon on the four sources of meditation, the moral address and the letter on the Schism.

Before broaching this material, however, it is perhaps useful to mention a few more small details from the letters, which may serve to complete the image of Groote and his activities. First of all there is Groote's conviction that the book De amore which is attributed to Bernard and which Willem Vroede wanted to copy, was not actually written by Bernard. The important thing is, that Groote showed interest in such questions and employs arguments which are still valid. He points out that the style is not Bernard's as can be easily seen on comparison. The tenor of certain questions, whereby he makes reference to Augustine, does not accord with this latter and other ancient writers, but corresponds to that of recent and modern scholars. The manner of quotation differs from Bernard's method. The book De amore is not classified in old libraries under Bernard's name, not even in the monastery libraries of his order. On reading the book it is evident that the flores Bernardini are absent and that the writer, unlike Bernard, has not sufficiently penetrated and assimilated Augustine's ideas. Seneca already posed this as a requirement. This is immediately plain to anyone who has a taste for the spiritual in inner sentiments. The book is entered differently in different catalogues, which is not so with the other books of Bernard or Augustine. Groote thus gives here mainly the so called external evidence, and was conscious of this fact: I could submit to you many other arguments had I had time to peruse the book myself.1 Then the internal arguments would be stronger.

Another point is the resolution of a moral issue, laid before Groote by William Vroede who once again shows himself harassed by scruples.2 He asked whether the performing of a deed, small from the material point of view, out of contempt for God's law, could become a mortal sin. Vroede had read about this in Clincok, which name must refer to Johannes Magires (Dencock, Klencock or Kleck) ca. 1374. He could not, however, follow his arguments and now asked Groote's opinion.

I doubt whether Groote's answer was of any assistance to him, for to me at least it is anything but clear. It does seem, though, that Groote can immerse himself in such subtle problems and form his own opinion. He begins, moreover, very sensibly with a pronouncement of St. Augustine that we can only know in the hereafter what is venial and what mortal sin. Groote was also of the opinion that it is easier to make this distinction in general than in particular cases.1 But he does finally suggest an answer, and one that diverges from St. Thomas Aquinas, who was unable to consider this particular case a mortal sin. Groote thinks that there can indeed be a question of mortal sin, but would defer to the judgment of someone more competent than himself. He is firm in his opinion that the aim can never make a wrong action right. The end does not justify the means. And what does he consider to be the good end? Building monasteries! Man must not relinquish his good intentions, even should an entire monastery or a thousand monasteries or a monastery for a thousand people be at stake - or whatever good he can set in train or accomplish. For small evil deeds must not be performed with a view to very good ones.2

The questions dealt with in the letters are principally of a pastoral nature. Groote viewed the guidance of souls as an ars artium, the highest art,3 as did Gregory I. He found the condition of pastor so difficult that he dared not aspire to it himself. The fear of responsibility was the main reason why he did not wish to become a priest, except in cases of extreme need, when deacons were forbidden to preach.4 The greater part of his letter to his friend and later disciple John van de Gronde5 was devoted to the demands and difficulties of the cura. It is an interesting piece, but it is no wonder that certain texts occur therein which, taken in isolation, might be considered as proving that Groote doubted the value of sacramental absolution, or that in his view, the priest's absolution resulted merely in the restoration of the link with the visible Church. God alone converts the sinner.6 The priest shows that he (the unrepentant sinner) is absolved for the Church, but the true mother,

the immaculate Church, does not accept him. He is admitted to the externals by the priest, but remains excluded from the internal life.1

In actual fact he is referring to the penitent who comes before the priest without remorse and a purpose of amendment, confesses in the correct manner and displays outward sorrow and improvement and therefore receives absolution. It is well worth the trouble to analyse this letter more closely. With reference to a request by John van de Gronde to lend him a certain book dealing with the guidance of those who remain obstinate in sin, or sinners without repentance (non contriti) for whom there is no hope of conversion, Groote answers that he regrets he does not possess such a book. He then begins to discuss the difficulties of pastoral care. The exercise of the art of arts requires first proficiency in canon law and in theological science which in turn assumes a grounding in many other ethical and natural philosophical branches of learning - in other words a course of study in the faculty of arts, followed by one in theology and law. Groote, indeed, had pursued such a course. This must, however, be accompanied by experience, sufficient practice in the spiritual life and an insight into the minds and conditions of men (the human condition) which might today be termed psychological. Pope Gregory has described this very well and Groote hopes that John van de Gronde, who did pastoral work in Amsterdam without in fact being a parish priest would read Gregory's book and ponder on it. ‘But who is wise and good enough to guide the stiff-necked and those without hope, the non-contriti.’ It seems to me better to pray for these persons than to lead them. Sermons and exhortations have more effect on them than absolution and false confession. Only God converts the sinner. The conversion of sinners is more difficult than the creation of the world. The priest with his keys opens the school and the doors only for the contriti, for those for whom there is hope, who are not obdurate. Even God does not absolve such people without contrition. What does it signify when the priest absolves him on earth but he is not redeemed in heaven? The priest displays him as absolved for the Church - he who is not accepted by the true and immaculate Church. The priest admits him to the visible Church, but he is rejected by the invisible. But still the priest who has examined the person's interior depths shows that he is admitted to the invisible Church and at least acts accordingly. He says: absolvo te. He says something with which the internal is not accord. Is this person

then divided? Is he perhaps a liar? Is he different inside than out? He goes so far as to confess, yet remains different within from how he appears without; inside the devil and outside Christ, inwardly unrepentant and obdurate, outwardly as though converted through God by the communion and other things. Who would venture of his own accord into these snares unless he wished to be caught? In these evil times is it not already important enough if the good and learned abbot or prior lawfully governs twelve or twenty sheep according to a given rule, with whose entire attitude and spiritual visage he is familiar? It is especially dangerous for him, upon whom pastoral care is not imposed as a duty to entangle himself in the nets. Let these people go to their own priests who have accepted the cura as an unbearable burden, against their own will, not from ambition but sorrowfully and compelled by obedience. These are sent by the Holy Ghost and will be helped by the Holy Ghost. If another involves himself with these duties it is to be feared what is written: who loves danger, perishes in it. Let them brave the dangers. May God assist their hearts so that they may accomplish in full and eternal love what they have undertaken from a sense of ambition. I think that I have read in one of the letters of St. Bernard1, that the great sinners were, on the advice of the confessors, directed to their own pastor. Do you perceive the danger? If such a priest feared to absolve the converted, what must we lesser men do?

It is thus that one must first strive to convert them through prayers, admonition, even by prescribing penances, before absolution may be given. The pastor must not prevent his subordinates from confessing, no matter how great the sinner is. If he is not converted, or will not refrain from sin or is obdurate, then he can not absolve him and lie before God, the penitent and the Church, and give him the opportunity to remain a sinner in the sins to which he is accustomed. But he may impose a penance, especially for him who will not amend his ways, so that the punishment of the penance may incline him to the good and to humility. Having regard to this, various decrees of the law must be understood which at first sight would suggest to the ignorant that the person who makes no purpose of amendment may indeed receive absolution. But he may not be absolved, but admonished, enlightened and a penance imposed on him.

If, for the rest, they say: we wish to make amends and the priest

knows or assumes even on the basis of evident signs that they are still pursuing evil, or not sending away the focariae or not returning unlawful possessions, and that they do not really mean in their hearts what they profess with their mouths - in such a case I advise that the appointed pastor must deal otherwise than the freely chosen confessor. The latter in my opinion must not grant absolution, for although in confession the priest must believe what the penitent says about his own conscience, he who voluntarily hears the penitent and hopes that he will mend his ways is not bound to take him at his word. He may let him go, if he has seen the danger. It is very difficult to say how his own pastor must deal with such a man who says that he wishes to mend his ways; for in some cases he must simply refuse him absolution and communion on account of the contrast between his deeds and his words and say to him: You are making mock of the keys of the Church and the Sacraments. Take care! If you receive absolution and communion and have not a firm purpose of improvement and of sending the woman away, absolution and communion will not help you. They will even serve to your condemnation and punishment and to testify to your sins. Beware that you do not lie while speaking one thing and thinking another. The absolution is no absolution and you must later confess everything again. If, however, you speak the truth and show real sorrow and remorse, with the intention of sending her away, God will be merciful to you. After this he must order him to return and impose some penance on him, to cease whatever he has confessed so that he may admonish him later concerning the feigned penance. The confessor must not neglect to do this.

How great is this cura, this care and this vigilance! In some cases he must simply say: I beseech you, do not deceive me, yourself and others, for I see that you are making a bad confession and I see that you have no purpose of amendment. He must point out the lie to him clearly and hold up to him the example of the evil which proceeds from a false confession and also make plain to him his stony hardness of heart, and deeply rooted habit, and refuse to grant him absolution. If, however, the penitent persists in his assurance then he may sometimes simply give absolution, sometimes saying under threat: I see you returning to your own vomit; the next time I will not give you absolution.

Among lesser backsliders the guidance of souls is an extremely difficult and subtle task. Sometimes they must be granted conditional absolution, for example thus: If, and insofar as you wish to improve your ways from your heart, I absolve you. This must also be included

in the formula and after the absolution he must be told, in Dutch, that he is not absolved. If you say that you wish to make amends and do not mean it, then you must confess anew. And in such cases the freely chosen confessor must act more sternly than the confessor who is appointed. And I say this, if anyone should be willing to assume voluntarily such a heavy burden. All sorts of other varying circumstances may occur which may be better resolved by experienced people than by me. I omit to mention other considerable dangers which I, poor worldling, still afeared and vain, oppressed by the fame of a good name and still savouring human favour, should fear. In particular I omit the danger that, from fear of the face of a powerful man, who says what has to be done, I should either deal more severely with him (the penitent) or should hear him who ought not to be heard or absolve him who ought not to be fearful of reproaches, hate, or rewards. ‘It is therefore that I have resolved never to accept a gift from anybody. But this is not so for the good, pure men but for me, who have committed unchastity under every tree and upon every hill. Let my confessor, Gijsbert Dou, testify to this, who knows me better than anyone, since he has heard my confession from my youth and I advise you to follow in his train to the Holy Scriptures.’

In this treatise there is no question of contempt for priestly absolution but only a realization of the difficulties experienced by the confessor and Groote's fear of responsibility in this matter.

As we have already explained, Groote, with reference to the fact that a certain young man of little education wished to accept a position as parish priest, stressed again the responsibility of the pastoral state. Here too he employs the test of Gregory I; the guidance of souls is an ars artium. He lays particular emphasis however upon the difficulty of the pastor's attitude towards the nobility and upon the difficulty of adopting a correct attitude towards the excommunicated. This is a requirement scarcely possible of fulfilment.

Luckily for the parish priests of this period, not all their parishioners were hardened sinners or subject to pressure from the high and mighty, however much the right of patronage may have been conducive to this. Despite Groote's pessimism there was still considerable interest among the clergy for the position of pastor or for that of substitute parish priest (vice-curatus) which carried the same responsibility. Yet it is remarkable that Groote, who was not willing to accept such responsibility himself, nonetheless gave advice to his friend and to those whom he considered unsuitable. He was not afraid to express his opinion and

could build up a good argument, but displayed at the same time his pessimistic mentality which was inclined to severity.

That he was actively concerned in the daily events of his time is obvious, not only from the two important questions which will be dealt with shortly, the struggle against the heretics and the focarists, but also from his involvement with all manner of less important matters. A few examples will suffice here.

A certain foreigner arrived in Deventer who professed to be a Saracen and born in Jerusalem. He practised medicine without knowing the slightest thing about it. Two years earlier, and even in the preceding year, he carried on this practice in Amsterdam, passing himself off as a Jew. In Vianen, Zutphen and Doesburg too he carried on his deceitful practices although in Vianen he was unmasked by another Jew to the extent of showing that he wasn't Jew at all. In Deventer he opted to be a Saracen. Groote sent for him and questioned him in the presence of the parish priest. The pseudo-physician asserted that he had lived in Jerusalem up to his thirtieth year. Groote asked him what language was spoken there. He answered Hebrew - which is false. As little Hebrew was spoken in Jerusalem as in Deventer. The local language was Arabic. He knew no other language but Dutch: ‘I examined him on the subject of medicine but he is a complete layman on this topic’. In Groote's opinion he was helped by the devil and was a faithful servant of the devil. He had even, without knowing it, made a pact with the devil. He was not only a falsifier of medical science, but also a robber of other men's money, a deceiver of the people and of the simple folk.

Groote therefore wrote to his friends, the Dei emulatores, zealots for God, in Zwolle, Kampen, or elsewhere to banish him from their territory. They must see to it, however, that he was not mishandled or killed on account of this letter. Groote drove him out of Deventer within five days. ‘And if I had not feared irregularity and could have charged him, he would not have escaped so easily. I did not, however, notify the magistrates.’ In a postscript for Henry he adds (if the letter is addressed to the Dei emulatores in Zwolle this may perhaps be Henry Voppenszoon) a request to copy the trial which is being held in Harderwijk from beginning to end. As he has already told him in Kampen, he has forgotten all the finer details. I cannot answer just like that.1

This is a typically medieval case! In the first place the man, although unmasked, is able to recommence his activities in a neighbouring

district. Then again, a serious case like this, concerning fraud and swindle, is dealt with by private persons, Groote and the parish priest. The charlatan's successes are then attributed to the devil and a devilish pact. This might easily have led to a trial for witchcraft resulting in the death of the accused. Groote feared that his letter might prove the instigation for such a trial. He prevents this, which says much for his humanity, but he is as much a believer in the work of the devil as his contemporaries. His fear of handing over the culprit to the magistrates is not so much inspired by human feeling as by the desire to avoid the danger of irregularity, probably because he would have thus condemned a person to certain death. On this point his mind runs on purely legal lines, while on the main point he entirely forgets all legal proportions.

Justitia et pax osculatae sunt: Justice and peace have embraced. This is also the case with Gerlach and his friend Gerard Haermaker, writers employed by Groote who had decamped with the models of the texts to be copied. They already reached Cologne or Strasbourg. This has already been mentioned in another connection. In a loving but very insistent letter Groote besought Gerlach especially, of whom he had great expectations, to return. He wanted to save this man but he also regretted the loss of his models. Finally he also had resort to threats. If you do not come back soon, just see what will happen if I should write to the official in Cologne, to your father and your city and your brother and your friends and the people with whom you are living in Cologne.1

But little love emanates from a letter addressed to a certain brother John, whom it is impossible to identify with certainty but who seems to me to be a Franciscan, in view of his title of frater and his preaching in Kampen, Zwolle and Zutphen. Groote had heard from his friends that this John was preaching presumptuous, vain and slanderous words against himself and his doctrine. We find here the first signs of a rejection of Groote's ideas. He himself considered his doctrine as apostolic and evangelical, traditional and sacred. It is not said of what it consisted, but something may be deduced from the postscript. It is a point which does not appear to us very important. Groote was accustomed to say that Christ suffers more from those who deliberately restrain people from a holy life and from the straight path than He did long ago from those who nailed Him to the cross.

Groote called upon John to make amends, to give satisfaction and

to retract his slanders. He must do this in the manner prescribed by the pastors of Deventer and Zwolle, or one of them, otherwise things will happen which you will find difficult to bear. You must know that there are many actions I can take against you. I can enter an accusation against you at the Roman Curia. Beware of the punishments meted out to slanderers, to those who compose libellous writings. Have a care for what you have said in your sermons, which I shall not mention.

This is clearly a threatening letter from a person with a knowledge of the law. The letter was sent to Zwolle as a sealed open letter so that the pastor there could read it before it was handed to John.1


Vorige Volgende