Logo DBNL
The Modern Devotion (1968)

The Modern Devotion

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

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism


Vorige Volgende

O. The struggle against the Focarists

Groote shows himself to be equally strong, persistent and fearless in the struggle against the Utrecht canons and other clergy who were living as married men. This struggle began with Groote's celebrated

sermon which has gone down in history under the name contra focaristas,1 but which in the manuscripts is usually referred to by the word Recedite,2 a word which introduces the closing formula of several chapters and which reflects the trend of the entire sermon. ‘Shun those priests, who live as married men and shun all sinners, isolate them, have nothing to do with them.’ This sermon was held in the cathedral in Utrecht on the 14th of August 1383, as stated by the manuscript of Darmstadt3 and those of Neuss and Vienna. The last adds that Groote preached communi clero ecclesie trajectensis.4 This information is confirmed by the (incomplete) manuscript of Wolfenbüttel,5 by Groote's own remarks in the five points6 and in the Vita of Rudolf Dier.7 The year 1383, which is not contradicted by any manuscript, is absolutely certain on the basis of a letter of Salvarvilla,8 and the connection of the latter with Mulder's numbers 20 and 95.9 On the basis of these three manuscripts the actual day is at least highly probable. The only difficulty is that the entire clergy of Utrecht or the synod, which amounts to the same thing, assembled twice a year, not on August 14th but on the Tuesday after Cantate Sunday (the fourth Sunday after Easter) and on the 2nd of October.10 If then such a synodal assembly was held on the vigil of the Assumption, it must have been an extra synod. In the discussion which follows, we have proceeded from the assumption that the assembly did indeed take place on August 14th. The 2nd of October is too late, since too little time remained for the reactions to the sermon, for the decision to withdraw permission to preach from the deacons and its restoration to all deacons with the exception of Gerard Groote. This must all have occurred before Salvarvilla's letter dated 21st October 1383. It was addressed to Pope Urban VI requesting papal authority for Groote to preach.11 The Easter Synod of 1383 (April

21st) seems to me too early, since the reaction in this case was too late to establish and had in no way died down a year later.

Such a synodal assembly of the entire clergy consisted of most of the priests from the city of Utrecht and surrounding districts, and a few representatives from more distant deaneries. It began with a pontifical mass, usually celebrated by the suffragan bishop, and a sermon by a well known preacher or scholar. The fact that the deacon Geert Groote was invited for this purpose is evidence of the great authority he enjoyed at least as a preacher. It is probable that the then suffragan bishop, Huppert Schencke, bishop of Hippus had something to do with it.1 He was a Dominican! His respect for Groote's preaching emerges clearly from two of his letters to Groote which have been preserved.2 In the first he glorifies Groote's talents as the source of wisdom. He writes that through his preaching and admonition the word of God tises as from an overflowing well. According to him Groote drew both new and old from the treasure of wisdom, but especially the spiritual, i.e. the inner pleasures of his spirit and his burning zeal for souls. Because he invites some to taste with him the inner joys and adroitly tells others the truth, he is constantly under attack from those who regard his preaching with disfavour. The bishop exhorted him not to fear the attacks of the magistri whose ears were burning.3 Groote answered this letter in deep humility, too strong for the ears of the suffragan bishop. He insists that Groote's word flowed from the pure source. He calls him the old ox, with many virtues, grown fat on the fertile pastures. Groote would once again attain the summit of the mountain, weeping and sighing. He hopes that Groote's light is not hidden under the bushel, but will be placed upon the candle-stick.4 It must not be imagined therefore, that Groote asked permission to speak at the synod and then gave his sermon. He was invited and gave the customary inaugural sermon. It must have been known before-hand that the sermon would be out of the ordinary. This sermon has not been preserved in the form in which it was spoken, but as it was afterwards elaborated into a treatise. Sermon and treatise have become one. Anyone discussing the sermon, does so with the assistance of the treatise, and anyone dissecting the treatise, has recourse to the sermon.

Thus, although the treatise was composed later than the sermon, they can no longer be kept distinct, although some indications do exist. The lengthy chapter VI which occupies 18 pages in the edition of Clarisse, and deals with the way in which a person who is only a notorious fornicator by repute, becomes completely notorious through not paying heed to a given warning, is according to Groote himself, not present in the sermon.1 Chapter XXI too, is not addressed to the listeners but to the reader: Rogo te lector.2 This too is a lengthy chapter on what for Groote was an incidental matter, an elaboration which was perhaps not spoken. Moreover the final chapter ends with the remark that ‘Time does not permit more, since I have written this longer and in more detail than I thought, for the sake of the parvuli, in the name of the Lord, blessed be He in secula seculorum amen.’ The length, thus, is in the written piece. Moreover, Groote can scarcely have considered or addressed his hearers in Utrecht, the universus clerus, as parvuli. I thought for a time that the absence of the exhortative formula at the end of a chapter might be an indication that the chapter in question was only written and not spoken, and was thus added to the sermon. This assumption, however, is not borne out by the facts. Chapter VI which Groote himself qualifies as a later addition, has the formula Recedite etc., as does chapter XXI which is addressed to the lector and not to the auditor.3 It is impossible to make any further progress with these questions in the present position of study of the manuscripts. It may perhaps give cause for reflexion that chapters VII and VIII lack such a formula, while all those belonging to the second section have one. It is missing too in chapters 18, 19, 29, 25 and 26. If all these pieces were to be considered as supplements, then the sermo itself would be so much curtailed that it might perhaps have been pronounced, according to the custom of that time. One would have to assume too that it was not necessary to read the whole of all the pieces dealing with the positive law and the glosses. The preacher may have been content to impart the results of his studies, mentioning the names of the canonists and giving some indication of their assertions. Such a method would have saved a great deal of time, but would also have detracted considerably from the value of the first chapters which are undoubtedly the most important for Groote's argument.

What was Groote's real message?

Despite my admiration for Groote's extensive knowledge, especially of canon law and of legal literature and also of various medieval writers, I cannot conceal my disappointment with this sermon. In the first place, he does not touch at all upon the value and religious significance of the celibate life of the clergy. His knowledge of the Bible and of tradition is hardly used at all on this point. His approach to the question is purely negative. The church precept has been transgressed. What are the legal consequences of this transgression? Then again, he does not indicate the extent of the transgression, nor how far the evil against which he had taken up arms, had spread. Naturally enough he could not go into detail here, but some general indication would not have been out of place in a sermon. Nor does he recognize a ratio excusans at all. He took no account of circumstances, nor did he seek for causes. This being so, he did not devote any thought to whether an improvement could perhaps be effected by, for example, better training or teaching or by an easing of the housing situation. It is remarkable too, that he does not deal only with the focarists and their focariae but for a large part of the sermon or treatise addresses himself equally to the laity as to the clergy. Apart from the clergy living as married persons he was also concerned with sin and its consequences for the priestly office.

He himself divided the whole into 26 dicta or chapters, in such a way that the first eight, then chapter nine to eighteen and finally the last nine, form separate sections. They are distinguished not only by their content but also by the manner of argumentation. At the end of the eighth chapter Groote writes: ‘Here end the first eight chapters or dicta dealing with the notorious fornicatores, taken from positive law. There follow eight others which are more concerned with the divine and natural laws and which are directed against all fornicatores, of whom the fatherhood is felt in the church of God, known or not, so that with one accord we shun the fornicatores themselves and their focariae.’

Groote begins the first section with the scriptural text as motto: Recedite, recedite(Is. 52, 11). Depart ye, depart ye; go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing: go out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord. This is applied to sinners and especially to the scandalous fornicatores: one must flee from them as from impurity and the church laws must be applied to them. Hence, Recedite: Withdraw from them! He concludes the introduction with a beautiful description of the priesthood, probably to arouse the sympathy of his audience, but also undoubtedly expressing his own deepest conviction.

The notorious fornicator is suspended by the very fact of his fornication and therefore the faithful must not attend his mass. This according to the unanimous opinion of all commentatores who have commented on the law books of Gregory IX with the later supplements. For good measure he adds the theologian St. Thomas Aquinas (1st chapter). According to this same Thomas anyone attending the mass of such a suspended fornicator is committing mortal sin (2nd chapter). The toleration of such persons by the prelates is no reason for not avoiding these fornicatores (3rd chapter or dictum tertium to which objection was later made). If such a suspended priest says mass he becomes irregular (this argument is also supported by various auctoritates). In Utrecht there even existed a decree excommunicating them (chapter 4). The exposition of seven legal scholars shows that the bishops can grant no dispensation in this question (5th chapter) and the doubtfully notorious fornicator becomes absolutely notorious through having been warned (6th chapter. This last is an insertion, not dealt with in the sermon). The reasoning then proceeds. The suspended notorious fornicator is also excommunicated, and eo ipso vitandus (7th chapter). This is the final step. These people, who have formed a family, must be completely rejected by society. There only remains to punish the women, concubinae too. This must be done, for they live in adultery with the bridegroom of the church (chapter 8). After this chilling declaration and merciless rejection of the persons in question, based almost solely upon juridical commentators of the church law, Groote begins a second section, comprising chapters 9-16. At the end he characterizes them thus:1

These eight preceding chapters (dicta proxima), with the exception of part of the first, deal with all points on the basis of the natural divine law, that is, the law of love, according to eternal truth. They all concern without distinction, the suspected and discussed fornicators whether notorious or not, if they are suspected or give scandal or may give rise to scandal. To these (9-15) chapter 16 is added since it proceeds from what goes before and concerns mainly those in authority.

The tone of this second section is rather less stringent. Groote does not forget, however, to add here that it is intended as much for the clergy as the laity. This is expressly stated of chapter 9 (omnibus christianis)2 10 (people and clergy),3 11 (every cleric and layman),4 12 (laity

and clergy),1 14 (both layman and cleric)2 and 16 (priests and all other christians).3 This change, however, does not alter the theme. Since Groote bases his arguments here no longer on the positive law, but on the law of charity, all that he says takes on a wider implication. The content of these chapters can be summarized briefly. Anyone who has a suspected woman in his house, or converses with one, may give scandal and this is in conflict with the law of charity. One must, however, interpret everything as favourably as possible. There are persons who do just the contrary. If the priest gives scandal, the consequences are calamitous. How much harm has been done to the church in Utrecht because the priests absolve these people in confession and allow them to receive Holy Communion although they are unworthy. Finally he propounds the theory which, as we saw, he had defended in other circumstances, that Christ suffers more through the torments imposed on Him by the sinful clergy and all sinful christians than through anything He suffered at the hands of Herod, Pilate and their soldiers. The general conclusion is given in chapter 17. The authorities must impose a purge upon the fornicatores and order them to send the women away.4

The last section extends the conclusion drawn in the first section to every mortal sin. This has for the priest the same consequences as described in the preceding chapters. Every exercise of the Sacred Office gives rise to fresh mortal sins. The priests concerned are therefore suspended. If this is known no one may attend their services or encourage them to perform such services. If, however, doubt exists concerning the fact of mortal sin, one may request the sacraments from such a priest. No one may ever leave the church on account of the evil committed by a few, or cut himself off from the community of the faithful. This remark may have been directed against Groote's contemporary Wyclif. The sinful state of the person administering the sacrament does not, however, affect its valid reception.

Groote made good use of the flattering invitation to preach. He fearlessly defended what he held to be true and must, after concluding his sermon, have had the feeling: that's told them! But, the reaction was not slow to follow. Was what Groote preached such a novelty as to make this reaction understandable? Groote constantly referred, and rightly so, to the existing law and to the commentators thereon, but

in practice it had become a dead letter. Although in Utrecht canons, pastors and holders of benefices were forbidden to live as married persons, and although the bishops generally repeated this prohibition at the beginning of their administration, as for example Arnold of Hoorn in 1375, a few years before Groote's sermon,1 such persons, focarists, were tolerated in daily life. Neither the bishops, nor the parish priests, nor the archdeacons and deacons forcefully or persistently fought against this abuse. Neither the decree of bishop Arnold of Hoorn, nor the decisions of the Synod of 1310 under bishop Gui of Avesnes, nor the decree of the papal legate Petrus Capoccio which preceded them, seem to have had any influence whatever.2 The gentlemen of Utrecht will therefore not have been too deeply shocked when Groote gave his ‘fire and brimstone’ sermon at the opening of the Council. Something like this was only to be expected! But what they probably had not expected was to hear that these so called notorii fornicarii were, according to church law, suspended, vitandi, irregular and excommunicated. These strong words moreover, were well motivated. Could a bishop henceforth remain workless? Could the parish priests who respected their celibacy continue to associate with their colleagues, of whose situation they were well aware? Could they continue to attend their services and thus perpetually run the risk of falling into mortal sin, while continuing to aggravate the situation through their own offices and the administration of the sacraments? Could they maintain their attitude of tolerance and indifference if indeed the people should begin to boycott the functions of the notorious fornicators. Perhaps for a time they pondered on what attitude to adopt. They could find little to object to in Groote's arguments. Only the third thesis (or the third chapter) offered a weak point, that is, the question of when exactly the fornicator was notorious? If a canon entered the church with his children in his arms or leading them by the hand, there could obviously be little doubt; but the situation was not always so clear - could public opinion be relied on in this point or did it require first a pronouncement by a competent ecclesiastical judge to establish notoriety absolutely? Was not the absence of any measures by the bishop a sign that the fornicator was not notorious? Could not one say: the bishop makes no objection, thus the affair must be in order. If all these doubts could arise, then the basis of Groote's sermon, and

of his stern measures, collapsed. With most of the suspected persons the situation was not so clear. And no one needed to take measures against these non-notorious fornicarii.


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

plaatsen