Evaluation
The Errors of the Philosophers reveals much about the ideology of medieval Christians, like Giles of Rome. Most of all, it demonstrates the fervor with which they defended their beliefs. Giles read the works of Aristotle, of Averroes and others, and learned them well. So well that he was able to locate and point out the ways in which they differed with the Church. Aristotle was one of the most influential ancient Western philosophers, the foundation of over a thousand years of thought, and the Church leaders during the Middle Ages denounced his teachings as erroneous. This seems rather bold of Giles; to come out and say that someone like Aristotle was wrong.
Giles’ justification for his accusations against the philosophers is purely theological. His statements do not rely on empirical or experiential knowledge, or logic or reason. Church doctrine takes its authority from faith. One could say that faith is defined as an irrational belief in something that cannot be proven, and I would. Without faith there is no reason to believe in Heaven or God, or that Jesus rose from the dead; without faith, the Bible is a collection of stories and fables but has no real authority. This faith, and all of the doctrines that it upholds, was what inspired Giles to correct the 'mistakes' of the old pagan philosophers. Giles obviously held strongly to Church doctrine, and believed in its absolute authority. To call Giles a Christian fundamentalist would not be too far off. He takes the position that Church doctrine is completely right and that there is no room for disagreement.
Even though Giles’ arguments may not have a substantial logical or rational basis, they are certainly academic. After all, Giles was a monk, a theology professor and a high-ranking official in his monastic Order. Throughout the Errors, Giles methodically examines statements made by the philosophers, creating almost a catalog of erroneous philosophical beliefs. He then applies his vast wealth of knowledge to those statements, exposing the contradictions between them and the doctrines of the Church, for it is only these contradictions which make the statements false; they refute important Church beliefs, so they must not be true. In order to accomplish this, Giles must have studied a great deal of natural philosophy. This may have been why he became entangled in the Condemnation of 1277.
If Giles of Rome was a Christian fundamentalist, the author of the Condemnation was even more so. He was Stephen Tempier, the bishop of Paris. As was usual during the Middle Ages, the pope, Pope John XXI, became aware of some heresies that may or may not have even existed. Fearing that spreading heresy could threaten the strength of the Church, the pope assigned the bishop of Paris to investigate these rumored heresies and find out wheere and from whom they came. while not exactly following his superior's orders, Tempier compiled a list of 219 statements which he deemed false in the eyes of the Church. I believe the idea was to pass off these statements as the heresy, because it was declared that anyone accused of spreading or hearing these errors was to be excommunicated. Tempier, while not exactly following the pope's instructions, acted with extreme zeal and haste; his list is full of repetitions and lacks order. Parts of it make no sense at all.
The Condemnation of 1277 is a perfect example of rampant orthodoxy. He makes this position rather obvious through his language. He is "inspired by zeal for the faith," to point out "things evidently contrary to the orthodox faith." Tempier refers to Aristotilian thoughts as "certain obvious and loathesome errors, or rather vanities and follies." He denounces legitimate philosophical theories and astrology as mere paganism, which the Church surely will not abide. This is a much more accusatory document than Giles' Errors; Tempier states that God's wrath will be upon those who would teach or hear such blasphemous and vile philosophical theses. Tempier is upholding the absolute authority of the Church and Scripture; he is also responding to a series of convincingly devastating criticisms of the Church's theological, which is tto say 'faith-based', shortcommings. Finally, the Condemnation of 1277 is a perfect example of the Chirstian Church doing what it does best: actively suppressing diverse thought via the brand of heresy and labeling any contradictory belief as subversive and a threat to the stability of the Church.
Home | Biography | Intellectual Background | Overview | Evaluation | Back to Project Tapestry
Site Last Updated: 11/01/2005