Analysis of Peter Abelard’s Approach on Religious Questions

Introduction

Peter Abelard had been a well known French teacher and philosopher who was punished to live as a monk in his life. This was due to him impregnating his student, Heloise. During his life as a monk, he practiced Scholasticism, which is questioning religious questions based on logic and reason, causing St. Bernard of Clairvaux to condemn him intensely.

In this essay, I will argue that Abelard’s approach on religious questions are strongly influenced by the authority of the Bible and Greek Philosophy, which is the major reason why he is solving religious content while ignoring the authority of the Church. As a result, this brings Bernard’s antagonism to rise for Abelard is daringly questioning the writings of the Church based on human logic.

Topic analysis

Firstly, Abelard is using logic or Greek Philosophy, as the highest authority on solving the writings of the Church because he argues based on Greek Philosophy. “Aristotle, the most clear-sighted philosopher of all, advised his students to embrace this questioning with complete willingness” so that we can perceive the truth after questioning. It is clearly cited that Abelard thinks highly of Aristotle by praising him and using Aristotle’s wisdom as his principle in his life. He insists that we must question and doubt to be better readers and better christians, so we must decipher our own conclusion based on evidence.

Therefore, Abelard is judging the Church’s writings based on greek philosophy and suggests that the key to better christians is by following Aristotle’s wisdom. Moreover, Abelard believes that when the writings of the saints are contradicting with each other, then there is an error in translation or the text have been corrupted. In simple words, Abelard is using greek philosophy by saying that if things could not be understood logically, then they are caused by human error. However, if Abelard thinks that the Church has higher authority, he wouldn’t dare question them, let alone argue about the writings in the first place.

Instead, he would judge greek philosophy based on the church’s writings. Furthermore, Clanchy (1997, p.229) states that “Abelard’s Theologia, on the other hand, is written in a debating style”. This proves how Abelard is using Greek Philosophy intensely when arguing since the debating style, which is being argumentative to stimulate critical thinking, is highly used in the Socrates Method. Thus, by having Greek Philosophy as a foundation of his arguments, proves how significant the authority of it in Abelard’s arguments.

Furthermore, the second highest authority on Abelard’s approach is the Bible for he is using Bible quotes as part of his arguments and he practices the Bible’s teachings. For example, Abelard uses Bible lines from Wisdom and Matthew, such as “the saints shall judge nations” and “it is not you who is speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks through you”. According to this, Abelard afterwards makes a hypothesis that it is the writer that lacks spirit causing the lack of understanding on the reader. Therefore, Abelard is still holding onto the Bible’s teaching and blaming the mistake on human error. He still believes of the Spirit of the Father. Moreover, Murray (1997, p.151) states that according to Abelard, we must use knowledge for it is God’s gift. In addition, Abelard believes that “the testimony of the Fathers must be true, but we must examine the evidence we have” (Radice 1974, p.37).

The belief of Knowledge is given by God comes from the Bible and by using this knowledge shows that Abelard is practicing the teaching of the Bible. Furthermore, Abelard says that the Gospels may be experiencing scribal error, but the Church Father still holds far less authority then the bible. Even Though the Bible sometimes contradict each other, Abelard is saying that it is because of human mistakes, not because of the wrong teaching of the Bible since Abelard still applies Bible’s teaching in his arguments. By saying the Church Father holds far less authority is basically the same as saying the Bible or Gospel holds far more authority. Hence, the Bible holds authority in Abelard’s arguments.

Lastly, Bernard is opposing Abelard’s writing and thinking because Abelard is questioning the writings of the Church, which is the main source of Bernard’s faith. According to Bernard (Letters 238, ex.2), “mere human ingenuity is taking on itself to solve everything, and leave nothing to faith.” Faith is not supposed to be questioned for it cannot be solved by human logic and it is above reason. Instead, we must believe and accept that we are only humans with limited capability.

Furthermore, Bernard is mad on Abelard because he is boasting his opinion while disregarding the Church Father’s authority. For Bernard, the Church Fathers are never wrong and Abelard does not have the rights to oppose the Church Fathers because he is merely a monk and he is tainting the Church’s image. Based on Clanchy (1997), “the role of a monk was to weep and not to teach”. Therefore, it is very wrong for Abelard to criticise when he is far inferior than the Church and it is not his job to begin with. Thus, Bernard’s significant antagonism on Abelard is because his work is a threat for the Catholic Church and It’s faith.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in criticising the Church’s writings, Abelard uses Greek Philosophy as the highest authority for he is solving them using theories in Greek Philosophy and he is using logic and a debating style as part of Greek Philosophy. Furthermore, the authority of the Bible is also important because other than stating that the Church holds less authority than the Bible, he applies the Bible’s teaching in his arguments, as well as practising them. As a consequence, Bernard’s wrath on Abelard is risen due to his ignorance on the authority of the Church by questioning them and preferring on his own opinion more when he is only a monk.

Bibliography

1. Abelard, P 2019, Yes and No Extract, Trinity College Foundation Studies, Melbourne.
2. Bernard of Clairvaux 2019, Letters of Bernard of Clairvaux Extract, Trinity College Foundation Studies, Melbourne.
3. Clanchy, MT 1997, Abelard: A Medieval Life, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
4. Murray, VA 1967, Abelard and St. Bernard: A study in twelfth century “modernism”, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
5. Radice, B 1974, ‘Introduction, in P Abelard, The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, Penguin, London and New York, pp.9-55.