By Brenda Abbott
Three years before his death in 1984, Eric Doyle, a Franciscan friar and scholar of the Province of the Immaculate Conception in England, wrote:
A study of developments in Christology over the past thirty years has convinced me that the Franciscan Order ought to enter into a more sustained and extensive dialogue with its theological tradition, especially in the period from the conversion of St Francis to the death of Duns Scotus. I believe we possess a treasure of inestimable riches. The Franciscan theological tradition has a distinctive, indeed unique approach to reality which has a relevance now greater than ever before….
My plea is therefore that we initiate a fresh dialogue with our theological past. It will bring us speedily into fruitful dialogue with our own time.[1]
To the twenty-first-century Franciscan mind this statement may no longer seem novel and the need for Doyle’s plea redundant, for the sought-after dialogue has been underway for the last twenty years and continues to flourish. It is a felicitous development in the history of the Franciscan Order which would have pleased Doyle enormously, but which belies a past at times arduous, a past which Doyle inherited and worked indefatigably to change. He may even be described as the ‘hidden architect’ of so many elements now regarded as truly Franciscan, re-discovered traits of the tradition which have, through his work, become common patrimony, and upon which others have subsequently built.
That the plea should have arisen in the first place was due to more than a century of unpropitious circumstances during which the Franciscan theological tradition had, for a number of reasons, become marginalised. The Neo-Scholasticism of the nineteenth century, which was reinforced by the perceived threat of Modernism in the early twentieth century, led to the dominance of Thomism in the teaching of theology, which in turn created unfavourable conditions for the Franciscan School. Whilst never condemned by the Catholic Church, the Franciscan School did not receive the same endorsement as the Thomistic School and at times its orthodoxy was even called into question. Within the Franciscan Order itself this infelicitous situation led to what has been described as an ‘institutional amnesia’ and a ‘containment of the intuition’[2] of the Franciscan intellectual tradition, and such was the situation which Doyle encountered when he joined the Order in 1954. In short, he entered at a time when the Order’s theological tradition appeared to have become buried, even regarded by some as no longer relevant, and was struggling to make its voice heard and to find adequate expression in its external structures.
The role that Doyle played in initiating this ‘fresh dialogue’ and assisting in its fruition is testament not only to his ability as an outstanding Franciscan scholar and intellectual giant, but also to his singular gift as a charismatic teacher, master communicator and lover of Franciscan evangelical life, who had the vision and courage to pursue and implement the true charism of the Order at a turning point in its history. It was the combination of these two elements which enabled him to be so successful in his endeavours.
Doyle was the key figure in the English Province who, after Vatican Council II with the call of Perfectae Caritatis[3] to religious orders that they should once again return to the charisms of their founders, was instrumental in shaping the present-day interpretation of the Franciscan School. His profound understanding, re-discovery and teaching of Franciscan theology and spirituality have had a real and lasting effect on Franciscan life globally. His influence, for example, on the current work begun in March 2000 by the Commission for the Retrieval of the Franciscan Intellectual Tradition (CFIT) in the English-speaking world, has been acknowledged.[4] It is a tradition in which Doyle himself firmly stands, and were he alive today, he would most certainly have been a driving force at the forefront of this retrieval, bringing new ideas on its contemporary relevance for the Church and world. A cursory glance at Franciscan publications in the last twenty years shows that his influence continues and that he may well be described as a hidden architect of the Movement for the Retrieval of the Franciscan Intellectual Tradition.[5]
Doyle’s work began during a period of the Church’s history which was not conducive to independent thought, and at a time when the idea of study for a Franciscan was still regarded in many quarters with suspicion and not truly in the spirit of the Order.[6] But his formidable intellect, years of self-directed study, and training as an ecclesiastical historian enabled him to see that the restrictive ‘romanticism’, which had come to predominate in the Order, was depriving the world of a doctrine that ‘is as beautiful as it is original and as inspiring as it is profound’.[7] He is referring here to the Christology of the Franciscan School, which found its culmination in the teaching of John Duns Scotus on the Primacy of Christ, which had become largely neglected and forgotten, and had encountered indifference and even hostility. Doyle found himself not only explaining and expounding Scotus’ teaching on the Primacy of Christ, but also having to justify his position as a scholar who belongs intrinsically to the Franciscan Tradition. That is to say, Doyle had to demonstrate that the locus of the Franciscan charism was to be found not only up until the death of St Francis, but that it continued to develop and find expression for a further hundred years after his death in the work of other Franciscan scholars, most notably St Bonaventure and Blessed John Duns Scotus.
As Seamus Mulholland OFM has explained, Doyle had ‘grasped the complementarity of Franciscan Spirituality and Franciscan Theology and Philosophy’. He had ‘grasped that what Francis had experienced in mysticism and poetic creativity, Bonaventure theologised, and Scotus metaphysicised’.[8] For Doyle the two were intrinsically linked:
From Francis’ deep faith in the crucified and glorified Saviour, there emerged the Christocentric theology of the Franciscan School; and from his holiness, which sought to imitate Christ in every detail of his life, there developed the distinctiveness and originality of Franciscan spirituality. The totally Christocentric character of St Francis’ faith and holiness, led to a close bond being formed between Franciscan theology and Franciscan spirituality, and so much so, that one is inconceivable without the other. There can be no such thing as a purely intellectual or academic truth for a Franciscan, though the method by which he arrives at it must be rigorously scientific and ruthlessly precise. This may be a roundabout way of saying that truth is always about someone. In any case, in the Franciscan vision of the world, theology flows into spirituality by an inner dynamism, that is to say, knowledge is always fulfilled in wisdom, and spirituality is ever guided and nourished by theology. The spirit of St Francis as much pervades the teachings of the doctors of the Order as it does the writings and experiences of its mystics.[9]
This Christocentric vision and understanding of the Franciscan School was the central tenet in Doyle’s life without which it is impossible to understand the man or his vision. Franciscan to the core, this Christology inspired the way Doyle lived, the way he worked and the way he ‘did’ theology, because for him, like the true Franciscan he was, theology of necessity always included a practical dimension, as Mulholland explained:
And this is the final point on the cruciform that is the shape of his theological quest: the impact that Francis of Assisi had on him personally as a Franciscan doing theology. I say ‘doing’ theology because the Franciscan theological and intellectual tradition he had inherited, the tradition of Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, was that theology was ‘practical’ and its purpose to lead us to union with God in this life.[10]
So it was that Doyle did not shy away from reminding those within the Order of their heritage and of their grave responsibility for the future, for it was a heritage and a responsibility which had been all but lost in the minds and formation of many Franciscans during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and of which many within the Order were therefore unaware at the time that Doyle was teaching and writing. Twelve years after the Council had ended, Doyle was still addressing this issue.
Any study or presentation of the original Franciscan charism that limits itself to the life of St Francis not only misrepresents that charism, but also does disservice and injustice to the Church by depriving her of what belongs to her by right. The Christological teaching of the Franciscan School is as much an essential element of the Franciscan charism as the fraternal character of the early Order.[11]
And Doyle goes on to quote Zachary Hayes OFM, whose words about St Bonaventure he says, may very aptly be applied to the Christological doctrine of the whole Franciscan School:
Those of us who stand heirs to that Tradition have a weighty obligation to see that such a Tradition be not lost and that it be brought to bear in our world today. That it should have come to be deposited with such clarity and power in the Order that claims the poor, simple man of Assisi as its founder will no doubt puzzle those who tend to limit the meaning of that Order in an unhistorical and arbitrary way. That its outstanding spokesman should be a Franciscan does not make it the private possession of the Order. For what the Order carries here, as in an earthen vessel, is a treasure for the whole of the Church and a heritage for mankind as such.[12]
Doyle laboured intensely to make the ‘treasure for the whole of the Church’ known and appreciated once more. Only since the Second Vatican Council, however, has the Franciscan School really had the opportunity to flourish again and its own unique and valuable contribution to theology been acknowledged. Following a long period of history during which Scotus had been regarded in some quarters with suspicion and been much maligned,[13] the recognition of his outstanding contribution to theology and doctrine[14] finally came in the form of a significant number of statements from three recent popes. Scotus was praised first of all in 1966 by Pope Paul VI in his apostolic letter Alma Parens.[15] Pope John Paul II was a great admirer of Scotus, visiting his tomb in Cologne in 1980, honouring him again on a visit to Scotland in 1982, and describing him as ‘a pillar of Catholic theology’ in his address to Members of the Scotus Commission in 2002.[16] In his apostolic letter of 2008 marking 700 years since Scotus’ death, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of ‘the unique doctrine of this Blessed … which we consider principally worthy to be researched and taught in our own time’[17] and again, in an address at a general audience in July 2010 he spoke of the ‘intensely “Christocentric” [theological vision which] opens us to contemplation, to wonder, to gratitude’.[18] Doyle, who had ardently desired to see Scotus canonised, would have been delighted that Scotus’ reputation has at last been restored, and that he has finally been honoured for his teaching and the sanctity of his life by his beatification on 20 March 1993 by Pope John Paul II in Cologne, where he lies is buried in the Minoritenkirche.
Doyle’s faith and theology were deeply grounded in the scriptures, in tradition, in the Fathers of the Church, and in his Franciscan heritage. In addition to these he read and digested the works of the great theologians, whose own ideas contributed to the vast array of issues which his enquiring mind never ceased to explore. Mulholland has described Doyle as ‘an intellectual multi-tasker’ commenting that this was so long ‘before the word found its way into our everyday vocabulary and usage.’[19] Commenting on Doyle’s theology he writes:
…you see the mind of a theological explorer at work; a mind that constantly asked questions, that surveyed many vast theological and Franciscanological landscapes, and traversed them with eloquence, erudition, and profundity of insight, all of which were worn so lightly on the sleeve.[20]
Indeed, Doyle did wear his immense learning lightly, and for him it was never a question of learning for its own sake. It had to have relevance for the present. In an unassuming manner, an attitude of deep faith, genuine humility, and a life rooted in contemplative prayer, Doyle brought his vast knowledge to bear on contemporary concerns, be that in his lectures, homilies or writings. Alcuin Coyle OFM,[21] a close friend of Doyle’s, ably summarised his approach in this way:
Though he was a very gentle friar, Eric was a person of great conviction — always searching and exposing his ideas on human and contemporary issues. He generously shared his variety of gifts and talents, particularly well-remembered were those of joy and contemplation. These were readily revealed in his learned lectures and inspiring homilies, which were as entertaining as his conversations.[22]
It was precisely this combination of learning and the need for contemporary relevance which enabled him to comment so astutely and bring fresh observations to many areas of the Church’s life, whether in its understanding of religious life, its ecumenical efforts, its attitude towards the environment, to evangelisation, or the position of lay people, and particularly of women, in the Church. He wrote and commented on topics which were of real concern to all people but not always easy to write about or to which there were any easy answers. He wrote with limpid honesty on prayer, on pain and suffering, on death, forgiveness and evil in the world. In short, he wrote with originality and clarity on the perennial issues which affect all humanity, and it was his willingness to do so, and his constructive responses to these issues, which made him such a well-loved and sought-after figure. As Ninian Arbuckle OFM commented:
It was because of the strength of his faith that he was able to bring so many new and challenging aspects of Christ to the fore — in his writings, his lectures, and in the talks and conferences that gave so much inspiration and delight to so many of those who were privileged to hear him.[23]
In many ways Doyle has been regarded as being ahead of his time. One example of his far-sighted approach, some twenty years before others were doing so, may be seen in his having spoken of St Francis as a vernacular theologian and of the need to return to his writings as the source for a real understanding of Franciscan theology.
This is clear from Doyle’s lecture notes delivered to Franciscan students. His entire course is based on this approach. He writes:
The holiness of St Francis was a gift to humanity. His life remains a mystery of God’s enlightening and strengthening grace. If we desire to enter this mystery, we can do nothing better than begin with the Saint’s own writings which put us in close contact with his experience of God in Jesus Christ.[24]
Anyone with even the tiniest glimmer of theological acumen cannot fail to be impressed and inspired by the theological significance of his [St Francis’] life and the theological content of his writings. The unity of orthodoxy and orthopraxy in his life is remarkable.[25]
Doyle was also among the first to treat of St Clare and especially of her as a woman in her own right. He comments:
For too long Clare has been dismissed or given a second-rate treatment. Clare’s writings and biographical treatment is absolutely Franciscan.[26]
The work done in these areas since Doyle’s death is considerable and the literature now extensive, with ever more works appearing, particularly on St Clare.
Another example of Doyle’s foresight is to be found in a 1978 article about the nature and future of the papacy. The principal idea in this article of an ‘evangelical papacy’ is considered in depth later in the book, but it is worth highlighting here Doyle’s idea of establishing a World Youth Day, some nine years before the first event in fact took place. Doyle had written:
It would be a venture of tremendous significance if the pope were to invite the youth of the world to come to Rome to spend, say, three days with him reflecting and praying on the theme ‘Prayer and the Future of Humanity’. John Paul II has fired the imagination of a large sector of the world’s youth. We should not be sceptical about a suggestion like this. For many young people all over the world make their way each year to Taizé. Were the pope to issue this invitation there would be an overwhelming response.[27]
True to form, Doyle even suggested how the whole event might be organised and what the key elements would be, including an address by the pope ‘proclaiming what the Christian gospel teaches about the nature of human beings: their origin, purpose and destiny’.[28] Throughout Doyle’s writings this theme of ‘origin, purpose and destiny’, that is, the problem of meaning which, with ‘greater or lesser intensity… plagues us all’,[29] is in many ways the main pre-occupation of his writings, because ultimately, for him, this is the most basic question which theology needs to address. This theme and the answers which he provides are the subject of this book.
Doyle’s work is all the more remarkable because of the degree to which he was working in relative isolation. Whilst he was clearly living his Franciscan vocation with other friars in community and was in constant collaboration and interaction with other academics,[30] his ideas, perhaps because of their far-sighted nature, were not always fully understood or appreciated at the time.[31] Conceivably these conditions even contributed to his originality and allowed his creativity as a theologian to find expression in the many forms in which it manifested itself. But this creativity also required an environment conducive to intellectual enquiry and it was fortuitous that the opportunity afforded by Vatican II allowed Doyle’s genius to flourish.
[1] Doyle, ‘St Francis and Franciscan Theology’, The Cord 31.8 (1981), pp. 226-27.
[2] J. Chinnici, ‘Institutional Amnesia and Resources for Franciscan Theology’, The Franciscan Intellectual Tradition: Washington Theological Union, ed. E. Saggau (New York: The Franciscan Institute, 2002), p.135.
[3] ‘Decree on the Renewal of Religious Life’, p.612.
[4] In email correspondence with me J. Chinnici (President Emeritus and Professor of History at the Franciscan School of Theology at the University of San Diego, California) wrote: ‘I think the perspective you bring to the study is accurate. Eric was a forerunner. … he would be a pioneer in the development of the need to relate the tradition to contemporary concerns. He was ahead of his time.’ (25.04.13).
[5] See, for example, The Franciscan Heritage Series (Franciscan Institute Publications) where Doyle is cited in several books. Also K. Moffat OSF(Director of the Office of Franciscan Charism Services in Aston, Pennsylvania and General Editor of the Custodians series) wrote: ‘I never had Eric as a teacher but surely used his work. You are so right about his being thirty years ahead of his time. In this moment of retrieval, we so need Eric’s wisdom and vision.’ (04.07.2012).
[6] Doyle, ‘Seven-hundred-and-fifty Years Later: Reflections on the Franciscan Charism’, Review for Religious 36.6 (June 1977), p.24, where Doyle writes about the issue of what he describes as the ‘dull anti-intellectual element in the Order’.
[7] Ibid., p.15. ‘Romanticism’ is the term which Doyle uses to describe the view taken by those who believe that the Franciscan charism ended with the death of St Francis.
[8] S. Mulholland, ‘The Character of Eric Doyle’s Theological Endeavour: Trinity, Christology, Ecclesiology, Franciscanology’, A Pilgrimage Through the Franciscan Intellectual Tradition, eds. A. Cirino and J. Raischl (Canterbury: FISC, 2008), p.372.
[9] E. Doyle and D. McElrath, ‘St Francis of Assisi and the Christocentric Character of Franciscan Life and Doctrine’, Franciscan Christology, ed. D. McElrath (New York: Franciscan Institute Publications, 1980), pp.2–3.
[10] Mulholland, ‘The Character of Eric Doyle’s Theological Endeavour’, p.371.
[11] Doyle, ‘Reflections on the Franciscan Charism’, p.23.
[12] Z. Hayes, ‘Toward a Philosophy of Education in the Spirit of St Bonaventure’, Proceedings of the Seventh Centenary Celebration of the Death of Saint Bonaventure (New York: The Franciscan Institute, 1975), pp.26–27.
[13] Doyle, Duns Scotus – A Man for All Time: The Seventh Centenary of the Birth of Blessed John Duns Scotus, pp.7–8.
[14] Scotus defended the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady for almost six hundred years before the definition of the dogma by Pius IX in 1854.
[15] Paul VI, Epist. apost. Alma Parens, in Acta Apostolica Sedis 58 (1966), pp.609–14. English version: Apostolic Letter … on the occasion of the Second Scholastic Congress held at Oxford and Edinburgh on the Seventh Centenary of the Birth of John Duns Scotus (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1966).
[16] Address of John Paul II, ‘To the Members of the Scotus Commission’, 16 February. 2002. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/february/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020216_frati-minori_en.html.
[17] Benedict XVI, ’Apostolic Letter to Cardinal Joachim Meisner on the Occasion of the Seventh Centenary of the Death of Blessed John Duns Scotus’, 28 October 2008. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20081028_duns-scoto.html.
[18] Benedict XVI, General Audience (07.07.2010). L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 14 July 2010, p.3.
[19] Mulholland, ‘The Character of Eric Doyle’s Theological Endeavour,’ p.366.
[20] Ibid., p.367.
[21] Alcuin Coyle died in 2008. He was a former President of the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago and President of the International Commission overseeing the renewal of the Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum in Rome in 1983. He and Doyle had first met at the Antonianum in Rome c.1962 when Doyle was studying, and Coyle had been appointed as one of four friars to serve in the General Secretariat for the first two sessions of Vatican Council II under both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.
[22] A. Coyle, ‘Fraternal Farewell’, MHQ, p.600.
[23] N. Arbuckle, ‘Homily Preached on 7 Nov. 1984 at the Memorial Mass’, MHQ, p.25. Arbuckle knew Doyle from the time he joined the Order in 1954. He was also his Guardian in Canterbury 1973–81.
[24] From Doyle’s teaching notes.
[25] Doyle, ‘St Francis and Theology’, The Cord 32.4 (1982), p.109. See also ‘St Francis of Assisi and the Christocentric Character’, p.4 where Doyle writes: ‘To discover Franciscan Christology in its origin and in its process, it is necessary to study his writings, understand them in their context and remember how multifaceted they were.’ B. McGinn, The Flowering of Mysticism: Men and Women in the New Mysticism: 1200–1350 (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1998), pp.51–54 and T. Matura, Francis of Assisi: The Message in His Writings (New York: The Franciscan Institute, 2004) and others are generally credited with having spoken first of St Francis as a vernacular theologian.
[26] Doyle, ‘Franciscan Sources’ (teaching notes).
[27] Doyle, ‘A Theology of the Papacy: Lives for a New Perspective’, Doctrine and Life (Dec. 1978), p.629.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Doyle, ‘St Francis of Assisi and the Christocentric Character’, p.1.
[30] Naturally this included Franciscans who were also academics, but many did not share Doyle’s passion for Franciscan Studies. Their expertise lay in other areas, for example Scripture or Ecclesiology. Doyle also taught in the theology department at the University of Kent and had many contacts there, though none with a Franciscan specialism.
[31] In conversation with me Ignatius Kelly OFM commented that it was only with the benefit of hindsight that he realised that matters on which he and Doyle had not agreed in the past, he later came to see as correct. Doyle was simply ahead of others in their thinking and understanding.