Catholic Exchange

Four Things You Need to Know about John Duns Scotus

Every faithful Catholic—if they don’t already—should get to know John Duns Scotus, the 13th century Franciscan whose brilliant flights to the heights of speculative theology earned him the nickname the “Subtle Doctor.”

John Duns Scotus, whose feast day is Saturday, may have earned a permanent place in the pantheon of Catholic theologians if for no other reason than the mark he left on Marian dogma, but his reflections on the nature of divine being and the necessity of the Incarnation—that’s with or without original sin—compel our curiosity. Here are four reasons it’s worth getting to know Scotus.

1. The Immaculate Conception. Perhaps his lasting contribution to the faith and devotion of the Church is in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. To be sure the Church had long believed that Mary had lived a sinless life. (St. Augustine famously declared that “When sin is treated, there can be no inclusion of Mary in the discussion.”) But the question of original sin was a thornier one. Many of the greatest saints of the Church—like St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas—found themselves caught between a theological rock and a hard place. While wanting to affirm her exceptional purity as Mother of God they also did not want to exempt anyone from the need for salvation through Christ.

In the 13th century John Duns Scotus found the solution: Mary was pre-emptively saved from original sin by Christ and therefore was conceived without sin. Scotus argued that if Christ had the power to preserve her from actual sin it would have been fitting for Him to also preserve her from original sin. Somewhat ingeniously, he argued that to maintain otherwise was to detract from Christ as the perfect Mediator. He ended up winning over the Church to his position, although it took many more centuries before this belief received a dogmatic definition, in 1854. (Click here to read an excerpt from Scotus’ argument.)

2. The Necessity of the Incarnation. Scotus believed the Incarnation was the greatest good God had done in the world—perhaps not the most original or controversial position. But the questions this truth raised for him took him to new heights in theological speculation. The Church has long understood the Incarnation at the center of God’s redemptive plan for mankind and all creation, as indeed it was. But what if there had been no need for redemption? What if there had never been a fall from an original state of grace? Would there still have been an Incarnation? For Scotus, it was unthinkable that such a great good was somehow contingent on humanity sinning. He concluded: “To think that God would have given up such a task had Adam not sinned would be quite unreasonable! I say, therefore, that the fall was not the cause of Christ’s predestination and that if no one had fallen, neither the angel nor man in this hypothesis Christ would still have been predestined in the same way.”

3. Divine Being as Infinity. Scotus contributed much to our understanding of God’s being. For Scotus, God was the wholly other and infinite. He challenged his students—then and now—to ponder what it really means to say that God is infinite. Usually, when we think of something as infinite we think of extensive infinity, according to Scotus: the line that goes on forever, an infinite series of numbers or quantities, the vastness of space, eternity, and so on. Scotus wanted us to think about intensive infinity—an infinity of degrees that goes far beyond mere extensive infinity. It’s in this context that we can speak of God as infinitely good, or infinitely powerful. And Scotus pushed this insight yet further. For Scotus, as one scholar explains, God has infinity as his “intrinsic way of existing.” (For a selection of Scotus’ writing on this topic, click here.)

4. Will and intellect. While Aquinas privileged the intellect over the will, Scotus assigned primacy to the will, conventional wisdom holds. (There’s more to it, of course.) Scotus therefore placed emphasis on loving God over knowing about Him. This departure from Aquinas had some intriguing implications. One is his contention that the beatific vision was not the highest form of happiness to be achieved (in heaven). Instead, Scotus prefers to talk about “beatific love.” As one historian puts it, “St. Thomas taught that the intuitive contemplation of the Divine Essence in the beatific vision is the principal and indeed the essential element in man’s final happiness: Scotus teaches that it is by the act of perfect love of God in the next life that final happiness is to be attained.”

A dunce for Christ

Later generations of European thinkers—particularly Renaissance humanists and Protestant so-called Reformers—would scoff at Scotus and the scholastic method of theology he employed, which sometimes seemed to lose itself in seemingly arcane and trivial distinctions. Their derision of Scotus is the origin of our word “dunce” today.  To be sure the scholastic method was not without some limitations, but Scotus showed us just how far it could take us in penetrating into the deepest mysteries of God. May we all follow his example in being dunces for Christ.

image: © Raimond Spekking / CC BY-SA 3.0 (via Wikimedia Commons)

Comments

11 responses to “Four Things You Need to Know about John Duns Scotus”

  1. Rational Conclusions Avatar
    Rational Conclusions

    A guy well-intentioned and educated for his time but whose theology is vitiated by evolution and reality. Added details are available.

  2. JMC Avatar
    JMC

    The premise about the Incarnation occurring whether or not man had sinned is dealt with by Our Lady herself by the revelations she gave to Mary of Agreda, in “Mystical City of God.” Had man not sinned, Jesus still would have been born of Mary and walked among us, but he wouldn’t have had to suffer and die, because in such a world, suffering and death would not even have existed and would have been unknown concepts. The idea of Christ walking among us even if we had retained original innocence is something that ought to be taught more, because, if nothing else, it underscores His love for us even more clearly than His Passion does. He suffered and died to redeem us because He loves us, but, given a race that had no need of redemption, the idea of God lowering Himself to the level of a creature is even more mind-boggling.

  3. Uncle Miltie 615 Avatar
    Uncle Miltie 615

    Please, go on. What are these added details?

  4. John Keating Avatar
    John Keating

    Given that he still has an impact in philosophy, especially after Heidegger, I really am having a hard time wrapping my mind around what you’re saying. “Can you expand?” he asked in hopes that this wasn’t another internet atheist argument starting.

  5. Macarons & Sakura Tea Avatar

    It awes and amazes me each time I recall how ‘Aquero’ made herself known to an innocent child (“Que soy era Immaculada Councepciou.”). St. Bernadette did not even understand what it (IC) meant and had to repeatedly say it in order not to forget whilst heading hurriedly to Fr. Peyramale’s place. The Jesuit theologian Fr. Xavier-Marie le Bachelet nicely put Bd. JDS’s argument in this way: “There are two kinds of ransom: one is ransom paid for an individual already prisoner‚ redemption by liberation; the other is ransom paid even before the acquired right of servitude is exercised‚ redemption by preservation. In making an anticipated application of his merits to his Mother to preserve her from the taint of original sin‚ which as a daughter of Adam she had naturally to incur‚ Jesus Christ became more fully her Redeemer. Far from being diminished‚ the excellence of Redemption is enhanced by Mary’s privilege.”

  6. pbecke Avatar
    pbecke

    Fascinating. Thanks, Stephen.

  7. lee faber Avatar
    lee faber

    Very nice, Stephen. Thanks for the link.

  8. Sygurd Jonfski Avatar
    Sygurd Jonfski

    “the 13th Franciscan” – like “The 13th Warrior”? 😎

  9. noelfitz Avatar
    noelfitz

    Whenever I see Stephen Beale has written an article I know it will be sound and uplifting.

    But….

    The theologian here must be distinguished from John Scot(t)us Eriugena,
    the Irish scholar and theologian. As an Irishman I need not stress who is the more important.

    I
    wonder was the incarnation necessary, I do not think it was. For God
    all things are possible, and to constrain him is inappropriate.

    This
    article considers the relative importance of the intellect and will,
    reminding me of the ‘Wizard of Oz’, where the scarecrow wants a brain
    and
    the tinman a heart. I support the greater importance of the
    brain/intellect as one cannot love what one does not know. Thus I would
    support Aquinas over Bonaventure and John Duns Scotus.

  10. kelso Avatar
    kelso

    Very good article. How did it go: He was able (potuit); it was fitting (decuit) therefore He did (fecit). If you will pardon me for adding one more contribution of Dons Scotus. It was opposed to the Tomistic/ Aristotelian view of “person.” Saint Thomas, from Aristotle, held that the individual matter in man, joined to the soul made the complete person. Hence, he denied that the separated souls were fully persons. (It is in his Summa contra Gentiles, I believe). Aquinas did not deny that angels were persons because they were immaterial spirits and complete without matter. Scotus held that person is the “thisness” of the rational being (haceitas), angels or men.

Leave a Reply