I just finished “The Name of the Rose” this morning. It was good, but you have to be in the mood for really Catholic book. A lot of the plot revolves around different orders (Benedictines, Franciscans), heretical movements, and various political intrigues involving the papacy, emperors, and various power bases in the cities. There is a fair amount of theological discussion, at times the characters break down and argue and fight about them. The main theological issue that dominates the book and drives the plot reminds me a bit of a book that I only read a part of during my trip to Greece.
I found “The Principles of Orthodox Spirituality” in a bookstore in Athens. It was a religious bookstore with about two shelves of English titles on it, this being one of them. Seeing it, I thought that my friend Dana would enjoy it. She’s an Episcopal that is fascinated by Catholics. She also studied Russian for a while and so I figured she might be intrigued by the Orthodox churches as well. I read a few chapters while I was in Greece. It was a bit of a struggle to read since I’m not used to reading theology, but I did get a few interesting tidbits from it. The thing that struck me was the quick differentiation that the book made between the Catholic churches (Roman and otherwise) and the Orthodox ones. In a nutshell, the author claimed that the Orthodox fathers had, unlike the Romans, rejected the Aristotelian approach to theology and God. I consider it kind of odd since this particular church started in Greece… I don’t think that they rejected logic all together, but they do not depend on it to make their theology coherent. I could be wrong about this, but it was the general gist of what I read. Anyway, that struck me because I had never really thought that there was much difference between Catholics and the Orthodox churches, but I guess there is. It intrigued me because as much as I admire Catholics (most of the people that I have known that I could call exemplary Christians have been Catholic), their theology, as coherent as it is, relies on some sometimes torturous logic. In addition, in years past many of the decisions to label things as heresies (when not motivated by political issues) were based on exacting logical arguments on what was and was not logically consistent with church teachings. If the Orthodox theology could avoid some of that, I would find it much more appealing.
“The Name of the Rose” certainly highlights the dangers of logic mixed with religion. Granted, it was only a danger to people that were extremely well read in not only the early church fathers, but in the classic philosophers as well. In addition, their position in the church and their placement in the timeline of church history also were determining factors when it came to how “dangerous” these ideas were. The worldwide impact of these ideas has long since past, but it can still crop up in the thoughts of thoughtful people who may be overeducated. I, of course, have no idea who those people could be (ahem), but I think that it could be a good read for people that are interested in that sort of thing…
Oh, one other thing. About 4/5ths of the way through it, I realized that I had been told, or had read how the people were dying in the book years before. That kind of pissed me off as the murder mystery element had been ruined for me. Still, I knew the how, which allowed me to figure out the who, but I still didn’t know why. I won’t ruin the ending for anyone, but even if you do know the how, it takes the entire book to explain the why…