Welcome to Off the Page and Happy New Year. Phew,
season three, here we go. And before we begin,
I wanted to thank each of you listeners from
the bottom of... bottom of my heart, for your
support of this podcast. You may have heard in
December that it was decided Franciscan media
would be closing its doors, including the publishing
of the oldest Catholic magazine in the country,
St. Anthony Messenger, after 130 years. I assume
the episode 26 with Father Michael Calabria would
probably be the final episode of Off the Page.
But a little later, it was decided that the podcast
that our daily newsletter and our site as well
will continue into 2026. And this is all because
of you and your support. So thank you so much
from the bottom of my heart for listening, commenting,
sharing these episodes. I'm a writer who kind
of stumbled into this podcasting space, but I've
grown to love it. I think it's such an important
medium today in both our media and spiritual
landscapes. And there's something as well about
podcasting that is uniquely Franciscan in its
elevation of relationship and listening. And
I really do love how conversation can become
a vehicle for contemplation. some of life's deepest
mysteries. I think dialogue can help make the
beauty of Franciscan theology and the Franciscan
way of life accessible. And even though podcasting
is undoubtedly a little rough around the edges,
it's unfolding in real time, it's unpolished.
I think it's such an interesting medium because
that kind of authenticity, I hope, I'm aiming
for, and the exchange as well between two or
more people who are talking with each other,
it grounds whatever we're discussing in lived
experience, which is so important for the Franciscan
spirit. So thank you again. Thanks for listening.
Thanks for sharing these episodes and for making
your voice heard as well. It's very humbling
to be in this position. And I hope we can keep
bringing you episodes that support you on your
spiritual journey throughout this year and into
the future as well. So there will be some changes
in 2026, both good, I hope. The first is that
we are really going to increase production. Season
one had 10 episodes. Season two had 16 episodes.
And our goal is to produce two episodes a month
through the first half of 2026. And then we'll
see where we're at. Look for a new episode. episode
to drop every other friday and be on the lookout
as well for a name change for a rebrand we will
be changing this name from off the page which
was created when franciscan media had its book
line we'll be changing it to franciscan spirit
My recommendation right now would be to go ahead
and subscribe to Off The Page if you haven't
done so already on whatever platform you use
for listening to your podcasts. So if you're
listening on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube,
Amazon. hit that subscribe button and as long
as you subscribe i believe the name change should
be updated automatically for you when we make
this transition that way you don't miss a single
episode in 2026 so okay let's get into it Today's
guest is Dr. Mary Beth Ingham. She is a renowned
scholar on the medieval Franciscan philosopher
John Dunst Scotus, whose theological insights
will be the focus of this episode. Sister Mary
Beth is a professor emerita at... Loyola Marymount
University in the philosophy department, and
she's formerly a professor of philosophical theology
at the Franciscan School of Theology. She holds
a doctorate in medieval philosophy from the University
of Freiburg in Switzerland and has published
widely on the thought of Franciscan master Blessed
John Dunst Scotus. Her recent publications include
Scotus for Dunst's great title, An Introduction
to the Subtle Doctor, rejoicing in the works
of the Lord, beauty in the Franciscan tradition,
and the harmony of goodness, mutuality, and moral
living in John Duns Scotus. In her current research,
she argues that the spirituality of beauty is
at the heart of the Franciscan intellectual tradition.
You are in for a real treat with this episode.
To begin the year like this is a great blessing
to me. Anytime I read SCOTUS, frankly, I feel
like an idiot. An idiota, as Francis said. But
I found him to be an incredibly important theologian
whose insights have been overlooked throughout
church history and today as well. And we all
have Sister Mary Beth to thank for both the rediscovery
of his work and for making it accessible to each
of us. This episode focuses in on four major
theological contributions from John Duns Scotus.
Of course, there's more. This episode focuses
on four, and I believe that these four components
that we've chosen to focus on could change everything
about our own spiritual trajectories today. So
without further ado, here is Sister Mary Beth
Ingham. Enjoy. Sister Mary Beth Ingham, thanks
for joining me on Off the Page. Thank you very
much for the invitation. I look forward to it.
Yeah, no, this is a real joy for me. And the
focus, of course, is going to be Blessed John
Dunst Scotus and his work. And some listening
may not be familiar with who Blessed John Dunst
Scotus is and why he's important today. Can you
begin by talking about who he was and why, in
your view, he's relevant today? Yes. Well, he
was a Franciscan friar. born in Scotland in the
little town of Duns. And his first name was John.
So that's why he's called John Duns Scotus. And
of course, Scotus in Latin would mean the Scot.
So it's really John of Duns in Scotland. He was
born right around 1265. We're not quite sure
of his actual birth date, but he did die in 1308.
So he's the generation of Franciscan thinkers
after Bonaventure. So kind of a big piece of
the 13th century into the 14th century. Very
important historical moment. It was, because
as many know, Bonaventure was a contemporary
of Thomas Aquinas. And so SCOTUS represents not
that same generation, but the following generation.
So the questions he's going to be dealing with
are a little bit different. It's a different
context. A lot's been going on in the 50 years
between the two generations. So oftentimes it's
difficult to understand Scotus because scholars
come to Scotus through the lens of the way Aquinas
and Bonaventure might treat a problem or see
a problem as important. And I think that makes
it difficult because Scotus is really responding
to the moments, the arguments and the questions
of his day. And he's building on the earlier.
thinkers. And in some cases, I think actually
he agrees with them, but the context is different.
And so it sounds like he's doing something different.
But I think if we take the time to go more deeply
into his moment in history and how he comes at
it, there's a lot of parallels. There's a lot
of resonance. He died at the age of 42. which
means really he didn't have time in his life,
his young life, to finalize a lot of what he's
writing about. And this is really what makes
him so difficult to thinker, because it's very
unclear sometimes where he stands on a given
issue. You know, Father Alan Walter, a very famous
Franciscan scholar of the 20th century, said,
when we read Scotus, what we're reading is a
mind at work. He's like he's thinking out loud.
And so he's opining about a variety of ways to
answer a question. And what makes it really frustrating
sometimes is he never tells you what he really
thinks. Yeah. And so you're sort of left, ha,
now what do we do? Right. And so, you know, in
some ways he's teaching us how to think. in the
way that Thomas Aquinas teaches us how to think.
Now, of course, the difference with Thomas Aquinas
is he was able, he lived longer. He was able
to bring his arguments to some conclusions. And
of course, that's what we find in the Summa Theologica
and the Summa Contra Gentiles. Aquinas thinks
it through and comes to a conclusion so we know
what he thinks. Scotus just keeps thinking it
through. And in many ways, he could have used
a good editor. Because apparently, from the testimonies
of his students, he was an absolutely fabulous
teacher and lecturer. And he really prompted
students to think rather than a good writer or
a clear writer. So it does make him a difficult
person, but an important person. So I'll get
to your second question. Important person because
he offers the Franciscan vision. toward an open
universe, which is really where we are today
in the 21st century with the discoveries of science
and quantum physics and all that. We have a more
open understanding of the universe as an evolving
and developing reality. Since Scotus is a thinker
who engages in evolving and developing ways of
coming at things, there's more resonance in his
approach. And then if we couple that with the
fact that he was a Franciscan. He will be articulating
the vision of Francis of Assisi, most notably
personified by our own late Pope Francis. This
ecological moment, this moment of sustainability,
this moment of solidarity toward immigrants and
refugees and all of those in need. There are
aspects of our present. That situation that offer
us doorways into the thought of SCOTUS that make
him a very interesting dialogue partner doesn't
give us all the answers. So we're not going to
wear T -shirts and we're not going to have little
bobbleheads of SCOTUS running around. But we
are going to say, here's a man who deserves a
second look. And the fact that he's difficult
shouldn't make us hesitate. It should just make
us realistic about what are we able to understand
today. given our place in history as distinct
from his place in history. A final note, he was
beatified by Pope John Paul II, Pope St. John
Paul II in 1994. And so he is a blessed, which
basically means that all of his teachings are
worth studying. They're authentic to the Catholic
tradition. And they represent, as I said, another
voice in the Franciscan intellectual and spiritual
tradition who's worth knowing. Why is he called
the subtle doctor? Well, he's called the subtle
doctor because he makes very, very subtle distinctions.
And he never comes at a question without laying
out or playing out all the subtle differences
that can be present in any one way of approaching
things. So, you know, he never met an argument
he didn't like. So he's always going. deeper
and deeper and deeper, making subtle distinctions
in ways that can be confusing and also enlightening.
The complexity of his thinking and the kind of
feeling of almost dizziness and disorientation
that you get when reading him, in a sense, it's
kind of its own invitation into mystical thinking
and experiencing, correct? Yes, I think so. And
in fact, you raise an interesting point about
the role of experience in his thought. I had
a personal experience of this insight when I
was struggling with one of his texts, and it
made absolutely no sense to me. And so I thought
to myself, I need to stop trying to make it make
sense. I'm going to go out for a walk. So I went
out for a walk, and during my walk, the insight
came to me or the thought came to me. I wonder
if what he's really trying to do is unpack in
almost a phenomenological way an experience he's
had. And the experience that he's had is an experience
of beauty and the wonder of the created world
as a place of beauty. I came back to my study,
sat down, looked at the text again. It made perfect
sense. So I think this is where he's much more
of an existential. thinker. And by that, I mean,
he takes real situations and tries to unfold.
It's peeling the onion, really. He's trying to
get at all the different levels of nuance that
are present in that particular concrete situation.
If we try to make him too abstract, it's exactly
what you're referring to. It's this sense of
dizzying. What is this man trying to say? But
to ground it, There's an experience behind what
he's talking about. Now, the challenge is, of
course, to get in touch with that experience.
And in my own life, as a scholar of SCOTUS, I've
found the touchstones for his thought predominantly
in the Franciscan stories and in the Franciscan
spiritual tradition. So to come at him with no
sense. of the Franciscan way of thinking about
reality, which is basically grounded in love
and grounded in an abundant way of imagining
God's action in the world, then we get caught
trying to make him make sense. And we make him
make sense according to our ways of thinking
rather than being led by him and questioning
our own approach to say, maybe I can think about
this differently. And if I think about this differently,
I may be able to understand what he's saying.
He's also called the Marian doctor, not just
the subtle doctor, the Marian doctor. And he's
called the Marian doctor because he was the first
to really lay out in a compelling way the arguments
in defense of the Immaculate Conception. And
these were the arguments that were later used
by the Pope in the articulation of the dogma
of the Immaculate Conception in the 19th century.
So one of the reasons he is so popular. among
those who have a deep devotion to the Blessed
Mother is because he's the one who really stratified
and articulated what had been the English Franciscan
approach to the Immaculate Conception. So he's
got both sides of him. He's got the Marian devotion
side, which makes him the Marian doctor, and
then he's got this incredibly challenging philosophical
side that makes him the subtle doctor. Yeah.
Yeah. And I just think it's neat to how, as you
were delving into him, it was your own experience
that helped you to kind of awaken to how experience
was also helping to drive the train of his thought
as well. And, you know, as we discussed leading
up to this episode. Our trajectory for this is
really going to be based around four important
contributions of SCOTUS and why they matter,
why they're relevant today. And one major theme
is one you've already brought up, and that's
this notion of beauty. So can you dive a little
bit deeper into that, perhaps talk about his
own sensibility toward beauty and why this is
a cornerstone to his theology? I'm beginning
to see him more as an artist than a scientist.
And, you know, oftentimes artists and scientists
have a lot in common, especially as they look
at the natural world. They both want to describe
it. They both want to experience it. They often
experience it in very similar ways. I heard the
story one time of a NASA, a group of NASA scientists
at a moonshot. And at the end of it. at the successful
rocket taking off, they all looked at each other,
and the one word that came out of their mouths
was, it was beautiful. It was beautiful. Not
it was fascinating, it was successful, it was
all the kind of categories we have, but there's
a sense that both scientists and artists understand
the world. and you used this term earlier, in
a kind of a mysticism of creation. Now, that's
not pantheism, and it's not making creation God,
but it's a way of experiencing God's presence.
Panentheism, it's often called panentheism, not
pantheism, but panentheism, which really means
that God is deeply present in the world around
us, in all of creation, and that that wholeness
is experienced by us as beauty. And as we try
to wrestle with the categories of beauty and
our own deep emotional response to beauty and
how uplifting it is and how challenging it is,
it calls forth in us a deeper emotional awareness
of what's going on around us. Now, the Franciscan...
spiritual and intellectual tradition is deeply
grounded in love, and it's charged with a kind
of emotional response, you know, compassion,
solidarity. These are all Franciscan terms, and
they belong to other traditions as well, but
they're privileged in the Franciscan tradition
because of the life of St. Francis of Assisi
and how his own attraction toward the lepers.
Early in his life, whereas before he had been
repulsed by the lepers, he had a conversion and
then was able to reach out to them in love. So
to talk about the centrality of beauty is to
enter a world of, I think, more confusion and
more desire to kind of suss out, well, what was
your experience in this? And what was my experience?
What moved me, because it's going to be the experience
of beauty that moves us toward action in the
world, toward ways of responding to those most
in need. I think the whole of beauty calls us
to see the world through a different paradigm.
And it really is not the paradigm of commercialism,
not the paradigm of... competition, but rather
the paradigm of gift and giftedness, that everything
is a gift and that we see it around us as a gift
and we're not called to hoard it or to possess
it. Rather, we're invited to see it as the manifestation
of God's abundant love in the world or God's
extravagant love in the world, and therefore
we're called to share. So, you know, gifts are
meant to be given and passed on and shared they're
not meant to be hoarded. They're not meant to
be, you know, it's like the parable of the talents
that the master gives out all of these talents.
And the one fellow at the end doesn't know what
to do with his talent. He's afraid of the master,
so he buries it in the ground. He's the one that
loses even the talent he has because he didn't
realize it was a gift and he was meant to do
something with it, not to bury it. So I think
the... This Franciscan vision of beauty is also
an invitation to action and response to people
around us. So it's not beauty in the sense of
we often experience beauty in museums and we
go to see art and we, you know, this is wonderful.
And it's not that sense of beauty. It's more
a transcendent experiential sense of those moments
in our lives that are truly transformative. for
us, that we come away saying, I'm a different
person. In the way that falling in love can make
us, suddenly the world is different. Not because
the world is different, the world has always
been there, but because we're different. You
know, the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins, who was
tremendously influenced both by the Franciscan
tradition, but especially by Scotus, he has that
great poem called Hurrah in the Harvest, and
where he says, these things were here. All these
things were here from time, eternity. And the
only thing missing was the beholder. There was
not somebody who actually noticed and actually
paid attention. So the notion of beauty, I think,
for the Franciscans, as I've experienced in my
interaction with them, is an attention to the
The delicate, the small, the ephemeral, the flower
or the sunset, right? That it's here right now.
So it's the present moment. It's here right now.
But in 15 minutes, it'll be different. So there's
all of these values that come through this lens
of beauty. It's not about, you know, what do
I like? What do you like? It's this deeper transcendent
understanding of beauty. as another name for
God. Yes. That it is the experiential, transformative
moment that calls forth a response and a conversion
in us. Yeah, I would invite you to riff on this
more, but as I'm listening to you, I think this
is so important in our own culture, whether you're
a Franciscan or Catholic or have any spiritual
background or not, but this You mentioned emotional
awareness, this kind of idea of, I say idea ironically,
because it's actually the opposite. It's like
actually getting out of your head, which we're
not very good at in the West. We like our ideologies.
As a Christian, I like my theology, philosophy,
you know, but the Franciscan approach to beauty
and SCOTUS's approach to beauty, if I'm hearing
you correctly, I mean. it really invites you
to open your senses to an experience of something.
Yes. And in this attention economy where you're
just always being, you know, everyone's playing
for your attention. Beauty invites us to slow
down and to have an authentic experience with
something that oftentimes you can't quantify,
like you said. It's like falling in love. That's
a beautiful example. You don't really measure
that. No, you can't. You feel it. All you know
is something's happened. Yes, exactly. Do you
have anything to add there? I just think this
idea of the centrality of beauty. I think anyone
listening, regardless of their background, could
benefit from that. Like, hey, open your senses
a little bit more today to experience beauty
and goodness. Any thoughts there? Yes. And I
think, well, a couple of things. First, this
will be a through line as we talk about some
other pieces of SCOTUS. So we're not going to
lose beauty. We're just going to see it as kind
of a big backdrop. But the other thing is, I
think if we think of our world today and we think
of the enormous... challenges we're facing in
our world, the violence, the divisiveness, the
ways in which people are competing for this or
that, the terrible gap or horrendous gap, really,
between those who have and those who don't have.
How do we stay sane? How do we move through our
lives without despairing, without giving up,
without saying, there can't be a God because
this is horrible, and if I were God, I would
make this better? Well, I think God's choice,
and we'll talk more about this, is to give us
freedom and to say, I've given you what you need,
and I want you to be an adult about this. So
the experience of beauty, whatever it is, slowing
down, meditating, practicing mindfulness, all
of the ways that we're able to turn off social
media, stop exposing ourselves to input, input,
input that is just its content, and it turns
us into consumers. That's all we're doing is
consuming things, consuming things. And we think
that makes us satisfied, but it doesn't make
us satisfied. What satisfies us is turning off
the television, turning off the cell phone, putting
it down, going out for a walk, breathing deeply,
taking a moment, engaging in meditative practices
every day where what I'm doing is I'm feeding
my spiritual self, not the self that's being
bombarded by everything that's happening. I can
be a beacon of light and hope for people who
are suffering in situations of hopelessness because
when I'm in that stance of quiet, of inner quiet,
then I can listen. And the Holy Spirit can whisper
actions for me. Why don't I? What about this?
Maybe I'll go volunteer at a soup kitchen. Maybe
I'll start donating food. to places that are
helping. Maybe I'll reach out to the person next
door to me who may not agree with me in political
or social matters, and I'll have a cup of coffee
with them because they're a human being. So it's
building the web of community, but I can't do
that if I'm agitated, if I'm engaged in activism,
if I'm stressed, if it's all about, what do I
do now? What do I do now? Beauty, I think, is
an invitation for us not to ignore what's happening
around us, but to recognize that there's a bigger
spiritual world that I can tap into that will
give me the energy I need and the timing I need
to do, as Francis of Assisi would say, to do
what is mine to do at the moment and not feel
like I've got to fix everything. Because so much
of what's happening in our world today is really
out of our control. What's in my control are
actions that I can engage in each day with the
people around me, and I can bring hope into the
world. And I think this Jubilee Year of Hope
is a perfect time for us to say, how can I be
a beacon of hope? How can I be in my little circle,
in my little world? And can I open my eyes to
ask the question, what does somebody else need,
not what do I need? Yes, exactly. Yeah, beauty
in my own life, or at least daring, trying to
open my senses to beauty, it's kind of helped
me very practically cross that bridge from the
reactivity you're talking about to receptivity.
You know, you mentioned beauty as a gift. You
know, so, well, what do you do with gifts? You
receive a gift. You humbly receive a gift. You
experience that gift. Then you do the same for
others. And beauty really, at least for me, it's
helped to unlock that a little bit more because
like you said, there is so much input. There
is so much, you know, you mentioned the sitting
across the table from someone who you may disagree
with, you know, so. you slip into those battle
of ideologies and it can kind of become reactive
again. But if you can kind of pause and be like,
oh my gosh, there's a beautiful heart and mind
in front of me. There's a story here. There's
a journey here. This person is, they're sincere
in what they believe. They're as sincere as I
am. And they have human dignity the way I have
human dignity. So where can we find? connection.
We may not agree, but that doesn't mean, as Pope
Leo has said recently, it doesn't mean we don't
treat one another with respect. The first theological
insight from John Donne Scotus that Sister Mary
Beth Ingham highlights in our interview is Scotus's
sensibility toward beauty. Gerard Manley Hopkins,
a Jesuit poet, his sister Mary Beth said was
deeply impacted by SCOTUS. In his sonnet, done
SCOTUS's Oxford, Hopkins praises SCOTUS as one,
quote, who of all men most sways my spirits to
peace, end quote. And also as a, quote, rarest
vain unraveler. of reality which is the subtitle
of one of sister mary beth's books understanding
john dunst scotus is the title i love the poem
that she quoted hurrahing the harvest where hopkins
invites us to open our eyes and our senses to
see and experience the spiritual in the material
world these things were here he writes and but
the beholder waiting so in this minute meditation
How can you, the beholder, help orient your soul
toward beauty today? Beauty in the material world
that's rising up all around you. One thing I'm
hoping to do today as the beholder is to allow
myself to gaze more deeply at the little moments
that unfold throughout my day. So often I jump
quickly from thing to thing, but I hope that
this gaze can take me deeper into presence, into
receiving the gift of beauty. for it truly is
abundant. Now back to the conversation. You mentioned
this, and this is another contribution we wanted
to get into. I know less about this. I'm really
curious to learn from you here. And that is SCOTUS's
approach to free choice and thoughtful self -restraint.
Can you dive into that? And you mentioned beauty
as a backdrop to pretty much all of these. So
I'd be curious to see you connect that to beauty
as well. So SCOTUS starts with an inherited distinction.
from Anselm of Canterbury that he uses. And this
approach identifies two energies within us. And
as Anselm himself was reflecting on freedom,
he said, well, there are these two energies.
He doesn't call them energies, but we would call
them today energies. One is for the self. So
I have an energy in me that's directed toward
myself and my good, my own good. And of course,
as we said earlier, if I have dignity, then of
course I have good and metaphysical good, and
I need to respect that good. So that's what that
first energy is, an energy for the self. But
I also have an energy for the good, the good
beyond myself. So he calls it an energy for justice,
but he doesn't mean social justice. He means
biblical justice. So that's right relationship.
So I have this energy, these two energies. And
so this is still Anselm, and then we're going
to just transition to SCOTUS. So these two energies,
Anselm says the first is natural. It's native.
It's inborn. I can't not have it. I came with
it, right? As I like to say to my students, the
batteries are included. So nothing I can do to
get rid of this basic good energy toward myself.
And it's not selfish. It can become selfish,
but it's not selfish. It is self -regarding,
but it's the principle whereby I'm able to protect
myself. So it's really a kind of a self -preservation
instinct. We share this with animals. Animals
have the same kind of way of reacting to things.
You think about when adrenaline starts flowing
in my body if I'm threatened. That comes from
this deep energy of self -protection. So everybody's
got it. The second energy, it's an energy, he
calls it energy for justice, and it's for an
intrinsic good. It's for the good beyond myself.
It's the value. It's truth, for example. So if
I have to tell the truth in a situation where
I feel that I'm going to get punished by telling
the truth. Now, do you see there? There's this
tension between my desire for the good of the
truth. I want to say it, but I'm afraid. Because
I might be persecuted. I might be attacked. I
might lose my job. And there's any one of a number
of personal things. So in any situation, those
two energies are present. And Anselm says, and
Skotus agrees, they constitute freedom. Well,
they constitute free choice. So this is what
they mean by free choice or sometimes called
free will. So we've got this constitution. Of
these two parts of ourselves, the energy for
justice is the rational energy. It keeps track
of the energy for myself. And so SCOTUS calls
the energy for justice a bridle, you know, like
on a horse. If you're riding a horse, you're
holding the horse back because you've got the
bridle in his mouth. You're pulling him back.
And so that's the way these two energies interact,
that the energy for self would just, just, hey,
you know, let's have it all and let's have it
all now. Right. And, you know, we were all children
at one point. We were all in that kind of world
where I wanted everything and I wanted everything
now. As we mature, the energy for justice moderates,
takes control, in a good sense, takes control.
over this energy for self to say, well, do I
really need that second piece of cake, right?
I really need that. So it's a way of monitoring
or restraining this other desire that I might
have to have everything. This says, okay, maybe
not. So together, now we get to SCOTUS, because
Anselm held that this energy for justice was
actually lost. as a result of original sin, so
that we can only really exercise authentic free
choice with grace. We need grace. Scotus and
other Franciscans, but Scotus argues no, because
if we don't have both naturally, then we're not
free naturally. And our human dignity, which
is based on freedom, would only be... those people
who are experiencing grace, and then sinners
wouldn't be free anymore. Well, that doesn't
work, because if somebody who is a sinner, they
don't have grace, they're doing actions. If they
don't have control over what they're doing, they're
not responsible for what they're doing. So where
SCOTUS is going with this, as will other Franciscans,
this notion of Free choice or free will as innately
part of who we are is absolutely essential to
think about ourselves as moral adults. We make
choices. We do things. We are responsible for
what we do. So if I do something bad, I should
be punished. If I do something good, I should
be rewarded. And that applies to people who are
acting well, Mother Teresa, and it applies for
people who are not acting. very well, right?
Adolf Hitler. So, you know, we think of good
people and bad people are people, and they have
this notion of internal free choice. Now, for
SCOTUS, stay with me here, for SCOTUS, that's
the seed of freedom. That's the seed. So that's
where we all start out. We've got this interaction,
this dynamic. But in life, We have to mature
and develop and get better and better at making
better and better choices, which sometimes require
me to choose my own good. There are some situations
where choosing my good is the most appropriate
thing to do. And not necessarily, you know, because
you think of people who are in... unhealthy relationships
where they're deferring all the time to somebody
else. They haven't yet established their own
dignity in their own eyes to be able to stand
up and say, no, I'm doing this now. I'm doing
this now for me. And I'm not selfish. I'm doing
it for me. So that's tricky. And we all need
help in making those kinds of decisions because
as we know in moral life, We make our decisions
for ourselves, but we never make decisions by
ourselves. That we always need a moral community,
what I like to call a moral community, that we're
interacting with and we're talking with, especially
when we're making serious decisions or important
decisions for our own life. So moving on now,
we mature and we mature and we mature. And for
SCOTUS, the... The greatest act of freedom, which
is based on this internal seed we're talking
about, the greatest act of freedom, he says,
is an act of firmitas. And firmitas is an act
of commitment where I pledge myself to someone
else. Now, that can be a marital commitment.
It can be a vocational commitment. It can be
a commitment to a cause. It's a place where I
say, I will now pledge. to do X, whatever it
might be. And that's the highest form of freedom.
So pledging myself to a cause or to a value or
to a way of life or to a relationship with somebody
does not limit my freedom. In fact, it's the
fruit of my freedom. Yeah. So that's the first
piece of this notion of the fullness of freedom
and how true freedom comes from this internal
seed that we've got of these two energies. But
there's a second one, and you mentioned it earlier.
The more I think about this notion of these two
energies interacting with each other and their
capacity to monitor my own consumption, my own
way of being, I'm now beginning to see an important
resource for the present conversations around
sustainability and environmental sustainability.
Because really, if you think about it, the whole
notion of reuse, recycle, you know, that whole
thing really comes out of a sense of I'm not
going to hang on to things. I'm going to use
what I have for the good of others. I'm going
to be mindful about it. I'm not going to be automatic
or radical in the sense of I'm not thinking,
I'm just doing things. No, I'm going to be mindful
about what are the actions that I can perform
that in fact are regenerative for life and for
flourishing. on our planet, our common home,
what can we do that, in fact, reveal our intentional
desire to share what we have, to be beacons of
hope, to be supporters of life, and in all of
its forms, not just before birth, but in all
of its forms, as we move toward more and more
realization of the dependence of ecology and
the ecological future of our planet on us. Now,
this piece about these two, I think, also connect
to what I'm increasingly interested in, which
is the Franciscan approach to poverty. And poverty...
We think of poverty and we think of material
poverty. We think of being without. And for many
people, that's what Franciscan poverty means.
And we know that Franciscans are, in fact, committed
to, they take a vow to not use resources more
than they need. But there's also a dimension
of poverty, which I think can be tied to this,
which is this notion of self -restraint. That
it's, you know, the Franciscans use the word
sine proprio, which is without anything of my
own. It's a way of seeing the abundant world
of gift, and there's beauty coming through again
as a thread, to see that world, to recognize
the goods around me, and to say, okay, in this
present situation, what in my life can I restrain?
What consumption can I restrain? How can I, you
know, easy things like if I'm going out, let's
say I have to take the car. If I'm going out
in the car, can I make three trips rather than
go out and do one trip, then come back, go out
and do another? So it's all the economical ways,
we think, of saving money. But it also, these
are ways that help save the planet, save the
atmosphere, save the goods of the earth, which
are given for all. Not just for some. They're
given to be shared by all. Now, this is a big,
big problem. As we know, the whole global situation
right now. And you might say, yeah, but if I
don't, you know, drive 10 minutes, what difference
does that make? And I think Franciscans would
say, and SCOTUS would say, every single step
matters. Every single action matters. Every particular
moment matters. And so rather than imagine I'm
going to solve all the problems of the world
by driving less, I'm just going to think about
the effect of my driving less on the atmosphere
in my neck of the woods. And I'm in Southern
California. So we know smog and we know the problems
that come with air pollution. So how can I be?
It's just being mindful. that there are more
people out there than me. And that's disaffection
for justice. I'm part of a bigger community and
I matter. Yeah. And my actions matter. And that's
the commitment piece. Yeah. Yeah. And then, gosh,
yeah, there's a lot there. We could riff on this
for a while, but I mean, you mentioned abundance
and tell me if I'm tracking here, but self -restraint.
The beauty and abundance that's already inherently
there in your life and in the world, that can
be something that helps equip you for self -restraint,
correct? Because you're already enough. You already
possess. I don't like the word possess, but you
know what I'm saying. Like beauty is already
there. Love, goodness, it's already there to
be experienced. Everything you need. You have
everything you need. Yes. Right. You don't need
to go looking. Somebody said to me once, it was
such an interesting, that Francis of Assisi had
a small material footprint. You know, we talk
about our ecological footprint. He had a small
ecological footprint, but he had a gigantic spiritual
footprint. Yeah. And so I think there's the abundance.
The abundance is spiritual abundance. introduces
hopeful energy, positive energy, energy that
is life -giving into situations. Pope Francis
talks about, you know, the integral ecology.
Integral ecology is where we see everything connected.
And that's not just materially connected, spiritually
connected. When all is said and done and we're
on the other side of reality and we're able to
look back and see. What were the actions that
really mattered? I think we're going to be surprised
at the actions we thought were so important.
And in fact, the actions that we considered minimal
ended up being the most important actions of
all. The second theological insight that Sister
Mary Beth Ingham discusses is John Duns Scotus's
emphasis on thoughtful self -restraint. Sometimes
we think of covenant to be something that's binding,
but in reality, it's liberating, I've found.
I once worked on a book project with people in
an Amish community in northern Ohio, and one
man I interviewed talked about how all the guardrails
in their lifestyle actually positions their souls
to be more free. And an example he gave was not
allowing workers to use their cell phones at
their Amish. Amish -led furniture company, and
that included employees who weren't Amish. So
one of the non -Amish creatives there shared
with me that he had forgotten how vibrant his
mind and creativity could be when he released
himself from the need to check the notifications
on his phone. So in other words, the guardrails
he didn't know that he needed freed him to be
more fully himself. So what kind of covenant
might you want to make or renew in the coming
days? And once you decide what that is, perhaps
notice the ways in which thoughtful self -restraint
paradoxically helps you to enjoy the fruit of
freedom that we've already each been given in
Christ. Now back to the conversation. So I wanted
to get into another contribution of SCOTUS, and
this gets into another Anselm thing. Yes. But
SCOTUS's approach to the incarnation, what was
it? What makes it unique? Why is it important?
Okay. So this, I think, is a really transformative
gift that SCOTUS, representing the Franciscan
tradition. So again, he didn't make this up.
He just articulated it in a way that has been
seen to be compelling. So, and it builds on the
things we've talked about up till now, beauty,
giftedness, human freedom, all of that, our background
now to this. So, traditionally, there were many
reasons that early church fathers presented in
terms of understanding why the incarnation, why
did God become human? Why did God choose to become
human? And so if you look back at the early church
fathers, there are a ton of different ones. Very,
very, everybody could believe what they wanted
to believe. Well, in the 11th century, Anselmo
of Canterbury articulated an approach that really
became very standardized in the church. And perhaps
not, maybe he didn't intend it to become standardized,
but it did take on a life of its own. And it's
that the incarnation took place because of the
sin of Adam and Eve. So it was original sin that
resulted in a horrendous injury to God's honor.
And since God is infinite, you can't make amends,
a finite being, a human being, finite being cannot
make amends for the infinite injury against God.
And so therefore, the second person of the Trinity
chose freely to become one of us in order as
a human to... make amends. To atone. To atone.
That's right. And this is the theory of atonement,
and that the atonement really is focused on Good
Friday, the death, the suffering, the death,
maybe mainly Holy Thursday, but Good Friday,
those three hours, and that took care of it.
That was what was required. That bridges the
chasm. That's right. And so amends are made.
He takes our place. He suffers and dies. And
therefore in his humanity, because he in the
incarnation, a divine, divine nature, human nature,
a divine person. But, you know, one person, two
natures. And so on our behalf. So the Franciscan
approach to this found some problems. because
of the way Anselm presented the argument. One
of the problems they had was that Anselm maintained
that it was necessary for God to become human
because of the nature of the injury to divine
honor. Now, for Franciscans, especially of the
generation of Scotus, to make anything a requirement
on the part of God is problematic because...
If our freedom is important, God's freedom is
important. So they began to think about the whole
thing. So take a big step back. Frame of beauty.
Frame of creation. Take a long view and say,
okay, how do we want to think about this? And
Scotus says, well. The way we think about it
differently is to ask a different question. This
is so important because the questions we ask
frame the answers we get. So he says, OK, here's
the question I want to ask, not why did God become
human? Because then that traps me in the sin
of Adam and Eve. The question I'm going to ask
is, what was God's major? reason for becoming
human? So what was his primary reason for becoming
human? And in order to answer that question,
he goes all the way back to the Trinity and to
the act of creation. And so he would ask the
question, well, this question relies on this
question, why did God create it all? You know,
Heidegger, great Heidegger, great philosopher
Heidegger in the 20th century asked the ultimate
philosophical questions. Why is there something?
Why is there anything at all and not nothing?
So that's kind of where Scotus is going. He doesn't
ask the question in that way. But the point is,
well, wait a minute. Why did God create? Not
why did God become human? Why did God create?
And the answer from within his Franciscan approach
of beauty and freedom is, well, God created.
in order to introduce divine life to all of reality.
And we see this, and there are scriptural bases
for these. We see this in the letter to the Ephesians.
We see this in the letter to the Colossians,
where Paul is talking, it's kind of cosmic. It's
all about bringing everything into union with
God. Yeah, and in the prologue of John's gospel.
And in the prologue of John's gospel, right.
So now it's this, whoa. Big cosmic plan of God's.
And that is to bring everything into union with
God. So you've got creation, but that's not enough
because there has to be a way of elevating an
important cohort of this created order into divine
life. And so Skoda says, well, if you think about
it, An interesting way of elevating human nature
to union with God in divine nature is for God
to become human, to take on the nature, to join
or unite the divine nature with a human nature
and therefore elevate human nature through this
union of the two. Well, that's the incarnation.
And then the purpose of the incarnation, it's
not in and of itself something that stops, but
rather the purpose of the incarnation is to introduce
us and through our actions and our freedom, all
of reality into this union with the divine trinity.
So God's purpose is that all may be one, as John
17, that all may be one. And that all is not
just people. It's everything. Be one in God who
is trinity of persons, abundant love, flowing
out, radical beauty. I mean, it all comes together.
And so this then results in the Franciscan approach
to the incarnation, which doesn't deny the sin
of Adam and Eve, but it simply says God would
have become incarnate anyway. Yep. Because God
is so good and loving and wants to become one
with creation. Yeah. And God doesn't wait for
us to do something to react. And that's what
they said. A couple of problems with Anselm's
argument is, first, makes God have to do something
that God might not want to do. But the second
is that it bases, as Skoda says, this bases the
greatest act that God could achieve, which is
giving up. divinity to enter into humanity. It
makes that tremendously wonderful act dependent
on a mistake or a sin that was made by two human
beings. Yeah, it puts our sin at the center of
everything. It puts our sin at the center of
everything. Everything is dependent on us, and
we become bigger in this whole, and evil becomes
bigger than it should be. I mean, evil is a reality.
Human cruelty is a reality. We know it. We experience
it. But the point is, as St. Paul says, where
sin abounds, their grace abounds even more. So
this notion of dramatic beauty, divine beauty,
divine initiative, saying, I will be present.
And not only will I be present, but I will continue
to be present. The world that God has created
is not a world that God will not continue to
take responsibility for. So I think this is another
key piece of the Franciscan vision. Its divine
presence is an ongoing commitment of firmitas.
So here's divine firmitas in the incarnation.
I will be one with you. You are not alone. So
we think of Isaiah. We think of a lot of the
prophets of the Old Testament where, you know,
if you walk through, I'll be there. If you suffer,
I'll be there. I am there to help you. And that
was the message in the burning bush. I'm here.
I know what's going on and I'm ready to act.
I'm not going to act on my own. I'm going to
act through you. And that seems to be God's shtick,
right? I'm not going to act on my own. Why did
I? I created you to do something. I created you
to make the world a better place. So, you know,
don't blame everything on me. What are you doing
to make the world a better place? And I think
this approach to the incarnation is what we call
in philosophy a paradigm shift. And in a paradigm
shift, everything's there. It's just not where
you expect to find it. So in Anselm's paradigm,
sin was at the center. and everything flowed
from that. In the Franciscan paradigm, as Scotus
articulates it, no, God's love is at the center,
and everything flows from that. Sin is present,
but it's not in the center. It's over off to
the side. It will be vanquished. It is in the,
you know, it's sin is, or evil is self -destructive.
Evil does not produce anything fruitful. It will
ultimately destroy itself. So, I think the position
on the Incarnation is really an important one
today, and I'll end with this. If we notice that
at the Council of Trent, in the first session
of the Council of Trent in the 16th century,
it was introduced, we need to codify Anselm's
position on the Incarnation so it becomes part
of authentic Catholic doctrine. And so a little
commission was set up and they went off to do
that. They didn't get to it. And Trent had two
sessions. The second session of Trent, when that
was convened, the people that had wanted to codify
Anselm's approach as Catholic doctrine had died
in the plague. And so there was nobody there
to defend Anselm's position. What this means
is there is no definitive church doctrine on
why God became human. And even though many of
us learned Anselm's approach as children. It's
a majority position. Yeah, we thought it's doctrine.
We thought it's there. And even Thomas Aquinas
says, we don't know. We don't know why God became
human. And so this is a theory. It gains a lot
of interest because it can explain sinfulness.
And I think that's the value of Anselm's theory.
It really does situate sinfulness in an important
place. I think today, going forward, what we're
finding as we interface with other religions,
and especially within the ecumenical Christian
movement, the Franciscan approach, maybe more,
I hope it's more attractive to people. It doesn't
get rid of Adam and Eve. It doesn't get rid of
sin. It just doesn't make the incarnation a consequence
of original sin. Yep. Yeah. And I know you have
about 20 minutes, so we'll get to the final contribution
here. But to me, the approach to the incarnation
has so many psychological implications too, because
if sin is at the center, Well, then on a personal
level, I can justify focusing in on all my imperfections
and wrongdoings and not and not the, you know,
the Franciscan approach is not shrugging off
sin, but. But so if sin is at the center or that
can also lead me to focus on other people's imperfections
or their lack of, I have an evangelical background.
So the big thing was we have to get people to
believe that Jesus died for them, you know? So,
so in that, in that notion, like you're focusing
on someone else's, what you're perceiving is
their imperfections because sin is at the center.
The Franciscan approach, if God's goodness is
at the center, now all of a sudden, like, Now
I'm experiencing God's goodness in the person
who is most different than me. Now I'm experiencing
God's goodness in... trying to become more aware
of how God is trying to become one with me. And
sometimes that can lead to divinization. You
know, that is the shedding of sin. But it's a
different starting place. It's a positive starting
place rather than a negative starting place.
Maybe that's an oversimplification. No, no, that's
right. Because, no, it's a shift in what matters.
And now I'm... Yes, Good Friday took place. Yes.
And it was the brutal, violent killing of an
innocent man who spoke the truth to power and
was persecuted for it. So it doesn't have to
be the reason he died was because of Adam and
Eve. The reason he died was because he was upsetting
both the religious but also the political environment.
And he was in their face. But the other thing
it does is it He expands the power of the life
and ministry of Jesus as a reason. Not just three
hours on one day, but look at 30 years of a life.
Look at the power of his ministry. Look at the
way he interacts with people. Look at what he's
trying to teach us. Look at how he's showing
us what it means to be a human being. He's not
just kind of here as the scapegoat or the innocent
victim who goes to death and is risen. So, yes,
I mean, I think all of a sudden the way he treats
women becomes an important part of God's message
to the world. The way he treats the outcast,
the way he treats the suffering, the way he sees.
things as human brokenness. And that calls forth
compassion. So there's so much to be drawn from
just, you know, you just tweak a paradigm a little
bit, and all of a sudden, we begin to notice
things we hadn't noticed before. The third theological
insight that Sister Mary Bathingham discusses
is John Dunst Scotus' theological approach to
the incarnation. His belief that it would have
still happened whether Adam and Eve had sinned
or not. And this places, Scotus' approach, it
places God's goodness at the center of reality
rather than our own sin. Now, of course, this
is some... rich, deep theology. As I said in
the conversation, it probably demands an entire
episode just focused on Scotus's approach to
this theological conundrum that many theologians
in the Middle Ages were delving into. But I figured
in this minute meditation, let's just try to
make this super practical on a psychological
level. And I would invite you to notice today
or this coming week. how often you notice goodness
the one the true the beautiful in your life and
in the world and how often your mind gravitates
toward what is wrong or lacking what's at the
center of your own outlook again what's at the
center of your own outlook is it goodness or
is it lack As Father Richard Rohr writes, positive
thoughts, they tend to slide off our minds like
Teflon, whereas negative thoughts tend to stick
like Velcro. So this kind of theological vision
that SCOTUS invites us into has... very real
psychological implications and practice for reframing
our own minds, in my opinion. So one thing I
love about the study of theology and metaphysics
as well is that it invites me to align my own
life, my own life and perspective with what I've
learned. So if I've just learned that divine
goodness is at the center of everything. And
is the very motive of the incarnation, you know,
the question then becomes, how can I also become
more aware of how divine goodness is at the center
of my own life? Now back to the conversation.
Yeah, we could do a whole episode, I think, about
SCOTUS's approach to the incarnation. Maybe we'll
have you back on and we'll geek out for 60 minutes
about that one aspect of theology. So final thing,
and again, like these four things that we've
highlighted, there are dozens that we could have
elevated here. These were just four that, you
know, we're thinking could have some relevance
today. The other one is this notion from SCOTUS
of thisness, particularity, hexaity. Am I pronouncing
that? correctly. Can you dive into that, unpack
that for us? Yes. So this was a particular question
in his lifetime that he was struggling with,
but so were a lot of other people. And to understand
it, you have to understand how Aristotle and
Plato came at individuation, what it means to
be an individual. So make a long story short.
So there's a material component, the body, and
then there's the spiritual component, the soul.
And for Plato, we're really souls trapped in
bodies. So really, it relates to anthropology
and how we see ourselves. We're souls trapped
in bodies. And the goal of life is to get out
of my body so that I can be a pure soul existing
somewhere, like the angels. For Aristotle, it
was different. He said, no, no, the body's important
because it's the material. dimension of me. It's
my molecular structure, my DNA, we might say,
that makes me who I am. And so, yeah, I have
a human soul, you have a human soul, but I'm
a different human person because I'm in this
body, and you're a different human person because
you're in that body. So, okay, you got Plato,
you got Aristotle, you got two ways of looking
at what it means to have a body. And we know
that Thomas Aquinas preferred Aristotle. because
he thought the body is an important part of who
we are, certainly the incarnation. God thought
having a body was pretty good, so we do too.
Now, the problem that comes in this is the problem
with angels. Who knew, right? Angels. Because
angels appear in the Bible, right? So, okay,
Gabriel, Raphael. Michael, three anyway, and
we think they're more, but okay, three. But angels
don't have bodies. So here's the problem. If
Aristotle's right, then Gabriel, Raphael, and
Michael are the same angel. We got a problem.
And so Scotus says, okay, let's think about...
What makes Mimi? What makes you you? What makes
everything what it is? And this includes inanimate
objects. So here's a real Franciscan approach,
right? What makes this rock this rock? And, you
know, Plato and Aristotle, well, it's just a
rock. For Pete's sake, don't pay attention to
it. But the Franciscans are going to pay attention
to it. No, it is this rock. It is this leaf.
It is this tree. It is this mountain. It's the
this that's here. So Scotus goes through all
of these different theories. I won't bore you
with all the different theories. And he basically
comes down to the conclusion that Aristotle's
approach won't work. Plato's approach won't work.
What we're left with is the reality. So let's
go back to the point we were making earlier about
our experience. The reality of our experience
of this. And Skoda says, well, look, if you ask
me, what is it that makes you, you? What is it
that makes me, me? All I can say is, it's this.
It's you. It's who you are. It's me. It's who
I am. So this whole notion of hexaity. And again,
Alan Walter talks about this in the same vein
we've been talking about beauty and giftedness,
that we've each been given a gift and the gift
is ourselves. So the hexaity that SCOTUS is getting
at, it's the mystery within each person that
is who they are. So, you know, what is my hexaity?
It's my authentic self. And I'm not even aware
of my hexaity. who I really am. I mean, you know,
I'm in touch with it. I'm trying to be it. And
I find during life, oh, no, that's not me. That's
not me. That wasn't me. I mean, have you ever
come from a situation where you say to yourself,
why did I say that? That isn't me. That isn't
me. I'm not myself. We say that, and I think
that's what SCOTUS is trying to get to. So to
return to our point about the beauty of each
individual, you know, we are each the pearl of
great price. I love that image of the pearl of
great price. We're each that pearl. That shouldn't
make us turn in on ourselves and say, wow, I'm
the best thing going. But it's to say, look at
all the pearls that surround reality. Surround
me. So again, it brings us back to the beauty
of it all, the gift of it all, the wonder of
it all. And again, the question is, and how do
I respond? The fourth theological insight that
Sister Mary Beth Ingham discusses is John Dunst
Scotus's philosophical notion of hexaity. What
makes you you and what makes your loved one who
he or she is? And perhaps the more difficult
question, what is beautifully particular and
unique about the person who you're struggling
to love? I recently dove into Howard Thurman's
1980 baccalaureate speech at Spelman College,
and Thurman echoes throughout his speech this
line, quote, there is in every person. something
that waits and listens for the sound of the genuine,
end quote. And at the end, he takes this to another
level. I highly recommend listening to the speech.
I'm embarrassed to say it was my first time really
diving into it, but there's a real beautiful
movement to his speech, and it's very mystical,
dizzying in a sense. There's another kind of
evolutionary turn at the end of his speech, and
he lands it with these words, quote, Now, if
I hear the sound of the genuine in me and you
hear the sound of the genuine in you, it is possible
then for me to go down in me and come up in you
so that when I look at myself through your eyes,
having made that pilgrimage, I see in me. what
you see in me and the wall that separates and
divides will disappear. And we will become one
because the sound of the genuine makes the same
music. And then he goes on. There is that in
every person that waits and listens for the sound
of the genuine and other people. And when these
two sounds come together, this is music God heard
when he said, let us make man. Now, back to the
conversation. What am I called to do in this
particular moment with all my gifts, with all
my weaknesses, with everything, the whole package,
me, in any given situation, I'm offered an opportunity
to respond. And that's the freedom that we talked
about. A little bit earlier. So it's a whole
piece. And I think what we've done is we've kind
of walked around the circle to see that at the
end of the day, the Franciscan vision is really
the grounds for an enormous celebration of what
it means to be alive, what it means to be human,
what it means to live in a community of other
humans and other beings. And what do we need
to do to birth more beauty? make reality beautiful
for everyone, not just for me and the people
I like, but for everyone, and use my gifts and
skills to the best of my ability so that at the
end of the day, I can say, you know, like any
good Girl Scout would say, I've left the campsite
better than I found it. I've left the world better
than I found it. And that, in some ways, that
can be a tiny thing. But I think when we come
to the end of our lives and we all want to look
back in gratitude to just be grateful for everything
that was given and everything we did and say
we're sorry for the things that weren't so, you
know, positive. But the overriding sense of gratitude
at the end of life, I think, is the greatest
gift of all. And that's how I want to be. I imagine
it's how you want to be and how we all want to
be as we walk into eternity to discover. all
the people we've loved, all the people who've
been gifts in our lives, and the tremendous joy
and hope that God is experiencing all the time
and just wants to share with all of us. Well,
I think that is a beautiful way to conclude,
Sister Mary Beth. Thank you so much for coming
on the podcast. And on a personal level, I mean,
thank you for helping me to begin to understand
a really complex thinker like SCOTUS. I read
so much of your work at FST. I've got Harmony
of Goodness right next to me right now. And yeah,
his theology and Franciscan theology in general
has really helped me to find healing and liberation
in my own life. So you are one of those people
I have to thank for that. So thank you. Any closing
words for our listeners? No, I don't think so.
Just, you know, SCOTUS is difficult. He's difficult.
I won't make apologies for that, but he's worth
it. He's worth it. Well, thanks for bridging
his thought and his work for us. Really, really
grateful for you. So have a great day. Thanks
for coming on the podcast. Thank you. Once again,
that was Dr. Mary Beth Ingham. I've linked to
Sister Mary Beth's books and any other helpful
resources on John Dunn's SCOTUS in the show notes
of this episode. So thank you again for tuning
in. Thank you as always for your support. This
is Stephen Copeland signing off. Peace and all
good.