 The situation was, however, more complex than a simple opposition between the “Averroists” and their opponents. At a minimum, the field divides into three groups. First are those whose enthusiasm for a Rushdian reading of Aristotle leads them take boldly heterodox views in tension with Christianity. Leading figures here are Siger of Brabant,  Boethius of Dacia,  and John of Jandun (Brenet 2003). Even in this case there are doubts, however, regarding whether Ibn Rushd is the prime impetus behind their views; Van Steenberghen (1980) prefers the label “radical Aristotelianism.” Second are those at the opposite extreme, opposing not only Ibn Rushd’s most radical ideas but even Aristotelianism itself, as when Peter John Olivi complains of Aristotle that “without reason he is believed, as the god of this age”  (Peter John Olivi §3).  Bonaventure becomes a leading figure in this movement (Mahoney 1988). Third are the great majority of philosophers in between, including Thomas Aquinas and other leading figures of the age, who reject Ibn Rushd’s readings of Aristotle when they conflict with Church authority, even while in most matters they continue to rely on “the Commentator.” Thus a papal decree from 1341 calls on the arts faculty at Paris to follow “the science of Aristotle and his commentator Averroes, and other ancient commentators and interpreters of Aristotle, except in cases that run counter to the faith” (in Putallaz 2010, 111).