Chapter 23
TWENTY-THIRD CHAPTER
Excommunication for Faults If a brother shall have been found contumacious or disobed ient or proud or a murmurer or in any one point rebel against the Holy Rule and the precepts of his elders, and thereby prove himself to be a contemner, let him in accordance with the counsel of the Lord, be admonished by his superiors in private a first and a second time. Should he then not amend, let him be publicly corrected before all.
But if he still does not change for the better, let him undergo the penalty of excommunication, provided he realizes what a grave matter that is. If, however, he remains obdurate, let him be subjected to corporal punishment.
Excursus 1.
Penal Discipline before the Rule of St. Benedict.—Every society, even the Church of Christ, as well as the monastic Church, must protect itself against the evil effects of human weaknesses by the infliction of punishments. Their idea and purpose, of course, is the amendment of the erring, atonement for faults committed, and safeguarding the moral standards of the community.
Naturally, the kind, measure, and duration of the punishment must be gauged by the gravity and heinousness of the offense, the malice of the delinquent, and last but not least by the scandal given and the menace to a group un avoidably affected by every delinquency. In consequence, it is quite obvious that there must be a graduated scale of penal measures, the first step of which is a fatherly but kindly oral correction, the next and rather severe mea sure, partial or total excommunication, and the last and severest step, final expulsion from the community. We are speaking here not of sins, but of strict ly monastic delinquencies.
The Hermit.—Although the hermit was entirely independent as to his conduct, he nevertheless submitted himself for his moral lapses to the judical authority
(cf. chaps, xviii & xx).
It is possible that a lively belief in the second coming of Christ (in the night) had some influence on the practice of midnight prayer. St. John Chrysostom de scribes most graphically the readiness of the monks for the nocturnal praise of God as against the comforts which worldlings are surrounded upon rising. "The superior gave the sleeper a light thump with his foot. No one dared to sleep un clothed there." The monks hastened then to the Vigils (On Tim. xiv, 3—4). The legislation of the Emperor Justinian did not found the contemporary custom of sleeping fully clothed or that concerning common dormitories and individual beds but merely codified them (c. 535; Novelle V, iii; cf. also com. 1; & Cassarius'
"Rule for Nuns," chaps, ix & li).
4 (Even in our days, unseemly haste or an undignified swagger are still unbecom ing the modem religious. The translator)
of an assembly of desert fathers ( Synedrium) or to that of a highly re spected "spiritual father." The punishments inflicted or imposed consisted mostly of increasing the severity of the hermit's ascetic practices, which were rather austere to begin with. The Verba Seniorum (Maxims of the Fathers) tell many a story of an abbot's pastoral benevolence or fatherly severity. This did not at times concern itself with the duration of the punishment so much as with whether its performance was fulfilled with a sincere heart. In the opinion of Poimen, it did not in that case call for a term of three years, or of one year, or even of forty days, for then the Lord took the sinner back into his good graces in three days.
Abbot Moses was once called to a judicial assembly in connection with a hermit's grave delinquency. "He did not. however wish to come," but finally let himself be persuaded. He filled a loosely woven basket with sand and came in to the meeting carrying it upon his back. "What should that mean, Father?" the judges of the Synedrium asked him. Moses replied: "My sins are behind me, and leak out (like the sand in this basket), and I do not see them. Now I am come to sit in judgment upon the sin$/of another." The fathers forgave the sinner. At one such gathering the famous Abbot Pior was persistently silent there. Presently, however, he left the assembly and returned with a heavy sack of sand on his back and a small sack of sand before him. He called the atten tion of the astonished fathers to the large sack of his own sins, which he did not wish to see, lest he should have to bewail them, and then to the small sinfilled basket of the accused brother. Really, he thought, he should first ask
God to forgive him for his own large accumulation of sins. The fathers there upon closed the session and exclaimed: "Truly, that is the way of salvation!"
Palladius (f before 431), in his Vitae Patrum, relates a few examples of really severe punishment. When the monk Valens, hoodwinked by Satan, re fused to attend the Eucharistic Sacrifice—in a brilliant nocturnal phantasm, he thought he saw the Savior surrounded by a thousand angels carrying burning lights—and so took occasion to adore the devil himself, the fathers
"bound him and kept him in leg-irons for a whole year and thus brought him to his senses." Applying an old adage current at the time, "opposites must be counteracted by opposites," they cured him of his madness by prayer, humilia tions, and drastic treatment (chap. xxv). Palladius also avers that he visited a colony of hermits, who were grouped around a large church, near which there were three palm trees. "On each tree there hung a whip. One of these was for monks who came to accuse themselves for some offense; the second was for robbers who might break in; and the third was for others who came there (for some transgression). Whosoever erred in any manner that deserved blows had to stand with his arms about the tree, and in that position he re ceived the prescribed number of blows. Then he was released . . . Eight priests presided at the church. So long as the first one in rank was living, none of the others offered up Mass, preached, or administered justice, but sat silently at his side" (chap. vii). Althought the administration of monastic penal justice was not essentially a part of the sacerdotal office, we nevertheless observe that
priest-monks were very often entrusted with it.
Saint Pachomius.—It is remarkable how mild was the rule of Pachomius with regard to its penal prescriptions. The one most frequently mentioned, and one that was repeated, when called for, as many as ten times in succession, was a reprimand by the abbot. It was imposed, whenever, for example, a monk spoke or laughed during the psalmody or public reading (Rule viii, 8 & 165).
One who nodded or fell asleep during a conference by the superior was ordered to stand and to remain standing as long as the superior did not permit him to be seated (loc. cit., 21). Another penalty was the loss of one's position in the order of rank, a demotion to a place near or at the bottom, or, in the case of superiors, a temporary or permanent suspension from office (loc. cit.,
136 f & 161). At times someone was punished by being banished from meals or made to fast on bread and water (loc. cit., 32, 160, & 163).
According to the testimony of his biographer, Pachomius was altogether averse to the infliction of corporal punishment. It was prescribed in only one place in his rule, and that was reserved for the monk "who by his talk stirred up discontent among his brethren and perverted the minds of simple souls"
(loc. cit., 163). Habitual murmurers were admonished at least five times. If these admonitions were without effect, the murmurer was treated as a sick man, ordered to go to the infirmary, and put on a diet (presumably for that type of ailment). Should there have been some cause or occasion for the mur murs, the one who was responsible for the scandal was penalized in the same way (loc. cit., 164). A monk who gave sickness as an excuse for his negli gences had to live with the sick until he promised to amend (loc. cit., 171).
Apparently, to be housed with the sick was to be put on a diet reserved for the sick, and was not looked upon as anything desirable. Monks who left the monastery were taken in again (loc. cit., 131 & 175). The abbot of the federa tion could, when the need arose, reprimand the abbot of an individual cloister, depose him, or protect the monks against any unfair enroachments on the part of local superiors (loc. cit., 137, 152-154, & 158).
Pachomius endeavored to temper the severity of his rule with fatherly kindness, and always with the circumstances of an individual case in mind. His biographer tells us how he received a former thespian into his community.
After a blameless monastic life, this Silvanus began "to grow careless in the things that affected his salvation . . . Even starting shamelessly to use the language of the stage in the presence of his brethren. Although he had lived an ascetic life in the community for twenty years, the abbot commanded him in the presence of the brethren to take off his monastic habit, giving him back his secular clothing and showing him the way out of the cloister." Falling on his knees, Silvanus begged to be forgiven and promised complete amendment of his ways. "But the great man answered him: 'You know how much I have had to endure from you, so that I was compelled to proceed against you with blows, I, who had never done anything of the kind to another, or even to lay a hand on any man. And this, which I was forced to do to you only, in keeping with my compassion for you, caused me greater heartache that it did you who
received the stripes. For no other reason did I decide to do that than for your salvation, so that 1 might at least lift you up after your lapses. When, in spite of so many corrections, you nevertheless did not turn to a better way, indeed, despite the punishment of stripes, you did not want to do what was salutary for you, how can 1 permit a sick sheep to graze any longer with the flock of Christ? Might not the mange that has attacked one infect all the sheep and kill off the greater number of them?"
Pachomius refused at first to take Silvanus back into the community; but Silvanus renewed his promises and avowed his earnest resolution to reform for once and always. The patriarch thereupon demanded that he sign papers to "the effect that he would not commit the same offenses again. Abbot Petronius (a later successor of Pachomius) vouched for him and took him back.
Whereupon the blessed man forgave him, prayed over him, and placed him in the care of Petronius." Silvanus truly amended his ways, and was endowed with the gift of tears, at that time still unknown to the monks of that locality.
Pachomius himself finally testified that he was his most perfect disciple. Upon his death a host of angels received him ipto their company and led him to Christ (Second Life lviii-lxi).
Abbot Schenute of Atripe.—Abbot Schenute of Upper Egypt (f 466), a later organizer of Coptic monasticism, was much more severe in his penal ordi nances than Pachomius. He resorted much more frequently to corporal chas tisement. Still, this type of punishment was applied only after a thorough in vestigation into each specific case, and not under any momentary impulse of anger or disappointment. No more than Pachomius did Schenute tolerate any outward manifestation of self-will or injustice.
Saint Basil.—From the very beginning. St. Basil (f 399) warned his super iors against anger or other passion in disciplining their monks. "Let him not hate the sinner but abhor the sin, making a clear distinction between the two."
Still, he "must be zealous for the honor of God, which is injured by the of fense. On the other hand, in order to save him he must show a sympathetic fraternal charity for his confrere" (Longer Rules No. 50). The monk who is being punished should accept the punishment as an evidence of his superior's pity and solicitude for his salvation and not as a sign of enmity or tyranny"
(loc. fit., No. 52). But one who is persistently an occasion of scandal and a subversive influence among the brethren should be expelled from the monastic ccclesia (loc. cit., No. 47).
Saint Augustine.—St. Augustine provided corporal punishment for a parti cularly malicious and rebellious monk provided it was compatible with his age
(Rule No. 10). Every monk had the duty of admonishing a confrere who had transgressed, in fact, of denouncing him to his superior in case he did so re peatedly. "Do not look upon such an admonition as uncharitable; else you may not be without guilt should your brother go to ruin because of your silence, when you might have helped to reform him by speaking out. If your confrere had an infection on his body and perhaps hid it because he was afraid of the knife, would it not be cruelty on your part and not rather a work
of mercy to reveal it? Consequently, how much should you not rather report one who hides some corruption in his heart and with more disastrous re sults?" But if a monk who had often been corrected and been at last adjudged worthy of chastisement by his superior refused to accept his punishment, he was to be expelled from the community. "This is not done out of cruelty but out of mercy, in order that he may not, as it were, perniciously contaminate many others and thus lead them also to perdition" (Rule No. 7). But should the superior have overstepped the limits of moderation in his punishment, he is answerable only to God and should not be required to beg forgiveness of the monk. St. Augustine (in that rude age) had in mind the respect due to the superior's office when he laid down this exemption. But he directed the super ior to manifest his "benevolent love" towards the monk in other ways (loc. tit., No. 10).
With the superiors of his lay communities, he associated a priest, who, by reason of his greater influence was given the duty of administering justice in case of graver offenses {loc. tit., No. 7). Regretfully, St. Augustine had to insist again and again upon the possibility of offenses against discipline re curring in his monasteries. He stated repeatedly that, as in every other state of life, so also in a house of religious "chaff" could be found without any blame being attached to its superiors on that account. "Naturally," he said,
"when one looks upon the threshing floor only from afar, he sees but the chaff. One who knows how to look closer, however, will find the wheat. Where the chaff is a source of scandal to you, there, too, often lies the fullness of the grain" (Sermon cccxi, 10).
Abbot Cassian.—The abbot of Marseilles, who, as we know, was partial to the monastic ideal of eremitism, speaks relatively seldom of monastic discipline.
A strict watch is to be kept, so that none of the brethren, particularly the juniors, either after community prayers or during the day, be met talking with one another, going somewhere together, or exchanging so much as a pressure of the hand. Should one have transgressed against these rules in any way, let him be declared a stiff-necked transgressor of the regulations ... If he does not atone for this fault by a public penance before the whole community, he shall not be permitted to take part in the prayers of his brethren" (Insti tutes iii, 15). In the words of the Apostle, the monk so excluded is "deliv ered over to the devil" (cf. I Cor. v, 5). Only the superior of the brethren could take such a one back into the community. This reinstatement, like an excommunication, was a public affair. Any communication between the banished brother and the other brethren was strictly forbidden and drew upon the offender the same kind of penalty (cf. loc. tit., 16).
Excursus II.
Penal Discipline of the Holy Rule.—St. Benedict devoted two entire groups of chapters to the penal discipline of his monastic family (chaps, xxiii to xxx
& xlii to xliv) and made references to it in many other chapters. An unmis takable earnestness pervades the entire Holy Rule. Medieval artists, and some others in later centuries liked to picture the Patriarch of Montecassino with
the penal rod in his hand; but without many words or going into details, the Rule gives the basic reasons why every infraction of a monastic prescription must be atoned for. Every offense against monastic discipline has its origin in an attitude that is in the last analysis opposed to renunciation of the world and a whole-hearted oblation of self to Christ. It really does not make much difference whether the infraction has its roots in carelessness, self-will, or pride. St. Benedict, too, (like St. Augustine), took it for granted that there would be transgressions of some kind in his monastic ecclesia. And it was equally obvious to him that there had to be some atonement for these faults.
Likewise, the purpose of punishment was for him the rehabilitation and salva tion of the transgressor, the repair of the scandal given, and the protection of the morals of the community.
The Judge.—The sole and final judge in the cloister is the abbot. Only on his authority and as ordered by him can a monk fall under a judicial sentence
(chap. lxx). The abbot determines the kind, the severity, and the duration of the punishment (cf. chap, xxiv) whenever the Rule itself has not laid down ex act instructions as to the manner in which specific faults are to be atoned for (e.g., faults committed at table or in choir). It is clear that the abbatial discretio, that is, the gift or ability to discern with prudence, justice, resolution, moderation, and charity the cases meriting punishment, must prove itself be fore everything else in the case of an erring brother. The penal chapters in the Holy Rule remain a dead letter without this judicial authority of the abbot.
In the first place, the abbot breathes life and spirit into them. In two chapters
(xxvii & xxviii), which are amongst the most beautiful in the Holy Rule, St.
Benedict paints an ideal picture of an abbatial judge (cf. also chaps, ii & lxiv).
The Transgressions.—The Holy Rule supplies us with a very graphic account of man's numberless frailties. As we have intimated in a previous chapter, there is no transgression, no sin, against which the monk is proof. We are speaking here only of offenses that are atoned for through the monastic pen alties of the Rule. Among strictly monastic transgressions, it places disobedi ence at the top of the list (cf. chaps, ii, v, xxiii, et alibi). Among the others may be mentioned pride and arrogance, contempt for monastic discipline (cf. chaps, ii, vii, xxviii, et alibi), loquacity (chaps, vi & xvii), desire for private possessions (chap, lv), implacability (chap, lxxi), self-seeking (chap, lxxii), vio lence (chap. Ixix 0. murmuring (chaps, v, xxiii, xl, xxxiv, xxxv, xli, & liii), and incorrigibility (chap, xxviii). St. Benedict knew (few men better) that such weaknesses could come upon a monk almost anywhere, in choir (chap, xiv), at table, at work (chap, xliv), but especially in the administration of his office
(chaps, xxi & xlv). The discernment between small and graver faults came easy to him (chaps, xxiv, xxv, & xliv).
The Regular Discipline.—St. Benedict refers frequently and in a summary way to the disciplina regularis, to which the erring monk is to be subjected
(cf. iii, xxxii, liv, lx, Ixii, lxx; cf. also chaps, xlviii, lxv, & lxvii). The phrase implies, first of all, the "Restraint of the Rule," the discipline of the Rule, that is, the prescriptions of the Rule to which the monk has bound himself (cf.
chap. Ixxii). This "Restraint of the Rule" becomes chastisement for the erring monk. It is for him that the Rule has punishment in mind. For such a one it also sets up a graduated scale of penal measures (cf. chap, xxviii). Obviously, this does not mean that only after he has come to the end of this graduated scale can the last and severest punishment be applied to him. Indeed, the last and severest penalty in the scale could be inflicted upon the monk right off should the gravity of his transgression warrant it.
Private Reprimand.—Should the monk have been guilty of some transgres sion, he had to make an open confession of it to the superior of his deanery and to the abbot. Minor faults were atoned for when he received this oral re primand and a corresponding penance (e.g., prayers or fasting). It is to be assumed that in St. Benedict's monastery the erring brother was to be re ported to the superior in case he neglected to go himself. This, of course, en tailed a more severe penance. And as we have seen, an oral reprimand and the accompanying penance could be given a second and a third time (cf. chaps, xxviii & xlvi). Obviously, however, the abbot might resort to corporal chastise ment immediately, especially in the case of boys or with rough and incorrigible characters (cf. chaps, xxiii, xxviii, & liv). Corporal punishment played a dis tinct role in the Rule of St. Benedict (cf. also chaps, ii, xxx, xlv, & lxxi. In early monasticism, this type of punishment did not have the degrading implica tion that it has in our modern days. Likewise, it must not be forgotten that the Holy Rule was written at a crude and difficult time, in the midst of the turmoil of the migration of nations. It also distinguished clearly between priv ate and public correction.
Public Reprimand.—It may be assumed that on certain days there took place in St. Benedict's cloister something similar to what we know today as the "chapter of faults." This consisted in the practice of openly acknowledging and confessing certain specified faults (against the Rule) in the presence of the abbot and the assembled brethren. It rested with the abbot to pass judgment on the gravity of an offense, to decide the kind of punishment to be imposed, and the manner in which special penances were to be performed.
It remains to treat of the other three kinds of punishment: minor excom munication, major excommunication, and expulsion from the cloister.
Minor Excommunication.—Minor excommunication meant that the monk was interdicted from association with the other monks at the common table
(cf. chaps, xxiv & xliv). The delinquent monk received his meal or meals only three hours after the rest of the brethren, and his allotted share of wine was also withdrawn. Evidently, it was a penalty that was meant to be felt, and was, moreover, combined with some liturgical atonement. During the chanting of the canonical hours, for instance, the one who had been banned from the common table had to stand in a separate place in the choir set aside by the abbot for delinquent monks. The ensuing embarrassment served to shame the erring brother into amending his ways (chap, xliii). Those who were placed in the prisoner's dock, so to speak, were also denied the privilege of intoning a psalm or of any other open participation in the Work of God. Of course, it
was always at the abbot's discretion should the case so warrant it, to allow a monk to leave the penitent's stand and resume his former place in the choir.
In any case, the delinquent had to wait until he was eventually forgiven; the duration of his punishment was usually announced in the "chapter of faults."
It was also possible that the abbot might not openly tell the length of time his penance was to last but kept that to himself, allowing the monk to return to his former place in the choir only after he had, with the other penitents, begged for the abbatial blessing at the "prostration" (that is, at the general exit from the oratory), when perhaps he had also to ask for the final remission of his fault (cf. chap, xliii). Minor excommunication was undoubtedly combined with some added private penances. It had a considerable place in the discipline of St. Benedict's cloister.
Major Excommunication.—Major excommunication completely interdicted the monk from all the daily activities of the monastic community (chaps, xxv to xxviii & xliv). It was patterned entirely upon the Church's exclusion from sharing in her sacramental life; and as such it is to be regarded as an evidence of St. Benedict's conception of his cloistep'as a "Church in miniature." When treating of this major form of penalty (chap, xxv), the Holy Rule points to the Church's first example of ecclesiastical excommunication; namely, the banishment of the incestuous adulterer from the Church at Corinth (1 Cor. v,
I ff). The banished monk was utterly shut out from the common life of the house: he performed has assigned tasks by himself, and he was enjoined to persevere in sorrow and compunction of heart . . . He took his meals alone, and his food was not blessed.
The abbot could also impose a strict fast upon the delinquent. No one greeted him or blessed him in passing. Anyone who tried to associate with him made himself liable to the same severe punishment. During all the canonical hours, he had to follow the prayers of his brethren while standing before the doors of the oratory. At the close of the "offices," he had to prostrate him self at the feet of the abbot and the other monks (as they were leaving), silent ly begging for their blessing. He had to repeat these prostrations at every
"chapter of faults" and again beg the abbot and brethren for their prayers. If (and when) the abbot so decided, he could return and stand with the other delinquents in the choir, his major banishment having thereby been converted to the minor one spoken of in a previous paragraph. Here, too, there can be no doubt that this severe form of punishment was accompanied by added private penances (extra prayers, fasting, restriction upon liberty of movement, corporal chastisement, and a ban upon any kind of conversation with others
(cf. chap, xlix)).
The Holy Rule gives us several clues as to which faults were to be so severely punished: obstinate disobedience (even) on the part of the prior (chap.
!xv), the vice of private ownership (chap, lv), and incorrigibility (chap, xxviii).
Two chapters have been devoted to the excommunicated, and these are among the finest evidences of the Rule's discretio (chaps, xxvii & xxviii).
Expulsion from the Cloister.—Extremely flagrant cases which the abbot, after
taking counsel with some of the God-fearing brethren (cf. chap, iii), looked upon as such, and cases of hopeless incorrigibility, he could dispose of by the juridical sentence of final expulsion from the monastic ecclesia (cf. chaps, xxviii, lviii, lxi, lxii, lxv, & lxxi). The monk so dismissed received his secular clothing back from the cellarer (chap, lviii). While the Rule provides that the monk who had left the cloister of his own free will could be forgiven and read mitted up to a third time, no such provision is made for the expelled religious.
Sacramental Penance.—The early Church did not as yet know of private sacramental confession, or of confession for peace of conscience (Devotionsbeicht), so familiar and common in our days. The Sacrament of Penance was reserved for more heinous sins. According to the testimony of Abbot Cassian, such sins were, for example: murder, sexual incontinence, adultery, drunk enness, thievery, and robbery (Conference xxiii, 15). Accordingly as these sins were attended with public and grave scandal, or had been committed in secret, the sacramental penance was either public or semi-public. The Sacra ment of Penance embraced the following main divisions: the public or private confession of one's sins to a bishop or presbyter, public or private excom munication, and the assignment of the sinner to one or the other of the various classes of penitents. St. Basil classified them as the "weeping, the listening, the prostrate, and the standing" (cf. Letter ccxvii). Moreover, as parts of the Sacrament of Penance were to be considered the public reconciliation (Wiederversohnung), which took place on Holy Thursday, and the penances which were performed partly in public and partly in private. These sacramental pen ances, according to the canons of the early Church, were to be imposed only once. The result of this was that they were hardly practical in the life of the exemplary Christian or in the lives of those striving for perfection.
In the virtuous lives of the early Christian and of the monks, the day by day penitential practices (cf. St. Augustine, Letter cclv, 8) played a far greater role in the remission of sins than they do today. Such penitential works were the Lord's Prayer (fifth petition), fasting, spiritual and corporal (interior and exterior) mortification, penitential sorrow, humble acceptance of reprimands, tears, and almsgiving (cf. Origen, Horn, on Lev. ii, 4; and Cassian Institutes xx, 8). Over against the "heavy burden of penance," that is, the sacramental penance which was to be imposed only once (a meagre price in comparison, he wanted to say, with the guilt of great sins) Cassian placed the "in estimable daily graces bestowed upon the Christian by Christ" and the "easy remission" of his sins that one could obtain by the aforesaid works of penance (loc. cit. xxiii, 15). Above all, the life of a monk was looked upon as an "ever-enduring penance" (cf. HR, chap. xlix). The putting on of the monastic habit and one's entrance into the cloister were regarded as an adequate Ersatz (substitute) for sacramental penance. Consequently, the fact that St. Benedict was completely silent on the matter of sacramental pen ance should in no way be considered remarkable or noteworthy, A monk who had committed a sin that called for the severe form of sacramental punishment prevailing in those days would in most cases have been expelled from the
cloister. It cannot be doubted or denied that the imposition of these early forms of Christian penance had first to be sanctioned by absolution in private sacramental confession.
The Spiritual Father.—While publicly committed faults had to be publicly confessed, "sins" committed in secret, that is, secret wounds of the soul, were to be revealed only to the abbot or to one of the "spiritual fathers" (seniors)
(chap, xlvi; also chap, iv, 50). With this prescription, the Holy Rule alignes it self with primitive monastic thinking, which obviously goes back to Origen
(f 254). He really did not originate the ideal of the "spiritual father," guide and physican of souls, or the kindly father-teacher, but he had seen it (in his meditations) so often and so wonderfully exemplified in the life of Jesus and so only deduced it from the example of that glorious first model (cf. HR, chap, xxviii). The "spiritual father" and physician of souls strives in all his actions to emulate his Divine Lord, who regarded the salvation of souls as his main task.
Monachism, then, adopted this ideal of the "spiritual father," a father who was filled with the Holy Spirit and versed in every phase of asceticism and virtuous living. The title of Abba gave outward expression to that ideal. The abba, in imitation of the Apostles, whd had received from the Lord the power of binding and loosing, also exercised to the extent of his ability and com mission (from the Church) the fullness of the apostolic power, in that, seeing a brother enmeshed in the toils of sin, he endeavored to help him by healing the wounds of his soul. The great Antony advised the monks who came to him for guidance to write down daily their thoughts and inspirations, to keep, as it were, a sort of day-book of their spiritual status (Life lv). St. Basil, in order to promote their progress in monastic perfection, laid it upon his monks as a duty not to conceal "any troubles and anxieties of their spiritual life nor to speak any thoughtless words but to share all the secrets of their hearts with those brethren who, by reason of their goodness and sympathetic kindness, had been given charge of the sick" (Longer Rules xxv; cf. xlv, 2; also Shorter
Rules 229). For sin is a sickness of the soul. For just as a physically sick man will reveal to a competent physician all his wounds and infirmities, so the er ring monk makes known to his "spiritual father" the sad state of his con science. He who is in possession of the Holy Spirit and a recipient of his gifts possesses also the gift of guiding souls and an insight into the human heart. He understands a delinquent confrere's sinful state, and as a skilful physician of souls, knows what are the appropriate remedies (cf. chaps, xxvii & xxviii). And because he reimparts "spiritual life," solace, relief, and healing to a sincerely seeking brother, he is called a "spiritual father."
That the abbot is a "spiritual father" the Holy Rule takes for granted. Yet it also presupposes that there will possibly be (in every monastery, especially in the larger ones) other monks worthy of that noble title, to one or the other of whom the monks can and should with confidence have recourse in their needs and difficulties of soul. It is possible that the deans were, if not un conditionally or necessarily so, at least generally such "spiritual fathers." In