Chapter 3
excuse the monk from the duty of submission, so long as no divine law has manifestly been violated. God's omnipotence and goodness are surely ever able to let man's renunciation become a wellspring of the richest blessings.
On the other hand, it is never permitted to do anything evil in order that God may perchance turn it into good. Yet one must make every effort to discover what is the will of God; and once that will is recognized, it must be fulfilled. Besides the commandments of God, the precepts of the Church and of the Holy Rule, alongside well-tried monastic customs and traditions, the will of God should become manifest to the abbot in most instances through his
"sound common sense." But let that expression be rightly understood. We mean thereby the supernatural cardinal virtue of prudence and ultimately the virtue of discretion. This latter can mean the capacity to determine what in a crucial moment is the best course to follow (cf. chap, lxiv, Excursus I). Pru dence, or more precisely the discretio, is a fate-fraught question for the abbot as obedience is for the monk. The abbot who possesses the virtue of pru dence, let us say discretion, is just, moderate, and decisive. He is a good judge of men, and he can see through to the honesty and purity of motive in the monk's conduct. He does not allow himself to be easily deceived, and he is equally removed from precipitate rashness and wavering hesitancy. He knows also how to value the counsels of the brethren. He is able, too, from out the plethora of opinions, to glean with tolerably clear insight what is the positive will of God. Prompted, of course, by their faith-inspired convictions, it is a most consoling thought for both the abbot and his monks, that the will of God writes ever straight over the variedly crooked lines of human inade quacy; for they recognize, too, that this will rises ever sovereign above all man's efforts to grasp and fulfill it.
THIRD CHAPTER
Convening the Brethren in Council As often as some important business is to be transacted in the monastery, let the abbot call the whole community to gether and outline the matter to be discussed.1 We have said that all should be called to the council, for the reason that the Lord often reveals to juniors which is the better course.2
1 In the monastic confederation of St. Pachomius, the Abbot-General summoned the superiors and monks twice a year, at Easter and in August, to a general chap ter, if we may use a modern term. While the meeting at Easter was devoted main ly to the celebration of the Pascal solemnities, the assembly in August dealt entire ly with disciplinary and administrative matters. We may even assume that Pach omius questioned the monks and listened to their opinions, although the final decision devolved upon himself (Jerome, Foreword to the Rule of St. Pachomius).
St. Basil decreed that "the superiors of his monasteries should now and again, at certain times and in fixed places, come together to discuss weighty matters and exchange experiences" (Longer Rules 54). —In like manner, the hermits in the
Of course, the brethren should give their opinions in all humility and submission and not presume to defend their view points obstinately. And let the decision in the matter rest rather in the free discretion of the abbot, so that all may obey him in what he decides to be salutary. But as it becomes the disciple to obey the master, so it also behooves the master to order all things providently and justly.
All should accordingly follow the Rule as their mistress, and none should rashly depart from it. Let no one in the mon astery follow the will of his own heart. Likewise let, none pre sume to quarrel with the abbot or to do so outside the cloister.1
Let anyone who attempts to do this be subjected to the discipline of the Rule.2
Nevertheless, let the abbot do everything in the fear of the Lord and know that without doubt he will have to render an account of his decisions before God, the most righteous of judges.
Should, however, some business of minor benefit to the cloister come up, let him make use of the counsel of the seniors only, as it is written: "Do all things with counsel, and you will have nothing to regret after the thing is done" (cf. Ecclus. xxxii,
24)3 desert, especially the more prominent among them, formed a council (Synedrium) among themselves, in order to decide, e.g., questions of discipline and to inflict penalties upon delinquent brethren. The council of the brethren was looked upon as an important thing in the koinobion. In the cloister at Lerins, "the large num ber of non-priests (laymonks)" elected the abbot (Synod of Arles in 455). No rule before St. Benedict's time had explained the idea of the monastic council so clearly as did the Holy Rule. The main idea of a council of the brethren was not to limit or circumscribe the full authority of the abbot (through a kind of parlia ment), but to help him discern or reveal to him the will of God that had to be ful filled. The council of the brethren had its prototype in the age-old "college of Presbyters" subject to the bishop. This assembly of counselors was already a practice with St. Ignatius of Antioch (f c. 110).
2 On one occasion St. Pachomius gave the 20-year-old monk Theodore the task of "preaching the word of God to the brethren." It had been his custom to give his monks a conference each evening. This day as the young Theodore, accord ing to instructions given him, began to speak in place of the abbot, a number of the older monks left the gathering. "Since this neophyte wants to teach us, we will not listen to him." they said. After the conference Pachomius called these monks to account. "Why did you," he asked, "leave the conference and go back to your cells?" They answered: "Because thou hast set such a child up as a teacher over ancients and men far advanced in the cloister." Pachomius was deep-
Excursus 1.
The Monks.—Whereas the Holy Rule, in special chapters, paints an ideal pic ture of the abbot and places before us rather prominently a working model of the abbatial office, it has no section devoted to the question: "What kind of man the monk ought to be."
The Rule, however, does reveal step by step in the course of its chap ters a downright astonishing knowledge of the manifold characteristics of the human heart and of the human make-up. ft knows, too, that there is no com partment or niche into which one might compress all men, irrespective of their individual qualities of mind and of heart. It demands of the abbot, then, that he enter lovingly and in a spirit of service into the personal needs of his monks; and it thereby requires of him daily a most burdensome kind of renun ciation and sacrifice. The Holy Rule likewise knows the various types of monks that the cloister often hides within its walls: the willing and the obedi ent, the good-natured and the intelligent, the lukewarm and the slothful, the captious and the murmuring and the critical, the obstinate and the proud and the presumptuous. So it placed the rod in the hands of the abbot for the cor rection of certain monks for whom, after long and fruitless admonitions, corp oral discipline was the last resort of wisdom (chaps, ii, xxi, xxiii, xxviii & lxviii).
Penal discipline of the kind described in the previous paragraph was not only old-monastic practice but in the rude and turbulent times in which St.
Benedict lived the approved remedy. In our day, however, in the task of guid ing and leading sensitive and nervous temperaments, the abbot is confronted with heavy problems and solutions quite different. Corporal punishment is out of the question and unthinkable today. It is in the handling of these var ious situations that the abbot comes to feel and experience the pressing weight and responsibility of his office. For this reason the Holy Rule never ceases to warn him that he must "win souls" and "heal souls," be considerate, never thoughtless (chaps, ii, & xxvii), and never a tyrant (chap. lxiv). Yet there comes a time when further consideration on the part of the abbot for an incurly troubled and pointed out that "pride is the source of all sins. It is not that you abandoned Theodore, but that you have fled from the word of the Lord and alien ated yourselves from the Holy Spirit. Did you not see that it was Satan who goad ed you to go so far? God humbled himself, in as much as he was obedient unto death for us, and we who are lowborn by nature, want to thrust ourselves forward .
. . I tell you that I have derived much benefit from listening to Theodore. I did not permit him to speak to try you but in the hope that I might profit thereby"
(Second Life liii).
1 Such disrespectful conduct towards the abbot outside the cloister would be a source of much greater scandal.
2 St. Benedict here means the penalties provided for in the Rule itself.
3 In the meaning of the Holy Rule, the abbot was originally bound neither by the advice of the brethren nor by that of the seniors (cf. chap. xxi). The Code of Canon Law and, in accordance with it, our various Benedictine Constitutions, or Statutes, specify the particular instance in which the abbot is obligated today, whether for validity or liceity, to abide by the counsel of the seniors or by that of his chapter.
ably hardened and hopelessly irreformable monk would be weakness and false kindness, when he must apply the stern power of his abbatial office, finally banishing the brother in question from the company of his brethren (chap, xxviii).
As the surpassing dignity of the abbot derives from the Abba Christus, so the great dignity of the monk stems from the same root, in that he is the bondservant, workman, soldier, lamb, invalid, follower, disciple, child, and son of the identical Lord and Master, Christ.
The Holy Rule takes the word, "slave" (Latin - servus; German Sklave), or bondservant, quite seriously, and in its full range of meaning.*
In his relation to the world, to his brethren, and to himself, the monk is com pletely without rights. In this respect, he is quite similar to the slave of antiq uity. By virtue of his self-oblation at profession, he has become, and that voluntarily, the bondservant of the Abba Chrisus. He knows that the pains of hell await him if he does not fulfill the terms of his service. The most ex cellent task he performs from day to day, his "pensum," is the "Work of God," the divine office in common. And since the Abba Christus exercises his au thority primarily through his representative, the monk is bound to his abbot in obedience. One need but read the 44th chapter to see how literally the Holy Rule would have the monk take his service of bondage. "The workman" of the Abba Christus has a task assigned to him similar in nature to that of the "bondservant" of the Lord. As the Rule ceaselessly demands of him (cf. chaps, v & vii), his virtue is that of the bondservant, the soldier, and the dis ciple—the virtue of obedience.
As the Holy Rule is explicitly an "ordinance for beginners,' the disci ple, the workman, and the bondservant undeniably stand out in the forefront.
Yet one chief objective of St. Benedict and of his Rule is to let the "child," the "son" of the Abba Christus, come out with equal prominence in the monk.
For the child has as little right as the slave or the bondservant, but he is nevertheless entitled to use that marvelous phrase, "Abba Father." The words are indeed not an empty echo, as we have seen above. They are an attest to our possession of the Holy Spirit, and this transforms us into trusted friends, even into "children" and "sons" of the Abba Christus. The monk has not merely the name of "child," but he has already the certain assurance that he will in time come into the possession of that glorious heritage which the eternal
Abba has reserved for him on the day of the fulfillment. So the monk wears under the coarse, unseemly garb of the bondservant, the soldier, or the work man the bright and costly robe of the beloved of the Abba. In this temporal state, he will never be able or permitted completely to slough off the lowly garment of his servitude, and that despite his perfect love of the Master, which should drive out any slavish fear (cf. end of chap. vii).
* (Throughout this translation is was deemed advisable to render the word Sklave
(slave) with the words servant or bondservant as more palatable to British and American tastes. —The translator)
During his earthly pilgrimage, therefore, the monk will often have to assume the humble bearing of the bondservant (cf. chap, vii, 12th degree of humility). But the day will eventually come when the Abba Christus will di vest his faithful servant, his brave soldier, and his diligent workman of the garb of his lowliness, so that the shining robe of his "sonship" will be display ed in all its splendor. Then the Suscipe me, Domine, of his profession will be gloriously fulfilled. As must the abbot, so must the monk follow the suffer ing Lord on his painful and anguish-fraught way. This participation in the sufferings of Christ is hinted at in the conclusion to the prologue. The third degree of humility in the seventh chapter says of the Abba Christus that he was obedient unto death. In the early monastic interpretation of his role, the monk was a "cross-bearer." But the final destiny of both abbot and monk is not the destitution of Golgotha but a sharing in the kingdom of their
"Father," Christ (Prologue, concl.).
St. Basil had an earnest word to say to both abbot and monks: "As the provost and the superior, so usually are the subordinates. (Or as the Latins put it: Qualis rex, talis grex.) Another variation of that saying is equally valid: both head and body constitute the monastic community.
Excursus II.
The Lay-Brother.—Neither the old monachism of the East nor the later monachism of the West would have seen any basic difference between the choirmonk and the lay-Brother, a distinction which we take so much for granted today. According to the Holy Rule, which in this respect was quite in accord with monastic tradition, there were only "monks." Very few things could contribute to establish any distinction of rank, whether of family origin, degree of culture, or kind of manual labor. All the monks were allocated to their proper places in the ranks as the abbot and the Holy Rule prescribed. The labor was so chosen that it could in no wise affect adversely the order of pre cedence in the cloister. Thus, for example, St. Basil excluded from his cloisters all noisy occupations and such activities as might "disturb their living togeth er" (Longer Rules #38). In the Holy Rule labor in the fields was an excep tion (chap, xlviii). In later centuries the kind of field labor that might at times have made regular life impossible was taken care of by slaves or serfs attached to the monastery. The institute of lay-Brothers had its origins in the centuries after St. Benedict. Some of the weighty reasons that led the way and finally brought about its introduction will be reviewed in the follow ing paragraphs.
The lands and other real estate of the abbeys, either through legacies or earnings, were growing ever more diversified and extensive. In fact, some of the religious houses were becoming great landed proprietors, and this con stituted a serious danger for the spirit as well as the discipline of the cloister.
The material prosperity of these abbeys and their efforts to preserve this pros perity could have been the occasion for a distinct let-down in the strict ob servance of the Rule. The administration of their extensive properties de-
manded ever and ever more attention. The monasteries needed ever larger labor forces for their craft establishments and their farms. On the other hand, the monks, who in ever growing numbers were being elevated to the priest hood, gave up manual labor altogether and devoted themselves exclusively to the cultivation of the liturgy, to study, to the education of youth, or to pastoral and missionary activities. The abbeys, which did not wish to abandon entirely their observance of the Rule, had perforce to hire laymen, so that the neces sary manual labor could be taken care of. It was hardly accidental, then, that the abbeys of the Italian reform, such as Camaldoli, Fontevellana, and Vallumbrosa (from about 1000 to 1 100), were the first to receive laymen and incorporate them with their manual skills into their communal life, so that they might the better live up to their monastic ideals.
Whether or not these Italian abbeys adopted the idea from the Greek abbeys of the East is wholly uncertain. For the Eastern abbeys there had fos tered for some time, certainly since the time of Abbot Theodore of Studiu
(f 826) on the outskirts of Constantinople, two classes of monks: those who wore the "small" habit and those who wore the "large widesleeved" habit (cf. chap. Iviii, Excursus II). It was not long after this that these lay members of the cloister, or "converse brothers" (fratres conversi or barbati), appeared also in France and Germany. Abbot William of Hirsau (f 1091) was the first to introduce them into his monastery.
The institute of lay-brothers experienced a glorious, if relatively short, period of springtime with the monks of Citeaux, who, from the eleventh century on, especially under St. Bernard, wanted to return to the strict and literal observance of the Rule. The Cistercians did not found the institute, but they did designedly build it up and develop it. (from about 1100 to 1250) as no others had done before them. They took in laymen, such as farmers, craftsmen, and others, gave them further training and instruction, and placed them in charge, under the supervision of monks, over the manual labor in the cloister and the workshops, especially over the farm properties that lay in the surroundings of the abbey.
It may be said that the temporal existence of the Cistercian abbeys de pended to a very large extent upon their lay-brothers. They were given a mo nastic order of the day that fitted in with their manner of life. They were, however, true religious, with distinct and well-defined rights and privileges.
A transfer from their status to that of the monks was not permitted. They wore the tunic (cassock) and short scapular with cowl. At divine services they wore the cappa (a sleeveless, wide robe or wrapper). Had it not been for its lay-brothers, the order of St. Bernard could not have begun and carried out its cultural labors in eastern Germany. As we have indicated, they made it possible for the Rule of St. Benedict to be observed again in all its pristine ttrictness.
Today practically every order and religious institute of priests have their attached institutes of lay-brothers. The founders of Beuron intention-
ally patterned and developed their institute, the so-called "Beuronese Broth ers," soon a flourishing group, after the idea of the Cistercians. But. bearing in mind the newer reckoning of time, they laid great stress upon religious training.
The process of becoming a lay-brother in most Benedictine congrega tions is as follows. The candidate spends a period of six months in the clois ter as a postulant. After the expiration of this period, he is admitted by the abbot into the novitiate, but usually only after a majority vote of the chapter.
In all instances this vote is required for validity. The novitiate lasts for one or two years accordingly as the statutes of the particular congregation provide.
After the lapse of the one or two years, should the chapter vote in the affirm ative, he can be permitted by the abbot to make temporary profession, also known as triennial vows. At the expiration of the three years, if the abbot so decides (usually again after a consultive vote of the chapter), there follows the so-called simple perpetual profession. In Beuronese practice, as in the cloisters of other Benedictine congregations, the lay-brother is, of course, not a monk in the canonical sense, but he is nevertheless a true religious and a member of the monastic family.
The Oblates.—When we speak here of "oblates," we are not referring to the children who were brought to the monastery by their parents to be educated or to be trained as future monks, a custom prevalent in the time of St. Bene dict (cf. chap. lix). Under the term "oblates." we mean rather those lay people, both men and women, who as a rule remain in the world (secular oblates) but associate themselves with a particular abbey through some kind of religious ceremony and remain in spiritual union with it. Some monk, appointed by the abbot, takes charge of them, instructs them, and introduces them to the monastic ideal as outlined in the Holy Rule. The institute of oblates, entirely unalien to the Holy Rule, as an idea probably harks back to St. Fructuosus of Brage (f 655). Since the middle of the 19th century, the new blossomtime of the Benedictine Order, it has played a considerable role in many a Benedictine abbey.
Besides the secular oblates, many abbeys foster also an institute of claustral oblates (house oblates), lay-brother oblates and choir oblates, who live in the cloister, placing themselves and their talents at the disposal of the community. The choir oblates, mostly priests, associate more with the monks, while the lay-brother oblates associate and recreate more with the laybrothers.
Excursus ///.
The Monastic Ecclesia.—The Holy Rule sees in the monk the bondservant, the workman, the soldier, and the disciple of the Abba Christus, for he with the abbot as Christ's representative constitute the "school of the Lord's service"
(cf. end of the prologue). In the final analysis, this school is not set up through any compulsion from without. The monks place themselves volun tarily under the Abba Christus as his bondservants, workmen, soldiers, and
disciples. This service of bondage, or enlistment as laborers, soldiers, and disciples is basically one of their own free choice. After the monk, however, has enlisted in this service of the Lord, the Abba Christus will expect him to adhere strictly to the terms of his enlistment. Obedience to him and to his vicegerent is the most important element that holds the community more than outwardly together. The slave obeys through fear of the lash, the wageearner for the sake of his pay, the soldier for his share of honor in the victory, the sick man in order to regain his health, the student that he may graduate and receive his diploma. The purpose and incentive of this community is also an intimately interested one. In the first place, it has to do with a commu nity of men, a society with an end in view. And it is a noble and lofty endeverlasting life. The means for its attainment are obedience, silence, and humility (cf. chaps, v to vii). Prayer, both common and private, also helps along in the task. Manual labor, as well as monastic penances and the prac tice of mortification, serve and are directed towards the same end.
Undoubtedly these thoughts play a decidedly important role in the Rule of St. Benedict. The last paragraph of the prologue calls our attention to the fact that "this service in the school of/the Lord" will and must be some what hard in the beginning. However, it would not be correct to regard the monk merely as a bondservant, laborer, patient, soldier, or disciple. He is also—and herein consists his highest dignity—a "child" and a "son" of the Abba Christus, whom he may address in childlike confidence as "Abba Fath er!" The most meaningful badge, or motto, of the monastic ecclesia is in the mind of St. Benedict—may he speak of it ever so often—not the obedience of a servant, or of a soldier, or of a disciple, but an obedience of love. It is love
—charity—the working out of the greatest commandment of the Abba Christus, that determines the final worthiness of a monastic community, not external exercises or exterior discipline and order. These, of course, should not be lacking, but they can also become the shibboleths of a hollow-sounding mech anism. St. Benedict agrees unconditionally with the first sentence of St. Au gustine's rule: "This is what 1 ordain for you in the cloister; the first objective of your life in common is to live together in unity and 'to have one heart and one soul' " (Acts iv, 32; chap. i). In the 71st and 72nd chapters of his Rule,
St. Benedict tells us how he pictures to himself the ideal monastic community.
His ecclesia is no soulless collective, not a body of automatons or zombies, but a union of brothers, who, in the Holy Spirit whom they possess, are united in love and charity, under the Abba Christus and his earthly representative.
The ideal monastic ecclesia, consequently, is a community of love. The brethren, united with one another in the bond of charity, are, moreover, de voted in love to the Abba Christus and to their abbot. They follow these as their guides. To their paternal call they render a childlike obedience. They mutually recognize one another's gifts of grace and do not take advantage of one another. They bear with the unavoidable frailties that attach themselves to all men. The self-seeking that is divisive and disintegrating may not be
permitted to enter in among them. A cohesive love should bind them all to gether, abbot and brethren. For there the Abba Chrisms is the all-illumina ting, all-warming sun. His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, must be the dominating influence in the monastic family, not the spirit of the slave or of the apple polishing schoolboy. The Holy Rule speaks with some reserve of this high standard of conduct, because it is ever conscious of the fact that this humbly subservient and self-less charity is not only the holiest but also the most difficult to attain. It knows also that it is not hard to say, "Abba Father," but that it is a matter of downright earnestness (blutiger Ernst - bloody ear nestness) to convert the self-oblation made at one's profession into self-less love.
Following a pattern set by the monachism preceding him, St. Benedict envisions his ideal monastic community not in the natural family or in some secular brotherhood with a purpose, but in the Church of Christ. The mon astery, the Koinobion, is an exemplification of the ideal union that exists be tween Christ and his bride, the Church. At a very early age, monastic pro fession, that oblation of oneself to Christ, was already called a "second bap tism" (cf. St. Jerome, c. 385, Letter xxxix, 3). As a man dies to the world and is incorporated into Christ's holy family through baptism, so the monk through his profession becomes a member of the holy monastic family, a "community of saints" (St. Pachomius, Rule 1). His monastic habit is a new baptismal robe. The Holy Rule presupposes the conception of the cloister as an ideal Church to be an obvious thing. The first Church of Jerusalem was from the very earliest period the model for the Koinobion (cf. chaps, xxxiii, xxxiv, & lv). Consequently, St. Benedict looks upon the every-day tools of the monastery as the utensils of the altar. There is, then no secular precinct in the cloister.
None of the monastic Fathers before St. Benedict expressed them selves so often and so warmly concerning the monastic community as did St.
Augustine. Referring to that passage in the Acts, "They had but one heart and one life for God" (cf. iv, 32), Augustine wrote as follows to a young monk: "In the same way your life is no longer your personal possession, but belongs to all your brethren just as their lives belong to you; or, to put it in a better way, your life with theirs does not go to form a union of many lives, but is merely one life, and that is Christ's" (Letter eexliii, 4). This unity of the brethren is precisely the cloister's chief objective. In his exegesis of the 132nd psalm, first verse, "How good and how pleasant it is for breth ren to dwell together in unity," St. Augustine chants a song in praise of mon achism and of the monastic family: "It was these words that brought the cloister into being. Their echo was the incentive that inspired many of the brethren (hermits) with a vehement desire to live together in harmony. That verse was their clarion call. Its tones echoed back and forth over the earth, and what had been divided gathered itself together into one."
In the first Church at Jerusalem, upon which the Holy Ghost had de-
scended on Pentecost, St. Augustine saw the first monastic community. "They were the ones who first dwelt together in unity. As we read in the Acts of the Apostles, the first disciples sold all their possessions and laid the pro ceeds at the feet of the Apostles (Acts ii, 45 & iv, 35 . . . 'They had but one heart and one soul' for God. . . They were the first ones to attempt it, but they were not the only ones. For this love and this unity among brethren did not cease with them. Later generations also inherited this jubilant song of love, this divinely inspired solemn promise—monastic profession. For here there is really something promised to God. . . It was from one word of this psalm (cxxxii) that the word 'monk' was taken. Let no man, therefore, mock you on account of it." Augustine here derives the word "monk" from the Greek word monos (one; Latin - unus). "Monos signifies unity, though not unity in every sense. . . It is limited to a single person. But a group of men who so live together that they constitute a unified entity, and. as it is written
(Acts iv, 32). have only 'one heart and one soul,' many bodies but not many souls, many bodies but not many hearts, can in consequence and with right be designated a monad, that is, a unit.
Monastic unity manifests itself in the fulfillment of the law of Christ, "Bear ye one another's burdens" (Gal. vi, 2). Referring to the symbolism at tached to the robe of the High Priest, Christ, St. Augustine presents us this beautiful comparison. The robe with which Christ is vested is the Church.
The splendid border around the collar, which is close to the head of the Lord, symbolizes monachism, for it is through the fraternal love of the monks that the head, Christ, must find an entrance when he is being vested with the Church as with a robe. Augustine means to say thereby that through this monastic community of love Christ should ever find an entrance into the Church and into the world.
Organically speaking, the monastic community is a specially favored limb of the body of the Lord. "It is a gift of grace coming from God when brethren dwell together in unity; and like the dew from heaven, it is a special mark of his benevolence and love, not a thing of their own doing or of their own merit. Does the earth itself supply the rain? . . Christ, the Bridegroom, loved the Church his bride, because she reserved her beauty in order that she might offer it to him. It is thus that the psalmist describes the grace of God as the dew from Mount Hermon . . . All you who wish to dwell together in harmony must long for that dew and let yourselves be moistened by it. You will not otherwise be able to persevere in what you have openly promised.
You could not have attempted to do so had not that One (Iste) let his voice ring out . . . Only those live with one another in unity in whom the love of Christ has been perfected. And should those in whom his love has not be come perfect yet dwell together in a body, they are still full of contradictions, peevishness, and contentions; with their restless temperaments, they disturb the rest and seek for matter to find fault in them: they are like fractious beasts of burden, which will not pull together in the yoke but seek to tear the har-
ness with their hooves. He, however, who has been given 'that dew from Mount Hermon' is peaceful, conciliatory, calm, humble, patient, and prayer ful instead of critical. There are brethren who live together only in body.-But who are they who really live together in harmony? Surely those of whom it is written: 'They had but one heart and one soul' for God. 'Neither did anyone say that aught of the things he possessed was his own; but all things were common unto them.' . . The Lord has reserved the word of praise for brothers who abide together in unity. For you cannot sing his praises in a state of discord. You cannot in all truth claim that your tongue sings the praises of the Lord if those praises do not echo back from the heart. Rather do you blaspheme in your heart, even though you sing praises with your mouth" Augustine, Sitten tier katholischen Kirche, xxxiii).
St. Benedict would undoubtedly applaud that sentence in the rule of St. Augustine: "Let the love that is eternal illuminate all things" (chap. viii).
Neither abstinence nor austerity, neither poverty nor obedience, nor merely outwardly performed private or public prayer, but the charity that humbly serves, that sacrifices self, that animates, illumines, warms, and perfects all life in the cloister, is the soul of community living. ''Charity has been so insistently inculcated by Christ and the Apostles that with it all is per fect and without it all is in ruins" (Augustine, loco cit.).
The brotherhood of the cloister is so constituted that it is made up of members organically like the Church of Christ. The visible head of the Koinobion is an abbot elected for life. His life-long tenure of office was an obvious requirement in the mind of St. Benedict as it was in the thinking of the monachism that preceded him. As the community grew larger, he had the abbot with the counsel of the brethren appoint foremen (deans), each one in charge over ten monks (chap. xxi). St. Benedict rather reluctantly consented to the appointment of a "prior" for his monastic establishment (chap. lxv).
Excursus IV Admonition of Superiors.—A most laudable testimony to the common sense and sincerity of early monachism is the fact that it could be spoken of so favorably by a no less distinguished father of monks than St. Basil. Witness, lor example, the following precepts: "Should the provost (superior) do wrong, it is the duty of the first or foremost of the brethren to admonish him. For just as the superior is bound by virtue of his office to be a leader to the brotherhood, so is becomes the duty of the rest to admonish him should he expose himself to so much as a suspicion of transgressing the rule. How ever. in order that the monastic order may not be unduly disturbed, this duty ought to be entrusted to those who are noted for their age and pru dence.* Should, therefore, an occasion of this kind call for it. we shall
* (Attention is called to these words. Those who have distinguished themselves by their age and discretion are less likely to be deterred by unworthy motives from calling a superior's attention to any flagrant neglect or fault. Younger mem bers, with their lives still before them or with an axe to grind, however gifted as to common sense and perspicacity, are more likely to flatter a superior than point out his faults. There is hardly a better test of a superior's humility than a readi-
benefit not only our brother (the superior) but also ourselves if we try to lead him back onto the right way, since he is the person who is (or ought to be) at one and the same time the pattern for our lives and the one who by his rectitude should keep us from going astray. However, should there be some who are concerned about him without cause, let them cease to judge him if their suspicions concerning him turn out to be false" (Longer Rules
27; also Shorter Rules 27).
From the Abtsspiegel (Mirror for Abbots), a sort of digest of all the older rules, one can gather, and that rather clearly, that they all admit how the abbot, too, is liable to all the common human weaknesses, indeed, that his unlimited patriarchal power poses special dangers for him. St. Pachomius had already given his superior the admonition "that he should not 'teeter and totter' in making up his mind, but that his decisions should be firm and defi nite. He should be just and take everything into consideration. He should judge with truth and without respect. He should be candid in the sight of God and without guile before men. Nor should he be solicitous about set ting a more sumptuous table" (chap. clix). Pqkhome's disciple Horsiesi said to the superiors of his monasteries: "You are the leaders in the cloister. Be conscientious in your concern, and, in righteousness and fear before God, em ploy every loving care for your brethren. Do not haughtily misuse your power.
Be exemplary models to the flocks in your charge, just as the Lord was in all things a model unto us" (Testament 13). Our Holy Rule, too, speaks emphat ically of the possibility that the abbot may become a tyrant (chap, xxvii) and that in the selection of his subordinate officials he may let himself be in fluenced by envy and jealousy (chap. lxv). One need but read the chapter on the abbot to sense at first hand how clearly St. Benedict recognized the frail ties that threaten every monk and the abbot as well.
We will not go amiss if we accept it as a fact that St. Benedict, like St. Basil, appreciated the humble, candid admonition (Kritik) or criticism ad dressed to the abbot by his monks, those capable of mature judgment, pro vided, of course, it was free from carping, false assumption of knowledge, fault-finding, and ambition. The manner and spirit in which such an "admoni tion" should be offered is ably put in chapter lxviii( cf. also chap. iii).
If we have up until now used the word Kritik (Criticism) in the sense of an "admonition," we must also use it in the sense of "better judgement." Is it not possible that a monk on occasion may have a better "grasp" of a matter or question than his superior? The Holy Rule supplies us with the answer, which can be understood only in one way: "God often reveals to a junior which is the better way" (chap. iii). This sentence is pregnant with meaning.
In it St. Benedict says explicitly that in the cloister God manifests his will at times not only through the abbot but also through the other monks without respect to age. From this fact our holy Patriarch deduces the abbot's obliga tion to call all the brethren to council on weighty matters affecting the welness to admit his mistakes and correct his faults in a specific case. --The translator)
fare of the monastery. Furthermore. St. Benedict by no means exempts the so-called vicar of Christ in the monastery from accepting and executing the "better grasp" of a particular matter by one of the other of his subordinates.
On the other hand, the monk may not ever attempt to carry out his "better idea" on his own authority or against the expressed or well-understood will of his abbot. The actual or "concrete" performance of the will of God in the cloister is his sole responsibility. St. Bendict demands of the abbot that he think over the opinions and suggestions of his monks (our author calls them
Offenbarungen, that is, revelations) thoroughly, acknowledge their worth and carry them out.
However, the Rule itself points to the possibility of a painful conflict in this matter when it admonishes the monk not to defend his "better insight"
(bessere Einsicht) in a disrespectful manner. On theother hand, it does not want to prevent him from defending his opinion at all; nor does it want him to make a complete sacrifice by silence of the gift of insight which God has given him. It does, however, demand an unconditional respect for the abbatial authority. It presumes that the abbot, who has (or is supposed to have) the gift of discretion and the capacity of discernment, will recognize the "better insight" of a monk in a certain matter and adopt it, in order to put it into execution. Likewise the Holy Rule is far from sanctioning so-called "demo cratic license" (cf. St. Basil, Longer Ruler 45) or parliamentary freedom of speech (Parrhesia, in the sense of license to say anything) nor the unlimited and therefore spiritless principle of the right of private judgement. St. Ben edict guards the abbatial authority in this that he entrusts to it alone the actual or "concrete" execution of each and every "better insight" of a partic ular matter. But he also protects the freedom of the Holy Spirit in that he makes all the eligible members of the monastic family possible bearers of "this discerning spirit" for the greater good of the whole. In this matter
St. Benedict is of one mind with St. Basil, who wants the Holy Spirit to oper ate freely in each and every member of the monastic ecclesia.
In order to insure the eternal as well as the temporal welfare of the individual monk and that of the whole community, the Canons of the Church long ago instituted the so-called "visitations," to be conducted at certain pre scribed intervals. The custom of "visiting" the monasteries of a limited group is as old as cenobitism itself. St. Pachomius placed great value upon the practice of visiting the monasteries of his federation frequently and of promoting the welfare of the monks by conferences, by consoling talks, by sharing in their manual labors, and by the correction of abuses. These visita tions, so often referred to in the two "lives" of the saint, give glorious testi mony to this holy monk's organizational talents, tact, and zeal for the salva tion of souls. St. Benedict, who was not acquainted with the type of mo nastic federation as instituted by St. Pachomius but favored rather the single independent monastery, says nothing in his Rule of "visitations" or of the way in which they should be conducted. But the modern "Canons" that regulate