Excommunication in practice and in theory
In both the RM and the RB, varying degrees of excommunication may follow upon the verbal warnings, corresponding to Matt 18:17: “Let him be to you as a gentile and a tax collector.” However, this amounts to an accommodation of the text, for the excommunication that follows is not yet a matter of expulsion from the community, even though that is the literal force of Matt 18:17. Instead, it is at first only a matter of exclusion from the common table for lighter faults, and, in RB 24, of refraining from active participation in the Divine Office. Full exclusion from the oratory follows upon serious faults (RB 25.1), according to the abbot’s judgment as to the gravity of the fault (RB 24.2). Such an offender is also deprived of general association with the community (RB 25.2-6).
If the process of graduated excommunication remains ineffective, then expulsion from the community is in order. But even this is a matter of “degree” inasmuch as Benedict allows for a threefold expulsion from the monastery before the action is definitive (RB 29). After the third departure of the unrelenting monk from the monastery, the Master declares: “Let him be as a gentile and publican” (RM 64.4). It is clear that this process also is a further adaptation of Matt 18:17.
The practice of distinguishing between “minor” and “major” excommunication22 had ample precedent in monastic tradition by St. Benedict’s time. The New Testament passage “If your eye scandalize you …” (Matt 5:29-30) furnished Basil the Great with a scriptural basis for the final expulsion of impenitent monks if other measures failed.23 St. Benedict may well have this text and application in mind when he says in RB 28.6: “The abbot must use the knife and amputate. For the Apostle says: ‘Banish the evil one from your midst’ (1 Cor 5:13); and again, ‘If the unbeliever departs, let him depart’ (1 Cor 7:15), lest one diseased sheep infect the whole flock.”24
The complete and one-time expulsion that Paul uncompromisingly demands for the incestuous Corinthian (1 Cor 5:1-13) is here, as already in Basil, reinterpreted to allow for more than one expulsion or degree of excommunication.25 Accordingly, one whose offense is so serious as to deserve excommunication “from the table and the oratory” is to be left alone at his work (RB 25.4) in order better to impress upon him the words of Paul: “As for such a fellow, he has been given over to the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord” (1 Cor 5:5).
It is significant that St. Benedict omits from the quoted passage any mention of one’s being handed over “to Satan.”26 The RM makes no allusion at all to 1 Cor 5:5 in this context. Instead, it speaks of the excommunicated monk as one who is not to be addressed as “brother” but as a “heretic,” and not as a “son of God” but as a “demon’s workman.27” He is compared to Judas, and is one who follows the devil (RM 13.14). In all this the Master is developing a theology of excommunication that is rejected by the RB.
Not only does the RB refrain from calling excommunicated monks “heretics”—a term that would have been quite out of proportion to the crime at this period of history when heretics could even be faced with the death penalty according to the laws of Justinian28—but it designates them as “brothers,” albeit as fratres delinquentes (RB 27.1). As a result, the excommunicated monk is to be viewed in moral rather than dogmatic categories: he is a sinner, but not necessarily a heretic. Loving concern for the sinner is a foremost duty of Christians according to tradition and the RB (Prol.36-38).
Although Paul demands the full and permanent expulsion29 of the evildoer for the protection of the Christian community, since “a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor 5:6), his primary concern is “that his spirit30 may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 5:5). It is this soteriological aspect that St. Benedict wishes to realize (RB Prol; 72.11-12). At the same time, Paul’s statement contains an urgent eschatological note, since he expects the “Day of the Lord” (the return of Christ) to be quite near (1 Cor 7:27, 31; 11.26). From RB Prol.35-38, it is evident that Benedict does not have the same attitude about the nearness of the end, but adapts it (in keeping with 2 Pet 3:9 and Rom 2:4) to the soteriological thrust of 1 Cor 5:5. As a result, the recalcitrant’s isolation from the community is not only to move him to repentance (RB 25.2-3), but to serve as a reminder that continued and further hardening in his fault could eventually exclude him from salvation—the terribilis sententia of Paul (RB 25.3).
This isolation, especially from the table (cf. also RM 13.62), has its scriptural precedent in 2 Thess 3:10,14. But St. Benedict probably has 1 Cor 5:11 (“not even to eat with such a one”)31 equally in view. This action would include the withholding of a blessing or greeting (RB 25.6; 2 John 10-11). The order that the food given to the excommunicated person is not to be blessed is consonant with the early Church’s concept of the “communion of saints,” which was not a matter of communication between Christians on earth and the consortium of saints in heaven, but of the sacramental sharing among Christians at any time: “holy things to holy people.”32
Excommunication and the New Covenant 33
The preceding treatment of excommunication in the RB has brought to light the strong moral rather than dogmatic character of this action as implemented by St. Benedict. But this is not to say that the wrongdoer is merely an errant brother. Ultimately, his misbehavior can lead to severance not only from the monastic community but also from the community of all the faithful and from the covenant with Christ. The import of this “covenant theology,” implicit throughout the RB,34 is evident in chapter 29, which provides for three departures (expulsions) from the community before the process is considered irreversible. In RB 28.7, the sundering of the malcontent from the community is reinforced with Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 7:15: “If the unbeliever (infidelis) departs, let him depart.”
In context this passage deals with the problem of a non-Christian partner in marriage who refuses to continue peacefully in marriage. The word that seems to capture St. Benedict’s attention and is accommodated to the monastic situation is infidelis—an apt description of the monk who refuses to live the monastic state in peace.35 However, Benedict interprets the term as “unfaithful” rather than as “infidel.” Such an understanding of the term is consistent with his reluctance to place the excommunicated party in a doctrinal rather than moral context. Likewise, the concept of unfaithfulness or infidelity has a particular significance in a marital or covenant-oriented setting. The monk s life, like marriage, requires great faith (trust) and fidelity (loyalty) for its success. Both chapters 5 and 7 of 1 Corinthians treat of marital matters, and marriage is the sign of God’s covenant of love with the “faithful”—the Church (Eph 5:25-32).
Repeatedly St. Benedict applies St. Paul’s covenant theology.36 It is in this framework that RB 33.4 (“monks may not have the free disposal even of their own bodies and wills”)37 and RB58.25 (“from that day he will not have even his own body at his disposal”)38 can be best understood. These statements, often so alien to the ideas of an individualistic age, recall several passages from Paul’s writings concerning the relationship of husband and wife, and of Christ and the Church.39 In the final analysis, St. Benedict states far more thoroughly than his immediate monastic sources the notion of the offender’s severance from salvation, without, however, labeling the wrongdoer as a heretic or one who is to be immediately abandoned to his unfortunate lapse.
As in his “theology of excommunication,” so also in his “theology of concern” (see Thematic Index; CARE and CONCERN) for the excommunicated, St. Benedict proves himself independent of the Master and Cassian. In RB 27.3-4, a quotation is taken from 2 Cor 2:7-8 (“Let them console him lest he be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow … let love for him be reaffirmed”), to which is immediately added by way of explanation of this “love”: “and let all pray for him.”40 An important part of St. Benedict’s concern for the excommunicated brother is the abbot’s sending of the senpectae41 to console the fellow monk and to encourage him to a change of heart. This practice
recalls Paul’s advice to the Galatians: “Brothers, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual (hymeis hoi pneumatikoi) should restore him in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal 6:1).
Although it is not likely that Paul is referring to the incestuous man of 1 Cor 5 when he advises the Corinthians in 2 Cor 2:7-8 to accept a repentant offender again into their midst, it is likely that St. Benedict, as many Church Fathers before him, identifies them as one and the same.42 In doing so, it is clear that his foremost concern is the repentance of the offender and the ensuing forgiveness of the community, rather than a vindictive proceeding against such weak persons, for that would endanger rather than promote their salvation (RB 27.5-9; 64.11-14, 17-18). This also fits well into Paul’s interpretation of the community’s role in forgiveness in 2 Cor 2:11: “to keep Satan from gaining the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his designs.”
From the preceding presentation, it is amply clear that St. Benedict is thoroughly acquainted with Pauline thought and most capable of applying it to monastic life. His appreciation for the Apostle’s insights and theology moves him to produce a rule for monasteries that is sane, balanced and firmly founded on Paul’s thinking; and he does this independently of his monastic sources and predecessors.
Exclusion from prayer
Closely related to the practice of exclusion from the table is the exclusion from prayer with the community. Although the practice is introduced without any explicit scriptural references, it is easily understood as included in many biblical restrictions regarding wrongdoers or people under some cultic censure,43 and has a well-documented history by St. Benedict’s time.
The Gospel according to John (9:22; 12:4; 16:2) shows the synagogue procedure for preventing certain persons from participation in the prayer and worship of the community. 44 St. Paul, apparently trained in rabbinical thought and practice (Acts 22:3), advises the Corinthians “not to associate with immoral men” or “with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed … not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor 5:9,11). These measures would clearly preclude community in prayer with such persons.
Various early Christian writings and Church Fathers clearly spell out their reasons for non-association in prayer with the excommunicated. Often they assert that the purity and effectiveness of prayer and cultic action require the presence of only those properly disposed. The Didache gives the following instruction: “Having gathered together on the Lord’s Day, break bread and give thanks after having confessed your faults, so that your sacrifice may be pure. But anyone having a quarrel with an associate of his is not to join you until they are reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be profaned” (14, 1-2).
Though it remains unclear in what way the sacrifice (the Eucharist) would be profaned and made impure by the presence of certain persons,45 the emphasis of the passage is on ethics and morals, and not on some magical devaluation of the sacrifice itself. The demand for “purity of cult” at least makes it clear that the moral state of a Christian can never be a merely “private matter” that concerns only the individual and God to the exclusion of the common good of the community. This principle is basic to cenobitic monasticism, where community prayer and mutual concern for the moral status of all form the raison d’être of the religious community.
Tertullian, writing at the beginning of the third century, specifies that the Christian gathering is not only for prayers but also for enacting disciplinary measures when someone has sinned so seriously as to be deprived of all association in prayer or the Christian assembly. “This is the foremost sentence before the future judgment.”46 In other words, excommunication is indeed meant to be a foretaste of eternal exclusion from the community of the saved.
According to Hippolytus,47 catechumens must remain apart from the faithful during prayer and are not to receive the kiss of peace. The significance of this lies in the fact that the early Church, especially in the West, likened the status of the penitents to that of the catechumens up to the sixth century, owing to the analogy drawn between baptism (paenitentia prima) and the sacramental forgiveness of sins (paenitentia secunda). In the same vein, paenitentia secunda was generally considered to be as incapable of repetition as baptism. It is “natural” then that monastic life, as recommitment to the baptismal covenant, should also be a life of paenitentia—a “continuous Lent” (RB 49.1). The life of penance is consequently not a matter of morbid sorrowing over one’s sins (though sorrow for sin is certainly not excluded), but rather an aversion from self-centered isolation and conversion to Christ who is found in the community of the covenant (John 20:19-29). It is joyful longing and preparation for Easter (RB 49.7)—the day when catechumens received baptism and full reception into the community of believers.
These witnesses of the early Church amply demonstrate the practice of excluding certain persons (sinners and heretics in particular) from full participation in the life of the Christian community, especially in the matter of prayer and worship. However, not every waiting of this period arrives at the same conclusion by the same means—that is, by expounding on “cultic purity.” The Didascalia Apostolorum,48 a third-century document, takes a very negative stance against those who subscribe to the Old Testament’s understanding of cultic purity.49 But its procedures for treating wayward Christians are most interesting, since there are parallels or analogies to both the RM and the RB. Thus, one who is found to be remiss should be dealt with according to the prescriptions of the Gospel (Matt 18:15-17). If, after two private rebukes and the rebuke before the whole assembly, the one in question still does not obey, he is to be treated as a “heathen and a publican”: “For the Lord has commanded you, O bishops, that you should not henceforth receive such a one into the Church as a Christian nor communicate with him. For neither dost thou receive the evil heathen or publicans into the Church and communicate with them except they first repent.”50
An unrepentant evildoer is to be considered a liar rather than a Christian and is to be avoided.51 Even his gifts for the support of the Church are to be rejected, lest others be deceived into offering prayers for one who refuses to repent.52 But if a sinner does repent, he should be received back into the fold in accord with the prescribed penitential system:
“As a heathen,” then, “and as a publican let him be accounted by you” who has been convicted of evil deeds and falsehood; and afterwards, if he promise to repent—even as when the heathen desire and promise to repent, and say “We believe,” we receive them into the congregation that they may hear the word, but do not communicate with them until they receive the seal and are fully initiated: so neither do we communicate with these until they show the fruits of repentance. But let them by all means come in, if they desire to hear the word, that they may not wholly perish; but let them not communicate in prayer, but go forth without. For they also, when they have seen that they do not communicate with the Church, will submit themselves, and repent of their former works, and strive to be received into the Church for prayer; and they likewise who see and hear them go forth like the heathen and publicans, will fear and take warning to themselves not to sin, lest it so happen to them also, and being convicted of sin or falsehood they be put forth from the Church.
But thou shalt by no means forbid them to enter the Church and hear the word, O bishop; for neither did our Lord and Saviour utterly thrust away and reject publicans and sinners, but even did eat with them. And for this cause, the Pharisees murmured against Him, and said: “He eateth with publicans and sinners.” Then did our Saviour make answer against their thoughts and their murmuring, and say: “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick” (Mk 2.16-17). Do you therefore consort with those who have been convicted of sins and are sick, and attach them to you, and be careful of them, and speak to them and comfort them, and keep hold of them and convert them. And afterwards, as each one of them repents and shows the fruits of repentance, receive him to prayer after the manner of a heathen. And a
s thou baptizest a heathen and then receivest him, so also lay hands upon this man, whilst all pray for him, and then bring him in and let him communicate with the Church. For the imposition of hands shall be to him in the place of baptism: for whether by the imposition of hands, or by baptism, they receive the communication of the Holy Spirit.53
While the similarities between the Didascalia and the RB do not necessarily indicate a line of direct dependence, it is abundantly clear that the RB has much of the same spirit, providing for freedom from the prevailing rigorism and cultic formalism. It must also be remembered that monastic life in the West had many roots in the East54 that were otherwise not so well known or appreciated in the Western Church. The Didascalia appears to be one such root.
Corporal punishment
Both the RM and the RB appear equally dependent on Cassian for the employment of corporal punishment, but each in its own way. Cassian provides a long list of offenses for which one is to be either beaten or expelled.55 The Master orders blows usque ad necem56 for a monk who remains impenitent for three days after excommunication (RM 13.68-71). The abbot may then also expel him from the monastery. Boys up to fifteen years of age, however, are to receive blows in lieu of excommunication (RM 14.79-80).
St. Benedict makes several distinctions and adaptations in his use of corporal punishment in order to remove the vindictiveness and formalism found in his sources. Similar to the Master, he prescribes blows for those who remain unrepentant even after excommunication (RB 28.1). But there is no specified duration of time after which the abbot is to proceed with corporal punishment. And if the monk remains hardened even after this, it is not yet a question of expulsion from the monastery. Instead, the abbot is to act as a “wise physician”57 and apply his own prayers and ask the prayers of the brotherhood for the “sick brother” (RB 28.4-5). If there are still no positive results, then expulsion from the monastery may ensue (RB 28.2-7). But again, no time limit is set on the period of prayers that precede the act of expulsion.
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 61