Since understanding does not necessarily come when a boy turns fifteen, St. Benedict simply prescribes that boys too young to realize the meaning of excommunication, along with any older persons who lack the understanding, be given blows instead, or, if more appropriate and effective, made to fast58 for a time, “that they may be healed” (RB 30.3).
No immediate scriptural basis is given for the use of corporal punishment. Yet, it is implied in RB 2.28-29 through quotations from Prov 29:19 and 23:14. Also, the practice of the Church in St. Benedict’s time in regard to the handling of recalcitrant clerics59 and the example of earlier monastic sources60 could well supply a precedent for corporal punishment in the RB. The bishops in council at Epaone (517) decreed that young clerics who assist at meals of heretics or Jews should be beaten (canon 15). Likewise, the council of bishops at Agade (506) provided for corporal castigation of intoxicated clerics or of clerics and monks who presumed to travel without the proper letters of recommendation from their ecclesial superiors (canon 41). Even bishops engaged in unseemly discord with each other could be subjected to such punishment according to the Council of Tours held in 567 (canon 2). It is difficult to determine to what extent these examples from France were known and practiced in Italy at St. Benedict’s time.61 But it would seem to be more likely than not that such practices were known and employed throughout the Roman Church, and that they were in the “spirit of the times.”
Application of penalties in specific instances
The miscellaneous faults and penalties outside of RB 23–30 and 44 may be summarized as follows:62
2.26-29
All faults (one or two verbal admonitions, the obstinate are to receive corporal punishment).
3.10
Disputing with the abbot (disciplina regularis).
11.13
Tardiness in giving the signal to rise (satisfaction in the oratory).
21.5
Proud dean (three reprimands, deposition for failure to amend).
32.4-5
Mishandling of monastic goods (reprimand, disciplina regularis for failure to amend).
33.7-8
Appropriation of anything (two warnings followed by correptio).
34.7
Grumbling (disciplina districtior, 5.19 poenam murmurantium).
42.9
Speaking after Compline (severe punishment).
43.4-9
Arriving late for Vigils (satisfaction in the last place or in the place set apart).
43.10-12
Tardiness for the day hours (take last place and intone no psalm until satisfaction has been made).
43.13-17
Absence from prayer before or after meal (reprimand, meals apart and no wine for failure to amend until satisfaction and amendment have been made).
43.19
Asking for some food offered earlier by a superior but refused (deprivation of it and other extra food until amendment has been made).
45.1-3
Mistake in the oratory (satisfaction in the presence of all, severe punishment for adults and beating for children for failure to make satisfaction).
46.1-4
Failure to make voluntary satisfaction for damaging anything or for some other transgression (harsher than usual correction).
48.19-20
Idleness or gossiping (reprimand, correptio regularis for failure to amend).
51.3
Eating outside the monastery without permission (excommunication).
54.5
Accepting an object without permission (disciplina regularis).
55.17
Object hidden in the bed (disciplina gravissima).
57.2-3
Proud artisan (removal from work until humbled and permitted to return).
62.8-11
Violation of the Rule by a priest (frequent warnings, appeal to the bishop for refusal to correct self, expulsion for failure to amend).
65.18-21
Rebellious prior (four verbal warnings, correptio disciplinae regularis for failure to amend, deposition from office for refusal to correct himself, expulsion for disobedience).
67.6
Talking about one’s visit outside the monastery (vindicta regularis).
67.7
Going somewhere or doing something without permission (vindicta regularis).
69.4
Defending another at fault (severe punishment).
70.1-3
Striking or excommunicating another without permission (public reprimand).
70.6
Striking an elder or a child in anger (disciplina regularis).
71.5
Refusal to obey an elder (reprimand).
71.9
Refusal to make satisfaction to an elder (corporal punishment, expulsion for resistance).
a) Eating. In general, these disciplinary measures are clear and in accord with the stipulations of the disciplinary code in the RB. However, in addition to the disciplina regularis and similar statements left untranslated in the above list (and discussed below), several other offenses and penalties are not immediately transparent.
It is difficult to see what is behind the punishment for asking for food from a superior that had been at first refused (RB 43.19). Perhaps St. Benedict has in mind particular experiences unknown to modern readers, but which would furnish a key to better understanding. Possibly it is a question of eating at the proper times. Cassian lists “the inordinate and secret consumption of food”63 among the faults to be punished with blows or expulsion. He further advises the monk to be very careful not to eat outside regular meals, as one might be inclined to do while walking through an orchard, for that would be to give in to concupiscence.64 At this point, however, St. Benedict does not appear so much concerned with unseemly eating that may lead to overindulgence of appetites—he warns of that in connection with the meal itself (RB 39.7-9)—as with untimely eating that would upset the good order of the house (RB 31.18-19) unless properly controlled (RB 41). Eating outside regular mealtimes could possibly encourage disregard for the common meals with the brotherhood (RB 43.13-17), and also render the whole system of excommunication from the table less effective.
Further insight in regard to eating at inappropriate times and places is found in RB 51. A monk may be excommunicated (though the degree is not specified) for eating outside without the abbot’s permission (RB 51.3). While this may appear too stringent to present-day monks, it is probable that St. Benedict wishes only to simplify the whole matter of eating at irregular times or outside the monastery and to correct abuses that can easily arise from such practices. The Master supplies lengthy and complex prescriptions about such eating, noting when it is permissible and when not in view of the days of fast and the regular hours for eating, and with whom one may or may not eat, and so on (RM 59–62). The RB eliminates this complex formalism and replaces it with the abbot’s personal judgment of the needs of the monk, who, at any rate, can seek permission to eat outside or at a time other than the ordinary times for meals (RB 37).
b) Priest-monk. The admission of a priest into the monastery added a note of complication to matters of discipline (RB 62.8-11), since a priest has “canonical status” (in the hierarchy), while monasticism was originally a “lay movement” without canonical status,65 as seen earlier in this study. Thus, the bishop of the area is to be called in for the public reprimand of a misbehaving priest-monk, for his presence would add a note of persuasiveness and ecclesial recognition to the public rebuke, and assure that he would be adequately informed of the situation and any additional possible consequences. If the priest is eventually expelled from the monastery, the bishop must be prepared to take charge of him and provide him, if the bishop is so inclined, with a “letter of recommendation.”66
c) Disciplina regularis. The Master does not use the expression disciplina regularis, but disciplina regulae, in speaking of the disciplinary measures of his Rule. St. Benedict uses this latter expression in the sense of discipl
ine as ‘good order’ or ‘good conduct,’ or ‘the norms of the Rule’ (RB 60.2; 62.4). In RB 60.5 and 62.3 (on priests in the monastery), disciplina regularis is used in a general sense to designate the monk’s life under the Rule. Otherwise, in a disciplinary context, the term seems to refer especially to the penalties that are of a public character within the monastery—that is, the rebuke “in the presence of all” (coram omnibus) and other measures that may follow.67
In speaking of districtior disciplina and gravissima disciplina, St. Benedict apparently wishes to emphasize a greater degree of severity in the chastisement. Accordingly, disciplina would not have the sense of law but of chastisement.68
The other terms or expressions left untranslated in the list of penalties above seem generally equivalent to disciplina regularis. The employment of the public disciplinary measures is to be carefully controlled. Anyone who presumes to mete out corporal punishment or to proclaim another excommunicated without the abbot’s permission is himself liable to the public correction of the Rule (RB 70.1-3,6). This prescription is probably directed especially toward superiors under the abbot, since they would be the most likely ones to use their authority rashly.
d) Satisfaction and amendment. These two closely related concepts, expressed particularly in the words satisfactio, satisfacere, and emendatio, emendare, generally designate respectively the objective procedure of discipline and self-correction and the ensuing expected change of behavior and attitude, as in RB 5.19, where the grumbler is to “change for the better and make amends” (cum satisfactione emendaverit). “Amends,” or satisfaction, is the procedure whereby one acknowledges a fault (RB 7.44) and carries out the imposed penalties (RB 43.12; 44; 46.3; 71.8). This action is concerned with the interior and exterior attitude of humility (RB 27.3; 45.1; 71.8), making it an appropriate penitential act (RB 24.7) intended to repair the damage caused by the fault in the one who committed it (RB 43.12). This includes regaining one’s right relationship with God (RB 11.13; RM 14.26) and obtaining forgiveness of the injured (RB 44). Satisfaction is clearly more than a mere formality. It is a concrete and, as it were, “sacramental” procedure that should normally repair damaged relationships and eradicate pride in the offender. While being predominantly procedural and external, its direction is nevertheless inward to uproot the source of the evil.
“Amendment” can also signify the objective corrective measures to be undertaken (RB 2.40; 46.4).69 But its predominant meaning is reformation or correction of one’s behavior as a result of an internal change of attitude.70 It thus rids one of faults (RB 4.58), and may designate the completed correctional measures (RB 43.19), much in the sense of “satisfaction” (RB 24.4; 43.11,16).
Conclusion
“Of all the parts of the Rule, this one that we are about to consider is without doubt the most outmoded.” With this statement, Adalbert de Vogüé introduces his commentary on the RB’s disciplinary code,71 pointing to the fact that excommunication and blows find little acceptance or appreciation in modern monasticism. Yet, the study and understanding of these elements, so central to the RB, are essential to the renewal of modern Benedictine life as encouraged by Vatican II.72
The system of discipline in the RB seeks to preserve the proper order and functioning of monastic life and above all the correction of vices and negligences. These are goals and values that any modern adaptation of the disciplinary measures must maintain and promote, for the whole of monastic life is meant to lead one to a change of behavior and attitude—a deep conversion. It is the way of penance, of conversion. If that is properly understood, accepted and practiced, then the liberty, the spontaneity and the joy of life that some may otherwise feel to be suppressed in the Rule will proceed more genuinely and forcefully from a deeper and fuller level of one’s existence, just as surely as Christ came forth from the confines of death to the fullness of life that all are invited to share with him (Prol.49-50).
___________________
1 Of the many writings that treat the early Church’s penitential developments, the classical work remains B. Poschmann, Paenitentia Secunda: Die kirchliche Busse im ältesten Christentum bis Cyprian und Origenes (Bonn: Hanstein 1940).
2 It remains uncertain whether persecution of Christians or the end of the persecutions was the actual stimulus to monastic growth at this period of history. Anchoritic and cenobitic monasticism developed from various lines of early Christian asceticism and do not represent the origin of monasticism, “but rather successful forms on which others patterned themselves” (J. Gribomont “Monasticism” New Catholic Encyclopedia 9 [1967] 1036). See also Introduction, pp. 11f.
3 Cf. E. Malone, The Monk and the Martyr: The Monk as the Successor of the Martyr (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Univ. Press 1950).
4 The expression “white martyrdom” arose among the early monks of Ireland, who, in addition to distinguishing “white” and “red” martyrdom, also spoke of “green” martyrdom—that is, one who “separates from his desires or suffers toil in penance and repentance.” See ibid., p. 71.
5 Tertullian, writing around the year 200, gives witness to the use of this expression among Christians. In his De paenitentia (6,14) he says that he is hesitant about informing catechumens of the paenitentia secunda lest they view it simply as an opportunity to continue sinning, just as some of them used the time before baptism as an outstanding period to sin, believing that all would be forgiven them in baptism.
6 Cassian. inst. 2, 1.5-16; 3,7; 4,16; and conl. 18,15; and RM 12–14, which contains 169 verses as compared to the 53 verses of RB 23–30 and 44. See de Vogüé, 7.275.
7 Cyprian of Carthage († 258) and his contemporary churchmen provide ample witness to this contention. For a more complete treatment, see K. Hein, Eucharist and Excommunication: A Study in Early Christian Doctrine and Discipline (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 19752) pp. 365–410.
8 See Origen († 253), in Ioan. 28,4–7; Dionysius of Alexandria († 264), see note 10 below; Basil of Caesarea († 379) epist. 217, canons 56–83.
9 See G. Teichtweier, Die Sündenlehre des Origenes (Regensburg: Pustet 1958) p. 253.
10 In a letter to Fabius of Antioch, preserved by Eusebius, hist.eccles. 6,42,5-6, Dionysius attests how the martyrs, through a “letter of recommendation,” influenced the penitential system so strongly that one’s readmission to communion with the Church could by-pass the bishop.
11 See P. Meinhold “Busswesen” Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 1.1548. As early as Ignatius of Antioch, the reverence accorded the ascetic, sometimes to the discontent of the bishop, is clearly noted. Likewise, the Pastor Hermae and Justin Martyr witness to the ascetics’ esteemed and influential presence in the Church. See H. Leclercq “Monachisme” DACL 11.1783-84. In his vita Anton. 46, Athanasius notes how Antony ministered to the confessors in prison while hoping himself to gain martyrdom. Failing this, it is explained how the monastic life is nevertheless the life of martyrdom (47). Antony, whom Athanasius himself sought out for spiritual edification and guidance, is filled with the Holy Spirit (14 and 22) and has the ability to discern spirits (88). The development of “private confession” under the influence of monks and monk-confessors was much slower in the West, but is obvious in the case of the Celtic monks on the continent, who introduced many penitential books in the early Middle Ages. See L. Bieler “Penitentials” New Catholic Encyclopedia 11.86-87.
12 Novatianism was a heretical, rigorist system in Benedict’s day.
13 The infrequent use of the bath or total abstention from it (see vita Anton. 93) was viewed as an ascetical practice as well as a protest against the luxury and abuses connected with the public Roman baths.
14 See Meinhold, p. 1548, and C. Vogel, La discipline pénitentielle en Gaule des origines à la fin du VIIe siècle (Paris: Letouzey et Ané 1952) p. 51.
15 See É. Amann “Pénitence” Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 11.834. In this we readily see the seed of the later fratres conversi and today’s “oblates.” Many examples a
nd descriptions of conversi are furnished by Vogel, La discipline, pp. 128–138.
16 Since monastic life is interested not only in the avoidance and forgiveness of sin but also in eradicating attachment to sin and its occasions, it is not surprising that the fathers of monasticism applied the severe ecclesial discipline taken against major sins to the faults and imperfections one may encounter in the monastic life. St. Benedict expresses this in concise disciplinary measures, generally made abruptly and without explanation, which give the Rule a harsh tone. See de Vogüé, 5.785–786. Nevertheless, the moderation and balance in the RB made the monastic life accessible to many who could not have borne the rigors of other rules.
17 This is a special task that others have undertaken, especially in the monumental work of de Vogüé, 1–7.
18 Many commentators on the RB have depicted Benedict with a juridical and canonical status in the Church of his day that he as a matter of fact cannot be said to have had. Their conclusions depend on unfounded or erroneous premises, such as the claim that St. Benedict was a priest, and that priests had the power to excommunicate one from the Church. This argument was bolstered with a reference to the Decretum Gratiani (c. 32 2.XI qu. 3), which purported to be quoting St. Augustine: “Omnis christianus, qui a sacerdotibus excommunicatur, satanae traditur: quomodo? scilicet, quia extra ecclesiam diabolus est sicut in ecclesia Christus: ac per hoc quasi diabolo traditur, qui ab ecclesiastica communione removetur.” However, this text is now acknowledged as pseudo-Augustinian. See R. Spilker “Die Busspraxis in der Regel des hl. Benedikt, II. Die Exkommunikation” SMGBO 57 (1939) 14. Others have held that Gregory’s account (dial. 23) indicates that Benedict’s excommunication of two nuns had canonical recognition in the Church. Aside from the naїve historicism implicit in this argument, it must be noted that St. Benedict only threatened to pronounce excommunication (without ever actually doing so). The purpose of the account is to depict Benedict as the man of God filled with the Spirit of God and whose charismatic word claimed the respect and attention of ecclesial authority. For fuller discussion, see G. Oesterle “De codice poenali in Regula S. Benedicti” StA 18/19 (1947) 173–193, esp. 185f.
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 62