|
Volume 36, Number 4 |
Richardton, ND 58652 |
October 2008 |
IS FATHER ALWAYS RIGHT?
RB 71 AND NONVIOLENCE
by Terrence Kardong, O.S.B.
This is a shortened version of an article published in 1984 in the Australian monastic journal Tjurunga. Despite some howls of pain and indignation from devotees of the Holy Rule, the author stands by what he wrote 25 years ago.
Abbot Brian is shown presiding at the Conventual Mass. Fr. Gerald is shown concelebrating at his left. The community Mass is a regular part of the monk’s day.
1. INTRODUCTION
Few modern readers would deny that there are “hard sayings” in the Rule of Benedict
(=RB). After the exaggerated reverence and even adulation of nineteenth and early
twentieth-
One of the least palatable sections of RB occurs in Chapter 71.6-
If a monk is reproved in any way by his abbot or by one of his seniors, even for some very small matter, or if he gets the impression that one of his seniors is angry or disturbed with him, however slightly, he must, then and there without delay, cast himself on the ground at the other’s feet to make satisfaction, and he remains there until the disturbance is calmed by a blessing. Anyone who refuses to do this should be subjected to corporal punishment or, if he is stubborn, should be expelled from the monastery.
This passage seems to embody everything that contemporary people abhor: the extreme emphasis on hierarchy or the predominance of the higher over the lower; the sense of abject servility in which the underdog must do everything to keep the master happy; the complete lack of concern about objective right or wrong in the case; the swift and ruthless punishment for the least resistance. In short, this passage offends against everything that we deem to be the human rights of the person.
In the following study, we will subject this material to careful scrutiny, endeavoring
to understand what factors, if any, make the passage more intelligible. First, we
will examine the overall context of RB itself and also make some exegetical suggestions.
Next, we will set RB 71.6-
2. OUR PASSAGE IN ITS CONTEXT
We have seen that our passage (71.6-
Anyone who is at all familiar with the Holy Rule knows that this is an unusual statement for St. Benedict. Up to this point in the document (almost at the end!), obedience is strictly hierarchical, that is, the lower obeys the higher. Now, out of the blue as it were, the monks are told to obey each other. That means the abbot must obey the novice as well as vice versa. This may be taken for granted by some modern people, but in ancient times it was absolutely revolutionary.
Benedict himself seems a bit shocked by what he has just said, for he immediately qualifies it: “Therefore, except for an order of the abbot or the priors appointed by him, which we permit no private command to override, all juniors must obey their seniors with every mark of loving attention.” It is odd that this verse begins with “therefore,” since in fact it is an exception to the general rule of mutual obedience enunciated above.
Even stranger, though, is the sequel, for the rest of the chapter is spent on driving home the need for the lower to obey the higher. In formal terms, then, this is a technically flawed chapter, for Benedict devotes most of its space to repudiating what he stated as his thesis. It appears that he got sidetracked. Still, he makes up for it in the next chapter (RB 72), where he teaches a very satisfactory doctrine of mutual obedience.
Why did Benedict get sidetracked? We cannot read his mind, but to judge from
the language of 71.6-
Whatever the background to the chapter, it ends with a rather savage penalty
for a disrespectful junior, or even one who fails to eat sufficient crow. The person
is physically beaten and even expelled if he is recalcitrant. This draconian approach
to the offender actually violates Benedict’s own measured system of punishments as
seen in RB 23. There the offender is first admonished privately and only chastised
publicly if he refuses to amend his ways. So RB 71.6-
Some critics attempt to mitigate this harshness by claiming that this is not a case of a junior refusing to submit to just any senior. They point out that the word in question, namely, priores, can mean superiors as well as seniors. Granted, the word does mean superior in many cases in the Rule, but it probably does not mean that here. If that is the case, then why mention juniors? It is not just juniors who must defer to superiors, but everyone. No, this is a clear case of Benedict’s insistence on seniority. After all, he wrote a whole chapter (63) on that very subject.
In his famous commentary on the Holy Rule, Adalbert de Vogüé suggested that what we have here is an example of the cost of Christian discipleship. Someone who wishes to be a disciple of Jesus Christ must be willing to walk the path of obedience with Christ. In other words, we don’t only offer obedience to Christ, we participate in obedience with Christ. Now, Christ was obedient unto death for love of the world. That is what Benedict seems to ask of the junior monk in this chapter.
There is no doubt that obedience can and will sometimes cost us a great deal. And there is also no doubt that it can be an occasion for spiritual growth on our part. But it seems to me that we should not think of this question too narrowly. We need to ask some other questions here, questions that have not always been addressed by commentators. For example, is it good for a senior to always be deferred to? Is it always good for the community that juniors always give way to seniors? Traditional societies almost always come down on the side of the elders, but that way of thinking has some serious drawbacks.
And then there is the matter of anger. Since Benedict seems so anxious to avert
or assuage the anger of a senior in RB 71.6-
It sometimes happens that monasteries contain angry old monks or nuns. They are not evil people, but they do have a character defect that makes them hard to live with. Understanding juniors can help a lot by the way they relate to these old firecrackers. But it should be remembered that the problem is not primarily with the junior but with the senior. Old people who suffer from irascibility are hardly going to overcome this vice in old age. But neither should juniors be blamed for somebody else’s defect.
3. EXAMINING THE SOURCES
But beyond his doctrine that juniors should carry Christ’s cross out of love,
De Vogüé also makes some suggestions about the possible patristic sources and parallels
to RB 71.6-
Dorotheos, no doubt speaking to monks about his own experience as an abbot, tells of two monks who were constantly quarrelling. The elder was distressed because the younger would not obey his orders; the younger, for his part, said he could not obey, for the senior did not show him the proper respect (timor Dei: phobou Theou) as the Fathers said he should. The elder counters that he cannot show him respect, for he does not have complete confidence in him. Dorotheos cuts through this vicious circle of complaints with characteristic bluntness and insight:
My God, do you see how ridiculous it is? Do you see their perverse way of thinking? God knows how sorry I am about this: that we take the sayings of the Fathers to excuse our own will and the destruction of our souls. Each of these had to throw the blame on the other. One says: I cannot sincerely be asking pardon all the time when my brother is concerned, therefore God does not give him full confidence in me. The other says: I cannot be reconciled in love towards my brother before he asks pardon, and for that reason God does not give him full confidence in me! What they really ought to do is just the opposite. The first ought to say: I speak with presumption and therefore God does not give my brother confidence in me. And the other ought to be thinking: My brother gives me commands with humility and love but I am unruly and have not the fear of God. Neither of them found that way and blamed himself, but each of them vexed the other.
This fine passage is instructive in itself, but it differs from RB 71.6-
