|
Volume 31 |
Richardton, ND 58652 |
Chronicle 2003 |
Simplicity in the Rule of Benedict
by Terrence Kardong, O.S.B.
Introduction
Someone who looks up the words “simple” or “simplicity” in The Rule of St. Benedict
is going to be disappointed. The words only occur four times, and seem to be used
for trivial or casual purposes. Therefore, a strict word-
The tight connection between monasticism and simplicity can even be seen in the very
name: monos in Greek means single or alone. It is true that monachos normally means
a bachelor to the Greeks, and celibacy is always practiced by Christian monks. But
early monastic writers love to speculate on the deeper meaning of the word as applied
to themselves. Since many of the first monks were hermits, they were monachoi because
they lived apart from other people. But later on they mostly lived in communities,
so the word took on the subtler meaning of “integrated, unified, single-
Before we proceed to the Rule of Benedict to see if these latter meanings are found
there, it might be well to admit that “simplicity” is not an unambiguous concept;
paradoxically, it has multiple meanings and some of them are not complimentary. For
example, the early Christians were called “simple-
Further, the word “simplistic” refers to the tendency to reduce complex matters to simple solutions. In fact, life in the world is complex because the world itself is multiple. People, for example, are infinitely various and complicated, and they need to be treated as such. In general, St. Benedict is not simplistic in the way he treats people. He provides nuanced and varied structures and processes to accommodate personal differences. In contrast to his literary prototype, The Rule of the Master, he is not tempted to jump to quick, facile solutions to human problems. But rather than generalize, let us look at the text of the Rule itself as it teaches simplicity. 1. Frugality: Physical Simplicity
It is well known that monks strive to live a simple lifestyle. That has always been the case, and the presence of fat, hedonistic monks in TV ads does nothing to change it. The notion of a wasteful, prodigal monk is an oxymoron that contradicts all monastic ideals. This is true for monasticism in all religions and cultures, not just for Christianity. Nevertheless, in regard to Christianity, it is not so clear how this relates to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Although he sometimes praised fasting and personally led a simple, frugal lifestyle, Jesus ate and drank freely enough that they called him a glutton and a drunkard. We don't know of any property he owned, but neither did he forbid anybody else to own it. He sometimes inveighed against the rich, but never rejected creature comforts out of hand.
St. Benedict, however, has a very hard chapter on monks as possessors of property (RB 33) in which he demands that “this vice be torn out by the roots.” All of his followers have agreed, at least in theory, that the individual monk possesses nothing; it all belongs to the community. But Benedict goes beyond that to a much tougher ideology that possessions taint the soul. He bends the Acts of the Apostles to bolster that idea, but it is really drawn from John Cassian and ultimately from Stoicism. For example, monastic hermits do own things, but that alone does not make them bad monks. It is excessive concern for things that does that, because it undermines their simplicity. To become immersed in the multiplicity of things is to lose one's spiritual way.
If Benedict is on somewhat shaky ground in RB 33, he finds terra firma in the next chapter (34). We will quote the chapter at length:
Title: Whether all should receive necessities in equal measure. 1. As it is written:
“Distribution was made to each one according to need.” 2. By this we do not recommend
favoritism-
Someone living in the last few years of the twentieth century may find this text
either confusing or, more likely, confused. It seems to say that the person who needs
more is in fact weaker than the one who needs less. But isn't that contrary to the
constant message of advertising, that suggests that we need more and more? Or that
the best citizen in this economy is the one who buys and consumes the most? But Benedict
does not know or care about “supply-
In the monastic community, it is of great importance that true needs be met if at
all possible. If they are not, then people begin to take care of themselves and the
whole system comes apart. This has been shown over and over throughout western monastic
history. In my own community, there were times in the 1930s when some of the monks
did not get what they really needed for their well-
But dependency is not the bottom line of this chapter either. Benedict states quite
plainly that the main reason why everyone should get what they need is peace: “Then
all the members will be at peace.” The idea is quite simple: If people get what they
personally need, then why should they worry about what others get? To put it in ethical
terms, if there is proper distributive justice, why insist on retributive justice?
This latter, of course, is what we are taught in our culture: people should only
get what they deserve-
In a world like ours today, a world of scarcity and massive inequality of distribution,
this simple little chapter is truly counter-
