Text
If any brother is discovered to be stubborn, or disobedient, or proud, or a murmurer, or in any other way appearing opposed to the Holy Rule, and the orders of his seniors and a contemptor, let him, according to the command of our Lord, be admonished once and again secretly by his seniors.
Si quis frater contumax, aut inobediens, aut superbus, aut murmurans, vel in aliquo contrarius existens sanctae regulae, et praceceptis seniorum suorum, contemptor repertus fuerit: hic secundum Domini nostri praeceptum admoneatur semel et secundo secrete a senioribus suis.
If he does not amend his ways, let him be rebuked publicly in front of all.
Si non emendaverit, obiurgetur publice coram omnibus.
If even then he does not correct himself, let him undergo excommunication, as long as he understands what kind of punishment this is.
Si vero neque sic correxerit, si intelligit qualis poena sit, excommunicationi subiaceat.
If however, he is unruly/wicked/rebellious, let undergo corporal punishment.
Sin autem improbus est, vindictae corporali subdatur.
Comment
The chapters on excommunication are some of the most challenging in the Rule and the hardest for us today to understand. That goes for the translation too!
Firstly, it should be said that the kind of behaviour envisaged by St Benedict as meriting excommunication is extreme. The Latin word “contemptor” means “defier” or “despiser”; someone who openly and knowingly rebels against the Rule he has freely undertaken, or those to whom he owes his vowed obedience. I have used the same word in English because it does exist and is, I think, descriptive of the behaviour. Some older translations use the word “contemner” instead but I think this is completely obscure in modern English.
It is important to remember that at solemn profession, the monk places his hands in the hands of the Abbot and vows obedience – this is not a minor matter of practice but a vow to God. So these kinds of behaviours can be seen as a rebellion against God.
A monk is given two private admonitions, followed by a public one bearing in mind the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:15-17:
If your brother sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you ae alone. If the brother listens to you, you have regained him. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the brother refuses to listen to them, tell it to the community; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the community, let such a one be to you as a gentile and a tax-collector.
The Jerusalem Bible notes that this same three-stage process is also prescribed in the Community Rule of Qumran. That’s an interesting connection with ancient Judaism, but clearly St Benedict says it because Jesus prescribes it. For Jews, treating someone as a gentile or tax-collector meant to shun them, not to enter their homes or eat with them, to avoid any close contact in effect, maintaining a separation between them.
The choices of punishment thereafter are of excommunication or corporal punishment. The word “vindictae” here is an interesting one – in my dictionary one of the definitions of this word is the rod used (clearly symbolically) when freeing a slave. Dom Delatte adds some historical detail here in his Commentary; he tells us that the rod or the whip was administered by the Abbot and usually in the chapter, with all monks present.
He tells us that at Cluny and Citeaux, the monk was beaten on the bare shoulders and the number of blows was limited to 39, which was the Jewish rule. St Paul, in 2 Corinthians 11:24 mentions that he was beaten in this way by the Jews five times. Earlier Rules, and especially the Celtic monks, were often more liberal with the strokes of the whip. Some Abbots were even more severe, it seems, given that during the rule of Charlemagne (768-814 AD) a communication was sent to Abbots urging them not to put out the eyes or cut off the limbs of their monks - that’s up to the state, not the church.
The idea of corporal punishment of this kind is foreign to us now, but if you remember back to Chapter 2 on the Abbot, St Benedict says:
In regard to those who are upright and have understanding, let him correct them with words for the first or second time but those who are impious and hard of heart, and proud or disobedient, let him chastise with the lash or bodily punishment at the first offence, knowing that it is written: The fool is not corrected with words. And again: strike your son with the rod and you shall deliver his soul from death.
The purpose of this punishment is clearly to save souls. At the same time, it was also important that the contagion does not spread in the community and discipline is upheld for the good of all.
By the late medieval period, corporal punishment was not quite as common as in earlier times, except perhaps for children. But rebellious monks could be imprisoned in a cell; we do know that, for example, the Carthusian monasteries each had a prison cell for recalcitrant monks, who would be sent from other houses for imprisonment in the hope they would amend their ways. And banishment to a monastery has long been a punishment for clerics who cannot be let loose on the population. In fact, monasteries were really the first model of what is now a secular prison.
But I digress. Having dealt with corporal punishment, in the next chapters, St Benedict sets out the various types of excommunication, which is clearly his preferred option for bringing a brother back into the fold.