The Abbot’s Teaching and the Disciples’ Obedience (II:2)

10 Jan. 11 May. 10 Sept.
Let the Abbot be ever mindful that at the dreadful judgment of God an account will have to be given both of his own teaching and of the obedience of his disciples. And let him know that to the fault of the shepherd shall be imputed any lack of profit which the father of the household may find in his sheep. Only then shall he be acquitted, if he shall have bestowed all pastoral diligence on his unquiet and disobedient flock, and employed all his care to amend their corrupt manner of life: then shall he be absolved in the judgment of the Lord, and may say to the Lord with the Prophet: “I have not hidden Thy justice in my heart, I have declared Thy truth and Thy salvation, but they contemned and despised me.” And then at length the punishment of death shall be inflicted on the disobedient sheep.

Chapter 2 of the Holy Rule is rather lengthy: like the Prologue, it takes us an entire week to read it; only Chapter 7 on Humility occupies more time in our thrice-yearly reading. It can also seem somewhat repetitious, as the same ideas seem to be repeated over again. In fact, as we saw with the Prologue, here too there is a chiastic structure whose inverse repetitions of the same themes serves to impress them more deeply on the hearer. The chiastic structure of Chapter 2 is particularly clear in the version found in the Rule of the Master, on which Saint Benedict is thought to have drawn. The ideas are as follows:

A1) The abbot will have to give an account of his teaching to the judgment of God;

B1) The abbot must teach by words, but above all by example, and not make any distinctions of persons in the monastery. The themes are then presented in reverse order:
in B2, the obligation to teach by word and example, and to play no favourites, is reiterated,

and the chapter concludes with A2, another reminder of the judgment the abbot will face. Saint Benedict follows much the same structure in his chapter, although as will be seen he includes some material distinctly his own.

Today’s portion continues the discussion of the abbot’s accountability which began yesterday. The focus yesterday was on the need for the abbot be worthy, by his life and teaching of Christ’s name which he bears. Today’s focus is more specifically on how the abbot will be held accountable: the master of the household will examine him on the lack of profit in the sheep. (In light of what was said yesterday, it is interesting that the Roman term paterfamilias is used here—referring not to the abbot, but to the Lord to whom the abbot is responsible as a steward.)

However, there will be two things under examination: the abbot’s teaching, and the disciples’ obedience. This statement—indeed the entirety of today’s passage—is also found in the Rule of the Master. It can, however, be taken in two ways. Father De Vogüé, for instance, interprets it as saying that the abbot will be examined on both things: that if the disciples have done wrong, it is the abbot who will be held accountable, since they were following his commands. Support for this interpretation seems to come from what the Rule of the Master says at the end of this chapter. There, when the idea of the abbot’s accountability is reiterated, the Master says first, ‘He may be sure that on the day of judgment he will have to give the Lord a full account of all these souls, and most certainly of his own as well.’ Saint Benedict will say this too, but the Master goes on: ‘For, so as not to do their own will in the monastery, the brothers always served in all obedience to his commands. When they are called to account for all they have done they will say to the Lord at the judgment that they did everything in obedience by command of the master.’

Thus, it seems that for the Master, the disciples are absolved of personal responsibility should the abbot be mistaken in his commands. This statement, however, is omitted by Saint Benedict, and rightly so, thinks Father Kardong: ‘for Christian ethics never permits us to completely give over our consciences to another person, no matter how holy. In stressing the abbot’s responsibility, the Master has gone too far, probably exaggerating for emphasis.’ (Kardong, p. 63)

In light of this apparent concern of Saint Benedict not to allow blind obedience to do away with personal responsibility, Kardong thinks that today’s text, about the examination to be made of the abbot’s teaching and the disciples’ obedience, ‘need not be read to mean that the monk has abdicated personal responsibility.’ (Ibid.) Indeed, all that today’s passage says is that two things, and by implication two parties, will be examined: the abbot on how he has taught, the disciples on how they have obeyed. The conclusion of the passage, describing the shepherd being absolved for having done his part while the sheep are condemned for not doing theirs, seems to confirm this interpretation. The abbot’s care of souls does indeed give him a heightened responsibility; if his teaching leads them astray, he will have a double charge to answer. Nonetheless, today’s passage at least is clear that all, both shepherd and flock alike, will  in the end have to stand before the judgment seat of God to render an account of themselves. Anima quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur. ‘The soul that hath sinned, the same shall die.’ (Ezechiel 18)