To Act on Behalf of Christ (II:1)

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, like most of the opening Chapters of the Holy Rule, bears a close resemblance to the Rule of the Master, although as in other cases there are important differences to note later in the chapter. Today’s passage introduces the figure of the abbot in terms of his name, ‘Father’, and what seems to be his primary role, namely teaching the law of God. Father Kardong in his commentary discusses different ways in which one might conceive of the abbot’s authority, and concludes that both the Master and Saint Benedict, although they are writing for cenobites, present the abbot in terms derived from the eremitical tradition of the desert: that is, the abba is not simply someone who holds an office in the community, but a spiritual master to whose guidance the monk entrusts himself as a son. Father Kardong comments: ‘This is a vertical, hierarchical model premised on the intrinsic superiority of the master, who by God’s grace is possessed of special gifts to be imparted to the disciple.’ (Kardong, p. 65) He observes that such a model might seem out of place in a Rule written for a community, since it places so much stress on the vertical and seems to leave little role for the horizontal, mutual relations among brothers. Yet Saint Benedict, like the Master, clearly chooses this model of the abbot, derived from the desert tradition.  This gives Benedictine life an inescapably patriarchal character, which all of the classic commentators stress. Thus, for instance, Blessed Abbot Marmion notes that the abbot’s monarchical authority in the monastery is analogous to that of the Roman Pontiff in the Church, while Blessed Cardinal Schuster often speaks of ‘the principle of authority’ as the basis on which the entire cenobium rests.

Modern and post-modern Christians are often uncomfortable with such a strong patriarchal vision, and understandably so. Yet if we look closely at Saint Benedict’s presentation of the abbot’s fatherhood, we see that he provides important safeguards to prevent its abuse.

First, what is the basis of the abbot’s paternal authority? Some scholars have looked to the Roman figure of the paterfamilias, with his absolute authority of his household, as the model for abbatial authority. Father Kardong rightly rejects this: ‘All of the images for the abbot used by Benedict and the ancient monks are drawn from the Bible and not from contemporary politics. We can only understand them in terms of accurate biblical theology…which always reserves ultimate authority to God.’ (Kardong, p. 66) Rather than political structures, the basis of the abbot’s authority is faith: Christi agere vices in monasterio creditur.

But how can this be ‘believed’? The theological virtue of faith rests on divine revelation, a revelation entrusted to the Church. In Chapter 5, Saint Benedict will cite Our Lord’s words to the Apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears Me’, as the basis for obedience. Saint Benedict’s claim for the abbot’s authority, then, only makes sense if that authority is rooted not simply in his personal qualities, not even in charismatic gifts that he might be believed to have—since one cannot put more than human credence in such qualities or gifts. Rather, Saint Benedict can establish the monastery on the solid foundation of abbatial authority because, as can be seen in Chapter 64, perhaps unlike some of his monastic predecessors, especially in the East, he presumes that this authority is not based simply on the holiness recognised in an individual, but on the apostolic authority of the Church within which the monastery has its existence. As Blessed Schuster frequently argues, both the Dialogues and the letters of Saint Gregory show that Italian monasticism in the time of Saint Benedict was closely inserted into the Church’s hierarchy, thus providing both an objective basis for the abbot’s authority, and an effective means of curbing potential abuses.

The abbot’s name, Saint Benedict says, is in fact Christ’s name—for Saint Benedict, like many of the Church Fathers, recognises that God the Son can rightly be called Father by Christians. The abbot is believed Christi agere vices in monasterio. This is often translated as ‘to hold the place of Christ in the monastery’. But agere vices might be better rendered, ‘to act on behalf of’. In other words, the abbot does not replace Christ, but is the instrument by whom Christ carries out His work. The conclusion to be drawn from this, for Saint Benedict, is not that the abbot has absolute power over his subjects, but rather that he has a grave responsibility to make his conduct and his teaching accord with that of Christ Whom he represents. The same point can be made of all authority in the Church: the Pope, as Christ’s Vicar on earth, is the first one who must be obedient to Christ’s doctrine. The fact that the abbot is called by Christ’s name is not a motive for exaltation on his part; rather, the whole point is to remember that he is called by a name that is not properly his own; as Saint Benedict will say in Chapter 64, he is called ‘Lord’ and ‘Abbot’ for the honour of Christ.

This has important implications for the how the abbot sees his relation to the monks and vice versa. If he is a father, then they can clearly be called his sons: the opening sentence of the Prologue does just this, and monastic tradition recognises its legitimacy. Yet it is noteworthy that throughout the rest of the Holy Rule, Saint Benedict, in contrast to the Rule of the Master, does not speak of the monks as sons, but frequently speaks of fratres. We notice the same frequent use of fratres by Saint Benedict to address the monks in Saint Gregory’s Dialogues. We can likewise recall that Saint Paul, whose Corinthian correspondence clearly shows his understanding of his spiritual paternity, nonetheless most frequently addresses his congregations as fratres. Thus, while modern Christians should not be ashamed to speak of fathers and sons in the monastic life, at the same time Scripture, the Fathers, and Saint Benedict want us to remember that all spiritual fatherhood in the Church is of a relative character. Christ is the only true spiritual Father, because the spiritual life to which we are engendered is properly His life, and all bishops, priests, and abbots are simply His ministers in transmitting this life through preaching the Word, administering the Sacraments, and providing guidance and direction in the Christian life. The spiritual father never ceases at the same time to recognise that his sons are also his brethren, sons of the same true Father, as Saint Augustine summed it up in his famous saying: Vobis sum episcopus, vobiscum Christianus; ‘For you I am a bishop, with you, a Christian.’