It seems to me
that the rule of St. Benedict is a laundry list of laws and regulations that
epitomize an authoritarian kind of utopia where any dissenter is met with harsh
punishment and exile. Perhaps the
emphasis on order, respect, and strict leadership puts me in the mindset of a utopia
where no one except for the members of the highest caste is even relatively
happy. I understand that this is a Christian
based document illustrating the tenants of what it is to be essentially a “Good
Christian”. I see many interesting
facets of this goal throughout the piece.
It was somewhat befuddling
that near the beginning of the work, St. Benedict lists the 4 types of monks immediately
sifting out the good from bad monks. I
suppose one could say that this sets a goal for all monks in the monastery to
aim for the best kind of monk; the Cenobites.
Likening this piece to the previous works we have examined for class, everyone
has established innate differences between groups of people. No other work seems to take as blatant a
position on viewing one group as better than another. This group of monks is described in extraordinarily
positive terms while the descriptions of a couple of the other types of monk are
riddled with disapproval.
Aside from the
Cenobites being the most valued of the monks, three positions the Cellarer of
the Monastery, the Abbess, and the Abbot seem to hold the greatest positions of
influence. Holding the prime positions
of power these three are presented with rather extensive ideas of what
qualities each should embody in order to properly lead the monks. I am not sure if this is simply my idea of
faith but I think it such a personal aspect of a human being, that to have a
leader dictating the commands of God to all others seems a bit rigid. Taking into account this is likely how things
were when the text was written, it still seems a bit absurd that any kind of
deviation from what the Abbot or Abbess said, was met with such harsh
punishment as with the discipline of boys.
The idea of
sharing everything is definitely not unique to St. Benedict’s Rule. Everyone sharing the responsibility to feed
each other is a rather interesting take on specialization as it seems as though
everyone is responsible for the most basic duties which is a functional aspect
of any society. The principal of how no
one owned anything by themselves but shared it with the monastery seems like an
older Christian value but one that should be put into practice more today. I think this relieves some feelings of
entitlement that can cause tension between people in a community. It also helps ensure that no one person has
more than anyone else. It aids in
fostering the idea that everyone is equal. That is, everyone aside from the
Abbot, Abbess, Cellarer of the Monastery, and, of course, the beloved
Cenobites.
I thought that St. Benedict's idea of ownership being "the most wicked vice" was really interesting for the same reason. It seems that this mind frame would help diffuse classism. However, even as I was reading about that idea and understanding his view that we are responsible for each other, I found it in direct contradiction with how he determined a sort of class system among the monks. If everyone is working for the same goal, with the same beliefs, and own the same amount of possessions, then it seems impossible for there to be different classes of monks. In a way, adhering to that kind of classism seems like it would be considered a vice when paired with St. Benedict's rules.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was slightly intimidated by the long list of rules and expectations for a Benedictine monk. There is no way that I could live that lifestyle. I also found the section on the different kind of monks interesting, because my initial thoughts when I hear the word “monk” is an image of a humble man in a simple brown robe with a funny haircut. I never knew that there was certain kinds of monks that were “detestable” and “miserable.” When St. Benedict was speaking about how no one has more than another person and they only have what they need, I thought about my experience with religious people. I have met some nuns and monks who say that they live with only the necessities to be in solidarity with the poor whom they serve. So maybe in addition to maintaining equality and relieving the feeling of entitlement, this would be another reason for their way of living.
ReplyDelete