Cap. XXIV
QUALIS DEBET ESSE MODUS EXCOMMUNICATIONIS

[Ms P, fol. 91r – Paulus Diaconus –
Ps.-Basil: Ms K¹, fol. 52r; Ms E¹, fol. 107r; Ms E², fol. 170r]

Ch. 24
WHAT THE EXTENT OF EXCOMMUNICATION OUGHT TO BE

Translated by: Abigail Firey

Modus, i. e. qualitas vel quantitas. Sententiam suam exsequitur, quia superius dixit duo, i. e. si intelligit, qualis poena sit, excommunicationi subjaceat; sin autem improbus fuerit, vindictae corporali subdatur [Regula Benedicti, c. 23.4-5], hic autem dicit: ₁Secundum modum culpae et excommunicationis vel disciplinae debet extendi mensura - ac si diceret: Juxta qualitatem vel quantitatem negligentiae, ita debet extendi mensura excommunicationis vel disciplinae.

Extent, that is, quality or quantity. [Benedict] proceeds to this opinion, because he has said two things, namely, if he [the brother] understands what the penalty be, let him submit to excommunication; if, however, he was unaware, let him be subjected to corporal punishment. [Regula Benedicti, c. 23.4-5]; moreover, here he says, ₁The measure both of excommunication or discipline ought be calculated according to the type of offense – as if he says: the measure of excommunication or discipline ought to be calculated in accordance with the quality or quantity of negligence.

Disciplina, quanquam multis modis intelligatur, i. e. admonitio vel correptio et reliqua, tamen in hoc loco pro virga ponitur.

Discipline, although it may be understood in many ways (such as admonition or correction and so forth) is nevertheless in this place is used for 'the rod'.

Sequitur: ₂qui culparum modus in abbatis pendeat judicio - ac si diceret aliis verbis: Qualitas vel quantitas culpae ad abbatis judicium respicit, i. e. in ejus aestimatione consistit. Ille autem discernat, utrum levis sit culpa vel gravis.

He continues: ₂Let the extent of the offense depend upon the judgement of the abbot – as if he says other words: 'The quality or quantity of the offense refers to the judgement of the abbot, that is, it consists in his assessment. He, moreover, should determine whether the offense be minor or serious.'

Attendendum est in hoc loco, quia non dixit, ut ille abbas det judicium de levibus culpis vel de gravibus, sed dixit solummodo: abbas discernat, utrum sit illa culpa levis an gravis, quia ipse S. Benedictus dat judicium de levibus et de gravibus - ac si diceret aliis verbis S. Benedictus: Abbas vero solummodo discernat utrum levis sit negligentia an gravis, quia ego judico de levi culpa et de gravi.

It is to be noted that in this place, he has not said that the abbot should pronounce judgement on minor or serious offenses, but he has said only that the abbot should determine¹ whether the offense be minor or serious, because St. Benedict himself pronounced judgement concerning the minor and serious ones – as if St. Benedict says, in other words, 'But only the abbot may discern whether negligence be minor or serious, because I pass judgement concerning the minor offense and the serious one.'

In [page 348] hoc loco intuendum est, ut ille abbas culpam levem non aestimet esse gravem, et culpam gravem non judicet esse levem, quia, cum hoc fecerit, grave periculum sibi generare se credat. Sicut Dominus dicit in veteri testamento, h. e. in Exodo¹ de leprosis, ut ille sacerdos judicet inter leprosum et non leprosum, et Dominus dicit: Leprosi et non leprosi juxta qualitatem leprae judicio subjacere debent. [cf. Lv 14]

In [page 348] this place it is to be understood that the abbot does not consider a minor offense to be a serious one, and does not judge a serious offense to be minor, because, when he does this, he should believe that he creates serious danger for himself. Just as the Lord says in the Old Testament, that is, in Exodus, concerning the lepers, that the priest should judge between the leprous and the non-leprous and the Lord also says that the leprous and those who are not leprous should submit to judgement about the quality of the leprosy. [cf. Lv 14]

Ita et S. Benedictus in hoc loco facere cognoscitur, cum dicit qui culparum modus in abbatis judicio pendeat, et ipse S. Benedictus constituit inferius legem de excommunicatis, i. e. de levibus culpis sive de gravibus.

So also is St. Benedict understood to do in this place, when he says that the extent of the offenses depends upon the judgement of the abbot, and that same St. Benedict established below a law concerning the excommunicated, that is, concerning the minor offenses and serious ones.

Et hoc intuendum est, quia si fuerit peccatum spiritale, debet levem culpam aestimare; si autem carnale fuerit, debet in gravi.

And this is to be understood, that if a sin is spiritual, it should be deemed a minor offense; if, however, it is a carnal sin, it should be in [the category of] the serious.

Sequitur: ₃Si quis autem frater in levioribus culpis invenitur, a mensae participatione privetur, ac si diceret: Si judicaverit levem esse culpam, separetur a mensa, sicut Dominus in Levitico: Si judicaverit sacerdos lepram esse [cf. Lv 13-14] et rel. judicio ejus subjacere debet, sicut in ipso libro continetur.

He continues: ₃If any brother, however, be discovered in lesser offenses, let him be deprived of participation at [the common] table, as if he were to say: 'If he judges the offense as minor, let him be separated from table, just as the Lord [said] in Leviticus: if the priest should judge it to be leprosy (and so on) [cf. Lv 13-14], he ought to submit to his judgement, just as it is contained in that book.'

Sequitur: ₄Privati autem a mensae consortio, ista erit ratio, ut in oratorio psalmum vel antiphonam non imponat neque lectionem recitet usque ad satisfactionem - ac si diceret aliis verbis: rationabilis causa est, ut ille qui a mensa separatur, in oratorio neque lectionem recitare aut psalmum imponere aut antiphonas debeat. In hoc loco subintelligitur, ut etiam missam cantare non debeat, si presbyter est, nec offerre, si monachus est, eo quod dicit lectionem non recitet.

He continues: ₄This is the reason, moreover, that he will be deprived of the companionship of the table: so that he should not intone the psalm or antiphon in the oratory nor should he recite the reading until he has made satisfaction – and if he would say, 'This decision is reasonable, that he who is separated from table ought not recite the reading in the oratory or intone the psalm or antiphons' in this place it is to be understood that he ought not even sing the Mass, if he is a priest, and not make the offering if he is a monk, because [Benedict] says he should not recite the reading.

Nunc vero [quia] ille, qui separatur a mensa - exponit ipse S. Benedictus, quando debeat manducare vel etiam cum quo.

But [as to] how he should be separated from table – St. Benedict himself explains when he should eat and even with whom.

Ait enim: ₅Refectionem cibi solus percipiat, ₆ut si v. gr. fratres reficiunt sexta hora, ille frater nona; si fratres nona, ille vespera, ₇usquedum satisfactione congrua veniam consequatur.

For he says, ₅Let him take the refreshment of food by himself, ₆so that, for example, if the brothers eat at the sixth hour, let this brother [eat] at the ninth; if the brothers [eat] at the ninth [hour], [let] this [brother eat] in the evening, until he has completed a suitable satisfaction.

In hoc loco intuendum est, quia non tollit illi locum in ordine vel cibum vel potum; praeter si ille jam ex hac excommunicatione non se emendaverit [page 349], tunc coerceatur, si improbus fuerit, verberibus, si vero talis fuerit persona, ut non sit dignus flagellari, tunc nimiis jejuniis castigandus est.

In this place it should be understood that [Benedict] does not take away his place in the sequence [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 63] or food or drink; rather, if he then does not correct himself from this excommunication, [page 349] then he should be coerced, if he was unaware, with beatings; if, however, he is the sort of person who should not be flogged, then he is to be chastised with great fasting.

Sciendum enim est, quia locum suum non debet tollere abbas, eo quod pro levibus culpis ita satisfacere debet, sicut ipse alibi dicit: Tamdiu debet stare in loco suo, usquedum flectunt se fratres ad supplicationem litaniae, post vero dabet ire in loco, in quo deputaverit abbas, et ibi prostratus jacere, usquedum completur opus Dei. [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 44.1-4]

Indeed, it is to be noted, that the abbot ought not take away his place, because for lesser transgressions he should make satisfaction thus, just as he [Benedict] himself says elsewhere: he ought to stand in his place until the brothers bow in the prayers of the litany, then afterward let him go into that place which the abbot shall have designated, and there cast himself down prone, until the Work of God be finished [cf. Regula Benedicti, c. 44.1-4].

Satisfactio enim intelligitur prostratio, venia autem indulgentia. Sive dicas satisfactione congrua, sive etiam congrua venia, utrumque potest dici.

Satisfaction therefore is understood as prostration, pardon, moreover, is indulgence. Whether you would call it suitable satisfaction or even 'suitable pardon': either can be said.

Et hoc animadvertendum est, quia semper considerare debet abbas intentionem peccantium atque modum delinquentium.

And this is to be noticed, that the abbot should always consider the intention of those sinning and the manner of those transgressing.

Sed sciendum est, quia magna difficultas est in discernendo levia peccata a gravioribus et periculosa est, ne leve pro gravi aut grave deputet pro levi.

But this should be known, because there is great and dangerous difficulty in distinguishing minor sins from more serious ones, lest the minor be considered serious or the serious considered minor.

Et iterum major difficultas est, ubi dicit congrua satisfactione veniam consequatur.

And again it is a great difficulty, when he states, Let him obtain pardon with suitable satisfaction.

Unde semper debet attendere abbas intentionem, quia non omnes una intentione faciunt illud peccatum, quamvis unum peccatum committant.

 For this reason, the abbot should always take into account intention, because not all commit a sin with a single intention, although they commit the same sin.

Similiter non omnes aequaliter poenitent, quanquam aequaliter sit in poenitentia spatium tributum, quia forte iste studiose et diligenter poenitet, ille vero negligenter atque tepide.

Similarly, not all will do penance equally, although the period assigned for penance be equal, because one person perhaps may do penance zealously and diligently, but another casually and not fervently.

Ideo ille qui studiose poenitet, ante debet solvi, quam ille, qui negligenter. Unde dicit congrua satisfactione veniam consequatur.

Therefore he who does penance zealously ought to be absolved before the one who does it casually. For this reason, he says, Let him obtain pardon with suitable satisfaction.

Tunc est congrua satisfactio, quando secundum modum delicti peracta est poenitentia. Et hic est magna difficultas ad cognoscendum, quando sit illa satisfactio congrua.

Satisfaction is suitable when the penance is performed in accord with the extent of the offense. And when that satisfaction be suitable is a great difficulty in discernment.

Ponamus exemplum: Ecce duo fratres aequaliter acceperunt poenitentiam, et quamvis aequaliter judicandi sunt, non sunt tamen eo studio inventi aequaliter egisse poenitentiam; ac per hoc non aequaliter debent solvi, sed ille debet prius solvi, qui studiosius suam peregit poenitentiam et verecundius atque humilius. Nam si aequaliter voluerit solvere eos abbas, quia aequaliter judicati sunt, non agit secundum regulam, quia non solvit fratrem congrua satisfactione.

Let us propose an example: Suppose that two brothers received a penance equally, and although they were to be judged equally, they were nevertheless not found to have performed the penance equally with respect to zeal; and because of that, they should not be equally absolved, but that one who performed his penance faithfully and authentically and humbly ought to be absolved first. For if the abbot would wish to absolve them equally, because they had been judged equally, he would not act according to the Rule, because he would not absolve a brother with suitable satisfaction.