Cur Deus Homo in short
To find out where the Rule and Cur Deus Homo meet we will need to look at the concept of satisfaction again. In the Cur Deus Homo we have seen that:
- Sin consists in not rendering to God what is due him (Cur Deus Homo, I, 11).
- Nothing can be added or subtracted from God’s honor in-itself (Cur Deus Homo, I, 15).
- This disturbance is repaired either by satisfaction or punishment (Cur Deus Homo, I, 15).
- It is repaired by punishment when God exacts a penalty upon the unwilling/unrepentant sinner (Cur Deus Homo, I, 14 & I, 15).
- It is repaired by satisfaction when the sinner willingly repays (Cur Deus Homo, I, 16).
- The satisfaction offered must be supereregatory (Cur Deus Homo, I, 11).
This quick refresher in Anselmian thought should enable us to recognize where the Holy Rule and the Cur Deus Homo meet and here the one fertilizes the other.
The Holy Rule in short
It should be noted that the Holy Rule is not a theological treatise. It is a monastic rule of life. We should not expect Benedict to theologize as elaborately as Anselm in Cur Deus Homo. Still we have seen that satisfaction entails the following:
- Satisfacere concerns the monk at fault (RB, 11, 13; 43, 12; 44, 8-9; 46, 3; 71, 8 for example).
- Satisfaction in one way or another occurs 17 times in the Rule (see Mansini).
- Offence can be given to God or fellow monastics (RB, 9, 7; 11, 3; 11, 13; 16, 2; 18, 24
- Satisfaction takes place in the sphere of personal relationships and must be fitting (RB 24, 1-3; 44; 43; 45; 71 etc).
- Satisfaction is distinct from punishment (RB 5, 19).
- Satisfaction must be supereregatory (the satisfaction requires more than simply resuming to do what should have been done in the first place; prostration comes to mind).
There seem to be certain points of overlap and a deeper reading into the Holy Rule and Cur Deus Homo will make its Benedictine provenance even more evident (Obedience, Honor, and Order can also be shown to derive from The Rule rather than presumed feudalism).
Four Points where Cur Deus Homo & the Holy Rule meet
There are four points where satisfaction in the Holy Rule and Cur Deus Homo actually meet:
- Satisfaction concerns the personal relational sphere.
- Satisfaction must be fitting.
- Satisfaction is willingly given because punishment is reserved for the unwilling. Iow satisfaction is distinct from punishment.
- Satisfaction must be supereregatory.
This is not to say that Anselm was immune to the society in which he lived. Far from it. But since it was a decidedly Benedictine society the feudal link is far from the only possible, and certainly not the least problematic one. Recent scholarship has called into question the very existence of “feudalism” whereas other research which does believe some form of feudalism existed places it long after Anselm’s death. The easiest way to understand Anselm’s theory of satisfaction is to approach it from the very source that Anselm himself drank from very deeply: the Holy Rule of St. Benedict.
Fr. Gregory Wassen