Vigils Reading

THE SAFEGUARD OF CHARITY

From “The Mirror of Charity” by St Aelred of Rievaulx

◊◊◊

I think it advisable for us who are called monks to take into account and

examine more closely the force of our rule… Does <St Benedict> not declare

that the reason for his institution is the preservation of charity and the

correction of vices?

Why do you throw the Rule up to me, <another fellow> says. Have charity

and do what you want. Let us eat and drink, then, not because tomorrow we die,

but because we are full of charity.

Of charity, I ask, or vanity?

Well, you reply, if someone has charity, is he not fulfilling the Rule?

How many holy canons, holy priests, holy bishops, and also holy couples

sense that they possess charity, but are very aware that they have not promised

profession and do not keep the rule for monks? If, however, we are speaking

about those who have made profession of the Rule itself, what is being said is

true—if, that is, he understands what he is talking about.

Why then, you say, do you obligate me by the authority of the Rule to

these harsh practices?

If you have charity it is not necessary for you to be forced to fulfill the

promises which your lips have uttered. If you scorn fulfilling the things you

promised by putting your signature to them and calling on God and his saints as

your witnesses, you can be very sure you do not have charity. For do you love

someone you mock? If anyone does other than he has promised, he said, let him

know that he will be condemned by the God whom he mocks. What then? Do we

condemn the dispensations granted in the Rule by our fathers, or those granted

today? On the contrary, we allege that they can reasonably be granted because

they arise from the precepts of a man, but not of God. But it is not within the

prerogative of any man that he change or diminish any of the divine precepts.

We must carefully ward against letting a dispensation—a modification or

variation—become in any way destruction. Since the reason for the institution

itself is the safeguard of charity and the correction of vices, the dispensation will

obviously be reasonable if it furthers this purpose. If, on the other hand, vices

are fostered by the dispensation more than by the institution, charity is violated.

Even if it may do no harm in itself, the dispensation is surely not without

danger.