RELIGIOUS BROTHERS: A HISTORY

Ecclesiastical history manifests, again and again, the truth that Christ founded His Church upon a rock and remains always with her. In every age, the divine life within her brings forth and nourishes men and institutions to revitalize the world. An aspect of the Church's life which is often overlooked is the religious brotherhood in which men embrace the religious life through the public profession of the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, but do not take Holy Orders and become clerics.

Today, all over the world, brothers are carrying on the work of the Church. They are to be found in monasteries, caring for the material needs of the house; in hospitals; in schools and colleges; and in foreign missions. They are found in religious institutes in which they are joined together with priests. They are found in communities in which there are only brothers. Their history is varied and rich, entwined inextricably with the general history of the Church, and therefore deserving of study.

The title "Brother" is primarily a monastic term, though it was used fraternally by St. Paul in his epistles. It was also used to denote fellow-ascetics by the hermits Anthony, Paul, and Hilarion, as we read in the lives of these men written by St. Jerome. By the time of St. Benedict, at least, all monks were called "Brother." During the golden ages of monasticism monks, whether in Holy Orders or not, were called "Brother." Some time in the Middle Ages, probably after the introduction of lay brothers, the titles "Dom" and "Father" were given to priest-monks, but not universally. Even today, the title "Brother" is used by some orders for their seminarians, while monastic writers refer to clerical monks as "the brothers." I would like to suggest that, with the growth and delineation of the brother's vocation in our day, these usages could be changed.

Canon law does not use the word "Brother" in any of its legislation, simply referring to clerical and non-clerical religious. We are accustomed to speak and write of brothers and lay brothers. I wish to give these terms definite meanings.

A brother is a religious not in Holy Orders, a member of a religious institute in which he has a governing voice and the power

to hold office. The institute may consist only of brothers, as in the case of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, or the Xaverian Brothers. There might be priests also as members of the institute, as in the case of the Congregation of Holy Cross and the Marianists. In this latter case the distinguishing mark is that the brothers have their own apostolate, such as teaching or working in hospitals, and have a voice in the governing of the institute.

A lay brother is a religious not in Holy Orders whose works are auxiliary to the priests of the institute, and who does not have a governing voice. Examples of lay brothers are the Benedictine, Jesuit, or Franciscan lay brothers.

The religious life as we know it today did not exist in the first three centuries of Christianity. We find mention of ascetics in the New Testament in the references to widows and virgins. Asceticism in the early centuries of Christianity took the form of the life of the hermit. Despairing of salvation amid the last wild whirl of classic paganism, Christians fled by thousands to the deserts to work out their salvation. Most notable among these was St. Anthony of the Desert (A.D. 270-356), who in the wild deserts of Egypt and Sinai gathered about him a group of fellow-hermits who looked to him for guidance, and who gave him the title, "The Father of Monks." There was no religious profession, and no common life. A rule is reputed to have been drawn up by St. Anthony for the guidance of his disciples, but this concerned mainly the regulation of food, water, work, and solitude. These men could scarcely be called brothers in the sense we use the term today. It must be noted, however, that almost none of these men were priests.

Again it is necessary to pause for definitions. A community of hermits is called eremitical monasticism. Modern monasticism and religious life is known as cenobitical. The cenobitical life is characterized by a common rule and living together. Of course, the term means literally an "eating together." Whereas the hermits lived each in his own hut or cave, the cenobites lived in a common dwelling and followed common spiritual exercises.

The cenobitical type of monasticism was introduced by Pachomius, who died about A.D. 346, and was thus a contemporary of Anthony. The Pachomian monastery provided a common area for dwelling, but, by and large, it permitted the monk to follow his own ascetical pattern within the monastery. Some, indeed, lived as

hermits within the monastery. At the death of Pachomius there were nine monasteries for men and one for women, all governed by a written rule. Again, we note that almost none, if any, of the Pachomian monks were priests. The general idea of monks of this time was expressed by Cassian (A.D. c.360-c.435). "A monk," he wrote, "ought by all means to fly from women and bishops." The bishops are undoubtedly mentioned because they had the power of ordination.

Monasticism assumed something of the form we know it in the West under the rule of St. Basil the Great (A.D. 329-379). So well did this Father of Greek monasticism prescribe for his subjects that his rule is still used by Eastern monks today. Whereas previously monasteries were located in unpopulated areas, the wilder the better, Basil founded city monasteries, and usually connected a school with the monastery. Monasteries were distributed as required, not at random, and only one in each parish. Again, though Basil himself was a priest, indeed, a bishop, his monks were predominantly men not in Holy Orders.

With the coming of Basil the main outlines of Eastern monasticism were completed, and today monks still live within that framework. In the West, however, many things were yet to occur. Athanasius visited Rome about A.D. 340, having with him two Egyptian monks, Ammon and Isidore, who were disciples of Anthony. A number of monks began the practice of eremitical asceticism in the West after this visit. About A.D. 360 the first monastery was founded by St. Martin of Tours, who was the first outstanding monk of the West. Monasticism was propagated by St. Jerome (A.D. 342-420) and St. Ambrose (d. 397), and by Honoratus and Cassian. The next development, however, waited for St. Benedict (A.D. c. 480-c. 550).

When Benedict went to Subiaco he found many hermits living in the caves of this rocky section, much as Anthony had lived in his desert. Benedict too lived as a hermit, but in A.D. 529 he founded the monastery of Monte Casino, and in A.D. 534 wrote his famous rule, which marked the beginning of a new era in monasticism, a new age in the life of the Church. Here for the first time was a fully cenobitical life, with complete governance prescribed for a monastery. The outstanding quality of the rule of

St. Benedict was its remarkable sanity and grip on reality. Its main features of work and prayer are too well known to need elaboration.

Here for the first time are men who could be called brothers in the modern sense of the word. Indeed, most of Benedict's monks were not priests, though the rule makes provision for clerics. Pope St. Gregory the Great (A.D. c. 540-604) discouraged clerical abbots, and in his Epistles says that the office of monk is distinct from that of cleric, and that it is dangerous for a monk to leave his cell to become a priest. (Pius XII, in writing of the religious life, says that there is no incompatibility between the priesthood and the religious life. The antagonism between these two statements can be explained by the historical developments which took place since Gregory's time, and a greater understanding of the monastic and religious life.)

John Ryan, S.J., in his work Irish Monasticism, states, "Monks, like the solitaries, were originally laymen, and normally remained such until the end of their days. . . If the first fathers and the monastic founders could have had their way, there would have been no clerics among their disciples or subjects." In the early days of Benedictinism the monastic round of work, Divine Office (the Opus Dei), and contemplation was carried on by brothers in the main, though priests were represented in the community. The offices of the monastery were largely held by brothers

With the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the Dark Ages gradually settled over Europe. In the monastery learning and scholarship were preserved, and in monastery schools the children of wealthier and more influential people were educated. With the breakdown of central government came the feudal system, and the serfs and their children ceased to know how to read and write. The monastic life and the priesthood became limited to the more influential classes. Monasteries and churches came to hold vast lands (benefices) on which there were serfs, and the Church and the monastic life became ways of advancement. In such times, the change from brothers to priests in the monastic life came about.

Dom Butler in his scholarly Benedictine Monachism indicates that quite early priests began to replace brothers. "The Commentary of Paul Warnfreid in many places makes it clear that in his monastery, circa 775, there were a number of monks, and indeed it looks as if all, or certainly most, proceeded to ordination."

Again he writes, ". . . by the year 1000 it became the established rule that the monks should be ordained. A century after this date Rupert of Deutz (d. 1135) definitely bears witness that it was so then."

Since the monks were becoming priests and were being drawn almost entirely from the upper classes, servants began to be attached to the monastery to care for temporal needs such as farming, cooking, and cleaning, so that the monks might be devoted to the Divine Office, scholarship, and teaching. These servants were known as famuli, and from these came the institution of lay brothers. Many of the servants attached to the monastery were holy men. Their social status and lack of learning, however, made it impossible to become priests. It was a logical step to offer them a place in the Order. They were known as illiterati, idiotae (by which is meant unlearned men), and laici barbarati. They were given a habit distinctive from the "choir monks" and were real and integral members of the monastery, though they had no voice in governance.

It is generally accepted that lay brothers were first instituted by St. John Gualbert at Vallambrosa in 1038, though it is possible that they were to be found as early as 1012 in the monastery of Fonte Avellana at Camoldoli. The chronicles of Fonte Avellana are not clear, however, as to the exact status of the men to whom they refer as famuli, and it is possible that they were unprofessed servants. It is certain that the Carthusians, Cistercians, and the Order of Grandmont had lay brothers from their foundation, and this was indeed a new development. An anonymous history of the Cistercians, published at the Abbey of Gethsemani in Kentucky, sums up this history very well:

Lay Brothers are said to have been incorporated into the religious. community at Vallambrosa by St. John Gualbert in 1073 [the writer is apparently wrong in this date] and the Carthusian order ever since its foundation (1084) had Brother servants; while the monastery of Fonte Buoni (founded 1012) certainly had brethren who were distinct from the choir-monks and were devoted entirely to caring for the secular needs of the house. From the standpoint of St. Benedict's rule, it was indeed a novel kind of religious life. Up to the eleventh century no distinction was made in Benedictine monasteries between clerical and lay members; all were on an equal footing, and as monks bound to the recitation of the Divine Office in choir.