Return to: Home | Blogs | The Faith Column

What matters is not the sacrifice, but the music

The role of work is central to the Benedictine way of life

Benedict places a high spiritual value on work, especially the kind of manual work that leaves the mind free to meditate. Western society, by and large, does not value such work or exalts it into a kind of DIY salvation (often labelled “being Green”). Nuns do not choose their own work, it is given, along with the clothing and everything else. I found the transition from the worlds of academe and finance to life in the kitchen and scullery quite hard at first. I certainly resonated with the early Cistercians who wrote of how they would sometimes fall asleep over their reading, so tired were they by their labours. Work is not prayer, but it can be transformed by prayer.

Assignment to the printing room brought with it two great blessings: I began to work alongside a woman of rare nobility and huge moral stature, D. Hildelith Cumming, who made me think about the white space on the page, the colour of black, the texture and smell of paper and ink, the moral import of all we do. I also found in my Junior Mistress, D. Gertrude Brown, a wise and generous friend, with whom I could argue to my heart's content about all the questions that bubbled up inside. Both were as one in focusing on the contemplative quest, in "preferring nothing whatever to Christ".

Then my world fell apart. The next few years were lonely and difficult, made all the more so because I was forced into a position where I could not openly tell all I knew and had to endure a number of false accusations. This shook my faith in the Church and her institutions, but a single sentence of the Rule, to which I had clung during a bad patch as a novice came to act as a lifeline, "Never despair of God's mercy". It is very easy during times of stress and difficulty to end up only half-believing, challenging God to act and yet at the same time being unprepared for God to do so.

Just before Christmas 2003 my superiors indicated I would have to leave Stanbrook, at least for a while. Never for a moment did I doubt that I was called to live a monastic life. For me, there is simply no other way of being a Christian. All the disciplines of the monastery, silence, prayer, asceticism, chastity and so on, have become part and parcel of my life - because they are the only way in which I can be the person I am meant to be. What others often consider limitations on human freedom are actually a means to achieving that freedom. Just as one cannot learn to play the piano unless one devotes time to it, and must therefore choose not to spend that time on something else, so one cannot become a harp of the Holy Spirit, and allow God to play upon one, unless one is prepared to make certain sacrifices. What matters is not the sacrifice but the music.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

9 comments from readers

Alex Myers
30 January 2008 at 19:43

Occasionally one encounters a breathtaking blend of Faith, Intellect, Integrity and humility such as that evident from Dame Catherine Wybourne`s article. That we, in turn, are necessarily humbled.

A longstanding close association with the Community at Stanbrook Abbey and close friendships with such luminaries as the late Dame Felicitas Corrigan has afforded me an extraordinary insight into the events to which Dame Catherine Wybourne alludes. The treatment of Dame Catherine and others by the Superiors of Stanbrook Abbey and the wider Benedictine establishment was unspeakable and to its very foundation, Un–Christian. Dame Catherine is not the only Roman Catholic who’s Faith has been challenged by being witness to these events.

The political background to the situation described is a scandalous mix of conspiracy and deceit and would make all Moniales of good faith blush for very shame; those who advise and lead the Institutions which govern the Monastic, and in particular the Benedictine way of life, may have the grace to blush significantly more deeply than those they have misadvised or mistreated.

Did anyone hear a cock crow?

Helen Littlewood
02 February 2008 at 09:38

In response to the articles by Dame Catherine Wybourne I feel shocked that such a calling deeply rooted in the most ancient of vocations in many of the world religions could be so cruelly repaid by her superiors. Was she perhaps a bad nun?

Dr. Christopher Heard
03 February 2008 at 13:35

No. Dame Catherine is a devout, good and holy Benedictine nun.

Further research into the issue of her treatment (and that of her community at East Hendred) by the wider Benedictine community does not make edifying study.

In 2004 their Bishop was granted leave by the the Vatican's Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (CICLSAL) to erect a monastic community of diocesan right, where they could maintain their vows and profession. CICLSAL felt that their leaving the community was legitimate and underlined the responsibilty of their former Superior to observe due charity and equity in their regard, as prescribed in Canon Law, economically supporting them in their endeavour. Such charity and support were never granted.

Despite Vatican confirmation of their status as Benedictine nuns, the Holy Trinity Monastery was repeatedly denied an entry in the Benedictine yearbook, which even lists Anglican communities who follow Benedict's Rule (a modified and bizarrely positioned entry has only recently been made).

Moreover, Dame Catherine, as prioress of the Holy Trinity Monastery, a Benedictine monastery of diocesan right, has been unfairly and inappropriately excluded from the Union of Monastic Superiorsn where her blend of piety, intellect and integrity are so sorely needed.

Applications for membership of the Benedictine Confederation have been thus far rebuffed, despite CICLSAL's hope that they would enter the Order.

These victimisations would be petty, if ugly and un-Christian, enough were it not that they prevent the proper development and growth of the community, aginst which they are directed.

Heartily denied at least thrice, yes, Mr. Myers, I, too, heard the cock crow.

MJY
03 February 2008 at 15:27

May I respectfully refer Helen Littlewood to my comments posted after the final article in this series.

JanetheFool
16 February 2008 at 00:26

I have no knowledge of the incident Dame Catherine Wybourne is referring to, but I only know that recently I was blessed to become in contact with her after some difficulties I was experiencing. I have found the advice and compassion she's shown me to be extremely helpful and feel she was my "Guardian Angel" here on earth. I truly believe I was lead to her by God and I'm blessed to have made her acquaintance. SHe was the only person I reached out to who ended up offering any help. God bless her.

ALBA
23 February 2008 at 09:03

May I suggest that Sr Catherine is being less than monastic in alluding the the events that led to her, and 2 others,leaving Stanbrook Abbey. She has managed through inference to suggest that her former community have not acted as they should and I cannot believe for one minute that this could be so. Her supporter, Dr Christopher Heard, then goes on to cite events of which he cannot possibly have full knowledge of, to reinforce her message.

We should all remember that there are always two sides to a story and that when a relationship of any kind breaks down those outside the relationship should refrain from interfering both during and after the event. If Sr Catherine truly believes that she and her two colleagues were not treated approriately under canon law then she should raise this formerly in the appropriate forum where the other party may respond and not attempt wash her grubby linen in public. I am very disappointed by her actions.

Sr Catherine Wybourne
04 March 2008 at 14:18

May I invite "Alba" to get in touch? I have spoken nothing but the truth and have put my name to what I have written. If she would like to challenge me on any point, she is welcome to do so. The Abbot President of the English Benedictine Congregation himself suggested that the correspondence I had with him could be viewed by others, so I see no reason why Alba herself should not do so. As regards "grubby linen", there are many who will testify to my having maintained a long and charitable silence about things which are, in Alba's words, "less than monastic". I imagine Dr Heard would be equally open to being contacted, but I cannot speak for anyone but myself. What I should like to emphasize, however, is the point of my four articles: that I believe Benedictine monastic life to be worthwhile, that it is of supreme importance to me personally, and that the various sacrifices which it has involved, including the financial precariousness of the foundation here in Hendred, are as nothing compared with its joys and blessings.

Dr Christopher Heard
04 March 2008 at 17:25

Alba prefers pseudonymous innuendo over the attributable and substantiable facts she appears unable to challenge. If not involved in the events I have described, perhaps she should take her own advice and refrain from interfering, though, in my experience, fair and factual comment is usually discouraged by those with something to hide If, however, she is directly involved, let her challenge the facts as I have presented them, or, otherwise, invoke the canon law in which she places her faith.

There are indeed two sides to this story, namely the truth and the rest. Truth and witness are central to Christian and monastic life and must not be sacrificed to spare individuals' feelings.

The pharisaical spleen being vented by "Alba" is more telling than any of the substantiable facts I have shared (under my real name). Do contact me, whoever you are; there is no need to fear the truth.

ALBA
24 March 2008 at 16:42

I don't know who you think I am but I am not that person and why I wonder do you assume I am female?

I am not religous, not catholic and most certainly not involved and therefore have no interest in viewing correspondance that is as Dr Heard quite rightly says none of my business.

The point of my comment was that a particular issue raised and therefore put into the public domain by both the original contributer and subsequent posters was unnecessary and given the calling of Sr Catherine perhaps also innappropriate.

I do not see any purpose in making what appears to be a private issue public.

By raising the issue I assume you were both aware that you would invite comments both positive and negative.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

After the truth

29 May 2009 10:09

Islam's young faithful

18 May 2009 17:33

The Pilgrim Pope

14 May 2009 10:53

Technology, the Latter-day way

12 May 2009 09:45

The Age of the E-church

07 May 2009 12:43

Christianity and the Petri dish

06 May 2009 11:48

Judaism and charity

30 April 2009 16:07

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker