Corrections of a flagellatory kind, inflicted by force, by Bishops and the heads of Monasteries.

NOTE: The following article is taken from the 4th Chapter of History of Flagellation Among Different Nations. New York: Medical Publishing Co., 1930: pp. 47-53. Though the Abbots and Abbesses don’t inflict flagellation in Geronda Ephraim’s monasteries, each one has their own form of punishment to humble and correct insubordinates. Geronda Ephraim has stated that Elder Joseph the Hesychast use to hit him and his other monastics; both with his cane as well as with slaps across the face and head, as a form of disciplinary action..

elder-joseph-close

It must be confessed, however, that though self-flagellation made no part of the rules or statutes in those early stages of Christianity, the same cannot be said of that method of correction, when imposed by force upon such monks as had been guilty of offences, either against the discipline of the order, or against piety: an extensive power of inflicting such salutary corrections, having, from the earliest times, been lodged in the hands of abbots and the superiors of convents.

Nay more, we find that bishops during the very first times of Christianity, assumed the paternal power we mention, even with regard to persons who were bound to them by no vow whatever, when they happened to have been guilty either of breaches of piety or of heresy. Of this, a remarkable proof may be deduced from the 59th Epistle of St. Augustin, which he wrote to the Tribune Marcellinus, concerning the Donatists. St. Augustin expresses himself in the following words: “Do not recede from that parental diligence you have manifested in your researches after offenders; in which you have succeeded to procure confessions of such great crimes, not by using racks, red-hot blades of iron, or flames, but only by the application of rods. This is a method of coercion which is frequently practiced by teachers of the fine arts upon their pupils, by parents upon their children, and often also by bishops upon those whom they find to have been guilty of offences.”

"The application of rods is a method of coercion which is frequently practiced by bishops upon those whom they find to have been guilty of offences."
“The application of rods is a method of coercion which is frequently practiced by bishops upon those whom they find to have been guilty of offences.”

Another proof of this power of flagellation, assumed by bishops in very early times, may be derived from the account which Cyprianus has given of Cesarius, Bishop of Arles; who says, that that bishop endeavoured as much as possible, in the exercise of his power, to keep within the bounds of moderation prescribed by the Law of Moses. The following are Cyprianus’s words: “This holy man took constant care that those who were subjected to his authority, whether they were of a free or servile condition, when they were to be flagellated for some offence they had committed, should not receive more than thirty-nine stripes. If any of them, however, had been guilty of a previous fault, then indeed he permitted them to be again lashed a few days afterwards, though with a smaller number of stripes.”

"When they were to be flagellated for some offence they had committed, they did not receive more than 39 stripes."
“When they were to be flagellated for some offence they had committed, they did not receive more than 39 stripes.”

From the two passages above, we are informed that the power of whipping, possessed by bishops, extended to persons of every vocation, indiscriminately; and with much more reason may we think that those persons who made profession of the ecclesiastical life, were subjected to it. In fact we see that even the different dignities which they might possess in the church, did not exempt them from having a flagellation inflicted upon them by their bishops, when they had been guilty of offences of rather a serious kind; and Pope St. Gregory the Great, moreover, recommended to the bishops of his time, to make a proper use of their authority. In his sixty-sixth Epistle, he himself prescribes to Bishop Paschasius, the manner in which he ought to chastise Deacon Hilary who had calumniated Deacon John. “Whereas,” he says, “guilt ought not to pass without adequate satisfaction, we recommend to Bishop Paschasius to deprive the same Deacon Hilary of his office, and after having caused him to be publicly lashed, to confine him to some distant place; that the punishment inflicted upon one, may thus serve to the correction of many.”

"We recommend that after having caused him to be publicly lashed, to confine him to some distant place; that the punishment inflicted upon one, may thus serve to the correction of many.”
“We recommend that after having caused him to be publicly lashed, to confine him to some distant place; that the punishment inflicted upon one, may thus serve to the correction of many.”

This power of inflicting the brotherly correction of whipping was also possessed by the abbots and priors in all the ancient monasteries; though, at the same time, it was expressly provided by the rules of the different orders, that the same should be assumed by no other persons. “Let no man, except the abbot or him to whom he has intrusted his authority, presume to excommunicate, or flog a brother.”

When the faults committed by monks were of a grievous kind, the abbot was not only charged to correct them by means of his discretionary power of flagellation, but he was moreover expressly directed to exert that power with rigour. In the rule framed by St. Fructuosus, Bishop of Braga, it is ordained with respect to a monk who is convicted of being a liar, a thief, or a striker, “That if, after being warned by the older monks he neglects to mend his manners, he shall, on the third time, be exhorted in the presence of all the brethren, to leave off his bad practices. If he still neglects to reform, let him be flagellated with the utmost severity.” The above rule of St. Fructosus is mentioned by Ecbert, in his Collection of Canons, which together with his Councils of England, has been published by Spelman.

“That if, after being warned by the older monks he neglects to mend his manners, he shall, on the third time, be exhorted in the presence of all the brethren, to leave off his bad practices. If he still neglects to reform, let him be flagellated with the utmost severity.”
“That if, after being warned by the older monks he neglects to mend his manners, he shall, on the third time, be exhorted in the presence of all the brethren, to leave off his bad practices. If he still neglects to reform, let him be flagellated with the utmost severity.”

St. Ferreol, Bishop of Usez, framed a rule for monks, which like that above, makes severe provisions against such monks as are addicted to the practice of thieving. “With regard to the monk who stands convicted of theft, if we may still call him a monk, he shall be treated like him who is guilty of adultery for the second time; let him therefore be chastised with the whip, and with great rigour too. The same punishment ought to be inflicted upon him as upon a fornicator, since it may be justly suspected that his lewdness has induced him to commit theft.”

Committing indecencies with other monks, or with boys, were offences which the Statutes of Convents likewise directed to be punished by severe flagellations; and the above St. Fructuosus, Bishop of Braga, ordered that the punishment should, in the above case, be inflicted publicly. “If a monk,” it is said in his rule, “is used to tease boys and young men, or is caught in attempting to give them kisses, or in any other indecent action, and the fact be proved by competent witnesses, let him be publicly whipped.”

“If the brothers who have been excommunicated for their faults, persevere so far in their pride, as to continue, on the ninth hour of the next day, to refuse to make proper satisfaction to the abbot, let them be confined, even till their death, and lashed with rods.”
“If the brothers who have been excommunicated for their faults, persevere so far in their pride, as to continue, on the ninth hour of the next day, to refuse to make proper satisfaction to the abbot, let them be confined, even till their death, and lashed with rods.”

Refusing to make proper satisfaction to the abbot for offences committed, or in general persevering in denying them, were also grievous faults in the eye of the first founders, or reformers, of monastic orders. In the rule framed fifty years after that of St. Benedict, in order to improve it, the following direction was contained: “If the brothers who have been excommunicated for their faults, persevere so far in their pride, as to continue, on the ninth hour of the next day, to refuse to make proper satisfaction to the abbot, let them be confined, even till their death, and lashed with rods.” Nor is the rule of the above-mentioned Bishop of Braga less severe against those monks whose pride prevents them from making a proper confession of the offences they may have committed. “To him,” it is said in that rule, “who, through pride and inclination to argue, continues to deny his fault, let an additional and severer flagellation be imparted.”

The habit of holding wanton discourses, or soliciting the brethren to wickedness, was also deemed by the founders of religious orders to deserve severe flagellations; and St. Pacom ordered in his rule, which it was said had been dictated to him by an angel, that such as had been guilty of the above faults, and had been thrice admonished, should be publicly lashed before the gate of the convent.

The habit of holding wanton discourses, or soliciting the brethren to wickedness, was also deemed by the founders of religious orders to deserve severe public flagellations
The habit of holding wanton discourses, or soliciting the brethren to wickedness, was also deemed by the founders of religious orders to deserve severe public flagellations

Attempts to escape from monasteries, were, even in very early times, punished by flagellation. We read in Sozomenius, that St. Macarius of Alexandria, Abbot of Nitri in Thebaid, who had five thousand monks under his direction, ordered that chastisement to be inflicted upon those who should attempt to climb over the walls of the monasteries. “If anyone continues in his wickedness, and says, I can no longer bear to stay here, but I will pack up my things and go where God will direct me; let any one of the brothers inform the prior, and the prior the abbot, of the fact; let then the abbot assemble the brothers, and order the offender to be brought before them and chastised with rods.”

"Let then the abbot assemble the brothers, and order the offender to be brought before them and chastised with rods.”
“Let then the abbot assemble the brothers, and order the offender to be brought before them and chastised with rods.”

The holy founders of religious orders have also been very severe in their provisions against such monks as seek for familiarities with the other sex. In the rule of the Monastery of Agaunus, it was ordained, that, “If any monk had contracted the bad habit of looking on women with concupiscence, the abbot ought to be informed of the fact, and bestow upon the monk a corrective discipline; and that, if he did not mend his manners in consequence thereof, he ought to be expelled from the society as a scabby sheep, lest he should ruin others by his example.” The above monastery had been built by Sigismond, King of Burgundy, to the honour of one hundred and twenty Martyrs of the Theban Legion, of which St. Maurice was the commander, under the reign of the Emperor Maximinus.

St. Maurice's Abbey is built on the ruins of a Roman shrine of the 1st century B.C. dedicated to the god Mercury in the Roman staging-post of Agaunum
St. Maurice’s Abbey is built on the ruins of a Roman shrine of the 1st century B.C. dedicated to the god Mercury in the Roman staging-post of Agaunum

The above-quoted rule of St. Fructuosus, is no less severe against those monks who seek for the company of women. In the fifteenth chapter, which treats of the lewd and quarrelsome, it is ordered, that, “If after having received proper reprehensions they persist in their wicked courses, they shall be corrected by repeated lashings.” And St. Columbanus, who is the first who instituted the monastic life in France, and has written a rule as a supplement to that of St. Benedict, also expresses himself with great severity against such monks as are convicted of having barely conversed with a woman in the absence of witnesses; for though there are faults for which he orders only six lashes to be given, yet, in the case here mentioned he prescribes two hundred. “Let the man who has been alone with a woman, and talked familiarly to her, either be kept on bread and water for two days, or receive two hundred lashes.”

http://elfinspell.com/HxFlagellation/Chap4.html

1904 illustration of a medieval Spanish flagellant
1904 illustration of a medieval Spanish flagellant

The practice of scourging one’s self unknown to the early Christians

NOTE: The following is taken from the 3rd chapter of History of Flagellation Among Different Nations. New York: Medical Publishing Co., 1930: pp. 40-46. The practice of self-flagellation seems to have been unknown in Europe until it was adopted by the hermits in the monastic communities of Camoaldoli and Fonte Avellana early in the 11th century. Once invented, the new form of penance spread rapidly until it had become not only a normal feature of monastic life throughout Latin Christendom but the commonest of all penitential techniques—so much so in fact that the very meaning of the term disciplina was restricted to ‘scourge.’

 History of Flagellation among Different Nations

FLAGELLATIONS of different kinds being universally practiced among the heathens, this circumstance must needs have given but little encouragement to the first Christians, to imitate such mode of correction; and we may take it for granted that they had not adopted it. Indeed, we find that no mention is made of it in the writings of the first, either Greek or Latin Fathers; for instance, in the Epistles of St. Ignatius, the Apologies of Justinius, the Apostolic Canons, the Constitutions attributed to Clement the Roman, the works of Origen, the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, and all the works in general of Eusebius of Cæsarea, of St. Chrysostom, of St. Basil, and of St. Basil of Seleucia. In all the above authors, no mention, I say, is made of flagellations; at least, of those of a voluntary kind; unless we are absolutely to explain in a literal manner, passages 41 in which they manifestly spoke in a figurative sense. We may therefore safely conclude, that the first Christians had no notion of those cruel exercises which prevailed in later days, and that to flay one’s hide with scourges or rods, as in these times the practice of numberless devotees, in or out of religious orders, were practices unknown to them.

Flagellants
Flagellants

Regard for truth, however, obliges us to mention one or two instances of flagellation, which are to be found in the history of the ancient eastern Anchorites, written by Theodoret, who has been above mentioned; but those instances are such, that certainly no argument can be derived from them, to prove that voluntary flagellations were in use in the times in which those Anchorites lived.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus - A History of the Monks of Syria
Theodoret of Cyrrhus – A History of the Monks of Syria

One of those instances is to be found in the life of Abrahames. It is related in it, that the Christian populace having attempted to seize the sheets in which the body of that saint was wrapped, the lictors drove them back with whips. Now it is obvious to everyone, that the lashes which these lictors bestowed, to and fro and at random, upon those men who beset them, were not willingly received by the latter. And the same may certainly with equal truth be observed of the flagellations inflicted upon the people (which is the second instance mentioned by Theodoret) by the collectors of the public tributes, who, he says, used to collect them with scourges and whips.

The Self-Mortification of Saint Benedict
The Self-Mortification of Saint Benedict

The rules of the first religious orders founded in the west, have been likewise silent as to the voluntary use of thongs and whips. The first rule, for instance, prescribed to the Benedictines, that ancient western order, does not mention a word about self-flagellation; and the same silence is to be observed in the rules framed by Ovisiesius [NOTE: This is a misspelling, it should be St. Orsiesius of Tabenna, disciple of St. Pachomius the Great; the Orthodox Church keeps his feast on June 15. We still have his Doctrina et tractatus].

The following is an instance of voluntary flagellation among the ancients, which was not only free either from the superstition or wantonness above mentioned, but was moreover produced by rational, and, we may say, laudable motives. The instance referred to is that of the flagellations bestowed upon himself by a certain philosopher mentioned by Ovisiesius.a Abbot of Tabennæ; by St. Aurelian, Bishop of Arles; by St. Isidorus, Bishop of Sevil; by St. Tetradius; and a number of others, whose rules Holstenius has likewise collected. From thence we may therefore conclude, that Christians in those times, had no notions of beatings and scourgings which are now so prevalent, and that the upper and lower disciplines were alike unknown among them.

imagesIG1WVTTS

The only author of weight, in the days we speak of, who seems to have made any mention of voluntary flagellations being practiced in the ancient monasteries of St. John Climax, who according to some accounts, lived in the middle of the fourth, and according to others, only in the sixth century. This author relates, that, in a certain monastery, “some, among the monks, watered the pavement with their tears; while others, who could not shed any, beat themselves.”

FLAGELLATIONS BESTOWED BY THE DEVIL

To those instances of involuntary flagellations, during the times of the eastern Anchorites and the first monks, we may, I think, safely add those which 43 the devil, jealous of their merit, has inflicted upon them; a case which has frequently happened, if we are to credit the writers of those times.

imagesLJ8PX7HC

In the lives of the saints remarkable virtues are recited; whether it was that those saints, after having dreamed of such flagellations, fancied they had in reality received them, and spoke accordingly, or that they had some scheme in view when they made complaints of that kind. St. Francis of Assisi, for instance, as is related in the Golden Legend, received a dreadful flagellation from the devil the very first night he was in Rome, which caused him to leave that place without delay. And, to say the truth, it is not at all unlikely that, having met there with a colder reception than he judged his sanctity entitled him to, he thought proper to decamp immediately, and when he returned to his convent, told the above story to his monks.

imagesWVEMQDHK

Among those saints who received flagellations, or visits in general, from the devil, St. Anthony is however the most celebrated. As some times the devil, as is mentioned above, flagellated him vigorously; and at others, employed temptations of quite a different kind, in order to seduce him: thus, he assumed in one instance the shape of a beautiful young woman, who made all imaginable advances to the saint; but, happily, all was to no purpose. The celebrated engraver, Callot, has made one of those visits of the devil to St. Anthony, the subject of one of his prints, 44 which is inscribed the “Temptation of St. Anthony;” and he has represented in it such a numerous swarm of devils of all sizes, pouring at once into the saint’s cavern, and exhibiting so surprising a variety of faces, postures, and ludicrous weapons, such as squirts, bellows, and the like, that this print, may very well be mentioned as an instance, among others, of the great fertility of the imagination of that engraver.

1AN33__24635_1405404609_900_900

Besides the persecutions which St. Anthony suffered from the devil, he has the further merit of having been the first institutor of the monastic life, several other hermits having in his time chosen to assemble together, and lived under his direction; and though he has not expressly been the founder of any particular order, yet it is glory enough for him to have been the father of the whole family of friars and nuns. In more modern times, however, his relics having been brought from Egypt to Constantinople, and thence transferred to Dauphine, in France, a church was built on the spot where they were deposited, and a new order of friars was a little after established, who go by the name of Monks of St. Anthony. These monks form a kind of order distinct from all others; but yet they have no less ingenuity than the other monks for procuring the good of their convent, as may be judged from the following story, which, I think, I may venture to relate as a conclusion of the chapter.

dvcopusdei

The story I mean, is contained in the book of the 45 Apologie pour Herodote, which was written about the year 1500 by Henry Etienne, on purpose to show that those who entirely reject the facts related by Herodotus, on account of their incredibility, treat them with too much severity, since a number of facts daily happen which are altogether as surprising as those that are found in that author.

1856853

Before relating the story in question, the reader ought to be informed, that St. Anthony is commonly thought to have a great command over fire, and a power of destroying, by flashes of that element, those who incur his displeasure. The common people have been led into this belief, by constantly seeing a fire placed by the side of that saint in the representations that are made of him; though this fire is placed there for no other reason than because the saint is thought to have the power of curing erysipelas, which is also called the sacred fire (ignis sacer,) in the same manner as St. Hubert cures the hydrophobia; St. John, the epilepsy; and other saints, other disorders. A certain monk of St. Anthony (to come to our point) who was well acquainted with the above prepossession of the vulgar concerning his saint, used on Sundays to preach in public, in different villages within a certain distance from his convent. One day he assembled his congregation under a tree on which a magpie had built her nest, into which he had previously found means to convey a small box filled with gunpowder, which he had well secured therein; and 46 out of the box hung a long thin match, that was to burn slowly, and was hidden among the leaves of the tree. As soon as the monk, or his assistant, had touched the match with a lighted coal, he began his sermon. In the meanwhile the magpie returned to her nest; and finding in it a strange body which she could not remove, she fell into a passion, and began to scratch with her feet, and chatter unmercifully. The friar affected to hear her without emotion and continued his sermon with great composure; only he would now and then lift up his eyes towards the top of the tree, as if he wanted to see what was the matter. At last, when he judged the fire was very near reaching the gunpowder, he pretended to be quite out of patience, he cursed the magpie, and wished St. Anthony’s fire might consume her, and went on again with his sermon; but he had scarcely pronounced a few periods, when the match on a sudden produced its effect, and blew up the magpie with her nest; which miracle wonderfully raised the character of the friar, and proved afterwards very beneficial both to him and his convent.

http://elfinspell.com/HxFlagellation/Chap3.html

51z0apYzsfL__SL500_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

Elder Joseph the Hesychast’s Saying: “The cane is the remedy for every passion”

In Chapter 21 of Monastic Wisdom, Elder Joseph states, “But the cane is the remedy for every passion. Demons fear it and shudder when they see a man punishing himself like a martyr for the love of Christ.” This is accompanied by a cleverly worded footnote, “The elder is not advocating some kind of masochism here, but advises counteracting sinful pleasure—whether it be due to thoughts of anger, pride, or carnal thoughts—with physical pain.” It then lists a few of the numerous Orthodox saints who have used similar techniques—i.e. inflicting pain upon themselves to counteract sinful pleasure, not caning themselves. Though Geronda Joseph Mammis (MI) did the initial translation of Monastic Wisdom, the manuscript was passed around Arizona for the older fathers to edit and add input. One of the monks suggested this footnote and it was added to the manuscript (this footnote is not in the original Greek edition of Monastic Wisdom).

The footnote about masochism is not in the Greek edition of Monastic Wisdom.
The footnote about masochism is not in the Greek edition of Monastic Wisdom.

It is important to examine some terminology to understand why using the term “masochism” makes this footnote a cleverly worded statement which avoids the true nature of caning oneself:

  • Masochism: a sexual perversion characterized by pleasure in being subjected to pain or humiliation especially by a love object; pleasure in being abused or dominated:a taste for suffering.
  • Auto-sadism: Also known as automasochism, is behavior inflicting pain or humiliation on oneself. It may be related to self-harm, or a paraphilia involving sexual arousal. It can be viewed as a form of masochism, a sublimated form of sadism, or a means to experiencing algolagnia, a sexual tendency which is defined by deriving sexual pleasure and stimulation from physical pain.
  • Self-defeating personality disorder: Also known as masochistic personality disorder, SDPD is a personality disorder that was never formally admitted into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It involves a persistent pattern of behavior which is detrimental to the self, including being drawn to problematic situations or relationships.
  • Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI): is defined as deliberately injuring oneself without suicidal intent. The most common form of NSSI is self-cutting, but other forms include burning, scratching, hitting, intentionally preventing wounds from healing, and other similar behaviors.

Stating that “the elder isn’t advocating some kind of masochism here,” is stating the obvious. The monastics are not inflicting pain on themselves for sexual gratification, although addiction to pain or the endorphin rush pain causes, is well documented in medical literature. Caning one’s thighs or other body parts could technically fall under the category of autosadism, however, it is not practised to derive sexual pleasure. The self-defeating personality disorder can be applied to a few of the monastics in Geronda’s monasteries, though it is not applicable to the act of caning oneself. The more correct definition of this act would be the non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) which is a sub-category of self-harm. Virginity is one of the three monastic virtues, so explaining the obvious with an authoritative blanket statement—i.e. in essence, celibate monks are not caning themselves to derive sexual gratification from the pain—is misleading. The footnote does not address self-harm or self-injury which is the real issue behind caning oneself.

Elder Joseph the Hesychast (d. 1959)
Elder Joseph the Hesychast (d. 1959)

It is interesting to note that self-harm is listed in the DSM-IV-TR as a symptom of borderline personality disorder. However, patients with other diagnoses may also self-harm, including those with depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, eating disorders, PTSD, schizophrenia, and several personality disorders. Self-harm is also apparent in high-functioning individuals who have no underlying clinical diagnosis. The motivations of self-harm vary and it may be used to fulfill a number of different functions. These functions include self-harm being used as a coping mechanism which provides temporary relief of intense feelings such as anxiety, depression, stress, emotional numbness or a sense of failure or self-loathing and other mental traits including low self-esteem or perfectionism. Self-harm is often associated with a history of trauma or abuse, including emotional and sexual abuse.

Geronda Ephraim has said that Pappou would hit his monks with his cane for disciplinary measures.
Geronda Ephraim has said that Pappou would hit his monks with his cane for disciplinary measures.

It should be mentioned that Geronda Ephraim has stated in homilies to his monastic that Elder Joseph would also hit his monks with his cane as a form of disciplinary measure (i.e. corporal punishment). Flogging as a form of punishing monks was common in the beginning years of Orthodox Monasticism and is mentioned in early texts as well as the Rule of St. Benedict. Self-flagellation which was a universal pagan practise before the advent of Christianity, is not found in any of the early orthodox texts, not even the Rule of St. Benedict. Self-flagellation as a form of ascesis is a Roman Catholic monastic tradition that appeared sometime after the Great Schism. Though one can find Orthodox Saints who tortured themselves through various ascetical hardships or one time endeavours to battle a temptation (i.e. the saints mentioned in the footnote of Monastic Wisdom), the act of self-flagellation or caning oneself to counteract sensual pleasure is not found in early Orthodox texts. The practice of self-flagellation seems to have been unknown in Christian Europe until it was adopted by the hermits in the monastic communities of Camoaldoli and Fonte Avellana early in the 11th century. Once invented, the new form of penance spread rapidly until it had become not only a normal feature of monastic life throughout Latin Christendom but the commonest of all penitential techniques—so much so in fact that the very meaning of the term disciplina was restricted to ‘scourge.’

Flagellants, from a 15th-century woodcut.
Flagellants, from a 15th-century woodcut.

In the Greek Orthodox monasteries here, this form of self harm—non-suicidal self-injury—is used as a coping mechanism to deal with logismoi, and any negative or impassioned thought or feeling. For those who’ve attended services at a monastery with a side door that the monastics use to enter and exit the Church without having to pass the lay people, one will often hear the door open and shortly afterwards the rapid sound of wood or whatever striking an object. These are the monastics beating themselves outside because their logismoi was too overwhelming to push away with the Prayer.

3

Elder Joseph writes, “Here all my young monks have a cane under their pillow. As soon as a carnal thought comes, they let him have it! … So there is no other remedy than prayer, fasting, and the cane.” (p. 121). Following this tradition, all of Geronda Ephraim’s monastics have some object used to beat themselves either under their pillow or in close proximity to their bed. This is because carnal warfare is quite common at bedtime and during the personal vigil in one’s cell. Some monastics, such as Fr. Makarios (AZ), have a blessing to bring their beating stick to church. Thus, during the service, if one starts falling asleep, or having carnal thoughts or any other kind of passions arise, they can leave the church through the side door (or altar door) and go beat themselves—Geronda Ephraim does not like his monastics walking in and out of the church where people can see because they get scandalized and it’s a bad image for the pilgrims.

The side door for monastics to enter and exit the main church at St. Anthony's Monastery (AZ)
The side door for monastics to enter and exit the main church at St. Anthony’s Monastery (AZ)

Other monastics who do not bring their beating stick to Church use pinching, punching, biting and other forms of inflicting pain upon themselves when thoughts arise so they do not have to exit the Church.

Elder Arsenios the Cave-Dweller with his cane.
Elder Arsenios the Cave-Dweller with his cane.

There is also an odd phenomenon where certain monastics, in a fit of rage, will also beat themselves. In Geronda Ephraim’s monasteries, this style of “caning” is usually accompanied by a warning, and then prostrations and other penances if it persists. Hitting oneself due to outbursts of rage and anger defeats the purpose of ascetical caning, and is also unmonastic. There are also the cases of monastics self-harming themselves when rebuked by the Elder or when they’ve had a mini-break due to overwhelming external pressures and temptations. Such forms of self-harming have been the following:

  • The monastic laid face down on the floor, repeatedly banged his head on the floor, and made guttural noises.
  • Repeatedly banging their head off a dashboard and rapidly slapping the dashboard or steering wheel with both hands while making strange noises.
  • Rapidly punching a brick wall until both hands were bleeding.
  • Rapidly punching the sides of their head with both hands while making strange noises.
  • Intentionally injuring oneself in an attempt to avoid work—known in the military as a self-inflicted wound. Monastics guilty of this were severely censured in front of the other monastics and rebuked for being lazy and cowardly, etc.

Hitting/kicking inanimate objects, destroying inanimate objects, vandalizing one’s cell, etc. out of rage is a whole other chapter of Greek Orthodox monasticism in America. Though it is often a red flag indicating these monastics are ready to leave the monastery and return to the world.

elder-joseph-close