Today's chapter of RB makes two things clear: there must have been a lot of children in the monasteries of Benedict's time, and many of them must have been poor. No one writes legislation for theoretical or unlikely situations (unless a teeny weeny bit mad). Benedict was writing about a genuine consecration to God, just as Samuel was consecrated in the Old Testament. In both cases, it was a consecration decided on by the parent. We find the idea of anyone deciding a child's future repugnant, although it is not so very long since it was taken for granted, at least in the case of girls, that Papa would make the important decisions regarding marriage, etc. Is there anything in this chapter of value, or is it all to be consigned to history?

First, I think we need to tackle the obvious. Benedict alone among early writers allows parents to make binding decisions about their children's future. More commonly, the parent's choice has later to be ratified by the child or it is rendered null and void (cfr Basil of Caeserea, Augustine). The wrapping of the child's hand in the altar cloth not only emphasizes the consecration, it also emphasizes the fact that the child is reduced to a chattel, a mere thing. Sadly, Benedict paved the way for later legislation that must, in many instances, have proved heartbreaking. Gregory II (726) forbade any child offered to a monastery in this way ever to leave it. For every happy little Bede there may have been an unhappy little Beowulf.

Child oblation is no longer permitted, thank God, but we can exert influence on other people; so perhaps a little conscience-searching about how we limit the choices of others may be in order. We can bully others both actively and passively, and we use comforting little phrases like "it's for your own good" to hide from ourselves the enormity of what we are doing. That is worth thinking about, especially if we have a pet project or an idea we are keen to implement, whether at home or at work.

Secondly, but importantly, there is some severe teaching about private ownership and the potential for discord that "having expectations" can create. Benedict touches on this theme at several points in the Rule, and experience confirms his wisdom. To look outside the community for the supply of this or that creates inequalities. Those who do not have rich relations or friends are put at a disadvantage, and that is not what Benedict wants. "We are all one in Christ and serve alike under the standard of the same Lord." It is dangerously easy to try to compensate for a "deprived" childhood or a temporary unhappiness by amassing material things. What Benedict is asking of us is to look beyond the material. In the monastery that means to accept the demands of a common life which may entail going without what we think we need as well as what we would like. How hard that can be at times!

Finally, I would like to draw attention to one small point I think deeply significant. Benedict mentions only the children of the nobility and of the poor. That covers everyone in the sixth century, does it not? No, not quite. Slaves could not become monks; they had to be set free first. The same is true of us. Only a truly free person can become a Benedictine. Freedom is more than just the absence of constraint. The roots of the English word go back to an Indo-European term connected with love and friendship, so that St Paul's statement that "for freedom Christ has set us free" has many levels of meaning. Accordingly, a question for today might be, how free am I? How Benedictine am I?