Care for the Work of Creation in the Rule of Saint Benedict and in the Documents of the Cistercian Order: A Historical-Systematic Overview

Abstract

The article reflects on the care for the work of creation within Benedictine spirituality and within the broader tradition of the Cistercian Order. It seeks to demonstrate that monastic spirituality, though developed in a pre-modern context, contains enduring theological and ethical intuitions that remain relevant for contemporary ecological reflection. The starting point of the analysis is the Rule of Saint Benedict written by Benedict of Nursia, which, although it does not employ the modern vocabulary of ecology or environmental ethics, nevertheless articulates a coherent vision of human life characterized by reverence, moderation, and responsibility toward the created world. Particular attention is given to key spiritual and anthropological dimensions of the Benedictine tradition, such as attentive listening (obsculta), humility, moderation, stability, and responsible work, expressed synthetically in the principle ora et labora. These elements are interpreted not only as monastic disciplines shaping individual and communal life, but also as forming a relational anthropology in which the human person is understood as fundamentally embedded within a network of relationships with God, other people, and creation. In this sense, Benedictine spirituality already implies a non-exploitative attitude toward the natural world. The article then examines how concern for creation has been deepened and concretized in the spirituality, institutional practice, and historical development of the Cistercian Order. Drawing on selected Cistercian documents as well as contemporary monastic reflections, the study shows that care for the natural environment is inseparably linked with spiritual attentiveness to God, interior silence, openness of heart, and readiness to serve. The Cistercian tradition, with its emphasis on simplicity of life, manual labor, and harmonious integration with the surrounding environment, develops these Benedictine intuitions in a particularly concrete and historically embodied form. From this perspective, a pro-ecological attitude is not interpreted merely as a reactive response to contemporary environmental crises, but rather as a structural consequence of a theologically grounded vision of reality. It emerges from a deep relationship with God as Creator and from a sense of entrusted responsibility for creation understood as a gift rather than as an object of domination. Ecological sensitivity is thus presented as an intrinsic dimension of monastic spirituality rather than an external adaptation to modern concerns. The main research question of the article is: to what extent and in what way do Benedictine and Cistercian spiritual traditions provide theological, anthropological, and ethical foundations for an ecological attitude toward creation within the framework of contemporary integral ecology. To address this problem, the study employs qualitative research methods grounded in theological inquiry. The primary method is textual analysis of the Rule of Saint Benedict and selected Cistercian documents, complemented by theological–hermeneutical interpretation aimed at identifying key spiritual principles and their implicit ecological implications. In addition, the study applies a historical–critical perspective in order to situate monastic sources within their original cultural and theological context, as well as a comparative theological approach, which enables a dialogue between classical monastic spirituality and contemporary ecological theology. These methods are used not only to reconstruct historical meanings, but also to interpret monastic texts in light of contemporary debates on integral ecology, sustainability, and the ethics of responsibility for our common home. In this way, the article highlights a significant continuity between monastic wisdom and modern ecological reflection, showing their mutual capacity for enrichment.

1. Introduction

The Cistercian Order, founded at the end of the 11th century, adopted the Latin name Ordo Cisterciensis (abbreviated OCist.; from it later emerged a stricter branch—the Trappists, abbreviated OCSO), and is a Catholic monastic order. From the very beginning, it followed the Rule of Saint Benedict, known through the maxim “ora et labora” (“pray and work”). The first monastery was founded in 1098 by Robert of Molesme, the first abbot, in Cîteaux (today Saint-Nicolas-lès-Cîteaux). Cistercian abbeys and monasteries played an important role in the Middle Ages as centers cultivating culture, learning, and medicine, while also introducing advancements in crafts and agriculture. Observance of the Rule of Saint Benedict (hereafter RB) ensured a direct proportionality between prayer and work: the more prayer, the more work, and vice versa. This proportionality protected against excessive fideism on the one hand and exaggerated activism on the other. Human hands can express prayer, but they are also made for work.

The main aim of the article is to identify and articulate the key themes and principles of ecological spirituality contained in the Rule of Saint Benedict (RB) through a creative interpretation of the text as an inspiration for contemporary documents of the Cistercian Order. In other words, the article seeks to determine to what extent and in what way monastic spirituality—especially its principles of prayer, work, humility, poverty, and communal life—can be interpreted as contributing to an ecological understanding of creation and human responsibility toward the natural world.

The research methodology is based primarily on qualitative theological analysis. The study applies a textual and hermeneutical method to RB (especially its Prologue) and selected Cistercian sources, including historical and contemporary documents of the Order. This approach is used in order to identify key spiritual and anthropological principles embedded in monastic tradition and to interpret their ecological implications.

In addition, the article employs a historical–critical method, which allows for situating Cistercian spirituality within its medieval context and tracing the development of its theological and practical attitudes toward nature, work, and creation. This is complemented by a comparative theological approach, which enables a dialogue between monastic sources and contemporary ecological theology, particularly the concept of integral ecology as developed in modern Catholic social teaching.

The Cistercians were motivated to observe the RB strictly and fully by a sense of the wisdom of Cistercian life. Extreme poverty—understood as the renunciation of excess and luxury—was meant to prevent pride and superfluity. However, in reflecting on the economic and environmental activity of the Cistercians, it is necessary to move beyond the simplified image of the order as existing solely in harmonious coexistence with nature. Although they undoubtedly played a significant role in the development of marginal lands, described in the sources as terrae incultae, this process was in fact far more complex, both ecologically and socially. As Richard Hoffmann points out, many of these areas were not truly “empty wastelands,” but rather constituted living spaces of local communities, which were sometimes forcibly displaced and whose villages were destroyed in order to establish new monastic foundations (Hoffmann 2014, pp. 195–206). This means that Cistercian expansion involved not only the transformation of the natural landscape, but also profound interventions in existing social structures.

At the same time, these activities had a significant impact on the natural environment. The establishment of monasteries in wetlands was often associated with large-scale drainage projects, including the drying of marshes and the regulation of watercourses. Such interventions led to lasting changes in local ecosystems and in the hydrological balance of entire regions. In this context, Cistercian activity may be interpreted as an early form of intensive environmental management which—although economically effective—was not neutral with respect to nature.

The idealized image of the organization of labor in Cistercian monasteries also requires critical revision. Traditionally, emphasis has been placed on the importance of the monks’ own labor, in accordance with the principle of ora et labora; however, research shows that this practice gradually evolved. As Tim Rayborn observes, the conversi—often portrayed as voluntary collaborators within the community—were frequently recruited from dependent populations, and in some cases their labor had a coercive character. Particularly in the Iberian Peninsula, the Cistercians also made use of slaves for agricultural work (Rayborn 2013, pp. 118–25). Such practices challenge the image of the community as a space of purely voluntary and egalitarian cooperation.

Similarly problematic is the portrayal of the Cistercians as consistently faithful to the ideals of the Rule of St Benedict. Although the striving for strict observance undoubtedly formed part of the order’s identity, it cannot be absolutized. Generalizations suggesting a uniform motivation across the entire order require correction. As Emilia Jamroziak notes, with the growing wealth of monasteries there appeared phenomena indicating a departure from original ideals, including the employment of lay workers and even the use of slave labor (Jamroziak 2015, pp. 146–52). In this context, the historiographical image of the “lazy and fat Cistercian” is not entirely unfounded, but rather forms part of a critical reflection on the evolution of monastic life.

The need for a more nuanced approach is also emphasized by Michael S. Northcott, who, in analyzing the relationship between place, ecology, and the sacred, underscores the moral dimension of managing space (Northcott 2015, pp. 37–52). Incorporating his perspective makes it possible to see that Cistercian activity should be understood within a broader tension between spiritual ideals and economic and environmental practice.

In light of the above considerations, it must be concluded that the image of the Cistercians as exclusively rational and harmonious stewards of the environment requires significant qualification. Their activity was, on the one hand, a vehicle for economic and organizational innovation, but on the other, it involved structural violence, exploitation of natural resources, and far-reaching social transformations. Such a perspective helps to avoid simplifications and allows for a more accurate understanding of the complexity of the historical experience of the order.

Aside from that the monks were called pauperes Christi (“the poor of Christ”) as well as militia Christi (“the army of Christ”) due to their austere life in seclusion and their deliberate choice of difficult, remote locations for settlement. This was intended to foster monastic peace and the inner freedom of the monks. These fundamental principles of spirituality also had practical applications in architecture, liturgy, economy, and the entire life of the monks of Cîteaux. The basic elements of the cenobitic RB and the eremitic ideal of hermit life shaped the Cistercian order within the sound wisdom of monastic tradition. They introduced into monastic life a balanced rhythm of prayer, reading, and physical labor. Medieval monastic communities, within their capacities, took an interest in nature and technology, which became expressions of the realization of human potential—to actively become a cooperator of the Creator, who entrusted the universe to human thought and hands so that, in accordance with the hierarchy of animate and inanimate creation, it might preserve its complementarity and integrity (Cf. John Paul II 2000, pt. 2). In order to establish an appropriate background for further systematic analysis, it is necessary to first present a synthetic description of the historical origins of the order. Understanding this historical context is of fundamental importance for comprehensive and in-depth reflections. From its very inception, the order consistently put into practice the Rule of St. Benedict, which served as the spiritual and organizational foundation of its operation. However, the spirituality and structure of this community were most significantly shaped by the figure of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. It was precisely he who, through his extraordinary charisma, intellectual maturity, and moral authority, introduced an innovative and creative interpretation of the evangelical idea of “subduing the earth,” bestowing upon it an entirely new dimension in the practice of monastic life.

In order to achieve a thorough understanding of the monastic tradition’s ongoing relevance, the primary aim of these systematic analyses is to offer a comprehensive explanation of the aforementioned Rule of St. Benedict—with particular emphasis on its foundational Prologue—and to trace its reception across key Cistercian documents. This investigation is situated directly within the context of contemporary civilizational challenges, placing special focus on emerging eco-ethical imperatives. Ultimately, the central focus of these considerations will be an updating, contextualized interpretation of the most recent official documents of the Cistercian Order, particularly the declarations and decrees of the General Chapter. By examining these normative texts through the lens of ecological responsibility, the protection of nature, and the sustainable development of creation, this study aims to demonstrate how the timeless principles of Cistercian spirituality continue to address the urgent environmental demands of the modern world.

2. The Origins of the Cistercian Order and Its Praeceptores

The first foundations of the Cistercian Order were established in France in the 11th century. The beginnings of the order were connected with a reform movement aimed at closely linking the RB with asceticism and the ideal of eremitic life, which spread across northern and western Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries1. According to tradition and monastic sources, on 21 March 1098, Robert of Molesme, abbot of the monastery of Molesme, departed with a group of 21 fellow monks to a secluded place near Dijon (in the Burgundy region), where he founded a new abbey called Cistertium (in French, Cîteaux).

The new monastery was established in a small valley, crossed by a stream and surrounded by dense forests extending toward Dijon. The fields around the monastery were marshy and low-lying, with meadows covered in peat bogs and vegetation typical of such terrain, including reeds and rushes. The origin of the name Cistertium remains debated: linguistically, it may derive from the Latin cistella (“reed bed”) or from cisterna (“reservoir, water basin”). There is also scholarly consensus that the name may be linked to its location along an ancient route—cis tertium lapidem (“at the third milestone”) on the old Roman road from Châlons-sur-Marne to Langres. The name of the first abbey was later extended to the entire order2. However, the choice of such a location could have jeopardized the project. Historians point to several factors that made the initial foundation difficult: material hardships and the strictness of a rule developed in southern Europe, whose implementation proved challenging in the conditions of central-western Europe. Despite these objective difficulties, the undertaking did not collapse; rather, it confirmed the principle that strength is made perfect in weakness.

A decisive turning point came with the election of a new abbot after Robert of Molesme—Stephen Harding, later recognized as a saint. In 1109, he became abbot and is regarded today as the true organizer of the order. Surviving writings from 1109–1111, which record increasing donations, suggest that Harding succeeded in stabilizing the economic condition of Cîteaux and developing the already existing scriptorium. At the beginning of his governance, there was no clear intention to found a new order as such. However, new circumstances arose in 1113 that accelerated the development of the abbey and gave rise to the idea of establishing a new monastic order. Three key factors determined the causal and sequential development of the Cistercians: 1. The foundation of the first daughter house, La Ferté Abbey, in 1113, 2. The entry into Cîteaux of Bernard of Clairvaux with thirty companions in 1113 and 3. The approval by Pope Callixtus II in 1119 of the Carta Caritatis3.

The Charter of Charity became the constitutional document of the Cistercian Order, regulating relations between its abbeys. The text was continually revised and adapted until 1155. From the perspective of canon law, it was a document of unprecedented importance, introducing systematic regulations that transformed the group of monks at Cîteaux into the first fully organized religious order in the history of the Church. It is highly valued as a legal monument with significant influence on the development of monastic life in Europe and beyond. It should also be noted that at that time, the growing interest in monastic life led to a rapid increase in the number of monks at Cîteaux. The monastery lacked sufficient living space for new candidates, and its economic base could not sustain them. Consequently, the establishment of the first daughter house helped to resolve these logistical and existential difficulties.

This situation of an increased number of candidates, fascinated by monastic life, resulted from the witness of life and the compelling example of Bernard of Clairvaux, who was later canonized. His presence broke the initially low influx of vocations to Cîteaux, as he arrived there accompanied by thirty candidates, including four brothers and twenty-six men bound by ties of kinship or friendship. According to widely accepted biographical accounts, St. Bernard—known by the toponymic surname “of Clairvaux”—was born in 1090 at the castle of Fontaines-lès-Dijon, near Dijon, as the son of Tescelin of Fontaines. He belonged to the close circle of the Burgundian dukes: Odo I of Burgundy (1078–1102) and Hugh II of Burgundy (1102–1143). The influence of these figures is significant in the context of the foundation and early years of the new monastic establishment at Cîteaux, as the support of powerful patrons made it possible to pursue its aims without abandoning the strict observance of the rule. All this created circumstances in which Bernard received a very comprehensive upbringing within his family. From 1098, his education among the canons of Saint-Vorles Church in Châtillon-sur-Seine contributed to his acquiring a formation grounded in the models of early Christianity and classical culture. The background and connections of his parents also enabled him to become well acquainted with the monastery at Cîteaux, which had acquired the name Novum Monasterium. The term Novum signified not only something new and distinct, but also a different model of life and approach to the implementation of new forms of activity in both spirituality and economic practice—one that was regarded as innovative. It should be emphasized that the Cistercians built their monasteries in areas described as “wastelands”, yet they quickly transformed them into arable land and pastures. In many regions, this involved large-scale drainage of wetlands, which entailed interference with the ecosystem and the hydrological balance. Due to his education and personal qualities, Bernard quickly became a member of a peer group of noble youths, of which he was most likely the leader. In the course of his personal discernment, he decided to become a monk and at the same time influenced the members of this group to make a similar decision and to go with him to Novum Monasterium. It is particularly noteworthy that, while medieval history records cases of entire families or lineages entering religious life, none equaled the number of thirty men in the group led by Bernard. An important factor in the formation of such a large group and their determination to enter the new monastery was that, for half a year prior to joining Cîteaux, they had already begun living in a quasi-monastic manner. This suggests that their choice of this particular place—whether made by Bernard himself or by the entire group—was fully conscious. They desired to submit themselves to the principles observed at Cîteaux in all their rigor. It is also known that such a strict rule had a discouraging effect on others. Thus, the period of development of the abbey of Cîteaux—which had a profound influence on the growth and significance of this branch of monasticism—began with the approval of the aforementioned Carta Caritatis in 1119, continued through the leadership of Stephen Harding until 1133, and extended through the guidance of the community by Bernard of Clairvaux until his death in 1153.

The most characteristic feature of Cistercian monasticism was its attentiveness to the “signs of the times”, particularly regarding socio-economic relations and expectations concerning the monastic way of life in that period. For this reason, the popularity of the Cistercians grew very rapidly. The monks were bound by strict asceticism and simple nourishment; they minimized the acceptance of benefices, rents, and income derived from feudal monopolies, as well as large landed estates with dependent subjects. Their primary means of sustenance became their own manual labor, especially agricultural work. They also returned to a simpler form of liturgy, rejecting earlier developments introduced at Cluny Abbey. Between 1113 and 1115, alongside La Ferté Abbey, the abbeys of Pontigny Abbey, Clairvaux Abbey, and Morimond Abbey were founded, which in turn became the starting points for further monastic foundations4.

Another important indicator in the development of the Cistercian Order was the foundation of new monasteries outside France. It is noteworthy that in 1120 the Cistercians settled in Italy, in 1123 in Germany, and in 1128 in England. By the mid-12th century, they had expanded into the Netherlands, Spain, Austria, Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Czech Republic, and Poland. The number of abbeys grew rapidly, from over 70 in 1134 to around 350 by the time of the death of Bernard of Clairvaux5, reaching 525 by the end of the 12th century, 647 by the mid-13th century, and nearly 700 by the close of that century. An important phenomenon was the incorporation into the Cistercian Order of groups of Benedictine monasteries, and even entire congregations. At an early stage, a division into five filiations was established, depending on origin from the proto-abbeys: Cîteaux, La Ferté Abbey, Pontigny Abbey, Clairvaux Abbey, and Morimond Abbey. For example, monasteries of the Clairvaux filiation developed mainly in Western Europe and Scandinavia, while those of Morimond expanded primarily in Germany and Central Europe (See Solarska and Sztark 1994, p. 9). Overall, it can be concluded that in the 12th century the Cistercians became such an attractive order for young people that this period may rightly be called the “age of the Cistercians”. This development bore fruit in the establishment of 742 abbeys by 1675.

However, the number of monks in individual abbeys varied considerably. As Immo Eberl notes, “alongside abbeys numbering over one hundred monks and lay brothers, there were also those that barely reached the minimum of twelve required by the General Chapter”. The total number of monks—based on averages from studies of the early history of the order, with approximately fifteen monks and twenty lay brothers per abbey—amounted to about 11,600 in 1152 and approximately 20,000 in the 13th century (Eberl 2002, p. 42). In assessing the implementation of the principle “subdue the earth”, it should be noted that the Cistercian Order demonstrated a remarkable capacity to adapt to the conditions of different historical periods. In accordance with the principle of discerning the “signs of the times”, Cistercian economic life was organized from the very beginning in such a way as to fully meet the needs of each abbey. It was based on agriculture, animal husbandry, and craft production. In the early years of their existence, up to around 1108, the Cistercians observed the principle of ora et labora very rigorously. The monks supported themselves primarily through manual labor. This entailed a prohibition on owning estates with dependent populations, as well as on receiving feudal rents, dues, tithes, or income from pastoral activities. After 1108, however, it became evident that in individual monasteries it was not possible to meet material needs without compromising religious obligations. As a result, the Cistercians came to accept the use of hired labor within their economic system, carried out by a distinct group of members known as lay brothers (conversi). Upon entering the order, they undertook a form of penance, and their renunciation of the secular world was described as conversio a saeculo. For a long time, they constituted the main workforce in the monasteries. They were entrusted with managing monastic granges, especially as extensive land donations—rapidly increasing from around 1112—led to the expansion of the economic base of individual abbeys.

This approach represented a highly modern economic policy for its time and was soon adopted by other religious orders. However, the spread of this model increased the demand for lay brothers, which in turn led to a decline in their numbers within Cistercian monasteries. Consequently, from the 13th century onward, the Cistercians began to shift their economy toward a rent-based system, which became the primary form of their economic activity—another sign of their ability to interpret the “signs of the times”. In the second half of the 12th and throughout the 13th century, moving away from their earlier strict ideal of poverty, the Cistercians began to accept villages with dependent populations and landed endowments. They developed agriculture on a large scale, including sheep breeding and the raising of draft animals. They also contributed significantly to the development of agricultural branches such as orcharding, horticulture, and milling. On the other hand, the decline in the number of lay brothers in the 13th and 14th centuries contributed to the gradual weakening of the Cistercian agrarian economy. Additional factors accelerating this process included demographic losses caused by epidemics such as the Black Death and the devastation of the Hundred Years’ War, as well as eastern European colonization, the growth of cities absorbing surplus population, and the emergence of mendicant orders6.

Therefore, alongside agriculture, trade played an important role among the Cistercian Order and developed quite dynamically. Within commercial exchange, the Cistercians disposed of surpluses produced on monastic estates and, in return, obtained goods whose production they did not undertake themselves. From around the 13th century, some abbeys also engaged in industrial activities, mainly related to mining, metallurgy, and blacksmithing. Many historians point, for example, to monasteries in Scotland that operated coal mines, as well as English abbeys that developed lead mining. In the lands of the Piast state, the abbey in Wąchock Abbey received in 1249 a privilege allowing it to search for ores in the duchies of Kraków and Sandomierz. It is also worth mentioning ironworks owned by the monastery in Jędrzejów Abbey from 1571, as well as lead and silver smelters that had been in the possession of the abbey in Mogiła Abbey since 1383.

In the context of the territories of the Margraviate of Brandenburg and Pomerania, it is important to mention Lehnin Abbey, founded in 1180 by Otto I, Margrave of Brandenburg, as a daughter house of the Cistercian abbey of Morimond Abbey and later associated with the monastery of Sittichenbach Abbey. Also noteworthy is Chorin Abbey, founded by the margraves Otto III of Brandenburg and John I of Brandenburg and later expanded by John IV of Brandenburg. Originally, this monastery was called St. Mariensee, and its foundation took place on 2 September 1258 on the present-day peninsula of Pehlitzwerder. In 1273, while still under construction, it was relocated to Lake Chorin (today known as Amtssee), after which its name was changed to Chorin Abbey. The original buildings of St. Mariensee were gradually dismantled for the construction of the new monastery, leaving only ruins, including parts of the monastic church walls. It should be added that Chorin Abbey was founded from Lehnin Abbey, just as, for example, the monastery of Paradyż Monastery in the basin of the Paklica and Obra rivers. On the aforementioned 2 September, in the presence of distinguished guests such as the bishops of Brandenburg an der Havel and Kamień Pomorski, the two margraves signed the foundation charter for St. Mariensee at the castle in Spandau. At the same time, John I issued a second decree ordering the Cistercians of St. Mariensee to take over the care of the Marienhospital in Barsdin near Oderberg, as its previous administrator had failed in his duty to assist the sick and needy. The Cistercians received all the goods associated with this hospital. Finally, on 27 December 1372, Otto VIII of Brandenburg ordered the transfer of the Marienhospital into the walls of Chorin Abbey due to anticipated military disturbances (Nisch and Russow 2022, p. 17).

Turning now to the right bank of the Oder in present-day West Pomerania, it should be clearly stated that two main phases in the establishment of Cistercian abbeys in this region can be distinguished: the first in the second half of the 12th century, and the second in the 13th century and at the turn of the 13th and 14th centuries. According to Michał Franiak, during this period male monasteries were founded in Kołbacz, Bierzwnik, and Bukowo Morskie, while female convents were established in Cedynia, Koszalin, Marianowo, Pełczyce, Recz, Szczecin, Trzcińsko-Zdrój, and Wolin (Franiak 2015, p. 26).

Particular attention should be given to the foundation of the Cistercian monastery in Bierzwnik (formerly Marienwalde), whose purpose was both the colonization and development of sparsely populated areas in this part of Pomerania. To achieve this objective, the margraves of Brandenburg sought to strengthen their supremacy along the border between Brandenburg and the lands of the Piast state. This took place after the successful missionary campaigns (1124–1128) of Otto of Bamberg, which ultimately led to the incorporation of Pomerania under the rule of the Piast princes, beginning with Bolesław III Wrymouth. It is worth emphasizing that the Cistercians did not carry out colonization by means of “fire and sword”, as this would have contradicted and violated the Rule of Saint Benedict (Brzustowicz 2004, p. 8).

In conclusion, this section of the article does not exhaust the historical and genetic complexity of the Cistercian Order. From a teleological perspective, however, it aims to provide the necessary background for a substantive description of the Benedictine Rule—especially its Prologue—as implemented by the Cistercian Order, which embodies a holistic vision of care for all creation, both animate and inanimate, entrusted to humanity. At the same time, while highlighting the indisputable historical contributions of the Cistercians, one must not lose sight of the more complex and controversial aspects of their activity. A rigorous analysis requires acknowledging the negative consequences of their expansion as well—including instances of overreaching environmental intervention that disrupted natural balances, as well as the instrumental treatment of subject populations and lay brothers (conversi) as cheap labor within their efficiently managed estates.

3. Description of a Pro-Ecological Attitude in the Prologue of the RB

The RB is an outstanding spiritual and literary work. Its hermeneutics may be approached either through the lens of theological values or in terms of its literary influence on works of prose, drama, and lyric poetry7. The historical and genetic context of the Rule indicates that the text itself constitutes an implementation of ancient mystagogical teaching. Its purpose was to provide initiatory knowledge into Christian life for newly baptized neophytes. If monastic life, in its earliest rule, drew upon mystagogical instruction, it may be concluded that every Christian can embark upon the path of spiritual and moral realization described in the Sermon on the Mount, which is not reserved exclusively for members of monastic communities.

Prior to undertaking a detailed interpretation of the text RB, it should be noted that, from a historical perspective, Schuster points out that the Rule emerged during a transitional period between Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, when the social and political structures of the Roman Empire were disintegrating. In this context, monastic communities fulfilled a stabilizing function, creating spaces of order, work, and prayer. St Benedict, therefore, does not construct an abstract system but responds to the concrete needs of the community, integrating earlier monastic traditions, especially the Rule of the Master (Regula Magistri) and the heritage of the Desert Fathers. A textual analysis of the RB reveals its clearly ordered structure, at the center of which stands the Prologue. Schuster interprets it as the hermeneutical key to the entire Rule: it constitutes a call to conversion, to listening (auscultare), and to entering upon the path of spiritual life. The language of the Prologue, marked by biblical and parenetic features, indicates that the RB should be read not merely as a set of regulations but as a formative text that shapes the attitude of the disciple.

An important element of Schuster’s analysis is his emphasis on the balance between ora and labora. The Rule does not oppose prayer to work but presents their unity as the foundation of monastic life. In this sense, work is not exclusively economic in character but also spiritual: it becomes a form of participation in the order of creation and a means of ascetic practice. Schuster notes that such an understanding of work arises from the biblical vision of the human being as a co-worker with God in the work of creation.

Moreover, the historical–textual analysis shows that the RB is moderate and realistic in character. In contrast to the more rigorous earlier rules, Benedict proposes a “reasonable” path (discretio), adapted to the capacities of the community. Schuster interprets this feature as one of the reasons for the enduring presence of the Rule within the tradition of the Church: its universality stems from its ability to unite the ideal with practical life.

Finally, Schuster underscores the communal dimension of the RB. The structure of the abbot’s authority, the role of obedience, and the organization of daily life demonstrate that the Rule is above all an ecclesial text—one that shapes relationships between persons within a spiritual perspective. This analysis makes it possible to see that the RB not only regulates the life of monks but also proposes a particular vision of the human person and community, which may serve as a point of reference for contemporary theological reflection, including ecological thought. In Schuster’s interpretation, therefore, the RB appears as a text that is historically grounded yet open to interpretation, integrating normative, spiritual, and anthropological dimensions. Such a perspective provides a solid foundation for further hermeneutical analyses that may bring out its relevance in new contexts, including reflection on the relationship between the human being and the created world (Schuster 1929, pp. 3–40).

The entire Rule comprises the Prologue (hereafter the Prologue) and 73 chapters (with the final chapter functioning as an epilogue), focusing on the description of spiritual values such as love, prayer, humility, obedience, discipline, stability, fear of God, perseverance, contrition, and peace, as well as social values including community, hospitality, respect, governance, and a love of learning. The work highlights the most important principles for properly conducting monastic life, both at the level of individual monks and in terms of communal regulations.

Due to its introductory and foundational significance, the Prologue will be given a more extensive analysis.

The Prologue consists of 50 verses, which can be interpreted through four key concepts: listening, spiritual openness, response, and service to the Lord.

The first verse of the RB presents a pedagogy of love between master and disciple, and father and monk, which is far removed from a model of authoritarian judgment. Thus, the Rule does not create the impression of being based on a legal code, but rather on trust that obedience will open a path toward freedom. In an eco-ethical context, one may conclude that verse 1 of the RB teaches not only listening to God but also to creation8. An attitude of attentiveness and humility toward reality—listening with the heart (ausculta)—constitutes the first step toward understanding and developing ecological ethics. As Pope Francis states in his encyclical Laudato si’ (LS), this ethics consists of “hearing both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” (Francis 2015, pt. 49).

Only in this spirit can one understand the wordplay found in the Prologue (v. 2): “the toil of obedience” and “the sloth of disobedience”9. The “toil” (oboedientiae labor) allows for a rediscovery of life in moderation, a departure from excess, and the limitation of desires on both an individual and social level. Obedience, however, has nothing to do with blind submission; rather, it is an attentive listening to the order of the world, in which the Creator has expressed the “constitution of creation”. It thus implies recognition of nature and the rhythms of creation, affirms the hierarchy of beings, and warns humanity not to place itself above either inanimate or animate creation. This “toil” helps preserve the common good, which—though not explicitly named in the RB—is an implicit social dimension of monastic life.

In contrast, the “sloth of disobedience” (inoboedientiae desidia), often associated with acedia, describes a state of spiritual laziness and indifference that leads to a loss of original fervor. In the context of care for creation, this may result in contemporary environmental degradation as a consequence of indifference, complacency, and a lack of responsibility. Viewed through the lens of ecological order, such “sloth” manifests itself in placing human will above the Creator’s design, who entrusted the earth to humanity as a garden, not as an inexhaustible reservoir—given in stewardship, not as absolute property. The “toil of obedience” is realized through return and conversion. In theological hermeneutics, turning away from God is understood as sin, and its remedy is metanoia—a transformation of mind that leads to a change in attitude and action. This process begins with an intellectual shift, guided by practical reason and the judgment of conscience, whose acts are imperative in nature. When thinking changes, conscience moves the human person to implement these ideas in practice through concrete actions. Thus, metanoia signifies a spiritual conversion accompanied by tangible human acts. An essential dimension of this conversion is ecological conversion, which involves a return to harmony with the work of creation. Sin, therefore, also has an ecological dimension. Integral ecology perceives the turning away from God as inseparable from the rupture of the relationship with nature and the community of creation. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that the author of verse 2 of the Prologue highlights the “retreat-like” character of the Rule, underscoring the necessity of returning to God as the source of all that lives.

The next verse of the Prologue10 reveals the temporal and personal universality of the Master’s teaching. Benedict of Nursia addresses not only monks, but every person of good will. It is thus a universal and timeless invitation to embark on a path of conversion of heart. In an ecological sense, one may discern here an appeal addressed to all humanity: today, no one can remain indifferent to the fate of creation. “Whoever you are” therefore means that responsibility for the world does not depend on one’s socio-political position, education, or vocation—it concerns everyone. The statement regarding anyone who renounces their own desires is not merely descriptive, but also imperative, encouraging the human person to move beyond the egoistic “self” that seeks pleasure, power, and unrestricted self-realization. It is evident throughout creation that the world suffers because of the immoderation of human desires—excessive consumption, waste of resources, and a lifestyle focused on possession. The imperative addressed to every person is thus universal, and each individual or collective subject can assess to what extent they are able to respond to ecological demands. In practical terms, this call may be implemented through: choosing a simpler and more frugal lifestyle, renouncing excess that harms the environment, and above all recognizing that the human being is not the master of resources but their steward.

Benedictine asceticism may serve as a foundation for an ecological alternative to the broadly understood mentality of consumerism—especially since it is ordered toward an extraordinary King, whom Benedict of Nursia calls the true King, namely Christ the Lord. In their tradition, the Benedictines emphasize both the pre-existential and pro-existential dimensions of the life of the Son of God. His kenotic attitude shows that, as King, He is not a despot; rather, all things were created for Him and through Him. If Christ is a servant, then the implication of this attitude is service—which, in an ecological dimension, may mean care for the world that belongs to Him, acting for peace and life, and restoring harmony where it has been destroyed by human beings. Applied to daily life, this means that a servant of Christ should work honestly, pray, and live according to real needs—thus in a rhythm that respects the order of nature, without destroying what has been created for Him and through Him. Above all, to achieve this, one should “put on the strong and holy armor of obedience”. From the content of the entire Rule, it follows that obedience is not blind submission, but is realized in a threefold way: through humility of heart, the ability to listen, and the renunciation of destructive attitudes. The latter implies an inner disposition expressed in consistent outward actions.

Thus, obedience in the Benedictine understanding does not consist in mechanical compliance, but in an inner transformation of the person and the subordination of one’s will to a greater good (Casey 2005, pp. 45–52). The image of the “armor of obedience,” used by Benedict of Nursia, highlights the spiritual nature of this attitude and its importance in the formation of the monk. In the monastic tradition, obedience is closely linked with humility and the imitation of Christ, “who became obedient unto death” (Grün 1989, pp. 18–22). This “armor of obedience” protects the human person from the greatest enemy—egoism, which lies at the root of both sin and many contemporary social and ecological crises. In a world dominated by consumption and the pursuit of immediate gratification, obedience may be understood as a form of resistance to the culture of excess and as a path toward restoring the proper relationship between the human person, God, and the created world11. In this sense, Benedictine spirituality—grounded in moderation, humility, and responsibility—can inspire contemporary reflection on integral ecology, reminding us that the human being is not the owner of the world, but its responsible steward12.

The fourth verse of the Prologue13 emphasizes that God is the source of all good, and that the human person is not self-sufficient in accomplishing what is good. Prayer preceding action is an expression of humility and an acknowledgment that human plans require divine grace in order to bear lasting fruit (Kardong 1996, pp. 3–6). Prayer does not replace action; rather, it directs it and gives it proper meaning. A person who prays recognizes that their work and effort are a cooperation with God, who guides and brings human actions to completion (de Vogüé 1972, pp. 60–65). In the context of contemporary ecological reflection, these words may be read as a call to establish a spiritual foundation for the care of creation. Modern environmental efforts often focus on technical and economic solutions; however, without a transformation of the heart, they remain insufficient. Prayer helps the human person rediscover the value of creation and fosters gratitude for the world entrusted to their responsibility. In this sense, care for the environment arises from an attitude of contemplation and respect for the work of creation (de Waal 2001, pp. 21–30).

For centuries, Benedictine spirituality—rooted in the teaching of Benedict of Nursia—has united prayer and work in the well-known principle ora et labora. This means that human work should be carried out in a spirit of prayer and responsibility for the world. Such an attitude leads to moderation in the use of earthly goods, respect for nature, and an awareness that the human person is not the owner of the world, but its steward. Prayer before action thus helps to purify human intentions and makes one’s actions more responsible and oriented toward the common good—both of humanity and of all creation.

In the fifth verse of the Prologue14, a particular relationship between God and the human person is presented—one grounded in the love of a Father and the responsibility of His children. In a general sense, these words emphasize that the human being has been endowed by God with great dignity, having been received into the community of His children. To be a “son” signifies not only a privilege, but also an obligation to live in accordance with God’s will. A person who responds to the divine call through prayer, obedience, and good works confirms their belonging to God and contributes to the building of good in the world (Kardong 1996, pp. 8–10). Benedict of Nursia presents God here as a Father who cares for His children and desires their growth in goodness. God’s “sorrow” does not denote emotion in a human sense, but rather points to a rupture in the relationship caused by sin. Human wrongdoing not only distances a person from God, but also disrupts harmony with others and with the created world (Leclercq 1982, pp. 35–38).

From an ecological perspective, this passage may be understood as a reminder that the human person—as a child of God—bears a particular responsibility for the world entrusted to them. Creation is a gift from God to all humanity; therefore, its destruction or neglect may be seen as a form of unfaithfulness toward the Creator. Awareness of being a child of God leads to an attitude of gratitude and care for the world. A person who understands their relationship with God in filial terms begins to view reality with greater respect and responsibility. In this way, concern for the natural environment does not arise merely from economic or social necessity, but becomes an expression of love for God and reverence for His work (de Waal 2001, pp. 27–31).

Benedictine spirituality emphasizes that living in accordance with God’s will leads to harmony between the human person, the community, and the created world. One who avoids evil and strives to live in the spirit of goodness contributes to the preservation of this harmony. In this sense, the responsible use of the goods of the earth and care for the environment can be understood as concrete expressions of fidelity to God and concern for the common home of all humanity (Knoch 2017).

Analyzing verse 6 of the Prologue15, one is led to the conclusion that these words recall a fundamental truth of Christian anthropology: everything that a human person possesses—their abilities, talents, and material goods—is ultimately a gift from God. The human being is not the owner of these gifts, but their responsible steward. In a general sense, this passage indicates that obedience to God consists of the proper use of the gifts entrusted to humanity. This implies not only fidelity to the commandments, but also the development of the good that God has placed within human nature. Thus, a person should use their abilities in a way that contributes to the common good and to spiritual growth. From an ecological perspective, this text acquires particular relevance. If the created world is a gift from God, then it should be used with gratitude and moderation. The destruction of the natural environment, excessive exploitation of resources, or a lack of concern for future generations may be understood as a misuse of the gifts entrusted to humanity by the Creator. Benedict of Nursia indicates that a lack of obedience to God leads to the loss of relationship with Him, symbolically expressed by the image of “disinheritance”. In a spiritual sense, this means separation from God; in a social and ecological sense, it may signify the loss of harmony between the human person and the created world. A person who treats creation solely as an instrument of personal benefit distances themselves from their original vocation to be a steward of the world. In practical terms, this passage encourages the formation of an attitude of responsibility for the entrusted world. In Benedictine spirituality, this is manifested in a moderate lifestyle, respect for work, and care for maintaining a balance between the use of goods and their protection. Such an attitude leads to a more conscious and responsible use of the earth’s resources, and to the building of harmony between the human person, the community, and the natural environment (Holzherr 1996, pp. 33–38). In this way, obedience to God is expressed not only in prayer or religious practices, but also in everyday choices concerning lifestyle, consumption, and one’s relationship with the created world. Responsible use of God’s gifts thus becomes a concrete way of fulfilling the human vocation to care for creation (de Waal 2001, pp. 45–48).

The seventh verse of the Prologue16 presents the consequences of spiritual disobedience toward God, which is the source of both sin and moral disorder. In an ecological context, this text may be read as a warning against neglecting responsibility for the created world. Failure to care for the environment and disregard for the gifts of nature become a form of “baseness,” the consequence of which is the loss of harmony with God, with other people, and with all creation (Kumor 2009, pp. 28–32). Benedict of Nursia shows that a life in accordance with God’s will requires the conscious cooperation of the human person with grace. In ecological practice, this means that one should use the resources of the earth wisely, without destroying them for personal gain, and with concern for future generations. Obedience to God, in this context, takes the form of responsibility for creation—that is, living in a spirit of moderation, respect for nature, and care for the integrity of ecosystems (Pasierb 2003, pp. 45–50).

The practical application of this principle can be found in everyday life: conserving natural resources, sorting waste, reducing energy consumption, and making conscious consumer choices. Every act of care for the environment becomes an expression of fidelity to God and cooperation with Him in the work of creation. This attitude is part of the broader context of monastic spirituality, in which ora et labora is not merely a rule of prayer and work, but also points to human responsibility for the whole of creation (Tarwid 2011, pp. 61–66). An ecological reading of this passage also highlights its educational and formative dimension: through the shaping of conscience and sensitivity to the beauty of the world, the human person learns to coexist harmoniously with nature. Disobedience to God and His will—including the neglect of the gifts of creation—may lead to a kind of “eternal punishment”, understood as the loss of moral and ecological balance, that is, the experience of the negative consequences of actions that destroy the environment. Therefore, it must be recognized theologically that the gifts of creation convey an ecological message with even greater expressiveness. Merton deepens this trajectory by framing nature as iconic rather than idolatrous. Where an idol draws attention to itself and becomes an ultimate end, an icon remains transparent—it points beyond itself while remaining fully present in its own reality. A tree or rock is never an object of worship; instead, its stark, unpretentious existence reveals the creative presence (Logos) that continuously sustains it. This approach serves to ground theology in lived experience. Conceptual theology always carries the risk of becoming abstract and detached. Encountering God through the “book of nature” anchors theological truth in concrete reality, allowing God to be met not merely as an idea to be analyzed, but as a living presence animating all of existence. Furthermore, Merton draws attention to what might be called the unfallen integrity of creation. Unlike human consciousness, which is often fractured by ego and illusion, nature remains obedient to its divine design. A tree fully glorifies God simply by existing as a tree. By contemplating this unpretentious obedience, the monk learns to shed artificial self-images and recover their own True Self in God. Merton demonstrates that monastic ecology is deeply integrative. Creation does not compete with scripture or liturgy; rather, it provides the existential soil in which prayer and theological reflection take deep, living root. This perspective of Merton’s sheds new light on the theological message of creation and inspires a fresh analysis of St. Bernard’s ideas (Merton 2003, pp. 21–24). Schaefer highlights that the aphoristic insight of St. Bernard (“trees and stones will teach you”) and its existential realization in Thomas Merton are not isolated romantic flourishes. Rather, they represent the lived practice of reading this cosmic text through silence and spiritual attentiveness. Schaefer’s primary achievement lies in transforming these historical insights into a coherent, normative framework for contemporary reflection by bridging experiential and doctrinal theology. Contemplative experiences of nature can easily fall into subjective mysticism or vague pantheism if left unanchored. Conversely, doctrinal theology runs the risk of becoming arid, scholastic intellectualism when detached from lived experience. Schaefer’s framework allows the direct encounter with creation—what Merton called the “iconic” experience—to serve as a primary source of theological insight, which is then refined and articulated through formal doctrine. In building this synthesis, Schaefer also articulates an ontology of intrinsic value. By framing creation as a divine text, she establishes that natural entities possess intrinsic value prior to their utility to human beings. A creature does not exist merely to serve human consumption; its fundamental purpose is to reveal something of its Creator, making the destruction or degradation of creation equivalent to defacing a sacred text. Through this framework, Schaefer provides modern environmental ethics with a robust theological foundation: ecology is reframed not as a mere political or pragmatic duty, but as a direct act of fidelity to divine revelation (Schaefer 2009, pp. 78–82).

The subsequent verses of the Prologue (8–20)17 articulate four key dimensions of Benedictine spirituality: awakening, listening, conversion, and entering the path of life. The opening sentence, “Let us arise, then, at last, for Scripture stirs us up, saying: Now is the hour for us to rise from sleep” (Rom 13:11), presents the image of spiritual awakening. Sleep symbolizes a state of spiritual indifference, habituation to evil, or a lack of sensitivity to God’s voice. Benedict of Nursia calls for awakening, which signifies conversion and the beginning of a journey toward true life. Awakening creates the possibility of listening, which requires an intentional turning toward God. However, listening is a process that demands silence and the avoidance of noise—a pervasive challenge for contemporary humanity. The problem of noise, however, is not limited to temporary discomfort or fatigue. Increasing research confirms that excessive noise has a real and harmful impact on human health and can even be pathogenic, as Grzesica points out. The most well-known consequence is hearing damage. Statistical data indicate that noise-related illnesses are among the most common occupational diseases, especially in highly industrialized countries. It is estimated that millions of people suffer from ailments caused by noise, many experiencing permanent hearing loss or even deafness. Constant exposure to noisy environments poses a serious threat to the proper functioning of the human body. Noise affects not only the auditory system but also other systems, including the nervous and hormonal systems. Studies show that even short-term exposure to intense sound can trigger physiological changes, such as hormonal imbalances or disruptions in brain function—reactions sometimes compared to those observed in serious neurological conditions. The impact of noise on the nervous system is particularly dangerous, as it leads to psychological imbalance, increased stress, and reduced overall immunity. As a result, noise becomes a significant factor diminishing both quality of life and human health (Grzesica 1993, p. 27).

In the further part of this text Benedict of Nursia also recalls the words of the psalm: “Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.” This warning against hardness of heart reminds us that a person can reject God’s call. Hardness signifies a closure to truth and to the transforming action of grace. In monastic life, the remedy for such an attitude is humility, obedience, and the daily practice of prayer (Starowieyski 2004, pp. 98–101). Then, the passage develops the image of the path of life. God asks: “Who is the one who loves life and desires to see good days?” The answer leads to concrete moral directives: restraint in speech, avoidance of evil, doing good, and seeking peace. In this way, Benedict of Nursia emphasizes that spiritual life is not merely an interior experience, but is expressed in concrete ethical attitudes and relationships with others, as stated by Leclerq (Leclercq 1982, pp. 65–68). A particularly significant element of this fragment is the image of God who invites the human person to cooperation. The Lord seeks a “co-worker”—someone ready to respond to His call. Thus, monastic life is not an escape from the world, but a conscious decision to collaborate with God in the transformation of life and the building of good (Zatorski 2012, pp. 30–34).

The final sentences take on the tone of a joyful invitation: “What could be more delightful for us, dearest brothers, than this voice of the Lord inviting us? Behold, in His loving kindness, the Lord Himself shows us the way of life”. Benedict of Nursia presents God as the One who first comes to meet the human person and reveals the path leading to life and happiness. The human response consists of accepting this invitation through conversion, prayer, and a life lived according to the Gospel, as noted by Lubowicki (Lubowicki 2008, pp. 54–58).

The passage of the Prologue (vv. 21–38)18 may be read not only as a program of spiritual life, but also as a foundation for a responsible attitude toward the created world. Benedict of Nursia presents the human path as a harmonious integration of faith, action, and relationship with God, which in a contemporary perspective can be understood as a basis for integral ecology. The exhortation “Having girded your loins with faith and the performance of good works” indicates that faith must be expressed in concrete actions. In an ecological context, this means that care for creation cannot remain merely an idea, but must take the form of everyday choices: responsible use of resources, moderation, and respect for nature (Zatorski 2012, pp. 41–44).

The statement that the “path of good works” leads to the Kingdom takes on particular significance today. Good works include not only interpersonal relationships, but also one’s attitude toward the created world. A person who destroys the natural environment acts against this path, since they disrupt the harmony that reflects the divine order. The cited Psalm 15 presents a program of life based on justice, truth, and peace. In ecological terms, these values may be applied to the human relationship with nature: justice means responsible use of the goods of the earth, truth implies recognizing the limits of human dominion, and peace signifies striving for harmony between humanity and the world.

Particularly significant is the image of spiritual struggle (v. 28). The temptations that must be “dashed against Christ” can also be understood today as the temptations of consumerism, excessive exploitation of resources, and a lifestyle oriented solely toward profit. Benedictine spirituality teaches that true freedom lies in the ability to limit one’s desires for the sake of a greater good (Lubowicki 2008, pp. 60–64).

Verses 29–32 emphasize that all good comes from God. Such a perspective leads to attitudes of gratitude and humility, which form the foundation of authentic ecology. When a person recognizes that the world is a gift rather than absolute property, they begin to treat it with greater respect and responsibility.

The image of the house built on rock (vv. 33–34) may be interpreted as a metaphor for the stability of a life founded on proper foundations. In the context of contemporary ecological crises, this suggests that only a life rooted in spiritual and ethical values can ensure a lasting balance between human development and environmental protection.

The final verses (35–38) remind us of the time given to the human person for conversion. From an ecological perspective, this is particularly relevant: the contemporary environmental crisis shows that humanity is faced with the necessity of changing its way of life. God’s patience provides space for this transformation, but at the same time calls for responsibility and action “here and now”. For this reason, Benedictine spirituality—shaped by the teaching of Benedict of Nursia—may be understood as an important source of inspiration for integral ecology. It unites prayer, work, and moderation, showing that care for creation is an essential element of a life directed toward God (Jaromi 2007, pp. 101–5).

Final verses of the Prologue (39–50)19 constitute a kind of culmination of the spiritual program that St. Benedict proposes as a “school of the Lord’s service”. This passage not only summarizes earlier calls to listening, conversion, and action, but also reveals the dynamic of human maturation, as a person gradually enters into harmony with God, the community, and—seen from a contemporary perspective—with the created world. Verse 39 points to a fundamental principle: a person comes to know the will of God, but must still put it into practice. Knowledge alone is not enough—action is necessary. In an ecological context, this means that awareness of the environmental crisis is not yet a response; the response is only a concrete change in lifestyle. The Rule, therefore, does not stop at the level of theory, but leads to a “practice of life that embraces the whole person”.

The call to prepare “hearts and bodies for battle” (v. 40) reveals the realistic dimension of Benedictine spirituality. A human being is not spontaneously oriented toward the good—formation and effort are required. From an ecological perspective, this means the need to overcome deeply rooted consumerist attitudes. As S. Jaromi observes, the ecological crisis has its source not only in economic structures, but above all in a “distorted relationship of the human person to the world and to oneself” (Jaromi 2007, pp. 110–14).

At the same time, St. Benedict maintains a sense of balance by recalling the role of grace (v. 41). A person does not save themselves—they need God’s help. This is also important for ecological reflection: technology or legal regulations alone are not enough without an inner transformation of the human person, which the Christian tradition understands as conversion. In this sense, integral ecology presupposes a transformation of the heart.

Verses 42–44 introduce the motif of the urgency of time. A person lives “while there is still time”, which gives their actions a character of responsibility and decision. In the context of contemporary ecological challenges, this dimension becomes particularly striking: postponing action leads to a deepening of the crisis. Responsibility for creation has a moral character and cannot be deferred to the future.

The central point of the analyzed passage is the image of the “school of the Lord’s service” (v. 45). It is not merely about the institution of the monastery, but about a process of formation that encompasses the whole of life, including one’s relationship with God, other people, and the world. In the monastic tradition, this school teaches moderation, work, respect for material things, and a rhythm of life rooted in nature. Moreover, monastic life shapes an attitude of harmony and responsibility that embraces all creation.

St. Benedict clearly emphasizes that this path is neither excessively harsh nor easy (vv. 46–48). The “narrow gate” signifies the need to choose a demanding path that nonetheless leads to life. From an ecological perspective, this is a call to simplicity and moderation as an alternative to a culture of excess. The Benedictine measure of life protects the human person from destructive extremes.

V. 49 introduces an important moment of transformation: “your heart will expand.” This is a key insight of St. Benedict—what at first seems difficult gradually becomes a source of joy. In relation to ecology, this means that a life marked by restraint and responsibility does not lead to frustration, but to a deeper experience of meaning and freedom. As M. Starowieyski points out, monastic spirituality leads to an inner space in which a person regains a proper relationship with the world (Starowieyski 2004, pp. 120–23).

The final verse (50) gives the entire passage a Christological and eschatological dimension. Perseverance in the Lord’s teaching and participation in His suffering lead to sharing in His glory. In the light of contemporary ecological theology, this can be understood as the human person’s participation in the renewal of all creation, which—as J. Chryssavgis emphasizes—is called to transformation and divinization (Chryssavgis 2019, pp. 88–93).

In conclusion, Prologue v. 39–50 presents the full dynamic of the spiritual life: from effort and struggle, through formation and transformation, to joy and participation in the life of God. From an ecological perspective, this passage constitutes a call to integral responsibility that unites spirituality, ethics, and care for the world as a gift from God. Although the Cistercian Order originated as a reform movement aiming for a faithful and strict return to the roots of the Rule of St. Benedict, contemporary historical, sociological, and environmental research clearly indicates that the process of its implementation was fraught with significant shortcomings. The idealistic vision of monasticism frequently collided with economic pragmatism, leading to a stark divergence between proclaimed ideals and daily monastic practice. The Rule of St. Benedict was founded on the ideal of a fraternal community in which manual labor was an essential component of sanctification and humility. The Cistercians modified this model by introducing the institution of lay brothers (conversi). In practice, this gave rise to an internal two-tier system. Historical studies show that lay brothers were often treated as cheap labor, deprived of full spiritual and decision-making rights within the community. This model diverged drastically from the evangelical ideal of equality, and numerous lay brother revolts (e.g., in the 12th and 13th centuries) vividly testify to the extent of their marginalization and objectification.

At the ideological level, the Cistercian approach to nature was interpreted as a creative fulfillment of the mandate to “subdue the earth” and care for creation. However, environmental history analyses (including palynological and geoarchaeological research) reveal the darker side of this process. Large-scale deforestation, industrial-scale wetland drainage, river diversion, and intensive agricultural and livestock farming led to local ecological crises, including soil erosion, disrupted hydrological balances, and a dramatic decline in biodiversity. Rather than demonstrating sustainable care for creation, Cistercian economic practices often resembled an early form of expansive, extractive capitalism.

One of the main pillars of the Rule was evangelical poverty and self-sufficiency. By establishing highly efficient monastic granges and leveraging tax exemptions, the Cistercians rapidly grew into a financial powerhouse. Medievalists highlight a fundamental paradox: the pursuit of austerity and productivity generated vast wealth, ultimately entangling the order in advanced financial operations, international trade, and litigious disputes over land and tithes. This trajectory stood in sharp contradiction to the Benedictine spirit of renouncing worldly affairs.

On the basis of this analysis of the entire Prologue, one must pose the question of how contemporary documents of the Cistercian Order creatively receive this text, which represents an extrapolation of the whole of the Rule of St. Benedict.

4. The Vertical and Horizontal Dimensions of Communal Life and Care for Integral Ecology in the Declaration of the Cistercian Order

The Declaration of the General Chapter of the Cistercian Order on contemporary Cistercian life (hereafter: the Declaration) is one of the most important documents presenting the modern reflection on the identity and mission of monastic life in the Cistercian tradition (OCIST 1969). It was developed in the context of the renewal of the Church after the Second Vatican Council, as an attempt to reconcile fidelity to the centuries-old heritage of the Order with the need to respond to the challenges of the contemporary world. The authors of the document emphasize that the renewal of Cistercian life cannot mean a break with tradition, but should be its living and creative continuation. For this reason, the points of reference remain consistently the Gospel, the Rule of St. Benedict, the monastic tradition, and the experience of successive generations of Cistercians. The document presents Cistercian life as a path of continual seeking of God through the imitation of Christ in fraternal community, prayer, work, and service to the Church. At the same time, the authors of the Declaration draw attention to the need to read the “signs of the times” and to take into account the social, cultural, and spiritual transformations of the modern human person. They emphasize the importance of personal freedom, communal responsibility, dialogue, and the harmonious integration of tradition with openness to development. In this way, the Declaration not only defines the fundamental values of contemporary Cistercian life, but also presents the Order as a living community rooted in the history of the Church while actively participating in its mission toward the world. The Declaration, consisting of 126 points, expresses its teleological intentions already in its first two points20. The thematic analysis of individual sections of the Declaration, grouped according to the ecological potential of their interpretation, will follow a framework driven primarily by an anthropological explanation and its civilizational and ecological implications. An important added value of these analyses lies in their sustained engagement with the encyclical LS, whose rich interpretative framework offers a hermeneutical key for a more nuanced, theologically grounded, and contextually relevant interpretation of the text of the Declaration. By situating the Declaration within the broader vision of integral ecology articulated by Pope Francis, these analyses not only deepen its theological significance but also enhance its contemporary applicability. In this way, LS serves not merely as a point of reference, but as a dynamic lens through which the spiritual, anthropological, and ecological dimensions of the document can be more fully understood and critically appropriated.

4.1. The Pillars of Cistercian Life

The first two points have a programmatic and methodological character. They define the purpose of the document and indicate the fundamental sources of Cistercian life. Although the text does not directly address ecological issues, it contains important premises for contemporary reflection on the relationship between the human person and creation, as well as on the responsibility of monastic communities for the world. From the perspective of integral ecology, these points can be interpreted as an attempt to develop a harmonious vision of religious life, rooted both in tradition and in a responsible reading of the signs of the times. The first point of the Declaration states that the aim of the document is to “define the principal elements of the Cistercian vocation and life” in order to create a foundation for the “adapted renewal” of the Order. The authors also emphasize that the process of renewal cannot mean closing oneself off to the future or halting the development of tradition. From an ecological perspective, this is highly significant, as it points to a dynamic understanding of monastic tradition. Tradition is not treated as a collection of unchanging forms, but as a living organism capable of responding to new historical challenges. The contemporary ecological crisis is precisely one such sign of the times, to which religious communities should respond with responsible reflection. Such an understanding of tradition is close to contemporary ecological theology. In the LS, Pope Francis emphasizes that care for creation requires a “new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet” (No. 14). Similarly, the Cistercian Declaration, in its first point, presupposes the need for a continual search for “more suitable and better forms of monastic life”. It can therefore be argued that the document opens up the possibility of reinterpreting Cistercian spirituality in light of contemporary ecological problems. Monasticism is not confined to the past, but retains the capacity to offer a creative response to new civilizational challenges.

In the second point, the Declaration presents the sources of Cistercian life. The very way in which they are presented carries an important ecological dimension, as it points to the need for a harmonious integration of Revelation, tradition, communal experience, and responsibility toward the contemporary world. Of particular importance here is the reference to creation as the space of God’s action and the place where the human vocation is realized. The first source of Cistercian life is the Word of God and the teaching of the Church. From an ecological perspective, this means that the human relationship with the world cannot be built solely on economic or technical criteria, but must have a theological foundation. The biblical vision of creation presents the world as a gift from God, and the human person as a responsible steward rather than an absolute owner of nature. Contemporary ecological theology emphasizes that the environmental crisis is a consequence of abandoning a sacred vision of creation and reducing nature to the level of an object of exploitation. By referring to the Gospel and the tradition of the Church, the Declaration recalls the spiritual dimension of the human relationship with the world (White 1967, pp. 1203–7).

The second source of Cistercian life is the monastic tradition; therefore, the authors of the Declaration emphasize the need to draw from the entire heritage of Christian monasticism, both ancient and later. From its very beginnings, the monastic tradition has been closely linked to the experience of nature, the rhythm of work, moderation, and a spirituality of simplicity. Monks perceived the world as a space for the contemplation of God, and physical labor as a form of cooperation with the Creator. Historians of monasticism point out that Cistercian monasteries were among the most important centers of the harmonious management of land and the development of agricultural culture in the Middle Ages (Cf. Kanior 1993, pp. 212–18). The Cistercian tradition developed this intuition in a particular way. From the very beginning of their history, the Cistercians emphasized the importance of simplicity of life, manual labor, and harmony between the human person and nature. The monasteries they founded were usually located far from urban centers, in places that required cultivation and organization. This was not merely about the economic use of land, but about creating a space of life ordered according to the rhythm of prayer, work, and contemplation. A Cistercian monastery thus constituted a kind of model of ordered coexistence between the human person and the created world. In medieval Cistercian culture, manual labor had not only a practical significance, but also a spiritual and anthropological one. The Cistercians opposed a model of life detached from work and emphasized the value of physical effort as an element of spiritual formation. Contemporary ecological reflection interprets this approach as the opposite of the modern model of technocratic domination over nature. Work was not understood as unlimited exploitation of resources, but as a responsible cooperation between the human person and creation. In this sense, the Cistercian culture of work may be regarded as a historical example of a sustainable model of stewardship.

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that point thirteen of the Declaration can be interpreted as an important text of a proto-ecological character. It presents reality as a community of diverse elements united by a common purpose and by relationships. The monastic harmony of diversity thus becomes a spiritual model of integral ecology—an ecology that does not eliminate differences, but allows them to flourish in mutual respect and responsibility for the common good. This perspective directly aligns with the core intuition of Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato si’, which frames integral ecology not merely as an environmental strategy, but as a spiritual imperative grounded in the understanding that “everything is connected” (LS, 91, 137). By recognizing that no creature is self-sufficient and that all exist in interdependence (LS, 86), the Declaration anticipates the Call for a profound spiritual conversion—one that transforms our relationship with creation and inspires a shared responsibility for our common home (LS, 217).

4.2. The Relational Nature of the Human Person

The diversity of living environments as both an ecological and spiritual challenge is the central theme of point fifteen of the Declaration, which addresses important issues related to the functioning of Cistercian communities. The authors of the document note that monasteries live “in very different circumstances”, shaped by geographical, social, cultural, and economic differences. At the same time, they emphasize that this diversity does not threaten the unity of the Order, but is a natural consequence of the incarnation of monastic life within concrete environments. From an ecological perspective, this point is of particular importance, as it highlights the deep dependence of the human person on place, environment, and context. Contemporary integral ecology likewise stresses that human beings do not exist in isolation from the spaces in which they live. The natural and cultural environment influences ways of life, social relationships, spirituality, and the organization of community. Point fifteen of the Declaration confirms this intuition by indicating that Cistercian life is not lived in an abstract space, but always within concrete historical and geographical conditions. This implies a departure from a model of uniformity and an acknowledgment of the value of local cultures and diverse forms of organizing monastic life.

Point fifteen of the Declaration can be interpreted as an important text of both ecological and anthropological significance. It presents the human person as a being rooted in a concrete place, culture, and living environment. The monastic affirmation of the diversity of environments reminds us that authentic unity does not require uniformity, but can develop through the harmonious coexistence of different forms of life. In a world threatened by global cultural homogenization and environmental degradation, such a vision takes on particular importance. The ecological dimension of this point is revealed in its affirmation of place. From its beginnings, Cistercian monasticism was deeply rooted in a specific space. The monastery was not merely a building, but a whole environment of life that included the community, the landscape, cultivated land, the rhythm of nature, and social relationships. Cistercians typically established their abbeys in areas distant from urban centers, where they could organize life according to the rhythm of nature and a spirituality of work. Contemporary ecological reflection similarly emphasizes the importance of human “rootedness” in a concrete place as a condition for responsibility toward the environment (Scruton 2012, pp. 267–78).

The Declaration indicates that differences between communities arise from “social, economic, and cultural conditions.” From the perspective of integral ecology, this means recognizing that environmental problems are also local and socially conditioned. The ecological crisis does not affect all regions of the world in the same way. The relationship between human beings and nature differs in industrialized societies, in poorer countries, and in rural or monastic environments. Point fifteen thus reminds us that ecological responsibility requires attention to the concrete context in which a community lives. It is particularly significant that the Declaration does not treat the diversity of environments as an obstacle, but as a reality that enriches the Order. Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes the value of both biological and cultural diversity. The created world is not a uniform mechanism, but a dynamic community of many different elements existing in mutual relationship. The monastic affirmation of the diversity of living environments can therefore be interpreted as a spiritual analogy to the ecological principle of biodiversity.

Point fifteen, like the previously discussed sections, also has an important anthropological dimension. The human person is presented as a historical and social being whose way of life depends on environmental and cultural conditions. Such a vision stands in contrast to modern individualism and to the technocratic view of the human being as entirely independent from nature. The contemporary ecological crisis, however, clearly demonstrates that human beings remain deeply connected to environmental conditions and inevitably bear the consequences of the degradation of nature (Jonas 1979, pp. 34–41).

In the context of Cistercian spirituality, the diversity of living environments also implies a diversity of ways of realizing the same charism. There is no single model of monastic life suitable for all communities and all historical periods. This principle has important ecological significance, since contemporary environmental solutions likewise cannot be based on one universal model of development. Integral ecology requires respect for local cultures, traditions, and ways of life.

Point fifteen can also be interpreted as a critique of centralization and global cultural uniformity. Contemporary technocratic civilization often leads to the disappearance of local traditions, lifestyles, and the relationship between human beings and their place of living. By contrast, the monastic tradition has always been closely tied to a concrete landscape and a local community. The monastery functioned as a center of spiritual, cultural, and economic life within a region. In this sense, Cistercian spirituality can be understood as a form of an “ecology of place,” emphasizing the importance of local responsibility for the environment.

An important element of the ecological reading of point fifteen is also the relationship between the natural environment and spirituality. Cistercian monasticism developed in close proximity to nature and often interpreted creation as a space for contemplating God. Contact with the rhythm of nature, silence, and physical work shaped the way monastic spiritual life was experienced. Contemporary urban and digital culture, however, often leads to a disconnection from direct experience of nature. The ecological crisis therefore also has a spiritual dimension—it signifies a loss of humanity’s relationship with the created world. In this context, the perspective proposed by Pope Francis in Laudato si’ becomes particularly relevant. He emphasizes that “the external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast” (LS 217), pointing to the deep connection between ecological degradation and spiritual emptiness. The loss of sensitivity to creation reflects a broader crisis of meaning and relationship—with God, with others, and with the earth itself.

It is important to note that the Declaration does not propose isolation from the world, but rather a responsible rooting of communities in concrete living conditions. Monasticism is not an escape from reality, but a way of transforming it through a life shaped by the Gospel. From the perspective of integral ecology, this implies the need to form communities capable of living in a more harmonious, moderate, and responsible way toward creation, rediscovering in daily practice the spiritual depth of the relationship between humanity and the natural world.

It is difficult to imagine monastic life without manual work and the harmony of life. Point twenty-three of the Declaration of the General Chapter of the Cistercian Order on contemporary Cistercian life addresses one of the most characteristic elements of the Cistercian tradition—the relationship between prayer and work. The authors of the document recall that manual labor is a fundamental element of monastic life and an integral part of the Cistercian vocation. It is not treated merely as an economic necessity, but as a reality with a profound spiritual, communal, and anthropological dimension.

From an ecological perspective, this point is of exceptional importance, as it presents an alternative model of the human relationship with the material world—one based not on exploitation, but on harmony, responsibility, and participation in the work of creation. The Declaration emphasizes that the Cistercian tradition maintains a particular respect for physical labor. Throughout monastic history, the Cistercians were among the communities that most consistently implemented the Benedictine principle ora et labora. For them, work was not only a means of sustaining the monastery, but also a path of spiritual formation and a school of humility. Contemporary technocratic culture very often reduces work to an economic function, subordinated to efficiency and production growth. Point twenty-three, by contrast, recalls that work possesses a personal and spiritual value, as it participates in shaping the human person and building community (Leclercq 1982, pp. 52–58).

The ecological dimension of manual work is revealed above all in its relationship to nature. For centuries, Cistercians developed a culture of work grounded in closeness to the land, the rhythm of nature, and moderate use of resources. Monastic work was not a form of aggressive domination over the environment, but rather an attempt at harmonious cooperation with nature. In this sense, the Cistercian tradition can be interpreted as a historical example of a sustainable model of economic life. Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes that human beings should see themselves not as absolute owners of the world, but as responsible stewards of creation. Highlighting this dimension of stewardship also requires attention to the anthropological aspect of work. Physical labor is presented as an element of the integral development of the human person. A human being fulfills their vocation not only through prayer or intellectual activity, but also through contact with the material world of creation. Contemporary digital and consumer culture often leads to a disconnection from concrete work, involving physical effort and responsibility for the environment. The monastic tradition of work, by contrast, recalls the bodily and material dimension of human existence. The Declaration also states that work must not destroy spiritual or communal life. From an ecological perspective, this is of great importance, since contemporary civilization often subordinates life entirely to the logic of production and economic efficiency. The human person then becomes a tool of the economic system, and the natural environment merely a resource to be exploited. The monastic model of work, however, is based on balance: work remains subordinate to the human person, to prayer, and to community, rather than the other way around.

It is worth noting that Cistercian spirituality of work also has an ascetical dimension. Manual labor teaches humility, patience, and the limitation of one’s own needs. Integral ecology repeatedly emphasizes that the environmental crisis largely stems from a culture of unlimited consumption and the loss of a sense of measure. The monastic asceticism of work can therefore be interpreted as a school of ecological moderation. Point twenty-three can also be read as a critique of the alienation of work. In modern society, work is very often separated from its social and spiritual meaning. Human beings work merely for profit or economic survival. The Cistercian tradition, however, presents work as an activity embedded in the rhythm of communal life and in the human relationship with God. Such a vision is close to contemporary currents of social ecology, which point to the need to rebuild relationships between work, community, and the natural environment.

From an ecological perspective, monastic work is also noteworthy because of the very organization of Cistercian life. Traditional monasteries functioned as relatively self-sufficient communities, based on local economies, moderate consumption, and responsible use of resources. In a world dominated by global production systems and excessive consumption, such a model of life can be interpreted as an alternative to a civilization of exploitation and waste. Contemporary ecological reflection likewise emphasizes the importance of work as a form of care for the common world. Pope Francis, in the LS, indicates that work should be understood as humanity’s participation in the work of creation and as a form of responsibility for the common good. Similarly, point twenty-three of the Declaration presents work as an element of integral Christian life, rather than merely an economic activity. The communal dimension of work is also significant. Cistercians did not treat labor as an individual achievement, but as a service to the community. Contemporary economic culture, by contrast, often promotes a model of competition, individual success, and profit maximization. The monastic vision of work recalls that human activity should be ordered toward the common good and responsibility for others and for the created world.

The point twenty-three of the Declaration can therefore be interpreted as an important text of a proto-ecological character. It presents work as an element of a harmonious relationship between the human person, God, the community, and creation. The monastic spirituality of work stands in opposition to the technocratic logic of exploitation and proposes a model of life based on moderation, responsibility, and respect for the material world. In the face of the contemporary ecological crisis, such a vision of work acquires particular significance.

Participation in the “struggles and bitterness of the world” as a dimension of ecological responsibility is the main idea of point thirty of the Declaration of the General Chapter of the Cistercian Order. The authors emphasize that the Cistercian Order “shares in the struggles and bitterness of our time.” Monasticism is therefore not presented as a reality isolated from contemporary problems, but as part of the Church and of the world, co-responsible for the fate of humanity and the future of creation. From an ecological perspective, this point is of fundamental importance, as it indicates that the crisis of the contemporary world, including the ecological crisis, cannot remain outside the concern of monastic communities.

The Declaration was written in the period of post-conciliar renewal of religious life, when the Church increasingly emphasized the need for dialogue with the contemporary world. Point thirty develops this intuition further. The authors of the document recognize that a Cistercian community cannot withdraw into safe isolation while ignoring the dramas of modern times. In the twenty-first century, one of the most significant “struggles of our time” is precisely the ecological crisis: environmental degradation, climate change, loss of biodiversity, and the growing social inequalities linked to the exploitation of natural resources. The ecological dimension of point thirty is revealed above all in its critique of spiritual indifference. Cistercian monasticism is presented not as an escape from reality, but as a form of life that assumes responsibility for the world. Contemporary ecological theology similarly stresses that care for creation is not an optional addition to Christian spirituality, but a consequence of faith in God the Creator. The ecological crisis thus becomes not only a scientific or political issue, but also a moral and spiritual challenge.

A particularly valuable aspect of this point is its anthropological dimension. The authors of the Declaration assume that the human person always lives within a concrete history and bears responsibility for their own time. Such a vision stands in opposition to an escapist spirituality that seeks to withdraw from the problems of the contemporary world. In the context of integral ecology, this is especially significant, since the environmental crisis reveals the profound interdependence of all people and their responsibility for future generations. The Declaration emphasizes that monastic life should respond to the real problems of the world while preserving its spiritual identity. Contemporary technocratic culture often proposes purely technical solutions, ignoring the moral dimension of the ecological crisis. Cistercian monasticism, by contrast, can contribute to contemporary ecological reflection through its experience of simplicity of life, moderation, community, and spiritual responsibility for creation. It is particularly important that point thirty speaks of “participation” in the problems of the world, rather than merely observing them. This implies active solidarity with contemporary humanity. Today, the ecological crisis especially affects the poor and those communities most dependent on the natural environment. In this sense, ecological responsibility also has a social and ethical dimension. Monastic spirituality of solidarity can therefore be interpreted as a form of social ecology. Contemporary ecological reflection increasingly points out that environmental degradation is the result of a particular model of civilization—one based on excessive consumption, unlimited economic growth, and technocratic domination over nature. Point thirty of the Declaration encourages Cistercian communities to adopt a critical stance toward the modern world and to engage in responsible discernment of its problems. Monasticism is not meant to replicate the logic of the world, but to propose an alternative style of life rooted in the Gospel.

The ecological potential of this point is also revealed in the traditional Cistercian spirituality of work and simplicity of life. For centuries, monastic communities functioned according to a rhythm more balanced than that of modern industrial civilization. Limited consumption, the communal character of life, and respect for manual labor created a culture of a more harmonious relationship between the human person and nature. In the context of today’s ecological crisis, this experience takes on renewed significance. LS emphasizes in paragraph 139 that “there are not two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but one complex socio-environmental crisis”. This insight, articulated by Pope Francis, resonates with the Cistercian Declaration, which presents the monastic community as participating in the entirety of the contemporary world’s problems, not only in their strictly religious dimension.

The spiritual dimension of point thirty is also significant. Cistercian monasticism does not propose an activism detached from prayer, but rather a spirituality of responsibility rooted in contemplation. Similarly, contemporary integral ecology emphasizes that authentic care for creation requires a profound spiritual transformation and the restoration of the human relationship with God. As Pope Francis underlines in Laudato si’, “there can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology” (LS 118), and ecological commitment must be grounded in an interior conversion that reshapes human desires, habits, and ways of relating to the world. He further speaks explicitly of an “ecological conversion” (LS 216), by which the effects of an encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in our relationship with the world around us. The ecological crisis is therefore also a crisis of meaning and spirituality, rooted in a distorted understanding of the human person and of creation itself.

Point thirty of the Declaration can thus be interpreted as one of the most significant passages of the document for contemporary ecological reflection. It presents monasticism as a spirituality of participation and responsibility for the world. In this light, it resonates with Pope Francis’s call for a “global ecological conversion” that is both personal and communal, expressed in new lifestyles marked by sobriety, gratitude, and care (cf. LS 219–222). The Cistercian community does not exist outside of history but shares in the struggles of contemporary humanity and is called to bear witness to a way of life that is more harmonious, moderate, and responsible toward creation. In the face of the present ecological crisis, such a vision of spirituality acquires particular relevance, offering a concrete model of how contemplation can generate transformative engagement with the world.

The epicenter of anthropological thought in the Declaration is point 32, which specifies the dimension of the dignity of the human person as the foundation of integral ecology. The authors of the Declaration emphasize the importance of mutual respect, responsibility, and care for the human person within the community. From an ecological perspective, this point is of particular importance, since contemporary integral ecology indicates that the environmental crisis is inseparably linked with an anthropological and social crisis. The degradation of nature and the degradation of the human person share common roots in a culture of domination, instrumentalization, and the subordination of everything to the logic of utility. The Declaration presents the human being as a person endowed with inalienable dignity, which does not depend on productivity, social function, or economic usefulness. Such a vision has an important ecological dimension, since contemporary technocratic culture often treats both the human person and the natural environment as resources to be exploited. The ecological crisis largely stems from this objectification of reality—when the world is perceived solely in economic and utilitarian terms. Point thirty-two, by contrast, reminds us that relationships between people should be built on a foundation of respect and responsibility. Contemporary ecological theology similarly emphasizes that care for the environment cannot be separated from care for the human person. LS clearly states that “there is no ecology without a proper anthropology” (LS pt. 118). As highlighted by Pope Francis, this means that the protection of creation requires recognition of the dignity of the human person and the rebuilding of social relationships based on solidarity.

The ecological dimension of point thirty-two is also revealed in its communal character. The Declaration assumes that monastic life cannot be based on individualism, but rather on the mutual responsibility of the members of the community. The ecological crisis likewise has a communal dimension—its effects impact entire societies and future generations. Contemporary cultures of individualism, however, often hinder the development of responsibility for the common good and for the natural environment. Point thirty-two can also be interpreted as an opposition to the logic of domination. The Cistercian community should not be built on relationships of violence, subordination, or the instrumental treatment of others. From an ecological perspective, this is of great importance, since the contemporary environmental crisis is often the result of the same mentality of domination that leads to the exploitation of people, societies, and nature for economic gain.

The Declaration also emphasizes the value of mutual care and responsibility. Contemporary integral ecology similarly argues that the human being should be understood as part of a broader community of life, rather than as the absolute master of creation. Monastic spirituality of community can therefore serve as an important model of ecological relationships based on interdependence and solidarity, especially as contemporary technocratic culture often reduces the human person to economic and consumer functions. In such a framework, the human being becomes primarily a producer and consumer, and their value is measured in terms of efficiency and utility. The monastic vision of the human person resists this reduction. The human being has intrinsic worth as a person created by God and called to life in community. Within the framework of integral ecology, this is of fundamental importance. The environmental crisis does not arise solely from technological errors, but from a distortion in the very understanding of the human being. If the human person sees themselves as the absolute owner of the world, nature becomes merely material for exploitation. Point thirty-two, however, recalls the need for humility, mutual respect, and responsibility. The ecological potential of this section of the Declaration is also revealed in its relational understanding of the human person. The human being is not an isolated individual, but a creature living within a network of relationships with other people, the community, and creation. Contemporary ecological theology develops a similar vision of the human person as a fundamentally interdependent being. The ecological crisis demonstrates, in a particularly dramatic way, that individual actions affect entire societies and the natural environment (Moltmann 1985, pp. 17–25).

The spiritual dimension of this point is also significant. Human dignity does not arise from strength or efficiency, but from the relationship with God. From an ecological perspective, this implies a departure from the vision of the human being as the absolute center of the world. The human person remains part of creation, although endowed with a special moral responsibility toward other people and nature. As Pope Francis says in Laudato si’, “each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection” (LS 69), and human beings, while unique, are called to recognize that they are not masters but stewards within a broader community of creation. Such an anthropology helps avoid both extreme anthropocentrism—criticized by Francis as a “misguided anthropocentrism” (LS 69, 118)—and reductionist strands of ecology that deny the uniqueness of the human person. Point thirty-two can also be interpreted as a critique of a culture of exclusion. The contemporary economic model often marginalizes people who are weak, poor, or excluded from influence over economic processes. As LS repeatedly stresses, the ecological crisis disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, since “the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet” (LS 48). Monastic spirituality centered on human dignity, however, recalls that every form of social life should be grounded in care for the common good and the protection of the most vulnerable. This resonates with the Pope’s insistence that integral ecology must always include a preferential option for the poor and a commitment to social justice (cf. LS 158).

Point thirty-two of the Declaration can therefore be interpreted as an important text for contemporary integral ecology. It shows that care for creation begins with a proper understanding of the human person and their relationships with others. In this sense, it aligns with the vision of integral ecology proposed in Laudato si’, which affirms that “everything is interconnected” (LS 91) and that human life is grounded in a network of relationships with God, others, and the earth. The monastic vision of the human person as a dignified, relational, and responsible being offers a significant alternative to contemporary cultures of instrumentalization and domination. In the face of the ecological crisis, such an anthropology acquires particular importance, pointing toward a renewed harmony between human dignity, social justice, and care for creation.

4.3. The Dignity of Creatures

Point 34 analyzes the value of creation, work, and the material world as a foundation of integral ecology. The Cistercian community is called to recognize the “dignity of creatures” and to embrace humanity’s responsible participation in the work of transforming the world. This point constitutes an especially important witness to the Christian affirmation of creation and can be interpreted as one of the key foundations of contemporary integral ecology within monastic spirituality. The Declaration clearly rejects a dualistic vision of the world in which material reality would be considered inferior or less valuable than spiritual reality. The authors emphasize that the created world possesses its own dignity and value derived from the very act of creation by God. Such a vision has fundamental ecological significance. The contemporary environmental crisis often stems from the instrumental treatment of nature as a mere collection of resources intended solely for exploitation. Point thirty-four, by contrast, recalls that the material world is not merely an object of use, but a reality possessing intrinsic value.

The ecological dimension of this passage is particularly evident in the concept of the “dignity of creatures”. In the Christian tradition, the dignity of creation derives from its relationship to God as Creator. The world is not a random reality nor one entirely subject to human will, but participates in the order of creation (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 65, a. 2). Contemporary ecological theology develops this intuition further, emphasizing that the human being should be understood not as the absolute owner of the world, but as a responsible participant in the community of creation.

Point thirty-four also emphasizes the positive value of human work. Work is not presented as a punishment or a necessary evil, but as a form of human cooperation with God in the work of transforming the world. In Cistercian tradition, manual labor has always carried a spiritual and communal dimension. From an ecological perspective, this is particularly significant, since contemporary technocratic culture often reduces work to an economic function, subordinated to the maximization of production and profit. The Declaration instead proposes a vision of responsible work that respects both the human person and the created world. Especially significant from an ecological standpoint is the document’s statement that human beings are called to “sanctify all things in Christ”. This formulation carries a deep theological meaning. The material world is not merely a neutral backdrop for spiritual life, but can become a space of divine action and revelation. Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes the “sacramental” dimension of creation: nature is not only an economic resource, but also a place of God’s presence and of human relationship with the world.

Point thirty-four can be interpreted as a critique of the modern model of domination over nature. Contemporary technocratic civilization often constructs the human relationship with the world on a logic of control, exploitation, and the subordination of the environment to economic goals. By contrast, the Cistercian Declaration presents the human relationship with creation as one of responsibility and cooperation. Human beings are called to develop the world, but in a way that respects its dignity and intrinsic order.

It is also worth noting that point thirty-four has a Christological dimension. The authors of the Declaration indicate that the reality of creation reaches its fullest meaning in Christ. In the Christian tradition, Christ is understood as the center of all creation, not only of human history. Such a vision has important ecological implications, as it allows the world to be perceived as a whole oriented toward unity and reconciliation in God. The ecological potential of this point is also revealed in its affirmation of material reality. Cistercian monasticism does not propose contempt for the world or a radical rejection of matter. On the contrary, monastic life unfolds through work, contact with nature, the rhythm of daily life, and the responsible use of material goods. Such a spirituality resists both consumerist materialism and forms of spirituality that deny the value of creation. This point also continues the anthropological dimension. The human being is presented as capable of creative participation in the world, but at the same time obliged to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The contemporary ecological crisis dramatically reveals the consequences of the loss of this responsibility. Excessive exploitation of natural resources, environmental degradation, and the climate crisis are the result of treating the world solely as a space for production and consumption.

Contemporary ecological theology repeatedly emphasizes the need to restore humanity’s spiritual relationship with creation. In the LS, Pope Francis describes the created world as a “common home” for which the human being bears responsibility. In a similar way, point thirty-four of the Declaration presents creation as a reality endowed with dignity and value that demands respect. This relationship to creation underscores that the created world is not the property of individuals, but a common good entrusted to all humanity (Jan Paweł II, Centesimus annus, no. 37). Monastic spirituality of community can therefore serve as an important alternative to an individualistic model of the use of natural resources.

Point thirty-four of the Declaration can be regarded as one of the most ecologically mature passages of the document. It presents creation as a reality endowed with dignity and spiritual meaning, and the human being as a responsible participant in the work of creation. The monastic affirmation of work, matter, and the natural world constitutes an important foundation for contemporary integral ecology, as well as an alternative to a technocratic culture of exploitation and consumption. This perspective finds a strong resonance in the teaching of Pope Francis in Laudato si’, where he critiques the “technocratic paradigm” that reduces nature to a mere object of use and domination (LS 106–114). In contrast, Francis proposes a vision of creation as a gift imbued with intrinsic value, affirming that “the universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely” (LS 233), and that material reality itself can become a place of encounter with the divine. Such a sacramental understanding of the world closely parallels the Cistercian sensitivity to the spiritual dimension of matter and work.

Moreover, Laudato si’ emphasizes that human labor participates in God’s ongoing creation (cf. LS 124), which further illuminates the monastic understanding of work not merely as economic activity, but as a form of cooperation with the Creator. In this light, point thirty-four can be interpreted as an anticipation of integral ecology: it affirms the dignity of creation, the moral responsibility of the human person, and the possibility of transforming the world through a balanced relationship between contemplation and action. This convergence highlights the enduring relevance of monastic spirituality as a prophetic response to contemporary ecological challenges.

Peace, unity, and global responsibility as elements of integral ecology are further explored in point thirty-five of the Declaration, within the framework of dialogue, mutual respect, and commitment to reconciliation both within the Church and in its relations with the world. From an ecological perspective, this point is of particular importance, as contemporary integral ecology increasingly highlights the close connection between the environmental crisis and crises of peace, social justice, and human relationships. The Declaration assumes that the Cistercian community should be a sign of unity in a world marked by division, conflict, and tension. The contemporary ecological crisis also has a global and conflictual dimension. Issues related to access to water, environmental degradation, climate change, and the exploitation of natural resources are increasingly becoming sources of social tensions, migration, and international conflicts. Point thirty-five thus recalls that care for peace and care for creation are deeply interconnected.

The ecological dimension of this passage is primarily revealed in its vision of community. The Declaration emphasizes the need to build relationships based on mutual respect, responsibility, and solidarity. Contemporary integral ecology similarly points out that the environmental crisis cannot be solved through technological measures alone. It requires the rebuilding of social relationships and the development of an awareness of the common good. The natural environment is not the property of individuals or individual nations, but the common home of all humanity.

Point 35 can also be interpreted as a critique of a culture of division and domination. Contemporary civilization is very often based on the logic of economic, political, and social competition. Such a logic leads not only to conflicts between people but also to the exploitation of the natural environment. Monastic spirituality of peace, however, opposes a model of the world based on violence, domination, and unlimited competition. What is particularly important from an ecological perspective is that the declaration emphasizes the responsibility of the community for the entire world, not only for its own local environment. The ecological crisis is, by its very nature, global. Actions undertaken in one place affect the lives of people and the environment in other regions of the world. A monastic vision of unity and solidarity can therefore be interpreted as a spiritual foundation for ecological responsibility that transcends the borders of states, cultures, and religions, while the human being is presented as a relational being whose development takes place through life in community. Contemporary culture of individualism and consumerism very often weakens the sense of responsibility for other people and for the natural environment. Meanwhile, integral ecology emphasizes that the human being does not exist in isolation but remains part of a network of social and ecological relations.

The ecological potential of this point also emerges in its reference to peace. In the Christian tradition, peace does not merely mean the absence of war, but rather the harmony of human relationships with God, with other people, and with the created world. The ecological crisis can be interpreted precisely as a disruption of this understanding of the peace of creation. Environmental degradation, overexploitation of resources, and social inequalities lead to the breakdown of harmony between humanity and the world. In this context, the perspective of Laudato si’ offers an important deepening of this insight. Pope Francis emphasizes that peace, justice, and the integrity of creation are inseparably linked, noting that “everything is interconnected” (LS 91). The rupture of the human relationship with nature is therefore simultaneously a rupture in social and spiritual relationships. He further highlights that the deterioration of the environment is closely bound to the deterioration of human coexistence, since “we are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental” (LS 139). From this perspective, the ecological crisis indeed appears as a profound disturbance of peace understood in its fullest, biblical sense. The Declaration also highlights the importance of dialogue and mutual openness. Contemporary ecological problems require cooperation between nations, religions, and cultures. No single community is capable of resolving the environmental crisis on its own. Monastic spirituality of dialogue can therefore serve as an important model of ecological solidarity and shared responsibility. This resonates with Pope Francis’s call for a “culture of encounter” and for global dialogue aimed at the protection of our common home (cf. LS 14, 164). It is worth noting that the Cistercian tradition developed on the basis of a form of community that transcended political and national borders. Monastic orders created networks of cooperation and spiritual exchange spanning different European countries. Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes the need for global solidarity in the face of shared environmental threats. In this light, Laudato si’ underscores the necessity of an “ecological citizenship” (LS 211) that extends beyond local or national interests and fosters a shared responsibility for the future of the planet.

Point 35 can also be interpreted as a critique of a technocratic vision of the world. Contemporary civilization often assumes that social and ecological problems can be solved solely through technological development and economic mechanisms. The Declaration, however, reminds us that true peace requires the transformation of human relationships and the spiritual renewal of the human person. The ecological crisis is therefore not only an environmental crisis, but also a crisis of culture and morality (Jonas 1979, pp. 54–61).

The Christian dimension of unity present in this point is also significant. The monastic community is called to bear witness to reconciliation and fraternity. From an ecological perspective, this also implies responsibility for building a more just model of human relations with the created world. Environmental protection cannot be separated from care for the poor, the excluded, and future generations. Contemporary ecological theology repeatedly emphasizes that social peace and peace with creation are inseparable. Francis in LS states that “everything is interconnected” (pt. 91). Similarly, point 35 of the declaration presents human unity as a condition for responsibility for the world. Point 35 of the Declaration can therefore be interpreted as an important text of an eco-social nature. It presents peace, unity, and solidarity as the foundation of responsibility for creation. Monastic spirituality of community thus becomes an important alternative to a culture of competition, domination, and exploitation of the world. In the face of the global ecological crisis, such a vision of life gains particular significance.

4.4. The Frameworks of Human Autonomy and Freedom

The authors of the declaration in point 36 emphasize the value of simplicity of life and the need to maintain moderation and freedom in relation to material goods. Cistercian simplicity is not presented merely as an external ascetic form, but as a way of life that expresses human spiritual freedom and the proper order of relations between the person and the material world. In the context of the contemporary ecological crisis, this point gains particular significance, as it points to an alternative to a culture of consumerism, overproduction, and unlimited growth of needs. The declaration assumes that the monastic community should choose “simple forms of life” and avoid everything that leads to luxury, excess, and spiritual distraction. Such an attitude has a clear ecological dimension. Contemporary ecological thought increasingly points out that one of the main sources of the environmental crisis is a model of civilization based on constant consumption and the belief that human development depends on the unlimited accumulation of material goods. Monastic simplicity thus constitutes a radical counterproposal to this model.

The ecological dimension of point 36 is revealed primarily in its anthropology. The human being is presented as a person capable of a moderate life free from subordination to material goods. Contemporary consumer culture very often equates happiness with possession, production, and the continuous increase in consumption levels. Meanwhile, Cistercian spirituality reminds us that an excess of goods can lead to spiritual enslavement and the loss of a proper relationship with God, other people, and creation. Point 36 can be interpreted as a critique of the logic of excessive consumption. Monastic simplicity does not mean contempt for the material world, but rather responsible and moderate use of the goods of creation. Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes that the ecological crisis will not be solved solely through new technologies if humanity does not change its lifestyle and value system. Environmental protection requires the reduction in excessive consumption, waste, and the exploitation of natural resources. The declaration also highlights the spiritual dimension of simplicity of life. Simplicity is not merely an economic necessity or an ideological social program, but a path of spiritual freedom. A simple person does not define their worth through possession, but through their relationship with God and the community. From an ecological perspective, this is of great importance, since contemporary market culture very often builds human identity around consumption and material status.

The communitarian dimension of simplicity of life is particularly significant from an ecological perspective. The monastic community shares material goods and limits individual accumulation of property. The contemporary ecological crisis, however, is closely linked to individualism and an economic model based on the maximization of private consumption. The spirituality of communal simplicity reminds us that the goods of creation have a shared dimension and should serve the whole human community. Point 36 also has an ascetic dimension. The Cistercian tradition from its beginnings developed an ideal of moderation, restraint of needs, and simplicity of daily life. Monastic asceticism, however, was not intended as a rejection of the world, but rather as a means of restoring the proper order of human desires. Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes the need for an “ecological conversion”, which includes a transformation of lifestyle, of one’s relationship to material goods, and of the way creation is used. The ecological potential of this point is also revealed in its critique of luxury and excess. Contemporary economic culture very often equates success with the ability to consume without limits. Monastic simplicity, by contrast, shows that a person can live more fully through limiting their needs and becoming freer in relation to material things. Such an attitude has major ecological significance, since excessive consumption is one of the main causes of environmental degradation. The Christological dimension of simplicity of life present in the monastic tradition is also important. Cistercian asceticism refers to the Gospel ideal of poverty and freedom from wealth. From an ecological perspective, this implies a departure from the logic of unlimited possession and an affirmation that the created world does not exist solely to satisfy human consumer desires.

Point 36 can also be interpreted in light of the traditional Cistercian relationship to work and the material world. For centuries, Cistercian monasteries functioned as relatively self-sufficient communities based on moderate consumption and responsible use of resources. Contemporary global economy, however, often leads to overproduction, waste, and a disconnection of human beings from awareness of the origin of material goods. Monastic simplicity thus recalls the need for a more sustainable economic model. Contemporary ecological theology repeatedly emphasizes that the future of the world depends on humanity’s ability to develop a more moderate way of life. Francis in LS highlights the value of “simplicity which allows us to pause and appreciate small things” (pt. 222). Similarly, point 36 of the declaration presents simplicity of life as a path of spiritual and ecological harmony.

This point can therefore be considered one of the most ecologically significant sections of the document. It presents simplicity of life as a response to the crisis of consumerism and environmental degradation. Monastic spirituality of moderation thus becomes an important alternative to a culture of excess and technocratic exploitation of the world. In the face of the contemporary ecological crisis, such a vision of life gains particular relevance.

Point 37 of the Declaration develops the theme of the ascetic dimension of monastic life and the necessity of maintaining moderation and discipline in relation to material goods. The authors of the document indicate that Cistercian life should be marked by a spirit of renunciation, simplicity, and interior freedom, which enables a person to open more fully to God and to the community. From an ecological perspective, this point is of particular importance, since the contemporary environmental crisis is closely linked to a culture of excessive consumption, unlimited needs, and the subordination of life to the logic of possession.

From an anthropological perspective, the authors once again present the human person as a being capable of mastering their own desires and consciously limiting their needs. Contemporary economic culture, by contrast, often constructs an image of the human being as defined by consumption. Economic development is based on the constant stimulation of new needs, regardless of their real necessity. The monastic spirituality of renunciation reminds us that true freedom does not consist in unlimited access to goods, but in the ability to live a life of moderation and order. The environmental crisis does not arise solely from technological errors, but above all from a particular model of anthropology and culture. When the human person perceives themselves as having an unlimited right to use creation, nature becomes merely a resource for exploitation. Monastic renunciation, by contrast, allows for the recovery of an awareness of limits and of responsibility for the created world.

The Declaration presents renunciation not as a negation of the material world, but as a way of restoring the proper relationship between human beings and created things. Monastic asceticism has a positive character—it serves to liberate the person from excessive attachment to material goods and to re-establish harmony between spiritual life and the use of creation. Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes that one of the main sources of environmental degradation is a culture of unlimited consumption and the identification of happiness with possession. The Cistercian monastic tradition has, from its beginnings, opposed luxury and excessive accumulation of goods. Contemporary consumer civilization, by contrast, promotes a model of life based on the continuous expansion of needs and the production of new desires. Such a lifestyle leads to the overexploitation of natural resources, an increase in waste, and the deepening of the climate crisis. Monastic asceticism can therefore be interpreted as a form of ecological resistance to the culture of consumerism.

The Declaration also emphasizes the spiritual dimension of moderation and asceticism. Renunciation is not an end in itself, but a path leading to a deeper relationship with God and greater openness to others. Contemporary integral ecology similarly points out that environmental protection requires not only technical changes, but also spiritual and moral transformation. Human beings must learn to live in a more responsible, simple, and solidaristic way. Limiting one’s own needs makes it possible to share goods more effectively with others and to build a community based not on competition, but on solidarity. By contrast, the contemporary economic model often leads to the deepening of social inequalities and the concentration of wealth. The ecological crisis particularly affects the poor, who most often bear the consequences of environmental degradation. Monastic spirituality of moderation therefore serves as a reminder of the ethical dimension of using the goods of creation.

Point 37 can also be interpreted as a critique of the technocratic vision of the world. Contemporary civilization often assumes that all problems can be solved through technological development and increased production. The monastic tradition, however, points out that the human person also needs inner discipline and spiritual order. Without a transformation of human desires, even the most advanced technologies will not halt environmental degradation. The ecological potential of this point is also revealed in its affirmation of limitation. In contemporary culture, limitation is often perceived as a threat to freedom. Cistercian monasticism, by contrast, proposes a paradoxical vision of freedom achieved through the conscious limitation of one’s own needs. In an ecological perspective, underscores Merton, this means the possibility of a more harmonious way of life—less destructive toward the environment and more open to social relationships (Merton 1955, pp. 208–15).

Point 37 of the Declaration can therefore be regarded as one of the key texts for an ecological interpretation of monastic spirituality. It presents asceticism and moderation as forms of spiritual freedom and as a response to the crisis of consumerism. In this way, the monastic culture of limitation and simplicity of life becomes an important alternative to a civilization of excess and the exploitation of the natural world.

This perspective finds a clear parallel in the teaching of Pope Francis, where he critiques a “throwaway culture” driven by consumerism and unchecked desire (LS 22). In contrast, he proposes a spirituality of sobriety and restraint, affirming that “less is more” (LS 222) and that a simpler way of life can open space for deeper joy and authentic freedom. Such an approach resonates strongly with the monastic tradition, in which voluntary limitation is not deprivation, but a path toward inner liberation and a more harmonious relationship with creation. Moreover, Laudato si’ emphasizes that ecological responsibility requires a transformation of lifestyles, rooted in what Francis calls “ecological conversion” (LS 216). This conversion involves a shift away from compulsive consumption toward habits marked by moderation, gratitude, and care for the world. In this light, monastic asceticism can be understood not as a withdrawal from reality, but as a prophetic witness to an alternative form of life—one that resists the logic of accumulation and instead embodies a sustainable and spiritually grounded mode of existence. Thus, point 37 can be interpreted as deeply convergent with the vision of integral ecology articulated in LS: both propose that true freedom is found not in unlimited consumption, but in the disciplined capacity to live simply, responsibly, and in communion with creation.

4.5. The Civilizational Challenges

A practical dimension of the Declaration is the promotion of silence, contemplation, and liturgy as an ecological path of reconciliation between the human person and creation. In points 39–42, the authors of the document present these practices not merely as individual religious acts, but as a way of being for a person open to God, the community, and the world. From an ecological perspective, this passage is of particular significance, since the contemporary environmental crisis is at the same time a crisis of the human person’s spiritual relationship with reality. The loss of the capacity for contemplation, constant haste, and the dominance of technocratic culture lead to a rupture of the bond between the human being and the created world.

The Declaration emphasizes the importance of silence as an essential element of Cistercian life. Silence is understood not merely as the absence of noise, but as a space of inner openness and attentive listening to God. Contemporary media and consumer culture, by contrast, operates in a rhythm of constant activity, an excess of stimuli, and the continual stimulation of human attention. From an ecological perspective, this is of great significance, because a person deprived of the capacity for contemplation begins to treat the world purely in utilitarian terms. Nature ceases to be an experience of presence and beauty and becomes merely an economic resource. The ecological dimension of points 39–42 is revealed above all in their contemplative understanding of reality. Monastic silence enables the human person to recover an awareness of their own limitations and their dependence on creation. Contemporary technocratic civilization often fosters the illusion of total human control over the world. The spirituality of contemplation, however, reminds us that the human being is not the absolute master of creation, but a participant in a greater order of life.

Points 39–42 also emphasize the central place of the liturgy in the life of the Cistercian community. Liturgy is not presented as a practice detached from the world, but as an event that embraces the whole of creation. In the Christian tradition, liturgical prayer has a cosmic dimension—the human person gives glory to God together with the entire created world. Such a vision carries a profound ecological potential, as it allows nature to be perceived not as a spiritually neutral reality, but as part of the harmony of creation oriented toward God. Particularly important from an ecological perspective is the monastic experience of the rhythm of life. The Liturgy of the Hours organizes the monk’s daily life according to a rhythm of prayer, work, and rest. Contemporary economic culture, by contrast, often disrupts the natural rhythms of human life by subordinating time to the logic of production and efficiency. The ecological crisis is partly a consequence of this loss of harmony between the human person and the rhythm of creation. Monastic spirituality of time can therefore serve as an important alternative to the culture of constant acceleration (Jonas 1979, pp. 41–48).

It should be added that the critique of a culture of noise and distraction is closely connected with the statements of the Prologue. Contemporary human beings increasingly experience an inability to concentrate, to remain in silence, and to engage in deeper reflection. Contemplation, however, makes it possible to recover a sense of wonder before the world and to experience its value independently of economic usefulness.

Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes that care for the environment requires the restoration of the human person’s spiritual relationship with nature. The Declaration also points to the importance of communal prayer. Monastic liturgy is not an individualistic experience, but an act of the community. From an ecological perspective, this is of particular importance, since the environmental crisis demands shared responsibility and solidarity. The protection of creation cannot be merely a private choice of individuals, but requires the building of a culture of the common good. The ecological dimension of points 39–42 is also revealed in their affirmation of beauty. The Cistercian tradition developed a distinctive aesthetic of simplicity, light, and harmony. Monastic architecture was not governed by the logic of luxury, but by the creation of a space conducive to prayer and contemplation. Contemporary consumer culture often equates beauty with excess and spectacle. Monastic aesthetics of simplicity, by contrast, reminds us that true beauty arises from harmony and moderation.

Referring to the analyses of LS, points 39–42 can be interpreted as an expression of “spiritual ecology”. Francis emphasizes that authentic care for creation requires the recovery of the capacity for contemplation and gratitude toward the world. The human person should learn to “stop and appreciate” reality instead of constantly subjecting it to one’s own needs. Monastic silence and liturgy create precisely the space for such an experience. Also significant is the cosmic dimension of the liturgy present in the Christian tradition. The prayer of the Church embraces the whole of creation and presents the world as a reality directed toward its fulfillment in God. From an ecological perspective, this implies a departure from viewing nature as a reality devoid of spiritual meaning. The created world possesses its own value and participates in the mystery of creation and redemption.

Hope for the eschatological future of creation provides the foundation for ecological responsibility. Points 50–51 of the Declaration hold particular theological significance, as they relate monastic life to an eschatological perspective—the ultimate fulfillment of the human person and all creation in God. The authors of the Declaration emphasize that Cistercian life should be a sign of hope and a witness to the reality of the coming Kingdom of God. From an ecological perspective, this passage is of fundamental importance, as the contemporary environmental crisis often leads to fear, catastrophism, and a loss of hope regarding the future of the world. Monastic eschatological spirituality instead proposes a vision of responsibility rooted not in despair, but in hope. The Declaration presents the Cistercian community as a reality oriented toward God’s future. Monastic life is not limited to preserving ancient forms of tradition, but is meant to remind the world of the ultimate meaning of creation and history. Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes that care for the environment requires long-term thinking and responsibility for future generations. The ecological crisis is, in fact, a crisis in humanity’s relationship with the future; consumerist civilization often subordinates everything to immediate economic gain, ignoring the consequences of human actions for the world and for future generations. The ecological dimension of points 50–51 is revealed above all in their affirmation of the future of creation. In the Christian tradition, the world is not heading toward total destruction, but toward transformation and fulfillment in God. This vision has enormous ecological significance. Contemporary ecological debates often oscillate between extreme catastrophism and naïve faith in technology. Monastic eschatological hope offers a third way instead—responsible action grounded in the belief that creation has meaning and a future.

The Declaration also emphasizes the importance of hope as a foundation of Christian life. From an ecological perspective, this is of great significance, as the environmental crisis today generates a widespread experience of anxiety and helplessness. Monastic spirituality of hope, however, does not mean passive waiting for the future, but active responsibility for the world. Christian hope mobilizes action and care for creation, since the world is understood as a reality entrusted to the human person by God. Of particular ecological importance is the cosmic dimension of hope present in the Christian tradition. Points 50–51 situate monastic life within the perspective of the renewal of the whole of creation. Contemporary ecological theology similarly emphasizes that salvation does not concern only the human being, but the entire created reality. The material world thus possesses its own value and participates in the history of salvation. The ecological potential of this passage is also revealed in its critique of despair and nihilism. The contemporary environmental crisis sometimes leads to the belief that environmental degradation is an irreversible and meaningless process. Monastic eschatological spirituality, however, reminds us that the future of the world does not depend solely on human technology or economics, but remains rooted in God as Creator and the ultimate end of all creation. It is worth noting that the monastic tradition has, from its very beginnings, developed a strong sense of responsibility for the future of the community and the world. Monasteries were built with future generations in mind, and the work of monks often bore fruit only after many years. Such a culture of patience and long-term thinking is particularly valuable in contrast to today’s civilization of acceleration and immediate consumption (Jonas 1979, pp. 47–48).

The ecological dimension of points 39–42 is also revealed in their affirmation of beauty. The Cistercian tradition developed a distinctive aesthetic of simplicity, light, and harmony. Monastic architecture was not subordinated to the logic of luxury, but to the creation of a space conducive to prayer and contemplation. Contemporary consumer culture, by contrast, often equates beauty with excess and spectacle. The monastic aesthetic of simplicity instead recalls that true beauty arises from harmony and moderation. This perspective is deeply echoed in LS, where Pope Francis underlines that sensitivity to beauty is not a marginal concern, but a fundamental element of an integral ecological outlook. He observes that when individuals lose the ability to pause and appreciate what is beautiful, they are more likely to reduce reality to something merely functional and subject to exploitation (LS 215). In this light, beauty assumes both ethical and spiritual significance: it forms the human capacity for attentiveness, contemplation, and reverence toward creation. Accordingly, the Cistercian commitment to simplicity in aesthetics may be understood as a tangible expression of what Francis describes as an “aesthetic education”, one that is intrinsically linked to ecological responsibility.

Points 39–42 can also be interpreted as a critique of a culture of noise and distraction, closely connected with the themes of the Prologue. Contemporary human beings increasingly experience an inability to focus, to remain in silence, and to engage in deeper reflection. Contemplation, however, allows one to recover the capacity for wonder and to experience the world’s value independently of economic utility. This corresponds to the call in LS to cultivate a contemplative gaze, one that recognizes creation as a gift rather than a resource, and that resists the reduction of reality to mere functionality (cf. LS 11–12). Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes that care for the environment requires the restoration of a spiritual relationship between human beings and nature. Pope Francis explicitly links this to a broader cultural transformation, insisting that ecological conversion must also be expressed in new ways of perceiving and inhabiting the world, including a renewed sensitivity to beauty and meaning (cf. LS 216, 225). The Declaration also highlights the importance of communal prayer. Monastic liturgy is not an individualistic experience, but an act of the community. From an ecological perspective, this is particularly significant, as the environmental crisis requires communal responsibility and solidarity. As LS underscores, ecological challenges call for shared responses and a “culture of care” rooted in the common good (cf. LS 231). The protection of creation cannot be reduced to the private choices of individuals, but requires the building of a communal ethos shaped by solidarity, responsibility, and a shared commitment to the integrity of creation.

Referring to the analyses of the LS, points 39–42 of the Declaration can be understood as an expression of “spiritual ecology”. Pope Francis emphasizes that authentic care for creation requires recovering the capacity for contemplation and gratitude toward the world. Human beings should learn to “pause and admire” reality rather than constantly subjecting it to their own needs. Monastic silence and liturgy precisely create the space for such an experience. The cosmic dimension of liturgy present in the Christian tradition is also significant. The Church’s prayer encompasses the whole of creation and presents the world as a reality directed toward its fullness in God. From an ecological perspective, this implies a departure from viewing nature as a reality devoid of spiritual meaning. The created world possesses its own value and participates in the mystery of creation and redemption.

4.6. Monastic Eschatological Spirituality

Eschatological hope and the future of creation form the foundation of ecological responsibility. Points 50–51 of the Declaration are of particular theological significance, as they relate monastic life to an eschatological perspective—the ultimate fulfilment of humanity and of all creation in God. The authors of the Declaration emphasize that Cistercian life should be a sign of hope and a witness to the reality of the coming Kingdom of God. From an ecological perspective, this passage is of fundamental importance, as the contemporary environmental crisis often leads to fear, catastrophism, and a loss of hope regarding the future of the world. Monastic eschatological spirituality, by contrast, proposes a vision of responsibility rooted not in despair but in hope. The Declaration presents the Cistercian community as a reality oriented toward God’s future. Monastic life is not limited to preserving traditional forms, but is meant to remind the world of the ultimate meaning of creation and history. Contemporary integral ecology similarly emphasizes that care for the environment requires long-term thinking and responsibility for future generations. The ecological crisis is thus also a crisis of humanity’s relationship with the future, as consumerist civilization often subordinates everything to immediate economic gain, ignoring the consequences for the world and for future generations. The ecological dimension of points 50–51 is revealed especially in their affirmation of the future of creation. In the Christian tradition, the world does not move toward total destruction but toward transformation and fullness in God. This vision has profound ecological significance. Contemporary ecological debates often oscillate between extreme catastrophism and a naïve faith in technology. Monastic eschatological hope proposes a third way: responsible action rooted in the conviction that creation has meaning and a future.

This passage should also be interpreted as a critique of the logic of competition and power—a theme deeply central to LS. In it, Francis warns against a dominant “technocratic paradigm” that treats the world and people merely as objects to be controlled and exploited (LS 106). The Declaration counteracts this mindset by presenting the superior not as the owner of the community, but as a servant responsible for the good of all its members. From an ecological perspective, this is particularly significant, as contemporary environmental crises are directly linked to the concentration of economic power and the subordination of the common good to the interests of individuals or corporations. The monastic vision of communal responsibility recalls that every form of authority should be understood as service. For this reason, the Declaration also emphasizes the importance of dialogue and communal discernment. Contemporary integral ecology—a core principle of Laudato si’ which reminds us that “everything is connected” (LS 117)—similarly points out that addressing the environmental crisis requires cooperation, solidarity, and the participation of all social groups. As Pope Francis explicitly stresses, no single individual, institution, or technocratic solution is capable of solving ecological problems alone (LS 164). The monastic practice of communal discernment can therefore be interpreted as a practical and spiritual model for the kind of ecological dialogue and collective responsibility needed today. The communal nature of decision-making emphasized in points 56–57 is of particular ecological importance. In the Cistercian tradition, the community was responsible for shared goods, work, and the organization of daily life. Such a model stands in sharp contrast to an individualistic approach to ownership and the modern “throwaway culture” (LS 22). As LS reminds us, the natural world is a “collective good, the patrimony of all humanity and the responsibility of everyone” (LS 95). The environmental crisis reveals the urgent need to abandon self-centered consumerism in favor of this shared, communal care for our common home.

To conclude, points 50–51 of the Declaration may be understood as a key basis for a Christian ecological vision rooted in eschatological hope. They portray creation as a reality oriented toward its fulfillment in God, and humanity as actively responsible within the unfolding of history. The monastic spirituality of hope challenges both the technocratic belief in limitless progress and the tendency toward ecological pessimism. In the context of today’s environmental crisis, this perspective becomes especially significant.

To conclude the ecological analysis of the Declaration, it is worth offering an examination of obedience, communal responsibility, and an ecology of relationships. In this context, points 56–57 of the Declaration focus on the issue of obedience and communal responsibility in monastic life, presenting obedience not as a form of passive submission, but as a relationship grounded in listening, mutual respect, and shared discernment of what is good for the community. From an ecological perspective, this passage is highly significant, as the contemporary environmental crisis is also a crisis of relationships—between humans and nature, between human beings, and within the human person itself. The monastic vision of obedience and shared responsibility can be interpreted as a model of relational ecology, opposing a culture of individualism and domination.

Points 56–57 also have an anthropological dimension. The human being is presented as a creature in need of community, relationships, and responsibility. Contemporary consumer culture, however, often leads to social atomization and the weakening of social bonds. The environmental crisis cannot be resolved without rebuilding a sense of community and solidarity among people. In the Christian tradition, obedience was understood primarily as listening to God and openness to the good of the community. From an ecological perspective, this can also be interpreted as a call to listen to the “voice of creation”—recognizing the limits of the natural environment and our responsibility for its future. Human beings cannot treat nature solely as passive material for exploitation, but must respect its intrinsic order and boundaries. Points 56–57 can also be read in light of LS. Francis repeatedly emphasizes there the need for an “ecology of relationships”, grounded in solidarity, responsibility, and care for the common good (pt. 66). The environmental crisis is not merely a technical problem, but the result of distorted social and spiritual relationships. Monastic spirituality of obedience and community can therefore constitute an important response to this crisis.

The ethical dimension of this passage is of particular significance. Points 56–57 articulate a conception of human freedom that is not grounded in unrestricted autonomy or the unlimited appropriation of the world, but rather in responsibility toward the community and future generations. Such an understanding corresponds closely to key developments in contemporary ecological ethics, which emphasize the normative necessity of limiting individual interests in view of the common good, intergenerational justice, and the integrity of the natural environment. Within this horizon, the teaching of Pope Francis in LS provides a substantial deepening and systematic articulation of the ethical framework implicit in the Declaration. Francis offers a sustained critique of reductive anthropological models based on possessive individualism and the absolutization of subjective freedom, arguing that authentic freedom must be intrinsically ordered toward responsibility, relationality, and the common good. In this context, he explicitly affirms that “the notion of the common good also extends to future generations” (LS 159), thereby integrating ecological concern into the broader structure of moral obligation and social ethics. Furthermore, Laudato si’ advances a relational and integrative moral vision in which environmental responsibility is inseparable from social justice. The principle that “everything is interconnected” (LS 91) functions not merely as a descriptive claim, but as a normative foundation for an expanded conception of ethical responsibility encompassing ecological, social, and intergenerational dimensions. Consequently, the limitation of consumption and the renunciation of exploitative practices are not to be interpreted solely in terms of personal asceticism, but as demands grounded in justice and solidarity. This ethical vision may be further illuminated through the classical theological category of ordo amoris, understood as the rightly ordered love that structures moral life. From this perspective, the ecological crisis can be interpreted as a disorder of love, in which created goods are either absolutized or instrumentalized, disrupting the proper hierarchy of relationships between God, human beings, and the rest of creation. Laudato si’ implicitly rearticulates this tradition by calling for a reordering of desires and affections, so that human beings may relate to the world not through domination, but through care, gratitude, and reverence. The recovery of ordo amoris thus entails recognizing creation as a gift to be received rather than an object to be possessed, and situating human agency within a network of rightly ordered relationships. A central category in this ethical framework is that of “ecological conversion” (LS 216), understood as a transformative reconfiguration of human subjectivity, encompassing desires, habits, and patterns of action. This conversion presupposes the cultivation of specific moral virtues—such as sobriety, humility, and gratitude—which enable both individuals and communities to resist the technocratic paradigm and to assume a posture of responsible stewardship. In this respect, the monastic articulation of freedom as disciplined, relational, and ordered toward the good of others can be seen as a paradigmatic embodiment of an ecology grounded in ordo amoris. Accordingly, points 56–57 may be interpreted as expressing a coherent ethics of responsibility rooted in a properly ordered love and oriented toward the common good. Their convergence with the moral theology of LS underscores the enduring relevance of monastic spirituality as a concrete and historically tested form of life capable of informing and enriching contemporary ecological ethics.

5. Conclusions

The analysis undertaken in this article demonstrates that the Benedictine-Cistercian monastic tradition offers a coherent, internally consistent, and theologically grounded framework for contemporary ecological reflection. Rooted in the Rule of Saint Benedict and progressively developed throughout the history of the Cistercian Order, this spirituality integrates prayer, work, poverty, humility, silence, and communal life into a unified vision of human existence that is fundamentally relational in character—directed simultaneously toward God, other human beings, and the entirety of creation. In this sense, monastic life does not separate the spiritual from the material, but rather affirms their profound interconnection within a single theological horizon of meaning.

The study has shown that the principle of ora et labora expresses not only a distinctive monastic rhythm of life, but also a deeply balanced anthropological model that safeguards against two extremes characteristic of modern civilization: spiritual passivity detached from reality on the one hand, and uncontrolled activism driven by efficiency and productivity on the other. Within this framework, work is not reduced to economic utility, but becomes a form of participation in the ongoing creative activity of God. Likewise, prayer is not an escape from the world, but a mode of perceiving reality in its ultimate dependence on the Creator. Consequently, Cistercian spirituality already contains an implicit ecological wisdom, in which human engagement with the world is understood as cooperation with creation rather than domination over it. The monastic ethos of simplicity, expressed particularly in the ideal of paupertas Christi, further strengthens this perspective by cultivating restraint, interior freedom, and resistance to excess. Poverty in this sense is not merely material deprivation, but a spiritual discipline that reorients human desire and restores proper proportionality between need and possession. Such an attitude directly challenges contemporary consumerist patterns of life, which are often based on accumulation, overproduction, and the continual expansion of desire. From an ecological perspective, this monastic form of life anticipates key insights of modern environmental ethics, especially the recognition that the ecological crisis is rooted not only in technological or economic structures, but also in distorted patterns of human desire and value formation.

The hermeneutical and historical–critical analysis of the Rule of Saint Benedict and selected Cistercian sources has further revealed that attentiveness to creation, disciplined work, silence, and communal responsibility are not peripheral or accidental elements of monastic life, but rather constitutive dimensions of its worldview. The monastery appears in this perspective as a space of integrated existence, in which human life is structured according to rhythm, measure, and relational responsibility. When interpreted through the lens of integral ecology, these elements acquire renewed significance as both ethical orientations and spiritual resources capable of addressing contemporary civilizational challenges, including environmental degradation, technological expansion without ethical limits, and the global crisis of overconsumption and ecological imbalance.

Moreover, the comparative theological approach adopted in this study has demonstrated a meaningful and conceptually fertile continuity between classical monastic thought and contemporary ecological theology. Cistercian spirituality, particularly in its emphasis on order, moderation, silence, liturgical harmony, and reverence for creation, may therefore be read not only as a historical expression of medieval monastic culture, but also as a precursor to key dimensions of modern integral ecology and sustainable development. In this interpretative perspective, the monastic tradition ceases to be merely an object of historical inquiry and becomes a living intellectual and spiritual resource for rethinking humanity’s place within the created order.

In conclusion, the Benedictine-Cistercian tradition may be regarded as a significant and enduring contribution to Christian ecological thought. It articulates a vision of the human person as a responsible cooperator in creation, called to live in harmony with the world rather than in opposition to it, and to recognize creation itself as a gift entrusted to human care rather than a resource available for unrestricted exploitation. At a time marked by ecological crisis, social fragmentation, and spiritual disorientation, this monastic heritage offers a lasting reminder that authentic care for creation is inseparably linked with interior conversion, communal responsibility, and a rightly ordered relationship with God, the source and end of all created reality.