But it was more disturbing that Arn obviously did not understand why it was impossible for Brother Guilbert to use violence. Thou shalt not killwas a commandment that was utterly without compromise.

   Arn argued that the Holy Scriptures were full of commandments that were unreasonable. Take the fact that Brother Guy le Breton had so far failed to get the Danes to eat mussels. Out in the fjord the mussel beds had rapidly grown as soon as Brother Guy had come to Vitae Schola. But so far it had led only to the brothers themselves feasting on mussels prepared in one peculiar way after another, because the Danes around Limfjord believed that "whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is unclean for you." According to Deuteronomy 14:8 or whatever it was.

   Deuteronomy 14:10, Father Henri corrected him. 14:8 prohibited the eating of pigs and rabbits. Which basically illustrated the same problem, or at least the reverse of the problem, since the Danes certainly had nothing against eating pigs or rabbits. Nevertheless, and Arn ought to know by now that there was a big difference between various small prohibitions of that sort and more serious prohibitions. If one searched for small prohibitions in the Holy Scriptures one could find many that were downright ridiculous—for instance, the hair should not be shorn in a certain way when in mourning—as well as things that were unreasonable and un-Christian in their severity, such as: he who contradicts his mother or father shall be stoned to death.

   But once again the important thing was how one learned to understand the Holy Scriptures, and the guiding principle in that respect was of course the Lord Jesus himself. Through his example he had shown how the text should be understood. In short, killing was among the most forbidden of actions.

   But Arn refused to yield. He now claimed, using the logic in argumentation that Father Henri had personally pounded into his head for most of his life, that a letter could kill as easily as a sword. By writing to King Valdemar, Father Henri had sealed the fate of the unfortunate and unsuccessful robbers, since the outcome was never in any doubt the moment the king received the letter from Vitae Schola.

   In the same way one could kill through omission, by notusing force. If Brother Guilbert had knocked two or three of the un successful robbers to the ground, wouldn't he have committed only a comparatively littlesin?

   Arn was astonished that Father Henri did not interrupt him or scold him, but instead moved his hand in a gentle circle as a sign for Arn to continue his argument.

   So, if Brother Guilbert committed a littlesin, for which he easily would have been able to do penance for a month, by giving a couple of robbers a beating and thus scaring off the others, the result could have been good. The robbers wouldn't have turned into robbers but merely drunkards out on a foolish foray. They would have been prevented from committing theft, they would not have been hanged, their children would not have been fatherless, and their wives would not now be widows. Weighing the pros and cons in this equation, one would probably find that Brother Guilbert, by employing violence without anger, would have served a good purpose. And so he probably wouldn't have done anything evil, would he? After all, this was a theme that Saint Bernard himself often repeated.

   Arn fell silent. He was so astonished by the priest's silence that he could not go on with his argument: Father Henri sat deep in thought with his brow furrowed in a way that usually meant he didn't want to be disturbed, because he was trying to crack a hard nut.

   Arn waited patiently for a long time, since he had not been dismissed. Finally Father Henri looked up at Arn and gave him an encouraging smile, patting him lightly on the hand and nodding in agreement as he prepared to give an explanation, preceded by much clearing of his throat, as usual. Arn waited tensely.

   "Young man, you surprise me by showing such acuity in an area which was perhaps not one of your best," he began. "You have touched on two problems, although they are related. Your argument that a little sin from Brother Guilbert could have obviated something worse than a little sin is formally correct. And yet it is false. When Brother Guilbert had to choose between using violence, the worst sin he of all people could commit, or acting as he did, if he had known at that moment what the result would be, thenbut only then would your reasoning be valid. Without being unkind to you, however, I must point out that the formal way in which you have set up the argument, although Aristotle himself would have approved it, still presupposes that Brother Guilbert is not the man he is—a mortally sinful person—but rather that he is God and can see the truth and all that is to come. But it's an uplifting example, because it so clearly shows how clumsy we humans can be even when with a clear conscience we try to act justly. A very uplifting example, indeed."

   "Not especially uplifting for the poor devils who were led further into sin, were hanged, and now must suffer eternal torment in hell," Arn muttered crossly and was instantly given a sharp rebuke to pray ten Pater Nosters for his impertinence.

   Arn obediently said his prayers, and Father Henri was grateful for the respite, which he spent thinking further, and not without a certain amount of guilt. He found to his shock that he was no longer sure of his counterargument.

   Wouldn't it be exaggerating to say that Brother Guilbert would have had to be God to foresee that measured violence, without anger, could in that situation have done a greater good than the usual peaceful response enjoined by Christ?

   Wasn't it true instead that Brother Guilbert had once lived a life in which, with God on his side, he could smite anyone who attacked him when he was protecting the church's property? But afterwards he had imposed on himself such strict penance for sins he'd committed in the Holy War that he had to refrain from violence in any situation. Wasn't it simply that Brother Guilbert was now closed off, or had closed himself off, from any sort of intellectual examination in such a context and blindly followed his self-imposed penance?

   In that case Brother Guilbert was certainly pure and without sin with regard to the way he had acted. But little Arn had also for the first time shown proof of theological acumen and, what was even better, a genuine insight into the faith.

   However, it was the larger problem that Arn had touched on that would be easier to take up just now. They would come back to the other issue a week later when Father Henri had had time to collect his thoughts and read up on it.

   "Now let's take up your second problem," Father Henri said, displaying great friendliness to Arn after he had rattled off his ten Pater Nosters. "Saint Bernard pointed out quite rightly that whatsoever is done with good intent—you know what I mean, let's skip the definitions—whatsoever is done with goodintent cannot lead to evil. In what context does this assurance have the greatest practical significance?"