Commenter Kate on the Benedict Option
Here's what a commenter named Kate has to say on Father Longenecker's NCR piece on the Benedict Option.
Posted by Kate on Friday, May 29, 2015 3:33 PM (EDT):
Instead of Catholics frantically planning moves to rumored Benedict-type communities, I would suggest doing what you can where you are first. Ironically for this discussion, one of the principles of Benedictine life is “stability” - in addition to the standard three religious vows, Benedictines take a fourth vow to basically commit themselves to a physical place for life (for better or worse), a very foreign and counterculture concept in our modern age. I think Catholics should stay where they are unless God makes it obviously clear (such as a job loss and necessary relocation) that He wants one to move and become part of another community. My family was considering moving to a better parish and community and praying that God would show us where to go. You know what He did? Instead of sending us a neat, easy message with a map and real estate listings, He made it clear that He wanted us to stay where we were and do the work of creating a richer Catholic life! Dang! Didn’t He hear me?! He opened up a surprising opportunity at our parish, sent a pastor we could work with, and removed a lot of obstacles. It’s required a lot of time and energy; it’s been much harder than packing our bags and moving to a ready made ideal, community. However, I do at least know (as inconvenient as it is) we’re following God’s will and not my own easy way. Reminds me of what St. Teresa of Avila said about the way God treats his friends....
There are a lot of good comments to the article. It's sort of weird — you have to go to the page then click on the View Comments link.
Anyway this is the way I've seen it for years. It's amazing to me that someone can spend the time necessary to convert to the Catholic faith and then be shocked to find (often gross) imperfections. At least this is how I feel when I consider my own conversion experience which took place over several years time. During this time, I was present at a Mass in which, not only did the liberal priest make up his own Eucharistic prayer, he failed to include the words of consecration. (Later I found that he had tried to chat up my friend's wife. Then I also found out he was removed from the ministry; meanwhile he had been scandalizing and ill-forming the faithful for years....)
I was also present at many daily masses celebrated by a holocaust survivor. It was like witnessing the Mass celebrated by Christ Himself in Eternity ("...He descended into hell...He ascended into Heaven...") And, of course, I was present at many Masses celebrated by men between these two extremes in character.
The Catholic Church consists of the best and the worst. "Here comes everybody." But it continues to produce sanctity. And saints.
Some of the comments on that article make it sound as though "the Benedict Option" means "Roman Catholics react to current circumstances," leaving, say, "the Ostrich Option" -- "Roman Catholics ignore current circumstances" -- the only competing option.
ReplyDeleteOthers make it seem to mean "Roman Catholics take their Faith seriously." Which, not to put too fine a point on it, has never been optional for Roman Catholics.
Still others are pretty concrete about things like establishing farms. And we know the backpedaling that occurs among "the Benedict Option" thought leaders when anyone gets concrete about what it means.
Two surprising (though maybe they shouldn't be) comments: 1) the suggestion that Pope Francis's "shake things up" is related to "the Benedict Option"; 2) the implication that "fear and trembling" is a mark of those who are *not* buying "the Benedict Option."
Others make it seem to mean "Roman Catholics take their Faith seriously." Which, not to put too fine a point on it, has never been optional for Roman Catholics.
ReplyDeleteThat is what bothers me about this whole BO thing: the implication that anyone who doesn't go the BO route must be an inferior Christian, a non-serious Christian, a Christian who's just not committed enough or tough enough. "The Few. The Proud. The Benedict Optioneers." (With emphasis on proud.)
Elitism is not a Christian virtue. A Gnostic virtue, maybe, but not a Christian one.
Brava to Kate, BTW. She makes excellent points.
There's elitism, sure. But I meant it the other way around, that anything done by a good Catholic is claimed by the BOers to be an example of the BO. Just as anything good used to be an example of Crunchy Conservativism.
DeleteTom, my man, that's the drum I been beatin'. But these white boys can't get the rhythm! It's a-prop-prEE-AY-SHUN, MAN! Big time!! They be playin' the appropriation game, appropriatin' everythin' in sight!....
DeleteBedtime.
Tom, I did get your point...honest! I just kind of used it as a springboard for a related point. Sorry! ;)
DeleteBut, of course, you're quite right. This is Christianity 101. You can do it right there in your own home, office, school, and parish. You don't need to run off to an organic farm or a cave or even a pillar in the middle of the desert.
And yes re appropriation. If BO can mean anything from gardening to homeschooling to staying married, then it means nothing.
And we know the backpedaling that occurs among "the Benedict Option" thought leaders when anyone gets concrete about what it means.
ReplyDeleteHah. LOL.
Yes, or they just get upset that you don't realize that it obviously means 1) staying married, 2) homeschooling your kids, 3) having a garden and 4) eating organic chicken and drinking free range coffee.
DeleteThe Ben-o-Crunchy Option. LOL.
DeleteI think this should go down in the Why So Many People Of All Persuasions Dislike Rod Dreher hall of fame. From http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-worst-people-in-the-world/comment-page-2/#comments:
ReplyDelete"[NFR: I developed chronic mononucleosis sometime in the late spring or early summer of 2010. It was a time in which my sister was diagnosed with terminal cancer, the job I had moved across the country to take had abruptly and inexplicably collapsed, and we were watching our bank account drain out because our house in Dallas had not yet sold. I have never fully recovered from the mono, which got much worse after we moved back to Louisiana, and I fell into a deep, deep hole over my family situation. I recovered significantly after reading Dante, but fell back into mono after exhausting myself writing the book under an insane deadline. Now, as I sit here writing this, I am beset by inflammation. It's back to happening every day, but it is so, so much better than it was prior to my Dante experience. Point is, the likelihood that I will develop lymphoma because of all this is high, according to the doctors. -- RD]"
Here, right here, is nearly everything that makes Rod so uniquely Rod, so uniquely like fingers on a cyber chalkboard.
1) Rod's oversharing (no one gives a crap about your mono. Truly. You are not a martyr.)
2) Rod's blatant lie about how he lost his job in Philadelphia (he lost it because he didn't do what Templeton hired him to do, instead using Big Questions Online as a platform to rant about gays and loose women, and then, after being told to take a blogging sabbatical, stirring up intra-Orthodox controversy online under the pseudonym "Muzhik").
3) Rod's blaming of his family for his poor health (I think it's absolutely amazing that anyone in his family will still speak to him at this point).
4) Rod's blaming of writing to meet the deadline on his Dante book for his relapse (hey, wasn't Dante supposed to *cure* his mono? Sounds like Dante made it worse).
5) His hint that he'll get lymphoma because of his mono - a transparent plea for pity and praise while simultaneously a way to get people who write mean things about him to feel guilty. You're causing him to relapse, which will become lymphoma and kill him. ROD'S BLOOD WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS! YOU'LL ALL BE SORRY (just like Ralphie's parents were sorry in "A Christmas Story" when he became blind from having his mouth washed out with soap in a fantasy sequence. I bet Rod had that same smile Ralphie did when he wrote that last sentence).
The only thing this doesn't include is a denunciation of his dead sister (whose death he cashed in on for a book, which still leads him to wonder why her family doesn't seem to like him) for being mean to him all those years. I will note that he's gotten increasingly testy the past few days - everyone has to choose between Rod's BO and the diabolos (no, I'm not kidding. Picture Dana Carvey looking into the camera as the Church Lady and saying "Could it be... SATAN???). If you're not breathing in his BO, you're on the side of the Devil.
I think someone should start the Mosquito Coast/New Jonestown countdown clock. When the world wrongs Rod Dreher yet again by not falling on its knees in awe of his brilliance, Rod will fall ever deeper into a pit of despair. Count on it.
I developed chronic mononucleosis sometime in the late spring or early summer of 2010. It was a time in which my sister was diagnosed with terminal cancer....
ReplyDeleteMan, she was just also one-upping him, wasn't she? But he'll show her... HE'LL SHOW EVERYONE! He will develop lymphoma, even if it kills him!
Wait....
Meant to write "always one-upping". Anyway....
DeleteI realize this comment of mine is a snark. But it's practically a pre-assembled snark that comes ready-made from his NFR.
My dad used to contrast two people he knew from his church. One guy was always talking about every ache and pain and how rough his life was. His wife had kicked him out for cheating and other things, and all he did was moan about his sorry state.
The other guy was basically an arthritic cripple whose hands were all gnarled up, but all he did was ask about you and how your family was doing. He was in obvious pain, but he never took you there.
One guy looked inward, the other guy looked outward. Inward versus outward. Just like the Benedict Option versus Real Life.
Those two guys your dad described = perfect illustrations. Thank you, Pauli!!
DeleteYou joke about one-upping, but here's a true story: only an hour or two after I read your comment, I was in a conversation with a woman who has stage IV cancer. She was talking about sharing scan and test results with relatives. There's one sister-in-law, she said, to whom she does not report those results. Of her, she said, laughing, "She's a one-upper. You know what I mean . . . maybe every family has a one-upper like her . . . "
DeleteOh my gosh, yes, I know people exactly like that. Exactly, to the letter.
DeleteAs an aside, in that thread that Anon noted, Dreher gives us insight into the "professional obligations" he faces in moderating his comments:
ReplyDelete[NFR: Believe me, I would moderate it more closely than I do, but I feel an obligation to moderate it no more strictly than I have to -- meaning that I post a lot of comments that I'd rather not, but feel a professional obligation to do. -- RD]
See, his combox could be even more self-serving, but for those darn professional obligations. And then there's this -- you kinky pathetic losers will know who you are:
[NFR: Well, to be honest, it's much less heavily moderated today than it was in the first years I was doing it, back at Beliefnet. People learn over time that if they come here and act like jerks, their stuff is not going to be published, and they may even be banned. Eventually they give up, but you would be surprised by the resilience of the trolls. There are people who were banned here years ago who keep trying to come back under different names. I can only shake my head at what kind of pathetic loser is so obsessed with the comments thread of a blog that he goes to lengths to disguise himself as someone else to participate. I guess people have their kinks, but that's a particular weird one, at least to me. -- RD]
(Heck, I just forget from time to time which name I used to try and comment over there.)
But to think that his Beliefnet blog was more moderated than his TAC blog is now? I seriously doubt that -- what do y'all think?
Control freaks are always delusional. And nasty.
DeleteMight I add that Dreher's NFRs about those who dare to disagree with his fine ideas are in the combox of his post on vicious comments made online re: the untimely passing of Beau Biden.
DeleteThe implicit payload being, of course, that the comments he blocks are the moral equivalent of despicable attacks on the dead.