Gabriel Sanchez is not writing a book on the Benedict Option
Just glanced over at Opus Publicum and saw this post referencing an "ever-expanding book manuscript" on which the blogger is working.
Last Friday I gave a talk on integralism for a Catholic men’s group here in Grand Rapids. It was my fourth talk for them, the most “popular” being my lengthy lecture on the (in)compatibility of libertarianism with Catholicism. Much of what I had to say was built upon articles, blog posts, and my ever-expanding book manuscript. At the outset of the talk, I half-jokingly said that integralism is nothing more than Catholics following what the Church has always taught, not just with respect to politics and society, but all facets of natural and supernatural life. It became clear to me over the course of my 90-minute speaking engagement that I wasn’t saying anything “new.” That is, I was not attempting to advance a pet ideology or catchy socio-cultural posture; I was imply explaining, inter alia, the relationship of spiritual and temporal authority; the social kingship of Christ; and the duty of all Catholics to follow divine and natural law, even when they conflict with civil positive law.
So Gabriel Sanchez claims that he's not "saying anything new" or "attempting to advance a pet ideology or catchy socio-cultural posture". I take him at his word and from this I conclude that he is not writing a book about The Benedict Option. We'll call his words "the new standard disclaimer".
Given the number of Benedict Option drafts and counter-proposals in play, Sanchez is probably wise not to allow himself to become lost in the clutter.
ReplyDeleteAs far as trees go, I understand Sanchez to be something of a storm-tossed one, heaving this way and that as the winds blow, although I myself wouldn't be in any position to judge his expertise on integralism, at least during those periods when he is a Catholic one.
Me, I would have to say live oak with the occasional insouciant notes of jumping cholla.
Commenter "bc" nails it in the Trump-Clinton debate thread, and Rod gives us just the NFR we'd expect.
ReplyDelete“Ain’t nothin’ left for us religious conservatives but the Benedict Option.” – It’s funny how much you promote yourself and your books. You are more of a self-promoter than Trump, I do believe, and, from your various world-traveling posts here, you seem to enjoy the elite fruits of our western civilization far too much to be willing to make the sacrifices of comfort and ease that a true Benedict Option would entail.
[NFR: OK, hon, I’ll put you down for three copies, then. — RD]
Another of Rod's commenters has made the point that, if taken seriously, the BenOp requires sacrifices that it's proponents are more than likely unwilling to make:
Delete"Gromaticus says:
July 8, 2015 at 3:26 pm
We should be able to adapt the Benedict Option to urban and suburban life.
Well sure, if you want to have your quenelles and eat them too. But if you seriously come to the conclusion that the greater culture is hostile to Christianity, then there has to be a moral imperative for the Christian to withdrawal support from that culture....I don’t see how one can make the argument to flee the philosophy Babylon while still relishing in it’s comforts without risking that the whole experiment take on an air of dilettantism."
That Gromaticus guys makes a good point...I suspect that, along with being intelligent, he is charming and handsome as well :)
-Anonymous Maximus
Lol! ;)
Delete