What could possibly explain Alasdair MacIntyre's regret?

One of our faithful Anonymous commenters deserves recognition (although he/she obviously doesn't want any) for linking to an interview between a liberal protestant theologian, Stanley Hauerwas, and someone from Bruderhof a quasi-commune of sorts. My main interest is the exchange right at the beginning:

Peter Mommsen: You’ve written extensively about how the church should respond to the “end of Christendom” – the fact that we no longer live in a culture whose ground rules stem from Christianity. What about the “Benedict Option” proposed by the writer Rod Dreher? He argues that Christians should respond to secularization by following the example of the early monastics, withdrawing from a heathen civilization to build alternative communities where Christian virtues can be nourished and passed on. Is he right?

Standley Hauerwas: This Benedict Option idea comes from the last line of Alasdair MacIntyre’s book After Virtue, in which he observes that the barbarians have been ruling us for some time and that our future is “no doubt to have a Benedict, no doubt a very different Benedict.” Here’s the problem: Alasdair once told me that this is the line he most regrets ever having written! He wasn’t advocating some kind of withdrawal strategy – he was only pointing out that we can’t be compromised by the world in which we find ourselves. I don’t think your community, the Bruderhof, takes a withdrawal strategy, for instance.

I think it is appropriate to underscore MacIntyre's entire disapproval of the Benedict Option as well as his recognition for what it is, in the words of his theologian friend Stanley Hauerwas, "some kind of withdrawal strategy." Everybody using common English parlance recognizes two things: one, the intention of Alasdair MacIntyre's quip in After Virtue was not a fugit mundi and two, Rod Dreher's Benedict Option—if it is anything more than hashtag Christianity or fodder for a grad school mint julep fueled bull session—is most definitely a flight from the world, albeit with a few oddments crammed into one's pockets. Examples of the oddments would seem to include Diamond Dogs by David Bowie, Bitch by the Rolling Stones, a bottle of trendy French wine and a cell-phone photo of a one-legged stripper. Among other things.

Somewhere on the internets there is an article by a Benedict Option devotee wondering in print if MacIntyre was ever going to "break his silence" on the whole Benedict Option concept. I think the silence spoke loudly enough that, in the words of T. S. Eliot, it had the equivalence to a "That is not what I meant at all; that is not it, at all", and the development of the quasi-monastic lifestyle choice called the Benedict Option was based on a misperception of his original words. To put it mildly.

....What they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognising fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct [one characterized by moral incoherence and unsettlable moral disputes in the modern world], we ought to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another—doubtless very different—St. Benedict. (Source.)

Each Christian man or woman of good will must ultimately judge whether this paragraph has anything to do with the upcoming book about craft beer, communes, trips to Italy, photos of restaurant tables and thick glasses lying on stacks of books, etc. Personally I think MacIntyre would join the chorus of other thinkers we've noted—Bruce Frohnen, Joseph Shaw, John Zmirak (several times actually), Brendan Eich, Austin Ruse, William Briggs and Father Richard Heilman—and shout in unison: "BATS AREN'T BUGS!"

Well, if he were a shouting type of guy. By the way, yYou can add my voice to the mix as well if you'd like. That's my original thought on why we don't need the Benedict Option, or already have it and just don't use it enough.

It is worthy to note that the Bruderhof community is exactly the kind of group that cracks me up as much as Rod Dreher's silliness does. At one and the same time, they publish left-wing condemnations of private property as evil in and of itself and boast of the prime real-estate they own on their web-site. It's a cushy life-style; it reminds me one of my favorite scenes ever.



"You don't care about money because you have it."

Go-to Guy For Miracles

If a miracle happens in your church and you go directly to Rod Dreher with the news, are you trying to vet the authenticity, or are you going for maximum publicity? I report you decide. It's instructive to note what sort of pops out at me: the repeated use of the word Catholic. Four times in the original article post, once in the comments. I thought Mr. Dreher was an Orthodox Christian now? If so, what does he care about what the Catholics might say about an internal matter? Let's see:

After a couple of visits, we received an invitation to a party at the Archbishop’s house, after the Dormition feast. I felt divided about this. For one, I didn’t want to go to a fancy archbishop’s house. For another, I had had enough of bishops and archbishops, men who had wrecked the Catholic Church. I didn’t want to get mixed up with an Orthodox one.

Oh, OK. My bad. The use of the word Catholic is just a bonus leveraging of the story to once again bash the Catholic Bishops and Archbishops who had "wrecked the Catholic Church". Got it.

Some people asked me in emails "What's with the picture?" They wondered why his  head is covered. This caused me to search the terms incorrupt Dallas and I found much better pics here. Check this one out.

Looks a little bit nastier. And a lot less blurry than this one which is one being circulated the most. Love to get a face shot, but alas. One commenter notes: "The photographs look like a decaying corpse to me. Trust me, I know what dead bodies looks like. Haven't you people seen corruption before?"

And yes! You noticed it too. It's sort of like this phenomenon, I guess. Some people see red vestments, others see gold. Another commenter asks: "Can you please explain why the change of vestments? One photo shows Vladika Dimitry buried in gold vestments and another photo shows him in red. Was it changed from gold to red, because he is being proclaimed a Saint? Or was he buried in red and now is in gold? I'm wanting to explain this appropriately to others in my community." So I guess we're looking for another miracle of auto-changing vestments on top of the semi-incorruptibly.

Maybe Archbishop Dmitri, née Robert Royster, was a saint. I'll leave any doubts about that for the comment section; the truth will out as they say. But honestly, OCA, you are going to let Rod Dreher of the weeping statues, Rod Dreher of the family ghosts, Rod Dreher of Muzhik fame be the person to prematurely announce to the world your latest miracle?

Here's something else worthy to report. The Pravoslavie link with all the interesting pictures states the source for the photos as being this link on Facebook. Going to the FB page reveals an update:

Dear Friends,
Today, I have been asked by OCA Metropolitan Tikhon “to immediately remove this post an all images associated with it”.
Also, I am “forbidden to post any pictures of Archbishop Dmitri without permission of the Holy Synod” (!)
It worth noting, that being a citizen of a free country, on my personal page I will continue posting everything I want, as long as it is legal ant true. However, out of obedience and respect of the office of the Metropolitan I choose to follow his order at this time.
Thus, some pictures and parts of the text will be removed.
As I stated before, all pictures of the Archbishop Dmitri’s re-interment that are in my possession will be forwarded to proper Church authorities for consideration, and I expect them to inform us about their findings.
Yesterday we put Archbishop Dmitri in his final resting place in St. Seraphim Cathedral in Dallas.
I was blessed to be a part of a team, which uncovers Vladika’s earthly remains and transfers them into new coffin to be buried in the crypt of the Resurrection Chapel and probably should offer some comments about these events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------/CENSORED/-------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few personal notes:
Obviously, I was glad to see Vladika's body incorrupt, but be it otherwise, it would not affect my opinion about his sanctity at all.
The body of St Seraphim of Sarov, the Patron of our Cathedral, was corrupted, but it does not change the fact that he is one of the most beloved Saints around the world.
We all know that incorrupt body alone is not the reason of glorification.
Knowing Vladika for 11 years, seeing fruits of his life in the Lord, I personally convinced that he is a Saint. I believe that there are many more people all over the country, who share that conviction.
There is no decision of any group of people, respected (or not) would be able to change that. If his body will be corrupted in two, 20 or 200 years (as some may wish), or will start to stream myrrh (as others may desire) it will not be changed.
No one can stop me or anyone else from addressing Vladika Dmitri in payer, and feel his response and intercession; same way as many others all around US feel his love and help.
All pictures I made during transfer of Archbishop Dmitri body will be forwarded to proper Church authorities together with my written statement for consideration.

So the plot thickens. It seems like a lot of this publicity wasn't welcome by the OCA, or maybe they had second thoughts when the thing got pimped by D Magazine, Wick Allison's other rag. It is worthy to note that the official article from the OCA on the reinterment doesn't mention the alleged incorruptibility of the Archbishop's corpse. At this point, the whole thing is purely a santo subito phenomenon.

Personally I had no idea that myrrh-streaming was even on the table. But I sort of appreciate the hedging of the bet here pointing out that the Archbishop's corpse may be corrupted at some time down the road even though it's incorrupt now. Some miracles obviously have a time limit. I mean, gee whiz, does anyone expect that the Red Sea is still parted?

But going back to the Dreher post, can anyone not see why we roll our eyes when he writes stuff like these paragraphs:

But we went anyway, showing up on a rainy August afternoon at the address on the card. It turned out to be not a palatial residence, but the modest two-story woodframe house behind the cathedral. Could this house, with the paint peeling, really be where the Archbishop of Dallas and the South lives? I knocked on the door, and in we walked, with our kids.

...

It was a family dinner. That’s how it struck us. Archbishop Dmitri, born Robert Royster in Teague, Texas, was the opposite of everything I had come to expect in a bishop. He was humble and kind and gentle. He loved his people, and his people loved him. I remember thinking how good it would be to be led by such a man.

Love and peeling paint, such a great combo. So, unlike Catholics who don't love their Bishops and don't receive any love from them, Orthodox Christians love their Bishop but can't keep his house in good repair. I've never seen peeling paint in any Catholic clergyman's house. The people of the parish won't stand for that. Or is love manifested in gushing words about supposed sanctity rather than concrete deeds? I was rather of the impression that Christ taught the opposite.

In which I (Kathleen) get Dreherrific

"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Matthew 23:4

----
I volunteered to help teach music at a Catholic school, so on Saturday I was required to attend a training session called "Protecting God's Children". They didn't show the film credits to my class, but it looked like it was produced by the Catholic diocese in Kansas or Oklahoma . Much of the session consisted of watching a film with the usual plot points -- horrible stories narrated by survivors, previous offenders detailing how they groomed children, and apologetic bishops confessing they didn't do enough to prevent child sex abuse in the church. OH, WAIT. Scratch that last one.

The film presented about five examples of child molestation, which were as follows:

male skating teacher molests underage girls
female teacher molests female student
male camp counselor molests male student
ten year old boy molests five year old boy
priest molests underage girl


In other words, according to my diocese and any diocese who shows this film to lay Catholic employees/volunteers, anyone -- even a ten year old -- can be a child sex abuser. And I suppose technically this is true; the nice kid next door could indeed be a predator fiend. But in light of recent events, is this REALLY the message Catholic dioceses want to send to lay people involved with the Church? "You're just as suspect as we are"? Were bishops frantically covering up for Catholic *lay* people accused of molestation, assuming there were any accused in any significant number? There was a very brief, watery mention of how American bishops and clergy fell short protecting children for, oh, several decades (interestingly it was stated in the passive tense, e.g. "not enough was done…") Frankly, I find it pretty rich that lay Catholic volunteers are forced to sit through a three hour training which not only makes barely any mention of how Catholic bishops nationwide have fallen short protecting children, but points the finger at everyone else in the community as possible culprits.

The training then went on to discuss observing signs of sexual abuse in victims' behavior, and how to avoid being accused of molestation. For example, if a child wants to hug you, you are supposed to "swivel" to the side and just leave your arm across their shoulders. In other words, an entirely new level of paranoia and distrust is introduced before any interaction with children has even taken place. It's very easy to argue this training is unfortunate but necessary. However, I wonder at what point things become so unpleasant and tense people just stop interacting with children anymore. Certainly, given the atmosphere created by "training sessions" like this, if any child were molested, he'd be hard pressed to get a private moment with a paranoid but innocent adult who might be able to help him out. That sad fact alone makes the training somewhat counter-productive.

Obviously the filmmakers went out of their way to illustrate every possible permutation of child sex abuse. Nothing, according to this film, is typical of child sex abuse. But as we know from priest abuse cases, there are patterns. For example, in the case of priests, 80% of the sex abuse was against underage males. So, is it an unhappy coincidence that in the film the only example of priest sex abuse shown involved an underage girl? Seriously?! The one case you are going to cop to in your training, O Catholic poobahs, is going to be totally atypical? WHY IS THAT, EXACTLY? To quote Led Zeppelin, "oooh and it makes me wonder…"

The training leader failed to mention that the Kansas City bishop was just indicted for concealing the fact that a priest had child porn on his computer. I find it amazing that this recent news story wasn't brought up, even though it was completely topical. I guess it's not a fact the bishops want advertised -- but that's just the problem isn't it? They want this stuff to go away. It's pretty clear that for American bishops, concealment and deflection is still the order of the day.

I can hear the plaintive cry now: "But what are the bishops supposed to dooooo? They are between a rock and a hard place." Here's a start: if bishops insist on making the primary thrust of their training "everyone does it", include a big old dose of mea culpa and "here's what we did wrong". This would necessarily amount to more than half a sentence in the passive tense per three hour training session. Also, they should consider hiring a public relations firm that knows what the hell they are doing. It's a sad day when Madison Avenue has more self-awareness than Catholic clergy, but here we are.