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".

Keith interviews Keith about Rod Dreher, his Benedict Option and much more

I found the standard just set by journalist Rod Dreher in interviewing himself about his Benedict Option to be a handy and highly efficient way to get directly to the heart of things while keeping the distractions of inappropriate questions to an absolute minimum.

Keith: A few disaffected voices claim you're critical of Rod Dreher and his Benedict Option, although most people would argue you're more than fair when it comes to those subjects. What say you?

Keith: Oh, I quite agree.

:

Keith: What about his self-interviewing technique, the one we're currently employing ourselves?

Keith: It's pretty obvious, isn't it? It's absolutely critical for successfully resolving the Benedict Option, particularly in the post-cognitive culture we find ourselves in today.

:

Keith: So, can you tell us what Rod Dreher's Benedict Option is?

Keith: No, I'm afraid not, but that's because it's Rod Dreher's Benedict Option, not Keith's Benedict Option, and, like Rod himself says, "there is no formula!". So we're simply going to have to pass Rod Dreher's Benedict Option to find out what's in it. For better or worse, though, you will be assuming the consequences of testing out Rod's blogging ideas on yourself and your children and letting others know whether they're better or worse than what you're doing now, not I.

:

Keith: Wait a minute: I am you, so neither of us will be testing anything.

Keith: I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I believe you've checkmated me on that one. Let's just agree to disagree and move on to the next question, shall we?

:

Keith: Very well, now that we've exhausted all possible questions concerning your treatment of Rod Dreher and his Benedict Option, if you were a tree, what kind would you be?

Keith: Man, you're ruthless! Okay. Let me think. Offhand, I'd say an oak, because that was the original answer to the original what-kind-of-tree-are-you interview question, plus oaks are majestic and strong, so it's just plain cool to say "oak", but you know? There's nothing quite like a lonesome pine soaring into the evening sky, silhouetted against the setting sun.