3. The Benedict Option

[John]

3. The Benedict Option is often described in book reviews as proposing a retreat from society into new monastic-type communities. Is that an accurate description? Why or why not?

[Mariangel]

He is proposing a retreat from society, but in a cultural way: creating close ties with other Christian families, developing an order in our living to make God a central part of our daily life, and avoiding as possible the influence from those currents in society that are inimical to God's plan for the family and the person.

Some people he mentions have indeed moved together (some of them changed jobs) and formed small town communities. But others (a neighborhood in Washington that he mentions) stayed where they lived, but revived a failing school by transforming it into a Classic Christian school. The community has grown around the school, as families created ties, but as I understood they keep the homes and jobs they used to have.

[Mariangel]

In chapter 3, called a Rule for Living, Dreher talks about how to center our life around Christ, by means of Order, Prayer, Work, Asceticism, etc. As another goodreads reviewer mentions, all of this is in Kempis (or we could also add the "Introduction to the Devout Life", or "A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life", for example). It is probably a good reminder to many people, though.

I haven't read articles discussing the book: is this particular chapter something that is criticized as going too far in asking families to become like monks?

I see why he is naming his plan after St. Benedict, but he could call it after many other saints too.

[Manuel]

Mariangel wrote: "In chapter 3, called a Rule for Living, Dreher talks about how to center our life around Christ, by means of Order, Prayer, Work, Asceticism, etc. As another goodreads reviewer mentions, all of this is in Kempis..."

I would also say that all of this is in "The city of God" of St. Augustine about the two cities, the city of God and the city of the World, which coexist on Earth, and interpenetrate one another. The city of the world is amoral; it can be good (if it submits to the city of God) or bad (if it is opposed to it). Sometimes it becomes devilish. A Christian must be a citizen of the city of God, and if possible use the city of the world, or live apart from it otherwise.

In Dynamics of World History, second part, section 2, chapter 2, there is an article ("St.Augustine & the city of God") where this is explained in detail.

[JH]

Rod Dreher has it all wrong. If there was someone who did not practice the Benedict Option, it was St. Benedict himself.

He established his main monastery in Monte Cassino, which was on one of the great highways to southern Italy. This brought the place into frequent communication with the outside pagan world. Saint Benedict confronted and actively engaged the culture. In fact, he himself overthrew the idols in the region, burned down their sacred forest and converted the population to the Faith. He built Monte Cassino on the site of a pagan temple, and composed there his famous Rule to govern his communities.

His monasteries not only defied the dominant decadent culture but actually became centers of influence and culture themselves wherever they were established. Even in Benedict’s time, the monks established schools for the poor, developed agriculture and preached to the people. At the same time, however, Benedictine monasteries, including Monte Cassino, never lived happily ever after in peace since they had to ward off the constant attacks of barbarians and adversaries.

[John]

JH wrote: "Rod Dreher has it all wrong. If there was someone who did not practice the Benedict Option, it was St. Benedict himself.

He established his main monastery in Monte Cassino, which was on one of th..."

What is your source, JH? I am certainly not an expert on St. Benedict, but I took a quick look and the information I found on line sees to match up pretty well with what Dreher describes.

More importantly, other than some details you add about burning forests, I don't think you actually describe anything different than what Dreher suggests. Benedict left his studies in Rome, disgusted with the dissolute life he saw there. He founded monasteries and a Rule (borrowed heavily from John Cassian) which involved creating communities in which men could live authentic Christian lives apart from the rest of society, yet also connected with society.

[JH]

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a very good account of his life.
Ironically, St. Benedict did try the Benedict option when he first left Rome and went to Subiaco and founded some isolated monasteries there. The world followed him and immoral women were sent there to tempt his monks. He left the wilderness and went to Monte Casino where he was very engaged in the culture. Even then, they were not left in peace. Soon after his death, the monastery was sacked and destroyed in 580.
The point is that you need to engage the culture. NOT live in Arks (Dreher's own metaphor) waiting out the flood!

[John]

JH wrote: "The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a very good account of his life.
Ironically, St. Benedict did try the Benedict option when he first left Rome and went to Subiaco and founded some isolated monaster..."

Thank you. I think you misunderstand Dreher. Monte Cassino was a place where men separated themselves from the world to live a more perfect Christian life, which they were then able to communicate to the world. They lived separate, but not isolated, from the world. That is how I read Dreher. I don't read the Benedict Option as saying we should all quit our jobs, travel to remote wilderness and live in isolation from the world.

What we are doing now is failing miserably. Survey after survey shows Catholics no different than the rest of society in their views on abortion, premarital sex, contraception, etc. Living fully in society doesn't seem to be working so well.

[JH]

Rod Dreher is very clear in the first chapter of the book. He claims we have lost the culture war and we need to retreat into Arks against the impending liberal flood. If he means something else, then he needs to change his opening metaphor.
This ark mentality is very discouraging to all who fight the culture war especially the pro-lifers, homeschoolers and others who have won many battles against all odds.
The Church has always fought against the errors of the time. We are called to fight these errors and we sanctify ourselves doing so.
Most Catholics in the surveys mentioned fail in today's society because they have not fought against the errors of the time. These same survey Catholics would not join a Benedict Option.

[Manuel]

This book we are commenting and others in the same line (as Senior's book) start from a parallel between the Roman Empire and the present time. In fact, there are such parallels, as many historians have pointed. However, I think these authors make a historical mistake.

In the Roman Empire, after the great persecution by Diocletian and his partners, between 303 and 313, the next century there was a triumph of Christianity, with several important names, such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo. The fifth century witnessed the political collapse of the Western Roman Empire, which can be considered started around 410 with the sack of Rome.

Benedict of Nursia lived in the sixth century and founded his first monasteries around 530. He lived thus almost two centuries after Athanasius and over one century after Augustin.

Our current civilization is not so far advanced. We have not yet suffered a great persecution, although there are symptoms, as those people who tweet asking for certain Christians to be massacred. It is true that history is accelerating (or so they say), but what happened in Rome in two centuries should take at least a few decades in our time.

I really think that we should try to produce new Athanasius and new Augustines before we try to produce new Benedicts.

[Madeleine]

Manuel wrote: " In the Roman Empire, after the great persecution by Diocletian and his partners, between 303 and 313, the next century there was a triumph of Christianity, with several important names, such as Athanasius of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo. The fifth century witnessed the political collapse of the Western Roman Empire, which can be considered started around 410 with the sack of Rome. "

I was remembering that period also while reading this chapter. So many well-known saints and martyrs from that period, many of whom have appeared to later saints at different critical times in history. I agree, we need a new Athanasius, Augustine, or Catherine of Siena or Joan of Arc to step up to the plate! Someone even brought that up in our last Bible study when we digressed into a discussion of the current scandals. I'm still not sure if I agree with all of Dreher's analysis of our modern situation and how we got here....

[JH]

What also concerns me about the book is that there are very few Catholic things in it. There is no real mention of Our Lady who is essential in any kind of solution. There is no mention of the Rosary, a powerful weapon in the hands of the faithful. There seems to be little understanding of the role of Grace in souls as something transformative. It is very disappointing from a Catholic perspective, although understandable since Rod Dreher is not Catholic.

[Manuel]

JH wrote: "There is no real mention of Our Lady who is essential in any kind of solution... It is very disappointing from a Catholic perspective, although understandable since Rod Dreher is not Catholic."

Orthodox are not so different from Catholics in this.

[JH]

I know! They have icons to Our Lady. But there is no mention of this in the book. Perhaps he did not want to offend Protestant readers...

[Fonch]

Manuel wrote: "This book we are commenting and others in the same line (as Senior's book) start from a parallel between the Roman Empire and the present time. In fact, there are such parallels, as many historians..."

Well as you write about History i am going to write my only comment in this discussion. I am sorry i can not participate in this discussion because the book was not translated to Spanish. Although i comented with my friend Alfonseca that this book reminds to me powerfuly to Andrew Senior, and a very interesting writer that it is is possible that some of us did not know him Nikolai Berdiaeff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai... was a russian emigrated a white russian during the Soviet Revolution. He defended a return to the Medieval Age. I totally agree that Rod Dreher has an important doubt with John Senior, certainly Senior spoke of the Saint Mary Virgin, and he considered capital.
Well really the monasticism started in the 3th and 4th century in Egypt we have the case of Saint Anthony, whose life was writen by Athanasius. Indeed there are other rules of Saint Basil, and Saint Pacomius, and these rules were adapted by Saint Benedict of Nursia. About Saint Agustin his writings were essential to create a rules following his writings. The problem is that he must suffer with the appearing of Dominicans and Franciscans. It is an evidence that we will have to think something to the novel a "Canticle of Saint Leibowitz" but not at this moment, althouh is good that is appearing book like these, and other projects, but i have the impression that these will have more importance in the future. At this moment the persecution is to spread the laicism in western to ridiculize and atacks the Catholic Church with mocks and insult and increasing the laycism, but i think that we suffer a persecution soon at leas in Europe and it is happening in Comunist countries, muslims countries, and in India. About this book i understand that there are people that they do not support the pressure of these world and they want to escape of the evil of the world. There was a german writer Ernst Wiechert that he supported this project, but i defend the Newman`s idea because we must interact in this world because there is not glory without peril and we must do good actions to get the salvation of our souls. Between this agnostics, atheist, or anticatholic people are relatives and friends sumarazing our neighbor and we can not quit them. We must follow the parable of the wasted talent and love to the people mocks, scorns, and hates because if we only love to our beloved persons we have not an especial gift. We must the salt of this earth.

[John]

JH wrote: "What also concerns me about the book is that there are very few Catholic things in it. There is no real mention of Our Lady who is essential in any kind of solution. There is no mention of the Rosa..."

I think it is clear that Dreher wrote his book for all orthodox (small "o") Christians.

[John]

One of the interesting criticisms that Handle (the post I linked to in the Introduction thread) has with Dreher is that in selecting Benedict, Dreher is perhaps choosing the wrong era as a parallel. Unlike the sixth century in which Benedict lived, we are not faced with a collapse of empire and the break up of centralized government, but with an increasingly hostile central government that seems motivated by an ideology that drives it to control every level of society and that now has the tools to do it.

[Manuel]

John wrote: "One of the interesting criticisms that Handle (the post I linked to in the Introduction thread) has with Dreher is that in selecting Benedict, Dreher is perhaps choosing the wrong era as a parallel..."

Yes, that's exactly what I meant in a previous comment. We are now much closer to the time of the Diocletian persecution.

[Kerstin]

I haven't quite finished reading it, but I am becoming a little tired of his never-ending "we have to do this, we have to do that" - in so many words.
I am thinking that the detachment from regular society is something we as Christians are to do anyway. We have to become more deliberate about it. We all know that we won't get any support from the prevailing culture. I have yet to read "City of God", so I can't comment in this direction. The long to-do lists he essentially makes are doomed to failure and on the flip side have the potential of becoming tyrannical.

Now as to how to be more deliberate, his focus on preserving and passing on our Western heritage, he is spot on.

I also think that his focus on liturgy is spot on too. We as Catholics have a lot of work to do still, depending on where you're at. In my parish, there are still a bunch of geriatric hippies who haven't retired yet, so the guitars and drums are still cluttering the church. I don't go to those Masses. Shudder!!! We know that the more reverential and the more authentically sacred the music is, the more spiritual gain you have. Without this returning to authentically sacred and spiritually sound worship we won't have much chance of effecting much of anything.

[Jill]

I like the fact that he uses two different water-related images, not only Noah's ark but also Ezekiel's stream flowing out of the temple to vivify everyone along its route. He is not proposing isolating ourselves behind walls but creatively exploring ways to live together a more authentic Christian life.

[Madeleine]

A couple of quotes from the book that struck a chord with me:

Ch. 2 The Roots of the Crisis:
(John Adams) "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Ch. 3 A Rule for Living
"....ordering one's actions is really about training one's heart to love and to desire the right things, the things that are real, without having to think about it. It is acquiring virtue as a habit."

And I'm still reading it.....but have already started the next one!