I got a Google News alert about The Benedict Option, tipping me off to this column by an Australian Jesuit criticizing the concept. He wrote, in part:

A few years ago in the United States, marked by greater polarisation and consequently sharper judgment of particular social trends, such disgust led media commentator Rod Dreher to propose the Benedict option. At that time a recent convert to Catholicism, he was appalled by the collapse of support for traditional marriage, the tolerance of abortion and the pressure for gay marriage. Untypically, he associated these trends with the excesses of economic liberalism, militarism and corporate greed. The Benedict option, named after the fifth century Catholic saint who founded monasteries and whose Rule has been adapted by monastic movements throughout Western Europe, invited Catholics in particular to withdraw as far as possible from society. They were to form intentional communities held together by such practices as common prayer and home education for children.

Where to begin with this? The priest couldn’t possibly have read The Benedict Option, because in it, I make clear that I am an Orthodox Christian. I have not been Catholic since 2006, as most people who read me know. Second, I do not “invite Catholics in particular to withdraw as far as possible from society” — a concept the priest later mischaracterizes as my proposing a “carefree” escape.

The book was published over four years ago, and I still have to deal with these bad faith takes. As is perfectly clear from the text of the book itself, and from many things I’ve written about it, I propose Benedict Option communities for Christians (Catholics and otherwise) who live within society, so they can hold on more firmly to their faith even as they live and move within post-Christian, and increasingly anti-Christian, society. Of course the concept is open to criticism, and I welcome criticism. But criticize what I actually propose, not the straw man you think I propose! 

At this point, I am almost of the belief that this is intended as misdirection to prevent Catholics and others from defending themselves. It so happened that also in this morning’s e-mail I received the latest Letter (N0. 66) from Robert Moynihan (archives here), writing from Rome about the Catholic Church. In it, Dr. Moynihan publishes this text from a reader [emphases in the original]:

Benedict XVI’s Confession

By Michel Eduardo Beleza Yamagishi

July 25, 2021

I hold that Benedict XVI’s letter, “The Church and the scandals of sexual abuse,” contains a concealed Confession.

The manuscript was masterly written and intertwines distinct thoughts in a single piece which makes its reading somewhat challenging.

In this note, Benedict XVI has addressed extensively the sexual scandals, but his conclusion disappointed many experts and could be resumed in a brief sentence: the sexual scandals are just one among other symptoms of a moral decay in the hierarchy which resulted from the changes in the moral teaching of the Church. No new insight at all.

Still, his letter has another important theme. From its very title, one should recognize that Benedict XVI is mainly concerned with “The Church,” and the sexual scandals are just but one (horrendous) sign of something terribly wrong within Her.

He starts by saying: “I try to show that in the 1960s an egregious event occurred, on a scale unprecedented in history.”

He cites only two events.

One outside The Church, the “sexual freedom movement” of 1968 and the other, the Second Vatican Council (SVC).

Regrettably, he did not say which one was the “egregious event.”

The chronology seems to point toward the Second Vatican Council because it took place before 1968.

Additionally, Benedict XVI asserts that the Second Vatican Council was a turning point in the Catholic moral theology: “Until the Second Vatican Council, Catholic moral theology was largely founded on natural law,” but afterwards “the natural law option was largely abandoned.” Post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this so because of this”) is an ancient fallacy, but one is tempted to ask whether the sexual freedom movement was actually an unintended collateral effect of the Second Vatican Council, at least in the ex-Catholic countries.

Benedict XVI is not only worried about the change in the moral teaching of The Church. It gives the impression that he had in mind something even worse than moral decay. Something that was so overwhelming that it requires “a new beginning” (“what I could contribute to a new beginning”).

A careful reading of his text shows that Benedict XVI actually reveals the origin of all problems. He openly confesses that his generation created “another” Church: “What must be done? Perhaps we should create another Church for things to work out? Well, that experiment has already been undertaken and has already failed.”

I should stress that they did create “another Church,” and its failure does not mean that it is over, but it did not deliver a “better” Church. Only those who, like Benedict XVI, knew the Church before the Second Vatican Council can understand this statement in full. For they were baptized in one Church and they will die in another, without ever leaving the former. Arguably this event has no precedent in History. Romano Amerio wrote a magnificent book (Iota Unum) enumerating a long list of changes in the Catholic Church during the 20th century. Amerio died in 1997. If he were alive, I guess he would say that the Church has changed beyond any recognition. She is disfigured (the parallel between the Church nowadays and the Suffering Servant was originally proposed by Giuseppe Cardinal Siri in his book Gethsemane). “The experiment” is a historical fact. Nobody in good faith can deny that.

Benedict XVI’s words suggest that “the experiment” reached a point of no return where only a “new beginning” of the Church will do.

For the record, this is not the first time that human beings believed that we could make a “better” Church. The history of the Mystical Body of Christ is full of this kind of vanity. Though, since the Arian heresy, no other attempt to change the Church was so profound and long-lasting.

Benedict XVI’s confession is important because he was one of the enthusiasts of “the experiment.” He was not one of the architects, but he undeniably played a significant role. It took time, but the bad fruits of their “experiment” forced him to realize that he was duped by that longstanding temptation, and he bitterly concluded: “it is rather obvious that we do not need another Church of our own design.”

It should have broken his heart to write: “My books were considered unsuitable for the priesthood. My books were hidden away, like bad literature, and only read under the desk.” In the seminaries of “the experiment” his books were included in the post-Christian index librorum prohibitorum where, now, most of the Catholic literature is proscribed.

By the way, why did Benedict XVI tell this? The Truth is censured by “the experiment,” and Benedict XVI knows that firsthand. Probably, his last texts are so enigmatic just to reach the press (remembering those seven letters found in the Apocalypse of St. John which only Christians could understand. Only at that time the censure came from outside).

The Truth cannot be proclaimed out loud anymore, but: “It is very important to oppose the lies and half-truths of the devil with the whole truth.” (cf. John 8,32)

Benedict XVI wrote many phrases that hint at his despair: “The Church is dying in souls,” “Indeed, the Church today is widely regarded as just some kind of political apparatus,” “But a self-made Church cannot constitute hope,” “Indeed, the weeds in God’s field, the Church, are excessively visible, and the evil fish in the net also show their strength,” “Yes, there is sin in the Church and evil,” “Today’s Church is more than ever a ‘Church of the Martyrs’ and thus a witness to the living God,” “It was necessary to send out a strong message, and seek out a new beginning, so to make the Church again truly credible as a light among peoples and as a force in service against the powers of destruction.”

What went so wrong? “The experiment” was supposed to renew the Church, but it almost eclipsed Her instead.

Against all odds, Benedict XVI reaffirmed the Catholic dogma: “But even today there is the Holy Church, which is indestructible.”

Indeed, the only reason why the Church was not definitively destroyed is because She is not from this world.

Unfortunately, “the experiment” is still running. Both the “Holy Church” and “the experiment” coexist, and probably they will do for a while.

At this point, one may think that my reading of Benedict XVI’s letter is farfetched. In my defense I cite Benedict XVI own unambiguous words: “The idea of a better Church, created by ourselves, is in fact a proposal of the devil, with which he wants to lead us away from the living God, through a deceitful logic by which we are too easily duped.” Could he be clearer?

I submit that the Benedict XVI’s missive is like a palimpsest.

There are so many ideas packed in just 6000 words! However, there is a hidden inner coherence in his thoughts.

If one considers that Benedict XVI’s major subject is “The Church,” then the manuscript starts to reveal its secrets.

An intelligent and erudite man like himself would not write a dense piece, from his self-imposed reclusion, just to discuss the sexual scandals. It would be wiser and sufficient to recommend reading “The book of Gomorrah” by St. Peter Damian because the sins of the flesh are as old as humanity, and The Church has been addressing them for millennia.

Therefore, the frustration of those who expected a breakthrough in Benedict XVI’s manuscript comes from their ignorance of history and human nature.

So, why did Benedict XVI dare to break his silence and speak? What only he could say? His Confession.

“The experiment” should be completely destroyed in order to make way for a “new beginning” of the Church.

St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI tried to do it, but both faced the “rulers of the darkness of this world” and, unfortunately, they were defeated.

“The experiment” is so powerful that, in just few years, it has deteriorated the millenary Catholic culture that built the Western civilization, and consequently many souls were lost forever.

Trying to answer his own rhetorical question (What must be done?), Benedict XVI recurred to the Catholic Tradition and found the following proposal: “In the old Church, the catechumenate was created as a habitat against an increasingly demoralized culture, in which the distinctive and fresh aspects of the Christian way of life were practiced and at the same time protected from the common way of life. I think that even today something like catechumenal communities are necessary so that Christian life can assert itself in its own way.”

This survival tactic (new beginning) is remarkably similar to that proposed by Rod Dreher in his book The Benedict Option (St. Benedict).

I do not know if this strategy will do. Perhaps, we are already the “little flock” to whom Jesus said: “do not be afraid.” Nevertheless, even frightened, we should not surrender. We are The Militant Church.

We should rebuild the Church founded by Christ just like St. Francis did in his time.

It will not be easy. It never is.

Just think about the hardships that St. Athanasius had to endure when Arianism was widespread.

God will assist us in our mission which is simply: Keep the Faith!

I pray for Benedict XVI. He did tell the Truth no matter how late and despite his almost cryptic way.

Moreover, I recognize within the Benedict XVI’s Confession letter the Beatific Grace. God is keeping His promise: Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt. (“You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against her.”

You can read the entire text of Benedict XVI’s extraordinary 2019 essay here. In it, Benedict ruminates that “the Church is dying in souls,” because of the post-Christian nature of our society, because of internal corruption, and other factors. I’m not interested in the strictly ecclesial aspects of the Pope Emeritus’s critique. I am interested in BXVI’s proposal for “catechumenate communities” to make the Church live once again in the hearts of the faithful.

Here, from BXVI’s essay, is the context for a quote cited in the letter to Moynihan:

The moral doctrine of Holy Scripture has its uniqueness ultimately predicated in its cleaving to the image of God, in faith in the one God who showed himself in Jesus Christ and who lived as a human being. The Decalogue is an application of the biblical faith in God to human life. The image of God and morality belong together and thus result in the particular change of the Christian attitude towards the world and human life. Moreover, Christianity has been described from the beginning with the word hodós [Greek for a road, in the New Testament often used in the sense of a path of progress].

Faith is a journey and a way of life. In the old Church, the catechumenate was created as a habitat against an increasingly demoralized culture, in which the distinctive and fresh aspects of the Christian way of life were practiced and at the same time protected from the common way of life. I think that even today something like catechumenal communities are necessary so that Christian life can assert itself in its own way.

Longtime readers will recall the amazing address that Archbishop Georg Gänswein, BXVI’s longtime personal secretary, gave at a September 11, 2018, event in Rome. It was part of the book tour for the Italian edition of The Benedict Option. I wrote about it here at the time. I was present at the event, and had no idea what Msgr. Gänswein was going to say about my book. Italian journalist friends had advised me that whatever he said, I should be aware that Benedict XVI approved every syllable. BXVI is a hero of mine — indeed, I’ve said for years that he is the “second Benedict of the Benedict Option.” If he had not liked my book, I would have been heartbroken. In fact, the Gänswein speech was an excited endorsement of The Benedict Option!

I have no opinion about whether or not the 2019 BXVI essay contains an “esoteric” message. I believe it plainly contains an exoteric message, which is that as Western civilization collapses morally and spiritually, believers need to gather within strong communities of faith and discipleship to hold the line, and to be a light to a world groping in the dark for a way, a hodós.

No Christian community can proclaim the Way if it has lost the map, and an internal sense of direction. BXVI here warns about relativism, and (though he doesn’t use the word) Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, in this discussion of the reception of the 1993 encyclical Veritatis splendor (The Splendor of Truth):

I shall never forget how then-leading German moral theologian Franz Böckle, who, having returned to his native Switzerland after his retirement, announced in view of the possible decisions of the encyclical Veritatis splendor that if the encyclical should determine that there were actions which were always and under all circumstances to be classified as evil, he would challenge it with all the resources at his disposal.

It was God, the Merciful, that spared him from having to put his resolution into practice; Böckle died on July 8, 1991. The encyclical was published on August 6, 1993 and did indeed include the determination that there were actions that can never become good.

The pope was fully aware of the importance of this decision at that moment and for this part of his text, he had once again consulted leading specialists who did not take part in the editing of the encyclical. He knew that he must leave no doubt about the fact that the moral calculus involved in balancing goods must respect a final limit. There are goods that are never subject to trade-offs.

There are values which must never be abandoned for a greater value and even surpass the preservation of physical life. There is martyrdom. God is (about) more than mere physical survival. A life that would be bought by the denial of God, a life that is based on a final lie, is a non-life.

Martyrdom is a basic category of Christian existence. The fact that martyrdom is no longer morally necessary in the theory advocated by Böckle and many others shows that the very essence of Christianity is at stake here.

What powerful words! We are, in these days, fighting for the very essence of Christianity. If there are no truths worth dying for, then Christianity is not Christianity. It seems to me that Benedict XVI is saying that we have to relearn this within “catechumenal communities,” because the institutional Church has failed to uphold and pass on these fundamental fact of Christian faith and discipleship. Not one of us Christians has the excuse to surrender to this occupation! We have to figure out how to live faithfully under this dictatorship of wokeness. These are not normal times.