Learning from the Land: In the School of Saint Benedict

[Note: Please consider making a donation to Clear Creek Monastery. The Rule of St. Benedict is and should be an example to distributists across the world. The Benedictine monks at Clear Creek tirelessly work to "...build something beautiful for God" centering their lives in Ora et Labora (Prayer and Work).]

by Br. Philip Anderson, Prior
February 2009

Dear Friend,

As we enter the Lenten season — leaving behind the splendors of Christmas and looking forward now to that other pole of the liturgical year which is Easter — we discover that the greater simplicity and sobriety of this time of year lends itself well to a meditation on man’s proper place in the universe as caretaker of creation.

For many years now ecology has aroused much interest, not only in regard to the immediate practical decisions that must be made by governments and businesses, but also as a topic of discussion in the broader cultural context. Our contemporaries seem to experience an ever-increasing alienation from nature and a need to somehow “re-connect” with the earth, while scientists continue to point to signs that the ecological balance of the natural world is being seriously compromised by the excesses of our technology.

The Church too has participated in the discussion. The Holy Father recently alluded to these questions in an address to the members of the Roman Curia (December 22, 2008):

Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian creed, the Church cannot and must not limit herself to passing on to the faithful the message of salvation alone. She has a responsibility towards creation, and must also publicly assert this responsibility. In so doing, she must not only defend earth, water and air as gifts of creation belonging to all. She must also protect man from self—destruction.

What does the great monastic tradition issuing from Saint Benedict have to say about this essential relationship with creation?

In fact, for men and women living in Saint Benedict’s day, the question would have had little meaning. The vast majority of human beings lived in rural areas then, and for them life was intimately and necessarily connected to the rhythm of nature. The day’s activities were programmed according to the hours of sunlight. The year was punctuated by the various seasons in which planting, harvesting and every important task found its appointed time. In such a world, excepting the case of a few very rich people in large cities, it was scarcely possible to become disconnected from the rhythm of creation.

Nonetheless there is much in the wisdom of Saint Benedict that speaks to our present needs in terms of returning to a wiser way of life, a life closer to the land.

One of the pillars of the Rule is evangelical poverty. There would be neither an economic crisis in the world today, nor an ecological threat, were it not for the evil done by greed. Monastic poverty means being content with the simple things that sustain human existence in its inherent goodness. This poverty allows man to live in harmony with field and forest, without feeling the need to brutally strip the earth of her resources in order to realize an immediate gain. Although the economic reality in America has become increasingly complex in our day, it is still possible to recapture this joyous sort of poverty. We are not speaking of the tragic misery of the desperately poor, but of an attitude rooted in the Christian faith. E.F. Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful: Economies As If People Mattered (first published in 1973) offers insights that seem more timely than ever. Another important work, Flee To The Fields: The Founding Papers of the Catholic Land Movement, with a preface by Hilaire Belloc, charts a way forward in terms of an explicitly Catholic perspective.

Of course, the great corollary of evangelical and monastic poverty is work, especially manual work. Ora et Labora ("Pray and Work"') is often given as the Benedictine motto. The very early monks found that this work with one’s hands was something necessary in order to be able to pray well. Sometimes they would burn all the baskets they had woven during the year — having no need to sell them in order to make money — and start all over again, simply because this activity was good for body and mind! Saint Paul worked with his hands, even though he was entitled to live from his preaching of the Gospel. Manual work is an excellent way to put us back in touch with the wonder and beauty of creation, despite the fact that since the Fall man must toil by "the sweat of his brow" amid thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:18-19).

At Clear Creek we exercise many forms of manual labor, including carpentry, forging and much building, not to mention those domestic activities such as cooking and the making of clothing and shoes. In terms of our direct relationship to the land, the most notable activity would probably be that involving our forest, composed mainly of various types of oak trees. For several years now, thanks to a grant from the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, we have been working to improve our land by clearing unhealthy trees from the forest, thereby letting in more sunlight. This allows certain grasses to grow, which in turn offer new pasture for our rugged-hair sheep. We intend to bring in goats as well to clear unwanted weeds and brush from the under wood. We also have planted many trees, especially pines. Monks learn many a lesson from the land.

It would all be to no avail, however, without something more. The French author and statesman, Andre Malraux, famously said, "The twenty-first century will either be spiritual or it will not be". Even if a nuclear conflagration is somehow avoided — and the threat has by no means disappeared — it will take something more than a form of "global awareness" to preserve the world’s natural resources. This is where the other half of Saint Benedict’s motto, Ora ("Pray”), enters the picture.

Among the animals of the forest only one is capable of ruining everything, the one who walks upright, the same one whom God established shepherd of all creation in the beginning. It is the spiritual struggle between good and evil being waged in his heart that causes man, either to care for creation, or to destroy it. This is what Pope Benedict XVI meant when he said in his discourse to the Roman Curia last December, "What is needed is something like a human ecology, correctly understood". It is through prayer that we realize this human ecology, transcending the limited resources of the natural environment.

Between the somewhat romantic musings of city folk, who dream of moving to the country to start a new life, and the harsh reality of having to earn one’s daily bread from the earth that has become rebellious to sinful man, there is certainly a wide margin, which is also a serious challenge. But do we really have a choice?

The well—known Catholic author and educator, John Senior, was once giving a talk to a small group of adults about this very idea of escaping from the excesses of a civilization worn thin with technology. While he was saying something to the effect that "real swimming" is done in the ocean or lakes — or more modestly in the "old swimmin’ hole" — an old-timer who was among the listeners brought forth the objection that "we used to lose a few in the ‘swimmin’ hole…'". Looking the man squarely in the eye, Senior replied, "Yes, but we are losing all of them in the swimming pool."

Monastic life does not hold the key to unlock all of the world’s problems, but a serious reading of the Rule of Saint Benedict can be an inspiration, not only for monks, but also for those living outside the monastery walls. This is especially true due to its precious sense of balance, organizing things around the poles of prayer and work. It is our hope that Our Lady of Clear Creek Monastery, by living from the Rule, can help many to recapture the joy of a human existence rooted in faith – and the non-so-common realism of common sense.

May Our Lady of the Annunciation obtain for you an abundance of heavenly blessings.

Read more...

The Church and the Environment

Traditional Catholics often have a negative reaction to the environmental movement. This is understandable in light of the fact that the movement is frequently dominated by anti-life liberals and that it frequently tends towards an anti-human rhetoric. That is, it identifies "people" as the problem and the threat to the natural order. Their conclusion often tends to be, "get rid of humans and save the environment." Hence they often manifest great support for the imposition of birth control on indigenous peoples and for abortion: "the fewer humans, the better"is their "solution" to all things having to do with the environment.

But the human person is not the problem; rather, the human person viewed as pure consumer is. When our self-worth is defined in terms of what we buy and how much we consume, then avarice becomes a standard of "virtue." With such an unnatural view, the natural environment must suffer. When we routinely drive a Hummer half a block to pick up a gallon of milk, we leave a pretty big "carbon footprint." It is not people per se, but certain people who cannot restrain their consumption that is the problem. But man is the master of the natural order; God gives us "dominion" over the world. This is not the dominion of a tyrant, but of a father who wishes to bring out the best in those in his care, or of a craftsman, who wishes to make of natural objects something even more beautiful and useful. What everyone should oppose is a view of nature that turns her into a mere resource for the most wanton of desires and a mere garbage heap for the most toxic of unnatural chemicals.

Therefore, Christianity is inherently environmentalist, with a responsibility for the natural order that goes back to Genesis. By running away from this responsibility, we leave the field clear for the capitalists for whom nature is nothing more than another opportunity for exploitation. We cannot in conscience avoid our responsibilities, and we should not have to choose between the abortionists and the capitalists. Rather, we must become the "yeast" that leavens the whole conversation. We must return the conversation to its Biblical and traditional roots, which places responsibility for the created order on man, to whom dominion has been given.

One hopeful sign of this task is the establishment of the John Paul II Institute for Theology and Environmental Studies at Thomas More College. The mission statement of the institute reads:

The John Paul II Institute for Theology & Environmental Studies is dedicated to studying, communicating, promoting, and developing Pope John Paul II’s legacy concerning ecological responsibility and environmental awareness. Finding its warrant in John Paul II’s Christian humanism—the “heart” of the new evangelization—the Institute seeks to:

• Facilitate Catholic theology’s interface with the multidisciplinary field of environmental studies, i.e., the environmental arts, humanities, and sciences;
• Advance theological research and foster theological literacy, toward the development of a comprehensive Catholic theology of ecological identity;
• Provide a forum for dialogue and interaction with the diverse theories and cultural expressions of contemporary environmentalism and environmental concern;
• Establish a theologically-grounded approach to environmental education, outdoor/experiential education, and formation in the natural sciences/science education; and
• Promote interdisciplinary studies, the integration of knowledge, and the dialogue between Catholic thought and the natural sciences on the question of the environment, according to the tenets of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, in service to the Church, academy, and society.

Read more...

Battling the Swooshtika

We have long been in the habit of classifying political views as “left” or “right,” “conservative” or “liberal.” However, These classifications conceal more than they reveal. The names too easily become “brands” that lose any real content, to become easily manipulated symbols to be filled in by marketing experts attempting to appeal to a given demographic. Of course, everyone is familiar with the strange spectacle of the Cheney-Bush “deficits don't matter,” interventionist (and war-mongering) foreign policy, statist, imperial presidency somehow being called “conservative.” We used to think that they could lay claim to the title based on their formal (if not material) opposition to abortion and support for the right of citizens to own guns. But now we are reliably informed by Pat Robertson that these are optional features of conservatism and that a thrice-divorced, gay-rights, pro-abortion, cross-dresser is a suitable object of conservative and fundamentalist adulation.

It's hard to say when this corruption of political terms began. Possibly with Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, who dressed-up the radical Enlightenment idols of Liberalism in the borrowed finery of conservatism just by adding a few nods to “family values.” Hayek at least had the honesty to admit that he was not a conservative, a group he excoriated in an essay (“Why I am not a Conservative”) that is a classic of the ad hominem argument. Never mind; “conservatives” forgave him all. More recently, (and more troubling) we see the latest issue of Chronicles, a fine paleo-conservative journal, which ought to be suspicious of the industrialization of the biosphere, labeling those concerned with global warming as “enemies of the planet,” after discovering that some of them may not be (gasp!) Southern Agrarians and others might even be “Wiccans.” Here it is not the lapse from intellectual rigor than pains me so much as the lack of charity. When people discover the limits of a rationalistic technology, the editors of Chronicles ought to welcome them rather than administer purity tests. In any case, I would prefer an honest paganism to an earnest Modernism, and Thomas Fleming, on his better days, would agree with this.

The left as well has its problems on this score. Naomi Klein notes how easy it was for corporate capitalists to co-opt liberal “identity” politics of feminism and whatnot with a few well-placed ads and sponsorships. Indeed, buying off these liberals proved to be cheaper than buying off the conservatives. For as it turns out, “identity liberalism” easily morphed into “identity capitalism”; the self-absorption of the liberals was easily absorbed into the consumer culture of “brand corporatism,” where corporate logos came to represent not so much products as “life styles.” This process is detailed in Naomi Klein's book, No Logo. The theme of No Logo is very simple:

The astronomical growth in the wealth and cultural influence of multi-national corporations of the last fifteen years can arguably be traced back to a single, seemingly innocuous idea developed by management theorists in the mid-1980s: That successful corporations must primarily produce brands as opposed to products.

Products are messy things. They are real, and they need to be produced by real people. And both real things and real people can be both expensive and problematic; better to dispense with both. But if we don't manufacture a product or perform a service, what do we have to sell? The answer is, “a logo.” The perfect example of this is the Nike Swoosh. You may think that Nike as a maker of athletic shoes and the like. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nike makes the swoosh, and the swoosh blesses what ever it touches. The real product is the virtual product. True, it often needs to be placed on a “real” product like sneakers, but such real products can be made by virtual slaves in tax-free, union-free, law-free economic zones in the so-called “third-world.” Of course, these are not Nike factories; owning a real factory would be crass and vulgar. And not all that profitable. No, the factories are owned by contractors who take all the risks and are forced to bid against each other, with the one who can deliver the most misery for their employees will likely be the one to win. But the real winner will be Nike, who has little at risk and great profit. They commit to little more than a contract for a few production runs, and can sell a product made for $5 direct labor for $130 or more retail. Not a bad business.

Well, yes it is a bad business. Bad spiritually, bad morally, and bad economically. All social bonds are broken, and only thin contractual links remain, contracts in which one party has all the power, and which can be easily abrogated by the business needs or personal whims of the major party. Manufacturing is destroyed in the United States and real development stunted in the no-longer developing world. What they leave behind are ruined lives, ruined economies, ruined nations, and a ruined planet. And when the social bonds are broken, the economic bonds will quickly follow. For an economy of fair exchange presupposes that both sides get an equal value from the exchange; if one side gets wealth and the other subsistence—or less—then the whole structure is in constant danger of tottering, which is what we may in fact be witnessing at this very moment.

But as bad as it is, the process of branding fits perfectly in a culture of consumerism, where you are what you buy; your identity is equal to your brands, your being is equal to what you have. It is a demonstration of how post-modern nihilism is so easily converted into hyper-modern consumerism; lacking a real identity (which always has a religious root), one purchases an identity at Starbucks and Nike, at Benetton and Banana Republic, and at a hundred other mall outlets.

You may read about the process, in sad and excruciating detail, in Ms. Klein's book. My point here is not so much about the details of the process, but about the failure to properly fight it. Battling the Swoostika takes more than purity tests, even if they could be administered by the really pure. For the truth is that Ms. Klein has discovered the failures of her own liberalism in examining the success of post-modern capitalism. And to that extent, she is an ally and should be welcomed as such. Indeed, some of the best work in discovering the real values of work and community now come from the so-called left, while some of the “best” defenses paleo-liberalism come from modern conservatives. In fighting any battle, it is important to know who your real friends and your real enemies are. Perhaps at one time we could conveniently rely on convenient labels; that time is past. And anyway, the labels really applied to ideologies—not to real ideas—and you don't really battle a bad ideology with a good ideology, but with a good idea, with a truth. The editors of Chronicles tend towards Agrarianism, a tendency I support. But agrarianism is not about moving to the farm, but about restoring the proper relationship between town and country. As such, it is not an ideology, but a universal; it embraces the industrialist no less than the farmer; it includes the whole world, with the possible exception of the dreary suburb. An ideology seeks to find fault in its rivals, because all it has is rivals, but a universal seeks the connections that must bind us all, because all it has is truth.

I could pick any number of quarrels with men of the left, but I choose not to pick such quarrels when they themselves are discovering the problems of the left. I hope that I would speak the truth when I must, but will speak a word of encouragement when I can. There is a real battle for the earth. The presence of Russian subs claiming mining rights in the now open Arctic Sea, and the opening of the Northwest Passage to shipping settle the argument beyond all reasonable debate. One might debate whether the cause is “natural” or man-made. I am not competent to say. But this I can say: The burden of proof must remain on those who would, who have, dumped innumerable tons of toxins, mostly compounds unknown to nature, into the natural world; it is for them to first prove that they do no harm, rather than for the world to wait for the effects to prove it for them. For the whole history of the world in these matters is given by two sentences: “What harm could it do?” followed by, “Ooops, who knew?” Well, we don't know, and since we don't, we wait until we do.

Thomas Fleming and Thomas Landess, my old professor, have too much respect for the world, and too much contempt for mere ideology, to turn their agrarianism into a mere ideology, and it pains me to see them attack what they should defend, and find fault where they should offer encouragement.

Read more...