Monkish monkey-business revisited

This post won’t be all that well-thought-out.  Maybe entertaining in a spot or two, though?

Several times in this space, I have commented critically on the “Kansas Monks”–those associated with Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas.  Although I have a fond feeling for Atchison in general, having spent three important years of my life there and having made some good friends (a few of whom I’ve kept!) I have no fond feelings for monks — these or any other — or what they stand for.

Once, I wrote that I would not write about the “Kansas Monks” ever again on this blog, but I am reneging.  I figure that repeatedly ignored requests that they take me off their fundraising, propagandizing mailing list will be seen to justify at least this one coming-out-of-hiding on my part.

A few months back, I couldn’t resist saving a page out of their most recent magazine.  A sidebar shows pics of six monks (I guess that’s the umbrella term; four are labeled “father,” and another two are called “abbot”), along with blurbs about what each of them does with the internet as part of monkish “ministry.”

1. A monk named Miller has 4,200 Facebook friends.  Bully for him.  That’s sad, because it probably means he’s got a following of college students who’ve crossed his path and had wool pulled over their eyes.
2. One named Senecal “gathers prayer requests” via the monks’ website.  Any specific criticism of this one runs a high risk of my impugning his motives, so I’ll merely confess and move on.
3. The coup?  A monk named Habiger “spreads the news of natural family planning via an e-mail newsletter.”  And what a gospel is that!  And what an (pardon me while I grab my tongue with a forceps and shove it irrevocably into my cheek) amazingly credible witness to a Pope-induced, biblically sound limitation!

In other words, gimmeabreak.  How is a monk going to talk about anything that has to do with sex?  At best, he’s a disingenuous, meddling homiletician with a concocted, a-biblical message he’s passing off, by virtue of his cloth, as biblical.

I have to wonder, further on #3 above, whether the whole Pope-against-contraception thing got started — presumably overtly in about 1930, but whenever — because he and all his henchmen realized that they needed to try to ensure continuous re-population so that they could maintain whatever degree of hold they had on the world.

Cynical? Sad? But maybe true?

==========

For those interested, here are links to a few of the posts that dealt with these monkeys in the past.

http://blcasey.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/osb-at-it-3-times-already-this-year/

http://blcasey.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/vianneys-folly-3-of-3/

http://blcasey.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/a-central-tenet-of-neo-protestantism-1-of-3/

OSB at it 3 times already this year!

Again comes a letter from my monkish non-friends in Kansas. It’s like a stinkin’ telethon, I tell ya. These guys got my address because for two years I was on payroll as an adjunct lecturer at the college campus on which their abbey sits. Every time I get a fundraising appeal letter from them, I think, “I really need to get off this mailing list.” But then I can’t resist writing about the silliness of the Roman system. Here are links to my prior posts on this topic.

http://blcasey.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/yeahbbut/

http://blcasey.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/yeahbbut-redux/

http://blcasey.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/osb-at-it-again/

Ignoring for the moment (well, OK, not really) the annoyance of fundraising appeals in general, and the added annoyance of receiving a financial plea from a place I’ve never supported nor will ever support … the opening paragraph refers to the “patron, St. Benedict of Nursia.” I say if he’s the patron, let him send you money! After all, “patron” implies ongoing financial support in most people’s lingo. And they do believe Benedict’s activity is ongoing, even though he’s dead, right?

The phrase “paschal mystery of Christ’s death” jumped out at me, as well. As a post-Easter, manipulative phrase, it was probably fairly effective, to Roman Catholic eyes. But I really don’t know what “paschal mystery” is. Jesus died, and the scriptures tell us a lot about that. The spiritual realities behind the atoning death of the Christ are things I will never fully grasp, but these days, I’m more into the facts of the matter than the mysteries. Maybe I’ll grow up and get more insightful after I finish getting all the facts straight. :-)

Besides the somewhat substantive comment about paschality, the good Abbot (whatever that is … an extrabiblical title means very little to me) spends most of this letter dealing with the “work” of the monks at St. Benedict’s Abbey. Even if I were Roman or a Roman sympathizer, I would tend not to support this “work” financially, because the “daily life and work” of these monks strikes me as not likely very missional, and not very pragmatic. In other words, it’s an inward purpose that must be of some value to these men personally … but no one is supporting me financially to pray and read my Bible, so I don’t think I’ll pay to support someone else’s ostensibly spiritual habits.

The “care of elderly monks” is also mentioned in the appeal letter; this seems to be somewhat a humanitarian cause, but not one that has any inherent value above helping any elderly person. Basically, this letter assumes an inherent value in the monk’s activities that I find absent.

It’s not just the Roman Catholics who are off base. In case you aren’t thinking about your own church or denomination, well … maybe we all should start, or continue, or something.

OSB at it again

The Oblates of St. Benedict are at it again. Just like NPR and PBS fund-raising pledge drives, these appeal letters seem to come every couple of months instead of twice a year (as the broadcasters claim, at least). Sadly, this particular fund-raising letter doesn’t provide nearly as much fodder for critique as the prior two communiqués from these meddling monkish ones (commentary here and here).

I’ll refer just to three items from this letter:

1. The opening line refers to St. Benedict’s “Holy Rule” and uses the reference “RB Pro: 44.” Do the OSB guys have any idea that I have no idea what those things are? I suppose those who’ve hung around the abbey for years or are students of Roman Catholic documents and history might know, but I suspect many Roman believers are in the dark on this, as well, since I’ve found many of them to be in the dark about more things than most others in Christendom.
2. The mention of a “Lenten appeal” leaves me high and dry on more than one front. I consider myself moderately well versed in general Christian thought, and well above average (although nowhere near where I’d like to be) in terms of scriptural knowledge. But I have no idea where “Lenten” comes from, or why it might, or might not, be a good time for an appeal, or what the real connection might be. OK, OK, I know “Lenten” is “Lent” and has something to do with the present Easter season. I know people “give things up for Lent” (for the record, I’ve heard more people mocking the idea of giving things up than actually giving things up … you?). But I have no idea where the tradition or the verbiage comes from. I know it’s not an idea that comes directly from New Covenant writings; therefore, I’m really not that interested in pursuing this superimposed complication to the Christian life. I’m not saying anything about the hearts of those who put ash-dots on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday. I’m only saying I’m not personally interested.
3. Finally (oh, how I wish this were the final mention of these . . . I wish all such structures and titles and misguided religious notions would pass away), the very idea of monks. This appeal letter apparently hopes that its readers will be influenced to contribute to the Abbey in order to support, among other things, the “training of young monks.” No, no, no . . . a thousand times, no.