Opening Spiritual Space
German filmmaker Philip Groening’s acclaimed film, Into Great Silence, has already been brought to the attention of readers of this blog.
In today’s Boston Globe, there is an interesting interview with Groening. Two comments which caught my attention follow:
The film does not depict a monastery, but it transforms itself into a
monastery, because a monastery is a place where, through the rhythm of
time, which is very strict, and through [the monk's] confinement, the
spiritual space is opened up for them.
Groening then explains why he chose not to film formal interviews with the monks:
If you give too much information about the monks, then something flips
around and the audience gets curious to know more. And then they stop
wondering what would make themselves come to a monastery. For the film to be a deeper experience, it’s much more
important that you sit there and ask yourself, “Why did this guy come
[to the monastery]?” And by asking yourself that, you start to wonder:
What would make me come there? And that’s the moment when the film
starts to really touch you — when you come to your own questions.
Because a monastery is a place where you encounter yourself and open up
a spiritual space.
I have not yet seen the film. (It opens in Boston on Friday.) But I would appreciate hearing reactions from any who have already seen it.
Unfortunately, the film will have very limited release over the next several months. There is a list of the venues and dates at the Zeitgeist Films website for the film (as well as info stating that the film will likely be released on DVD late in 2007):
http://www.zeitgeistfilms.com/film.php?directoryname=intogreatsilence
Our parish book club is already making plans to see the film in a few months at the one venue available in our state. Until then we’ll have to satisfy ourselves with the many positive reviews and stories, including this excellent article at the PBS website for the “Religion & Ethics Newsweekly”:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:SNsH7MMNXUUJ:www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1027/exclusive.html+into+great+silence&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The article contains the following comment from Kierkegaard about the necessity for monasteries in Christianity:
“The ‘monastery’ is an essential dialectical element in Christianity. We therefore need it out there like a navigation buoy at sea in order to see where we are, even though I myself would not enter it. But if there really is true Christianity in every generation, there must also be individuals who have this need…”
There are certainly wonderful beauties about silence, stillness, nature, sunrise and sunset etc which are open to all. And gratia deo. But I am one opposed to monasteries, not only because of its violent history, eliteness, as an aristocratic tool, its wealth and as a refuge for unwanted daughters, but because Jesus does not foster or encourage them.
In no way was Jesus a monk. It is amazing how monks can claim to pattern their lives after him. I know he defended Mary when Martha complained but that was more based on focus rather than reclusiveness.
Indeed monasteries or orders started to appear as a reaction to the corruption in the church which was a consequence of the Constantinian revolution. As Augustine saw the tepidness of the faith around him he began to create a broader vision of discipleship, declaring that it was acceptable as long as one remained Catholic or orthodox.
Some say this was Augustine’s creation of Christian mediocrity. It certainly created an apartness which seemed to indicate that discipleship was no longer necessary for those outside the monastery. Monasteries did not necessarily live up to the holiness standard as many of them became an available army for the bishops.
And the Saint who stayed up on the pole and Anthony of the desert? Who would have taken them seriously without Athanasius marketing them.
Even Merton decided that discipleship had to be more among the people. (And anyway what is the story of that flask that seemed to be his constant companion in his cell?)
Benedict did do some beautiful things and left us with marvelous commands. His advice on welcoming strangers is a loving classic. All in all I thing Benedict tried to make human a bad idea to begin with.
The reason for the decline in monastic life after Vatican 2 is that we realized that all Christians should be disciples and have total commitment. Not a chosen few. To a certain extent that viewpoint has prevailed despite the necessary confusion following such a revolutionary council.
So I believe that joy and love can be found around us and we can make time to contemplate. But I prefer the poetry of the Good Samaritan and love of the Prodigal’s Father, in action. Why can’t we have this in everyday life?
Jesus seems to have had it. How does this priesthood of all believers show itself? Where is the poetry of greetings, comings and goings?
This filmaker is seeking something and there is something in silence that shows God. What he does not find is not stressed often enough. But I say that commandment which is equal to the first, is where to find it.
Right in the eyes of our neighbor.
Bill, I think I would agree with you if I thought that people joining a monastary prevented me from being a disciple or if they did anything to make me feel that I am less of a disciple because I’m not in a monastary.
I also don’t agree with the assessment that there was a decline in monastic life because of some sudden realization that all Christians should be disciples. I was born and raised Catholic through the sixties and was never told or led to believe I had any other charge than to be a disciple. The only thing I was told I couldn’t do was say Mass, and frankly, I didn’t see that as much of a barrier to discipleship either.
The notion that I might be “less Catholic” than someone else is actually a fairly new notion for me and one that has occurred only over the last 8-10 years as the result of changes in the political climate.
Is there any one right way to serve God? Is it better to be out and about in the world ministering to people hand-to-hand, or is it merely a different form of service? Must we serve in one capacity at the expense of the other, or is it possible to believe that there are some among us who believe their greatest gift to God and to humanity is to reject all wordly possessions and focus on a life of prayer?
Why can’t you have the poetry of the Good Samaritan and love of the Prodigal’s Father in action in every day life? I don’t know. Why can’t you?
>>Is there any one right way to serve God? Is it better to be out and about in the world ministering to people hand-to-hand, or is it merely a different form of service? Must we serve in one capacity at the expense of the other, or is it possible to believe that there are some among us who believe their greatest gift to God and to humanity is to reject all wordly possessions and focus on a life of prayer?<<
I think you hit the nail on the head, Donna.
For a very good look at the struggles and joys of Carthusian monastic life, try “An Infinity of Little Hours,” by Nancy Klein Maguire. The book got a favorable review in Commonweal, if I recall correctly, about a year ago when it came out in hardcover. (It’s recently been released in softcover.) It traces the lives of five seminarians at Parkminster, a Carthusian seminary in England. Some of the seminarians find their religious vocation, and some don’t, including one who later marries the book’s author. As the book nicely details, even the seemingly impregnable walls of the monastery were not a complete refuge from the whirlwind of secular and religious change in the 60′s.
Donna,
I can have the poetry of the Good Samaritan etc in every day life. That is part of my point. Secondly, I am not referring to the political aspect of religion in our time. I am referring to the “set apartness” of the monks and priests that has been part of our history for 1700years.
Up to the 2nd Vatican Council, it was usually assumed that being a priest or a monk was the more perfect way. I am glad that you were never exposed to that. Secondly, I did point out that the monastic life has had serious problems throughout history. The lifestyle was much better than many people who lacked essentials.
For whatever reasons the monastery has been billed as the beginning of heaven. Whether those so exposed reflected that is not my point. My insistence is that heaven begins on earth for all of us.
The fact that the “laity” was treated as second class in the church is acknowledged in the Vatican II document on the laity which stresses that the laity should strive for holiness also.
Certainly, spiritual writers throughout the centuries stressed this also but the underlying theme has always been that the laity was second class. And I have not yet referred to the issue of women. (Have you read “Good Catholic Girls’ by Angela Bonaviglio?)
In fact when you ask whether there is any right way to serve God, you make my point. Monasteries have historically been places of privilege, with exceptions.
When they build them where five million children die each year before the age of five, and minister to them, then I will support them.
“When they build them where five million children die each year before the age of five, and minister to them, then I will support them.”
And my point is, why should they?
We are not all called to serve God in the same way. For you and for many others like yourself, the clear way to serve God and emulate Christ is to physically minister to those in need. And you would be correct in that line of thinking.
There are others for whom the clear way to serve God and emulate Christ is to spiritually minister to others by sequestering themselves in prayer, much like Jesus took himself off to the desert alone for extended periods of time to pray.
Was Christ less Christ-like when he was off in the desert praying than when he was feeding the thousands?
The past sins of monasteries or convents or any other religious order cannot diminish the value of their vocation any more than my own past sins can diminish the value of my desire to serve God.
Donna,
I suppose one can say the abuse does not take away the abuse. I will say there is a marvelous exception, the Erie Benedictins, Chittister’s order. They are a great community while they teach and minister. The good news is that monasteries preserved many precious objects and books.
They should have an active component, as I see it.
At the beginning of Lent, Fr. Komonchak recommended Aelred Squire’s “Asking the Fathers.” Squire’s chapter on Doing and Seeing, a reflection on the active life vis-a-vis the contemplative life (taking the biblical story of martha and Mary as its starting point) is at least as good as anything else I’ve seen on this topic.