The Cougar and the Raven...and Science

I have to admit a soft spot for birds--especially crows, ravens, seagulls, and chickadees. I'll never forget the opportunity to rescue a crow with an injured wing in our backyard. It tamely let me feed it taco shells before I gently wrapped it in a towel for transport to a bird rescue facility in town. I also fondly recall giving it a drink of water with an old medicine dropper. Unfortunately, he decided to peck the arm of the bird rescue volunteer until it drew blood. (As an aside, we think this bird returned once or twice after it was re-habilitated across town. Sadly, I did not have taco shells readily at hand for the next visit.)

I give this preface, so you can understand perhaps why I sometimes enjoy reading about birds in my spare time. (In fact, as a fiction writer, it's hard to find time to read good fiction myself.) Right now, I'm almost finished with the Mind of the Raven by Bernd Heinrich. I've enjoyed the book for the most part, but one passage in the sixteenth chapter concerning an older lady named Mrs. Harnum annoyed me for its bias against those of faith. The chapter recounts strange behavior by a raven while the older Mrs. Harnum was completing chores in her yard, overshadowed by the neighboring forest. The strange raven vocalizations and erratic flying around her head caused her to follow its flight as it "buzzed" a large cougar that appeared to be stalking her from an overlooking ledge of rock. The woman called to her husband for help, and they chased the large cat away. The woman called the experience a miracle, claiming that the bird alerted her to the cougar's presence.

The author, of course, would not have the poor reader thinking a miracle may have in reality occurred, so he (plausibly) theorized that perhaps the raven was working with the cougar, and that they both wanted to chow down upon the old woman. This kind of partnering behavior as it relates to kills is apparently somewhat common with wolves, but I don't know whether, or not, cougars and ravens are known to often interact in this fashion. Whether they do, or not, is not so much the question with me. It seems plausible enough, but what seemed silly to me was the author's failure to further analyze the situation; he instead fell upon his bias against religion to point him in the desired direction. If the two animals were indeed working together, I suggest that it leads us to an even greater miracle: a wild raven and cougar cooperated in the wild to bring down an aged woman caught alone outside, but they were mysteriously foiled at their bloody plot. What really caused the woman to realize she was in danger? Looking below the surface, then, we see a potentially even greater miracle.

In a similar vein, there was recently a science show my son was watching concerning the brain. I sat down and watched it for a few minutes as it described the stimulation of a part of the test subject's brain theorized to be associated with religion and the supernatural. When the brain was stimulated in a particular way, the test subject reported being aware of other beings in the room with her. As I recall, she said she could make out vague shapes. The pleasant feeling of companionship was then followed by something described as a hot and fiery place. The interviewed scientist reported (in so many words) that this test was evidence against God and faith, as these spiritual feelings could be brought to the surface using targeted electric stimulations of the brain.

First of all, it seems to me that for the experiment to be considered valid it should be carried out simultaneously with multiple subjects. If each subject reports the exact same experience, I think it raises more questions than answers. I am not suggesting that, if carried out, each subject would report similar "presences," but to fail to go this extra step betrays a bias which colors the conclusions. To suggest conclusions based on non-simultaneous testing seems to embrace a bias against the supernatural realm.

Secondly, even if this is determined to be true and feelings of a religious or spiritual nature can be so prodded and teased from our minds, what does this really prove? Genesis 1 teaches that we were formed in the image of God. The need for God is stamped upon our very hearts and minds. The fact that this need may be associated with a particular region of our mind is neither particularly surprising nor suggestive of a conflict between faith and science. It is, yet again, simply showing us the bias against religion held by some of those within the scientific community. As St. Thomas Aquinas taught, faith and reason compliment each other, as both are reflections of Truth.

(Photo taken several years ago at Snoqualmie Summit in Washington State.)

Sing the Triumph of the Cross, Reflections on Two Latin Hymns

It's hard to believe that Ash Wednesday is next week. As we approach Lent, I have found great comfort and hope in the Latin hymns of old. In particular, I happened recently across two beautiful Latin hymns by the master Venantius Fortunatus (530-600 or 609) , which I wanted to share with readers.

The Hymn of the Cross

The banners of the King go forth, the mystery of the cross shines, by which our Life bore death and by death gave us life.

To wash us from the stain of sin, he was pierced by the sharp point of the lance and shed water and blood.

What David in his true hymn told to the nations is now fulfilled: God reigns from the tree.

Fair and radiant tree, with royal purple adorned, chosen to touch so sacred limbs with thy boughs.

Blessed cross, on whose arms the redemption of the world is borne; thou, from whom his body hangs, dost snatch from hell its pray.

O cross hail, our only hope! At this passion-tide increase grace to the good and take sin from the wicked.

Thee, holy Trinity fount of salvation, let every spirit praise. To whom thou givest the victory of the cross, to them give also its prize.

Hymn at Matins in Passion-tide

Sing, my tongue, the victory of the glorious battle, sing the triumph of the cross; how the Redeemer of the world being sacrificed yet conquered.

The Creator, pitying Adam's race, when it fell by the taste of the forbidden fruit, then noted the tree; that by a tree the loss from a tree should be repaired.

So was the work of our salvation ordered, that art should destroy the art of the deceiver, that healing should come from a tree, as had come the wound.

Therefore in the fullness of the sacred time the Creator of the world, sent from the Father's home, was born and came forth clothed in flesh from the Virgin's womb.

A child he lay in the narrow cradle and the virgin mother bound his limbs in swaddling clothes; such hands held the hands and feet of God.

Eternal glory be to the blessed Trinity, to the Father and Son; the same honour to the Paraclete. Let all the world praise the name of the one and three.

Isn't it amazing to reflect on these hymns, written a millennium before the Reformation? Their messages and imagery are so much more profound and real than most of what serves as liturgical music today. That said, the beauty of the language itself, its very artistic character, does not shine any less for the doctrine it so eloquently conveys. I could point out that the fifth stanza of the second hymn is an excellent example of "communication of idioms", but the reader simply recognizes it as Truth and Beauty shining forth from the page. I only wish I could hear more music along these lines--and a little less from ol' Oregon Catholic Press.

Special thanks to John Carroll Collier for the photo of his painting, The Annunciation. This present day re-imagining of the Annunciation is one of my favorite modern paintings. If you step close to the original, you will see that Gabriel is bursting forth with every color of the artist's palette, truly a heavenly creation. The simplicity and obedience of the young Mary, the new Eve, makes her "yes" to God even more awe-inspiring.

I'm very thankful to call this fine Catholic artist and sculptor my father-in-law. (I am told that prints of this painting may be available in the near future.)

Some Food for Thought on Gay Marriage Debate

I happened across a provocative blog entry on the Gay Marriage debate by Eric Sammons, and it encouraged me to share my own perspective on this controversy. This has not been previously published. I hope you find it an interesting perspective!

We’re all familiar with the frantic push for homosexual marriage and/or civil unions. As people of faith striving to live peacefully within a society in growing crisis, we’re probably much more acquainted than we’d like to be with this ideology washing over us from all sides of our popular culture. If we put our collective foot down and declare that marriage is only between a man and a woman, a matrimonial covenant, we’re quickly accused of being homophobic, or worse. The very word homophobic, describing only a personal fear, carries a connotation now of something akin to deep-seated racism and hate; it’s bearer is the new pariah. In the minds of many, the campaign for civil unions is viewed as the logical successor to the fight for civil rights undertaken by African Americans a few decades ago. Not desiring to be unfairly branded a bigot, no one is particularly excited at the prospect of joining this cultural debate on the side of traditional marriage. So, many good Christians remain relatively silent on the sidelines when it comes to this extraordinary fight for ordinary marriage. After all, if God is Love (1 John 4:8), it’s sometimes challenging to charitably articulate what’s so terribly wrong with homosexual marriage. Isn’t it simply about two people publicly declaring their love for each other?

The first dimension of this discussion to touch on is likely the least important. If homosexual marriage does become “the law” throughout these United States, life will continue. The laws of physics won’t suddenly cease working in grinding protest. Christians are called to “fight the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12), and living lives for Christ demands that we sacrifice lives of ease in exchange for taking unpopular stands for what is right. If we accept that the world is in a death-spiral until the return of Christ, then setbacks like these are to be expected. That expectation, however, doesn’t excuse us from endeavoring our best to oppose movements which run contrary to both Scripture and tradition--not to mention societal good.

Any exploration of the Christian position concerning marriage would be incomplete without quoting from the beautiful and profound words of Christ found in Matthew 19:5-12 (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition).

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry." But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Since the Church is also recognized as the spiritual bride of Christ, the believer should understand the centrality and foundational dimension of the marital institution within our families, society, culture, as well as faith; God’s very nature is explained in familial terms. The uniqueness of male and female speaks to the majesty of God Himself. Dismissing marriage as merely symbolic misunderstands what this sacrament reveals of God and the nature of the “domestic church.”

The issue of demographics also must be briefly touched upon. Several years ago, I had the opportunity to become acquainted with a man of deep faith who is both a respected scientist and mathematician: Dr. Emir Shuford. Whether working as a professor at Harvard or a researcher for the United States Air Force or the Rand Corporation, he is continually searching for new and practical applications for mathematics and science. One of Dr. Shuford’s recent areas of study and exploration combines population trend analysis with epidemiology. He has developed a mathematical formula which forecasts future population changes based on a set of complex variables. He has identified a danger facing world population and calls it the “Contagious Infertility Syndrome”(CIS); it is a disease that attacks nations. The unsuspecting carriers of the disease are people and their behavior. If one has ever read the novel by P.D. James entitled The Children of Men, one is familiar with the ramifications of a steeply falling population within a fictional tale. Unfortunately, Dr. Shuford’s real world conclusions and analysis forecast a plummeting population among many western countries, but there are changes we can support to increase our chances of surviving unscathed as a nation. Christian principles and Catholic practices--encouraging large families, for instance--offer distinct rays of hope, if our culture would but listen.

According to Dr. Shuford’s calculations, our nation has lost 114 million Americans due to the drop in domestic fertility rates between 1950 and 2000. During this half century, our nation’s fertility was cut in half. To put this loss in clearer perspective, we might turn to recent US Census figures. To reach a population figure nearing the 114 million range, we would need to add the total populations of California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. While it is true that the total United States population has continued to grow from about 123 million in 1930 to an estimated figure of about 304 million, the key is that the rate of growth is falling sharply. Of course, these “lost persons” represent potential taxpayers, statesmen, writers, poets, doctors, priests, neighbors, friends, etc, a loss of incalculable proportions.

Although those personally embracing a homosexual lifestyle are unlikely to take an active role in having their own children, it’s neither appropriate nor wise for a society to endorse or approve a lifestyle which runs so contrary to its own continued health existence. A parent’s group might just as well endorse the benefits of lead poisoning. It’s also a spurious argument to suggest that simply because one is born with a particular inclination, this biological dimension morally excuses taking the associated action. While we arguably may not yet know whether the homosexual condition is born or rather influenced by environment, genetic predispositions don’t excuse the resulting immoral behavior. My Viking ancestors, for instance, seldom lived in peace, but instead preferred a life of pillaging and destruction. Whether, or not, I have have a some old genetic predisposition for this manner of lifestyle is irrelevant; my faith and culture demand a much higher standard.

A personal experience may shed greater light on the wider implications of the gay marriage debate. In the fall of 1987, I was a freshman at Seattle Pacific University. One of my assignments was to interview various people from campus. A friend and I decided to interview Steve Swayne, the Director of Campus Ministries. Now, Seattle Pacific University is a Free Methodist university, which some might broadly categorize as “Fundamentalist.” While I don’t generally care for labels, and I care even less for this particular one for a variety of reasons, the university was and is known for conservative positions regarding faith and morals.

Steve Swayne’s job was to coordinate and direct everything related to Campus Ministries. For most of us, he was the face of that department. Between his virtuosic piano performances and his charismatic speaking, many of us students looked up to him. Years passed, and I didn’t hear much of his career following a relatively quiet departure from SPU. I was shocked to learn more than a decade later that this gifted Episcopalian and Dartmouth College music professor today professes a much different set of beliefs than he did in 1987. He advocates for a radical arm of the homosexual movement in which he supports the abolition of marriage altogether (at least in regards to secular recognition). He wrote the following in “I Do/I Don't: Queers on Marriage” from Suspect Thoughts Press in 2004.

The dominant voices from our community have demanded marriage for gays, and marriage has been the rallying cry ever since we came so close in Hawaii. But some of us want to see something that is at once more radical and more conservative: civil union for all.

Christians must understand that gay marriage and even civil unions present fundamental changes to the social and moral fabric of society. It places the will of the individual ahead of the good of the larger community, and its ramifications could potentially lead to a serious undermining of the institution of marriage. This, in turn, would arguably mislead many into the notion that laws change the meaning of things. That is, a “marriage” can be declared as legally binding being between two men or two women, but this only represents a legal cloak. Just as laws can’t decree that up is down or white is black, Natural Law remains unchanged and untouched. When a society’s laws ignore Natural Law, trouble is just around the corner. Since Natural Law fails to recognize a homosexual relationship as marriage, we would be wise to do likewise. As Pope John Paul II wrote in Memory and Identity, Conversations at the Dawn of a Millennium, “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this [gay marriage] is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”

Updates:

Be sure to read Doug Mainwaring's The Myth of the Same Sex Marriage Mandate!

A revised version of this article also appeared on Catholic365.

Mass Music--or Mass Hysteria?

As a brief segue towards the topic of Latin hymns in a later blog post, I thought I'd share a piece I wrote in Musica Sacra (see "Reflections on a Hymn" on page 53) concerning the importance of beautiful music and art in our worship. They set the tone of reverence and move our hearts a little closer to heaven.

I'm still mulling over a thought-provoking NCR blog by Simcha Fisher entitled "Why I Love My Ugly Little Liturgy." It makes an interesting point, but it fails to ring true for me. If we believe that beauty honors God and draws our hearts to the Lord, then it's only logical that ugliness accomplishes the reverse goal. I understand the caution against pride and pretentiousness, but her argument just doesn't quite work for me. Thoughts?

Wisconsin Reflections

I was thinking this week about the fifth chapter of James and how it relates (or fails to relate) to the state employee situation in Wisconsin.

1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.[a] 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

I have to first disclose that I am an Oregon State employee, and I completely sympathize with the frustration experienced by these workers. After all, we might find ourselves in the crosshairs next. I have to wonder, though, whether the unions themselves combined with the antiquated structure of state government in general (agency structure essentially unchanged or streamlined for decades) must share a significant degree of responsibility for where we find ourselves today. It's no mystery, for instance, that national demographics are quickly changing; we're quickly aging and domestic birthrates are falling. Immigration is masking the effect, but it's there--if you look.

Are public pensions and state legislators taking this opportunity to stem the flow of dollars and create economically sustainable systems? Governor Scott Walker and his ilk would appear to be trying to do so, except recent revelations cast significant doubt on his motivations for ending collective bargaining. I, for one, doubt whether he has honestly disclosed his true motivation for pursuing these sweeping reforms at this time. Something doesn't feel right, as they say.

As to unions, I must admit longstanding discomfort with unions. With few exceptions, unions seem designed to encourage mediocrity more than promote excellence. Their attitude is, sadly, too often one of entitlement rather than thankfulness. I think it's that attitude and perception that's really keeping more people from jumping on board with the unions in this fight. While we sympathize with the Wisconsin state employees' heart-rending situation, many of us find it difficult to support unions, whose behavior seems questionable and polarizing.

So, in short, I can't recognize many in the Wisconsin situation as blameless. The unions should have proactively addressed this situation much earlier in the process, and the governor seems to be pursuing a shadowy and undisclosed personal agenda. It's time for everyone to come clean and restore honor to state government.

Is Worrying a Sin?

Does the act of worrying constitute a sin? This has been a topic of discussion in our home lately, and I thought this would be as good place as any to share a short discussion on this question. Please note at the outset that this is a very simple exploration of a particularly complicated question; books could (and have been) written on this.

A good starting point for this discussion is to contrast definitions of worry and concern from the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. "Worry" is defined as "a troubled state of mind arising from the frets and cares of life; harassing anxiety or solicitude." While "concern," on the other hand is defined as "to distinguish, discern, or perceive." An interesting argument can be made, then, that concern for something without an element of worry suggests that we may be lacking in empathy. Does a degree of worry bring the seriousness and immediacy of a crisis into clearer focus? For example, doesn't worry encourage many a parent and grandparent to pray earnestly for adult children who may be on a spiritually dangerous path?

We multitaskers can worry about many different things at the same time! There's the worry CBS executives may have with regards to unbalanced talent like their notorious Charlie Sheen. We might broadly refer to this as an office worry. With regards to our salvation, there's the legitimate spiritual worry or concern that recognizes that our salvation is worked out with "fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12). When we sin, after all, we are turning our backs on Christ. Our free will means that this separation from God and man may happen at any moment unless we walk with Christ. If worry is a symptom that we are "going it alone," we have committed a sin akin to idolatry, placing our faith in ourselves instead of Christ.

Then, there's the worry or anxiety that comes when we find ourselves facing something that represents a deep-seated fear or even phobia: heights, for instance. Sometimes we know that there's an element of the irrational in these worries, but, then again, perhaps at times even these fears may serve a legitimate purpose.

When I attended Seattle Pacific University in the late 1980s, I spent the summer of 1988 working at their Camp Casey Conference Center on Whidbey Island (across the choppy Admiralty Inlet from Port Townsend). I ended-up spending most of that summer painting roofs on my own, and, I have to tell you, I was always worried about falling--especially when the ladder crashed down in the wind when I was a couple stories up, but I digress... My point in bringing this up is that it seems to me that this kind of worry can serve a legitimate and natural purpose. Let's face it, I am a clumsy guy. Having a natural worry or anxiety associated with heights might just be the natural genetic compliment to that "clumsy gene." It's going to keep me from being a painter on the Golden Gate, and that's probably a good thing.

We're all familiar with the usual kinds of worry described above. We could refer to these as ordinary daily worry, but there's also worry which is rooted in physical illness or trauma. There is, for instance, anxiety in some people which is attributed to chemical imbalances in the brain. These people suffer dark feelings of worry and panic that most of the rest of us could not imagine. This kind of worry really is more along the lines of an illness than anything else.

So, here we've outlined some basic types or examples of worrying. The question remains unanswered, is worrying a sin? Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “All worry is atheism, because it is a want of trust in God.” As an admirer of this great man, I have to admit that he makes a good point, but perhaps turning to a deeper understanding of what sin is will help us untangle this issue more clearly? Here's part of what the Catholic Encyclopedia offers on the question or nature of sin.

In every sinful act two things must be considered, the substance of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas, I-II:72:1). The act is something positive. The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God's law and the dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e. universal good (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. 3, a. 2, ad 2um). God, the first cause of all reality, is the cause of the physical act as such, the free-will of the deformity (St. ThomasI-II:89:2; "De malo", 3:2). The evil act adequately considered has for its cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true last end.

We see, then, that unless worry represents an intentional act for wrong born out of our own free will (a possibility perhaps if we "nurture" our worry), simple worry, while not being good thing, fails to rise to the seriousness of a sin. Philippians 4:6 urges us not to worry, but to place our faith in Christ. This verse offers a comfort to the reader that through faith in Christ, we may pray for relief of our fears and anxiety. The verse does not say that those who suffer from this particular emotion are committing a sin. For whatever reason, there are those who pray for healing of physical or mental illnesses--such as chronic worry or anxiety--but the answer from heaven is not always the miraculous healing for which we hope. Sometimes, these things must instead be born by the believer, to be offered up as a sacrifice to God.

One of the strongest arguments against painting all worry as sin is seen in passages such as the one describing Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane. As we read in the 26th chapter of Matthew or the 14th chapter of Mark, Christ himself is displaying anxiety or worry about what's to come. Does this mean that Christ committed a sin because He failed to trust His Father. Of course not! Christ, as all God and all man, suffered as we suffer. Since worry and anxiety represent an integral part of our existence since the Fall, He also experienced these feelings as a man. Another writer I was reading recently pointed out the good example of Christ staying behind in the Temple as a child. Do we really think that Mary and Joseph weren't worried about their son while they searched for him high and low?

Unless we nurture or kindle the flame of our worry, ignoring Christ and His message, I can't agree that ordinary worry constitutes a sin. Of course, this doesn't mean that worrying is a good thing; it's true that we should strive to replace worrying with devotion to and faith in Christ. It's important to offer some clear thinking on this particular issue. For instance, if one begins to believe that chronic worry or anxiety is a sin in and of itself, it creates a vicious circle, simply creating more worry about the worry. Besides being unhelpful, it's based on faulty, overly simplistic reasoning and an incorrect understanding of the nature of sin itself. In conclusion, here's how Catholic Answers' Michelle Arnold eloquently addresses this issue.

Sin requires an immoral action, sufficient knowledge, and sufficient consent. To the extent that it keeps us legitimately concerned about the welfare of ourselves or others, it is not an immoral action to worry. Even in cases of needless worry, most worriers do not purposely worry despite knowledge that they should not. Indeed, in some cases, excessive, compulsive worry may be a symptom of a legitimate illness, and therefore not a sin.

Reflections on Prayer

Should my coming week be a particularly busy one, I thought I'd go ahead and make a second short post this evening.

This essay, Mysterious Tools, which appeared in America, The National Catholic Weekly a few years ago remains one of my all-time favorite pieces. This article seems to articulate the mysterious nature (and power) of prayer better than anything else I have written--so far.

I hope you have time to read it, and I'd welcome your comments or questions that it may raise for you. Are there unique ways God makes His presence and guidance known to you?