|
Published: June 29, 2008
Hymn to Leviathan
The irony of neo-paganism
Notes from a Cultural Madhouse
By Christopher Zehnder
Nearly two years ago, I wandered into St. Philip’s church in Bakersfield for the 7 a.m. Sunday Mass. My wife was in a hospital in the city after giving birth to our youngest son, and I, after having spent a none-too-comfortable night in the hospital, exhausted and feeling grousey and intolerant, sought a Mass that, I figured, would probably be tame. A 7 a.m. Mass, I thought, would be a simple, “low Mass” – straightforward, no theatrics, no music ministry. How wrong I was.
St. Philip’s that morning did not feature much in the way of theatrics, but the music ministry was there in force. It was a band with, I recall, a flute, guitar, some percussion, and vocals – really not a bad performance, I thought -- for a folk festival. But it was trying, nonetheless, to my less than liturgically tolerant soul. I am not a thorough music snob, but my tastes are quite narrow as regards liturgical music. I love a good, gnarly Appalachian fiddle, for instance, but I don’t want to hear it during the offertory.
The performance at St. Philip’s that morning featured a song I found trying indeed, but also ironic. I can’t recall all the words, but the refrain was, “deep peace flowing over you,” and the verses spoke of the peace vouchsafed by various natural spirits, one verse being the ”peace of the river spirit.” I found this song ironic because my wife had just undergone childbirth – the seventh I had experienced with her – and childbirth, though natural, is hardly a peaceful affair. But it was the bitter irony of the phrase, the “peace of the river spirit,” that really struck me. I had learned just the day before that a former student of mine, a young man of character and promise, had drowned in the Ohio River.
It was October when this young man died in the cold, swirling waters of the Ohio. On a lark, he and a friend had decided to jump from a bridge spanning the river, not far from Steubenville, Ohio. From what I learned, it was not an uncommon thing to do; but my former student forgot or didn’t know to tuck his chin against his breast, and as he hit the water, his head jerked backward, and he broke his neck. He had made a fatal mistake; but nature is not tolerant of mistakes. His companion survived his fall, though injured. For both, the spirit of gravity (if there be one) and the river spirit were none too peaceful that day.
The fate of these young men underlines the sentimental foolishness of songs like the one I heard that Sunday morning at St. Philip’s. Nature is sometimes peaceful, gentle, even maternal. She can be alluring, like a beautiful woman; she can be intoxicatingly so. Who has not perceived her deep, ravishing music, as heard in the crash of the waves on the seashore? Who has not felt her gentle caresses, as when a zephyr breeze in spring brushes his cheek or stirs the vagrant tresses of his beloved’s hair? “Blown hair is sweet, brown hair over the mouth blown, lilac and brown hair,” wrote T.S. Eliot. Who has not known the contentment and longing such words convey?
But like a woman (forgive me, dear feminists), nature is changeable. She can be gentle, but she can be violent. She nurtures the crops that feed us, but she can destroy them through drought or flood, by hailstorm and by pestilence. My family and I do a bit of gardening and keep livestock, so we have known the bounty of nature. (I drink the sweet, creamy milk from my goats as I write this); but we have known nature’s indifference and, sometimes, seeming vindictiveness, as well. Nature is a generous mother, but very often, she is a dreadful, cruel goddess.
If those who live closest to nature have worshiped her, they have done so to appease her. They have known that nature does not love us sons and daughters of Adam – but, maybe, she can be coaxed to fawn on us for a time. Pagans wrote beautiful hymns to their gods, told of Zeus, the protector of guests, and of Hera, aid to women in childbirth. But history tells of how our pagan ancestors cast infants into rivers swelling in flood to placate the “river spirit,” how men have “passed human victims through the fire,” to appease Moloch, how the Aztecs offered blood victims to the sun god to assure his rising. Ancient pagans knew nature for what she is, and while they often could love her, they more often feared her.
This was why the Gospel of Christ was such good news to the pagan world of Greece and Rome. It revealed to them a God who transcends nature and who, even when He punishes, does so, not out of indifference or petty vindictiveness, but out of love. God transcends nature – but more wondrous yet – He entered into nature, becoming a poor man who cast his lot with the poor, healed diseases, cast out spirits, and trod the Leviathan, that ancient serpent of the untamed waters. “Peace, be still,” He said, when He calmed the rage of sea, and, “Do not fear, I Am,” when He comforted his disciples, struck with terror by the lord and master of unredeemed nature -- Death.
In too many circles today, Catholics seem to flee the Prince of Peace for the Lord of the World. They would make our religion into a new kind of paganism that regards the world as divine. Why is this? It may be, in part, because we modern men, living in hermetically sealed suburbs, going from temperature-controlled houses to temperature-controlled cars, cut off from the sources of our physical life in the soil, the air, and streams, do not understand nature. We have become sentimental about nature because we know nothing about her. We have become unnatural and so cannot really grasp the radical liberation of the supernatural.
We may have the head knowledge, but we have not the conviction, of what the Incarnation means. It is not the rejection of nature, its abject subjugation, or the denial of its inherent goodness. The Incarnation is the interpenetration of nature by Him who stands outside nature – a union like that of man and woman, productive of new life. God became man, as St. Basil said, so that man might become God. God became man so that, through man, nature might be redeemed. All creation yearns for the redemption of the sons of God.
Christians live in hope of the new heavens and the new earth. This truth came home to me poignantly at the funeral of my former student. During the wake in our local church, we viewed his body, displayed without the mortician’s art, ravaged by death and the fury of nature. We prayed during the Mass for the repose of his soul, expressing our hope for his and our future peace. During the reception, we ate and drank and celebrated his memory and, again, our hope. And then we commended him to Mother Earth, from which his natural life had sprung.
On All Souls day each year, my family and I visit his tomb and those of others of our town who have died. Some we know; many others, we don’t. There are children buried in that ground, men and women who have died in ripe old age, others who were cut off in the prime of life. On all we invoke the name of Christ, the Prince of Peace. And though we feel sorrow and a sober sense of our own mortality (one day I may lay in that cemetery), we leave thence with a sense of the peace that neither river, mountain, nor aerial spirit -- nor all the world -- can give. We leave in the Peace of Christ.
Kind readers, who have endured to read this piece to the end, when I sat down to write it, I intended to address the question of Church music, drawing on recent and rather recent documents from the Holy See. Obviously, my intention changed mid-essay. The muse who inspires blog writers, it seems, directed me otherwise. I hope to return to my intended subject next week.
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:41 AM By Fr. M.P.
Christopher Z, the change in your article seems to be lex orandi, lex credendi related. The music reflected the quite literal paganism expressed by its words. (Just like the missal translation article - words do matter, and matter a great deal). So this lead to the thoughts on the result of such beliefs; neo-paganism. I think the resurgence of neo-paganism is the result of the scientific atheism prevalent in culture. We don't need no God says Darwin, it's only chance over long periods of time. No proof, but so what. Take it on faith. The errors that Russia spread throughout the world, communism, says that God does not exist. Many philosophers say the same. Now we have explosive technological progress - ain't man so smart? Look what we can do without God - mix human and animal DNA and create. Yeah, but what untamable monsters? People are homosexual because of their genes, ain't they? Let's use technology so we can have sex without restraint. There's even a morning after pill now. Intellectual pride is rife through all of this thinking, and even nature is rejected because we have more control than ever over it, even if only in the mind as well evidenced by homosexual "logic." When God is thrown out of our lives, then self takes over, the concupiscent self, ready to worship the person in the mirror. Relativism is all about worship of opinion - one's own opinion. After all, science evolves, we evolve (so is said), so why not evolve beliefs to the pleasure of self? It's all so scientific!
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:00 AM By John L. Sillasen
Well, I got to the goats part and the memories were stirred too much for me to continue reading at this time.
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:31 AM By Central Valley
Christopher, yet another wonderful essay. Here in Bakersfield St. Phillips is commonly known as St. Phillip the Apostate or that protestant church on Stockdale Hwy. In many churches in the diocese of Fresno the sloppy feel good music you heard at St. Phillips is common. The Chruch has a wonderfull 1500 year history of sacred music. Sadly most Catholics have never been exposed to this history of sacred music. On the topic on music and the liturgy, these are topics the current Holy Father is talking about and is slowly changing on the side of tradition even in Rome. The Holy Father speaks, the Holy Father writes but will the diocese of Fresno listen? I doubt it. I have had similar experiences at St. Phillips and they all have been bad. I know you must have been pressed for space in writing but one major issue at St. Phillips is not only the music but the placement of the noise makers. The instruments and the grand piano are larger than the table (altar) constantly disctracting from the sacrifice on the altar.
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 11:32 AM By Central Valley
For readers not familiar with St. Phillips it is a parish with a banner ministry....yes they still make and hang felt banners at St. Phillips....ewwwww, how 70's
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 2:01 PM By Grisha
Christopher - I'm familiar with Hobbes only in passing. Can you expand on why you selected the title?
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:02 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha,
Actually, I took Leviathan from the Book of Job. The image has always been a powerful one with me. When I was a teenager, the Lutheran minister who was a sort of mentor to me (I then, by the way, was Lutheran) explained how when Christ walked on the water, He was not only showing his power but indicating that he had come to tread on the Leviathan, the ancient symbol of sin and death. It is an idea that has always stuck with me.
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 4:31 PM By Harry
The story with its "none too peaceful", "not tolerant of mistakes", "she can be gentle, but she can be violent.. dreadful, cruel goddess" talk is more "sentimental foolishness" of the pot calling the kettle black.
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:22 PM By Pat R.
Sorry...I guess it's to late but I could not finish reading this.
I stopped with the death at the Ohio river and on to the river spirits....Since I didn't finish, I want to know more about the liturgy, music, baby, mom, and....a good ending.
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:30 PM By John L. Sillasen
There certainly is an art to being able to see literary device as differentiated from other types of thoughtful writing. I took a lot of literature courses in college, took a break and spent three years solely reading everything I could find in a university repository library to the exclusion of holding much in the way of steady employment, and then spent the past thirtyfive years developing that start. It is a hobby. And I seem to understand the differences among the various styles and genres and so forth that people come up with to express things. It is therefore difficult for me to grasp how someone can misinterpret the easy stuff, such as the metaphors and poetic expressions in Mr. Zehnder's post. Now there are some minds that have disciplined themselves to the hyper state of what could be called technical or legal -ese; this type of thinking simply cannot "dig" literature. Now I'm not saying such minds are incapable, no; what I'm saying is that one has to make the effort to empathize with the writer in order to "get" what the writing is all about. Mr. Zehnder's post explains exactly what he is up to, plainly. It is fairly easy to understand what he is saying. I would suggest any boggled readers make another attempt to read and see.
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:16 PM By Melinda
Mr. Zehnder's post reminds me of people who see a Christmas tree and say it's warmed over paganism.
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:21 PM By John L. Sillasen
Grisha, you can find out all about Hobbes by reading the comic section of the paper, "Calvin and Hobbes", says it all.
|
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:14 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Harry,
Are you and Melinda related somehow? Or do you just share the same computer?
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 7:52 AM By John L. Sillasen
Melinda, sounds like you're trying to offload some guilt. Young people typically have no concept of how easy it is for mature and faithful people to see the nature around them.
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 8:25 AM By Grisha
John L; We get it here in the SF Chronicle. In college I had to take a course focusing on Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes. I was too young to appreciate any of it and squeaked by w/ a B-. Older and wiser, I became interested in the dangers of what has been referred to as a "Hobbsian war of all against all." I've come to believe, unfortunately, that the veneer of civilization is not as thick as we believe it to be, even here in the pinnacle of civil society, the United States. Interestingly this kind of thinking seems to be shared, to some extent, by my Bishop and the Pope. At a speech soon after he came here, Archbishop Niederauer suggested that the last thing we wanted in America was a situation like that in Northern Ireland where "All sides see themselves as victims." Likewise, when Benedict XVI was elected, one of the background pieces talked about his deep and abiding concern about the anarchy that swept Paris during the student riots in 1968, coming to believe that only the Church and it's traditions could stay the centripetal forces of the times in Western Europe.
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 10:23 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Grisha,
The anarchy the pope fears is rooted in a radical agnosticism that would reduce all questions of truth and justice to personal opinion and make the state -- expressing itself either by the will (of the majority) of the people or through judgements made by an elite few or by dictatorial means -- the sole arbiter of mores, public and even private. Such rule is what, I think, Pope Benedict XVI refers to when he speaks of the tyranny of relativism. We've come to a point in our society where, not only do we disagree about what we think is true, but we disagree even whether there is such a thing as truth. In making laws based on one or another of two radically opposed philosophies, the state inevitably will receive opposition from one side or the other -- for man is so constituted that he can not for long be forced to act against his sense of truth and right. Often this opposition breaks out into overt violence. I don't say I favor this -- violence, that is. I don't. I simply observe. I favor even less compromise on what is essential, but I would not espouse violence on the part of any side. In Christians, I would hope for peaceful disobedience and, finally, martyrdom.
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 10:34 AM By ann
Or, as a dear Jesuit friend told me, God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, nature never forgives.
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 11:41 AM By John L. Sillasen
My dogs are nature, and they forgive. *** Grisha, civilization seems to me to consist of more organization than non-civilization. I do not see another difference. What causes unity? That would be the principle of civilization.
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 2:23 PM By Pat R.
Nature takes care of the essentials. Nature forgives. It is an attribute of God's, both the Divine and Human side. Nature is a gift and will end only till the end of time. After a great fire, Nature returns in abundance. Nature is faithful and enduring. It is commanded thru only one channel and that is thru its Creator; His Name is Yahweh.
|
Posted Monday, June 30, 2008 6:57 PM By John L. Sillasen
Would this view by the Jesuit that nature does not forgive reflect Jesuit ideas in general? If so, then it explains why the Jesuits are so at odds with Catholic doctrine in so many cases. God forgives; nature is very good according to God as revealed in Scripture. If one believes differently, then this would lead to a view that nature is not good. And this reflects one of the "great" heresies. Thus, such a mind would have little trouble condoning abortion, since "whatever" is going on in the womb is nature and is thus not good and can thereby be justly gotten rid of. It also might explain why the Jesuits polarize poor people who work the earth against people who have other stations in life: the earth would be seen as the enemy of the folk who work it. Thus, the Jesuits would match ownership of land with evil and pit the poor worker against these things. This is a subtle and clandestine point, and I'm speculating, drawing logically upon several known facts and ideas. But the explanations for why some clergy systematically dis the doctrinal traditions of the Church have roots, and these roots are going to be planted in false ideas. This may indeed be one of them, that "nature never forgives". For all the education in the Jesuit camp, if they pile it up on a foundation of sand, then it has no value and only causes destruction when it deteriorates.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2:34 PM By Fr. M.P.
John LS, strictly speaking, nature cannot forgive because forgiveness is an act of charity, which means it can only be done by rational beings with a free will, i.e. God, Angels, and humans. Forgiveness is essentially wanting the good for someone even when they have harmed you, which of course is the result of sin. That ties into mercy. Nature follows it's pre-designed path only - it cannot choose good nor evil. Ducks fly south in the winter because that's the way God made them. People can talk more metaphorically about things being "forgiving," which usually means that one did not get the full effects that one expected based on a cause of said thing / event.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 01, 2008 11:59 PM By John L. Sillasen
Fr. M.P., I see problems with Aristotle's view of animals, followed by St Thomas' similar view ... I researched and found that neither one of them explored it very much. The only difference I am convinced of is that animals cannot sin. Animals have emotions, they think, they decide, they ponder, they figure things out, and some of them make and use tools. Language is common in animals, and they will imitate to the best of their physical capabilities the sounds made by humans. There is a story in the Old Testament of Abraham and Isaac. It is a lesson for the boy on how to regard animals. It is time for young Isaac to slaughter his pet lamb ... he does not want to do this, but respecting the authority of his father, assents. The OT Law specified in detail how to regard animals. St Francis preached a sermon to a gathering of flocks of birds. Men can play with wild animals, which will sometimes respond playfully. One can watch animals interact and see the striking similarity of their relational interactions with those of humans. The only reason I would kill an animal is because God instructs us that some species are meant for us to eat, or defend ourselves from. I have been surrounded by cows, and discovered their amazing nature of playful interaction. Animals can weep, moan and groan, cry and go through nightmares, and suffer in grief just as people can when tragedy befalls them. Animals are not machines or robot like creatures. They suffer the effects of the Fall. There may be animals in Heaven, but definitely not in Hell. Animals have the capacity for faith in humans; they hurt when they are betrayed. They empathize with humans and are happy when we empathize with them and treat them kindly; they return the kindness. For people to treat animals or other things in nature with cruelty is treating God with cruelty. We are called to be faithful even in little things such as the elements of nature many of which are animals.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:25 PM By Fr. M.P.
John LS, you are correct that animals cannot sin. Only creatures with a free will (rational ones), can sin. Yes, animals have a degree of freedom in their created nature which gives them some degree of trainable response, as well as their memory which guides their responses based on past events and treatment. But that is not free will. Yes, animals suffered because of our fall. If you read Genesis carefully, you will notice that they all only ate vegetation until after Noah's flood. Afterwards they started eating each other. And before that, God had to kill (sacrifice) the first animals to provide clothes for Adam and Eve. Obviously men killed animals immediately after the fall also - Abel's sacrifice. You will also notice that Abel's sacrifice of blood (the animal) was acceptable but Cain's (of vegetables) was not. Historical Biblical-types of the Lamb of God - the shedding of blood - who was sacrificed for our salvation.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:04 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Sillasen,
What exactly in Aristotle and Thomas's view of animals do you find wanting?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:47 PM By John L. Sillasen
Almost everything about animals. What I've read that they say is sparse, yet incredible belief systems have been built up on these passing comments by these great men. At this point my explanation for this is that they were not interested in exploring the nature of animals, but in demonstrating a contrast between men and animals. I have witnessed animals thinking beyond their training. They observe, decide what they want to do, and then exercise their options. I call this thinking. Whereas animals respond to nature and God; the difference is that man not only responds to nature and God, but man unites with God. Man's capacity for unity with God is not available in animals. Man when not united with God through Baptism moves towards this unity by his nature, but is not united with God: There is an observable difference between men not united with God and those who are ... those who are can discern the quality of this difference, but those who are not cannot see it. But they can see that there is a difference. There is an interaction between spouses which does not exist between any other two human beings. This is observable. (Continued further)
|
Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:57 PM By John L. Sillasen
The industrial world has become estranged from its relationship with animals, in their replacement by machines. In the day of the Philosopher and of St Thomas, they probably had no need to explain it further, since everyone knew pretty much the nature of animals. If somebody in our age can learn how to "horse whisper" or "dog whisper" or tame wild animals within minutes, then certainly they could do the same in the ancient times. It was not necessary then to explore the philosophy of animals, and so the great philosophers and theologians would have had no call to do so. But today I see it as something that needs to be dealt with. We've got the anti-Church movements drumming up their flawed vision of nature; the Church needs to set forth the reality. It is a power struggle for rule over the world. There is more and deeper to this. Animals, a part of nature, are used by pagans as idols, and as such they are imitated. Animals are extremely similar to people, and there are thus some subtle issues in the spiritual warfare for souls. The Church is obligated to deal with the truth at times when the world, the flesh and the devil have found a way to cause damage. This is one such problem as I see it.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 02, 2008 10:39 PM By John L. Sillasen
Fr. M.P., I do not recall animals holding back their fangs awaiting for the dinner bell after the Flood. I will enjoy checking this out. While on the Ark, certainly the carnivours did not eat the other animals. We can see a prophesy of this condition in Isaias chaps 11 and 65 *** The story of Abel and Cain and their respective sacrifices is profound. There are many facits to it. One of them I see is that Cain usurped the grain sacrifice, which was not meant for him to initiate. And he would not repent. Later there were specific rules for using grain in religious activities. And there were specific rules for slaughtering animals in religious rites. These rules are instructive for man in learning respect for God. These rules reveal specific purposes for the sacrificing and consumption of the animals. It is an interesting question to know how God wants nature to be managed. Man has moved out of nature, moved into conditions that are anything but natural, and more and more we are seeing man imitate that which is not natural. Imitating that which is natural is forbidden, because God differentiates man from all else, even angels, because He destines unity with man. But man imitating that which is not even natural is even more abominable. We are seeing it glaring at us daily. I am proposing that the Church remedy the problem. John Paul II would take youths on hikes into nature ... why, unless it were important? And what would be important about emersing oneself in nature? Solomon suggests studying the "ants", ie nature. Adam was tasked with the poetic activity of naming the elements of nature. There is a separation between man and nature, as between the poet and the subject of the poetry.
|
Posted Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:18 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Sillasen,
I agree with much of what you say -- I especially applaud your statement, "the industrial world has become estranged from its relationship with animals, in their replacement by machines." I think, though, your language of animals thinking I find unclear. Aristotle and St. Thomas defined man as "rational animal" -- that is, we are the same general kind of thing as the beasts, but we have this defining difference: we are able to form abstract concepts and to reason from those concepts to particular truths. Beasts can indeed do much on the level of instinct, because they have imagination (they form, as it were, pictures in the mind) and have an ability to select different alternatives. But a hungry goat does not deliberate about whether or not to eat the hay it's given; it does not consider whether at this time a higher good can be achieved by abstaining or not. A hungry man can decide not to eat the meal set before him. Too, what animals can accomplish is limited. Man can conceive of potentially limitless possibilities and bring them into reality -- which is the source of our arts, both fine and industrial. I think you are right, however, that much more can be said and learned about beasts than what can be found in the writings of Thomas and Aristotle. The Church also should consider questions about the subhuman creation -- as she is doing today, happily.
|
Posted Thursday, July 03, 2008 10:38 AM By John L. Sillasen
There is no higher good for non-rational animals, so they do not face such decisions. And this is a point where humanity can be seen to differ from non-rational animals ... It is such points that need to be made available to the laity so that they have the spiritual ammo necessary for engaging the world on behalf of the truth. I have yet to look into what the Church is busy doing along this line. Any references would be appreciated. BTW, the "hungry goat" example is a good one, better in my opinion than Aristotle's example of a sheep seeing a wolf (I think that was from him, anyway, or maybe it is a "stock" example ... and, hmn, no pun intended).
|
Posted Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:42 PM By John L. Sillasen
Mr. Zehnder, I forgot to say that I am happy to read how you explained the diff. It covers all the bases, the more I think about it.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|