What is your opinion of global warming? Though this question usually leads to a plethora of dueling political, theological, scientific, and personal ideologies about climate change, most people do believe we should be good stewards of creation. The point of division is what care for creation should look like and how should it be done? The more I write, pray, and reflect on the question of care for creation, I think that one of the struggles of getting on the same page with the environment is the use of a language of extremes to accentuate subtlety of change.

For example, smoking is not allowed in any public building in the state of Wisconsin. When this policy was enacted, there was much debate about the relationship between personal freedom and public health. Years later, while on vacation, I was surprised to learn that smoking is not banned in public buildings in the state of Oregon. When a good friend of mine joined me for a few days in Portland, we observed how each of our hotel rooms clearly carried the remnants of past patrons who smoked, giving us a deep appreciation for Wisconsin's smoking ban. However, we also observed that this "small change" of Wisconsin's smoking ban was far more impactful than we realized. It wasn't until we reentered a "contaminated environment" that we could appreciate a clean environment.

Part of me wonders if this experience of Wisconsin and Oregon is part of the reason why developing ethos to support care for creation is so difficult. When what is experienced by many are "subtle changes" to climate, the full impact of what is happening in creation can often go unnoticed. When attempts to create ethos gravitates toward language of "radical change," I wonder if there is something almost intuitive that questions this language since it seems to be so out of step with daily experience (at least in the state of Wisconsin where fellow blogger Christopher Graney rightly points out the local numbers can be interpreted in a way that questions whether or not global warming is happening in the Badger State).

Could it be that much of the apathy found when trying to promote care for creation is lack of attention to the subtleties of the environment, in contrast to the more culturally fashionable language of radical, diametrically opposed realities dueling with each other? Put another way, can we develop ethos to care for creation by emphasizing the small changes that end up having a major impact on the future of our common home and humanity?

Michaela Pittenger

In the weeks to come, I will be exploring these questions in a creative way. Since moving back to Eau Claire, I have had the joy of reconnecting with some of my former students I was teacher and/or chaplain for at Regis Middle and High School. Michaela Pittenger, a middle school student when I left Regis, is now working on a degree in photography (gosh, I'm feeling older than I should). Michaela has a love for artistic photography, is one of my parishioners at Saint Olaf Parish, and has a deep passion for ecology and sustainability.

I asked Michaela if she would be open to explore a project with me by taking some of the key principles I have explored in my writing on care for creation and have her bring her artistry as a photographer to those principles to create visual stories based on those principles. She eagerly agreed to this project and tomorrow we will be meeting to see the first stories Michaela has put together based on my writing. I can't wait to see her work!

 

 

Basic examples of some of Michaela's Photography

I will be sharing these visual stories of care for creation with you in an attempt to help develop ethos for care for creation not only through words calling for significant change in our daily lives, but images that can draw our mind and heart into the particulars and "smallness" of care for creation. What excites both Micheala and I is that this project wont just be meant to create beautiful pictures, which I'm sure they will be, but to help us be attentive to creation through visual storytelling. Both of us are excited to share these stories with you.

Images inspire inquiry, inquiry builds knowledge, knowledge leads to truth, and truth leads to appreciation and action. This is the trajectory I pray can be developed in these visual stories. Will they accomplish this lofty goal? Time will tell. Nevertheless, my hope it that the efforts Michaela and I put forward in this project will inspire the readers of The Catholic Astronomer to not only embrace care for creation on a personal level, but will inspire you to actively promote this ethic of Catholic Social Teaching in the world you live.

Spiritual Exercise: Is there a story in creation you would like Michaela and I to explore? Leave your suggestions and, together, let us strive to enact positive changes in creation, inspired by attentiveness to the subtle beauty of creation's story.

Never underestimate the power of perspective!

One of the highlights of my week at St. Olaf Parish is our Wednesday Bible study. While our youth attend faith formation, I offer a Bible study to their parents on the readings for the Sunday ahead. The purpose of this study is twofold. Primarily, I want to give my parishioners the opportunity to reflect on God's word in preparation for the Eucharist. The secondary reason is to get feedback for my homily, ensuring that I speak to the concerns of my flock.

Last Wednesday, we read Mark's telling of James and John asking Jesus for seats of power. The language of, "Lord, let us sit, one on your left and the other on your right," rings with the tone of ancient kings. It indicates that Jesus' disciples didn't quite grasp the full meaning of what in meant for Jesus to be the Messiah. When Jesus responds with the question, "Are you willing to drink the cup I am willing to drink," Jesus is using a turn of phrase from the ancient world that basically implies, "Are you willing to do God's will?" Jesus' affirmation that they will drink of the same cup as he foreshadows both that James and John will do God's will, but will also share in the same suffering Christ will endure.

The interesting twist of this Gospel is that Jesus does imply that there will be people who will sit at his left and right. Who will those people be? One of my parishioners, drawing upon the crucifixion narrative of John, said, "It would be John and Mary." I affirmed that this is a good guess, but we needed to remember that Mary and John are not present at the cross (at least not mentioned) in Mark's account of the crucifixion.

Mark is stating that the ones to sit at his left and right are the two thieves. In the Gospel of Luke, one of those thieves received a great gift after he begged the Lord, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom," with Jesus responding, "This day you will be with me in paradise." The true power of the Gospel from this past Sunday is that it is not those who seek worldly power that take the positions of honor next to Jesus, but, rather, it is the outcast, the forgotten, the despised, and those, to quote Pope Francis, who represent the margins of society.

The power of perspective. Two different Gospels. Two different insights into who it may be that sits at Jesus' left and right.

One of the connections between faith and science I've reflected on with you in the past is how the different Gospels can be seen as "filters" to view Jesus' life from a certain perspective. Each Gospel, through its distinct authorship and specific audience, gives us insight into how the followers of Jesus understood his life, death, and resurrection. I find it analogous to how scientists use different types of filters to focus on certain sets of data, revealing a piece of what is true about what is being observed, but also affirming that the filter doesn't tell the whole story.

In a fun, lighthearted way, I was reminded of the power of perspective through filters by subjecting one of my latest paintings to a series of color filters. These filters are not scientific in their design, but artistic. Still, I found it interesting how each filter highlighted different aspects of my painting. None of them were the original, but the power of perspective each filter gave allowed me to have a deeper appreciation for the work. In an odd way, I appreciated my canvas more after altering its image with filters, even though it wasn't quite the same as the original painting.

Since some have shared with me that my paintings remind them of the cloud bands on Jupiter, I decided to take some recent Juno images and wash them through the same filters. Is there scientific data to be found in these filters? Probably not. As with my paintings, these filters are meant for more artistic purposes and even if there was scientific knowledge to be gained, my eyes are not trained to see what that knowledge might be. Nevertheless, these filters do speak to me of how beautiful and wondrous Jupiter can be... from a very, very safe distance!

One of the phrases that is used to describe filtered images is to call them "false images." Yes, the filtered image can look quite different from the original. Yet, when it comes to the science of using filters for the purpose of gathering data, it isn't the the data is "false," but the false image brings forward different essential data that isn't self-evident in the original image. It is the odd irony of science that sometimes you need to have a "false image" to gain true knowledge of what you are studying. The best example of this was a false image from the Pluto flyby that had a rather psychedelic appearance. Everyone knew that this wasn't what Pluto looked like. However, it was an essential image for scientists to understand different surface feature on this fascinating dwarf planet.

In a similar way, someone can point out inconsistencies between the four Gospels, like Mary and John being at the foot of the cross in the Gospel of John, but not being present in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Some may even want to disregard Scripture due to these "glaring" inaccuracies. However, to approach Scripture in such a way would reduce the Bible to something like a newspaper, only interested in the who, what, when, were, and hows of a story with slight commentary on these facts. (I'm very tempted to explore numerous times when news stories of me didn't get the who, what, when, were, and hows right, making an interpretation of the facts skewed, but we'll save that for another post.)

Christians committed to Scripture know that this is not how one reads the Bible. Since the earliest days of interpreting the Bible, there was a clear understanding that there are multiple genre's of literature in the Bible, requiring different interpretive approaches or "filters" to pull out the true meaning of the Bible. When we draw all this information or "data" together from these varied filters, we get a truer vision of who Jesus is and what it means to be Christian. To only dwell on one book of the Bible or one interpretive lens of Scripture makes it monochrome, rejecting the beautiful richness of God's inspired Word. The Bible is a spiritual kaleidoscope of vibrant contrast, radiant like the most colorful canvases imaginable.

Spiritual Exercise: What are the interpretive lenses or "filters" you use to approach life? Through what filter do you view faith? Through what filter do you view science? Are they filters that set one at odds against the other? Do you use them in a way to help you understand two different approaches to the world we live that can give you a more accurate view of the world? Pray with these questions today, and may all of us, regardless of the "filters" we use to approach life, be inspired by the truth that emerges from the varied ways we approach our world. May we have the courage to explore new perspectives so we can experience the true vibrancy of both the world we live and the God who brought this world into existence.

Happy Monday!

Yours truly doing solar observation.

Father, science made my child an atheist. Now what do I do? One of the challenges and blessings I have received as a priest is to be on both sides of this statement. As the Chaplain of a Catholic Middle and High School, I sat with many a parent through tear stained conversations on how they fear for their child who claims they no longer believe in God. From both my secondary education and university ministry experience, I have spoken with many youth and young adults who have claimed to be atheists, seeking me out to either explore the possibility that God may exist or to validate their new-found beliefs by attempting to provoke a combative argument with a Catholic Priest. This rich tapestry of ministerial experience combined with my love of reflecting on matters of faith and science has helped me develop some best practices on how to address the question: "How does one approach a Christian youth who has fallen away from the Church and claims to be atheist because of science?"

Principle One: Don't Mistake Confusion Or Curiosity For Atheism.

When someone shares with me that they have "lost their faith" and become atheist due to science, the first question I will ask is, "So you have 100% certainty that God does not exist and can demonstrate that to me from science?" The answer I receive to this question is telling of what kind of atheism I'm dealing with, if any type at all. Of the varied responses I receive, the answer is usually some variation of, "Well, no, I can't disprove God and maybe there is a God, but I know it can't be the Christian God."

This answer often leads to a healthy conversation that reveals that the youth really isn't an atheist, but has created many perceptions about God and the Church, most of them wrong, they simply can't accept. Whether it be evolution, the big bang, creationist understandings of Scripture, social issues that involve the Church, and/or a whole host of other issues, I find a simple clarification of what the Church actually believes creates a moment of surprise that the things they don't believe about God are the same things I, a Catholic Priest, don't believe about God. Sometimes this common "disbelief" of who God can't be can open a healthy conversation about who God actually is.

Another answer I sometimes get is, "Father, show me where God is in the universe through the modern sciences and then I will believe God exists!" This statement usually stems from a materialist presumption, thinking that non-material realities cannot exist. Therefore, God must be able to be analyzed according to some type of scientific tool. Since science does not deal with questions of God and non-material realities, to ask me to prove God's existence by using science is a self-contradicting request: How can God be found through science when the very nature of science explicitly states that it isn't equipped to explore questions of God and metaphysical realities? It's a crude analogy, but to try and prove God in such a manner would be equivalent to trying to find the color red in a picture using a filter that removes all possible shades of red - You're looking for a reality that the filter used intentionally excludes. Unfortunately, this type of challenge to prove God through science usually leads to some form of, "We'll just agree to disagree."

Lastly, sometimes youth are just a curious lot and want to question their beliefs. From my experience, it often seems that the sophomore year of high school was the time when most students would begin asking hard questions about their faith. Some of my fellow priest chaplains have called the sophomore year the "loss of soul year." Fueled in part by the normal changes all people go through at this time of life, questioning is not only a typical trait of this age group, but is normal and healthy.

In addition to questioning their faith, young people also experience other transitions in their faith life. I would often hear students say the way they once prayed doesn't seem to work anymore in their sophomore year of high school. They also tend to question more intensely the things their parents taught them at this stage of development. The mid teens is also the time when youth desire more independence. To summarize these traits in an accurate term that isn't always the most complementary, they become sophomoric!

So, what is the antidote of the "loss of soul year" of high school? Simple: They eventually become juniors! Sometimes in life, you just need to walk with your child, bite your lip, and realize you had a sophomore year in high school too! Your rebellion just looked a little different than your child's!

Principle Two: Don't Overreact, But Listen Attentively To Their Concerns.

One of the biggest mistakes any of us can make in ministry or parenting is to overreact. In my first year of being a high school teacher, I had a student who was incredibly engaged with my religion class. They would seek me out after class with a list of questions, express interest in becoming a priest, and seemed to be very active in his faith. Then, one day, he just shut down and wouldn't speak to me or participate in class. I wondered if I said something that offending him. I shared this story with a parent of another student in my class who had an exceptional faith life, asking her what I was doing wrong as a Chaplain? She simply laughed and said, Father, one thing you need to learn about kids is that they can turn on a dime and 90% of the time it has nothing to do with you.

Those words transformed my approach to being a chaplain/teacher, realizing that being patient and not overreacting to a student's bad day was essential to be a good teacher and a good priest. My knee-jerk responses would often lead to misunderstanding and confusion. Further, a knee-jerk overreaction to a child can create a trust barrier in which the inability for the adult to stay levelheaded in the face of their questions naturally makes the child pull away. In other words, never forgot who the child/student is and who the parent/teacher/pastor is when having discussions about faith and science that can irritate sensitivities.

Principle Three: Don't Underestimate The Power Of Church Scandals On A Youth's Faith.

From the perspective of my ministry to young people, I have come to learn a lot about the spiritual temperament of Millennials (the last of which graduated from college last year) and Generation Z (very similar to Millennials, but tend to not take as many life risks as do Millennials). For both generations, there is a built in distrust of social superstructures, especially those that are viewed as sources of moral authority. Given the generational skepticism these groups have, the introduction of abuse scandals, financial corruption, or examples of incompetence in the Church is quickly met with a response of distancing themselves from the superstructure.

The moral compass of Millennials and Gen Z is often rooted in relationships, such as friends, family, teachers, and their local priest/pastor. The Church can be a part of their moral compass, but it is more from the disposition of "I know and trust my Priest, so I trust what he says about God," but will simultaneously maintain a suspicious attitude about religion as a whole. Therefore, we are entering an era of the Church in which we need to get the relationship right in order to get religion right.

Principle Four: The Ultimate Goal Is To Make The Discussion About Faith And Science.

A thread that I hope is self-evident through the previous principles is that most of the obstacles to having a healthy conversation about faith and science have very little to do with the perceived tension between the two. Instead, epic fights between faith and science are often a smoke screen for deeper hurts, wounds, and distrust that people have toward the Church that have little to do with Darwin and Stephen Hawking.

In fact, I find the more emotional someone is with me when voicing their views of faith and science, the more likely the true issue has nothing to do with faith and science. Perhaps it was a priest that was dismissive of them in their youth and, in that hurt, they turned away from God. Perhaps they found their parent's faith to be overbearing and yearned to be free from the weight of feeling forced into a religion they have legitimate questions about. These type of wounds can create a mentality of, "I can't trust the Church because of this experience, therefore, I will question everything the Church stands for (or I think stands for)!" I can't even begin to imagine the deep wounds that have been brought to light with the priest abuse scandal. What impact does clergy sexual abuse or sexual abuse by anyone in the Church have upon a victim's faith? When I pray about these scandals, I am often deeply moved with the thought, "How deep must their faith be to continue to walk through the door of the Church in light of what they have suffered!" 

Amid this sea of hurt and distrust, I often find that the first step is not talk about whether or not the Higgs Boson particle should be named the "God particle," but focus on the healing the person really needs. These wounds can run deep, so deep that reentering the Church may not be possible for them, at least at this point of their life. Yet, it is this reality that makes me appreciate more deeply Pope Francis' call for spiritual accompaniment, walking with one another in the Lord. After fifteen years of priesthood, I have come to learn that dealing with questions of faith and science is quite easy - Presuming that is what the question is actually about. Walking with people through the pain of, "This is how I feel hurt and abandoned by God and the Church," is a completely different journey, requiring different "best practices" I will be working on for the rest of my priesthood.

Spiritual Exercise

Do you struggle with questions of faith and science or is your heart at peace with this relationship? Are there deep hurts and wounds that you wrestle with, making trust in God and those who minister in God's name rather difficult? Do you know someone who is in desperate need of spiritual accompaniment, yearning for someone to walk with them to not only understand the relationship between faith and science, but find healing from God through someone who will share their faith with them? Pray with these questions. Let us walk with each other in faith. And let us pray that someday the biggest problem the Church will face will simply be honest questions of faith and science instead of the sea of wounds and hurts that often times fuel distrust in the Church. A Church, we pray, experiences healing, reform, and renewal through the grace of God.

Click on the image to register for FAW2019!!!

What is astronomy? I've been playing with this question as I prayerfully prepare for FAW2019. (Reminder, if you want to attend this year's Faith and Astronomy Workshop, click here or on the advertisement to register!)

The professional astronomers who write for The Catholic Astronomer could provide you with a much better definition of astronomy than I. If I asked one of my non-scientist parishioners to answer this question, the response would probably begin with, "Astrology is the... (fill in blank)." After a frustrating moment of clarifying that my love of astronomy is understanding things like why stars explode and has nothing to do with reading palms, the follow-up answer would be some variation of, "Astronomy is that thing you do when you take your telescope outside and look 'up there' from 'down here.'"

At one level, this definition is well and good for the non-scientist, but my pursuit of astronomy has taught me that this definition contains a geocentric bias. If astronomy is only done "down here" on Earth, are we not implying that the only perspective of the universe that matters is from our common home? Though we know the Earth is not the center of the universe, are we not implicitly contributing to a false vision of creation?

Now, in fairness, the vast majority of our ability to do astronomy forces us to look up from down here. Therefore, the "geocentric bias" I reference may be a bit overstated since it's the only perspective we really have at this point. Nevertheless, we have come to see that being able to view the Earth from "up there to down here" has transformed how we see ourselves and our common home. Whether it be the iconic images of the Pale Blue Dot or the Apollo 8 picture of Earth-rise from the Moon, simply changing from where we do astronomy can give us new insight into creation and our place in creation.

"Pale Blue Dot" aka Earth

Iconic Earthrise photo from Apollo 8. Credit: Astronaut Bill Anders.

GEOS FP Image Credit: NASA Goddard

When looking at the contributions astronomy has provided for us in 2018, two areas of research have been of greatest interest to me that are "from up there to down here" approaches to astronomy.

1. The imaging and forecasting of wildfires in Canada and the West Coast of the United States.
2. The monitoring of sea ice levels at the North and South Poles.

Living in the state of Wisconsin, we have been dealing all summer with the wildfires from the West Coast of the United States and western Canada. Whether it be tracking the drift of Carbon Monoxide, studying the impact of wildfires on ecosystems from space, or a global look at the spread of dust and smoke, one can clearly see not only that the Earth is on fire, but also the range of impact these events have on our common home. One only needs to look at the satellite images of these fires to understand the importance of astronomy done from a different perspective.

NASA Image of Wildfires. For an article the explains the multiple sources NASA uses to forecast wildfires, click here. Image Credit: NASA

Though a wild range of interpretation can be found online about the status of global sea ice, the best science of the day points to a gradual decline. What will the long-range impact of this decline be upon our common home? What will happen to global temperatures as sea ice decreases? Since the answers to these questions can often be summarizes in the sentiment, "We're not exactly sure, but we do have some well founded ideas," many use this latitude to platitude political and religious opinions that have very little to do with actual science and more to do with pushing agendas. For others, this gap in what we observe and the interpretation of what this observation means for our future becomes the template for research that is both exciting and concerning.

The excitement comes from the very nature of science to poke and prod at the unanswered questions that arise from human curiosity.

Concern emerges when we realize that some frightening possibilities emerge for our future based on the data.

Though it is true science doesn't have all the answers of where our climate future is going, to use that in a post-modern interpretive frame of "every interpretation of the data is just as legitimate as another regardless of how wildly speculative the interpretation is" simply doesn't hold water. Put another way, a connection I see between faith and science is that the more we grow in legitimate knowledge of our climate, the more we realize how little we know about our climate, just as how growing in knowledge of God points to how ignorant we are in our understand of God.

Nevertheless, the humility we experience in science and theology doesn't mean we know nothing about God and creation. Quite the contrary. It is precisely the knowledge we grow in that makes us more conscience how careful we must be not to participate in inflammatory rhetoric espousing a false certitude of who is God and how creation works.

Next week I'll continue my reflection on "astronomy from out there" versus "astronomy from down here." In the meantime, I would like to get your feedback.

Question: What are the scientific discoveries that have moved you this past year? How have these discoveries shaped how you see the world you live in and how you live in that world? Pray with these questions. Together, may we find through the legitimate exploration of faith and science a deeper understanding of God and the world, even if that understanding teaches us more about what we don't know than what we do know.

Happy Monday!

Over the past three weeks, I have been invited to speak at two separate science fiction conventions. As I take these requests to prayer, I have been mulling over potential topics. Now, to be clear, I am not someone whose major passion is science fiction. I like science fiction movies, I've read a few books, but I am by no means an expert on the genre. Let's just say, I know what I like and I know what I don't like.

Of the movies that I have seen, I find an interesting and troubling theme that emerges on the future ahead: Dark, mechanical, animalistic, nihilistic, and godless. Dare I say, some of the motion picture "think tanks" that have reflected on our future have tended toward a de-evolution of the human condition versus an evolution into something far more meaningful and beautiful.

Mad Max: Fury Road. Click on the link for Roger Ebert's review of the movie.

Case in point, I was trying to find a good, objective list of the best science fiction movies of all time. Whether it's objective or not, I tend to visit the website, Rotten Tomatoes, since it seems the movies they give high ratings to are usually the movies I end up enjoying the most. When I learned that the top rated science fiction movie was Mad Max: Fury Road, I felt that my hypothesis on the presumption of a dark future might have some merit.

Before I share some of my thoughts on the movie, I find it interesting that the top rated science fiction movie didn't have a script. As odd as it might sound, the only attempt at something resembling a script was the stitching together of many story boards to fuel the intense, raw adrenaline feel of the action scenes, which make up the vast majority of the film. (For an interesting analysis of how Mad Max: Fury Road was written, click here for a writer's analysis of the movie - WARNING: This does contain clips with a good deal of violence in them.)*

As I dug around online, I found that the writing of Mad Max: Fury Road was done more like a graphic novel instead of your classic movie script. This led to my first thought - Is our future moving to more of a visual understanding of reality instead of a written understanding of reality? This resonates with me as I am starting to get into graphic novels that are more than just a bound collection of comic books. One of my favorite graphic novels is titles Here. It's a graphic novel that presents a visual history of the room of a house going back before the room existed, everything that happened in the room after the house was built, and things that happened after the house burned down. It's a fascinating work! (Click here for a review of the book, "Here.")

Though there are many positives I can think of with the rise of visual based story telling, there is also something that concerns me: Mistaking emotionalism for well thought out logic. A movie like Mad Max: Fury Road definitely points to a growing cultural mindset of emotionalism and adrenaline addiction. As I have written and spoken more on matters of faith and science, I can see that there is more of an emotional response to my ideas than rational responses. There is much that can be said of this cultural shift, but I fear that we are becoming a culture of "They who yell loudest are correct." Perhaps it's because I grew up in the rural midwest where there is an implicit introversion to how people approach life, but I was raised more with the mentality, "Those who yell loudest should be trusted the least!" It's an unwritten rural ethic that implies that the best approaches to life are those that are patient, reflected upon, and not done rashly. Are the prophetic voices of science fiction seeing an end to rational discourse and a measured approach to life?

Mother and child. Click on the picture to learn more about the crisis in Sudan.

In terms of the movie itself, I will reflect upon two themes that emerge: The disintegration of human dignity and the destruction of our environment. The Mad Max genre is set in a Post-Nuclear War world. Therefore, the "think tank" of the world view is, "What would happen to society after a nuclear war - presuming that some people survive?" As shocking as this might sound, I think that the creators of Mad Max are correct to presume it would lead to cultural chaos and a survivalist mentality. Now, are the particulars of the movie such as turning people into living "blood bags" going to come true? I'd like to think that was more for dramatic flare. However, do the dangers of a culture of barbarism and literal wars over natural resources have merit? Unfortunately, those themes are not futuristic and have already occurred in the world we live. Whether it be disputes over the fertile crescent in the Holy Land or the ongoing chaos between North and South Sudan, we can see concrete foundations for this frightening worldview.

So what does a reflection on Mad Max: Fury Road have to do with a faith and astronomy blog? When I think of how I approach astronomy, it's definitely more of a "visual novel" approach. What I mean is that my first approach is to understand heavenly bodies from my experience of the visual and then develop a story around that experience. As I have grown in my love of astronomy, I have gotten into more of the rational, mechanical, and mathematical aspects of astronomy.

Notice, I did not use the word "scientific" in the previous sentence. I once was someone who thought that science was devoid of an approach to beauty. As I have deepened my understanding of faith and science, I have come to appreciate how beauty does impact a scientist. At the same time, the fact that I can look at the Orion Nebula and be taken by its stunning, eerie, and wispy beauty that reminds me of nonrepresentational art and appreciate the study of chemical composition, star formation, and temperature levels that allow this emission nebula to illuminate itself point to two very different kinds of understanding. I find that it is when both approaches are appreciated, embraced, and respected, we can get a clearer, richer, and more meaningful understanding of the universe we live in. Put another way, we need both the rational and the emotional to be healthy people, healthy scientists, healthy Christians, and a healthy society. To live in a world of pure emotionalism or a world of pure rationalism opens up the door for some very unhealthy developments in our personal lives and society.

The Orion Nebula. A place of star birth found in the belt of Orion the Hunter.

Lastly, when I saw Mad Max: Fury Road, I was reminded of a statement made by a brother priest while watching a Shakespearian tragedy: This story needs a Savior! As a priest, one would rightly presume that I bristle at the idea of a Godless, nihilistic future. It further saddens me when many of the insertions of faith I do see in science fiction movies these days gravitate toward the controlling, abusive, and oppressive views of religion. In defense of those who are pessimistic about the role of faith in our world, I can understand how people not only think of faith as oppressive, but also undesirable amid devastating revelations of crimes against children by clergy that are abhorrent, disgusting, sinful, and criminal.

I, too, feel sickened when I hear of reports of child sex abuse in the Church. My experience of faith was positive, freeing, life giving, and the priests in my childhood were good men who were my heroes, inspiring me to embrace the priesthood. Different priests showed me how faith was both rational and emotive, thinking and feeling, heady, but still had a heart. They were not perfect men, but their bad days never approached the sickening tales that have been presented to us in the media. And it is the example of these wonderful priests from my youth that I try to emulate in my ministry, though imperfectly, to try and instill hope that not only will faith be a part of our future, but instrumental in allowing for a renaissance of authentic faith, hope, and love, rooted in the love Jesus Christ.

There is much more I could write, but I want to hear from you. Am I on the right path or am I off base? Leave your thoughts below. Who knows, you might spark a great idea that will turn up at a science fiction convention the future! Or, even better, you might continue the long tradition in Christian thought of a sacred conversation about God and the world we live in that helps renew us personally and communally. It is a necessary conversation that can contribute toward a future of optimism, beauty, and peace, versus a world of darkness, despair, and hopelessness.

• *Disclaimer: the creator of the video cited has a commercial at the end to support his channel. My use of his video is in no way an endorsement of his work or an encouragement to subscribe to his page. I simply use his video because it provides great insight into how Mad Max: Fury Road was written.)