"Long before history, said the ancients, the sun goddess, Amaterasu, ruled over Japan, bringing light, warmth, and fertility. Under her guidance, the natural patterns continued--spring, summer, fall, and winter--all in their order. Then, Amaterasu's brother Susanoo, the ill-tempered god of storms and the underworld, caused trouble, demolishing the ridges between rice fields in the spring, and letting spotted colts loose to lie down on the ripened rice in autumn. Dismayed, she protested by shutting herself in a mountain cave and plunging the earth into darkness. Now it was the other deities who became distressed. In the words of one of the earliest chronicles, their cries 'were everywhere abundant, like summer flies; and all manner of calamities arose,' until someone hit on the idea of staging a festival outside the cave, to tempt her with loud merrymaking. When the goddess peeked out to see what all the noise was about, they pulled her from the cave, sealed the entrance, and assured the return of light (Huffman 2010, 1)."

A myth should neither be regarded as a sophisticated lie, nor a story that should in any way be taken literally. The structure of myth often follows the pattern of a dialectic presentation (good/evil, immortal/mortal, male/female, superhuman/human) followed by some synthesis of thought based on the interaction of the two opposites or contrasts. Myth is also formulated through fictional characters who represent two opposites which can never be reconciled, but the characters themselves allow for a reconciliation or mediation of opposites which results in some insight. Whether one can claim success in reconciling apparent opposites, the value of myth is suggested by the very possibility of reconciliation or mediation. So while one may make the argument that myth leads to some existential or metaphysical insight, the possibility of reconciling paradox appears to be its greatest value (Crossan, 31-37).

The power of myth subsists not in a facile interpretation to substantiate one particular point, but in the meaning one gleans from the collection of meaningful strands of thought which come about by the retelling of a myth and its variations. A narrow interpretation can be seen, perhaps, in the repeated virtuous presentation of the cowboy and villification of the indian in movies, such that the role of the indian in the game 'cowboys and indians' is usually not preferred (Crossan, 33). Without fully gleaning the implied wisdom of a myth and making inferences for its application today, a myth becomes disconnected from present reality or loses itself in literalism.

Christian doctrine can perhaps be regarded as a "broken myth" when it is either disconnected from its origins or is unable to speak meaningfully to the present age and its needs (Komonchak, 701). For a myth to be meaningful, it has to avoid the dichotomy between historical truth and the paradoxical realities which history is unable to unravel. The integration of history and myth is sometimes called "mythopoeism", whereby myth is created to give expression to thoughts about cosmology. The Genesis account of creation and expressions of Jesus' miraculous abilities are easily shown to have developed out of common cultural narratives (700).

Perhaps, as expressed first in the Freudian school and then in the Jungian concept of archtypes, there exist common symbols in the interior dynamics of the human psyche which lend themselves to integration with cosmological and historical events, and which impulsively arise. When organic myth falls short of satisfying the human need for understanding, perhaps mythopoeism risks development into the acceptance of literal understanding of myth and the basis of conclusions upon facile interpretation. A myth can be regarded as broken, then, when it not only cannot be organically integrated with human history, however complex, nor said to arise from the collective human psyche.

Following on the heels of the Enlightenment, with its advancement of dichotomy between historical inquiry and matters of faith, the church bristled at the notion that its scripture could contain elements of myth. It expressed its opprobrium in the Syllabus of Errors, the pronouncements of Vatican I, Providentissimus Deus, and the early decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Komonchak, 700). Catholic exegetical contributions then began to reflect the obvious reality of myth as a literary form in sacred scripture under Pius XII and Vatican II. This reversal of fortune for the acknowledgement of myth within Catholic exegesis is hardly suprising. So much of Catholic theology is woven throughout with organically developed myth, and much is also tied to overexuberant and facile interpretation.

Inasmuch as the church fails to make the connection between current articulation of its doctrine and the evolving need to articulate integral and organic human myth, however genuine they may have been in their origin, the myths upon which Catholic doctrine depends should be regarded as broken. Does anyone every say there is a problem with The Gospel? The complex realities of human sexuality, cosmology, war, economics, technology, and population require a church that can engage that which is emerging from the human psyche that can be considered to be creative, spontaneous, and responsive. This age lacks meaningful insight about itself, let alone direction. The church appears to be struggling in its attempts to offer direction at this crucial time. Many, within and outside the church, exuberantly hitch their fortunes to tired formulations and broken myths.

In many respects, too many to count at the moment, I am one of them.