Thoughts about the reading

Then the disciples came and asked him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” He answered, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. The reason I speak to them in parables is that ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’" (Mt. 13:10-13)

Long ago and far away, I studied Tai Chi and, by extension, Taoism from a wise and good man. At one point, we started talking about Zen Buddhism and koans. He told me that the point of a koan is not unlike that of a parable. The conscious mind has it's biases and 'understanding' of the universe and will refuse to see and hear and understand something which does not fit the already prescribed belief.  This is the fundaments behind why people can witness true atrocities and not acknowledge them.

But a parable...a parable engages the conscious brain in a puzzle or story which it can relate to while the underlying message, the truth which would otherwise be blocked by the conscious mind of the listener, sneaks in through the back door.  Safely inside, it sits and waits until the conscious mind is ready to understand and then, like a stroke of lightning, it springs forth from within, granting satori to the listener.

So, let me tell you a story...

posts to anger and offend - contraception and abortion

Having a distinct lack of plan about the current socio-economic crisis facing the US, some political folk on the far right have dragged out the old chestnut of social conservatism, particularly what is commonly called 'a women's right to choose'.

Having suffered through the slings and arrows of an upbringing exposed to protestant evangelicism, I am well aware of the scriptural underpinnings of the procreation movement as well as the age and context thereof.  There are several verses in the Old Testament (Genesis and Psalms, specifically) which directly or obliquely reference the desire to have a large family.  This is not surprising, considering the audience was a small, warlike nation some 3000 years ago (oops, there I go with that historical/critical stuff).  My thoughts are not centered around arguing the validity of words from three thousand years and miles ago, but rather a different set of arguments which are more rooted in the here and now.

Regarding contraception, the current argument runs that family planning is alternately an assumption of personal responsibility and a contravention of the will of God.  Now the first side I can argue easily.  If men/women (for whatever reason) feel they are not ready, willing, and/or able to bring a child into this world AND are unwilling (for whatever reason) to wholly abstain from sexual congress, then the responsible option is to take safe and effective steps to prevent pregnancy. 

The other position is far more dicey, for it assumes an untenable position - that any mortal may know the designs of the Divine.  It also assumes something which I find laughable, which is that the designs of the aforementioned omnipotent Divine could be so easily thwarted by a pill or a piece of rubber.  Finally, it presumes to override Primacy of Conscience and Free Will, replacing them with a 'one size fits none' approach to an intensely personal and situationally dependent decision.

Regarding abortion, things are much trickier but the bottom line is the same.  When does the soul enter the fetus, transforming a saprophytic polyp into a human being?  What are the ultimate consequences of either keeping or aborting said polyp/human?  What about in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the mother?  To categorically state that any action is universally good OR evil presumes a level of understanding of the universe and the persons performing the actions that is far beyond the ken of mankind.   It also denies Primacy of Conscience and Free Will.

In both cases, I would point out that it is a personal decision to be considered at length with prayer and thoughtful introspection.  Whether or not I would consider either acceptable does not alter the fact that one must always be permitted to make a choice, whether that choice is right or wrong.  Your definitions of wrong and right may vary (and that's ok).    

glasses of the heart

This weekend has been of interest and has brought something into crystal-focus which I believe I have been ignoring.  Without going into the sordid and personal details, let us say that what was is now, unequivocally and irreversibly no more.  I have intellectually known this to be for some time, but my heart held out hope - for naught.

I have been mulling over the possible lessons to be learned from all of this.  Of course, I have been talking with Dad about these things and trying to grasp what's going on.

The reply was thus:  "Before you fill a glass, it must be empty."

Beyond the obvious, personal implication of this profound statement, there is a question posed regarding the wider, collective conscience and scripture/tradition.  How much that is disused, no longer applicable and generally gathering dust do we, as Christians and Catholics, keep around?  How much detritus and debris which we've never bothered to sweep away is left cluttering up the place, making it harder to have space for more current understanding of the Divine and the world around us.

Right.  I need to get out my psychological dustpan and sweep things clean so that when the new stuff arrives (whatever, whoever and whenever that may be), I'll have an uncluttered spot for it.  I think between the comfy couch of non-conformity and the armoire of hopes and dreams.

My, but look at all the dustbunnies.