The West Side Story of 2021 is the second feature-length adaptation of the 1957 musical of the same name. West Side Story is based directly on Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare based his play (1594) on a story written some 29 years earlier.
A good story reflects some reality even if it is told in different clothes.
The story of today’s polarization over abortion echoes a story told around 500 years before Christ. It is the story of group of blind persons arguing about their experience … and certitudes about what they each touch.
An ancient story – limitations of one’s experience
A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they said: “We must inspect and know it by touch, of which we are capable”. So, they sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it.
In the case of the first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said “This being is like a thick snake”. For another one whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said, “elephant is a wall”. Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth and like a spear.
Over the centuries the story has had different endings.
In some versions, the blind men discover their disagreements, suspect the others to be not telling the truth, and come to blows.
In other versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to “see” the full elephant. Sometimes when a sighted man enters the parable and describes the entire elephant from various perspectives, the blind men then learn that they were all partially correct and partially wrong.
One’s subjective experience can be true. But it may not be the totality of truth.
Reactions to the overthrow of Roe vs. Wade
Over the years I have read probably hundreds of articles on abortion. They include articles coming from perspectives
- Theological
- Philosophical
- Medical
- Sociological
- Psychological
- Historical
- Legal
As I recall their versions of the issues and approaches to abortion, it strikes me how the vast majority of these focused almost exclusively on their lens.
To me, it looks like that ancient story is still being retold with various twists depending on the lens being used.
One can be right and still miss important aspects of the reality we call abortion.
For nearly 50 years, pro-life supporters have been fighting to overturn the flawed decision of Roe vs. Wade. However, many are wrestling with possible flaws in the recent decision and implications for creating a comprehensive “culture of life”.
Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, seems to identify what both decisions need to understand.
“The first thing for us is to redouble the effort to change minds and hearts”
Pope Francis and the gifts of “wisdom” and “understanding”
I have recently written of Pope Francis’ understanding of the Gifts of the Spirit – wisdom, and understanding.
Wisdom is to see all of the things God sees.
Understanding speaks of how much of the picture we see and understand.
Pope Francis’ Prayer
“And this is a great gift, a great gift for which we all must ask and ask together: Give us, Lord, the gift of understanding.
Click below for an early audio version of this Vincentian Mindwalk
Every example has lots of ways to interpret it.
As some of the interpretations you mentioned indicate, it often takes multiple perspectives to understand the fuller picture.
In my Psychology studies back in university days, a professor introduced us to R. D. Laing’s The Politics of Experience. It set off a revolution in me that continues to this day. Although Laing never used the elephant example, I can hear him ask the question “what is the elephant experiencing? ‘Half a dozen or so persons, who seem to be lost or something, are touching me all over. What’s going on?'”
I think we fall into that same type of situation when we interact with Persons in need. The probing questions, unsolicited hand-outs, waiting periods, group decisions – all the Person wanted was to get some money for my electric bill. How much of our spirituality and “life experience” are we imposing on them?
In younger days, I tried to dress Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer in modern clothes, at least, modern enough to make sense to me. Both the Latin and earlier Greek phrase in the prayer is properly translated as “forgive us our debts,” similar to our English idiom of forgiving a loan. The companion phrase, “as we forgive our debtors,” didn’t make much sense to me since that doesn’t have a parallel in regular English. After some reflection, I came to appreciate that “debts” and “debtors” made more sense as “impositions” and “those who impose on us.” Now, I can see whether I am truly forgiving of those who impose on me, who challenge me and my stated faith commitments.
We impose on Persons in need, both as individuals and a Society, and Vincent rightly tasks us with asking for their forgiveness.
Notice how I carefully avoided the “elephant in the room.”
Thank you, once again, for new food for thought.
I’d like to reflect on a moral/legal question related to abortion.
We all know about the 5th Commandment. However, when we are confronted with an assailant, or during a war, etc., we MAY defend ourselves: self-defense.
On the streets, or in a situation of an approaching rape within a marriage and/or within a couple, or in situation of incest, what does a woman have to defend herself? Should all women go constantly around with a gun? I bet that the NRA would be very happy and use this reason, here, to sell more guns…!
Furthermore – and this is more related to the youth in North America (I am ignorant about other Countries, except Italy) – thousands of young people live in College/University Campuses at an age in which they still need a LOT of maternal/paternal love, even if we think (mistakenly, in my opinion) that they don’t. They are far away from their families and friends; they are (often) far away from big cities with theaters and the hundreds of activities we have in big cities…
In summary, we “seclude” the youth in kinds of “modern monasteries” made for young people who are not exactly thinking about living as “monks” for a few years. Sooner or later, with the help of alcohol and other substances, too, it is pretty easy to try to find consolation in sexual relationships.
Maybe no one has ever seen colleges from these point of view. To me, a naturalized US citizen, who came here at age 29, they look like the big monasteries of years ago with… today’s youth. While most young men might not think about any repercussions of their sexual acts, women do not have that luxury. What do they have to defend themselves in case of rape, after maybe being drugged with alcohol or other substances? Alternative: women could remain in their own room, as “nuns” would definitely do.
These are reflections which I already shared with some religious priests hoping that, considering the moral/legal side of self-defense, we might rethink how to interpret the “elephant” in the room.