Analogies are never perfect, so why are people compelled to use them to describe a more complex situation which should be clear in the first place?
I suppose it's because an analogy diffuses volatile topics by changing the context. Instead of, for example, trying to take the bull by the horns and explain exactly why someone's passionate opinion on the pope, or the president, the constitution, or Vatican II is a one-way ticket to chaos and eating Soylent Green for every meal, the analogy comes to the rescue.
So, forgive me, but I am offering one more analogy to simplify the complex and to obfuscate the simple, to paraphrase a critique of Gen. George Pickett's use of analogies in the movie, "Gettysburg."
I recently discussed the proposition that the Church must accompany those who continue to live in mortal sin with no regrets and no firm purpose to amend their lives. Ambiguities in our current pope's way of speaking and writing have led some with authority in the Church to conclusions such as, the divorced and remarried (living like husband and wife) may receive communion so that the Church accompanies them; or, those living a homosexual lifestyle must be accompanied by the Church (and that phrase is liberally interpreted as meaning that they should be admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Communion); or, those living together outside of Sacramental Marriage must be accompanied by the Church where they are, again, the liberal interpretation being that they should receive all Sacraments which are granted to Catholics in a state of grace. The common rallying cry for these types of abuses is, Holy Communion is not just for the perfect, but for the weak as well. And, here again, the liberal-minded application of this concept is to allow reception by those who are in a state of mortal sin because, who is weaker and in more need?
To obfuscate the simple, and hopefully to take the issue out of the realm of Cult of Personality and loyalty to approaches established at the height of the liturgical revolution of the '60s and '70s, I humbly (and apologetically) offer my analogy of the day....
A year ago last Lent, through fasting and eating a low-carb diet, I lost 40 pounds. I decided to give myself a reward: I bought a new pair of jeans to accompany me at my new weight and also through continued weight loss.
But, situations arose that made it easy for me to excuse myself for falling back into my old eating habits, the habits that had led to me being about 50 pounds overweight in the first place.
I gained weight, slowly and steadily, and instead of accompanying me in leanness, my new jeans accompanied me through weight gain...all the way back to where I had started nearly a year and a half ago.
Funny thing is, my jeans still fit. In fact, they are loose in the thighs and the butt, places where jeans usually get too tight when I'm overweight, even by 15-20 pounds. But, my jeans became worn. They are thread bare in a couple of places. I had to buy some new jeans.
I bought a pair of carpenter jeans, same brand, same size as the ones that I have been wearing. I got them home, pulled them on...tugged at them...sucked in my gut, pulled and tugged the button into the button hole, and...there (gasp)...they're buttoned.
But, how could that same-size jeans that I was wearing moments ago, be so tight and uncomfortable?
Obviously, my comfy jeans had stretched out as they accompanied me through weight gain. My poor eating habits had been manifested twice over: I gained my weight back, and my jeans had stretched right along with me, ultimately, becoming a false size that reflects more of my bad eating habits than any true measurement of body size.
Well, same thing goes when those in the Church would adapt Her to the habits and minds of Men.
