Is it against tradition for a pope to be a religious?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JReducation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very true.

I think the “god” in this case is that people get a thrill of power when they change things to how they want, then they get sort of addicted to it, to feeling powerful, like its all about them
I believe this is very true. Humans generally, and modern Westerners especially, very much like the concept of “change,” the emotional rush, the feeling it gives when we think about it and experience it. It’s not necessarily in every case bad, but it can be and, I’d argue, it usually is. People are inclined to this kind of thinking/attitude.

It’s like when you live in a medium sized town that has generally prospered over the years with good jobs and functioning, good government and good schools and cheap electricity that suddenly gets a Starbucks and half the town freaks out and talks about it nonstop for four months. Then you realize that Mrs. Sandy’s Cafe, open since 1958 and owned by that woman who goes to your church, is going out of business. Six people are laid off and Starbucks only hires three or four new workers. Was it worth it? Really? But hey, the coffee’s two cents cheaper and service is ten seconds faster and the building is trendier inside! Ugh. I err on the side of caution.

I’m very skeptical of change. I don’t trust it. It has to prove itself. It has to prove that it is unequivocally better than what came before. That doesn’t mean I don’t like new things. I do like new things, but I just tend to be very careful so that I don’t ruin something or myself.

The feeling of newness and change is addictive, a drug.
 
I believe this is very true. Humans generally, and modern Westerners especially, very much like the concept of “change,” the emotional rush, the feeling it gives when we think about it and experience it. It’s not necessarily in every case bad, but it can be and, I’d argue, it usually is. People are inclined to this kind of thinking/attitude.

It’s like when you live in a medium sized town that has generally prospered over the years with good jobs and functioning, good government and good schools and cheap electricity that suddenly gets a Starbucks and half the town freaks out and talks about it nonstop for four months. Then you realize that Mrs. Sandy’s Cafe, open since 1958 and owned by that woman who goes to your church, is going out of business. Six people are laid off and Starbucks only hires three or four new workers. Was it worth it? Really? But hey, the coffee’s two cents cheaper and service is ten seconds faster and the building is trendier inside! Ugh. I err on the side of caution.

I’m very skeptical of change. I don’t trust it. It has to prove itself. It has to prove that it is unequivocally better than what came before. That doesn’t mean I don’t like new things. I do like new things, but I just tend to be very careful so that I don’t ruin something or myself.

The feeling of newness and change is addictive, a drug.
I would say that “sameness” is even more addictive, or at least equally as addictive.

One of the things that dietitians suggest for those of us who are trying to eat healthier is to CHANGE our habits. Many of us eat the way we do out of habit, and it has become “addictive” (psychologically and emotionally).

E.g., we drive to work and get into the habit of stopping by the All Day Donut for a donut and coffee. Or perhaps on the drive home from work or school, we drive through the McDonald’s for a cone (only 170 calories-big deal, right?). The problem is, for those like me who really can’t afford to be eating extra calories, these little “habits” can add up to several pounds gained over a year.

What the dietitians suggest is simply changing the route. Drive to work down a different street other than the donut shop. When we aren’t “triggered” by the “stimulus” of driving by the donut shop or the McDonald’s, then we are often able to avoid the “habit” of stopping for a treat.

This even applies to our home. If we are used to reading in the evening and enjoying cookies while we read, stop reading. Do something else. Use the evening as the time to go to Adoration instead of sitting home reading. Or play with the kids instead. Or do some light housework or yardwork. Work on a hobby. Call a friend on the phone.

The idea is to break the habit. One pitfall is that it takes at least 40 days of repetition to break a habit, and that’s tough for people who are trying to lose weight. We want to lose it all now! :o

Another pitfall is that it is very hard to give up our “addiction” (usually psychological) to our habit. We are very resistant to change, and see it as threatening or “not as satisfying” as our usual habit.

I testify that I have learned to associate various foods with various good occasions. E.g., the donut in the morning is a sweet start to what often is a very busy day. I see the donut (no coffee, BTW) as a relaxing “just-for-me” time. Unfortunately the donut is around 350 calories, and this means that over a period of ten days, I will gain a pound. This amounts to approx. 35 pounds a year. Hmm.

For other people who are not addicted, the donut means nothing. Or it might mean a fatty, greasy piece of dough that sits in their stomach like a baseball. Or it might mean a a too-sweet pastry that makes their head spin.

These people have a hard time relating to people like me, and I certainly can’t relate to them. For me, there is no such thing as “too sweet.” I was in a restaurant this week, and I watched the waitress fill the sugar containers, and thought, “I could eat all the sugar in that container, two cups worth. No problem. Yummy!”

I’m sure others would be disgusted by the very thought of eating that much sugar.

So I have to play mental games to convince the logical side of my brain that the donut is NOT the only way to have a relaxing, sweet start to my morning. I can have a peppermint as I drive to work (on a different route than the donut shop). I can sip a diet pepsi and do CAF (which is what I usually do). I don’t NEED to have a donut to relax.

Do y’all see what I’m getting at here? I’m not just talking about donuts and sugar. Do you see how people differ and how hard it is for people to understand each other’s differences? All too often, we tend to look down on other people because they are different than us. OR…we look down on their “habit.” For someone who is physically active (e.g., my daughter who runs 10 miles a day), one donut a day isn’t going to hurt them, and the extra calories will probably be useful to them.

Also, do you see how doing things the same way is a very comforting and safe way to be, and many people simply can’t break the “addiction”, or maybe the more accurate word is “habituation” to a certain way of living. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as the habit that they are “addicted” to is a good habit. 🙂
 
Yes, Cat, I see what you are saying, and I have no problem with it in principle. Everything you say is, in one sense or another, true, just as what I said is. So, we’ve illustrated general principles and have implicitly imputed them on ecclesiastical life. The more I think about the Catholic world, the more I see that the best route is often the middle route. Not always, like with dogma there aren’t really two different legitimate routes, but usually.

If people say that, up til recently the “pendulum” had been stuck in one place for too long, I tend to not disagree with that even though I’d like to. I’ll place some trust in the hordes of written accounts on that. I don’t think thousands of good Catholics were stupid or totally brainwashed. However, I’d just as quickly and fervently point out that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and has been stuck in that place for too long. What’s more, 50 years of today’s cultural pace is like 500 years of yesterday’s cultural pace. So all the problems that we might have accumulated in remaining in “Counter-reformation Mode” for about half a millennium, all the collective gravity of those problems, well, we’ve already accumulated the gravity of the collective new problems we’ve indirectly created for ourselves in this new “Mode” of “being Church.”

Now, some astute person reading this post might then point out that a logical conclusion to all of this is that we should come up yet again with a new “Mode.” I don’t think so. I don’t think our job is to keep up with the culture. I think our job is to be as open as possible to allowing God to save the world (check!) through the collective salvation of as many individuals as possible (not yet check).

So, again, I’d like to put forward the idea that, perhaps the Church had been stuck in a certain “Mode” for too long, but that, considering cultural pace and circumstances now, perhaps we’ve yet again been stuck for too long in a certain “Mode.” Perhaps it’s again time for us to not just be countercultural in spirit and evangelical fervor and social justice–necessary, but not enough–but also in cultural engagement (please don’t confuse my use of that term with the use of NCReporter types) and development.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

You have an interesting discussion going and I’m enjoying follow along, even though I can’t participate.

Please avoid going down too many side streets. In a thread such as this, tag words may help you stay on track: pope, religious life, Society of Jesus, Franciscan, Ignatian, religious, secular.
 
Yes, Cat, I see what you are saying, and I have no problem with it in principle. Everything you say is, in one sense or another, true, just as what I said is. So, we’ve illustrated general principles and have implicitly imputed them on ecclesiastical life. The more I think about the Catholic world, the more I see that the best route is often the middle route. Not always, like with dogma there aren’t really two different legitimate routes, but usually.

If people say that, up til recently the “pendulum” had been stuck in one place for too long, I tend to not disagree with that even though I’d like to. I’ll place some trust in the hordes of written accounts on that. I don’t think thousands of good Catholics were stupid or totally brainwashed. However, I’d just as quickly and fervently point out that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and has been stuck in that place for too long. What’s more, 50 years of today’s cultural pace is like 500 years of yesterday’s cultural pace. So all the problems that we might have accumulated in remaining in “Counter-reformation Mode” for about half a millennium, all the collective gravity of those problems, well, we’ve already accumulated the gravity of the collective new problems we’ve indirectly created for ourselves in this new “Mode” of “being Church.”

Now, some astute person reading this post might then point out that a logical conclusion to all of this is that we should come up yet again with a new “Mode.” I don’t think so. I don’t think our job is to keep up with the culture. I think our job is to be as open as possible to allowing God to save the world (check!) through the collective salvation of as many individuals as possible (not yet check).

So, again, I’d like to put forward the idea that, perhaps the Church had been stuck in a certain “Mode” for too long, but that, considering cultural pace and circumstances now, perhaps we’ve yet again been stuck for too long in a certain “Mode.” Perhaps it’s again time for us to not just be countercultural in spirit and evangelical fervor and social justice–necessary, but not enough–but also in cultural engagement (please don’t confuse my use of that term with the use of NCReporter types) and development.
Good point, I hope this is what Pope Francis is trying to do by emphasizing evengelization and bringing the Gospel out to the world. Perhaps being a Jesuit will be helpful for this.
 
I’d also like to point out that we can become so enamored with “refoming” everything that it can turn into nothing but destruction of our traditions in which we forget that a modest, general reform is/was for in the first place. The reforming of customs and traditions can itself become idolatry and worshipful.
I don’t doubt that for a second. Neither reform nor traditions are ends in themselves, but should always point us to a greater end.
I would say that “sameness” is even more addictive, or at least equally as addictive.
I would say so too.

There’s a reason why both have become caricatured too. Progressives are Woodstock-hippies while the anti-changers are get-off-my-lawn old men. Clearly, neither of them are meant to represent the 95% of society that lies between them.

I think that’s what the Popes try to do, is find the middle road. Obviously, things all not all hunky-dory (and they won’t be until the 2nd Coming), so doing exactly the same as we’ve been doing isn’t going to work. Doing exactly what we did 60 years ago isn’t going to work either because the world’s culture has moved on, it would be like putting out a new record exclusively on an 8-track or a movie released on betamax; you have the engage the world where it is now, not where it was 60 years ago.
 
There’s a reason why both have become caricatured too. Progressives are Woodstock-hippies while the anti-changers are get-off-my-lawn old men. Clearly, neither of them are meant to represent the 95% of society that lies between them.

I think that’s what the Popes try to do, is find the middle road. Obviously, things all not all hunky-dory (and they won’t be until the 2nd Coming), so doing exactly the same as we’ve been doing isn’t going to work. Doing exactly what we did 60 years ago isn’t going to work either because the world’s culture has moved on, it would be like putting out a new record exclusively on an 8-track or a movie released on betamax; you have the engage the world where it is now, not where it was 60 years ago.
I just wanted to again point out that culture is not simply a attitude of the time. There are some cultural attitudes that do change with time, yes. But cultural values that are there to safeguard a moral truth should never change. Rather, it should refine itself organically with time.

To bring out the classic example, there are cultural values surrounding modesty in most societies. The current Western culture has none. You might say “wait a minute, that’s not true. We might have low standards but we have some.”

But that is actually incorrect. Modesty as pertaining to dress for an example is focused on not tempting others. Our current Western culture on the other hand does not have that as an important item to consider. In fact, as seen on your nearest TV or mall, being “sexy” is where its at. So the culture has been built around these sort of values. If you are not sexually attractive, you should hit the gym, work out, change your wardrobe etc is the modesty of current society.

We can perhaps then talk about marriage. Cultural mindset on marriage is that it is an arrangement for sex. So questions like why can’t two men marry have become the popular question these days.

In this way, 95% of the society has embraced a culture that is based on distorted values. What you are suggesting is that this is people moving on. But that is not what it is. It is called moral decadence. The reason why the Church can’t go and meet them and embrace that culture is because that would be immoral to begin with.

It might also help to tell you that Roman society during the early Church was just as bad. The Church didn’t embrace the culture. Instead, it stood against it and shunned it. So the problem here is not about trying to play old music to the new crowd. Rather, it is about making it known that the current record is pretty garbage by objective standards and that its something no Christian can knowingly embrace.

This was a bit off topic again but I just wanted to clarify this because I noticed you keep speaking of traditions or cultures as neither good nor bad but as depending always on the time and place. That is not always true. The culture and traditions are to reflect the truths that humanity holds. The truths cannot change and so the expression of them cannot change. When the method of expression changes, it must replace and not remove. Only time at which one removes is when they underlying “truth” was a falsehood.

So current Western culture could remove its “lets be sexually attractive” attitude because its a promotes and defends a falsehood about the human person and society.
 
I just wanted to again point out that culture is not simply a attitude of the time. There are some cultural attitudes that do change with time, yes. But cultural values that are there to safeguard a moral truth should never change. Rather, it should refine itself organically with time.

To bring out the classic example, there are cultural values surrounding modesty in most societies. The current Western culture has none. You might say “wait a minute, that’s not true. We might have low standards but we have some.”

But that is actually incorrect. Modesty as pertaining to dress for an example is focused on not tempting others. Our current Western culture on the other hand does not have that as an important item to consider. In fact, as seen on your nearest TV or mall, being “sexy” is where its at. So the culture has been built around these sort of values. If you are not sexually attractive, you should hit the gym, work out, change your wardrobe etc is the modesty of current society.

We can perhaps then talk about marriage. Cultural mindset on marriage is that it is an arrangement for sex. So questions like why can’t two men marry have become the popular question these days.

In this way, 95% of the society has embraced a culture that is based on distorted values. What you are suggesting is that this is people moving on. But that is not what it is. It is called moral decadence. The reason why the Church can’t go and meet them and embrace that culture is because that would be immoral to begin with.

It might also help to tell you that Roman society during the early Church was just as bad. The Church didn’t embrace the culture. Instead, it stood against it and shunned it. So the problem here is not about trying to play old music to the new crowd. Rather, it is about making it known that the current record is pretty garbage by objective standards and that its something no Christian can knowingly embrace.

This was a bit off topic again but I just wanted to clarify this because I noticed you keep speaking of traditions or cultures as neither good nor bad but as depending always on the time and place. That is not always true. The culture and traditions are to reflect the truths that humanity holds. The truths cannot change and so the expression of them cannot change. When the method of expression changes, it must replace and not remove. Only time at which one removes is when they underlying “truth” was a falsehood.

So current Western culture could remove its “lets be sexually attractive” attitude because its a promotes and defends a falsehood about the human person and society.
Well said 👍

I’d like to think its less than 95%, but yeah, the large majority.
 
I find it interesting that Pope Francis seems to be on a steady, slowly building state of teaching. Both of “my” earlier popes (Bl. JPII and Pope Emmy-Benedict) were also teachers, but for some reason, I feel even more compelled to read, study and think about how to apply the lessons of Pope Francis.

I’m still examining whether my evangelizing efforts, as small as they are, are “enough” based on the Pope’s exhortation to evangelize.

Now, Br. JR has said that one of the charisms of the Jesuits is teaching. I’m wondering if Pope Francis is using any Jesuit teaching techniques that is making me (and some others, I think) feel so drawn to study and apply. Or is it the novelty of a new pope? Or is it his simple, non-verbal actions in the early days have attracted me?

Maybe its just that Pope Francis has a knack for saying things in a simpler fashion. I do know that it took more work to read some of Pope-Emmy Benedict’s teaching. I remember avoiding even opening up his stuff unless it was early in the day and I was fresh.

In any case, it just feels like I’m more involved in thinking, “how can I apply this in my life,” more rather than, “this is so deep and interesting, I feel I understand this better now.” I’m wondering if that is a Jesuit, or even a Franciscan kind of thing.
 
(And I think teaching might not be a charism but more a mission… I’m pretty weak when it comes to Catholic vocabulary).
 
I find it interesting that Pope Francis seems to be on a steady, slowly building state of teaching. Both of “my” earlier popes (Bl. JPII and Pope Emmy-Benedict) were also teachers, but for some reason, I feel even more compelled to read, study and think about how to apply the lessons of Pope Francis.

I’m still examining whether my evangelizing efforts, as small as they are, are “enough” based on the Pope’s exhortation to evangelize.

Now, Br. JR has said that one of the charisms of the Jesuits is teaching. I’m wondering if Pope Francis is using any Jesuit teaching techniques that is making me (and some others, I think) feel so drawn to study and apply. Or is it the novelty of a new pope? Or is it his simple, non-verbal actions in the early days have attracted me?

Maybe its just that Pope Francis has a knack for saying things in a simpler fashion. I do know that it took more work to read some of Pope-Emmy Benedict’s teaching. I remember avoiding even opening up his stuff unless it was early in the day and I was fresh.

In any case, it just feels like I’m more involved in thinking, “how can I apply this in my life,” more rather than, “this is so deep and interesting, I feel I understand this better now.” I’m wondering if that is a Jesuit, or even a Franciscan kind of thing.
You may have noticed that Pope Francis often picks three words or phrases from the readings and bases his homily on them. Ive been reading that this is a very Jesuit thing to do. Maybe that is something youve responded to?
 
He uses Ignatian pedagogy. Take one concept and pull three key tags that help you address this concept.
 
Interesting! Yes, it seems I am personally responding to this style. I should check out some books written by other Jesuits then. Thanks so much!
 
Thank you, Brother JR. I always learn so very much from you! I admire greatly the Franciscians and the Jesuits! I think that Pope Francis will be a shining example to all of humble leadership, which is a wonderful thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top