Ellsworth

I am not a Catholic.
I have never attended a Catholic service.

I spent four year studying at a Jesuit college, that is my only experience with the religion / faith.
I worked part time, I attended school part time, I did that pattern year round (summer too).

I saved a bundle of cash by spending the first four years at a community college doing the exact same thing: working and learning.

Eight years total I spent at higher education, each was a cherished experience.

I describe myself as a complicated agnostic.
True faith is that difficult.

It has been in the last five years that I started to intentionally learn about Catholic history, Jesuit history in particular.
https://religionnews.com/2013/03/14/...is-a-big-deal/
Having learned a little, I have come to appreciate just what a 'big deal' the first Jesuit Pope is, symbolically.
May there be another, as the world progresses.

Here's a story from my first year studying at a Jesuit College.
I was required to take only one class about the bible. If I recall correctly, it was a basic "introduction to the Bible."
It was the sole religious oriented requirement.

I took it as a night class. I was almost 30, most of my fellow students were much older.
It was taught by a person that I can only guess was of Jewish descent.
I base that guess on the fact he looked like Seth Rogan's twin brother (except short and skinny).
I believe that point is worth mentioning.

The professor took a phrase and fully explained it.
"Turn the other cheek."

He added period correct cultural custom to the explanation, he opened that phrase like a flower opens in the sunlight.
I have searched and never found another explanation that is similar to the one he gave.
I cannot do the topic justice, but I shall try to relate it to you.

It was acceptable to strike a man on one cheek, not the other. I forget which was which, left or right.
It was acceptable to strike a man with one hand, and not the other. I forget which was which, left or right.
It was acceptable to strike a man on the cheek with one side of your hand, but never the other side. I forget which was which, front or back.
Of course social hierarchy was involved, there's no forgetting up and down.

If a man be hit properly, no graven offense would likely lead the kind of heat that causes spilled blood.
If hierarchy was being properly adhered to, then no mortal wound would likely occur.

Now, if a man was striked properly, by a Roman or by Nobility, and if that man then immediately turned his other cheek, then in the 'game of social chess' here's what naturally followed:

1) He could not properly be dealt a second blow.
2) The offender (the hitter) faced a choice, should he hit the wrong cheek when landing a second blow, or strike a second blow with the wrong side of his correct hand or hit a blow with the wrong hand itself... every option would bring shame to self. Or walk away and let it go, knowing that too risked a form of shame.

By turning the other cheek, the situation was escalated.
It was an act of defiance that could so easily lead to death.
There should be no customs that allow the Ups to beat the Downs with impunity.
The hit that conforms with accepted culture is as much of an affront as the hit that does not.
It's not just the later that should bring shame to the hitter, but also the former.
Ideally there should be no Ups and no Downs, but rather systemic equality.
Ideally there should be no violence.

I am not a Bible Scholar.
I have never seen the same explanation of the phrase elsewhere.
But as I have continued to learn over the decades, I know that great insights are had when one adopts the broadest context of understanding.
When one takes period correct, cultural norms, folkways, taboos, mores, and laws into account.
When one seeks to understand like a person from another time.

My major was philosophy.
I've spent the last seven or eight years studying philosophers, which is fundamentally different than studying the philosophy of philosophers.

Most philosophy is born from resentment.
Most philosophy is at root, a logic trap.
Most philosophy is mostly bull-crap, justification.
Most philosophy is simply an attempt to leave a mark.

Here are two from others and one from me. The one from me is no different than countless that came before.

1) The principle of double effect. Studying that was my worst moment at a Jesuit institution.

2) Descartes, "I think therefore I am." I don't like it, because, reasons... and the social impact.

3) Number three is from me. "You cannot prove that I'm not dead."

CliffsNotes (something I've never used, but shall make for you): at the moment of death, the human brain releases a giant dose of a DMT* like chemical.
That last moment, when you might understand everything. That last moment when you could experience the totality of past, present and future -- all at once or sequentially. That last moment, past the last breath, the last moment of mental construct/creativity that possibly feels like it lasts for an ordinary lifetime, or perhaps feels like it extraordinarily goes on forever.

The non-CliffsNotes version... is a tome, with logic that makes escape impossible.

"You cannot prove that I'm not dead," I know that seems like a double negative.
Philosophy is the root of how the world makes logical sense, and some is sincerely written, for positive purpose.
It could be that the two negatives above make a positive, if read right.

#Near Death Experiences (NDE) / 'Super Lucidity' / Paradoxical Lucidity / Perfect Lucidity... and Moments of Peak Stress (MoPS).
*I've never done an Aaron Rodgers, or anything similar. I have had an NDE or two or three, and I've brushed up against MoPS.
___________________________________

To Pope Francis, from a 'sinner and a sufferer' who recently passed away:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/836ynGALfOg

To Pope Francis, from me:

God's Marines. May you always justly wield the most powerful of weapons -- love, acceptance, forgiveness and community.
May your good service never stop.