I’ve been thinking about two ideas: “Honeymoon
period” and “Lame duck.” Strange concepts, both, but both quite psychologically
real.
Take the position of the Pope, for example. The new
Pope is in a honeymoon period. Almost every day, it seems, a new story comes
out about the Pope, and most people seem to like what this new guy’s about. He
makes his own telephone calls, he pays his own hotel bills, and he washes the
feet of inmates at a youth prison. He says he wants to be the “People’s Pope.”
Anyway, people love this guy. Catholics and
non-Catholics alike think he’s great. Some call him a “step in the right
direction,” and others call him “a breath of fresh air.” Question: Are his
policies all that much different from the old Pope? It doesn’t seem to matter
if they are or not. He is, after all, in the Honeymoon phase of his reign, and
people aren’t focused on his policies. They certainly aren’t concerned about
his “legacy.”
The lame duck, however, does have a legacy to worry
about, and even if he isn’t the one fixated on how he will be remembered,
others are doing the fixating for him. Do you recall any good stories about the
old pope? I don’t, and certainly I don’t recall any good stories coming out on
a daily basis. Instead, it's more about what he didn’t accomplished; it's
more about the problems with the Church he didn't correct and that
sort of thing.
What, really, is significantly different about these
two men? They’re roughly the same age, and they roughly have the same beliefs.
Will the protection of the Honeymoon phase eventually fade, or is it possible
that the new Pope is all that people hope that he is?
Have you ever been in a “honeymoon phase”?
Or, have you ever felt like a “lame duck”? If so, describe the experience. Did you
really “change,” or was it someone else’s perception of you that changed?
“There is no truth. There is only perception.” –
Gustave Flaubert
Comments
Post a Comment