THE UNSPOKEN WORD, April 9, 2020, Holy Thursday - John 13: 1 to 15
Priests. Some are holy, some are worldly; some are kindly, some are mean; some are affable, some are withdrawn; some are articulate, some are confusing; some are brilliant, some are dull; some are compassionate, some are harsh.
I have experienced them. I have been impacted by them. I have worked with them. I have
been them. The worst of them have ministered to me with extraordinary kindness. The best of them have hurt me deeply.
Priests. The Missal says that the celebrant of Holy Thursday Mass of the Lord’s Supper should preach a BRIEF homily on the three themes of the Mass: Eucharist, Priesthood and Charity. There are libraries full of books on each of these topics. Briefly saying something meaningful is almost too hard a challenge. So I will focus on the one about which we speak least often: priesthood. But you really can’t speak about the priesthood unless you talk about priests.
Priests. Although the events of the Last Supper and the crucifixion are history, in each Gospel the emphasis is on the second syllable, “story.” Saint John’s story, like all the others, begins with the Last Supper. But John’s story is also a drama. He sets the stage by placing three-and-a-half “elephants” in the room. They are looming in the first three sentences - you know, the ones we don’t pay much attention to, because we’re eager to get to the part about the foot washing. I call them “elephants” because they cannot be ignored either for understanding the story or for understanding the priesthood. Look at them separately:
- Jesus knew that the hour had come for Him to pass from this world to the Father.
- He loved those who were His own in the world and He loved them to the end.
- The devil had already induced Judas ... to hand Him over.
- So, during supper, fully aware that the Father had put everything in His power and that He had come from God and was returning to God...
Jesus is the one “staging” this play. The “end” to which He loves His own is not simply the end of His life but the “end” - the point and purpose - of the play. We might better translate the Greek word for “end” not as the “finish” but as the “finale,” the big reveal. It’s more a matter of intensity than a marker of time. Maybe we could say that Jesus loved His friends “to the ‘nth’ degree.” Jesus wants Judas to be here for the entire opening act. The first movement of that first act will be the dramatic washing of His friends’ feet.
But, notice the word “So.” Bad choice. It should be “therefore.” It’s because of the information in items one, two and three that Jesus first action is the foot washing. It is because the pre-existent Second Person of the Blessed Trinity - fully human and, like any human being, subject to death - loves those He loves (again, like any one of us) and wants to be with all of them, even the ones who do not love Him to the ‘nth’ degree, that He decides to wash their feet.
It’s too bad that our story stops when Jesus explain the lesson - “If I who Am teacher and Master, have washed your feet, so you must wash each other’s feet. I have given you an example: as I have done so you must do.” After this teaching, Jesus tells His friends that one of them will betray Him. They are clueless. The beloved disciple tries to pry from Jesus the identity of the turncoat. Jesus gives Judas a piece of bread dipped in the dish of Passover lamb juices. Right then, John the narrator breaks the continuity of the story to tell us that, after Judas received the morsel, Satan entered his heart. That contradicts point number three above. But it is essential for us to understand that, at the moment of greatest intimacy in the entire Supper, Judas makes his decision.
The scene ends with a stage direction: “... It was night!” Lights out. (A single spotlight now will illuminate Jesus as He begins His lessons to the remaining disciples, one of whom will soon deny Him, all of whom will leave Him within just a few hours.
So, what do we make of Act I??
The love of Christ for His followers, and in particular for those who share His mission (“you must do as I have done”) is all-powerful and all-embracing. It is not dependent on how well they love Him back. It is not dependent on how well they do their job. It is not dependent on how virtuously they live their lives. Unless we understand that truth, we do not understand the Eucharist or the priesthood or the command to love as I have loved.
It is clear from other places in John’s Gospel that the author genuinely despises Judas. His sketch of the character of Judas is much darker than Saint Matthew’s; Matthew exhibits a modicum of compassion for the traitor when he describes Judas’ final moments. Nevertheless, Saint John is careful to include him among the ensemble at the table of the Last Supper. NO one - no one!! - is beyond reconciliation with Christ and communion in Christ. No one can be excluded from the commandment of mutual love.
The role of Peter is usually played with brashness, bluster and bravado. But Saint John’s Peter requires a more nuanced delivery. There is genuine shock in Peter’s exclamation, “Master, are You about to wash my feet!!?” Peter horrified and mortified. Jesus tells him he just doesn’t understand - not yet. When Peter insists that Jesus must not do this, Jesus tells him it is essential in order to be part of the company. Then Peter capitulates heartily.
Christ is in control. We retain our freedom. Jesus “knew” that Judas had entertained betraying Him, probably for some time past. Jesus chose to give Him a piece of the bread. Judas then decided to act on his decision. Christ has already accepted the betrayal, forgiven it (He washed everyone’s feet, even those who were not “clean”) and woven it into His drama of redemption.
His band of followers will always include the imperfect for two reasons:
Number One: if they are to be imitators of Jesus, they must incorporate into their imitation the pattern of the Incarnation: Jesus “though He was in the image of God did not consider equality with God something to cling to; rather, He emptied Himself, taking on the form of a slave. He was recognized as a human being, and that is how He humbled Himself, even to the point of death ....” Those who will minister on Christ’s name must recognize and embrace the inevitable: they are human beings and human beings are fallible.
Number Two: if priests must recognize with embarrassment, shame and humility their own fallibility, so must the priestly people they are called to serve. It is not only the only kind of priesthood we have, it is also the only kind of priest hood Jesus, who “had everything in His power” planned to have. A perfect ministry, in addition to being humanly impossible, is also contrary to Christ’s will - which is also the Father’s will. (Recall the scandals involving Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker in the 1970s? The reason why these sinful preachers were discredited when found to be philandering is that the power of their ministry flowed from their preaching, not from the grace of Holy Orders. They needed to be “perfect in men’s eyes” in order to be effective ministers of the Gospel.) In our doctrine, the entire Church is a mirror -- a Sacrament, an outward sign - of the Incarnation, now and until the end of time, to the ‘nth” degree both human, prone to sin and divine and, therefore, holy.
What hubris men have (and women, too)!! To think we can speak for God. A mature human being should never imagine a scenario in which it would be acceptable to do so. We “don’t understand” of priesthood. It is not about us. It is about Christ, Communion and charity. We must be bathed by Christ and bathed in Christ.
Priests. Christ, Communion, Charity. Two pages. Done.