Patrick Marrin seems to have put a little thought into this Francis strip, since it first ran in National Catholic Reporter Feb 16 and appears on GoComics on this most appropriate day.
That initial date likely reflected Pope Francis's rewriting of the rules surrounding the traditional washing of feet, to put into the record what he had started doing anyway:
The rules stated that men's feet should be washed by the priest on Holy Thursday, commemorating Jesus's humble service to his apostles before the Last Supper, and recalling his instructions to them to perform similar service in the world.
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for [so] I am. If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. -- John 12-16
Mandating that only men's feet be washed helped enforce the mandate that only men may be priests, and, while Francis is not poised to overthrow that rule, he has, throughout his papacy, washed not only the feet of women but also of non-Catholics and even non-Christians, most recently this week in a gesture intended to focus the world's attention on the plight of refugees.
NCR has a long history of holding the Church's sandals to the fire, pressuring it to live up to its rhetoric rather than to cave in to its politics, and I would suggest that mission is a greater challenge with a pope who makes gestures of reconciliation from within a hidebound heirarchy than it would be with one whose words and actions were more in keeping with the rigidity of the Curia.
(And, if, to non-Catholic readers, this feels like some insider baseball, stick with me and, rather than contemplate the gap between Bible and Church, apply the same reasoning to the gaps we see within our political theories and the realities on the ground.)
On the one hand, there are progressive Catholics who surely must be chaffing at the disconnect between the pope's gestures and true doctrinal reform, while, on the other, Francis is opposed by a loud, vocal and apparently influential group of social conservatives who become more and more powerful to the extent that they can either drive progressives from the Church entirely or at least intimidate them into silence.
There was some declaration recently -- as I recall, about rejecting Muslim refugees -- at which pundits asked how American Catholic conservatives would handle the conflict between that statement and the counter-message from Pope Francis.
I had to laugh because I saw no conflict: The same people who deny that Obama was fairly elected and who disrespect his powers as president are equally convinced that Francis was also not validly elected by the College of Cardinals and do not feel compelled to follow his lead, either.
The issue of rejecting that which challenges our personal beliefs is certainly not strictly a Roman Catholic issue, but it stands out most starkly when you have strong, well-defined lines of authority, which is why you also see it within the Anglican and Southern Baptist communities, where congregations either break away or are cut off over doctrinal disputes.
But it is also an element within the secular world.
If McDonald's is told it cannot require Pentacostalist female employees to wear trousers rather than skirts, or demand that a male Sikh employee be clean-shaven, bigots will howl, but the law recognizes how irrelevant and unfair the requirement is. (As compared, for instance, to a Muslim or Jew who sought employment at a rib shack but refused to handle pork.)
When a major, centralized religion that runs hospitals and nursing homes, however, decides that it is unfair to allow their employees to choose health coverage that is not compatible with religious doctrine -- even if there is no financial burden for or connection to the institution -- well, my goodness gracious, that's a major political issue for the Supreme Court to adjudicate.
(Noting, by the way, that hospitals take Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, but McDonald's doesn't accept food stamps or WIC. Noting also that, while some religious employees require breaks in order to pray, I've never heard of anyone clocking out to make use of their birth control, or, at least, giving that as the reason.)
It is particularly offensive to both secularists and religious believers when these whited sepulchres parse Scripture in order to pick and choose that which must be followed literally and that which was purely metaphorical in intent and somehow their theological conclusions always come down on the same side of the sociological fence.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
And, as Shylock notes a few lines later, "O father Abram, what these Christians are, whose own hard dealings teaches them suspect the thoughts of others!"
Now here's your moment of zen
Comments