Cardinal Sarah: ‘Priests are not obliged to wash women’s feet on Holy Thursday’

[paperwight66]

Yes, the Twelve Apostles were men, it should be men. I think that is what Cardinal Sarah meant.

To be truly authentic, they should be Jews as well.

Or does symbolism only go so far?

 

[pnewton]

They should be screened out and not made priests, as the Church teaches.

I have never heard where the Church teaches this, or where priests ordained before the moratorium have been screened and removed for this problem. I know a moratorium has been placed on such people entering the priesthood, but I do not know where this has ever been taught. Perhaps we should add foot fetishes to the moratorium.

 

[Phemie]

Sure, but how many parishes have 12 seminarians?

Nowhere does it say it has to be 12 as opposed to 6 or 8 or 4

 

[graciew]

In our sex-drenched culture, we should move back towards more modesty and avoidance of possible occasions of temptation to sin.

I stand by my opinion. A return to modesty and concern for proper boundaries would benefit the Church and society greatly.

Do you have any issue as a culture with feet? what do you find sexy about slim,fat,perfect,imperfect,scarred,clean or a dirty set of toes?

I d really be more worried about my knees and standing up between one and the another…without having to call 911 to stand up!.

 

[RyanBlack]

Unless the priest has a foot fetish (which is his problem) this is simply laughable.

Indeed it is.

 

[otjm]

This is just a statement of fact: Francis innovation was a permission and not a requirement. There are three licit options: use men and women, use only men or omit the rite entirely since it is not required (I suppose theoretically one could use only women but that would be rather strange). I took care to mention this at our last Liturgy Committee that no requirement had been placed requiring a change. I’m very pleased Cardinal Sarah has clarified this point. There was a very good article in last week’s Catholic Herald about the promising future the good Cardinal may have ahead of him.

?? there are a number of publications called “the Catholic Herald” - perhaps you could be more specific?

 

[PPeterson]

I would have expected a lady Cardinal to be more progressive.

 

[peter26]

?? there are a number of publications called “the Catholic Herald” - perhaps you could be more specific?

A British weekly magazine. The article can be found online here.

 

[otjm]

A British weekly magazine. The article can be found online here.

Thank you.

 

[Brendan]

I do not know why this is news. Pope Francis never indicated that it was obligatory, only that it was permissible. And yes, it is permissible, Cardinal Sarah’s opinion not withstanding.

I missed the part where Cardinal Sara indicated that it was NOT permissible. So why the ‘not withstanding’ comment.

 

[otjm]

I missed the part where Cardinal Sara indicated that it was NOT permissible. So why the ‘not withstanding’ comment.

I don’t want to speak for pnewton, but it may have been the additional final part of the comment about the priest’s conscience in the use of women.

What seems to be lacking, at least in part, is what might have triggered the Cardinal’s comment to begin with. Was there some question as to the option being mandatory by someone, or a bunch of someones? It seems more likely that there was a trigger, rather than this comment simply coming on its own. Were that the case, it might be more interesting as an indicator of dissension somewhere.

It isn’t exactly news that this has been occurring for some time, and somewhat widely.

 

[Phemie]

I don’t want to speak for pnewton, but it may have been the additional final part of the comment about the priest’s conscience in the use of women.

What seems to be lacking, at least in part, is what might have triggered the Cardinal’s comment to begin with. Was there some question as to the option being mandatory by someone, or a bunch of someones? It seems more likely that there was a trigger, rather than this comment simply coming on its own. Were that the case, it might be more interesting as an indicator of dissension somewhere.

It isn’t exactly news that this has been occurring for some time, and somewhat widely.

I don’t know about anyone else’s parish but in mine it was pretty much made to look obligatory to have women and children included. From the list I saw yesterday it appears that there will be 6 men, a few women, and a few children.

 

[Trader]

Sure, but how many parishes have 12 seminarians?

As the Cathedral parish, we get to borrow seminarians from other parishes. They also act as servers for all the episcopal liturgies. Because our diocese has two cathedrals and only one bishop, we get Bishop Rhoades for Palm Sunday, Chrism Mass on Tuesday, Good Friday, and Easter Vigil this year.

When I was in the seminary we saw the bishop about once per year and he did not know any of us except for the deacons.

 

[Trader]

Since one of the first things Pope Francis talked about was the need for “pastors to smell like their sheep,” one could also argue that restricting the ceremony to seminarians was more an example of clericalism than of pastoral practice. To me the foot washing gesture is more about humble service and a humble spirit than precise historical analogies.

One of the Pope’s greatest titles is “Servant of the Servants of God”. In other years those whose feet were washed have been lay ministers, like catechists, extraordinary ministers or the holy communion, choir members, and greeters. This is especially true when the bishop is in South Bend and our rector of the Fort Wayne cathedral presides. I personally think that is also a better choice than random people, but the Pope can certainly do it his way without consulting me.

 

[otjm]

I don’t know about anyone else’s parish but in mine it was pretty much made to look obligatory to have women and children included. From the list I saw yesterday it appears that there will be 6 men, a few women, and a few children.

If women are used, how do you tell the difference between “obligatory” and “optional” - by looking? Asking? Other means?

 

[Phemie]

If women are used, how do you tell the difference between “obligatory” and “optional” - by looking? Asking? Other means?

By the statements that are made from the ambo. “We have to have women and children.”

 

[Brendan]

I don’t want to speak for pnewton, but it may have been the additional final part of the comment about the priest’s conscience in the use of women.

But the priests conscience does not make a claim that it is forbidden.

What seems to be lacking, at least in part, is what might have triggered the Cardinal’s comment to begin with. Was there some question as to the option being mandatory by someone, or a bunch of someones? .

Most likely there were inquires. My guess ( and it is just a guess) was a question on if the Pope’s permission provided authority for a bishop to mandate that women be involved, or that a bishop might forbid women be involved with foot washing. Those are certainly legitimate questions, and thus prompting +Sarah’s clarification was that the decision rested with the celebrant priest.

 

[Brendan]

As the Cathedral parish, we get to borrow seminarians from other parishes. .

At our Cathedral, it was common to wash the feet of seminarians and diaconal canidates. When I was in diaconal formation, I was asked one year.

More specifically, I was just told to come to the Holy Thursday Liturgy at the Cathedral, I didn’t find out WHY until I got there )

 

[Trader]

At our Cathedral, it was common to wash the feet of seminarians and diaconal canidates. When I was in diaconal formation, I was asked one year.

More specifically, I was just told to come to the Holy Thursday Liturgy at the Cathedral, I didn’t find out WHY until I got there )

I was much more fortunate. I got asked a full week before Holy Week, but no one asked the choir director. She was mad because I was one of only two tenors that week. She wanted a bass to be picked. They are a dime a dozen.

At least I had time to make sure I had shined shoes and clean socks. The bishop was also kind enough to use warm water instead of cold.

 

[otjm]

But the priests conscience does not make a claim that it is forbidden.

I just find it an odd “add-on” at the end of the statement. Given that the rule, which was and is disciplinary, was changed, then I don’t see what “conscience” has to do with it. Perhaps I am just dense.

Most likely there were inquires. My guess ( and it is just a guess) was a question on if the Pope’s permission provided authority for a bishop to mandate that women be involved, or that a bishop might forbid women be involved with foot washing. Those are certainly legitimate questions, and thus prompting +Sarah’s clarification was that the decision rested with the celebrant priest.

that is sort of my guess too; but the way the news delivered the comment, it looked like it just sort of came out of nowhere.