There are some misunderstandings here and some things that can be dealt with much better off CAF than on CAF.
I know Bishop Noonan personally. If he ever found out that one of his parishioners was taking such an issue to the general public on a forum and not to him, he would be very hurt. I knew this man as Father Noonan and as Bishop Noonan. He is very helpful to his priests. If and when there is a concern, he does not beat them over the head, nor does he ignore them either. He does his best to work with the priest.
If there is a real problem with Father X, Bishop Noonan will help Father X, not beat him up. If there is just a minor point, he will deal with it or ask someone with enough authority and knowledge to do so.
He’s gentle, has a wonderful sense of humor, is intelligent, likes people, loves his priests, and is very committed to his diocese. He has a very good diocese. He inherited the diocese that was vacated by Archbishop Wenski who is an excellent bishop.
As to the washing of the feet, there is a misunderstanding here. The General Instructions in the Roman Missal (GIRM) are just that, “general”. There are rubrics that conferences of bishops can dispense with or if your parish is run by a religious order, the religious superior can dispense with certain rubrics. They are not all equal in gravity and necessity.
For example, washing the feet of women, does not change the Mass of the Lord’s Supper. You can omit the ritual and it still will not change the mass as long as you use the propers. I’m not suggesting that you omit the ritual. I’m going somewhere here.
On the other hand, you cannot switch from unleavened bread to leavened bread unless you’re in jail or some place like that where that’s all you have. This rubric is significantly more important on the hierarchy of rules. No bishop or religious superior can change it. Changing it does have an effect on the mass. The consecration is valid, but illicit. The exception being someone like St. Maximilian Kolbe who had to consecrate leavened bread. No chance for a host in a concentration camp. His mass was perfectly legal, even without a canon.
Another example, the pastor is the person who usually washes the feet. He should be the presider at this mass. I have a very good friend who has CP. He can’t get up and down. He has no mobility in his legs and he is a pastor. The deacon does the washing. The GIRM does provide for a deacon to do it. But the bishop can.
There are things that bishops and male religious superiors are allowed to do for pastoral reasons. That’s why the instructions are called General. They are the norm, but they are not of equal gravity and some can be changed by anyone who is an Ordinary. You don’t need a conference of bishops. A diocesan bishop is an ordinary. A male religious superior who is either a general superior or a provincial superior is an ordinary. An abbot is an ordinary
The misunderstanding for the laity comes in that these rights and privileges granted to ordinaries are not found in the missals. They exist in letters, older documents or in files. If we were to put every document about the mass into the missal, it would be a three volume set. Two volumes just for all the instructions on the instructions and the possible exceptions.
The USCCB site is saying it correctly. They’re saying, “we know that the GIRM says X, but we are authorizing Y, because we believe it’s a good thing to do.” As long as there is no canonical objection, they can collectively do this or any bishop or religious superior can do it for his own men. This does not affect the validity or liceity of the mass. It’s a low priority item compared to other rubrics.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Man, I feel sorry for you! It’s bad enough just to see a lovely young woman dressed less than modestly at mass, but to see something like that which is orders of magnitude more likely to lead to inappropriate thoughts? I also feel sorry for the pastor, who couldn’t possibly have been unaffected himself.