Well, now that we have all the angels dancing on the head of the pin, let’s start counting…
It is clear that whatever Cardinal O’Malley received has not been released to the unwashed masses - or even those who are washed and anointed. Thus we either call someone a liar, or we are stuck with an incident that would seem to call into question exactly how strictly Rome wants to make the issue. There is also that unpleasant little issue of a rule coming out of Rome and colliding with the recognition in Canon law concerning established customs.
The discussion is interesting, albeit over an issue that seems to generate more heat than necessary light. Rome seems to see fit to take a gentle swat at what amounts to a fly, and appears to have bigger issues to contend with than whether viri is going to be held to the literal construction and the synoptics followed, or John’s disciples and the issue of service will prevail. While we all can argue documents, chain of command, priority of law vs. practice, this issue is of hardly recent debate, and for all practical purposes seems to be one that Rome is not significantly interested in resolving. It is not as if the dicastery has no clue how widespread the practice of washing both female and male feet are.
Given that it is not all that difficult to draw a closer connection with the 12 apostles and the Holy Thursday liturgy than it is to a more diffuse (althought not tremendoulsy more diffuse) issue of service to all, it is certainly easy to draw line between the Synoptics, “viri”, directives from Rome publicly or semi publicly made and limiting the washing of feet to men only.
However, in charity and until shown otherwise, one would think that Rome would have at least a slight clue that giving O’Malley something other than an absolute “viri” est “viri”, et non est “hominem” (and in charity I will assume that is what he got - something “other”) would most definitely be taken as a less than absolutest stand on viri for other jurisdicitions which have notoriously done otherwise. To put it not too finely, I suspect Rome knows that word travels a bit fast around the US, and that whatever O’Malley received would not be “hidden under a basket”. In other words, it would seem that Rome has less at stake in supporting an absolute rule viz a viz viri than do those who wish to quote the more (much more) clear statement(s) concerning the matter.
The United States is well known for a general attitude tending towards absolutism (as well as a widely acknowledged practice to the contrary). Europe, on the other hand is well known to simply say "Yes, sir (Cardinal, bishop, etc.) and pretty much ignore whatever Rome says. In short, the pot boils more here than there. I am not sure that the pot even simmers there…
It is not hard to recognize that liturgical issues have not followed exactly according to the written rule, and for a very long tiime. Some of that is going to resolve itself in the next 20 years, all other things being equal (that is, status quo from Rome - as in, not much said) simply because the priests of the generations who have given us liturgical experimentation are going to retire, die or both, and we will have a much larger group of what has been called the “John Paul 2” priests. I would not call them more conservative, but rather less liberal than their predecessors. And so, in time, I suspect we will see a closer adherence to liturgical directions from Rome.
But then, again, there comes the issue of how long a practice can continue before it becomes a precedent (the mind of man - or woman - remebereth not…). In the meanwhile, depending on whether we favor viri or service, we all may have ample grist to grind in our teeth. Or craw…
Perhaps an analogy might suffice: The state makes it perfectly clear that there are speed laws; they are published for all to see. If it says 55, it means 55. Except, that the practice is that there is leeway; at least out here in Oregon, 55 probably means something like 64 or 65, and not 70. So the state has made it perfectly clear… that an absolute is not an absolute when any ordinary reader can see that it is. I suspect that our rather Germanic view of liturgical law is not necessarily the last and final word on the issue in a matter that a) is minor (we are not talking about leavened vs. unleavened bread) and is subject to two valid interpretations as to the symbolic meaning (and I would concede a priority of meaning). Note, I said issue, not law. The issue being whose feet get washed, not the law stating viri. Rome, as I last recalled, was Mediterranian, not Germanic in general tenor. A Germanic approach to law allows no leeway; a Mediterranian approach grants some leeway in some areas.
