Pope Francis ‘opens Holy Thursday foot-washing rite to women’

[ProVobis]

Monarchy is not even an analogy. It is the governmental system of Vatican City, the Holy See, and the Catholic Church. Further, this monarchy is not constitutional; it is absolute.

So again, where matter purely ecclesiastical law are concerned, the Pope, who is the Supreme Legislator, is above all law, and he can do no wrong. That is what full and supreme means.

The problem with this argument is, however, that if civil law illegalizes this ritual, perhaps for its sexual overtones, it will demonstrate that the Church is under attack again.

 

[Lormar]

I am wondering if the exclusion of women from this rite throughout the centuries has to do with the fact that women were not ever (with the exception of women religious) allowed in the sanctuary?

 

[phil19034]

I am wondering if the exclusion of women from this rite throughout the centuries has to do with the fact that women were not ever (with the exception of women religious) allowed in the sanctuary?

perhaps that played a part. But they also used to have more clerics too. Parishes would have members of the minor orders and a handful of priests.

The pastor would celebrate the Mass and the if he had more than two other priests (one to play the Deacon and one to be the Sub-Deacon) the rest would be choir. So those the priests sitting in choir and the members of the minor orders would most likely have received their feet washed.

I think women (except at convents) didn’t have their feet washed for 2 basic reasons. (1) there was no need for volunteers, let alone female volunteers. And (2) until the later part of the 20th century, it would have been very scandalous for a man to wash the feet of a woman who was not his wife or mother. This was considered very intimate act (esp between members of the opposite sex). NOTE: I said intimate, not sexual. Though for spouses it could be sexual, while not sexual for a child to wash his/her mother’s feet (though usually it would be the daughter helping the mother, not one of her sons).

 

[johnnyc176]

In many cases this will fall down the lines of political ideology. The liberal parishes will be clamoring for it if they do not do it already. Others will just decline not to do it. I’m sure there will be situations where a pastor will want to perform the rite from the traditional Biblical aspects, someone will raise a stink and the pastor decide not to do it at all.

 

[Joe_5859]

In many cases this will fall down the lines of political ideology. The liberal parishes will be clamoring for it if they do not do it already. Others will just decline not to do it. I’m sure there will be situations where a pastor will want to perform the rite from the traditional Biblical aspects, someone will raise a stink and the pastor decide not to do it at all.

It’s difficult for me to imagine that there are any parishes out there that are “liberal” and have been clamoring to do this, but haven’t out of respect for the rubrics.

I wouldn’t put this issue in political terms, though. My parish definitely isn’t “liberal.” Lots of large families and we pray the St. Michael prayer at the end of every Mass for pro-life intentions. But they haven’t restricted foot washing to men as long as I’ve been a member. That fact always irked me before. But now it doesn’t have to because it is allowed.

My hunch is that a lot of Catholics don’t even realize this is a change.

 

[ProVobis]

I am wondering if the exclusion of women from this rite throughout the centuries has to do with the fact that women were not ever (with the exception of women religious) allowed in the sanctuary?

Are you implying that some groups had some axes to grind behind many of these liturgical reforms? Perhaps it would explain a lot of things, but I hope this isn’t what happened.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

I am wondering if the exclusion of women from this rite throughout the centuries has to do with the fact that women were not ever (with the exception of women religious) allowed in the sanctuary?

Good thought! I wondered the same thing, but the rite was not performed in the sanctuary prior to the 1950s.

 

[Lormar]

Are you implying that some groups had some axes to grind behind many of these liturgical reforms? Perhaps it would explain a lot of things, but I hope this isn’t what happened.

I’m not implying anything.

 

[Lormar]

Good thought! I wondered the same thing, but the rite was not performed in the sanctuary prior to the 1950s.

That may be, but they did seem to be concerned with the fact that whoever it was that was up there was poor. My two old missals - one from the early forties and the other from '62 - both use the adjective “poor” - i.e. “poor men” and “poor people.”

 

[porthos11]

That is a unique definition of “full” and “supreme.” … It seems to me that we’ve taken a trip “beyond the mountains” and I have found the journey to be rather chilling.

Dan

It is not. That is precisely what full and supreme means. As in, short of divine law, the Pope can do anything he wants.

This may an age where absolute authority is not looked favourably upon, especially by those who live in republics, but yes. Chilling or no, the Pope’s authority is absolute.

 

[Brendan_64]

Because if it’s a ritual that has nothing to do with doctrine and it’s a chance for women to be involved and feel good about that…why not change it?.

So what is the point of ritual if it doesn’t reflect doctrine? Do we now carry out rituals within the sacred Liturgy with the sole purpose of making people feel involved?

And as for the need for women to feel involved, just have a look at the male to female ratio of women who surround the priest on the sanctuary as it is. EMHCs, readers etc., there are more women than men surrounding the priest at Mass now, yet there is still the clamour that there is a need to involve women even more. It doesn’t take much to figure out what is really at the bottom of this clamour.

And as to this particular ritual. Why are there twelve people getting their feet washed, and why does it take place during the Mass of the Last Supper, Maundy Thursday? Christ didn’t give the Sermon on the Mount on Maundy Thursday, He celebrated the Last Supper and washed the feet of the men who were His first priests and bishops. Christ didn’t even wash the feet of Our Lady, His own mother, on Maundy Thursday, he specifically chose to wash the feet of His twelve Apostles, of whom there were twelve.

So if this ritual is now based on an act of humility, then fair enough, but if that is the case it no longer fits within Maundy Thursday Mass and there ought not to be twelve people getting their feet washed. Move it from Maundy Thursday to some other time, remove the number of twelve people, and specifically state that this ritual does not represent the institution of the ministerial priesthood. That would be the issue solved.

I don’t buy this general clamour for greater involvement of women within the Church. In every OF parish I have been in women seem to be much more involved than men in every lay role there is going. The only way to there would seem to be to increase their involvement would be to start ordaining them.

We should instead be focussing on how to get lay-men more involved in the Church. That is the real issue concerning involvement.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

While the legality of the changes is clearly established, I’ve taken the Holy Father’s words about obstinacy (which requires opposition to reason) to heart and reflected on changes, using reason as my guide.

Obviously literal cleanliness is not the point of this ritual as performed today or by Jesus. The actions of Jesus were meant to symbolize something, and the rite today is meant to symbolize something. There are basically two mutually exclusive options about what this new rite means:

**Option A: The new rite is a symbol intended to convey the same meaning as Jesus’ symbolic actions after the Last Supper.

If this is true, then the change implies that we consider ourselves superior to Jesus in our ability to construct symbols that convey the mind of Jesus. Jesus had extremely holy women in his company, and the Eternal Logos was not subject to peer pressure from anti-woman attitudes of His time. He voluntarily chose to exclude them from this ritual. To say the change is an improvement is to say that Jesus’ own choices can be improved by man’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

**Option B: The new rite is a symbol intended to convey a different meaning than Jesus’ symbolic actions after the Last Supper.

If this is true, then the new rite has the priest publicly wash the feet of a group of 12 people (men and women), to symbolize something to somebody. The question is, what and to whom?

Obviously, Option A is prideful and offensive, and Option B means we’ve introduced a novel ceremony into the liturgy that symbolizes a novel idea. Both are problematic and that is why, with no trace of obstinacy, I find this change problematic.

 

[polki]

Catholics who do not understand the symbolism of the institution of the priesthood do not see the Pope’s change as a big deal. The leaders of the Church only have themselves to blame for a confused flock. It is very sad and I can surely see why traditionalists (big or little “T”) are disappointed.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Personally I don’t see why everyone gets so uptight about this every year…

#1–the US Bishops Conference have basically said the same thing that Pope Francis clarified…that if women are included that it is to show that Christ came to serve not be served.

#2–why are people not seemingly noticing that Pope Francis made clear that those participating should be properly instructed in that note. Which in my mind is…“this is about service and charity…not about the priesthood so don’t get any ideas”…which I find comforting.

#3–as far as a priest not being able to control himself at the site or touch of a woman’s foot…have you seen how fast the ritual is in most parishes? Hardly time for an intimate touch… And I’m sorry but that doesn’t speak well of most priest (who are actually good and holy priest) by saying that they can’t handle the sight or maybe touch of a woman’s foot… They deal with much worse let me tell you…

But maybe we can all stop arguing about this now and get on to what is really important? I have never understood the need to get all up in arms about women being included in most things. I say most things because the priesthood is NOT negotiable. But then I trust the Holy Spirit…

 

[Sword_Brethren]

A straight priest washing the feet of straight/non-straight men could also lead to impure thoughts for all.

And a man washing a young woman’s foot isn’t somewhat sensual? I know there are some men you find woman’s feet very sensual.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

A straight priest washing the feet of straight/non-straight men could also lead to impure thoughts for all.

And a man washing a young woman’s foot isn’t somewhat sensual? I know there are some men who find a woman’s foot very desirable.

This change is just another innovation in a long line of innovations in the last 50 years of the Church.

 

[otjm]

And that’s the thing. If the Pope wants the change, at least legislate it. There will be those who don’t like it (I don’t), but it is something that’s not part of divine law, and thus, the Supreme Legislator can change it. If women are now permitted for the foot-washing, then that’s that. This is the right course of action, not the action in 2013 (while the Pope himself is not bound by any law, he should have considered the law in force at the time and the example he was giving to priests around the world).

I kind of suspect he was considering the example he was giving to priests around the world.

He may not be the double PhD. of John Paul 2 or the PhD. and phenomenal scholarship of Benedict 16, but he was not chosen for being a country bumpkin, nor did he fall off the rutabaga truck as it rounded the corner on the way to the Vatican. I think he knew exactly what he was doing, why he was doing it, and what he wanted the priests - and for that matter, the bishops - of the world to see as an example of a pastoral shepherd. We don’t have the Year of Mercy for no reason. And he has repeatedly spoken about how people, especially the clergy, approach laws, and publicly so.

Whether one agrees with him or not, he is particularly open about what he considers necessary, what he considers important, and how he wants to see changes made. One certainly can have a difference of opinion as to what directions the Pope should or should not go, but he was not a cipher to the cardinals when they were in the process of picking Benedict’s successor.

 

[otjm]

Because so many parishes were doing this against the rules anyway, I agree that this was most likely the best thing to do vs. banning it and making this into a bigger issue.

It really doesn’t bother me much, and I attend Holy Thursday Mass at the Cathedral each year where they only wash the feet of seminarians (which I hope continues - I think it’s awesome to see the Archbishop wash the feet of future priests).

However, I really want to ask: why do some feel this is a “win for women”? Besides a minority of women who personally felt slighted that their feet couldn’t be washed (note: I’m a guy and I would never ask to take part in that rite), what good does it do?

Will thousands or millions of non-practing Catholics now return to the Church? Will the feminists who claim the Church is anti-woman change their minds now that priests can wash the feet of women?

The washing of feet is a humbling experience. A straight priest washing the feet of straight men is very humbling and honestly can be almost considered an act of penance for some. It is not going to be an exciting occasion. Furthermore, I think in some parishes it’s almost like being an EMHC, where it’s the same people everytime.

On the flip side, a straight priest washing the feet of straight women COULD lead to impure thoughts. Husbands bathing their wives and washing their feet can be very romantic and arrousing. Ever watch movies set in the Middle Ages and see scenes where feet washing comes into play? You can feel the sexual tension in those scenes. Furthermore, for many women (not all) the feet are an erogenious zone.

NOTE: I’m am NOT criticizing the Pope. But I’m just curious why many women felt slighted by this which has lead priests to break the tradition in the past and now leads the Pope to allow it?

I am amazed that anyone would bring up foot washing as something sensual, but since you brought it up, do you wish to carry out logically the thought… such as priests who are not straight? Or can we agree that the comment was totally and completely unnecessary at best?

 

[otjm]

I hate to bring up the slippery slope argument but like altar girls, couldn’t more “liberal” churches see this action and think that they should start breaking other rules since eventually, if they become widespread, will eventually be permitted?

As this is a minor issue in itself - as can be seen from history where sometimes it was part of the Holy Thursday Mass, and sometimes it ceased to exist, only to be brought back later, I sincerely doubt that it is going to be any motivation to violate liturgical laws elsewhere. Which is not to say that they are not violated elsewhere, although as older priests have retired and/or died, that attitude of laissez faire has become less and less frequent.

Which is another way of saying that those who play fast and loose don’t need this as a prompt, and those who don’t, aren’t likely to start. It is an exceedingly minor matter.

 

[otjm]

I don’t think the use of “monarchy” is helpful. It gives the wrong impression since we tend to think of “monarchy” in political/secular terms. See here, n. 7: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html

Let’s look at two examples of a purely ecclesiastical law. A confessor’s attempted absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the 6th Commandment is invalid except in danger of death (c. 977). Let’s say the Pope acts contrary to this law. There is no problem, in your opinion?

Or, how about c. 1247: obligation to participate in Mass on Sundays/Days of Obligation. Can the Pope skip Mass with impunity?

Dan

I have had my fair share of both civil and criminal law, but am largely ignorant of Canon law, including its structural underpinnings and means of dispute resolution. So I would be interested, if you ever do get around to writing about the code section, to see not only your article, but also any responses to it. I have watched one instance of disagreement over a particular point of Canon law, and found it fascinating. Ultimately, despite the vigorous discussion of the matter, Rome said “we are not going down that path” (the one being proposed and disputed).