The problem, though, is that the supposed responsum to the dubium was never released to the public, by Abp. O’Malley or by the Vatican, meaning that reports of what it may have contained are entirely hearsay and we also have no reason whatsoever to conclude that the Vatican wanted the unknown response to operate as a general principle. I know John Paul II was one to tolerate much disobedience because he would rather “propose” than “impose” correct behavior, which makes it somewhat believable that a communique would be phrased so as to give a clear answer but invoke pastoral judgment along the lines of “you get to choose whether to do the right thing,” but I also know that Cdl. McCarrick flat out lied to the USCCB about a letter he received from Cdl. Ratzinger, so I also wouldn’t put it past the journalists’ source to tweak the contents. That’s a lot of words to say something simple: the only thing we know for sure is what the rubrics say, and in the absence of publicly released responsa from Rome we’re bound to the rubrics.
From everything I have seen of O’Malley, he is neither a liberal nor a liar. Charity suggests that therefore I accept his statement.
Further, the statement doesn’t particularly surprise me. There are two general Western philosophical approaches to law, one the Germanic and the other the Italian or Mediterranian approach. In short, the Germanic is “whatever is not permitted is prohibited” and the other is “whatever is not prohibited is allowed”. The latter is obviously what some would call a more lax approach.
What I observe is that many who style or call themselves conservative seem to have a very Germanic approach to the laws of the Church.
I am not suggesting that one is right and the other wrong; rather that Rome does seem to be situated in Italy… and if one pays attention to what transpires in the Church, it is patently obvious that niether the Pope nor the Curia micromanage the Church. There are any number of things that go on that cause people in the pews to be upset. I do not suggest that it would not be better for all if the rubrics were followed. But the fact of the matter is that the rubrics are not followed exactly; and in some circumstances, it seems not even closely. And this is not some new event. There is a perception that the Pope, or at least some Cardinal in one of the dicasteries, is going to change all of this but the fact is, that is simply not how Rome works.
By the way, hearsay in a court of law is generally not admissable (except under limited circumstances not relevant here), but we are not in a court of law. Most of what is discussed in these fora is based on heresay, but that does not mean that none of it is trustworthy. Maybe for some few it would have been much better had O’Malley published the response from Rome; then again, maybe it was better that he didn’t, in spite of the doubting Thomases. It doesn’t bother me in the least, as it tracks - he is for all appearances orthodox (I have not seen anyone question that) and the response tracks with the obvious ways that Rome works, or chooses not to work. Rome understands a hierarchy of rules. Some observers don’t, which generally results in their great dissatisfacation and distress.
Do I like the priest in the parish washing feet in contravention to the rule and obvious symbolism? No, not at all.
Do I get upset about it? I have so much in my life that needs correction still, I tend to my own faults and spend the time in prayer for the grace to do better, and for those I have promised my prayers. The time goes quickly and we continue with the Mass. And I am not disturbed.
