Replies

I hope you can help me out with this.

Abortion is not wrong because the Church says so, correct? The Church says so because it is wrong.

Washing girl’s feet is wrong because the Church says so. But in this case, the Church does not say so because it violates the natural law, or even that it violates the deposit of faith, correct? It’s a man-made rule, which existed at one time for a purpose, and which Christ’s vicar may do with as he pleases, no?

The Pope could not - cannot - proclaim that abortion is OK, or that women can be priests.

But as to what priests should wear, or whose feet are washed - those are things he may decide at his pleasure, are they not?

But as to what priests should wear, or whose feet are washed - those are things he may decide at his pleasure, are they not?

Yes, but...

You obviously understand this distinction, but many Catholics do not.

Here's an example:

We oppose abortion because its a violation of natural law. Its always intrinsically evil.

But now our bishops tell us to be truly "pro-life," we must also oppose capital punishment. Why? Well, most would assume we must lump capital punishment alongside abortion in the pro-life world because capital punishment must be intrinsically evil, a violation of natural law. But guess what? Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. Its just a prudential decision of our Pope JPII that we should oppose capital punishment, its not intrinsically evil, its not a violation of natural law. Never was, is not now, cannot be.

Confusing, isn't it? So is it prudent to lump opposition to capital punishment alongside opposition to abortion, when one is a intrinsically evil and one isn't, and very few if any Catholics grasp the difference, let alone care?

Most Catholics don't make or understand these fine distinctions, they just figure, heck, if the Church can say something is evil today, i.e., capital punishment, that in the past she said was perfectly acceptable, then all things are up for grabs, including things that once were always taught as evil becoming acceptable, like usury, or birth control, or gay marriage.

If we can eat meat on Fridays now, but we couldn't before, why can't we have women priests now, which we couldn't before?

If the pope can disregard the rules for washing women's feet without first changing the law, why can't a bishop ordain women without first having the law changed?

Catholics don't understand these distinctions any more, so the Pope's making rubrics moot sets up anarchy and confusion.

He might not intend that, but there it is nonetheless.

But as to what priests should wear, or whose feet are washed - those are things he may decide at his pleasure, are they not?

Of course he can. But many Catholics are uncomfortable waking up each morning, checking Father Z's site or whatever, and/or finding out by accident what rubrics changed overnight. Is it too much to ask for a statement or direction if more liberalizations are planned? Normally rubrics are solid and unchanging over periods of many years. Have we now entered a era of rapid changes to accommodate a rapidly changing world? I sure hope not. This would be anathema to an orthodox Catholic.

Washing girl’s feet is wrong because the Church says so

Not quite. It is not wrong for you, me, or any priest, or the pope to kneel and wash anyone's feet as a sign of service we owe all others. Well, so long as the person whose feet are being washed consents, and the parent consents, and it is understood correctly as a symbol of humble service and not some flirty thing.

The only possible wrong here is purely skewing of the rubrics. The rubrics say "wash the feet of select men (viri)" and the pope washed the feet of men and then also washed the feet of select women, instead of proceeding to the next rubric straight way.

In other words, he improvised a bit in a rite that itself is not very old: it dates, correct me if I am wrong, to 1955. And he is not any priest but the pope. Legalistically, it is not a big deal; I would hesitate to call it abuse of liturgy. Any priest that would take this example and, in what would be true abuse, ad-lib through the Eucharistic prayer would be a complete fool. Yes, we have such fools, but we can't allow their obtuseness limit good priests, which our pope certainly is.

A greater concern that I see is not legalistic but theological. Christ washed His disciples' feet in order to prepare them specifically for priestly service, not generally for a life of charity. The former understanding necessitates them being men because priests are all men. The latter understanding is novel, and does not fit the narrative of the Last Supper. That is a problem for me.

What you said about Divine and Natural Law is correct --- it is unchangeable by anyone. What you said about ceremonial rubrics is also correct, they are certainly changeable, and for his part, the Pope can change them as he wishes, since he is he chief liturgical authority in the Church.

Nobody's saying he didn't have the authority, nor that he didn't have a good intention.

BUT... he also gave an example of simply disregarding the rule, instead of using his legitimate power to actually change the rule. That is, he could/should have first formally legislated, "From here on in, you can wash the feet of girls/women".

But he didn't, he just did his own thing on the spot.

The EneMedia have apparently latched onto this as a signal for "Whee! The Catholic Church has declared a New Age of No Rules", and in fact, some of the looseygooseys amongst the liberal clerics are sure to see it just that way ("Yahoo, the Pope disregards rules for the sake of compassion, and so can I. Next up, I'm marryin' lesbians...")

They're wrong, of course, but that's the Zeitgeist.

In sum, this would not have been the Pope's intention, but this may be the result. There are a lot of overexcited looseygoosies out there, who could turn this into another poop-typhoon like the one in the immediate aftermath of VII. We haven't even finished repairing he damage caused by that one, and people are afraid of "Here it comes again!"