May I wash women’s feet, please?

33 comments

• The end result should be worldwide liturgical uniformity, which is good.

  “didn’t have to apologize to me.” I got blasted—gently, smoothly, but definitely—because, as he put it, he “didn’t apologize to ANYBODY” and furthermore, I should “get my facts straight.”

  Fair enough. He didn’t apologize. Think Father Chris Coyne is going to demand that the Globe issue a “correction?” Hah.

  I don’t know about you, but when I think about the troubles the A of B is facing, you know what? Gender foot washing ain’t exactly at the top o’ the list, ya know what I’m saying?

  ‘Course I’m not a VOTF big shot and have nothing to do with Setting Archdiocesan Policy, so what the bleep do I know?

  Sheesh.

  P.S. Dom. The Proud2B Catholic Concert shared a spread with the VOTF Mass…same reporter. The Concert got much better, and more favorable coverage, in my not so humble opinion. Wrong place to put this but I’m running late. And also out of patience.

  With apologies,

  Kelly

• This isn’t anything new.  Back at Holy Week, when some pastors complained, the Abp. promised to ask Rome for permission to change the rule.  That was the time to be disappointed in him.  Now he’s just doing what he said he was going to do.

  If Rome gives in on this one, Boston will be 2 for 2: Cdl. Law helped the feminists get altar girls, and Abp. O’Malley may end up getting women added to the Holy Thursday ceremony.

• Nobody said the Archbishop is bringing it up with the Pope. Bishops on ad limina visits have a series of meetings throughout the week with officials of various dicasteries, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregaton for Divine Worship, both of which would have oversight of this matter.

  Also not sure what The Pilot’s coverage of the two events has to do with this.

• “The archbishop will ask for an extension of the directive on footwashing, to allow both men and women to be washed,yne said.

  This is deliberately misleading – there can be no extension of a non-existent directive.  The Holy See reiterated in 1988, in direct opposition the BCL’s 1987 position, that only males are to be chosen for the foot washing right. 

  Does Fr. Coyne really believe that all of us are that dimwitted as to believe this garbage?

• Ooops… I meant foot washing RITE…sorry!

• Dom,

  This situation reminds me of a child who “wants to do the right thing but just can’t.”……………………..because He won’t be POPULAR.

  Quite frankly, your bishop makes me want to vomit.  His spine is of jello, but this pontiff has chosen many like him.

  I am quite disappointed in your comment “well, at least he asked permission.”

  Is that going to be his rational on his day of particular judgment……….“the pope let me do it.”  Even though it flys in the face of 2000 years of tradition.  “The Pope let me do it.”

  Your bishop wants an Indult on this subject……He will probably receive it.
  Just as in the 60’s the ban on “communion in the hand” existed until Paul 6 gave an Indult for this practice to all most every nation.  What is interesting.  To my knowledge, this is still an Indult…. i.e. an exception from the norm…

  As far as Kerry, from all accounts, Ratz says no Communion, but your bishop is just like Kerry…“I said no, before I ignored the subject.”

  Strike up another one for the “femmenazis”.

• lrslattery,

  I read the term “extension” to mean a change in the Vatican’s clear instructions; that is, the ability to participate in the rite would be extended to women.  There would be no need for an extension of time, because as you point out, there is no Vatican directive or indult allowing women’s feet to be washed, and the BCL directive does not have a time limit.

• A man washing a woman’s feet seems like a pretty sensual act to me. 

• See, I didn’t know about any of this.  I’ve been in the foot-washing thing for a few years at my old church… it was just a random sample of the congregation – old, young, middle-aged, men and women. 

  Yeah, this needs to be made explicit.  Most Catholics don’t even know about these instructions.

  Oh, and it’s not terribly sensual – getting your feet slopped with cold water – especially if you’ve got stinky feet (like me).

• seamole:

  Thanks for the clarification.  So Fr. Coyne’s meaning of ‘extension’ really means an ‘adaptation’ of the Rite of Washing Feet, then…I can understand that – however, his temininology was not at all clear, at least to me.

  And the BCL’s ‘directive’ is a non-binding attempt to be ‘inclusive’ to the detriment of the fuller meaning and theological perspectives of the Rite. 

  I appreciate you making the clarification for me – I do not believe I ever would have read it as you explained it me.  Thanks! 

• The Ab asks, The See says no and VOTF has more to wail and gnash about. Next?

• Sometimes I think women—especially younger women—can be so clueless! Aargh!

  Men caressing young women’s feet can indeed be a sensual act, regardless of the fact that it’s done in a sanctuary on Holy Thursday with cold water. No, it isn’t sensual to all men, but personally, I would not want my priest, as holy and humble a man as he is, taking my bare feet in his hands and washing them. Such a thing would be unthinkable fifty years ago because of social mores, but today, in our morally loose society, in which such rules have relaxed considerably, most of us—even faithful Catholics—think it’s no big deal. I suppose it isn’t—in the same way that string bikinis on the beach are no big deal, or miniskirts in church, or halter tops, or cleavage.

  I sometimes think Catholic feminists are the most clueless people around, wrapped up in their own agenda rather than truly concerned about the welfare of the Church. I don’t mean to be harsh, but I’m frustrated.

• For those playing rubric trivia and keeping score at home ..the rubric call for “viri selecti.”  Viri ..meaning MEN..but since when did rubrics concern AmChurch?

• How long have we been literally washing feet in the middle of Mass, anyway?  Did this come into being with the Holy Week changes in the ‘50s? 

  This may be a liturgical show-and-tell but most people don’t get it, I have to tell you, just like a lot of the changes in the Mass.  What was intended has gone right over the heads of 98% of the congregation, including in many cases, the priest.

  It’s crazy getting hung up on this stuff except for one thing—it looks so bad when it’s done poorly that it’s a threat to faith for people.  I mean that.  A lot of it does negative evangelization.

  Striving to get your feet on display, sock-removal and all, is a little crazy, don’t you think?  Especially when it’s a political statement about gender (the first cousin to sex-on-the-mind, the American plague) in the middle of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass….

  It has gotten so bad that I have to hear this every year, I don’t go to this Mass on Holy Thursday anymore. 

• Agree with the Michigan on just about everything except that the Washing of the Feet is an ancient Church ritual on Holy Thursday. Only the numbers have changed. For example, in the Middle Ages, as many as 40 or 50 beggars (male) may have been called upon to have their feet washed.

  I do wish you’d consider changing your mind one year, Mich. Aside from the foot fetish, a good parish can provide an incredibly inspiring way to prepare for the Triduum. The best part (after, of course, the Mass of the Last Supper), is when the Tantum Ergo is sung as the Blessed Sacrament is put into repose…allowing for all night adoration.

• No, but I knew someone would chime up and tell me that I haaaaad to go. 

• From what I hear and have seen, most parishes use women at the ritual.  What’s WRONG with doing this, other than the fact that the Vatican says it’s not to be done, is that it takes the focus off of the priest (washer) and puts it on the washee.

  But this is exactly what the American Church wants, isn’t it? 

  All the parishes I attended in the Archdiocese of Baltimore (4 of them) allowed women, but that’s to be expected, since Baltimore is pro-homosexual and pro-feminist from the top down. 

  I’m in the Harrisburg (PA) diocese now, and have only been to one Church for Holy Thursday.  It’s pretty orthodox, but even there, women are employed.  I think it’s safe to say the feminists have won this point and no matter what the Vatican says (again), nobody is going to change it.

• Sometimes it seems all is lost.  Have perfect hope.  Certainly, Someone will change it or close the parishes.

  God Bless,

  Isabel

• Just don’t go.  You don’t have to subsidize this stuff.

• I wouldn’t say that if it would occasion any sin, but Holy Thursday is not Sunday by definition, you remember.  It is not a sin to miss this one.

  Unless and until they can get it right, one can miss it and let them know why.

• I’m thinking that it’s far better to attend and then voice your specific objections—backed up by documentation—than to not attend and let the powers that be know why. Reason? Like Michigan says: it’s no sin to miss the Mass. Your complaints, I doubt, will be taken seriously if you don’t even bother to go.

  But if you DO go and let the Powers that Be know WHY you go and WHY it’s important and WHY you object—well, I think that’s more effective.

  No, it’s not a sin to miss The Mass of the Lord’s Supper, but it’s pretty sad. It introduces the Triduum, is one of the most important days of the the Church calendar, is the Feast celebrating the institution of both the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But hey, if you want to give all that up, that’s up to you. As has been pointed out, it’s not a Holy Day of Obligation.

  It is, however, a very Holy Day. Sad to let a few egomaniacs take it over.

• I simply don’t want to anymore.  If the powers that be can’t take it seriously, it must not be that important.  It’s just about that simple.

• If the powers that be can
  
  16236
  
  michigancatholic@hotmail.com
  http://www.michigancatholic.blogspot.com
  66.255.204.12
  2004-08-29 21:04:32
  2004-08-30 01:04:32
  I ask you what’s so difficult about expecting that a Mass be said at 6 or 7 or 8 in the evening the night before or the night of a holy day??

  We were getting 3 and 4pm masses around here on New Year’s Eve and none in the evening at all.  I ask you, what is so all-powered important for a priest to be doing on New Year’s Eve that he can’t say Mass so working people can get to it? 

  I can think of a few things, but I hope I’m wrong.

• Complain to God.  He takes these things very seriously.  Once I prayed to God our Father about a crucifix that was taken down and replaced with a resurected Jesus statue.  The statue was struck by lightening (through the stained glass window) and had to be replaced with the crucifix that was removed.  I think Jesus was very happy.

• We were getting 3 and 4pm masses around here on New Year4-09-01 02:27:02
  Isabel,

  For the love of Jesus, please do NOT pray for lightening to hit ANYTHING in Saint Joe, Michigan. This is what’s called, in theological terms “A Crummy Prayer Intention.”

  Of course, I assume both you and Michigan are joking. You are. Right?

• Oh, you are right, Kelly.  I would just pray that what is only right according to God’s will is restored.  I am not in charge of the results.

  Thanks for catching that.

  God Bless,

  Isabel

• Kelly, I’m not kidding about this awful statue.  It’s supposed to be a work of art, done by some local guy.  It is terrible and I’m not the only one who thinks so.  If God can blush, trust me, this statue is the cause.

  The crummy intention would have been the decision to put it up there instead of the perfectly good crucifix that was up there before….

• I believe you, Michigan.

  You just don’t want to pray that God strike it by lightening is all I’m saying.

  Take a picture, why don’t you, and send it do Domenico. Give the address of the location. He’ll keep your id secret if you want, right Dom?

  We can do something about it, especially if it’s as bad as you say. Or at least try.

  What we shouldn’t do is strike it with lightening, or pray that God does same, is all.

  Innocent bystanders, after all, could be hurt!

• Have you ever struck anything with lightening, Kelly?

  The statue was struck by lightening shortly after I began complaining to God about the crucifix being removed. I didn’t bring the lightening or pray for the lightening but the lightening struck. 

• okay, Isabel.  Maybe praying that the crucifix comes back is better. 

  But lightning or no, I love the way God does things…    Very cool. 

  Wonder why he doesn’t blast more things, don’t you?

• I think people are afraid to complain.  If your cause is just, complain like the widow, day and night.  Jesus deserves a beautiful house!

• P.S. Michigan,

  I think He is beginning to blast a lot of stuff.

• It could be.  Sometimes I wonder just how much of this stuff he’s going to take.  We’ve been pushing our luck for a long time now.