I refer, of course, to the now-infamous and yes, scandalous conduct of the Holy Thursday service at Rome's Casal del Marmo prison for minors. The Holy Father washed the feet of twelve minors - including two women, one of them Muslim. This is in direct contravention to canon law that stipulates that only the feet of men be washed, if that ceremony is included in a Holy Thursday liturgy.
This is wrong on so many counts. Yes, he's the Holy Father and he can initiate a change to canon law. But changing a law is not equivalent to breaking a law. Unfortunately the latter happened yesterday. Father John Zuhlsdorf believes that the pope is trying to make clear that the Church is compassionate. Well, be that as it very well may, the ends do not justify the means. That principle of moral theology binds even upon the Holy Father.
The Pope has just, by example, led many people to think that the Vatican cannot be taken seriously. If the Holy Father can break canon law, by what logic can he ever insist that others do so? Witness the example set forth by King David (read some Old Testament here). After his adultery with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of Uriah, he lost all moral credibility in the eyes of his sons; all of the notable ones ended badly (including Solomon). Yesterday the Holy Father stepped perilously close to that precipice and may even have tripped over the edge. I'm sure that wasn't his intent, but that was a very foreseeable effect. Some sober thought on his part might have led him to anticipate that.
For a "case in point" of the disaster that was unleashed yesterday, I refer you to a comment on the blog of my colleague at Tenth Crusade; see what "Catechist Kev" said at "Mar 29, 4:51pm". This scenario will be repeated many times over in the next few months and even years.
Another commenter on one of the other blogs raised this interesting point regarding of the young Muslim girl. She has now been touched by a leader of a religion other than that of Islam. Her life may well be in danger if her family is of the "jihad" variety. Did the Holy Father and his advisers consider that? In their crusade for simplicity, perhaps they've mistaken that for simplistic thinking that doesn't consider all aspects of a given course of action.
This current Holy Father seems to have a disregard for some of the traditions of the papacy, most particularly that of the vestments. In perhaps a misguided zeal for "simplicity", might he have forgotten that these traditions have historical roots that transcend not only his personality and tastes but those of his predecessors and successors? Among other things, they are meant to convey the sublime dignity and authority of the Petrine office and cannot be jettisoned with utter abandon. Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio is no longer merely a Jesuit from Argentina. He is now the Holy Father, the Pontiff who holds Peter's keys. I pray that he learns to appreciate the dignity and responsibility of that office for he causes many to doubt that such appreciation has already occurred.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Spin? I'll tell you what Pope Francis did. He sent a loud clear message that there is a new sheriff in town. I for one, say "Thank God in his Mercy, this could not have come soon enough." You Go Holy Father!!!
ReplyDelete"New sheriff"? As opposed to "old sheriffs", I presume? Pray tell, what constitutes the differences between the two, in your opinion?
DeleteIn my post I opined that a terrible example had been set with the potential of many being led into error or confirmed in error. You seem to be one of those unwitting victims of the scandal of two days ago. Your comment actually confirmed my opinion. While I thank you for that, I also pray for you that you may rediscover (or discover anew) the true rich traditions of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus Christ gave to the world.
Hi DC ~ One answer is that he "Old Sheriff's" were unsucessful in stopping the currupt and croooked from taking over City Hall. To continue the theme "lock and load." - Greg
DeleteThe Pope and I thank you very much for your lecture but frankly you don't have anything to teach either of us. You confuse Tradition and traditionalism. The great Patristic Scholar Jaroslav Pelikan said: Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditoinalism is the dead faith of the living. Such silliness as only men can have their feet washed or the wearing of sixteenth century court costume is traditionalism; Tradition is the living faith that has come down to us from the Fathers of the Church and deals with the essentials of our faith and not the superficial idiosyncrisies of which you and other neo-traditionalists are so enamored. Many of us have been patiently waiting and and praying for a Pope like Pope Francis. So now it is our turn to pray for you that you will remain faithful to the Church as you see it go in a direction towards which you have misgivings
ReplyDeletePlease enlighten me as to which traditions or other elements are "essential" and which are not. If there is some rationale behind the rejection other than simply not liking it because it's old or an obsession with some new novelty I would love to know what it is. The widespread fascination with the novelty of modern psychology combined with a rejection of traditional Aristotelian psychology that had previously characterized the Church's conscience formation of clergy was the beginning of the homosexual abuse crisis in the Church in the USA.
Deletehttp://www.culturewars.com/2004/ModernPsych.html
But those new concepts in the 1950s and 1960s were exciting and ~2000 years of celibate, chaste tradition is soooo booring. Let's see what other new wonders modernism can bring us besides sexual scandal, emptying churches, clown Masses, indifferntism, rancid catechesis of youth for 40+ years all in the unquestioning embrace of what is new, "the spirit of Vatican II" and other such cliches.
I think you are the same mixed up "Anonymous" who often contributes on "CalCatholic.com". You sure write like it.
ReplyDeleteYou know darn well that the "Washing of Feet" of women is a step in the wrong direction towards the forbidden ordaining of feminist women. In fact you probably are desirous of that.
May God have mercy on your modernist soul,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
There is a middle position...that Francis should not have done it but comparing it to David killing Uriah and committing adultery with Bathsheba is extreme. Christ let His disciples pick grain and eat as they walked on the Sabbath against tradition. Does that mean Christ is responsible if next week other Jews pick bushels of grain from someone else's field on the Sabbath. As Aquinas noted, one is not responsible for pharisaical or unreasonable scandal. The only substantive issue here is the muslim girl's safety. Jimmy Akin, Ed Peters, and Fr.Z have adequately addressed the canonical side of it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I didn't make my point clear. What I was trying to convey that David, when he committed those sins, compromised his own moral authority in the eyes of his family. He lacked the inner conviction that he needed to correct his own wayward sons.
DeleteI agree with you Bill. But, Restore is right that this opens a big can of worms. But, my parish has few, if any men at the foot washing on Holy Thursday, and hasn't for the seven years I have been a Catholic. Either we respect the traditions, or change them. We shouldn't violate them upon papal whim.
DeleteGosh Mr Fisher
ReplyDeleteyou folks who were riding so high the last few years are sure having a miserable Easter with Pope Francis and his "innovations." But for the majoriy of us Roman Catholics of America, it heralds a new day dawning of hope and enthusiasm to bring the Gospel to a world that has great need of the hope that Pope Francis has symbolized by such simple gestures as we have seen these past two weeks.
"Bring the Gospel to the world"? What Gospel will be brought that wasn't brought during the reign of Benedict XVI? What "hope" is present now that wasn't present last year? Just curious...
DeleteI found this blog post from Mr. Edward Peters who's a canon lawyer:
ReplyDeletehttp://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/popes-like-dads-dont-have-a-choice-in-the-matter/
Please note there's no comment box, however, there's a link to his website CanonLaw.Info
I too found that to be a reasonable presentation of the case.
DeleteThe Fact is, but since when do modernist bother with fact, Jesus washed the feet of His Apostles because they were His first priests.
ReplyDeleteNow here is a fact that modernist love, and that is that in doing so, even though he may not intend it, the Pope has opened the door to even more agitation for women priestesses!
Anonymous, your hatred of Tradition is obvious. Just maybe you are one Cardinal Mahony!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Please be aware of what is going on. What carefully. All is being revealed thru subtle acts. The stage is being set.
ReplyDeleteSimi