Our church has always included women in the foot washing. It’s usually left up to the individual parish. I remember one year when I was a kid, the bishop came to perform it, and wouldn’t allow women to participate. People were pissed.
He was pretty much a douchebag in general.
When I heard that women weren’t supposed to be included in the foot-washing I was puzzled - here in Chicago the past two cardinals have often included women as the washees. Including this year.
I guess someone just has to get their panties in a bunch.
Not in public, anyway . . . I daresay there were few kinks Alexander VI Borgia never tried . . .
I not only read that link, but several other stories that talked about the claims that he had violated some stricture or other. I then went out and scanned Canon Law looking for anything that could be construed as a rule regarding the sex of people (other than the priest) involved in Holy Thursday celebrations. There were none.
I would not be surprised that some group or another in the church has issued a pronouncement on the topic, much like the DNR setting regulations for campsites or the FCC setting rules for language used in broadcast TV or radio. However, the headline, (the actual matter I addressed), said that he violated Canon Law and I am sure that he has not.
Pope praises Muslims. This could get ugly.
Heh. In my parish, the priest and several members of the congregation shared in the washing duties, and some of the washers were indeed women.
Personally, I had never realized that there was any sort of law, rule, directive, or tradition as to the sex of the participants. But I’m heartened to see how annoyed the traditionalists are getting. You can judge the quality of a man by who his enemies are.
Why?
Do you think the Jews will be jealous?
Absolutely.
I don’t know why you bothered scanning Canon Law when the link didn’t mention it once. Really. It went into detail about what exactly he did violate (tradition, and also possibly a letter sent to bishops at one point). I’m not entirely sure I believe your claim that you read the story. 
…
Yes, I am aware that Smapti incorrectly summarized the article. The headline writer of the article did no such thing. Which is why I asked if you’d actually read it. And you said you had, and went off on a big discussion about how you’d done this huge search on canon law, as though the article had mentioned canon law. Which it didn’t. Which makes me think that you only read the link text provided by the OP. 
I’ve reached the conclusion that the headline was changed, and you saw only the new version. The headline clearly stated “Canon Law” when I first followed the link. It no longer says that.
I remember it saying so as well. Are we misremembering?
Someone else quoted the headline upthread. HuffPo must’ve changed it because it’s not accurate.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the writer of the article saw it and blew a gasket, because there’s nothing in the article to support such a claim.
It was probably just an accident by a non-Catholic editor who didn’t realize that a “going against tradition” didn’t mean “going against canon law”.
Ah. This makes sense.
Man, we really are living in a George Orwell novel these days, aren’t we?
If that were the worst of it, we’d be in pretty great shape. They were right to make the change.
A better headline would have been, “NEW POPE IS A FOOT-FETISHIST!”
Well, did you read the Encyclical written by the Pope?
He says folks with private property ain’t got no hope
The rich ain’t welcome in the Heavenly Palladium
The Knights of Columbus own Yankee Stadium
Now, I ain’t sayin’ that the Pope was wrong
But, he can easily afford to sing that song
If you want to call him up if you need some dough
His number’s Et Cum Spiri-220
– Don McLean, “Color TV”
I didn’t say they weren’t. It was just a commentary on the impermanence of our media sources.