“You originally asked the juvenile question, “WWJD”.”
I asked nothing that was juvenile.
“We already know what Jesus did on Holy Thursday. He washed the feet of his disciples (all male) the night before His Crucifixion.”
And?
“Why does some narcissistic pope, with an ego bigger than Obama’s, ignore the example of Jesus, his 265 predecessors and canon law and “do his own thing” in front of cameras brought into the prison?”
His ego seems no bigger than ... [to say it could be viewed as making it personal].
“Francis has the power to change canon law regarding Holy Thursday ceremonies, specifically the restriction to “viri” only. He has not done so. Rather he choses to openly violate canon law.”
If he has the right to change canon law, then he can do so by his actions. He need not issue a new law or revise a law to do something different. Any canon lawyer can tell you that.
“Why would he do so, unless he intends to encourage all Catholic prelates to ignore canon law?”
It amazes me how you build ridiculous mountains out of things that aren’t even molehills in the field you’re talking about.
“Perhaps so they wink and give Holy Communion to adulterers, sodomites, etc?”
Like I said, it amazes me how you build ridiculous mountains out of things that aren’t even molehills in the field you’re talking about.
Not so. His unlawful actions have not changed the law, because he has not declared the law changed, which is his perogative.
Any canon lawyer can tell you that.
Foolish nonsense.
Here's what a canon lawyer says about it:
A pope’s ignoring of a law is not an abrogation of the law but, especially where his action reverberated around the world, it seems to render the law moot. For the sake of good order, then, the Mandatum rubrics should be modified to permit the washing of women’s feet or, perhaps upon the advice of Scriptural and theological experts, the symbolism of apostolic ministry asserted by some to be contained in the rite should be articulated and the rule reiterated. What is not good is to leave a crystal clear law on the books but show no intention of expecting anyone to follow it. That damages the effectiveness of law across the board.
Edward Peters