"The sacrament of charity, the Holy Eucharist is the gift that Jesus Christ makes of himself, thus revealing to us God's infinite love for every man and woman. This wondrous sacrament makes manifest that "greater" love which led him to "lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13). Jesus did indeed love them "to the end" (Jn 13:1). In those words the Evangelist introduces Christ's act of immense humility: before dying for us on the Cross, he tied a towel around himself and washed the feet of his disciples. In the same way, Jesus continues, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, to love us "to the end," even to offering us his body and his blood. What amazement must the Apostles have felt in witnessing what the Lord did and said during that Supper! What wonder must the eucharistic mystery also awaken in our own hearts!"
- Sacramentum Caritatis, Propositio 1.
One of the things that caught my attention about Sacramentum Caritatis at first glance, on the day it was released, was the mention of foot washing in the first paragraph. Actually, between the reference to foot washing in the context of the Last Supper and the repeated references to "every man and woman", I barely got past the first two paragraphs before I set down my laptop and went on with my day. After others have already posted commentary on the apostolic exhortation as a whole, I thought I might devote my attention to that reference to foot washing that first caught my attention.
The "every man and woman" references are the work of the English language translator. I might otherwise have taken it as an indication that Benedict XVI intended to imply approval of washing women's feet on Holy Thursday, a still undecided issue in the Church as a whole. But the Italian is "ogni uomo," the French is "tout homme," the German "zu jedem Menschen." The inclusive "man and woman" seems to be directed at translating the idea of "everyone" into the way English-speaking people speak today, emphasizing that women are included in the eucharistic life of the Church. Because it is the translator's work, the inclusive emphasis cannot be the basis for any theological interpretations of the whole except, perhaps, an intent by the Vatican to make it clear that the role of the laity in the Eucharist includes both men and women.
Other efforts by Pope Benedict XVI to make that point have drawn attention recently from the Catholic press, including a recent article in La-Croix about Benedict XVI's efforts to include women in Church government and to open new places for them within the Church. What is new is his view, as a theologian, of the importance of articulating the theological principles underlying the proper role of women within the Church. The La-Croix article cites his comments in the General Audience of February 14 as one example. In that message, the Pope drew from references to various New Testament women in describing the role of women in the Church, concluding:
"As we can see, the praise refers to women in the course of the Church's history and was expressed on behalf of the entire Ecclesial Community. Let us also join in this appreciation, thanking the Lord because he leads his Church, generation after generation, availing himself equally of men and women who are able to make their faith and Baptism fruitful for the good of the entire Ecclesial Body and for the greater glory of God."
La-Croix also mentioned the Pope's comments in his address to the clergy of Rome on March 2, 2006, in which he squarely addressed the role of women in the Church through the centuries and the need to expand their role in Church government:
"I would dare to say, for the government of the Church, starting with women Religious, with the Sisters of the great Fathers of the Church such as St Ambrose, to the great women of the Middle Ages - St Hildegard, St Catherine of Siena, then St Teresa of Avila - and lastly, Mother Teresa. I would say that this charismatic sector is undoubtedly distinguished by the ministerial sector in the strict sense of the term, but it is a true and deep participation in the government of the Church.
"How could we imagine the government of the Church without this contribution, which sometimes becomes very visible, such as when St Hildegard criticized the Bishops or when St Bridget offered recommendations and St Catherine of Siena obtained the return of the Popes to Rome? It has always been a crucial factor without which the Church cannot survive.
"However, you rightly say: we also want to see women more visibly in the government of the Church. We can say that the issue is this: the priestly ministry of the Lord, as we know, is reserved to men, since the priestly ministry is government in the deep sense, which, in short, means it is the Sacrament [of Orders] that governs the Church.
"This is the crucial point. It is not the man who does something, but the priest governs, faithful to his mission, in the sense that it is the Sacrament, that is, through the Sacrament it is Christ himself who governs, both through the Eucharist and in the other Sacraments, and thus Christ always presides. However, it is right to ask whether in ministerial service - despite the fact that here Sacrament and charism are the two ways in which the Church fulfils herself - it might be possible to make more room, to give more offices of responsibility to women."
Although the words of "every man and woman" in Sacramentum Caritatis are those of the English translator, it remains the fact that the translation is the official Vatican translation. The inclusive meaning of the masculine plural in other languages would not have been conveyed if the masculine plural had been used in the English. And while other translation options could have been used that would have avoided the issue of inclusive language, such as "everyone" or "all people," it appears that the Vatican did not want to avoid the issue, but rather chose to approve the wording "every man and woman." The language seems to make a point of it, in English, in the context of a discussion of the Eucharist, which is a sacrament and a theology equally applicable to man and woman.
Then can anything be drawn from it about the debate over whether it is right for a priest to wash the feet of both men and women on Holy Thursday? Perhaps, or perhaps not. It could seem so because the Eucharist is, itself, given by the clergy equally, to men and women alike. A Eucharistic view of foot washing might thus be applicable to men and women alike. The reason it may yet not imply that women's feet should be washed as a general rule in Holy Thursday ceremonies is that, in describing the eucharistic aspect of the ceremony, the Pope did not negate the apostolic and baptismal aspects of the ceremony but rather subordinated them to the Eucharistic element as primary.
The day Sacramentum Caritatis was released, I discussed it briefly with my priest, a man whose theological knowledge runs deep. If foot washing is viewed as primarily apostolic in nature, it is rightly reserved for men. If it is viewed as primarily baptismal in nature, it is rightly made available to all. Through the history of the Church, the view on this has differed, and the matter has never been fully theologically resolved. What is interesting in the introductory paragraph of Sacramentum Caritatis is that foot washing is discussed as primarily Eucharistic in nature. In my discussion with my priest, we agreed that the Holy Thursday foot washing in fact encompasses all three. It is apostolic (drawn from Jesus washing the feet of the 12 disciples), baptismal (drawn from the symbolism of water and its connection with baptism in parts of the 4th century Church), and Eucharistic (drawn from its association with the Last Supper in the Gospels and on Holy Thursday in the Church calendar), in a Catholic both-and, multifaceted way. Whether the Pope would agree with that assessment of foot washing, I am not certain. However, in the apostolic exhortation, he did connect the Eucharist with both Baptism and Holy Orders.
In propositio 17 of Sacramentum Caritatis, Benedict XVI he drew a close link between baptism and the Eucharist. There, he wrote of the Eucharist as "the centre and goal of all sacramental life", with Baptism and Confirmation being ordered to the Eucharist and the need for a more unitary understanding of the process of Christian initiation:
"If the Eucharist is truly the source and summit of the Church's life and mission, it follows that the process of Christian initiation must constantly be directed to the reception of this sacrament. As the Synod Fathers said, we need to ask ourselves whether in our Christian communities the close link between Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist is sufficiently recognized. It must never be forgotten that our reception of Baptism and Confirmation is ordered to the Eucharist. Accordingly, our pastoral practice should reflect a more unitary understanding of the process of Christian initiation. The sacrament of Baptism, by which we were conformed to Christ, incorporated in the Church and made children of God, is the portal to all the sacraments. It makes us part of the one Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12:13), a priestly people. Still, it is our participation in the Eucharistic sacrifice which perfects within us the gifts given to us at Baptism. The gifts of the Spirit are given for the building up of Christ's Body (1 Cor 12) and for ever greater witness to the Gospel in the world. The Holy Eucharist, then, brings Christian initiation to completion and represents the centre and goal of all sacramental life."
Propositio 23, in turn, discusses the close connection between the Eucharist and Holy Orders, including this discussion which reaffirms the necessity of an all-male priesthood, defining that importance precisely in the context of the relationship of Holy Orders to the Eucharist:
"Here, in the light of the discussion that took place during the last Synod, I consider it important to recall several important points about the relationship between the sacrament of the Eucharist and Holy Orders. First of all, we need to stress once again that the connection between Holy Orders and the Eucharist is seen most clearly at Mass, when the Bishop or priest presides in the person of Christ the Head.
"The Church teaches that priestly ordination is the indispensable condition for the valid celebration of the Eucharist. Indeed, "in the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, High Priest of the redemptive sacrifice." Certainly the ordained minister also acts "in the name of the whole Church, when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the eucharistic sacrifice." As a result, priests should be conscious of the fact that in their ministry they must never put themselves or their personal opinions in first place, but Jesus Christ. Any attempt to make themselves the centre of the liturgical action contradicts their very identity as priests. The priest is above all a servant of others, and he must continually work at being a sign pointing to Christ, a docile instrument in the Lord's hands. This is seen particularly in his humility in leading the liturgical assembly, in obedience to the rite, uniting himself to it in mind and heart, and avoiding anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own personality. I encourage the clergy always to see their eucharistic ministry as a humble service offered to Christ and his Church. The priesthood, as Saint Augustine said, is amoris officium, it is the office of the good shepherd, who offers his life for his sheep (cf. Jn 10:14-15)."
The humility of a priest mentioned here echoes the Pope's mention of the humility of Jesus in washing the disciples' feet. The reference to the priest's role as servant echoes the actions of Jesus in making himself the disciples' servant, and in telling them to serve each other, washing each other's feet. In making them servants, as he was a servant, their role as Apostles could be seen.
However, last year on Holy Thursday, the Pope mentioned none of the apostolic implications about the significance of foot washing. Instead, he emphasized the eucharistic aspect of washing feet in last year's Holy Thursday homily, with specific applications to daily life that would encompass the lives of the laity, men and women alike:
"He [Jesus] cast aside the raiment of his divine glory and put on the garb of a slave. He came down to the extreme lowliness of our fall. He kneels before us and carries out for us the service of a slave: he washes our dirty feet so that we might be admitted to God's banquet and be made worthy to take our place at his table - something that on our own we neither could nor would ever be able to do. . . .
"God descends and becomes a slave, he washes our feet so that we may come to his table. In this, the entire mystery of Jesus Christ is expressed. In this, what redemption means becomes visible.
"The basin in which he washes us is his love, ready to face death. Only love has that purifying power which washes the grime from us and elevates us to God's heights. . . .
"The Lord purifies us, and for this reason we dare to approach his table. Let us pray to him to give to all of us the grace of being able to one day be guests for ever at the eternal nuptial banquet. Amen!"
The references there to "our," "us," and "all of us" would include the congregation of the faithful to whom the homily was addressed, suggesting that Jesus symbolically washes the feet of all of the faithful in preparation for the Eucharist, and not merely the feet of the disciples in preparation for their role as Apostles.
In interpreting the meaning of washing each other's feet, in the same homily from last year, the Pope also drew practical implications that would apply to the laity and to both men and women:
"Let us add a final word to this inexhaustible Gospel passage: "For I have given you an example" (Jn 13: 15); "You also ought to wash one another's feet" (Jn 13: 14). Of what does "washing one another's feet" consist? What does it actually mean?
"This: every good work for others - especially for the suffering and those not considered to be worth much - is a service of the washing of feet.
"The Lord calls us to do this: to come down, learn humility and the courage of goodness, and also the readiness to accept rejection and yet to trust in goodness and persevere in it.
"But there is another, deeper dimension. The Lord removes the dirt from us with the purifying power of his goodness. Washing one another's feet means above all tirelessly forgiving one another, beginning together ever anew, however pointless it may seem. It means purifying one another by bearing with one another and by being tolerant of others; purifying one another, giving one another the sanctifying power of the Word of God and introducing one another into the Sacrament of divine love."
But does that lead to a conclusion that the Pope believes women's feet should be washed on Holy Thursday? Not necessarily. And of course, as a general rule, Pope Benedict XVI has favored traditional liturgical views. To reach such a conclusion based on nothing more than this would involve too great a logical leap.
Neither last year's Holy Saturday homily nor this week's apostolic exhortation go that far. Where there is noticeable change is in contrast with his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, who spoke frequently of Holy Thursday as the institution of the priesthood as well as the institution of the Eucharist. That emphasis appears, for example, in his letter to priests for Holy Thursday 1988 and 1999. In celebrating foot washing as a memorial of the institution of the priesthood, it would be reasonable to limit foot washing to men because the Catholic view of the clergy views the priesthood as standing in the role of the bridegroom to the Church as bride, and as a visual image of the role of Christ in offering the Eucharist.
That view of the priesthood is affirmed by Sacramentum Caritatis as quoted above, but without reference to foot washing and Holy Thursday. The contrast appears in that Benedict XVI dropped the practice of sending Holy Thursday letters to priests without saying why, and in that his Holy Thursday homily from last year did not mention the institution of the priesthood.
Does the emphasis on the eucharistic role further the discussion of whether women's feet can be washed on Holy Thursday, as bishops have given permission to allow? I think it does.
Last year, canon lawyer Dr. Ed Peters posted an article on the unsettled question of whether to wash women's feet, from a canon lawyer's perspective. I followed Dr. Peters' article with my own post that considered the matter from a historical perspective, including the fourth century connection with the baptismal rite in certain regions, and an eighth century papal directive to allow nuns to wash each other's feet in monasteries. I agreed with Dr. Peters that it would be good to resolve the issue. Neither of us expressed a strong opinion on which way it should be resolved, nor did we address it from a fundamentally theological perspective as Pope Benedict has done.
The controversy that arose in 2004, when Cardinal O'Malley refused to wash women's feet in Boston, and Archbishop John Donoghue in Atlanta instructed clergy of his archdiocese that only men should be chosen, arose in part because of the English translation of the Roman Missal. As explained at the time by John L. Allen, Jr., the restrictions were attributed to a strict following of an instruction from Rome. However, explained Allen:
"In fact, there is no 'instruction' from Rome, in the sense of a document that provides a clear 'yes' or 'no' as to whether women may take part. What we have instead is the text in the Roman Missal, the official book of rituals and prayers for the Mass. On the washing of feet, it says: 'The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers to chairs prepared in a suitable place. Then the priest ... goes to each man. With the help of ministers, he pours water over each one's feet and dries them.'
"The Latin term is vir, 'man,' meaning a male." . . .
"In 1988, the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued an updated instruction on the feasts of Holy Week, which referred to the participation of “chosen men” in the foot-washing ceremony. The instruction did not, however, specifically rule out women, although the Holy See was undoubtedly aware of the debate.
"Those opposed to the inclusion of women argue that because Holy Thursday marks the foundation of both the Eucharist and the ministerial priesthood, there is an intrinsic connection to holy orders. (In some Catholic cultures, for example, it is customary to wish priests “happy anniversary” on Holy Thursday, reflecting this association). Involving women in the foot-washing rite, from this point of view, would be in tension with the male-only character of the priesthood. On the other hand, supporters of the practice insist that the symbolism of washing feet is primarily about Christ’s call to humble service, something not restricted by gender."
Sacramentum Caritatis, and the Pope's Holy Thursday homily from 2006 followed the view of those who see washing feet as primarily about Christ's call to humble service, not restricted by gender. But his overall analysis does not favor either side of that argument as described by Allen. Rather, both the apostolic element and the baptismal element are subordinated to the primary eucharistic element of the rite.
Yesterday, the Vox Clara advisers urged the quick completion of a new English translation of the Roman Missal. I do not know whether the final form is expected to have inclusive language allowing for the washing of both men's and women's feet, as the majority of U.S. Bishops voted to favor in 1996.
Only time will tell when and whether we will see a full theological analysis of the apostolic, baptismal and eucharistic dimensions, and the resolution of the issue that Dr. Peters mentioned one year ago. If settled in the near future, the Eucharistic view of Pope Benedict XVI will undoubtedly influence the way that final resolution is theologically articulated.
Comments