You have a very academic understanding of canon law, but it just doesn't mesh well with the innumerable concerns and considerations of Church governance in the real world. That's pretty typical of this sub in general. However, you're resorting to a bunker mentality regarding the canons because what I'm saying can easily be abused and probably is more often than we would like. I admit that it can be abused, but so can anything in this world. But the opposite holds true as well. Under certain circumstances, placing too much importance on the canons is abusive as well.
I'll explain one final time in response to this:
This is just getting laughably sad now. Come on, you can do better than that for forming an argument to actually call into question the moral bindings of civil law.
I did. I wrote a paragraph describing how canons that are intended to be morally binding, but never enforced or addressed by Church authorities no longer serve the good of the Church for which they were created in that particular diocese. Canons that bishops have demonstrated no desire to enforce impose an undue burden on the consciences of the faithful in that territory, thereby inverting their purpose of serving the Church which creates a situation where the Church serves the canons.
Widespread willful disregard by Church authorities to enforce canons, even by some of the most lauded bishops in the Church, only backs up what I've been saying all along--that the role of canon law in the Church has certain boundaries. Most bishops understand the role of canons, which is why you can point to any of the "good" bishops and find at least half a dozen or more canons that they don't bother to enforce in their diocese without even bothering to grant an indult. It's not because they're afraid to or because they're lazy or disobedient, but they understand that the prescriptions of right order in the Church serve to promote the well being of the parishes and faithful in their dioceses until they don't. This is why indults that bishops actually bother to issue are so numerous and as the link you originally posted in this thread points out, Rome almost always backs off of canons when they start to create a stir.
Some Catholics in the pew, usually the laity, who have no experience actually governing a parish or a diocese react strongly to what they perceive as laxity by other laymen, priests, bishops, and even Popes, and fancy themselves morally superior. They make a big commotion about people or the church not following certain canons, and create what is essentially a contingent of Catholic Phariseeism in the Church, which is harmful. There's no shortage of Catholics that have been pushed away and disillusioned by these people.
This is why I say that it is entirely possible, for the right reasons, to knowingly disregard certain canons (and I do mean certain ones; not everything is up for grabs) and still do so in good conscience if it's for the right reasons. The washing of the feet is something I would number among them.
You're probably not going to like what I'm about to say, but please try to understand the perspective. Canon Law should be despised as a necessary evil, like a menacing dog brought to heel to serve the good of the Church. It needs to be dominated and mastered by the law of love because while it serves a good purpose, any particular canon is at the same time an opportunity for sin that doesn't have to exist. The Church has a tremendous responsibility to impose canon law with the utmost discretion, with this in mind. Unfortunately, the Church moves like a snail in molasses to address just about anything, and so the faithful have to be granted a little latitude when it comes to fulfilling their morally binding obligation (which I have never disputed) to adhere to canon law.