A
Armyvet007
Guest
Because it is a social hold over from when women had to dress differently from males and viewed as inferior to men when fullfilling their roles as soldiers.
- Status
I don’t believe this is true entirely. Even though women may wear slacks depending on the service and their ranks, they still wear female covers, tabs etc. For officers, a quick look at the U.S. Army and Navy regulations and illustrations show that there is a clear distinction between male and female officers uniforms. And even where slacks are prescribed, you will not see a woman wear a tie or a man a tab.
And even if your post were to be granted in its entirely, a male officer or enlisted can never wear the female uniform.
The reverse is true for church. A cassock is a male uniform exclusively, and cannot and should not be worn by women.
A
Armyvet007
Guest
No it isn’t. If the role and function of an altar server can be fullfilled by a female without violating the Church’s concept and use of the clergy then there is no reason [outside of “we always did it so it must be good and must stay that way” non-reasoning] to have female servers wear a different uniform. The only justification for a different uniform for altar servers based on gender is if their “rank” and “function” are restricted by gender. Currently that is not the case.
Are you certain? I’m civilian and in Canada, but can female officers dress up as a male does? The covers and tie/tab distinction immediately comes to mind. I’ve never ever seen a a female officer dress up with a pershing cap and tie even though slacks are permitted.
A
Armyvet007
Guest
Yeah, you got me. Since I didn’t bother to include the minor details of the wear of the uniform and instead decided to focus on the issues of “rank” and “function” my entire analogy falls apart. If you really want to get into the details, then pregnant females are a third gender since their uniform is different from both male and non-pregnant female uniforms. Better yet, every female wears a unique uniform since the placement of tabs, badges, nameplate, etc. is dictated by their bust size.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
Armyvet: the fact that non-clerics wear the clerical garb when in clerical function or as seminarians is abundantly approved by the Church, for centuries. It’s not just a practice of one period, but quite an old one that is not just allowed but in many places has been mandated as seen as essential.
Girls do not fit into this. They have been allowed to serve at the altar, but the Church hasn’t clarified the practical matter of how this is to be done in terms of dress. There is no tradition on this to guide us either.
However given what the cassock means (clergy, seminarian, or server acting as clergy in a way that makes sense - a male), a girl server doesn’t fit into it.
The Church has also always taught that the dignity of women doesn’t depend at all on their being seen as similar to men. The idea that women need to dress similarly to men is from secular feminism, not from Catholicism.
This is the trad catholic forum. There are people here who understand that just become Rome allows a practice doesn’t mean it’s the preferred practice, and it definitely doesn’t change reality. The reality is that looking at the entire history of the Church, girls serving is an anomaly, they don’t fit in the same way boys do, we do have an all-male priesthood, we are working towards reunion with the Orthodox who would consider this just another silly Catholic innovation and who don’t have women in their sanctuaries except in rare circumstances.
When a girl serves, it’s different than when a boy serves, it’s okay to distinguish this with attire. It’s not different functionally necessarily, but ontologically.
Girls do not fit into this. They have been allowed to serve at the altar, but the Church hasn’t clarified the practical matter of how this is to be done in terms of dress. There is no tradition on this to guide us either.
However given what the cassock means (clergy, seminarian, or server acting as clergy in a way that makes sense - a male), a girl server doesn’t fit into it.
The Church has also always taught that the dignity of women doesn’t depend at all on their being seen as similar to men. The idea that women need to dress similarly to men is from secular feminism, not from Catholicism.
This is the trad catholic forum. There are people here who understand that just become Rome allows a practice doesn’t mean it’s the preferred practice, and it definitely doesn’t change reality. The reality is that looking at the entire history of the Church, girls serving is an anomaly, they don’t fit in the same way boys do, we do have an all-male priesthood, we are working towards reunion with the Orthodox who would consider this just another silly Catholic innovation and who don’t have women in their sanctuaries except in rare circumstances.
When a girl serves, it’s different than when a boy serves, it’s okay to distinguish this with attire. It’s not different functionally necessarily, but ontologically.
Quick question here…
I was once told that the garb that the clergy wears during Mass were common roman robes from the early church.
If that is the case, are they not also traditionally men’s attire?
A
Armyvet007
Guest
My issue isn’t that I think girls should wear clerical garb. My issue is that some people think girls should wear different garb simply because they are girls and that it is ok for boys [who aren’t clergy] to wear clerical garb. If it’s clerical garb, only the clergy should wear it [the “rank” part of my analogy]. If it’s “functional” garb, then the function dictates the garb worn. If the “rank” and “function” overlap then the garb needs to reflect this [non-clergy fullfilling the role of clergy need to wear something different then that of the clergy].
As I understand it, altar servers aren’t clergy, nor are their functions currently considered by the Church as clerical. Therefore altar servers need to wear something different [no cassock for either gender]. It could just be the military in me talking, but I believe the “uniforms” need to correctly reflect the “rank” and “function” of the individual within the Mass.
A
Armyvet007
Guest
The cassock is derived from the tunic, which was a unisex garment. The traditional Roman male garb was the toga [worn over the tunic]. I doubt we want to switch to togas [hard to put on and wear].
Quick question here…
I was once told that the garb that the clergy wears during Mass were common roman robes from the early church.
If that is the case, are they not also traditionally men’s attire?
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
The vestmentss are derived from Roman garb. Men and women wore tunics, but not the same kinds, and the men’s garments became vestments.
But the cassock actually derives from the frock coat.
The surplice is a later medieval invention which developed from a cloth that would be quickly draped over fur in cold churches.
Neither is a woman’s garment.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
You’ve said the first part (that the cassock shouldn’t be worn by altarboys either if it’s clerical) or should be work by boys and girls if it’s functional.
But that’s a false dichotomy. It’s a garment not only for clergy but those who are exercising the clerical function and who could potential be clergy in the future, at least ontologically.
Girls simply don’t fit into that idea of who the cassock is for.
The military thing might actually be leading you astray. The military has uniforms that reflect rank clearly, but the liturgy does not make it always so clear. A 5-year-old boy has the same dress as an older server as an acolyte as a lector as a deacon as an elderly priest in choir, since they have a similar function (server or in choir). In the older orders, a little boy would be dressed the same in choir as a porter or exorcist or subdeacon, as well.
Unless the priest is a monsignor, or a bishop, or cardinal, is there any distinction.
And of course if one is actually serving as deacon or as celebrant they also vest and that’s a whole different issue.
A
Angel_Bradford
Guest
As interesting as yours.
A
Armyvet007
Guest
Thank you for the correction and info.
A
Armyvet007
Guest
It’s the “potential” that is throwing me. If it means “he might join the clergy/he might not” or as some form of inducement “become a priest and you get to wear neat clothes”] it’s irrelevant to the discussion. If it means it is a form of inducement, but more then just the “neat clothes” thing [like a form of pre-pre-training] then I would agree there needs to be a difference made [because the “function” isn’t the same for a female and male server]. I’m even for different uniforms based on the historical gender factor [females in the past didn’t wear X, they wore Y], but the main point on this front has been it’s a “rank” [clergy wore them in the past] thing not a gender thing.
As for the military analogy, I understand that it isn’t a perfect analogy. That is why I tried to limit it to two of the main functions of a uniform- identification [the “rank” thing] and function.
N
newyorkcatholic
Guest
I don’t follow all of this … but the idea is that a server could be ordained, even if married, or even if a child, as long as he is a male. Now a child or a married man isn’t going to be accepted given canon law, but if ordained it would still be valid.
The cassock is a sign of this.
Men and women are different with different roles in the order of creation, even when they are doing the same thing.
B
Baelor
Guest
What would the reason for having different garments be? The easier option is, of course, to have the same vestments that can be used by all servers, so that default can be justifiably claimed motive-less. On the other hand, taking the additional effort to differentiate between boys and girls on the altar via dress involves exactly that, effort. Why expend it?
But until that comes, they are acting in the same role as the boys, although it may not affect them in the same way. I fail to see why this justifies dressing them differently.
Many schools permit girls to wear slacks and blouses, which ends up being the same as the male students. So I do not see how this point does not undermine your own argument.
Why distinguish?
How is the response that has been given so many times so unclear? I cannot comprehend why this statement keeps coming up, because the answer is the same: young men are not clergy. They are not in seminary. How on earth do you reach the conclusion that potentiality alone is a sufficient reason for them to wear the garb?
If they are performing a clerical function, then why should they be prohibited from wearing clerical garb, if that is indeed your standard? Boys are very clearly not performing a different function practically or ontologically while serving at the altar.
You have no right to speak for all traditionalists.
Uh…No. That is a total fabrication.
Why is such a sign necessary?
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
It’s not just potentiality, it is also the fact that they are acting in the place of someone who has Holy Orders, in an analogous way (though only an analogy) like the priest is acting in place of Christ.
I reach this particular conclusion based on tradition and the traditional understanding of vestments and altar servers. We are a Church of tradition, after all. Our practices should always be interpreted and understood in the light of tradition and the potentiality
The modern age tries to understand things in the past through the lens of current things. Tradition tries to understand current things through the lens of the past.
I think one thing this thread is showing is how disruptive altar girls are to the traditional understanding of who gets to do what and why in the sanctuary; in this specific case, the traditional understanding of vestments no longer works when girls are serving and wearing them, which means that we have to change our understanding of something traditional based on something new. In the Church, as I said above, it usually works the other way around.
- PAX
C
Corki
Guest
But why not? We readily accept different “uniforms” and other types of garb for men and women performing exactly the same functions in the Church and in the secular world. Why is it so upsetting that a priest want to do the same for altar servers?
Note, I am not saying that girls and boys MUST wear different clothing for altar serving. But it that’s what the pastor wants, there is no reason not to have it that way.
If male and female altar servers were to wear a unisex garb, such as a choir gown or alb, that should be fine; they don’t have to be different. It’s not really about the difference between the sexes but the fact that the cassock should not be worn by girls.
B
Baelor
Guest
Then the girls are as well.
- Status