Altar Girls - Official or Not?

[jmcrae]

Did you actually read the comment? The kid was turned down because they already had ‘enough’ servers, all of whom were Altar girls. I would suggest that even one case of a faithful boy, who may one day be a Priest, if he has that calling and receives the proper encouragement, is one too many.

The purpose of serving at the Altar is not to become a priest; it is to serve the priest. If he is called to the priesthood then he will go to Seminary.

And yes, it’s wrong that he was turned down to serve; he should have been given a place, and something to do, assuming he arrived on time (ten minutes before the Mass is scheduled to begin).

The fact remains that your initial contention that “Nobody is denying anything to the boys” while it may be true in your case in your Parish is in fact wrong.

It also seems as though in this case he was not “replaced by” a girl - he just arrived later than those particular girls. Priests do tend to prefer servers who are keen enough to arrive early, but this is regardless of their gender. She also mentions that her boy is “slow and clumsy, but he means well” - and although that shouldn’t be a factor (they could have had him doing something really simple), I expect that it might have been.

There are still 10% who weren’t Altar boys. But I have to say I’m inclined to place more value on an academic study than on one person’s anecdotal evidence, perhaps you take the other view?

I tend to trust my personal experience ahead of studies; studies can be manipulated according to how someone wants the data to be read.

 

[snhs]

It also seems as though in this case he was not “replaced by” a girl - he just arrived later than those particular girls. Priests do tend to prefer servers who are keen enough to arrive early, but this is regardless of their gender. She also mentions that her boy is “slow and clumsy, but he means well” - and although that shouldn’t be a factor (they could have had him doing something really simple), I expect that it might have been.

I tend to trust my personal experience ahead of studies; studies can be manipulated according to how someone wants the data to be read.

The Priest didn’t get a say in it, it was a lay woman who prevented him from serving. That of itself was wrong given that it is the Priest who should determine who serves/does not. Secondly there are a set number of positions available in this case. Had Altar girls not been allowed none of those servers would have been there and he would almost certainly have been allowed to serve.

In this case boys have been replaced by girls because a decade or two ago it would have been a half dozen boys rather than a half dozen girls in the Sacristy and I’ve yet to meet a head Altar boy who has turned away a younger boy who was willing to serve.

Its quite clear you are just avoiding admitting that your earlier point was wrong. But the fact stands that there are many cases where boys are prevented from serving because of Altar girls.

Academic procedure generally prevents such blatant bias. If you have other worthwhile studies which present contrary evidence feel free to present them but until then all of your statements should be qualified by ‘in my Parish’ or ‘nobody I know’ or ‘I would never’. Unlike some of the blanket statements you’ve been making so far.

 

[jmcrae]

The Priest didn’t get a say in it, it was a lay woman who prevented him from serving. That of itself was wrong given that it is the Priest who should determine who serves/does not. Secondly there are a set number of positions available in this case. Had Altar girls not been allowed none of those servers would have been there and he would almost certainly have been allowed to serve.

I agree with you that he should have been allowed to serve, but so should the girls. Are you saying that one of the girls should have been replaced by the boy? That would be equally wrong, since she has the same permission to serve that he does.

In this case boys have been replaced by girls because a decade or two ago it would have been a half dozen boys rather than a half dozen girls in the Sacristy and I’ve yet to meet a head Altar boy who has turned away a younger boy who was willing to serve.

Well, back in those days, the people doing my job were men, too - thank God nobody is accusing me of “stealing a man’s job” though.

 

[MrS]

They were called Acolytes, and they were instituted to the position. Actually Vatican II reduced the number of minor orders but people are still instituted to them so they were never removed. Now it is normally only seminarians who become instituted Acolytes though.

No they haven’t been. Altar Serving has been a lay role for centuries because the vast majority of Parishes did not have a lot of instituted Acolytes. As such it has been permitted for a similar length of time for lay boys to serve at the Altar carrying out many of the functions usually carried out by an Acolyte. It has only been since around 1994 that Altar serving was open to girls and that is an innovation, to suggest that they have “always have been” is incorrect.

There have been dozens of Saints who were Altar boys, many polls suggest over 90% of Priests and Seminarians were Altar boys before entering the Seminary. It is only logical that if you reduce the number of Masses which have space for those boys to serve at you similarly reduce the number of potential Priests.

It is difficult to discuss from reason when other posters choose to discuss from emotion.

But you are doing a great job. We can only hope this innovation will cease on its own. And it will if both young boys and young girls are better catechised.

 

[Nordar]

The Priest didn’t get a say in it, it was a lay woman who prevented him from serving. That of itself was wrong given that it is the Priest who should determine who serves/does not. Secondly there are a set number of positions available in this case. Had Altar girls not been allowed none of those servers would have been there and he would almost certainly have been allowed to serve.

In this case boys have been replaced by girls because a decade or two ago it would have been a half dozen boys rather than a half dozen girls in the Sacristy and I’ve yet to meet a head Altar boy who has turned away a younger boy who was willing to serve.

Its quite clear you are just avoiding admitting that your earlier point was wrong. But the fact stands that there are many cases where boys are prevented from serving because of Altar girls.

Academic procedure generally prevents such blatant bias. If you have other worthwhile studies which present contrary evidence feel free to present them but until then all of your statements should be qualified by ‘in my Parish’ or ‘nobody I know’ or ‘I would never’. Unlike some of the blanket statements you’ve been making so far.

It is so very difficult for some to accept the truth when they are running on emotions.

 

[Nordar]

It is difficult to discuss from reason when other posters choose to discuss from emotion.

But you are doing a great job. We can only hope this innovation will cease on its own. And it will if both young boys and young girls are better catechised.

LOL great minds think alike!:clapping:

 

[LRThunder]

I agree with you that he should have been allowed to serve, but so should the girls. Are you saying that one of the girls should have been replaced by the boy? That would be equally wrong, since she has the same permission to serve that he does.

Female altar servers is first up to the bishop of the diocese, then to the pastor of the parish and then the celebrant priest.

If the bishop and pastor allowed girl altar servers, that’s fine. But if the priest who was celebrating Mass didn’t want female altar servers, that’s his call.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s how it goes.

 

[Nordar]

Female altar servers is first up to the bishop of the diocese, then to the pastor of the parish and then the celebrant priest.

If the bishop and pastor allowed girl altar servers, that’s fine. But if the priest who was celebrating Mass didn’t want female altar servers, that’s his call.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s how it goes.

Yep you got it right!

 

[muppet729]

This thread makes me glad to be a Catholic!

I mean, really, if we can have this kind of discussion over female altar servers, imagine the pages we would fill on all the SUPERBIG issues. Glad it’s not all up to us and a public discussion!

 

[snhs]

I agree with you that he should have been allowed to serve, but so should the girls. Are you saying that one of the girls should have been replaced by the boy? That would be equally wrong, since she has the same permission to serve that he does.

Well, back in those days, the people doing my job were men, too - thank God nobody is accusing me of “stealing a man’s job” though.

You appear to be missing the point here. Your contention is that nobody is taking the place of boys. Hence you see no problem with Altar girls as they do not take the place of boys, but increase the number of servers available. Quite clearly in this case and in many others girls are taking the place of boys.

Leaving aside the idea that at least some boys have been put off serving entirely lets say that the number of Altar girls has doubled the number of Servers. That being the case and given that most Parishes have a set number of 6/8/10 or however many servers at each Mass unless the number of Masses or the number of servers per Mass have doubled since Altar girls were allowed then they have taken the place of boys. I’m not sure quite what your “personal experience” is on that but I don’t know of many if any Parishes which have doubled the number of Masses, or servers at each Mass, since allowing Altar girls.

Another point is that girls do not have the same permission. Male Acolytes are instituted to perform the function, should they not be available as they are not in most cases the lay can serve. However girls are only allowed with the Priest’s permission, he decides if they are allowed to serve and thats presuming the Bishop has given permission. An individual boy or groups of boys may also be allowed/not allowed to serve and I suppose theoretically a Bishop/individual Priest could decide for Pastoral reasons to not have any children serve. However the initial presumption is in favour of boys being allowed to serve.

Perhaps you should look at this. As you’ll be able to see the Pope states that he was an Altar boy, although perhaps he just hasn’t done as well in his studies as all the Priests you know. You do know of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI don’t you, Supreme Pontiff, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Interestingly he uses the word “consequently” he also refers to a “long journey on this path”, starting as an Altar boy ending as Pope.

Interesting tactic trying to throw in the old sexism bit, it is a fairly weak one though and given that your entire argument is based on you, your feelings and your Parish I really don’t think its going to do much good.

Your whole contention in this is, and I quote, “Girls don’t take boys’ places”. Now are you saying that it is not a fact that for hundreds of years it was exclusively males who served at the Altar and for hundreds of years the vast majority, maybe not all but certainly most, Parishes had enough men/boys to fulfill those roles? Or are you saying that people are actually having mass hallucinations when we see Altar girls at every Mass when once there were were Altar boys?

The fact is the reason for all male Priests is grounded in our religion, the reason is the same for only having male Acolytes. The accepted practice until recently of only having Altar boys was an expansion of that. The whole point is that the Altar boys were learning from someone who had taken exactly the same path before them and at some point they discovered that they had the same calling the Priests they served with just as Pope Benedict did and just as a lot of other Priests did and still do. So are you placing the feminist/cultural idea that girls should do exactly the same things boys do ahead of that? After all some people would love to have women priests in 10 or 20 years looking back and saying “back in those days, the people doing my job were men”.

Still waiting for any valid studies which back up your view, or perhaps an acceptance that your initial statements were in fact quite seriously flawed although thats probably expecting too much .

 

[Sure]

A simple solution that works quite well…

Have girls serve with girls and boys with boys…not together.

And, have the boys vest in cassock and surplice and the girls in albs with cincture.

 

[snhs]

A simple solution that works quite well…

Have girls serve with girls and boys with boys…not together.

And, have the boys vest in cassock and surplice and the girls in albs with cincture.

Don’t think that would work quite as well as you think. To begin with I think it says somewhere that the servers should be wearing the same thing, now if you have boys and girls on different Masses then that might work but what about Holy Days, Triduum or Christmas/Easter Vigil where there is only one Mass?

The other thing is if a Priest has decided to allow Altar girls it is his Pastoral decision of what is best. So how can he say that the best thing at the 10 o’clock Mass isn’t the best thing at the 12:30? It also leaves the problem of Altar boys sitting twiddling their thumbs any time they can’t make their Mass time for example.

 

[snhs]

You appear to be missing the point here. Your contention is that nobody is taking the place of boys. Hence you see no problem with Altar girls as they do not take the place of boys, but increase the number of servers available. Quite clearly in this case and in many others girls are taking the place of boys.

Leaving aside the idea that at least some boys have been put off serving entirely lets say that the number of Altar girls has doubled the number of Servers. That being the case and given that most Parishes have a set number of 6/8/10 or however many servers at each Mass unless the number of Masses or the number of servers per Mass have doubled since Altar girls were allowed then they have taken the place of boys. I’m not sure quite what your “personal experience” is on that but I don’t know of many if any Parishes which have doubled the number of Masses, or servers at each Mass, since allowing Altar girls.

Another point is that girls do not have the same permission. Male Acolytes are instituted to perform the function, should they not be available as they are not in most cases the lay can serve. However girls are only allowed with the Priest’s permission, he decides if they are allowed to serve and thats presuming the Bishop has given permission. An individual boy or groups of boys may also be allowed/not allowed to serve and I suppose theoretically a Bishop/individual Priest could decide for Pastoral reasons to not have any children serve. However the initial presumption is in favour of boys being allowed to serve.

Perhaps you should look at this. As you’ll be able to see the Pope states that he was an Altar boy, although perhaps he just hasn’t done as well in his studies as all the Priests you know. You do know of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI don’t you, Supreme Pontiff, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Interestingly he uses the word “consequently” he also refers to a “long journey on this path”, starting as an Altar boy ending as Pope.

Interesting tactic trying to throw in the old sexism bit, it is a fairly weak one though and given that your entire argument is based on you, your feelings and your Parish I really don’t think its going to do much good.

Your whole contention in this is, and I quote, “Girls don’t take boys’ places”. Now are you saying that it is not a fact that for hundreds of years it was exclusively males who served at the Altar and for hundreds of years the vast majority, maybe not all but certainly most, Parishes had enough men/boys to fulfill those roles? Or are you saying that people are actually having mass hallucinations when we see Altar girls at every Mass when once there were were Altar boys?

The fact is the reason for all male Priests is grounded in our religion, the reason is the same for only having male Acolytes. The accepted practice until recently of only having Altar boys was an expansion of that. The whole point is that the Altar boys were learning from someone who had taken exactly the same path before them and at some point they discovered that they had the same calling as the Priests they served with just as Pope Benedict did and just as a lot of other Priests did and still do. So are you placing the feminist/cultural idea that girls should do exactly the same things boys do ahead of that? After all some people would love to have women priests in 10 or 20 years looking back and saying “back in those days, the people doing my job were men”.

Still waiting for any valid studies which back up your view, or perhaps an acceptance that your initial statements were in fact quite seriously flawed although thats probably expecting too much .

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting tactic trying to throw in the old sexism bit, it is a fairly weak one though and given that your entire argument is based on you, your feelings and your Parish I really don’t think its going to do much good.

That’s my experience. I throw in the “sexism” bit because that’s what I’m seeing, here. This is a valid lay role, that girls may do. But people are getting all emotional that girls are present, “stealing from the boys” as if boys were human beings and girls were dogs,

Your whole contention in this is, and I quote, “Girls don’t take boys’ places”. Now are you saying that it is not a fact that for hundreds of years it was exclusively males who served at the Altar and for hundreds of years the vast majority, maybe not all but certainly most, Parishes had enough men/boys to fulfill those roles? Or are you saying that people are actually having mass hallucinations when we see Altar girls at every Mass when once there were were Altar boys?

I don’t know where you are seeing this; in my parish and in any parish I’ve had anything to do with, there are equal numbers of boys and girls. Boys are not being “pushed out” by the girls - and yes, we are seeing 8-10 altar servers in places that only had four or five in times past. That’s our experience.

After all some people would love to have women priests in 10 or 20 years looking back and saying “back in those days, the people doing my job were men”.

Perhaps people are having “mass hallucinations” when they walk into my workplace and see a lot of women, where there used to be all men.

Still waiting for any valid studies which back up your view, or perhaps an acceptance that your initial statements were in fact quite seriously flawed although thats probably expecting too much .

NOW who’s being emotional?

I’m not a sociologist and I haven’t done any studies - sorry. I’m just giving you my personal observations. Those who hate girls and consider them sub-human want you to believe that girls prevent boys from discerning their vocation to the priesthood, and they’ve done studies that purport to show that - fine.

If I were a sociologist, I could come up with a study that shows that girls who serve at the altar encourage their brothers to become priests, and they themselves enter into the religious life or other community service. Meanwhile, all I’ve got is my personal experience.

 

[snhs]

That’s my experience. I throw in the “sexism” bit because that’s what I’m seeing, here. This is a valid lay role, that girls may do. But people are getting all emotional that girls are present, “stealing from the boys” as if boys were human beings and girls were dogs,
…
I’m not a sociologist and I haven’t done any studies - sorry. I’m just giving you my personal observations. Those who hate girls and consider them sub-human want you to believe that girls prevent boys from discerning their vocation to the priesthood, and they’ve done studies that purport to show that - fine.

If I were a sociologist, I could come up with a study that shows that girls who serve at the altar encourage their brothers to become priests, and they themselves enter into the religious life or other community service. Meanwhile, all I’ve got is my personal experience.

No you throw in the sexism bit because you’re trying to distract from the point in contention. Its one of the most basic tactics, unfortunately its also incredibly transparent. There is nothing emotional in stating facts which is what I’ve been doing throughout. When you asked for evidence of up to 90% of Priests having been Altar boys I provided it, you’ve yet to provide any evidence for your points beyond your experience in your Parish and with respect that is an insufficient basis to form a view on something which affects the Universal Church as a whole in thousands of Parishes worldwide. At what point did I suggest girls were less than human? Rather than making false accusations try sticking to the facts and attempting to make a point that is relevant and accurately expressed.

Right so where did your earlier comments that “Nobody is denying anything to the boys” and “Girls don’t take boys’ places” come from? You made statements which were false because you failed to qualify them, by doing so you defeated your argument before you even began. Even one counterexample, which I have provided, is enough to prove that you were wrong, and continually refusing to accept that your initial statements were wrong just weakens your position further.

Are you now supporting woman priests? If you are your position on Altar girls can very easily be seen as a transparent attempt to lessen resistance to the concept of woman priests. In addition whereas any argument in favour of all male Altar severs can only be supported theologically by tradition and a natural extension of an all male clergy the arguments for all male clergy are far better defined.

Could you perhaps cite precisely where that went into an emotional response? I’m really not seeing it.

I’m a UG Maths and Physics student in first year, I’ve not exactly started writing PhD these or conducting sociological studies. That doesn’t prevent me from doing a quick google search to find resources which reinforce my position. It only took one search and 0.268 seconds or so to come up with that paper.

To begin with you’ve went on to the character assassination side again, not one of the best tactics to win any argument to be honest especially when I’ve not said anything that even vaguely goes into the territory you’re implying. Furthermore the study I highlighted didn’t suggest that. It was following a group of Altar boys to see how that affected their life compared to a control of some sort. The quote I provided also cited an earlier study which had provided the 90% figure. Now the fact there has been a decline in Seminarians/Priests and a decline in Altar boys could well be linked, and if I did a Google search I wouldn’t be surprised to find a few studies that backed that up. These academic studies can show things you know, and they’re far more likely to show a trend than one person’s experience.

Well if you were a sociologist then you would be perfectly entitled to start a study with that as your premise. However if the evidence suggested otherwise and I think it probably would then you would have to accept that or explain why outwith your own Parish your hypothesis was complete nonsense. Now if the link you suggest were valid then we could expect to see some evidence of it for example Diocese which allow Altar girls should have more vocations to the Priesthood and religious life per capita than those which are ‘handicapped’ by not having Altar girls to show boys the way into the Priesthood. Now if we look at America only, if I recollect properly the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska is the only one which has only Altar boys. They also have one of the highest if not the highest number of Seminarians per capita in the country.

Unlike you I realise that 1 Diocese is insufficient to prove such a trend, however it is sufficient to suggest that on the basis of available evidence your idea is likely to be wrong. Now you can use your Parish as a counterexample if you like but then I’m looking at a Diocesan level so unless you current Diocese compares favourably to Lincoln, Nebraska or unless there has been a sudden increase in the number of Vocations, not linked to a boundary change or significant population movement, which occurred within a reasonable timescale of Altar girls first being allowed then your argument is defeated until you can present facts to the contrary.

I find it interesting the parts which you neglected to answer. For example do you now accept that girls in fact do not have exactly the same permission as boys? Also do you accept that just maybe His Holiness is a good example of a Priest who was an Altar boy? And that perhaps given that he suggests that his path to Pontiff involved him serving as an Altar boy with other boys, serving under a Priest who was himself probably an Altar boy at some point, that it is something worth retaining?

 

[jmcrae]

No you throw in the sexism bit because you’re trying to distract from the point in contention.

Not at all. I see sexism in this issue. Every time it comes up, the people arguing in favour of boys only bring in the “girls have cooties” argument.

Its one of the most basic tactics, unfortunately its also incredibly transparent. There is nothing emotional in stating facts which is what I’ve been doing throughout. When you asked for evidence of up to 90% of Priests having been Altar boys I provided it, you’ve yet to provide any evidence for your points beyond your experience in your Parish and with respect that is an insufficient basis to form a view on something which affects the Universal Church as a whole in thousands of Parishes worldwide.

Sorry, but I don’t have that kind of power.

At what point did I suggest girls were less than human?

By suggesting that girls are “taking” boys’ places, you are saying that girls have no place of their own - that they are not taking their own places - the human being place of serving their church as a handmaiden of the Lord.

Are you now supporting woman priests?

No. This has nothing to do with the priesthood.

I find it interesting the parts which you neglected to answer. For example do you now accept that girls in fact do not have exactly the same permission as boys?

They have permission, right?

Also do you accept that just maybe His Holiness is a good example of a Priest who was an Altar boy?

Sure. Do you accept that Ste. Therese de Lisieux is a good example of a woman religious who served at the Altar, as well? That her serving at the Altar did nothing to discourage males from becoming priests, but quite the opposite, and that she is considered a Patron Saint of Vocations?

And that perhaps given that he suggests that his path to Pontiff involved him serving as an Altar boy with other boys, serving under a Priest who was himself probably an Altar boy at some point, that it is something worth retaining?

Again, it’s not a matter of girls replacing boys, but rather serving with them, and learning to be a handmaiden of the Lord.

 

[snhs]

Not at all. I see sexism in this issue. Every time it comes up, the people arguing in favour of boys only bring in the “girls have cooties” argument.

Sorry, but I don’t have that kind of power.

By suggesting that girls are “taking” boys’ places, you are saying that girls have no place of their own - that they are not taking their own places - the human being place of serving their church as a handmaiden of the Lord.

No. This has nothing to do with the priesthood.

They have permission, right?

Sure. Do you accept that Ste. Therese de Lisieux is a good example of a woman religious who served at the Altar, as well? That her serving at the Altar did nothing to discourage males from becoming priests, but quite the opposite, and that she is considered a Patron Saint of Vocations?

Again, it’s not a matter of girls replacing boys, but rather serving with them, and learning to be a handmaiden of the Lord.

At what point did I use that line of argumentation? In fact throughout I have used the presumption that the Altar girls have not caused some boys to not join or to quit. We are currently discussing the issue, points which others might bring up in it are hence irrelevant.

So you don’t have the ‘power’ to form a view which may take into consideration the reality beyond the four walls of your Parish? Or are you just saying that because you like it and think it is beneficial in your Parish is good for the Church as a whole? I have a personal experience that is the complete opposite to yours that counters any points you can make from that, and given that my side is backed up by the research of other sources…

At what point did I say ‘girls have no place of their own’? Girls have a place in a Church they have always had and they always will, and I think that is a great thing. It is only by having faithful girls that we get faithful mothers and only by having faithful boys that we get faithful fathers. What I am questioning is whether they should be taught that faith in exactly the same way. In case you haven’t noticed I only entered this because one of your posts was factually incredibly inaccurate and needed correction before someone believed things which were manifestly false. In addition I’m not saying they are taking boys places what I am saying is that they have taken on a role which was for centuries fufilled by boys, and that consequently the opputunities boys have today to serve at the Altar, and hence get the same encouragement that people like Pope Benedict did, are fewer. That is fact it doesn’t call for any interpretation.

It has quite a lot to do with the Priesthood actually. Acolytes are often only instituted today when they are on their way to the Priesthood. There is a clear link between that and what Altar boys do. I’m hoping that ‘no’ indicated that you are opposed to female priests.

You said, and I quote, “she has the same permission to serve that he does”. The ‘same’ implies an identical permission, as I highlighted that is not the case. The presumption is that boys can serve unless explicity prevented (or they have enough male Acolytes to fufil the role). Girls on the other hand must first be allowed to serve by the Bishop, then the Priest. That is a different permission. Hence your initial statement was wrong.

To begin with: “She worked as a sacristan by taking care of the altar and the chapel; she served in the refectory and in the laundry room; she wrote plays for the entertainment of the community”. Now a Sacristan is not an Altar girl, nor does taking care of the Altar and Chapel imply that she served during the Mass, rather she prepared Altar linen, cleaned the Chapel etc. It is possible that she served at the Altar as this was allowed for Mother Superiors and, usually older, Nuns in Convents where Altar boys were not available. However she was a religous which is a special calling, being a Catholic girl does not give the same life/allowances as if that girl were a nun just as being a Catholic male doesn’t mean I can validly consecrate the Host or ordain people to the Episcopate. Furthermore if she did serve, which you’ve yet to provide evidence for, under the allowances I’ve highlighted then no male other than the Priest is likely to have been present. Hence she would not only never have been seen serving by boys but also never have served with them.

I find it quite irnoic that you’re using this example actually. St Therese de Lisieux, although she may have served while a nun, was never an Altar girl, nor was St Joan of Arc or any female Saint that I can think of. The Abbe of Curs though, I’m fairly certain he was an Altar boy, and the Patron Saints of Altar Servers, St Stephen and St Tarcisius, one was a Deacon and the first Martyr and the other was a young Acolyte who was martryed while protecting the Blessed Sarcrament.

It is a matter of whether the number of opputunities for boys to serve, to spend time with a Priest who was once in the same position and to serve Our Lord, has increased or decreased since the introduction of Altar girls. Maybe in your Parish it hasn’t but in a lot of other places it has, and even if you don’t have a problem with that I and others do.

Now lets have a quick look at what you missed: 1) You’ve yet to explain where your earlier statements can from, either accept they were invalid or back them up 2) You accused me of an emotional response, please highlight where this occurred 3) You’ve yet to accept that I have never made any implication that girls were subhuman, if I have please provide a direct quotation or accept that you were in error to falsely accuse me 4) No response to why your idea on Altar girls benefitting the number of Vocations is wrong according to available evidence. Please provide evidence or acknolege that your hypothesis is wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

The bottom line for me is, if the priest is allowing girls to serve, they may serve. All of these other arguments are just noise.

We don’t need to prove with studies that girls can do this - all we have to do is ask the priest.

 

[Nordar]

The bottom line for me is, if the priest is allowing girls to serve, they may serve. All of these other arguments are just noise.

We don’t need to prove with studies that girls can do this - all we have to do is ask the priest.

I don’t think all the points snhs brought up are just noise I think they are truly legimate.
Why are opinions opposite yours just noise?

 

[snhs]

The bottom line for me is, if the priest is allowing girls to serve, they may serve. All of these other arguments are just noise.

We don’t need to prove with studies that girls can do this - all we have to do is ask the priest.

So you incorrectly phrase most of your statements, completely ignore the principals of debate, fail to prove your point and then resort to stating something that only has a tenuous link?

I have accepted throughout that a decision was made by the Pope to allow Bishops to allow Priests to allow Altar girls. That has not been in any question. What I do question is why you presume to make false statements in an attempt to justify your position which has been weak throughout. You asked me “Do you have a reliable source for this statistic?” and I gave you the courtesy of providing one yet you feel entitled to make numerous claims with no reliable sources of your own. Not to mention falsely accusing me of saying things for which you have yet to apologise.

The question I posed was whether girls serving had decreased the number of Masses which boys serve at, you had said that this had not happened that ‘no one’ was preventing boys from serving, I disproved that with a counterexample. You then made several other statements which have been wrong leading up to you making the claim that a Diocese having Altar girls benefits Vocations, again I disproved this because available evidence suggests the opposite.

At least this time I don’t need to list the points you have been unable to respond to as you have failed to answer any of them. You are not doing yourself or your position any favours by behaving in this manner, if you are unable to answer points it would be better to say so rather than ignoring them or trying to carry them by bombast. Anyone reading these posts can see just how weak your position has been, the very fact that you can’t reply to so many of these points defeated your argument before you even began. I have answered every one of your points, my own have been backed up by evidence when asked, and even when not asked yet you have completely ignored mine.