Altar Girls

[Phemie]

You have summed up your position quite well.

It’s not his position, it’s the Church’s position.

 

[PaulinVA]

That is what I believe has been lacking in the last several decades. Most good priests will happily nurture a seed that has spouted and is budding. But not enough priests are doing enough to make more seeds sprout in the first place.

That is really what is at the root of the large number of vocations that our parish is generating. And what is lacking in most parishes.

There is a LOT a pastor can do to make the ground fertile. Most don’t want to do it, it’s politically incorrect to do.

I’m interested in your thinking on how vocations occur, or are discerned. As I’ve stated previously, priests who have lived a little in the world post college seem to be much better grounded and able to handle the lifestyle.

So, how does knowing a priest or being “nurtured” lead to the realization of a priestly vocation? Do you believe that God calls men to be priests? Or do men decide to become priests based on grooming and nurturing? Just curious, no gotcha or hidden agenda.

 

[Spelling]

That was the exception than the rule.

It was clear in the plain wording of the canon. The issue was that some simply refused to believe it.

Actually that’s exactly how the Church often works. And regardless of where someone stands on the matter, the issue has hardly been “incendiary.”

The Holy See faced two choices: say yes or rewrite the canon.

If you read the 1994 response it’s very clear that the Holy See is simply interpreting the plain wording of the canon. Great emphesis is placed on what the canon does and does not say.

No. The abuse of females serving Mass was widespread well before 1983. Given the incendiary nature of this matter, the Church would have been crystal clear on whether or not females where allowed to serve Mass if the Church had chosen to document its position in the 1983 CofC. The Church would not have left such a matter to the silly and abstruse logical gymnastics so many love to play with Church documents.

In reality I believe the Church recognized the widespread abuse and realized two things. First no matter what side it came down on it was sure to alienate a great many people. Second, even if it did uphold the long-standing prohibition, many bishops were going to ignore the Holy See anyway – much like today with non-instituted laypersons purifying sacred vessels after Mass or the use of EMsHC.

So the Church deliberately chose to remain mum on the matter. In a practical sense the abuse simply continued but at least now people could argue it was now allowed (see silly abstruse mental gymnastics above.) Unexpectedly there was a big enough outcry from enough Catholics that the Church was forced to fish or cut bait on this matter – it was finally forced to render a definitive position. It did so in 1994.

 

[Spelling]

…There is a LOT a pastor can do to make the ground fertile. Most don’t want to do it, it’s politically incorrect to do.

There is a tremendous amount of truth to that.

 

[PaulinVA]

It’s not his position, it’s the Church’s position.

That is also true. But,in all honesty, my comment was a snark.

 

[threebells17]

Cardinal Arinze in his podcast explains beautifully why girls should NOT be altar servers! The girls do not belong there and maybe if they stop allowing them I bet more boys would be called to the Priesthood. Let the boys alone to do their important work.

I can not see any purpose for girls on the altar other than to promote them as being able to be Priests. Isn’t that scarey?

 

[Brendan]

I’m interested in your thinking on how vocations occur, or are discerned. As I’ve stated previously, priests who have lived a little in the world post college seem to be much better grounded and able to handle the lifestyle.

Have you ant documentation on that?

So, how does knowing a priest or being “nurtured” lead to the realization of a priestly vocation? Do you believe that God calls men to be priests? Or do men decide to become priests based on grooming and nurturing? Just curious, no gotcha or hidden agenda.

Once again, I refer you to the Parable of the Sower ( Mk 4:1-25)
usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark4.htm

For a call to grow, the ground must be fertile. Certain elements are within the pastor’s control and he should leverage those to the best of his ability.

 

[PaulinVA]

Have you ant documentation on that?

No, unfortunately, it’s anecdotal.

Once again, I refer you to the Parable of the Sower ( Mk 4:1-25)
usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark4.htm

For a call to grow, the ground must be fertile. Certain elements are within the pastor’s control and he should leverage those to the best of his ability.

You believe that the parable of the sower has to do with vocations? Oh.

So, you believe God calls men to the priesthood, but needs people, such as priests, to nurture that call. Is God’s grace not sufficient? How do you think discernment of vocation works?

 

[TheMc]

So, you believe God calls men to the priesthood, but needs people, such as priests, to nurture that call. Is God’s grace not sufficient? How do you think discernment of vocation works?

Yes, God’s grace is enough. But as we can not remain neutral in the spiritual life, same is true with vocations. Either we will help the cause of vocations, or we hurt it, even if sometimes that is done by doing or saying nothing. The church clearly says we have a duty to support vocations. If they thought God’s call was enough by itself, then they wouldn’t have said that it’s our duty.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Cardinal Arinze in his podcast explains beautifully why girls should NOT be altar servers! The girls do not belong there and maybe if they stop allowing them I bet more boys would be called to the Priesthood. Let the boys alone to do their important work.

I can not see any purpose for girls on the altar other than to promote them as being able to be Priests. Isn’t that scarey?

So Cardinal Arinze knows more then the Church? He has more authority? Isn’t that scarey?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Yes, God’s grace is enough. But as we can not remain neutral in the spiritual life, same is true with vocations. Either we will help the cause of vocations, or we hurt it, even if sometimes that is done by doing or saying nothing. The church clearly says we have a duty to support vocations. If they thought God’s call was enough by itself, then they wouldn’t have said that it’s our duty.

But isn’t it also true that that support for vocations also should be from the family as well as the Church. If you know someone that you think would have a vocation…a kind word in that direction could do wonders. Sometimes it takes a lot of seeds…for fruit to grow. For ALL vocations. If a boy is serving at the altar but doesn’t have support from his family…that possible vocation (not every boy has a vocation to be a priest) might not sprout. So…the duty to support vocations is not only through being altar boys…or the preference towards altar boys. Notice I said preference…not solely altar boys…because I still don’t believe that a boy will refuse to serve because a girl is serving. In our parish I have seen both serving together. Usually the boy is the one directly involved with placing the chalices on the altar…which is fine with me as well. But I fail to see how altar girls are responsible for our lack of priests…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

No. The abuse of females serving Mass was widespread well before 1983.

It existed but it was not widespread. Sometimes we need to look beyond our own backyard before we make such statements.

Given the incendiary nature of this matter, the Church would have been crystal clear on whether or not females where allowed to serve Mass if the Church had chosen to document its position in the 1983 CofC. The Church would not have left such a matter to the silly and abstruse logical gymnastics so many love to play with Church documents.

For starters, this matter is hardly “incendiary.” Secondly, I must ROTFL if anyone thinks that the Church is a well oiled efficient machine. Thirdly, the plain wording of the canon clearly permits female altar servers and thus the Holy See faced only two choices when the dubium was presented: say yes or change the canon.

In reality I believe the Church recognized the widespread abuse and realized two things. First no matter what side it came down on it was sure to alienate a great many people. Second, even if it did uphold the long-standing prohibition, many bishops were going to ignore the Holy See anyway – much like today with non-instituted laypersons purifying sacred vessels after Mass or the use of EMsHC.

The Holy See is hardly afraid of people ignoring it. In fact, it understands quite well that whatever it decides will not always and everywhere be followed to the letter. To claim that they didn’t want to be in the position of being disobeyed or causing others to be upset lacks credibility IMHO.

So the Church deliberately chose to remain mum on the matter. In a practical sense the abuse simply continued but at least now people could argue it was now allowed (see silly abstruse mental gymnastics above.) Unexpectedly there was a big enough outcry from enough Catholics that the Church was forced to fish or cut bait on this matter – it was finally forced to render a definitive position. It did so in 1994.

Prior to 1983 female altar servers would have been a violation of official church discipline. After 1983 Code it was not. The Holy See has much bigger fish to fry than regional squabling over interpreting disciplinary canons. However, once the dubium was presented they backed those who interpreted it as permitting female altar servers. Once again, the 1994 response is very specific in explaining just what the canon does and does not say in detail.

 

[Spelling]

It existed but it was not widespread. Sometimes we need to look beyond our own backyard before we make such statements.

For starters, this matter is hardly “incendiary.” Secondly, I must ROTFL if anyone thinks that the Church is a well oiled efficient machine. Thirdly, the plain wording of the canon clearly permits female altar servers and thus the Holy See faced only two choices when the dubium was presented: say yes or change the canon.

The Holy See is hardly afraid of people ignoring it. In fact, it understands quite well that whatever it decides will not always and everywhere be followed to the letter. To claim that they didn’t want to be in the position of being disobeyed or causing others to be upset lacks credibility IMHO.

Prior to 1983 female altar servers would have been a violation of official church discipline. After 1983 Code it was not. The Holy See has much bigger fish to fry than regional squabling over interpreting disciplinary canons. However, once the dubium was presented they backed those who interpreted it as permitting female altar servers. Once again, the 1994 response is very specific in explaining just what the canon does and does not say in detail.

The use of female server prior to 1983 was extremely widespread. You have no idea how large my “backyard” is, nor do you know if my experiences were constrained to its boundaries. You should not have introduced an ad hominem variable to this discussion.

Its an incendiary issue even today and no parsing of CofC #230 will change that fact. If the Church would have upheld the existing prohibition it would have continued to be ignored on a widespread basis. Did the Church take that fact into consideration? Yep. Maybe not today with the current Pope but in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s? Absolutely. Given the language in RS it’s my best guess that the responsum would have reaffirmed the prohibition if it were released today.

Using female altar servers was an abuse until the responsum was released by the Church in 1994. That of course did not keep individual bishops from allowing (or at least looking the other way) from the late 1960’s and early 1970’s and on when it came to female servers. I wonder how much documentation exists where individual bishops between 1983 and 1994 gave their permission for the use of female altar servers? Not much is my guess. Like the purifying of altar vessels today, it was just something that was quietly ignored because everyone knew it was wrong.

 

[PaulinVA]

Yes, God’s grace is enough. But as we can not remain neutral in the spiritual life, same is true with vocations. Either we will help the cause of vocations, or we hurt it, even if sometimes that is done by doing or saying nothing. The church clearly says we have a duty to support vocations. If they thought God’s call was enough by itself, then they wouldn’t have said that it’s our duty.

Which brings us full circle as to whether keeping girls from being altar servers supports vocations.

I don’t think so.

 

[threebells17]

http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWByiwHE4MY. I hope this link opens to the Cardinal’s explanantion on the issue of altar girls. If not go to youtube- search “what about altar girls” to get the video.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The use of female server prior to 1983 was extremely widespread. You have no idea how large my “backyard” is, nor do you know if my experiences were constrained to its boundaries. You should not have introduced an ad hominem variable to this discussion.

I apologize if you viewed that comment as an ad hominem. I was merely pointing out the basic human trait that we all have a tendency to universalize our own experiences. Over the years we must simply have traveled to different parts of the world.

Its an incendiary issue even today

I don’t see that at all. For the overwhelming number of Catholics there is no debate. Most Catholic do not care about this issue anymore.

and no parsing of CofC #230 will change that fact.

The canon is quite clear.

If the Church would have upheld the existing prohibition it would have continued to be ignored on a widespread basis. Did the Church take that fact into consideration? Yep.

And your evidence for that is? The dubium response simply addressed what the canon says. I don’t understand why you feel the need to invent all sorts of other reasons for the answer.

Maybe not today with the current Pope but in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s? Absolutely. Given the language in RS it’s my best guess that the responsum would have reaffirmed the prohibition if it were released today.

The only way to do that would have been to rewrite the canon. And incidentally, the current Holy Father has already rewritten a few canons and this was not among them.

Using female altar servers was an abuse until the responsum was released by the Church in 1994.

No, it was an abuse until 1983.

I wonder how much documentation exists where individual bishops between 1983 and 1994 gave their permission for the use of female altar servers? Not much is my guess.

Actually it was discussed and talked about in Church circles. Many were saying that canon law clearly permitted it while others said that the Holy See would quickly fix that “loop hole” if it were so. The former were backed by the Holy See.

Like the purifying of altar vessels today, it was just something that was quietly ignored because everyone knew it was wrong.

Well, the Holy See doesn’t seem too interested in changing the rule even though it’s widely ignored so that seems to contradict your main argument. And secondly, if the Holy See did change the rule due to popular revolt it would simply come out and admit its changing the rule. It wouldn’t pretend its interpreting a 10 year old law.

 

[Brendan]

Which brings us full circle as to whether keeping girls from being altar servers supports vocations.

I don’t think so.

The Vatican says it does. Do you really think that you know more than the Vatican on this subject?

Frankly, I don’t even see how it would even be possible for any of us to aquire more knowledge than the Vatican on this.

Can I ask what your authority or data is on this?

 

[TheMc]

TheMC:

Summed up: Yes, females can serve, but it is quite obvious that boys are still preferred by the church.

You have summed up your position quite well.

It’s not my position, It’s the Church’s position. It’s just that my position lines up with the church’s position.

 

[TheMc]

If there is such clear evidence that this fosters vocations…then why was there a vocation crisis?

Because no one is doing it! That’s the whole point of what Brendan has been saying!

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Because no one is doing it! That’s the whole point of what Brendan has been saying!

But refer back to what I had said earlier…if it fosters vocations…truly. Then why do we have a shortage BECAUSE when I was a kid…no altar girls were alllowed…only boys…and yet we still ended up with a shortage…(I’m not that old). If it truly is A = B …then why did that NOT happen. That’s my point. I have yet to see evidence that this will increase vocations or that the lack of vocations has to do with altar girls serving.