C
Crusader
Guest
“Misogynist” is one of those words typically only used by misandrists. Using that word is almost like broadcasting that one is a sexist disguised as a “feminist.”
- Status
C
Catholic2003
Guest
It’s actually completely different than the overuse of EMHC’s. This is because there are actual liturgical rules (e.g., RS 88) which state that the overall intent is to use only priests and deacons to distribute Holy Communion. Even if you weren’t aware of these rules, the name “extraordinary minister” might be enough to tip someone off.
However, there is no liturgical rule which states that the overall intent is to use only males on the altar. This is something that you have invented on your own. The actual intent, explicitly stated in canon law, is to use permanently installed Acolytes. So are you claiming that the use of non-instituted altar boys is also an abuse, or do you reserve this term only for females due to your personal feelings about the role of women?
C
Catholic2003
Guest
This is what you believe, not what the Church teaches. Here is what the U.S. Bishops have to say:
NightRider has generously provided her service to the Church when it was in need, in a form fully authorized by liturgical law. Yet you have attacked her service, and accused her of harboring secret and insincere motives for that service. You have invented you own liturgical law, and have tried, convicted, and sentenced NightRider under your invented rules. Agomemnon has deemed her service an abuse.
And yet you don’t know NightRider. You barely know anything at all about her other than she is female. Gee, if only there was a word in the English language to describe this kind of horrible treatment that is directed at someone based on their sex. Any ideas?
S
Stu
Guest
Permanently installed Acolytes (males) is the ideal and that is what we should push for. Do parish’s try hard enough to meet this ideal? That’s for them to decide but in my opinion I really don’t think so. But in attempting to meet this ideal only males should be used on the altar as that is the original spirit and females only when absolutely necessary. Doesn’t mean women are inferior its just we have different purposes all of which are important. Unfortunately I believe too many parishes took the “female” opening and ran with it in a direction that did not meet the original intent. Just like the opening for EMHC’s has also been exploited. We can disagree and I have no problem discussing that disagreement. In fact that isn’t even the point of my post that started this debate.
My point is about the senseless name calling. I’m against affirmative action so I become a racist. I’m against women in combat or on the altar so I am chauvinist and now misogynist. I’m against homosexual marriage so I have been called a homophobe. (I suppose you are against homosexual marriage as well making you also a homophobe.) Do you see my point? My wife is against women on the altar. Is she a misogynist? A very influential woman on our Parish Council is against women on the altar? Is she a misogynist? The priest and Bishop at our old church were against women on the altar? Are they misogynists? People can disagree based upon differences in trains of thought and not be villified. The fact that you are for women on the altar can I then label you as feminist or something even worse? Not really fair since I don’t even know you now is it?
N
NightRider
Guest
Thank you, Catholic2003. I also respect peoples’ right to their opinions, however, they often don’t respect mine!! But that’s ok. I don’t need them to agree with my opinions or even my *rights. *I now just disregard people who do not respect my rights. I must because if I don’t they will attempt to alter my life however they can! and I will not allow them to do so. Know what I mean?
C
Crusader
Guest
Stu said:
That’s quite true, Stu, but consider two things. First, I think only males should serve at the altar because it might foster a vocation to the priesthood or permanent diaconate. Second, formally install enough acolytes and lectors (versus altar servers and readers) and there would be NO room for women in the sanctuary.
While I still think what you suggest is the correct way to go, the sexist/feminists would go absolutely nuts if this happened – which might not be such a bad thing.
N
NightRider
Guest
And thanks so much again, Catholic2003. You are able to put your words to good use here, much more able than I have been, and I appreciate your effort. It is difficult for me to know exactly how to deal effectively with these sorts of issues. Others get so *hostile. *I don’t do very well with *hostile. *There is just too much sorrow in it for me. I have also been a journeyman tradesworker for the last seventeen years and I think I am just worn out from trying to defend my right to work and to just *exist *as awoman in the trades that I just back away from those who would attempt to remove me. After all, they think it is an *abuse *that I have earned journey status at all…
N
NightRider
Guest
Stu, why do you think males are the *ideal?? *Is it because you think that being a feminist is *bad?? *
C
Crusader
Guest
Originally Posted by Stu
*Permanently installed Acolytes (males) is the ideal and that is what we should push for. *
He said permanently installed acolytes are the ideal.
One must be a male to be installed as a lector or acolyte in the Catholic Church.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
You’re very welcome, NightRider. It’s bad enough that you’ve had to deal with discrimination out in the secular world, and fight for your right to work at your job. But no one should have to encounter discrimination within the Church! The Church’s role should be to take the lead on fighting discimination, not promoting it.
N
NightRider
Guest
I so agree, no one should have to encounter discrimination within the Church, and that the Church should take the lead in fighting discrimination and not promoting it. I think in many parishes Our Church is trying to fight it and is trying to take the lead in this area. My old parish is an example, where I served at the Altar. Our Pastor was totally inclusive and loved all of us no matter our gender. He was truly an exemplary Catholic Christian and for this he was promoted to be Director of a Dominican Province. I miss him so! He did so much for us. He just completely loved all of us and honored us. Around him one never even thought of one’s gender! and to me, that is very healing, to just be loved as a *human being. *
C
Catholic2003
Guest
This is an idea that you’ve come up with on your own; it is not at all a part of the Church’s liturgical law or guidelines. So it isn’t correct to term a liturgical practice an “abuse” when the only liturgical rules that it violates are made-up ones.
Your justification for your invented rule isn’t really logical, either. Since you must be at least 18 years old to be installed as an Acolyte, do you think that having altar servers under 18 is an abuse?
This was never the Church’s original intent; this is something you’ve decided on your own. So I’m not surprised that most parishes do not treat altar girls as ESCFLTINMAS’s (Extraordinary Second-Class Far-Less-Than-Ideal Non-Male Altar Servers).
Are you denying the existence of misogyny, racism, and homophobia altogether?
Being against affirmative action doesn’t make someone a racist. However, inventing a requirement that black people should sit at the back of the bus based on personal study of the “original intent” of such laws from the 1950’s, and then castigating blacks who sit at the front of the bus is being a racist.
Saying that women cannot be ordained as priests is not misogynistic. Castigating women who legitimately serve at the altar as “abuses” is being misogynistic.
Being against homosexual marriage doesn’t make one a homephobe. However, someone who goes out nights crusing for homosexuals to beat up is a homophobe.
It is certainly possible for a woman to be a misogynist. In fact, from my experience, more misogynists are women than are men. But I don’t know anything about your wife in particular.
A homosexual who goes out nights crising for homosexuals to beat up is a homosexual homophobe.
Yes, but that does not mean that misogyny does not exist. There is a big difference between disagreeing with the current Church practice of female altar servers, and taking it upon oneself to impugn the motives of a actual female altar server when the only thing you know about her is that she is female.
S
Stu
Guest
Crusader said:
What he said. Incidentally, while I think the use of girls on the altar is wrong I submit to the prerogative of my parish priest which in our case means the use of females. If you went to a parish where the priest forbid such a practice, would you submit as well or would we hear similar cries of discrimination and misogyny? Did Christ discriminate in picking the Apostles? Is He a misogynist? Quite simply, I follow the Church.
I would really love for you to just comment on the use of name calling which is really my point.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
I did so in the last half of my post #92. Is there some point that I missed?
S
Stu
Guest
In the ideal, that would be the way to go. I don’t think we try for the ideal enough. The intent is to have all males and that is undeniable. When we can’t make that ideal, I think we should stick as close to it as possible.
That is just silly talk.
I don’t deny any of those things exist but you have missed my point altogether. Just because they exist doesn’t mean they are lurking behind every corner. People can and do disagree.
Saying woman can’t serve as priests Church teaching. Therefore your problem is with her and not me.
Lastly, I haven’t impugned the character of anyone. I question the practice not the motives of the individuals.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
The undeniable intent is to have all permanently installed acolytes. The current requirement to be installed as an acolyte is to be a male 18 years old or older. (However, this is a matter of ecclesiastical law, not divine law. The 1987 Synod of Bishops discussed allowing the permanent installation of female acolytes.)
I have no trouble with you holding this as a personal belief as to what the Church’s liturgical law should be. However, I do have a problem with your deeming any present-day violations of your personal belief as “abuses”. A parish priest is perfectly justified under current Church discipline in treating all temporary deputed altar servers on an equal basis, whether male or female, whether at least 18 years old or not.
I think you misread my sentence. Let me summarize:
Not ordaining women as priests is a matter of divine law, and so it is not misogyny.
A bishop or priest not allowing female altar servers is authorized under two letters from the CDWDS. However, this is not a requirement, and bishops and priests who permit female altar servers are under no obligation to show a perference for altar servers who are males at least 18 years old.
A priest not allowing female EMHC’s is discrimination against women, and I’m not aware of any rule of either liturgical law or canon law which would justify it. Whether this discrimination is based on misogyny cannot be determined without more information.
It was Crusader that made the “secretly THRILLED” comment. I apologize if I’ve inadvertantly confused you with Crusader.
S
Stu
Guest
Concur. I did misread as I was on my way to supper. My apologies.
N
NightRider
Guest
I wish to address your last sentence here. I did not use name calling. If you go back to the post where I first used the word *misogynist *you will discover that I said a *statement *that was used was misogynist. There is a big difference with name calling and noting that a statement is misogynist. Now as for me I am bowing out. Buhbye.
S
Stu
Guest
I understand your distinction but I would say mox nix. Let’s save terms like that for when we REALLY need them, not for disagreements on a message board.
S
Stu
Guest
I agree with all you say. I say “abuse” because we are not trying to live up to the ideal. I believe with this issue and many others local priests and bishops have looked for the easy way out. My priest has chosen to use female altar servers and I realize he is justified. But we as a parish haven’t done much to either get some duly instituted acolytes or go after boys. I think that is an “abuse” albeit in the lightest of terms.
I have had the opportunity to be a member of many parishes as I have moved all over the country. In my experience (admittedly anecdotal) it is those parishes that strive for the ideal and stick the book as best possible that are the most thriving and interestingly enough have the highest amount of vocations. Coincidence? Perhaps. But I believe it is blessing for obedience. While the role of women in the Church may no be “center stage”, that in no way downplays their impact and influence. And that has also been my experience at such “orthodox parishes”. After all, it was our Mother Mary who persuaded our Saviour to perform the miracle in Cana.
- Status