Altar Servers -- What type?

[khkhk]

I like seeing both genders. Gender really shouldn’t matter. We are equal in God’s eyes (he created both male & female). He would want both to serve him. (I can’t read God’s mind, but that’s what I think.)

 

[JNB]

Stu:

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.

My parish now has an additional 20 altar boys in training, and has done well with vocations. Again as I said in a previous post, the liberal priests have not been able to replicate themselves, and progressive Catholics will be in a world of hurt past 2010, when the likes of Cardinal Mahoney, Bishop Clark and Bishop Pilla are no longer in power and their chanceries also will be close to retirement age. The parishes that have tons of altar girls, tons of EMHCs and the like do not inspire young men to enter the seminary and young women to enter the convent, the parishes that are reverent, and follow the church traditions to inspire. Abp. Burke of St. Louis when he celbrates mass only uses altar boys and never uses EMHCs.

FYI, my parish has no EMHCs, no altar girls, no female lectors, and it has many young, large familes, and a large contingent of home schooled familes. Want to see the future vocations of the church, take a look at these homeschooling familes.
As RS said, only using altar boys is a laudible practice, and even the original permission to use altar girls said that using boys should be retained, sadly too many Bishops and priests led by the like of Cardinal Mahoney saw the inch the Vatican gave and took a mile.

 

[Catholic2003]

JNB:

FYI, my parish has … no female lectors, …

Where is the justification in liturgical law for this? I didn’t think that parish priests had the authority to innovate new categories of discrimination.

 

[pnewton]

Catholic2003:

Where is the justification in liturgical law for this? I didn’t think that parish priests had the authority to innovate new categories of discrimination.

I think there is a subtle distinction between what is called “lector” and “reader”. True, women can read the scripture, but were not admitted to the formal position of lector, who was usually a seminarian. Of course in many churches (including mine) those who read the scripture are called lectors. Now are we totally confused?

BTW - thanks for your defense of legitimate church teaching in your earlier posts (reputation point substitution).

 

[Catholic2003]

pnewton:

I think there is a subtle distinction between what is called “lector” and “reader”. True, women can read the scripture, but were not admitted to the formal position of lector, who was usually a seminarian. Of course in many churches (including mine) those who read the scripture are called lectors. Now are we totally confused?

It is very confusing. I had taken JNB’s post to say that in addition to permanently installed lectors, his priest makes use of male temporarily deputed readers, but prohibits female temporarily deputed readers. I was not aware that an individual parish priest had the authority to practice this kind of discrimination.

pnewton:

BTW - thanks for your defense of legitimate church teaching in your earlier posts (reputation point substitution).

Thanks, I appreciate your comment!

 

[JNB]

Catholic2003:

It is very confusing. I had taken JNB’s post to say that in addition to permanently installed lectors, his priest makes use of male temporarily deputed readers, but prohibits female temporarily deputed readers. I was not aware that an individual parish priest had the authority to practice this kind of discrimination.

 The Pastor has the authority to do what he wants, on who gets to be altar servers, on who can be lectors, and if EMHCs are used or not, and Rome has said so as well. Catholic2003, you are more intrested in political correctness than the Catholic faith, I am just glad that parishes that push political correctness produce so few priestly vocations. Cardinal Mahony has tried to shove altar girls, communion under both species and EMHCs down peoples throats, and vocations in the LA archdiocese have dried up.

 

[JNB]

Catholic2003:

Where is the justification in liturgical law for this? I didn’t think that parish priests had the authority to innovate new categories of discrimination.

You amuse me. Let me get this clear, THE CHURCH IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, there are no liturgical laws that require female lectors to be used, it is up to the pastor to choose if females are to be used in these roles or not. If you do not like the concept of male only lectors, go to another parish down the road. The Parish pastor is given responsibilities and canon law protects the pastor in the decsions he makes, and if he says no altar girls, no female lectors, no EMHCs, DEAL WITH IT.

Also Catholic 2003, you seem to be the type that thinks the church is a new church that started in 1965, but there are no mentions of altar girls, EMHCs or female lectors in either Vatican II or the Novus Ordo missal itself.

 

[pnewton]

JNB:

You amuse me… DEAL WITH IT.

Also Catholic 2003, you seem to be the type that thinks the church is a new church that started in 1965, but there are no mentions of altar girls, EMHCs or female lectors in either Vatican II or the Novus Ordo missal itself.

Why the animosity?

If I have missed judged you “amusement”, “DEAL WITH IT”, and “you seem to be the type” then forgive me.

By the way the correct answer is (drum roll)…

it’s up to the bishop of the diocese, as in:

“Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.[122]” (RS, paragraph 47)

 

[Crusader]

pnewton:

I think there is a subtle distinction between what is called “lector” and “reader”. True, women can read the scripture, but were not admitted to the formal position of lector, who was usually a seminarian. Of course in many churches (including mine) those who read the scripture are called lectors. Now are we totally confused?

BTW - thanks for your defense of legitimate church teaching in your earlier posts (reputation point substitution).

Not really all that “subtle.” Lectors (like acolytes) are males (only) who are instituted for life. Readers (and EMHCs) are males or females installed for a definate period.

Only 3-4 dioceses in the USA institute lectors and acolytes who are not on their way to the priesthood or diaconate. If all dioceses did, there would never be a need for readers…

 

[Catholic2003]

JNB:

The Pastor has the authority to do what he wants, on who gets to be altar servers, on who can be lectors, and if EMHCs are used or not, and Rome has said so as well.

So you are saying that an individual pastor could decide not to use black (temporarily deputed) readers if the pastor thinks it might offend the sensibilities of the mostly white congregation? Do you really believe that?

Or that the pastor could decide not to use (temporarily deputed) readers who were under 5’10" tall because he thinks they don’t project enough of a presence from the ambo? Or not to use left-handed (temporarily deputed) readers because he thinks they are too clumsy?

Do you really think that an individual pastor has the right to set up whatever discriminatory categories that he wants to? Now, I do agree that the pastor can choose, in a non-discriminatory manner, any particular people that he wants for any liturgical position. But this is not at all the same as discrimination.

The authority to select isn’t the same as the authority to discriminate. No individual person has the right to sit at the front of the bus. But a law which declares that no black person can sit at the front of the bus is still discriminatory, and wrong. No individual person has the right to sit on a jury. But a prosecutor who targets all his peremptory challenges to remove black jurors is practicing unconstitutional discrimination.

Similarly, no individual person has the right to be a (temporarily deputed) reader. However, a pastor establishing a rule that no women can fill that role is very definitely practicing discrimination.

JNB:

Catholic2003, you are more intrested in political correctness than the Catholic faith

Working for social justice is an important part of being a Catholic. Here is what Pope John Paul II said:
Christifideles Laici:

1. The Synod Fathers gave special attention to the status and role of women, with two purposes in mind: to themselves acknowledge and to invite all others to once again acknowledge the indispensable contribution of women to the building up of the Church and the development of society. They wished as well to work on a more specific analysis of women’s participation in the life and mission of the Church.

Making reference to Pope John XXIII, who saw women’s greater consciousness of their proper dignity and their entrance into public life as signs of our times, the Synod Fathers, when confronted with the various forms of discrimination and marginization to which women are subjected simply because they are women, time and time again strongly affirmed the urgency to defend and to promote the personal dignity of woman, and consequently, her equality with man.

…

A more extensive and decisive response must be given to the demands made in the Exhortation Familiaris Consortio concerning the many discriminations of which women are the victims: “Vigorous and incisive pastoral action must be taken by all to overcome completely these forms of discrimination so that the image of God that shines in all human beings without exception may be fully respected”. Along the same lines, the Synod Fathers stated: “As an expression of her mission the Church must stand firmly against all forms of discrimination and abuse of women”. And again: “The dignity of women, gravely wounded in public esteem, must be restored through effective respect for the rights of the human person and by putting the teaching of the Church into practice”.

I don’t think the Holy Father was talking about vigorous and incisive pastoral action to further discriminate against women in whatever liturgical roles a pastor wants to exclude women from.

 

[Catholic2003]

JNB:

You amuse me.

I find it odd that the concerns of social justice amuse you. Are you amused by other Church teachings as well? Does the sight of Catholic pro-life protesters at an abortion clinic make you break out in guffaws?

JNB:

Let me get this clear, THE CHURCH IS NOT A DEMOCRACY

The Church is not an anarchy either, where any pastor can do what he feels like. There are definite laws that govern the Church, in particular canon law and liturgical law.

JNB:

there are no liturgical laws that require female lectors to be used, it is up to the pastor to choose if females are to be used in these roles or not.

There are no liturgical laws that require black lectors to be used either. But this does not mean that it is up to the pastor to choose to categorically discriminate against all blacks in the liturgical role of temporarily deputed reader. I’m afraid your legal reasoning is quite faulty here.

Priests can choose to exclude females from being altar servers because this is specifically authorized by a 2001 letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. There is no such authorization in place for the liturgical role of temporarily deputed reader.

 

[NightRider]

Catholic2003:

So you are saying that an individual pastor could decide not to use black (temporarily deputed) readers if the pastor thinks it might offend the sensibilities of the mostly white congregation? Do you really believe that?

Or that the pastor could decide not to use (temporarily deputed) readers who were under 5’10" tall because he thinks they don’t project enough of a presence from the ambo? Or not to use left-handed (temporarily deputed) readers because he thinks they are too clumsy?

Do you really think that an individual pastor has the right to set up whatever discriminatory categories that he wants to? Now, I do agree that the pastor can choose, in a non-discriminatory manner, any particular people that he wants for any liturgical position. But this is not at all the same as discrimination.

The authority to select isn’t the same as the authority to discriminate. No individual person has the right to sit at the front of the bus. But a law which declares that no black person can sit at the front of the bus is still discriminatory, and wrong. No individual person has the right to sit on a jury. But a prosecutor who targets all his peremptory challenges to remove black jurors is practicing unconstitutional discrimination.

Similarly, no individual person has the right to be a (temporarily deputed) reader. However, a pastor establishing a rule that no women can fill that role is very definitely practicing discrimination.

Working for social justice is an important part of being a Catholic. Here is what Pope John Paul II said:

I don’t think the Holy Father was talking about vigorous and incisive pastoral action to further discriminate against women in whatever liturgical roles a pastor wants to exclude women from.

Well done, Catholic2003! Simply put, this is an outstanding post–the best yet! Thank you for posting this! It tells it exactly like it is! God bless!

 

[JNB]

Catholic2003:

So you are saying that an individual pastor could decide not to use black (temporarily deputed) readers if the pastor thinks it might offend the sensibilities of the mostly white congregation? Do you really believe that?

Or that the pastor could decide not to use (temporarily deputed) readers who were under 5’10" tall because he thinks they don’t project enough of a presence from the ambo? Or not to use left-handed (temporarily deputed) readers because he thinks they are too clumsy?

Do you really think that an individual pastor has the right to set up whatever discriminatory categories that he wants to? Now, I do agree that the pastor can choose, in a non-discriminatory manner, any particular people that he wants for any liturgical position. But this is not at all the same as discrimination.

The authority to select isn’t the same as the authority to discriminate. No individual person has the right to sit at the front of the bus. But a law which declares that no black person can sit at the front of the bus is still discriminatory, and wrong. No individual person has the right to sit on a jury. But a prosecutor who targets all his peremptory challenges to remove black jurors is practicing unconstitutional discrimination.

Similarly, no individual person has the right to be a (temporarily deputed) reader. However, a pastor establishing a rule that no women can fill that role is very definitely practicing discrimination.

Working for social justice is an important part of being a Catholic. Here is what Pope John Paul II said:

I don’t think the Holy Father was talking about vigorous and incisive pastoral action to further discriminate against women in whatever liturgical roles a pastor wants to exclude women from.

This does not mention the roles on women in the mass. FYI, untill the late 70s, women did not serve as lectors in most of the US, it was a role reserved for men. There were no changes in liturgical laws, just priests decided to use women for the role of lector. For papal masses in the Vatican, one will still not find altar girls or any EMHCs, and I believe they do not use female lectors for papal masses either. So would you say a Pastor who does what the Pope does discriminates? Do you think the church untill the late 70s was wrong? It seems to be Catholic2003, you have NO sense of history, and you h ave little sense of what the church is like outside of the English speaking world for that matter. You to me sound far more like a liturgical protestant than a Catholic.

 

[pnewton]

JNB:

It seems to be Catholic2003, you have NO sense of history, and you h ave little sense of what the church is like outside of the English speaking world for that matter. You to me sound far more like a liturgical protestant than a Catholic.

What is “protestant” about trying to follow current Catholic disciple in regard to liturgy in America. Knowledge of history or geography (although these are admirable) are not necessary for obedience.

 

[pnewton]

On the subject of girls as altar servers:
If a bishop was in a diocese that had a particularly bad problem with dissention on the subject of women priests and if girls serving the altar were being educated in the feminist ideology that they might one day be priest, then such a bishop might determine it to be pastoral and prudent to disallow girl altar servers.

I am not in a place where this type of dissent is ever aired and that may be why I have no problem with girl altar servers.

I am sure that a hypothetical situation could also exist to encourage priest to use girl altar servers on pastoral grounds.

 

[Catholic2003]

pnewton:

What is “protestant” about trying to follow current Catholic disciple in regard to liturgy in America. Knowledge of history or geography (although these are admirable) are not necessary for obedience.

Exactly right! Past practice cannot justify current disobedience.

Here is what the 1970 GIRM said about female readers (paragraph 66):

The conference of bishops may grant that when there is no man present capable of carrying out the reader’s function, a suitable woman, standing outside the sanctuary, may proclaim the readings preceding the gospel.

Note that it is requirement that no male readers are available. If male readers are indeed available, the priest has no discretion to make use of a female reader.

Here is what the 1975 GIRM said about female readers (paragraph 70):

Laymen, even if they have not received institution as ministers, may perform all the functions below those reserved to deacons. At the discretion of the rector of the church, women may be appointed to ministries that are performed outside the sanctuary.

The conference of bishops may permit qualified women to proclaim the readings before the gospel and to announce the intentions of the general intercessions. The conference may also more precisely designate a suitable place for a woman to proclaim the word of God in the liturgical assembly.

Gone is the requirement that no male readers be available. However, the priest still has the discretion not to use female readers, as indicated by the phrase “At the discretion of the rector of the church”.

Here is what the current GIRM says about readers (paragraph 101):

In the absence of an instituted lector, other laypersons may be commissioned to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture. They should be truly suited to perform this function and should receive careful preparation, so that the faithful by listening to the readings from the sacred texts may develop in their hearts a warm and living love for Sacred Scripture.

Please note that the authorization for the pastor to decide against using female readers has been removed.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.