are girls not important?

[buc_fan33]

I used to be very passionate on this that females should NOT be altar servers, however, I have lightened my tone on that in recent years because the Church has said so. The Church has given individual bishops the authority to allow or not allow female altar servers. I respect those who choose not to as well as those who do. I do not, however, see it as a slight to women if they can’t serve on the altar any more than I see it as a slight to me as a man that I can’t get pregnant and bear children.

Because of our PC culture, we have come to accept the premise that boys can do anything girls can do and vice-versa and it simply isn’t true. One example is what I just suggested. A man can never become pregnant. It is simply not compatible with the nature of being male.

I don’t have the time to address every point that GemmaRose brought up, but I would like to address one and that is that Jesus only opted to choose men to serve as the Apostles because of the time and culture in which he lived. This is problematic on two fronts. First, it completely ignores the fact that Our Lord never did anything to conform with His culture. For example, He called a tax collector (Matthew), He ate with prostitutes and sinners, He, a Jew, spoke with a Samaritan woman, He spoke out against the pharisees, and He claimed very clearly to be God, the latter offense earning Him the prize of crucifixion. So, to suggest that he merely succumbed to cultural pressure just doesn’t coincide with Jesus’ other actions.

Secondly, it seems to accuse our Lord of the sin of sexism. Since we know that Jesus is God and therefore CANNOT sin, to say that He DID sin, is to say that He is not God. So, it seems to me that either women can’t be priests, or Jesus is not God.

These arguments can probably seem somewhat arrogant, or simply like rubbing it in your face that women can’t be priests. But, allow me if you will, to present another option. Perhaps our Lord saw something different. Not the modern world view that men and women have to be exactly the same to the point that we now have women wanting to be men and men wanting to be women. Perhaps He saw the unique feminine genius and had a better plan than any of us can imagine in which to incorporate that which is most true and most beautiful about being a woman into His divince plan for salvation. Oh, wait…He DID!!! Her name is Mary and to quote Servant of God Pope John Paul the Great, “The Marian dimension of the Church precedes the Petrine.” In other words, we learn how to follow Christ by seeing women. As a man, women can show me something about following Christ that I couldn’t understand on my own. We must be receptive to Christ’s graces, just as a woman is by nature receptive to her husband in the marital act.

It is for this reason that Christ had to come as a man. He couldn’t have come as a woman, or as an intersexual as someone suggested. Not because “men are better” or “women are inferior to men,” (neither or which is true by the way) but because in the order of grace, God is ALWAYS the initiator. He is ALWAYS the giver of the gift and we, as creatures, are always receptive. To use the above analogy, it is the husband who gives the gift, the wife who receives. This is clear when a pregnancy results because the woman receives the gift of the man to such an extent that it now dwells inside her.

More could be said, but suffice it to say that women and men are equal, but different. We don’t have the same roles and we were never intended to.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Part one response to GemmaRose. Not a very good response, but I tried.

If the Church truly believed that women were made in the image and likeness of God, and if Jesus is God, then a woman could just as well be a priest as a man.

I tried to work this out logically:

Men + women = likeness of God
Jesus = God, begotten, NOT made, One In Being with the Father
Jesus = male of the human species + God
Men + women = likeness of God, Made, not begotten = not God
Jesus gave the role of Priesthood to males.
Men NOT = God
Priest = men “In Persona Christi”= Jesus, a male human.
Women = likeness of God, Not male =not called to priesthood.

I don’t think this works well as an illustration, but I tried. The theology is that Priesthood confers a character = the Bridegroom.

The Bride is the Church. Nuns are often poetically seen as married to God, but in actuality we are all married to God. We are all the Bride (which I do not mean to belittle consecration, which is covered later).

There was some famous hearsay here in Chicago when Francis Cardinal George first became Cardinal, that while visiting the major seminary for the first time, a seminarian challenged him asking when would women be made priests.

Cardinal George allegedly responded (quotes for effect) “If you ask me to ordain women as priests, then that means that you don’t understand the character of the Priesthood, which means I cannot ordain you.”

That stopped that.

In reference to the Creed, there is an optional use (I think put forward by ICEL) which truly does not affect it all: “For **us **and for our salvation.” Again, it was used in my seminary, and even then there were grumblings. There still are those who fight change. But this would be such a minor change, and would in the end be edifying to women without taking away from the Creed. You’re right when you say I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying “For us women…” But remember what I said earlier about pronouns.
Languages other than English use masculine and feminine endings for most of their words. On a global scale we are just splitting hairs in English.

The Church might speak about injustices to women, but it’s too little, too late… and what does it actually do?

This is despair. Don’t give in to that. To say “too little, too late” is to say nothing has been done or can be done. If it is too little, too late, then why stay a Catholic? You don’t really mean that.

(Oh, right, I forgot… I have dignity because I am capable of bearing children… so my dignity is linked to my being a brood mare. Wow.)

This one degrades the miracle of childbirth. There are feminists who take it a step further by equating pregnancy with disease, their bodies being infiltrated by a parasite. This is the logical fallacy of false analogy, making comparisons that do not match up. This is brought on by the old saying about keeping women “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.” Some cultures still embrace the idea. But no ours. Women are not barnyard animals. Do you really feel like a barnyard animal? You’re being overly cynical, and you know it.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Part two GemmaRose reply

I consider it an injustice that a man can receive seven Sacraments and a women can only receive six. (I will cover this more extensively in the next post.)

Technically true, but remember that all men do not become priests. And not all men who apply to the seminary are accepted. Do you know that you have to have a functional penis to be a priest? I once joked while I was a seminarian that if I were injured and could no longer use my penis that my discernment troubles would be over. Not so! said Father. Somewhere there is a list of “impediments” to ordination. Homosexuality was (and still is) an impediment to the priesthood, but there has always been a homosexual presence in seminaries. There are quite a number of homosexual priests as a matter of fact. I think Andrew Greely did a study that put the number around 80%. I have to look that up. If someone beats me to it, bravo.

I consider it an injustice that the only time I can be officially welcomed in the sanctuary is when I have a cleaning rag or a mop in my hand. Oh, sure, I can “read,” but I can’t “officially” be a Lector.

You can be a Lector. No one but an ordained minister (deacon, priest, bishop) can proclaim the Gospel. You might just be in a backwoods parish. Women lectors are very common in these parts.

And let’s be real and admit it - female altar servers are barely tolerated.

In some communities that’s true. There was rumbling when it first happened. We went through this earlier.

Think of it in secular terms, in a corporation (and I know it’s not an ideal analogy because the Church is not a corporation)

Actually, that’s a good model. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard priests complain about butting heads with the parish board/council. The church is a business as well. There was talk of including a class “Parish Finances” in the seminary curriculum, as seminarians are prepared to lead a parish sacramentally, but not financially. Newly installed priests had trouble adjusting to the financial end of things. This will sound insensitive, but one priest complained to me “Women don’t want to be ordained. They want power in the church, and now they’ve got it. Jesus gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, and the keys to the Parish offices to women.” That’s a paraphrase. And no one makes money working for the church. Everyone has a glass ceiling in terms of pay when you work in ministry. Women do administrate parishes, act as DRE’s far more than men do. I don’t have statistics. We should fund a study.

Basically, He commissioned [the women] to spread the Gospel.

He commissioned us all to spread the Gospel. But again, the Sacraments were given to the priesthood. That’s the focus. When men aspire to the priesthood they need to ask “Am I called to the sacraments?” Once they hit the parish, that’s all they do. They become a kind of **“sacramental brood mare” **to borrow your expression. I wanted to tackle this from another point of view, because you say rightly that Jesus appeared to the woman at the well, and as the Risen Lord to the women and he said “Go tell them.” To the men he gave authority. This is the first scriptural evidence of the male priesthood. Mt 10:1, Mk 3:10, Mk 6:7, Lk 9:1, Lk 10. These scriptures show (essentially) the first ordination.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I am not allowed to preach, nor even to read a Gospel at Mass because (as I said in my earlier post) I don’t have a penis –

This is an oversimplification. Many men, with penises, are not allowed to proclaim the Gospel either. And not all men are accepted to priesthood. Very few have the calling, and fewer still get ordained. And sometimes we over-romanticize priests, don’t we? A Jesuit once told me “If you’re a dingbat the day before your ordination, the next day all you become is an ordained dingbat.” Ordination grants authority. Becoming Christ-like comes easier to some than others.

A priest really has two things exclusive to them: hearing confessions, and consecrating the Eucharist. A bishop is the only one who can confirm or ordain, and deacons do the rest. And lately, women are running the place. I think this is a fair picture of Catholicism in most of the US. The cleaning women argument is an exaggeration.

A woman can remain in the world to sanctify it from within (cf. Vita Consecrata) and profess her vows in a Secular Institute or as a Consecrated Virgin, again following Jesus’ words and His call to renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom, and this is not a Sacrament. Why?

An excellent point. As a child I remember being scandalized upon learning that nuns and brothers were still considered laity. I asked, “But she belongs to an Order, right? And she’s holy, right?” Holy Orders. It made sense. I really have always thought that if the Pope is going to go to the trouble of recognizing an order, it should fall under the sacrament of holy orders, its highest expression being the episcopate. I know there are reasons, but I don’t have the energy to find them right now.

I printed out your posts, and they ran nine pages. I vowed to use only a third of the space to answer you, but I’ve just now exceeded it.

I would like to end with this. A friend told me this story. It is supposed to be true, but it sounds like a joke. This is a fourth hand telling of the story, if it is story.

*A hospice nun working at a hospital had a patient who was dying. A priest was called in (a Franciscan) to give the last rites. He was held up in traffic and barely arrived before the man died. He performed the anointing, making the sign of the cross on the man’s forehead with oil, etc. Out in the hall the nun turned to him and said “You took so long getting here! If I had a penis I could have done that!”
“Really?” said the Friar “I just used my thumb.” *

That is supposed to be a true story, though no one has an exact transcript.

I know this is incomplete, and there are far more things I could have elaborated on. I would ask to be spared of any replies like “I cannot believe you were so irresponsible as not to point out…”
I know. If you come across something, then go ahead and point it out.

This was a lot of material. And GemmaRose, it is clear that you love the Church. I’m not making light of this, but this is my offering. I imagine this is not the first time you’ve asked these questions, but I’ve tried to address them logically if only to show you how often you rely on logical fallacy. Much of your speech betrays a harkening to cliched feminist banter, and as a former English teacher, you need to kick out of your speech cliches that, as George Orwell put it, think your thoughts for you. Continue to be the dignified woman of God that you are.

Forgive my meager answers. I have a two year old son and he’s crying.

 

[snhs]

1. The first person to whom Jesus revealed Himself to be the Messiah was a woman (the woman at the well). This is important because He certainly knew that she would run back into town to spread the incredible news that the Messiah had come. He chose the Samaritan woman to spread the Good News.

Later, other women were sent to bring the Gospel message (Matthew 28):

Although the accounts of that first Easter morning vary in each Gospel, I believe it can safely be said that the first human beings to whom Jesus revealed Himself as Messiah and as Risen, were women.

He told them to go tell what they had seen and heard.

Basically, He commissioned them to spread the Gospel.

However, 2,000 years later, I am not allowed to preach, nor even to read a Gospel at Mass because (as I said in my earlier post) I don’t have a penis - another instance in which that specific body part has no function.

The Church uses the argument that women can’t be priests because they were not at the Last Supper. Well, that argument should work both ways.

If He had wanted, men would have been at the tomb that first Easter morning and He would have sent them to spread the Good News. This is not what Jesus did.

In both cases, He chose a woman.

Therefore, I submit that I have a valid argument supporting the female diaconate, the requirements, according to St. Paul, being:

What you have demonstrated does not prove your case. Indeed if anything it reinforces the other viewpoint. Note that throughout the Bible men and women are called to serve, but in different ways. It was Mary who gave birth to Our Lord, it was John the Baptist who preceded his Ministry. Likewise at the end Mary meets with Our Lord, but it is Simon of Cyrene who helps him carry the Cross, both share Our Lord’s burden but they do it in different ways. The incident you highlight again it is the women being sent to tell the men. Therein lies the key reason it was all men who were called to be his Apostles, had even one been a woman you might have a case the fact he choose to call none of his female followers to that demonstrates that he wants a different form of service from them.

You are not allowed to preach the Gospel because you are not a Priest, and unless you wish to disobey the example of Our Lord then you will never become one.

I don’t expect that the early Church would have ordained deaconesses, especially with St. Paul instructing that women should keep their heads covered and their mouths shut! But you would think that after 2,000 years, the Church would consider, and follow, the words and actions of Jesus in all things, and not “pick and choose” who can proclaim the Gospel.

Highly ironic don’t you think that you first try to quote St Paul in defence of your argument yet now you are criticising what is written in the Bible. If you are going to say such things about the Word of God on the basis of your political views then surely you would be unsuited to the Priesthood in any event. Why do you allow petty politiking to afflict the Church with such petty notions?

In addition you misquoted, or used an inaccurate translation. The version on the Vatican’s website opens verse 8 with the word ‘Similarly’. In this case it refers back to verses 1-7 which give the characteristics of a Bishop, one of which is that he be a man, as indicated by repetition of he/his on several occasions. Hence similarly a Deacon must be a man.

A woman can become a nun, spend her entire adult life in a convent, and her profession of vows - her acceptance of Jesus’ words about renouncing marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven - is not a Sacrament. Why?

Just as a man could spend his adult life as a Monk? What you also seem to overlook is that men who become Priests cannot, in the Latin rite, marry. Hence Priests themselves are only allowed to receive 6 Sacramets, just as married men and woman only receive 6 Sacraments. (You can argue that a man whose wife died could become a Priest, but equally a woman whose husband died could marry again.) In St Paul it mentions that the single state is also good, therefore although we can derive additional grace from marriage/ordination it is not always good for everyone to receive them, hence the unmarried/monks/nuns/consecrated virgins etc would come under that.

In addition there is no fundamental change. On ordination there is an ontological change which occurs in the new Priest, in marriage man and woman become one flesh. But when a man or a woman takes permanent vows I don’t think there’s an actual change. They can be released from their vows, whereas a Priest, even once laicised is still a Priest and a man and his wife are still married, unless given an annulment, even after divorce.

 

[snhs]

But this would be such a minor change, and would in the end be edifying to women without taking away from the Creed. You’re right when you say I wouldn’t feel comfortable saying “For us women…” But remember what I said earlier about pronouns.

Languages other than English use masculine and feminine endings for most of their words. On a global scale we are just splitting hairs in English.

Comparing it to “for us women…” is not comparing like for like, the comparison is invalid. In English man and mankind can have different meanings depending on the context, just as in Latin words can have different meanings depending on the context. The use of “For us men…” will originate from the Latin translation, rather than changing the words of the Mass to suit a political stance we should be as true to the original as possible, that means using “For us men…”.

I’m not an etymologist, so if there are any they can correct me, but it seems apparent that men and women have the same root. Women, just has the add on of Wo-, hence women are still part of men as in mankind. So just as we wouldn’t use the word firemen or policemen to refer to all men, but could use men so to for women and men, we can use men whereas the use of women would be incorrect.

You can be a Lector. No one but an ordained minister (deacon, priest, bishop) can proclaim the Gospel. You might just be in a backwoods parish. Women lectors are very common in these parts.

She cannot be a Lector, as Lectors must be instituted and have to be men. Unlike readers who perform the same function but are not instituted and hence open to men or women, who only serve in the absence of someone instituted to the post.

 

[Dani_Girl0517]

At our parish we always had a mix of boys and girls as altar servers. I had the same question you did though so being slightly [SIGN]nosy[/SIGN] (who me?) I asked my RCIA instructor. One thing that no one has mentioned is that there are many vocations in the church and the priesthood is only one of them. Women can be nuns. There is the vocation of marriage, parenthood, and other outlets to draw us closer to holiness that can be served by either men or women. Oh, and I agree with true_believer that the girls tend to be more reliable and willing. Hope this helps, God bless!

 

[jwatza]

although altar girls are allowed, I don’t think it is a good idea. Here is my reasoning from articles that I have read and from being a mom to 8 boys. Girls have a natural desire to serve and participate in the church–boys do not. when girls are allowed/encouraged to serve most boys back off. They aren’t needed. Also, young boys don’t often feel comfortable sharing roles like this with girls–processing up to the altar side by side with a girl leaves too much open for being teased. To them, girls still have cooties! there is also the commaraderie that boys have with one another when being altar boys without mixed company–it is something they can be a part of, be proud to serve the Church as boys not having to worry about how they compare to the girls (who probably pay attention far better than boys). the parishes that I attend Mass where there are girl servers, it is rare to see boys. Do we really wish to feminize the Church in this regards? How are we going to support our boys in becoming involved in the church? in developing relationships with priests? I was a girl–a while back–and never felt slighted by not being able to serve. the Church holds women in high esteem, as did Christ, but our place is different than the boys/men. there is no doubt that girls could do a wonderful job serving, but is it their place to do so? Just because the Church allows girl servers does not necessarily mean that girls should serve. Just my opinion.

 

[LilyM]

although altar girls are allowed, I don’t think it is a good idea. Here is my reasoning from articles that I have read and from being a mom to 8 boys. Girls have a natural desire to serve and participate in the church–boys do not. when girls are allowed/encouraged to serve most boys back off. They aren’t needed. Also, young boys don’t often feel comfortable sharing roles like this with girls–processing up to the altar side by side with a girl leaves too much open for being teased. To them, girls still have cooties! there is also the commaraderie that boys have with one another when being altar boys without mixed company–it is something they can be a part of, be proud to serve the Church as boys not having to worry about how they compare to the girls (who probably pay attention far better than boys). the parishes that I attend Mass where there are girl servers, it is rare to see boys. Do we really wish to feminize the Church in this regards? How are we going to support our boys in becoming involved in the church? in developing relationships with priests? I was a girl–a while back–and never felt slighted by not being able to serve. the Church holds women in high esteem, as did Christ, but our place is different than the boys/men. there is no doubt that girls could do a wonderful job serving, but is it their place to do so? Just because the Church allows girl servers does not necessarily mean that girls should serve. Just my opinion.

If boys are so gosh-darn shy about sharing tasks with girls, learning slower than they do etc then why don’t I hear you arguing that all schools should be sex-segregated as well? What reliable evidence is there that this, in the long run, hurts boys at all? If there was any such evidence, our governments would probably be segregating schools tomorrow.

For that matter isn’t it a mother’s and a father’s job to raise their sons to be comfortable around girls and women, and not the Church’s job to pander to their poor little over-sensitive egos?

I apologise for getting a bit hot under the collar about this topic, but seriously, the longer we separate boys from girls in tasks that both sexes can and should be doing, the more we are crippling our boys in later life when, like it or not, priest or not, they will have to be constantly having dealings with women, often women who are in authority over them.

 

[JimG]

why don’t I hear you arguing that all schools should be sex-segregated as well?

There has actually been an increasing amount of interest in the use of sex-segregated schooling as being more educationally effective.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

The use of “For us men…” will originate from the Latin translation, rather than changing the words of the Mass to suit a political stance we should be as true to the original as possible, that means using “For us men…”.

We would be true to the original by saying “For us and for our salvation.” You’ve heard the old saying about something “getting lost in the translation.” That’s because different languages have different idioms, sentence structures, that do not always translate word for word between languages. It would not be “changing the words of the Mass to suit a political stance:” it would be correcting an oversight in translation. The heading for this thread is “are girls not important?” Why keep something which causes a distraction to women, when it can easily be rectified? The Mass isn’t some kind of magical incantation that won’t work if a word gets changed. It’s an edit, not a revision, a minor one at that, a clarification which goes to the heart of the meaning of the original Latin without so much wordiness. And it would be edifiying to many women. Are girls not important?

 

[Brendan]

We would be true to the original by saying “For us and for our salvation.”

No, because “for us” is localized in English. It means the people talking.

It excludes those you are not present at the Mass.

“Men”, on the other hand, includes all people.

 

[Brendan]

A woman can become a nun, spend her entire adult life in a convent, and her profession of vows - her acceptance of Jesus’ words about renouncing marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven - is not a Sacrament. Why?

There are two Sacraments that participate directly in the Life Giving aspect of God. They are Marriage and Holy Orders.

In Marriage, the couple, but primarily the woman, participates in the Creation of New Life.

In Holy Orders, the people as the Common Priesthood, but principally the man in the person of Christ the ministerial priest, offer the Sacrifice of Life in the Eucharist.

Because they particpate directly in the Life Giving aspect of God, they are Sacraments.

The life of concecrated religious, either male or female, is a dedication to a life of prayer, but does not bring forth Life, as Marriage (a child) or a priest ( the Eucharist). That is why they are not Sacraments.

And, as you can see, the differnt sexes have different roles in the generation of Life, either biological or ontological.

The woman brings forth the biological life that God has created, via her direct partipation with God the Creator.

The priest brings for the ontological life of the Eucharist, or regenerates it in Reconcilliation via his direct particpation in the God the High Priest.

Each plays a critical, and equal, but differing role in creating Life. The greatest desire of God, that men be created and redeemed into saints cannot be accomplished with out the participation of women and men in the roles for which each in uniquely equiped. The woman is biologically equiped to bring forth biological life, and the man is ontologically equipped to bring forth ontological life. No decree of the Church can change either.

 

[wildervine]

I’ve read through many of the posts here with a lot of interest, as I also went through a “Catholic Church=anti-woman” stance at one time in my life.

As I matured, I took another look at things, re-read a lot of things, and came to the conclusion that it doesn’t bother me a bit that women are not ordained in the RC Church. So women can’t be priests? Big whoop. Men can’t be nuns or sisters, either, and they certainly could not have given birth to our Lord, as did the Blessed Mother- to me, the greatest responsibility ever given to a single human being. Also, some of the very arguments used to support feminist views- Jesus revealing himself as the risen Christ to a woman first, for instance, assures me that the whole shebang is really a non-issue for me. Looking at how Jesus interacted with women on the whole (wonderfully), yet realizing he chose 12 men to be his apostles, just tells me that we each have different roles to fulfill, each equally important in God’s eyes, and all this bitter complaining does nothing but belittle the truly great things women DO in the Church. Finally, I know this must have been pointed out before somewhere, but it doesn’t hurt to again bring up the fact that the RC Church has and will continue to recognize the contributions made by women- as evidenced by the fact it has named 3 women as Doctors of the Faith- and who knows, there may be more so named in the future. Add to this all of the writings of female Catholic saints who have had such an impact on Catholic spirituality- and I have to wonder if all the angst has a basis in what people want to perceive about the RCC, or in the reality of women in the Church. Lastly, I do get tired of the feminist view that women are “only allowed” motherhood roles in the Church- first of all, as though somehow there is something less than important about motherhood, and secondly, as though there are not thousands and thousands of women in the RCC who take on a myriad of different roles in Church besides (or in addition to) motherhood. I guess the Church somehow missed all these active women in the Church.

So, this is just the 2-cents orth from a content Catholic woman who doesn’t feel either neglected or debased, or abused in any way by the Chuch.

 

[nightwalker]

If boys are so gosh-darn shy about sharing tasks with girls, learning slower than they do etc then why don’t I hear you arguing that all schools should be sex-segregated as well? What reliable evidence is there that this, in the long run, hurts boys at all? If there was any such evidence, our governments would probably be segregating schools tomorrow.

For that matter isn’t it a mother’s and a father’s job to raise their sons to be comfortable around girls and women, and not the Church’s job to pander to their poor little over-sensitive egos?

snip<

Isn’t it the parents’ job to teach about their girls about the differences between men and women, and not the Church’s job to pander to their poor little over-sensitive egos?

Hmm, that can be switched rather nicely, but gets us nowhere.

There is nothing wrong with boys and girls not wanting to associate constantly with members of the other sex. Heck, I see a difference in my coworkers depending on whether I am the only guy, whether there is a mix of guys and girls, or if there are only guys. The guys work harder when there aren’t the ladies around, as do the ladies. The guys will tend to let the ladies do more of the work, that is if they aren’t putting on a show of a fight, and much less gets done if they are working together.

These are just average people (with a large enough age gap between the young guys (oldest is ~25) and the ladies (all but one are ~ 50+) that there are no issues with flirting,etc. It is just how we interact.​

I was an altar boy at the time permission was given for girls to serve. My parish did not have a very formal server program, but there was a fair amount of camaraderie between servers, deacons, and priests. The Knights of Columbus would hold server picnics that had probably 75% turn-out of active boys. Then girls were allowed to serve and the camaraderie lessened until the time for the annual picnic. The mothers took over the picnic, quickly banning such things as water guns (we would bring them for self-defense against the hose for after the water-balloon “toss”). It may seem a silly thing to an adult, but as a kid it was absolutely shocking that our traditions were overrun by these newcomers.
The Knights stopped participating in the server picnic that year, as did the altar boys on a large scale.

The parish now has about the same number of servers, despite having grown considerably. The number of boys, however, as dropped by close to 2/3rds, and no boys serve into high school anymore.

---

IIRC, studies have shown that both boys and girls do better if educated in same-sex classrooms, but we are not likely to see a change because of the fallacy that separate cannot possibly be equal.

 

[LilyM]

Isn’t it the parents’ job to teach about their girls about the differences between men and women, and not the Church’s job to pander to their poor little over-sensitive egos?

Hmm, that can be switched rather nicely, but gets us nowhere.

There is nothing wrong with boys and girls not wanting to associate constantly with members of the other sex. Heck, I see a difference in my coworkers depending on whether I am the only guy, whether there is a mix of guys and girls, or if there are only guys. The guys work harder when there aren’t the ladies around, as do the ladies. The guys will tend to let the ladies do more of the work, that is if they aren’t putting on a show of a fight, and much less gets done if they are working together.

These are just average people (with a large enough age gap between the young guys (oldest is ~25) and the ladies (all but one are ~ 50+) that there are no issues with flirting,etc. It is just how we interact.​

I was an altar boy at the time permission was given for girls to serve. My parish did not have a very formal server program, but there was a fair amount of camaraderie between servers, deacons, and priests. The Knights of Columbus would hold server picnics that had probably 75% turn-out of active boys. Then girls were allowed to serve and the camaraderie lessened until the time for the annual picnic. The mothers took over the picnic, quickly banning such things as water guns (we would bring them for self-defense against the hose for after the water-balloon “toss”). It may seem a silly thing to an adult, but as a kid it was absolutely shocking that our traditions were overrun by these newcomers.
The Knights stopped participating in the server picnic that year, as did the altar boys on a large scale.

The parish now has about the same number of servers, despite having grown considerably. The number of boys, however, as dropped by close to 2/3rds, and no boys serve into high school anymore.

---

IIRC, studies have shown that both boys and girls do better if educated in same-sex classrooms, but we are not likely to see a change because of the fallacy that separate cannot possibly be equal.

These are prime examples of what I mean by oversensitive egos. What utter childishness for the allegedly adult men of the KOC no longer supporting a picnic just because they can’t use water guns any more, or just because mothers get involved as well!

Imagine kids being raised to think such a thing as water guns or lack thereof matters in the slightest (no wonder if the adult men gave such a poor example)!

My parents would’ve talked some good hard sense into me if I had ever allowed myself upset over something so totally trivial, at any age. THAT is what I mean by being oversensitive.

Fact is there are loads of other things both guys and girls can bond over on a single-sex basis, sports being one that immediately comes to mind. The opportunity to serve the Lord as an altar boy or girl, however, is way too important to be restricted to just one gender.

If girls and boys had been serving together from the beginning of your schooling, you would’ve developed that sort of ‘carmaraderie’ of which you speak, which I know I had with boys as a youngster in a co-ed school without benefit of these sort of shared activities, and which I lost, greatly to my detriment, when I went to a single-sex high school.

 

[snhs]

We would be true to the original by saying “For us and for our salvation.” You’ve heard the old saying about something “getting lost in the translation.” That’s because different languages have different idioms, sentence structures, that do not always translate word for word between languages. It would not be “changing the words of the Mass to suit a political stance:” it would be correcting an oversight in translation. The heading for this thread is “are girls not important?” Why keep something which causes a distraction to women, when it can easily be rectified? The Mass isn’t some kind of magical incantation that won’t work if a word gets changed. It’s an edit, not a revision, a minor one at that, a clarification which goes to the heart of the meaning of the original Latin without so much wordiness. And it would be edifiying to many women. Are girls not important?

So if people start to find the words of Consecration a ‘distraction’ should we change them as well? Or if people with relatives in other Churches find the idea of “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” a bit of an annoyance maybe we should change that to suit. What if men find certain attire/hair distracting when worn by woman? That could be easily rectified, quick change to Canon Law and men can be edified by not having women in skimpy clothing at Mass. The Mass may not be a magical incantation but it should most certainly not be changed for our edification nor to conform to political movements.

Nothing is being lost in translation, look men up in the dictionary one of the definition is “human beings in general”, the only possible reason for changing it is if women decide they are no longer human beings, and I don’t think even the most ardent feminists are going to claim that. Of course they are important, as I’ve said throughout. It is also important, however, that we don’t allow politics to infiltrate the Liturgy which transcends such petty differences.

 

[snhs]

These are prime examples of what I mean by oversensitive egos. What utter childishness for the allegedly adult men of the KOC no longer supporting a picnic just because they can’t use water guns any more, or just because mothers get involved as well!

Imagine kids being raised to think such a thing as water guns or lack thereof matters in the slightest (no wonder if the adult men gave such a poor example)!

My parents would’ve talked some good hard sense into me if I had ever allowed myself upset over something so totally trivial, at any age. THAT is what I mean by being oversensitive.

Fact is there are loads of other things both guys and girls can bond over on a single-sex basis, sports being one that immediately comes to mind. The opportunity to serve the Lord as an altar boy or girl, however, is way too important to be restricted to just one gender.

If girls and boys had been serving together from the beginning of your schooling, you would’ve developed that sort of ‘carmaraderie’ of which you speak, which I know I had with boys as a youngster in a co-ed school without benefit of these sort of shared activities, and which I lost, greatly to my detriment, when I went to a single-sex high school.

As I said in a previous thread men will often not see the need to something if it will be done regardless. Once the running of the picnic had been taken over by women it was going to happen anyway. Hence they can move on to other things, knowing that they aren’t needed for it continue. If anyone were selfish surely it is the women who took over a successful activity which had been run by the KOC for years, and then imposed conditions on it to suit their preferences.

Boys like games, get used to it. What is the point of a Summer picnic for them if they just sit around eating? For they most part they enjoy being active. Clearly the KOC realised this and organised appropriate activities accordingly, unlike those who took over the organisation of the picnic.

Do you not know why for the most part boys and girls don’t plays sports in mixed teams? The fact is boys tend to be physically more robust and generally play the games in a rougher manner. For the most sports they just do better than the girls. Now you’re quite happy for boys to have separate teams in sports where their qualities give them, on average, an advantage. However when it comes to Altar Serving, which as others have pointed out favours qualities commonly found in girls, it becomes too important?

The important thing is not standing on the Altar and bringing over water or carrying the Thurible it is serving Our Lord. Just as boys and girls play sports in different teams so to can they serve the Lord in different ways, young as they are. Asking them to serve in different ways does not make either service less valuable, nor does it demean either group to have a different service expected of them. Our Lord didn’t ask Mary to help him to physically carry the Cross, but no one would deny that her presence helped him carry his burden, meanwhile Simon of Cyrene helped Our Lord deal with the physical burden placed on him. Both male and female provided different types of service, but both served.

So you have completely disregarded someone else’s view, based on their personal experience, and then substituted it with your own? Just because you didn’t find single sex education beneficial does not mean that every activity should be done by boys and girls together. In fact I think there was a study a while ago that found boys benefited from single sex education whereas girls either remained consistent or had a slight dip. Why can’t boys be left to serve at the Altar while girls follow the example of the Blessed Virgin in helping before and after his Sacrifice? Surely if girls are to serve they should follow the example set by Mary above all others.

 

[nightwalker]

These are prime examples of what I mean by oversensitive egos. What utter childishness for the allegedly adult men of the KOC no longer supporting a picnic just because they can’t use water guns any more, or just because mothers get involved as well!

The men of the Kof C were cut out of their support of the young people by women behaving childishly. The mothers didn’t get involved “as well”, they took over. And boys, generally play differently than girls (in case you haven’t noticed) and that type of play was specifically forbidden. And children have every right to behave as children.

Our society thinks that boys should act like little girls, and girls should act like boys. This is quite frankly wrong. Boys and girls are wired very differently. They should not be forced to be constant companions, boys need time and places to play out masculine roles, and girls need the opportunities to play out feminine roles.

It is all the more important that we allow children to play out possible adult roles in regards to the faith. Girls squeezing out boys (however childish it may be) to play out a role that is essentially male helps neither of them.

The majority of our children’s lives they do interact in mixed environments. School, clubs, and even most church activities. But they don’t form the same interactions that they do with members of the same sex. This is not “childish”, but part of the childhood learning process of what is a male vs female role.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

So if people start to find the words of Consecration a ‘distraction’ should we change them as well? Or if people with relatives in other Churches find the idea of “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” a bit of an annoyance maybe we should change that to suit. What if men find certain attire/hair distracting when worn by woman? That could be easily rectified, quick change to Canon Law and men can be edified by not having women in skimpy clothing at Mass.

You’re being sarcasting suggesting a “quick change to Canon Law” and you are exaggerating my point. And it **would **be edifiying to men if women didn’t wear skimpy clothing to Mass. Women, we try not to, but we look. Please help us. This isn’t quite the joke you intended you know. That is an issue for me.

The Mass may not be a magical incantation but it should most certainly not be changed for our edification nor to conform to political movements.

I think many of us are sensitive to feminist attacks, and the appearance of compromising the faith. On this thread I tried to clarify the character of the priesthood to GemmaRose. I hoped someone would have elaborated on that, as I did a very superficial job of it, but the only reaction to my posts have been for this suggestion I made about the Creed.

Nothing is being lost in translation, look men up in the dictionary one of the definition is “human beings in general”, the only possible reason for changing it is if women decide they are no longer human beings, and I don’t think even the most ardent feminists are going to claim that. Of course they are important, as I’ve said throughout. It is also important, however, that we don’t allow politics to infiltrate the Liturgy which transcends such petty differences.

Look, here’s the deal. As I said in the original post, when I was a seminarian (a Catholic seminarian at a Catholic diocesan seminary) the ICEL creed was in use. I was a grumbler then. I am not trying to put forward the *ad populum *argument, as the church is not a democracy. I specified that as an edit, it makes sense, and could work. It is a “petty” edit at that.

I did cover in an earlier post about “Man” being Mankind, all humanity. I mentioned that in Greek (the language that the New Testament was written in) that “male” and “humanity” share the same word, anthropos. In modern academic writing in general, the use of the word “Man” for “humanity” is outlawed. People get expelled from major universities over things like this, being accused of using sexist language. The use of “Man” is considered archaic.

Perhaps because I am a writer, I treat language differently. As a teacher I read and edited thousands of student essays, and promoted the habit of using concise, well-executed sentences. Perhaps I’m gun-shy after spending years teaching college English.

The Church has made no official move to change the wording of the Creed, and who knows if they will. Doctrine is doctrine, and it is unchangeable. But this “edit” isn’t doctrine. It is wordiness.