Female Altar Servers? How has this 11 year experiment gone?

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

Catholic2003, I believe you are reading something into Canon 230, and into the response to the dubium.

I’m attempting to convey the general opinion of canon lawyers as represented in commentaries and scholarly articles that I have read.

“Other functions, according to the norm of law” would not have included acolyte, or altar server, since this was not according to the norm of law.

Determining the norm of law is very complicated. A 1983 article in Worship by canon lawyer John Huels assessed canons 2, 5, 6, 14, 20, 21, 23-27, 34, 129, 208, 230, 483, 930, and 1421, as well as the GIRM and other Vatican documents, in order to determine the norm of law.

jordan:

Now, if you would go back and look at the “dubium” you posted, it did not say “female altar server.” It referred to “service at the altar,” which does not equal “altar server.” “Service at the altar” is a phrase which could be linked to the specifically permitted functions for all laity, such as lector, cantor (or EMHC).

“Service at the altar” refers specifically and directly to being an altar server. For example, this is how it is used in the following BCL letter excerpt:

Service at the Altar: The diocesan Bishop is also charged with regulating the functioning of altar servers (GIRM, no. 107). The Guidelines for Altar Servers, prepared by the Committee on the Liturgy in 1994, may of be assistance to the Diocesan Bishop in developing such norms. This document may be found at: usccb.org/liturgy/current/servers.shtml.

jordan:

Also, the “affirmative” response pointed to an instruction “to be given.” In other words, there was no specific permission for female altar servers, and because of the confusing verbiage, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments came out with the 1994 letter clarifying the situation.

The verbiage of an authentic interpretation is never deliberately confusing; this is the entire point of an authentic interpretation, to clarify confusing verbiage in the Code of Canon Law itself. Additionally, the CDWDS has no authority to clarify confusing verbiage in PCILT authentic interpretations. The purpose of the CDWDS letter was to give specific liturgical guidance above and beyond the general canon law permission given by canon 230 §2.

jordan:

Lastly, the Church’s official position is this:

I would like to point out that Redemptionis Sacramentum does not say:

It is altogether laudable to maintain the noble custom by which only boys or youths, customarily termed servers, provide service of the altar after the manner of acolytes, and receive catechesis regarding their function in accordance with their power of comprehension.

To read “only” into this Vatican instruction is to read something that is not there.

jordan:

I would maintain that, in general, to encourage girls is to discourage boys. The Church does not want to discourage boys. What to do?

If, in a particular parish, boys are rejecting God’s call to the priesthood because of their refusal to serve alongside altar girls, then the priest currently has the authority to disallow female altar servers. Why then should the universal Church disallow female altar servers everywhere, even in parishes where this is not a problem?

 

[Catholic2003]

Stu:

On a side note, being in the military has allowed me to see many different parishs. While not scientific, those that had all male servers were much more reverent during Mass and packed every Sunday. Probably more indicative than causal but I would say it goes to show orthodox parishs seem to fourish.

I hope you are not saying that allowing female altar servers, in accordance with Rome, is somehow not “orthodox”.

 

[Stu]

Catholic2003:

I hope you are not saying that allowing female altar servers, in accordance with Rome, is somehow not “orthodox”.

No. I meant exactly what I wrote in that paragraph. That is, parishs that I have attended throughout the United States that have only altar boys have been more orthodox and flourished (Altar boys being “indicative” of an orthodox parish and not “causal” as I noted). Those that allow girls on the altar, while permitted, seem to be lax in other aspects. It’s purely opinion and is offered as such.

 

[jordan]

patg:

DUH, it was me it was supposed to be influencing towards a vocation, wasn’t it? I never said we weren’t also trying to serve God, I was just listing the things that enhanced the eperience.

And we should not be so incredibly naive as to forget that for preteens and teens, most everything is about ME - that’s just the way it is.

The only reasons you cited for being an altar boy were for personal pleasure/convenience. I would say we would better have no altar servers if this were the general experience, as you would have us think. I wouldn’t expect ANY vocations from anyone who went into it with the attitude that you did…pretty irreverent. I did not share your experiences during my six years as an altar boy.

God bless,
jb

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

I’m attempting to convey the general opinion of canon lawyers as represented in commentaries and scholarly articles that I have read.

The general opinion of canon lawyers is not the same as the teaching of the Magisterium as you seemed to indicate in an earlier post.

“Service at the altar” refers specifically and directly to being an altar server.

It is often used in the context of “altar server,” but “service at the altar” is not exclusive to an “altar server.” And, of course, canon 230.2 says nothing even about “service at the altar.” It simply is not there.

Catholic2003:

To read “only” into this Vatican instruction is to read something that is not there.

WOW. Where did you get ONLY. It was not in my post! Interesting…

Catholic2003:

If, in a particular parish, boys are rejecting God’s call to the priesthood because of their refusal to serve alongside altar girls, then the priest currently has the authority to disallow female altar servers. Why then should the universal Church disallow female altar servers everywhere, even in parishes where this is not a problem?

First, boys aren’t rejecting God’s call to the priesthood! They’re just not as likely to be an altar server when girls are there. It’s the nature of kids at that age. Second, the “universal Church” does not promote girl altar servers, it permits them. Any priest or bishop can say, “not in this church/diocese,” and be perfectly in accord with magisterial guidelines.

Here’s a good balanced document from EWTN’s website:

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR19.HTM

God bless,
jb

 

[cecelia]

First of all, what does the altar boy do? He serves at the altar. What is the altar? It’s where the sacrifice takes place. What sacrifice? The sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Who confects the sacrifice? The priest. Why is the priest doing this? Because he is fulfilling the words of Jesus at the Last Supper who ordained the first priests with His commanding them to “do this in memory of me.” The Apostles became the priests of the New Covenant continuing the work of the priests of the Old Testament. Were there any woman at the altar in the Old Covenant? No. Why? God did not have that role in mind for them. Why? Because the priests of the house of Levi were men who trained other men to perform the role. The priesthood of the New Covenant is an extension of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. Nowhere do we see woman in the priesthood,nor in any supporting roles at the altar. Woman altar servers alter the dynamic of the altar. It’s no longer experienced as a sacrifice at the altar. Instead, it’s viewed as a preparation for a meal. Was there even any pagan society in which the woman conducted the sacrifices? Even pagans relegated the function of sacrifice to the men. As we continue the notion of sacrifice, the Divine Sacrifice, we must follow in that vein and allow for men in the role of the priest to fulfill that function. Implied in the concept is the supporting role of the altar boys who through the grace of God will one day offer sacrifice to God in the role of a priest. The Divine Sacrifice of Our Lord to the Father is sublimely holy, and through having only men on the altar it somehow imparts to the fullness that sense of sacrifice and in so doing we are more able to grasp what really transpires at the altar. But with women, the holiness is somehow qualified, more muted. The sacrifice is mitigated somewhat, and we find ourselves more incline to view what transpires on the altar as more of a communal gathering than a sacrifice; maybe because we understand that women have not enacted sacrifices within cultures. Now is this sexist? Not at all; what it does is reinforce the notion of complementarity between women and men. The discounting of the dynamic between the priest and God and between the priest and the altar boys is made possible because we are meving away from the understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice and the blurring of the lines between men and women. All because of some misguided concept of equality, and when this occurs then we rely on our opinions. So of course then it becomes a matter of “fairness.” So now it’s not fair to deny girls a role on the altar. Or then we just consider the matter from our own point of view. So then it becomes subjective. “It doesn’t matter to me,” and therefore it must be all right. But it’s not about our opinions, nor is it about our sense of “fairness.” Instead, it’s about the nature of the Mass, the role of sacrifice and the proper manner needed to bring this sacrifice forth in all its holiness, splendor,majesty, and sublimity. And to do that God assigned men,who in turn train and provide examples for men-to-be – the altar boys.

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

The general opinion of canon lawyers is not the same as the teaching of the Magisterium as you seemed to indicate in an earlier post.

The general opinion of canon lawyers is an excellent indication of the meaning of canon law, which in turn represents the will of the Supreme Legislator, the Pope. This is why every university that grants a canon law degree must be accredited by the Vatican.

Now, there are always going to be a few canon lawyers who go off the deep end, but the majority are orthodox Catholics who look to determine the mind of the Pontiff in interpreting canon law.

jordan:

It is often used in the context of “altar server,” but “service at the altar” is not exclusive to an “altar server.”

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

jordan:

And, of course, canon 230.2 says nothing even about “service at the altar.” It simply is not there.

Canon 230 §2 mentions unspecified “other functions”. The dubium clarifies that these “other functions” include being an altar server.

jordan:

WOW. Where did you get ONLY. It was not in my post! Interesting…

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were adding “only”. I only wanted to point out that those who did were doing damage to the intent of the sentence. For an example of an off-the-deep-end canon lawyer who needs to add “only” to this sentence to make his point, see here.

jordan:

First, boys aren’t rejecting God’s call to the priesthood!

Some posters on this thread are claiming that priestly vocations are in trouble as a result of having altar girls.

jordan:

They’re just not as likely to be an altar server when girls are there. It’s the nature of kids at that age.

Which is why encouraging boys in serving at the altar is very appropriate.

jordan:

Second, the “universal Church” does not promote girl altar servers, it permits them.

Here is a case where I never said that the universal Church “promotes” altar girls. But many posters on this thread object even to this permission.

jordan:

Any priest or bishop can say, “not in this church/diocese,” and be perfectly in accord with magisterial guidelines.

Exactly. The Church obviously feels very strongly that this needs to be in control of the local diocese and parish.

 

[MrS]

cecelia:

First of all, what does the altar boy do? He serves at the altar. What is the altar? It’s where the sacrifice takes place. What sacrifice? The sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Who confects the sacrifice? The priest. Why is the priest doing this? Because he is fulfilling the words of Jesus at the Last Supper who ordained the first priests with His commanding them to “do this in memory of me.” The Apostles became the priests of the New Covenant continuing the work of the priests of the Old Testament. Were there any woman at the altar in the Old Covenant? No. Why? God did not have that role in mind for them. Why? Because the priests of the house of Levi were men who trained other men to perform the role. The priesthood of the New Covenant is an extension of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. Nowhere do we see woman in the priesthood,nor in any supporting roles at the altar. Woman altar servers alter the dynamic of the altar. It’s no longer experienced as a sacrifice at the altar. Instead, it’s viewed as a preparation for a meal. Was there even any pagan society in which the woman conducted the sacrifices? Even pagans relegated the function of sacrifice to the men. As we continue the notion of sacrifice, the Divine Sacrifice, we must follow in that vein and allow for men in the role of the priest to fulfill that function. Implied in the concept is the supporting role of the altar boys who through the grace of God will one day offer sacrifice to God in the role of a priest. The Divine Sacrifice of Our Lord to the Father is sublimely holy, and through having only men on the altar it somehow imparts to the fullness that sense of sacrifice and in so doing we are more able to grasp what really transpires at the altar. But with women, the holiness is somehow qualified, more muted. The sacrifice is mitigated somewhat, and we find ourselves more incline to view what transpires on the altar as more of a communal gathering than a sacrifice; maybe because we understand that women have not enacted sacrifices within cultures. Now is this sexist? Not at all; what it does is reinforce the notion of complementarity between women and men. The discounting of the dynamic between the priest and God and between the priest and the altar boys is made possible because we are meving away from the understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice and the blurring of the lines between men and women. All because of some misguided concept of equality, and when this occurs then we rely on our opinions. So of course then it becomes a matter of “fairness.” So now it’s not fair to deny girls a role on the altar. Or then we just consider the matter from our own point of view. So then it becomes subjective. “It doesn’t matter to me,” and therefore it must be all right. But it’s not about our opinions, nor is it about our sense of “fairness.” Instead, it’s about the nature of the Mass, the role of sacrifice and the proper manner needed to bring this sacrifice forth in all its holiness, splendor,majesty, and sublimity. And to do that God assigned men,who in turn train and provide examples for men-to-be – the altar boys.

Tough to read without paragraphs… but still well said.

 

[kmktexas]

Kielbasi:

It gets young ladies involved in the liturgy.

Some of them may be discerning a calling to be a lector or **eucharistic minister ** of Holy Communion, and service at the altar is a first step.

And this is exactly the problem, it introduces confusion for young ladies.

Women can not be lectors, they *can * be readers. Only men can be lectors (and it may now be surpressed, I am not sure). It isn’t a vocation of itself but one of the steps (or used to be) for men on the way to priesthood.

Only ordained Priests and Bishops can be Eucharistic Ministers. Women and lay men can be Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. It isn’t a vocation - it is a ministry to be used in times of Extraordinary need.

There is a saying about being so open-minded that our brains fall out. It seems that everyone is trying so hard to be accomodating that they add more and more confusion to the mix.

 

[maklavan]

I have found girl altar servers to be an asset wherever I have worked. They are so willing to learn, act with dignity and decorum and do not indulge in silly behaviour such as face pulling and staring at the congregation as boys tend to do. Most of the objection comes from narrow-minded clergy and fundamentalist tending laypeople, often traditionalists looking for another stick to beat Vatican 2 with.

 

[Stu]

maklavan:

Most of the objection comes from narrow-minded clergy and fundamentalist tending laypeople, often traditionalists looking for another stick to beat Vatican 2 with.

Ridiculous generalizations.

 

[Purificator]

maklavan:

I have found girl altar servers to be an asset wherever I have worked. They are so willing to learn, act with dignity and decorum and do not indulge in silly behaviour such as face pulling and staring at the congregation as boys tend to do. Most of the objection comes from narrow-minded clergy and fundamentalist tending laypeople, often traditionalists looking for another stick to beat Vatican 2 with.

That’s nothing but garbage.

 

[Purificator]

Stu:

No. I meant exactly what I wrote in that paragraph. That is, parishs that I have attended throughout the United States that have only altar boys have been more orthodox and flourished (**Altar boys being “indicative” of an orthodox parish ** and not “causal” as I noted). Those that allow girls on the altar, while permitted, seem to be lax in other aspects. It’s purely opinion and is offered as such.

Male altar servers are no more (or less) “orthodox” than female altar servers. Both are currently allowed by the Church.

 

[Purificator]

maklavan:

I have found girl altar servers to be an asset wherever I have worked. They are so willing to learn, act with dignity and decorum and do not indulge in silly behaviour such as face pulling and staring at the congregation as boys tend to do. Most of the objection comes from narrow-minded clergy and fundamentalist tending laypeople, often traditionalists looking for another stick to beat Vatican 2 with.

I’ll also note that you’re from the UK. The Church is experiencing some horribly difficult times in your part of the world…

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

The general opinion of canon lawyers is an excellent indication of the meaning of canon law, which in turn represents the will of the Supreme Legislator, the Pope. This is why every university that grants a canon law degree must be accredited by the Vatican.

You claimed that female altar servers were a 22 year experiment vice an ll year one. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts’ decision of 1992 was not made known to bishops until the CDW letter of 1994. Why would some bishops and priests, given the wording of 230.2, throw their weight into promoting this given the less than dubious wording of the canon? I invite you to read this piece on one of the USCCB’s prime movers wrt altar girls, the former Archbishop of Milwaukee Rembert Weakland, who was part of the American bishops’ delegation to the 1987 Synod on the Laity. Here’s an exerpt:

Weakland claimed that he was so independent Rome didn’t know what to do with him. That’s not the impression I had when the synod fathers passed around a picture of Weakland being anointed by Ethel Gintoff, editor of the Milwaukee archdiocesan newspaper, and sent off to Rome to bring back approval of altar girls. Behind the venially sinful merriment which the photo engendered among the bishops attending the synod was the tacit consensus that here was a bishop who saw himself as a lackey to the feminists, something they felt was incommensurate with the office of bishop. Independent, in other words, was not the first word that sprang to the minds of the world’s Catholic bishops when Weakland’s name was mentioned. Americanism, maybe, but not independence.

Here’s the link to the entire article summarizing Weakland’s career as a “homosexual subversive” in the Catholic Church. It’s rather long, but worth a read:
culturewars.com/2002/Weakland.html

That’s the kind of guy we can thank for altar girls, a whole subset of American Catholics who think women whould be ordained, and for the corruption of our music. God knows what kind of priests came out of his diocesan seminaries.

God bless,
jb

 

[Iohannes]

maklavan:

I have found girl altar servers to be an asset wherever I have worked. They are so willing to learn, act with dignity and decorum and do not indulge in silly behaviour such as face pulling and staring at the congregation as boys tend to do. Most of the objection comes from narrow-minded clergy and fundamentalist tending laypeople, often traditionalists looking for another stick to beat Vatican 2 with.

1. Ask the priest to face Ad Orientem along with the altar servers, it is not forbidden in the Novus Ordo. Priests, people should be facing God or Eastward whenever possible.
2. Make them dress nicely, with black shoes, etc.
3. Train them and punish them. Boys need to be led. If you don’t want boys in the altar, get men or teenagers.
4. Ridiculus generalization. Because of the lax laity and clergy, Vatican II has been misinterpreted. At least traditionalists seem to be doing something about it, than the vast majority of Catholics are indifferent about these matters.

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts’ decision of 1992 was not made known to bishops until the CDW letter of 1994.

The issue was being debated and analyzed by canon lawyers in peer-reviewed publications as soon as the 1983 Code of Canon Law was published, nine months before it came into effect. (The vote of the pointifical committee that removed the “male only” restriction from canon 230 §2 actually took place in 1978.) By the time of the 1985 CLSA Commentary, it was clear to almost everyone that the new canon law permitted female altar servers. The 1992 authentic interpretation just served to completely settle the issue for those last few dissenters who clung to their personal opposition to altar girls over following the new canon law.

This is not atypical for authentic interpretations. For example, all but a few very obstinate canon lawyers were already following the rule confirmed by the “documentary process or the pre-nuptial investigation” authentic interpretation for canons 1066 and 1686.

jordan:

Why would some bishops and priests, given the wording of 230.2, throw their weight into promoting this given the less than dubious wording of the canon?

Canon law itself provides for the situation when canon law is unclear, and it does not call upon bishops to sit on their hands until the Vatican issues a clarification a decade later. For example:

Canon 14 Laws, even invalidating and incapacitating ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt of law. When there is a doubt of fact, however Ordinaries can dispense from them provided, if there is question of a reserved dispensation, it is one which the authority to whom it is reserved Is accustomed to grant.

Canon 17 Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful or obscure, there must be recourse to parallel places, if there be any, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

jordan:

I invite you to read this piece on one of the USCCB’s prime movers wrt altar girls, the former Archbishop of Milwaukee Rembert Weakland, who was part of the American bishops’ delegation to the 1987 Synod on the Laity.

Are you claiming that altar girls are the result of some vast liberal conspiracy led by Archbishop Weakland? If so, you need to demonstrate how he influenced the unanimous vote (except for one abstention) in favor of removing the “male only” restriciton from canon 230 §2 back in 1978, as well as Pope John Paul II’s decision to follow the pontifical committee’s new wording.

 

[bsutton]

misericordie:

AMEN!!!

I like what you are saying, we need to IMPRESS the young of THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FUNCTIONS THE ARE PERFORMING ON THE ALTER. IT IS NOT A FASHION SHOW OF" WHAT MY KID IS INVOLVED IN!"

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

The issue was being debated and analyzed by canon lawyers in peer-reviewed publications as soon as the 1983 Code of Canon Law was published, nine months before it came into effect. (The vote of the pointifical committee that removed the “male only” restriction from canon 230 §2 actually took place in 1978.) By the time of the 1985 CLSA Commentary, it was clear to almost everyone that the new canon law permitted female altar servers. The 1992 authentic interpretation just served to completely settle the issue for those last few dissenters who clung to their personal opposition to altar girls over following the new canon law.

Please provide a source for the removal of “male only” wrt altar servers in 1978. CLSA is a North American Society…who on CLSA was it not clear to. You yourself said that canon lawyers disagree, and can go “off the deep end.” Your statement that a “general opinion” is an “excellent indication” doesn’t mean it does in fact “represent the will of the Supreme Pontiff.” It’s just that, an “opinion.” There simply was no specific authoritative decision on the matter handed on to the bishops until the letter of 1994.

Catholic2003:

Canon law itself provides for the situation when canon law is unclear, and it does not call upon bishops to sit on their hands until the Vatican issues a clarification a decade later.

You can see the source of division that this topic is. On this forum, for those who care, female altar servers are viewed in a negative manner by about 2 to 1 margin. By the nature of boys and girls in the target age group, the presence of altar girls adversely impacts participation of the boys. Since the Church wants to promote altar boys, altar girls should be exceptional. It’s not a matter of bishops sitting on there hands. There was no clear guidance to do this, nor was there a need. Why not wait for clarification?

Catholic2003:

Are you claiming that altar girls are the result of some vast liberal conspiracy led by Archbishop Weakland? If so, you need to demonstrate how he influenced the unanimous vote (except for one abstention) in favor of removing the “male only” restriciton from canon 230 §2 back in 1978, as well as Pope John Paul II’s decision to follow the pontifical committee’s new wording.

A general trend in this country over the last several decades has been toward individual liberties over the common good, and absolute equality of the sexes, despite the physiological and psychological differences. Most Americans today have grown up with this reality. Our bishops are a product of this same society. I am not surprised that many American Bishops viewed the altar girl issue as an opportunity to do something both ecclesiastically “progressive” and politically correct.

It is MY OPINION that this move was unnecessary, has had pastorally negative impacts far outweighing any positive value, and that this unnecessary and significant change was made a “norm” on the basis of ethereal guidance 10 years in advance of a clear permission. That’s what this thread is asking for…our opinions on how this “experiment” has gone.

Do you think it was necessary, wise, or clearly mandated?

God bless,
jb

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

Please provide a source for the removal of “male only” wrt altar servers in 1978.

Communicationes, volume 13 (1981), page 242, contains the pontifical commission’s minutes on the canon 230 §2 wording and vote.

jordan:

CLSA is a North American Society…who on CLSA was it not clear to. You yourself said that canon lawyers disagree, and can go “off the deep end.” Your statement that a “general opinion” is an “excellent indication” doesn’t mean it does in fact “represent the will of the Supreme Pontiff.” It’s just that, an “opinion.” There simply was no specific authoritative decision on the matter handed on to the bishops until the letter of 1994.

It was more than an “opinion” - it was a “correct opinion”, as the 1992 authentic interpretation proved out, that did in fact represent the will of the Supreme Pontiff.

Each bishop made an authoritative decision in his own diocese, based on his evaluation of the new canon law. Bishops get their authority directly from Jesus Christ; it is not delegated from the Pope.

jordan:

It’s not a matter of bishops sitting on there hands. There was no clear guidance to do this, nor was there a need. Why not wait for clarification?

The Church can’t let a tiny minority of off-the-deep-end canon lawyers hold it hostage, when the truth is clear to the vast majority.

Even when canon lawyers are all over the map on an issue, the bishops need to act as they see fit. For example, on the issue of when “evening” starts for vigil Masses, one commentary says noon, another says 2pm, yet another says 4pm, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other times being proposed. Should the bishops hold off on scheduling vigil Masses until the Vatican issues a ruling?

jordan:

A general trend in this country over the last several decades has been toward individual liberties over the common good, and absolute equality of the sexes, despite the physiological and psychological differences. Most Americans today have grown up with this reality. Our bishops are a product of this same society. I am not surprised that many American Bishops viewed the altar girl issue as an opportunity to do something both ecclesiastically “progressive” and politically correct.

From the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy in 1971:

It is certain that in the liturgical celebration, as in other facets of the church’s life, there should be no discrimination or apparent discrimination against women. … The basic or radical equality of the baptized members of Christ takes priority over, and is more significant than, distinctions of order and ministry.

Who am I to disagree with the bishops?

jordan:

Do you think it was necessary, wise, or clearly mandated?

All of the above. I agree with the Church’s position of local control on this issue, so that each diocese and parish can do what is best for their congregation.