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

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

You have yet to show that a source prior to 1994, other than nebulous references to opinions of canon lawyers, and some 1978 document you’ve never seen.

I’ve given a precise journal reference in post #81, and three canon law commenary references in post #31. Do you need the ISBN’s of the commentaries to make the references less nebulous?

jordan:

If you can give me that text, I’ll be happy to get it translated.

I don’t have the text. I’ve given you the precise reference in post #100. You are more than free to look it up yourself. My local university library does not carry it.

jordan:

Why would the Holy Father make any reference to prohibitions on female altar servers when there was no need, if the PCILT had decided in 1978 that the new canon would allow them. Why not grease the skids for the new permission?

Do I take it that you really do think it would have been okay to receive communion twice in one day before Nov. 27, 1983, in violation of the 1973 rule? Or does your innovative legal reasoning only apply to the issue of altar girls?

jordan:

Until you can produce something authoritative (i.e., with the approval of the Holy See) other than the 1994 letter regarding the permissive nature of 230.2, I would agree…but you have yet to do that.

This is like someone saying they will only accept that Munificentissimus Deus (on the Assumption of Mary) is infallible if there is an infallible papal document explicitly stating that it is infallible. The requirement that you are insisting on here is one of your own making, not one from Church teaching or canon law. Thus, the fact that it cannot be met proves nothing.

Sacrae disciplinae leges, the apostolic constitution by which Pope John Paul II established the new Code of Canon Law, did not give bishops the option of following the new code prior to Nov. 27, 1983, nor did it give bishops the option of sticking with the old code after that date if they did not like some of the new provisions.

jordan:

Why would the Pope allow this now? Because American bishops, not acting in communion with the Holy See, had already been permitting this to such a degree that to not permit it now would have caused extreme divisiveness.

So now you are accusing the PCILT of deliberately lying in their 1992 authentic interpretation (i.e., saying “Affirmative” when the truthful answer was “Negative; but we’re such wimps at the Vatican that we’re giving into massive liturgical disobedience”) and of fraudulently abusing their curial position to enact what was in really new canon law when they have no authority to do so. Since Pope John Paul II personally approved this authentic interpretation, I guess that means you think that he also conspired in this fraud against the Church.

What an incredibly low opinion you hold of every position of authority in the Catholic Church, be it bishop, curia, or pope! I find it amazing that you think the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church so.

I hope you can understand that if I am to choose between the pope, the curia, the bishops, and the canon lawyers (whose accreditation comes from the Vatican) on the one hand, and you and a few others on this forum on the other hand, then I am going to side with the Church.

jordan:

Absolutely. The bishops “in communion” with the Pope. (CCC, para. 85)

This lets out the Eastern Orthodox bishops, as well as the SSPX. I’m not aware of any U.S. bishops being excommunicated for allowing altar girls prior to 1994.

Lumen Gentium does not say bishops have “full power” in their own dioceses.

Full power, complete power, what’s the difference: “The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely.”

jordan:

Show me something approved by Rome, and written prior to 1994.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law was personally approved by Pope John Paul II after over a year of detailed study and several hundren changes from the draft version. That’s good enough for me. It should be good enough for you as well.

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

It sounds to me much more like the bishops who did this were not doing it with prior permission, but the Holy See elected to “respect” their “decision” to interpret 230.2 in a way which a careful reading simply doesn’t support. Again, show me.

You are parsing the sentence incorrectly. The CDWDS is respecting the bishops’ decisions to actually allow altar girls in their dioceses. It is not referring to the bishops’ interpretation that canon 230 §2 includes female altar servers. In fact, the CDWDS sentence actually acknowledges that canon 230 §2 includes service at the altar, which is not surprising because the 1992 authentic interpretation said exactly that.

 

[Catholic2003]

JNB:

I see you have studied many “progressive” interperations of canon law from various “sources”.

I’ve studied all the sources in English that I could find.

Do you have any “non-progressive” canon law sources that claim that the use of altar girls prior to 1994 was an abuse? I’m only aware of the one article (that wasn’t even in a peer-reviewed journal) by Msgr. John F. McCarthy that I’ve already mentioned in post #87

JNB:

All I can say is that like Theologians, Canon Lawyers ARE NOT THE MAGESTERIUM, and they have no right to take their role, and like many theologians, many canon lawyers had an agenda that was different than that of the magesterium.

In the end, it was the bishops themselves who allowed female altar servers in the own dioceses. And bishops are members of the Magisterium.

 

[Catholic2003]

Ann Cheryl:

It was quite clear to me that you were not personnally experienced. Your arguments fall flat because of this inexperience.

This is a classic example of an ad hominem argument:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally “argument to the man”), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

It is a logical fallacy because the validity/correctness of a logical argument depends on the assertions of the argument itself, and does not depend on the credentials of the person making the argument.
Ann Cheryl:

You try to dismiss our personnel experience and knowledge with what you think you know by reading.

If you think that I’ve engaged in an ad hominem argument, please indicate which post. I’ve been addressing the logical flaws in the arguments presented to me.

For example, your posts claimed that altar girls prior to 1994 constituted disobedience by the bishops allowing them, but that altar girls were allowed after 1994. The logical flaw in your argument is that the CDWDS has no authority to change canon law. (See articles 62-70 in Pastor Bonus for the exact authority of the CDWDS.)
Ann Cheryl:

As an aside I hate the reliance to an unknown authority such as “The majority of canon lawyers believe otherwise”

Fr. John Beal, Fr. James Coriden, and Msgr. Thomas Green are the general editors of the 2000 CLSA New Commentary. Fr. John Huels wrote the section on canons 897-958 containing the specific discussion of female altar servers.

Fr. James, Coriden, Msgr. Thomas Green, and Fr. Donald Heintschel are the general editors of the 1985 CLSA Commentary. Msgr. Gerard Sheehy and Fr. Francis Morrisey are the general editors of the CLSGB&I Commentary. I don’t own either of these (I have to go to the local university law library to read them), so I don’t remember offhand who wrote the specific sections discussing female altar servers.
Ann Cheryl:

As I said it is to recent event, that many of us experienced. We know what was being said at the time. We know that it was introduced as a disobedience and just because later it was decided that canon law would apply does not change that fact.

Prior to Nov. 27, 1983, it was indeed a disobedience. I can tell from Inaestimabile Donum that there were some disobedient bishops who in 1980 or before allowed altar girls.
Ann Cheryl:

I hope you can see that if I could spot from your writing that you did not live through this period that there must be something you are missing.

No, I agree with “the vast majority of logic professors” that ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy. All I’ve done in this thread is to relate the arguments of the the canon lawyers that I’ve named above. Do you wish to extend your ad hominem to them as well? If so, be sure to mention the rumors of Fr. Huels’ sexual abuse of young men.

 

[alih]

how would one explain, as it relates to females: 1Cor.33 to 35.
33. "for God is not the God of dissention, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints. 34 “let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.” 35. “but if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.”
or does one just take the biblical passages that they might like and discard the rest?

 

[aquinasrocks]

alih:

how would one explain, as it relates to females: 1Cor.33 to 35.
33. "for God is not the God of dissention, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints. 34 “let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.” 35. “but if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.”
or does one just take the biblical passages that they might like and discard the rest?

From the Catholic Youth Bible:

In 1 Cor 14.34, Paul says women should be silent in church. Yet, in 11.5, he implies that women can pray and prophesy in church, and throughout his life, he supported and worked closely with many different women.

What explains Paul’s turnaround? It appears that 1 Cor 14.34-36, which is set in parentheses, was added to Paul’s original letter by a later writer. Perhaps someone copying Paul’s letters needed to show that Christianity was not a movement that would disrupt the social order by allowing women to speak in public.

Like Paul, the Catholic church today values women’s participation in worship. Women are cantors, musicians, lectors, and eucharistic ministers. But like the **later editor ** of 1 Corinthians, chapter 14, the church insists on a certain order in worship. Only those who are ordained can read the Gospel, preach, and say the words of consecration.

So I’d say we can discard those verses; it’s just barely even a rightful part of the Bible. And a lot of us traditionally disregard Leviticus 11.7-9, on Easter no less.

I hope that will answer your question.

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

I’ve given a precise journal reference in post #81, and three canon law commenary references in post #31. Do you need the ISBN’s of the commentaries to make the references less nebulous?

How do you or I know what this says? You claim to even though you have never read it. The burden is on you to provide.

Catholic2003:

Do I take it that you really do think it would have been okay to receive communion twice in one day before Nov. 27, 1983, in violation of the 1973 rule? Or does your innovative legal reasoning only apply to the issue of altar girls?

The topic in discussion here is whether the Holy See approved approved the use of altar girls before the consideration of the dubium, not whether certain US canon lawyers interpretations helped ease the consciences of bishops who felt they should employ altar girls for “specific local reasons.”

Sacrae disciplinae leges, the apostolic constitution by which Pope John Paul II established the new Code of Canon Law, did not give bishops the option of following the new code prior to Nov. 27, 1983, nor did it give bishops the option of sticking with the old code after that date if they did not like some of the new provisions.

Again, the new code did notmake any reference to altar servers, the dubium is the first request to the Holy See asking “if” they “may” be included in the “other functions.”

Catholic2003:

So now you are accusing the PCILT of deliberately lying in their 1992 authentic interpretation (i.e., saying “Affirmative” when the truthful answer was “Negative; but we’re such wimps at the Vatican that we’re giving into massive liturgical disobedience”) and of fraudulently abusing their curial position to enact what was in really new canon law when they have no authority to do so. Since Pope John Paul II personally approved this authentic interpretation, I guess that means you think that he also conspired in this fraud against the Church.

In reading the Holy Father’s words in the 1994 letter, I detect a note of frustration with his pastors. Rather than the inflammatory words you use, I would say the Holy Father gave in on the issue for the sake of harmony.

Catholic2003:

What an incredibly low opinion you hold of every position of authority in the Catholic Church, be it bishop, curia, or pope! I find it amazing that you think the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church so.

Actually, quite the contrary is true. However, when a certain bishop, or group of bishops, choose to make significant liturgical changes without receiving the express approval of the Holy See, they are not doing so “in communion” with the Magisterium and the Bishop of Rome, who is its head.

Catholic2003:

Full power, complete power, what’s the difference: “The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely.”

We are talking about the LITURGY, which they cannot unilaterally alter. Changes to the Roman Missal, its General Instructions, or any major departures from the Church’s long-standing traditions wrt anything regarding the liturgy should receive the approval of the Holy See. Failing to do so would be considered a liturgical abuse.

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

You are parsing the sentence incorrectly. The CDWDS is respecting the bishops’ decisions to actually allow altar girls in their dioceses. It is not referring to the bishops’ interpretation that canon 230 §2 includes female altar servers. In fact, the CDWDS sentence actually acknowledges that canon 230 §2 includes service at the altar, which is not surprising because the 1992 authentic interpretation said exactly that.

The sentence says what it says. “Certain bishops” made a decision to use female altar servers based on 230.2…not the Holy See. For what “specific local reasons” did they do this? I can only guess. Was there a shortage of altar boys? I doubt it. The letter does not acknowledge that it was “intended” to be interpreted this way, merely that it now may be.

Has the implementation of female altar girls caused division in the Church? Yes. Has it reduced the number of boys interested in serving at the altar? Yes. Has it adversely impacted vocations to tbe priesthood? It would seem so. The impact of this “experiment,” however may years you want to use for how long it’s been going on, has been negative. What we do from here on should focus on the greater good of the Church, not on secular ideologies.

God bless,
jb

 

[Fergal]

Pug:

Fergal, do you know if the parents pulled the boys in protest? Also, did people leave and go to another parish, or is everyone still there in the parish? I’m just curious. We had a lovely choir (that sang in latin) that was decimated in a short period of time after some changes were made. I’m wondering if the pattern worked the same with the altar boys.

Nope no protest, but the boys over a rapid time scale left of their own accord. Now the girls have left too and the ranks are depleted.

Most of the families there at the time are still there, I feel in thinking about this one that re-evangelisation is necessary in this area. Rise it up again to what it used to be.

Things only stay ‘gone’ if we leave them this way.

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

Rather than the inflammatory words you use, I would say the Holy Father gave in on the issue for the sake of harmony.

I don’t think the late Holy Father would have conspired to commit fraud, even “for the sake of harmony”.

And fraud is exactly what your version of events entails, even if you think the word inflammatory. I’m sure ex-President Nixon didn’t like some of the inflammatory words said about his participation in the coverup of Watergate, either.

To actually change canon law, as opposed to merely interpreting what canon law already says, requires at a minimum an apostolic letter issued motu proprio, such as Ad Tuendam Fidem. If, as you say, the 1983 Code of Canon Law didn’t already allow for female altar servers, and Pope John Paul II felt the need to give in on this issue for the sake of harmony, then I am certain he would have done the honest thing and issued an apostolic letter motu proprio. A future Saint could do no less.

 

[MrS]

jordan:

The sentence says what it says. “Certain bishops” made a decision to use female altar servers based on 230.2…not the Holy See. For what “specific local reasons” did they do this? I can only guess. Was there a shortage of altar boys? I doubt it. The letter does not acknowledge that it was “intended” to be interpreted this way, merely that it now may be.

Has the implementation of female altar girls caused division in the Church? Yes. Has it reduced the number of boys interested in serving at the altar? Yes. Has it adversely impacted vocations to tbe priesthood? It would seem so. The impact of this “experiment,” however may years you want to use for how long it’s been going on, has been negative. What we do from here on should focus on the greater good of the Church, not on secular ideologies.

God bless,
jb

“Fair and well balanced reporting” and a good post… thanks

 

[Pug]

Fergal:

I feel in thinking about this one that re-evangelisation is necessary in this area. Rise it up again to what it used to be

I hope your parish achieves this. An active set of altar boys would be an inspiration to many boys, and indeed the whole parish. What you have now sounds like it is, ah, less inspiring than it could be.

 

[General]

I think many people forget just how formal and wonderful altar boy programs used to be, and still are in a few parishes. All these excuses about not enough altar boys are just that – the empty excuses of those with an agenda, or those not willing to make an effort.

*Knights of the Altar * programs used to be wonderful things in many parishes. It was a formal, almost military-like program to develop young men to serve at the altar. Many went on to stand in *Persona Christi * at the altar after their ordinations.

These Knights of the Altar programs included activities with their parish pastor outside of Mass, and included events like visiting a seminary for a day, or spending a day at a park enjoying a BBQ. Strong brotherhood through good fellowship developed and many vocations were realized. Such programs were fed by Pages of the Altar – young boys who were being groomed as altar servers.

So please don’t be offended when I silently chuckle at some of the excuses (often sexist in nature) proffered herein, as I remember quite clearly just how important altar boys are to the Church.

 

[Iohannes]

This from Fr. Brian Harrison,O.S., M.A., S.T.D. a professor at a Puerto Rico Seminary.

rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html

More reasons to stick with the Traditional Latin Mass, no girl altar boy worries.

This idea of altar service as basically a stage along the road to the priesthood is still reflected not only visually by the fact that altar servers dress like priests, in cassock and surplice, but also linguistically in the terminology used in some languages. In Spanish, for example, an altar boy is called a monaguillo, which etymologically means “a little monk”. And in Italian the word for altar boy is chierichetto - a “little cleric”, which means that the term coined by the Italians for female altar servers is in itself an affront to Catholic doctrine: they are called donne chierichetto, “little female clerics”. But, of course, it is Catholic doctrine that females cannot become clerics (that is, in the post-conciliar sacramental disposition, bishops, priests or deacons).

 

[General]

Iohannes:

This from Fr. Brian Harrison,O.S., M.A., S.T.D. a professor at a Puerto Rico Seminary.

rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html

More reasons to stick with the Traditional Latin Mass, no girl altar boy worries.

The Tridentine Mass is certainly no silver bullet. It has its own history of abuses…

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Catholic2003:

It is a logical fallacy because the validity/correctness of a logical argument depends on the assertions of the argument itself, and does not depend on the credentials of the person making the argument.

.

I made an assumption that you had no personnel knowledge. I thought that my being able to tell that from your writings spoke to your lack of knowledge on the subject. My assumption turned out to be correct and instead of acknowledging that maybe you might be mistaken you went on the attack in a condescending manner.

I am going to make another assumption and that is you are very young and full of yourself and as such I will not waste my time further with you.

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

Catholic2003:

It is a logical fallacy because the validity/correctness of a logical argument depends on the assertions of the argument itself, and does not depend on the credentials of the person making the argument.

.

I made an assumption that you had no personnel knowledge. I thought that my being able to tell that from your writings spoke to your lack of knowledge on the subject. My assumption turned out to be correct and instead of acknowledging that maybe you might be mistaken you went on the attack in a condescending manner.

Main Entry: con·de·scend​

Pronunciation: "kän-di-'send
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French *condescendre, *from Late Latin *condescendere, *from Latin *com- + descendere *to descend
1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level **: **UNBEND b : to waive the privileges of rank
2 : to assume an air of superiority

I am going to make another assumption and that is you are very young and full of yourself and as such I will not waste my time further with you.

 

[Catholic2003]

Ann Cheryl:

My assumption turned out to be correct and instead of acknowledging that maybe you might be mistaken you went on the attack in a condescending manner.

The most charitable interpretation of your post #117 that I could find was that you were unaware that ad hominem attacks are fallacious, as well as being generally eschewed in civilized conversation. Thus, I attempted to explain this to you; I apologize if it came across as condescending.

Had I known that you deliberately and with full knowledge focused your post on my personal background instead of actual substantive issues, I would not have responded at all.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

General Reminder:

This discussion has strayed from its original topic (Female Atar Servers] and is degenerating into comments on individual posters. Please return to the original topic under discussion. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

 

[magdalisa]

Having girls as altar servers is entirely unneccessary in my opinion and damaging to the priesthood. How many of our holy priests started out as altar servers?

peace–
magdalisa