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

[David_B]

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

What process could be done to eliminate the use of altar girls without alienating those girls? Is it realistic that the use of them could be phased out?

 

[jordan]

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

MrS, Thank you.

Iohannes, Thanks for the link, it was very insighful, and helped lead me to an article which directly addresses the impact on canon law of the 1994 letter. I will use my finding in the next post to Catholic2003.
David B:

What process could be done to eliminate the use of altar girls without alienating those girls? Is it realistic that the use of them could be phased out?

As I have indicated in previous posts, this would be a difficult process. First of all, the bishops who have embraced this need to come to grips with the overall impact it has had on the Church. The bishops themselves could then lead from the front in the process of educating the faithful on the sound reasons for reverting to the traditional practice. The example of one parish which has already done this was provided earlier in this link: st-thomascamas.org/moretreasures/altarboys.htm
As you can read, this priest, along with EVERYTHING else I can find, supports the view that absolutely nothing authoritative supported the use of female altar servers prior to the 1994 letter. I will continue to provide clear and easily linked references supporting this view in my next post to Catholic2003.

Blessings, all.
jb

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

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

Catholic2003, you are beginning a pattern of trying to put very uncharitable words in my mouth. Until I take my dying breath, I will support teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and the Bishop of Rome who is the visible head of Christ’s Church on earth.

Catholic2003:

And fraud is exactly what your version of events entails, even if you think the word inflammatory.

My version of events does not entail any such claim. I will provide you a link entitled, “The Canonical Meaning of the Recent Authentic Interpretation of Canon 230.2 Regarding Female Altar Servers.” This article appears on the website of the Roman Theological Forum, and is supported by a society of Catholic priests who “place a marked constructive emphasis on fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium.” If you’re not inclined to read the whole article here’s a key excerpt:

From the data collected in the preceding paragraph it is clear that the interpretation of Canon 230.2 given on 30 June 1992 is an authentic interpretation as defined by Canon 16.2 of the revised Code of Canon Law. The interpretation was not only made authentically; it was confirmed by the Pope himself, and he is the same Pope (incidentally) who proclaimed the revised Code in 1983. Furthermore, it will be made clear that this interpretation does not simply clarify words in Canon 230.2 that were already certain in themselves; rather it has extended the law to women servers by an act of will of the Commission and of the Pope. Thus, the law has been modified by an act that went into effect three months after its publication in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, that is, on 6 September 1994, and this modification is not retroactive. Commentaries prior to the year 1994 arguing that female altar servers were canonically permitted were incorrect then and cannot be justified in retrospect.

The link to the complete article: rtforum.org/lt/lt56.html

Here’s a link to an article from This Rock, May 1993, that you can access on the Catholic Answers website. You will find that it fully supports the claim that, at that point in time, the use of altar girls was a liturgical abuse: catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9305fea2.asp

Here’s another link to a 1994 sermon given by a priest. I found this on the EWTN website, and is a very moving, heartfelt lament, written in response to the then recent authentic interpretations. It summarizes many of the key issues: ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/ALTBYHOM.TXT

The General Instruction for the Roman Missal, Ch. 3, para. 107, dealing with “the liturgical duties that are not proper to the priest or the deacon and … may also be entrusted by a liturgical blessing or a temporary deputation to suitable lay persons chosen by the pastor or rector of the church.” references the 1994 letter, and not canon law 230.2. Here’s the link to the GIRM: usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter3.shtml

Catholic2003, I have honestly tried very hard to find something authoritative to support your OPINION on the matter, and have come up with zilch. My ongoing efforts to inform myself continue to uncover data contrary to your claims. Wouldn’t you think something so significant as changing a long-standing tradition of the Church might have a better paper trail?

God bless,
jb

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

Catholic2003, I have honestly tried very hard to find something authoritative to support your OPINION on the matter, and have come up with zilch. My ongoing efforts to inform myself continue to uncover data contrary to your claims. Wouldn’t you think something so significant as changing a long-standing tradition of the Church might have a better paper trail?

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree then. Your support consists of claims mainly from people who are not canon lawyers. The one canon lawyer that you quote, Msgr. John McCarthy, did not publish his opinion in a peer-reviewed journal where other canon lawyers could read and comment upon it. (Please note that I had previously referred to Msgr. McCarthy’s article in my post #87.) This same article claims that the use of female altar servers in a public Mass constitutes a liturgical abuse. I would suggest that the failure of Redemptionis Sacramentum to inlcude such a directive indicates a complete lack of endorsement of Msgr. McCarthy’s canonical analysis by the Vatican.

My support consists of the commentaries of the canon law societies of every major English-speaking country, as well as other scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals. In my OPINION, it is clear which side is the credible one.

jordan:

Until I take my dying breath, I will support teachings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and the Bishop of Rome who is the visible head of Christ’s Church on earth.

As will I. Our difference seems to be that I include in this support those bishops who decided, based on 1983 canon law, to implement altar girls prior to 1994.

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree then. Your support consists of claims mainly from people who are not canon lawyers. The one canon lawyer that you quote, Msgr. John McCarthy, did not publish his opinion in a peer-reviewed journal where other canon lawyers could read and comment upon it.

My support consists of EVERYTHING I can find on the subject.

Catholic2003:

My support consists of the commentaries of the canon law societies of every major English-speaking country, as well as other scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals. In my OPINION, it is clear which side is the credible one.

You have not provided ANY quotations from the commentaries you speak of that support your viewpoint. I would have to believe, as with the one specific chapter and verse you cited, you have not read these yourself.

One thing I did to exhaust my online possibilities of finding something that supports your opinion on the matter, was to review all of your posts to make sure I hadn’t missed anything. I searched both this forum, and the internet. What I did find is that you have referred to a Fr. John Huels as a canonist of note on six separate threads in this forum. In other threads you cite a number of his writings. It would appear your knowledge comes from these books.

Father Huels was, indeed a “respected” canonist. In fact he was the “top” expert for the USCCB Bishops Committee on the Liturgy. Fr. Huels has been laicized as a homosexual predator*.*

A second thing I did was to contact a well-known and respected American Canon Lawyer. I haven’t asked for permission to use his name, but I will quote from his email:

This issue is a thorny one which I have LONG held to have been clouded by one canonical mis-step after another…I’ve let the matter drop because the practice coincides with the law as apparent now, even if the explanations don’t…

So there you have it. This man has been published, and I had read some of his work online at another website as he has written “a wide variety of religious and secular publications.” The issue is indeed cloudy. I agree that it should not have been this way.

God bless,
jb

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

You have not provided ANY quotations from the commentaries you speak of that support your viewpoint.

They are long, and they are not online. But if you insist, I will quote a few sentences when I get back home this weekend, just to prove that I am not misrepresenting their positions.

jordan:

I would have to believe, as with the one specific chapter and verse you cited, you have not read these yourself.

As I said, you can believe whatever you want. But if you are asking, I have read every source that I have access to, including the article by Msgr. McCarthy that you “discovered” in your posts #142 and #143 five days after I gave you a direct link to it my post #87.

The main problem that I personally have with Msgr. McCarthy’s analysis is that it makes the incredible claim that altar girls were still prohibited even after 1994, except that somehow the authentic interpretation created some kind of indult. This makes no sense at all to me, and apparently made no sense to the Vatican either, as the new (2000-2003) GIRM failed to repeat the 1975 GIRM’s language for the universal liturgical law regarding female altar servers, thus proving that the permission for altar girls is more than just an indult.

Father Huels was, indeed a “respected” canonist.

Thus, he is the author of quite a number of scholarly analyses of canon law. I can only quote what has been published.

Fr. Huels has been laicized as a homosexual predator.

I mentioned as much in my post #124, where I also explained my opinion of ad hominem attacks. For example, this Adoremus Bulletin article leads off with such an attack. Perhaps they think it adds to their position – To my mind, however, it makes anything else they might have had to say much less credible.

jordan:

So there you have it. This man has been published, and I had read some of his work online at another website as he has written “a wide variety of religious and secular publications.” The issue is indeed cloudy. I agree that it should not have been this way.

If he would publish something about this in a peer-reviewed journal, then his colleagues could respond to it, and eventually we could come to a consensus about what really happened. However, anonymous sniping in an email serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

They are long, and they are not online. But if you insist, I will quote a few sentences when I get back home this weekend, just to prove that I am not misrepresenting their positions.

I’m interested to see what any document you can come up with that would indicate the approval of the Holy See.

Catholic2003:

As I said, you can believe whatever you want. But if you are asking, I have read every source that I have access to, including the article by Msgr. McCarthy that you “discovered” in your posts #142 and #143 five days after I gave you a direct link to it my post #87.

When you claimed it was off the deep end, I didn’t bother linking to it. When I found it myself, I found nothing “off the deep end” about it.

Catholic2003:

The main problem that I personally have with Msgr. McCarthy’s analysis is that it makes the incredible claim that altar girls were still prohibited even after 1994, except that somehow the authentic interpretation created some kind of indult. This makes no sense at all to me, and apparently made no sense to the Vatican either, as the new (2000-2003) GIRM failed to repeat the 1975 GIRM’s language for the universal liturgical law regarding female altar servers, thus proving that the permission for altar girls is more than just an indult.

It might seem incredible to you, but it’s the same claim made by numerous other links I’ve given you, including the one on the CA website. I also gave you the link to the GIRM, which references the 1994 letter, not 230.2, which is consistent with Msgr. McCarthy’s analysis.

Catholic2003:

I mentioned as much in my post #124, where I also explained my opinion of ad hominem attacks. For example, this Adoremus Bulletin article leads off with such an attack. Perhaps they think it adds to their position – To my mind, however, it makes anything else they might have had to say much less credible.

You never mentioned what the “ad hominem” attack was. There is no dispute that I’m aware of about the fact that Fr. Huels has been laicized, nor about the incident leading to his removal. Why do you insist on holding up a sexual predator as a model canonist, while feeling that to bring this up detracts from the credibility of the author of the Adoremus article? To have what the Church refers to as a grave disorder, and to participate in related gravely sinful acts while performing as a Catholic priest, should make everything he ever did as a canonist suspect.

Catholic2003:

If he would publish something about this in a peer-reviewed journal, then his colleagues could respond to it, and eventually we could come to a consensus about what really happened. However, anonymous sniping in an email serves no purpose whatsoever.

This respected canonist gave me his professional opinion. When I sent him the email, I didn’t ask for permission to use his email, or his name, so I chose not to use his name. Once again, you resort to acidic terms that are entirely unwarranted.

My last comment: Unless you can come up with clear verbiage indicating approval of the Holy See prior to the dubium, and release of the 1994 letter, we’ve really nothing much left to discuss.

God Bless,
jb

 

[wiki7]

The only Christians present at our Lords Crucifixtion were His Women Followers! All of the men except for John were Cowards! Remember?

 

[jordan]

wiki7:

The only Christians present at our Lords Crucifixtion were His Women Followers! All of the men except for John were Cowards! Remember?

If the ONLY Christians present were women, how is it possible for John to be there? And yet there were no women present at the institution of the Eucharist, only the apostles. No women were told, “do this in memory of me.” This is why there will NEVER be women priests. Since the Church views the altar server as a unique opportunity for generating interest in priestly vocations, why discourage boys in the name of “equality?” We will never use this excuse to ordain women, why can’t the Church maintain the noble custom of male-only altar servers? Oh, maybe because men are cowards.

 

[Stu]

jordan:

Oh, maybe because men are cowards.

Bingo. Men repeatedly as a group commit the sins of Adam on a daily basis. If only we would stand up and be the spiritual head of our family that we are callled to be to include taking an active role in Church many of these problems would go away.

 

[bobopus]

this change has only perpetuated the “false hope” that women make become priests at some point in time – women did not need to be encouraged to take on responsibilities within in the church – they have always had a very important role in the church – just not a role within the area(s) invilving the priesthood – we forget or have never been taught that being an altar boy (acolade) was once part of the ordination process – we tend to downplay these days what the various roles each person plays in the liturgical celebration – but that goes along with the other abuses that we see every sunday – the mass i am afraid for many american catholics has become the sunday celebration/performance and not the representation of calvry

 

[hilde_the_dog]

I found this to be an interesting topic. I joined the Church two years and have no historical conceptions of whaqt should or not be allowed. Our parish does not have female alter servers. And so I don’t know if it is good.

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

My last comment: Unless you can come up with clear verbiage indicating approval of the Holy See prior to the dubium, and release of the 1994 letter, we’ve really nothing much left to discuss.

At last something we can agree upon.

jordan:

I’m interested to see what any document you can come up with that would indicate the approval of the Holy See.

There are no other documents. The point of quoting the commentaries would be to justify my claim that the majority of canon lawyers knew that the 1983 code permitted altar girls. I guess I don’t need to bother, then.

jordan:

When you claimed it was off the deep end, I didn’t bother linking to it. When I found it myself, I found nothing “off the deep end” about it.

I’ve already indicated already how it was “off the deep end.”

Can you come up with any other example of an authentic interpretation that didn’t clarify and explain canon law, but instead created an “indult”. Can you provide an instance of any other canon lawyer claiming that this is ever a possibility? Here is what canon law itself says about authentic interpretations:

Canon 16 §2 An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words which are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. If it restricts or extends the law or resolves a doubt, it is not retroactive.

Nothing about indults here.

Secondly, can you cite any Vatican document stating that the use of altar girls in a public Mass is a liturgical abuse? That is, can you cite any Vatican document that would corroborate Msgr. McCarthy’s claim, “[any bishop who feels a need to permit female altar servers] should never allow the use of altar girls at regularly scheduled parish or public Masses which people are obliged to attend or where they could be accosted with female altar servers by surprise.”

The complete divergence between Msgr. McCarthy’s conclusions from his canonical analysis and the actual Vatican teaching regarding female altar servers is what places his article “off the deep end.”

jordan:

It might seem incredible to you, but it’s the same claim made by numerous other links I’ve given you, including the one on the CA website.

Helen Hull Hitchcock is not a canon lawyer, as the content of her article amply demonstrates.

jordan:

I also gave you the link to the GIRM, which references the 1994 letter, not 230.2, which is consistent with Msgr. McCarthy’s analysis.

Given that the 1994 letter itself references canon 230 §2, I don’t see your point here.

jordan:

You never mentioned what the “ad hominem” attack was. There is no dispute that I’m aware of about the fact that Fr. Huels has been laicized, nor about the incident leading to his removal. Why do you insist on holding up a sexual predator as a model canonist, while feeling that to bring this up detracts from the credibility of the author of the Adoremus article?

I’ve already given a link that explains why ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. Here is a link to a rebuttal by canon lawyer Pete Vere that might give you additional insight as to what the ad hominem attack was. (Just search on the words “ad hominem”.)

jordan:

To have what the Church refers to as a grave disorder, and to participate in related gravely sinful acts while performing as a Catholic priest, should make everything he ever did as a canonist suspect.

Perhaps the following skit will help illustrate the fallacy of an ad hominem:

Teacher: What is 2+2?

Jimmy: The answer is 4.

Teacher: Wrong, Jimmy. Your arithmetic is suspect because you are a miserable sinner with a grave psychological disorder.

Teacher: Does anyone else know the answer?

Alice: The answer is 4.

Teacher: Very good, Alice!

jordan:

This respected canonist gave me his professional opinion. When I sent him the email, I didn’t ask for permission to use his email, or his name, so I chose not to use his name. Once again, you resort to acidic terms that are entirely unwarranted.

I still maintain that if your friend has problems with the canonical analyses of the canon lawyers I mentioned in my post #124, then “talking trash” about them behind their backs is not a very appropriate or professional avenue to resolve this difference of canonical opinion.

 

[wiki7]

I Think That part of the problem may be the fact that some parents are afraid of thier boys being Raped Priests!

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

There are no other documents. The point of quoting the commentaries would be to justify my claim that the majority of canon lawyers knew that the 1983 code permitted altar girls. I guess I don’t need to bother, then.

What consititutes a majority? How did they KNOW?

Canon Law is fundamentally conservative in nature.

Can. 21 In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.
Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can you say that there was no doubt on this matter? I think not.

Catholic2003:

Can you come up with any other example of an authentic interpretation that didn’t clarify and explain canon law, but instead created an “indult”. Can you provide an instance of any other canon lawyer claiming that this is ever a possibility?

Msgr. McCarthy was citing Canon 8.1 for the legitimization of the use of female altar servers by virtue of the 1994 AAS letter:

Can. 8 §1. Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. They take force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter…

Catholic2003:

Secondly, can you cite any Vatican document stating that the use of altar girls in a public Mass is a liturgical abuse?

As you are aware, the 1917 Code was specific on the matter, as was Liturgiae Instaurationes, para. 7 (Sept. 5, 1970), and Inaestimabile Donum, para. 18 (April 17, 1980). The verbiage of the 1983 Code makes no mention of altar servers. It makes no sense to say that there could be no doubt regarding the meaning of 230.2, therefore Canons 21 & 27 (above) would apply until the doubt was removed by the appropriate office of the Holy See.

Catholic2003:

Given that the 1994 letter itself references canon 230 §2, I don’t see your point here.

The point is, if 230.3 in and of itself was sufficient, there would be no need to reference the 1994 letter.

For the sake of clarity, I will address the remainder of your arguments regarding your favorite Canon Lawyer in my next reply. These long posts become a bit unwieldy.

Blessings,
jb

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

I’ve already given a link that explains why ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. Here is a link to a rebuttal by canon lawyer Pete Vere that might give you additional insight as to what the ad hominem attack was.

An ad hominem attack is an attempt to discredit a person’s work by discrediting the person. In the article you link to, Mr. Vere is not addressing any issues that specifically tie in with the interpretation of documents relating to the sexes or human sexuality.

Fr. Huels sexual inclinations are highly relevant to the discussion of altar girls.

Over the last 40 years or so, many of our US seminaries and Catholic institutions have adopted the tenets of modern psychology, i.e., Freudian theories and the various developments thereof.

These theories proclaim that to suppress our sexual desires is bad, and hinders development of the person. This sort of thinking, which directly opposes Catholic doctrine, and contradicts the virtues of temperance, self-control, chastity, etc., has led to a failure on the part of a large percentage of our clergy to adhere to the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, and sexual sinfulness.

The numerous and grotesque violations of the civil law perpetrated by our clergy are now a source of scandal on a grand scale, and a great impediment to the Church’s evangelization efforts.

Promotion of radical feminism, an ideology which abrogates the differences between the sexes (often under the guise of equality), essentially undermines the traditional understanding of human sexuality.

Is it any wonder that members of the ordained clergy who have failed to live up to, and in many cases outright rejected, Church teachings on chastity, reproductive issues, and homosexuality, (like Archbishop Weakland and Fr. Huels) would also support the feminist agenda in the particular aspects of their duties that touch on the roles of the sexes?

That is why Fr. Huels opinions on a subject like the canonicity of altar girls prior to the 1994 AAS letter are validly suspect.

Again, God bless,
jb

 

[Ria]

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.

I have heard people say that the problem is that boys and young men in some parishes have begun to think of serving as a “girl thing” and no longer are interested in serving. A calling can be discerned through prayer and attending Mass.

 

[Catholic2003]

jordan:

Fr. Huels sexual inclinations are highly relevant to the discussion of altar girls.

Fr. Huels’ sexual inclinations are completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the 1983 Code of Canon Law permitted female altar servers. Fr. Huels is not even mentioned in the Code, must less his personal sins.

It is clear now why we have been talking past each other - We do not share any common understanding of the rules of logical discourse.

So I’m going to go back to agreeing to disagree with you.

 

[jordan]

Catholic2003:

Fr. Huels’ sexual inclinations are completely and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the 1983 Code of Canon Law permitted female altar servers. Fr. Huels is not even mentioned in the Code, must less his personal sins.

How can you say it could not affect his interpretation? I don’t think you can. I put forth a reasonable argument for why his sexual inclination would be relevant to his interpretation in favor of altar girls, when it seems clear that 230.2 is more than a little doubtful on the matter.

I also prvided the canon law which specified that in case of doubt, revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed. End of story.

God bless,
jb

 

[harinkj]

I have never seen an altar girl.

kathie :bowdown: