Female altar servers.

[ProVobis]

Women should not be priests. Altar servers are not a problem imo:shrug:

Yes, but a lot of people including me saw/see women servers as the first step towards women priesthood. After all it was an invasion into the private place of the sanctuary. (Before that, the Holy of Holies.) But in all fairness I used to think that women readers had priestly ambitions and we don’t seem to argue that point anymore.

 

[vera_dicere]

I was an altar server when from 10 - 13 and I’m a girl, and I LOVED it! I loved serving God. I was under no delusions about women in the priesthood, and I had no want to be a priest, just serving God in the capacity of an altar server was enough for me at the time. And the boys certainly didn’t seem like they didnt’ want to serve because of the girls.

When I was 13 my parents bought another house out of the Parish so my mum took my name off the roster, and when it sort of fell through and we were staying put, my mum refused to have me back on, and I have to admit, I was very annoyed at my mother. Still am to a lesser extent. I wanted to serve until I was too big to fit in the garment, or until I was old enough to be a minister of the euchariast - there were older teens as servers at my church.

So yeah, I’d say you are being a tad unreasonable about it, of course, you know the whole situation, we’re only responding to what you’ve posted. But I do think you need to be careful, if your daughter really loves serving the Lord she might be a little unimpressed if you force her to stop.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

He was not denying the lawfulness of altar girls. Just giving his opinion on the matter.

Great. That’s his opinion. There’s also plenty of other bishops and Cardinals who hold the opposite opinion of him. So who cares what the various opinions of various bishops and Cardinals are? Whether pro or con, its all valid opinions. Posting in this discusion that Cardinal Arinze thinks its a mistake doesn’t advance anything.

Your or my opinion is just as valid as his…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

What Card. Arinze is trying to say is:

The mistake was made when they revised cannon law, and added the option of using female servers.

Why stop there? Was it not also a mistake to allow female lectors?

HE IS NOT ARGUING THAT CANON LAW IS MEANINGLESS!!!

It seems to me that you are indirectly attacking and putting him down.

I’m not putting him down, merely pointing out that he’s not infallible, this is not a matter of dogma, and anyone’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Huh? The church can’t change her own rules? In disciplinary areas, it is free to. In this case, the church has given the permission to use altar girls very recently. And you are saying we are now stuck with it until the end of time? I don’t understand your logic.

There’s traditions (note the lower case t) that are “man made” and thus are always changeable. Example: Mandatory Celibacy

Then there are Traditions (note the upper case T) that are of divine origin and cannot be changed. Example: Only Men are Ordained

NewEnglandPries, I think we get the point that it’s OK to use altar girls. Can you move on to another argument so this discussion can move on?

There is no other argument. Everything else is merely having beers and arguing. There’s only personal preference…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Could be but isn’t Cardinal Arinze part of the Magisterium of the Church?

Lots of bishops are part of the Magisterium of the Church, not just Cardinal Arinze.

In one of the videos he states that he speaks for the Pope in liturgical matters.

He spoke for the Pope in liturgical matters from 2002-2008. He no longer does. Pope Benedict has already made some changes to canon law in recent years and yet he hasn’t changed female altar servers, so clearly Benedict is yet to come around to see it as mistake in need of correction.

 

[Luger]

Heaven forbid they want to serve, it’s scandalous! Also, isn’t it sad that women are now the majority in both med school and law school, those professions have always been a bastion of good o’l boys, how dare they intrude. Don’t accuse me of being politically correct either, I always taught my DD that men were priests and the biblical reasons for that fact, however, since it is “legal” to have female alter servers now I don’t understand the problem.

It would have been in this group’s case. They were cold blooded sexists who referred to themselves as “feminists.” All they wanted to do is serve themselves by pushing their agenda.

 

[Luger]

I would just like to add that in my parish, which I would like to add is very traditional, we have more than enough servers (altar boys) each Sunday. At the “main” mass, which ever servers can make it come, and about 10 minutes before mass, the MCs (me and two friends of mine) shuffles everything around, gives out the jobs (Thurfur, boat, torch bearer, gift receivers, water/wine & lavabo, Mitre/Crosier bearers, zucetto bearer, etc…)., and volia!

Whoever is there is there. It always works out, by the grace of God. I’m not talking about getting 4 or 5 servers on an average Sunday. This Sunday, we had the normal summer average of 12. Advent comes along, and we’ll probably be hitting 15, at least.

And during Holy week, ordinations, and special diocesan masses when the seminarians are in town? We have to limit servers, because we don’t have enough space for them all, and every one of them are dying to serve that mass. That is the success that an altar boy group brings to a parish.

Zuchetto bearer?

 

[CDNowak]

I’m not putting him down, merely pointing out that he’s not infallible, this is not a matter of dogma, and anyone’s opinion is as good as anyone else’s…

You are doing a bad job at making that last point, Father. If all there is is personal preference why so insistent?

 

[Brickmaker]

You are doing a bad job at making that last point, Father. If all there is is personal preference why so insistent?

Perhaps because others have been so insistent that Cardinal Arinze’s opinion should carry more weight than Canon Law?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You are doing a bad job at making that last point, Father. If all there is is personal preference why so insistent?

Because some (not all) of those who have a negative opinion of female altar servers have been twisting the debate:

1. Its new. So what? That doesn’t mean it’s bad.
2. Ancient Church documents calling females serving at the altar “evil” have been brought forward as if they were dogmatic declarations.
3. All sorts of legal/theological misrepresentations regarding the traditional role of acolytes and minor orders and how that plays out in the modern Church.
4. The constant references to 1994 also skew the debate since that gives the appearance that female altar servers come merely from some letter from a Vatican office that can be overturned with the swipe of a pen of any old Vatican bureaucrat when the fact is it comes from canon law and changing that can only come from the Holy Father (and with careful rewording of the canon that would take some time).
5. And the attempt to give weight to an argument by pointing out, look who else in the Church agrees with me!
   6… The casting of those who support female altar servers as “liberals”, “feminists”, etc.

There are interesting arguments to be made regarding practical elements but let’s not pretend that this comes down to anything other than one’s personal preference and opinion.

 

[CDNowak]

Perhaps because others have been so insistent that Cardinal Arinze’s opinion should carry more weight than Canon Law?

But absolutely no-one has argued that position, except those who disagree with the Cardinal’s personal opinion (Where I come from we call that the strawman fallacy).

 

[CDNowak]

Because some (not all) of those who have a negative opinion of female altar servers have been twisting the debate:

It dosen’t help when keep things civil when one poster repeatedly attacks an issue he himself created. (ie Cardinal Arinze **vs **Canon Law)

If it is a matter of personal opinion then some parts of your list don’t apply or are incorrect: Opposition to liturgical novelty is certainly a valid personal opinion (and was the Church’s opinion until after PiusXII), considering the ancient (and modern) documents gives voice to the great “democracy of the dead”, the Church (via the 1994 letter and 2001 Notitiae) uses the 1994 date because that is when they were first permitted (or, if you prefer the latent permission in the 1983 Code was finally realized).

I do agree that citing the history of the practice is a weak argument, but several posters have expressed a belief that, since they don’t remember the change the tradition of male servers is a fabrication. (I think we can agree that a correction is needed there?)

Likewise, the appeal to Cardinal Arinze in 2008 may have been an attempt at an appeal to proper authority (a little off because he is in these cases speaking personally). However the fact that he disagreed with the practice on a prudential level (all-the-more while Prefect of the CDW&DS) does concede the issue to respectful debate. By shouting down any mention of the Cardinal, you give the impression that you are opposed to the debate itself.

I think it would be far more helpful if you could explain your perspective on the traditional role of acolytes, rather than just attacking others positions.

Personally, my opinion is that this is too important of an issue to be relegated to my opinion.

Th practical elements, as you say, are not at all insignificant. Here in the US the tie between the server and the priesthood has been lessened, but that is not the case worldwide (Cardinal Arinze gives the Nigerian and Italian perspectives). Still 70% of our ordinands this year were servers. The emasculation of Christianity (nothing new) is made more evident when women dominate in the sacristy and sanctuary, and provides a disincentive for young men to even consider the priesthood…

It affects the only consistent instruction on the the law of prayer (let alone the law of belief) that the majority of Catholics ever see: Sunday Mass. Because it is something that occurs in Mass it shapes the popular understanding of theology far more than any Catechism or Encyclical. Sadly, too many people I have encountered have seemed to draw further, unwarranted, conclusions from the allowance of girls serving.

 

[CatholicFireman]

Off the post alert

As an observer of this thread I think it is great that there is a healthy debate going on. That being said, I noticed that NewEnglandPries was ask if he was a priest and he said yes. Now you may not agree with what Father says, but I strongly suggest you respect the fact that he is a priest and stop treating him like some guy on the street (and I would hope that you would treat that guy as well as everybody else as Christ), especially by not letting your emotions get the best of you and typing in bold letters five times their regular size. That’s not just shouting, that’s in-your-face leaning forward shouting.

So come on. Most of us are Christians. Let’s start acting that way.

Oh and by the way; I’m just as guilty at times so this is addressed to me too.

Pax†

 

[Brickmaker]

But absolutely no-one has argued that position, except those who disagree with the Cardinal’s personal opinion (Where I come from we call that the strawman fallacy).

Then why offer the Cardinal’s personal opinion as something more than just that? That was the impression I got from it - the trump card so to speak. ‘If you’re not persuaded by my argument, here’s a Cardinal, a member of the Magisterium no less, who agrees with me. So yah booh sucks’.

Just my personal opinion, you understand, about the tenor of this thread.

 

[CDNowak]

Then why offer the Cardinal’s personal opinion as something more than just that? That was the impression I got from it - the trump card so to speak. ‘If you’re not persuaded by my argument, here’s a Cardinal, a member of the Magisterium no less, who agrees with me. So yah booh sucks’.

Just my personal opinion, you understand, about the tenor of this thread.

The cardinal’s opinion was only casually mentioned, until a poster implied that by having a negative opinion of the practice the cardinal was elevating his opinion over canon law. Ironically this is a poster arguing that the entire issue is a matter of opinion and preference anyway. The responses from there were not necessarily appropriate, and I certainly don’t condone shouting.

From Pg 7 (first mention of the Cardinal)

poster sl “You can hear what Cardinal Arinze has to say on this matter by looking up…”
(I posted the video)
poster pv “Cardinal Arinze about altar girls: “..it was a mistake….””
poster c “then he should work on changing the rules”
poster nep “He is free to hold that opinion, but that “mistake” goes back to the '83 Code. Unless he’s going to argue that Code of Canon Law is meaningless if a Cardinal holds a different opinion…”

That is hardly “yah booh sucks” from those who mentioned the Cardinal (whose opinion, given his office at the time of the statement, is relevant as I highlighted above).

What frustrates me with altar server threads in general is how those of us who hold the same position the Cardinal expressed (as head of CDW&DS) are vilified, even by clergy. Even noting the historical date that they were allowed (1994) or that a priest need not have altar girls (per CDW&DS 2001) is somehow an attack on Canon Law? perhaps we should be more ruthless with the report button:shrug:

 

[Kat127]

I know I am going to get slammed for this post but I am really curious about this issue.

It has been observed time and time again that the women’s spirituality sets the tone for the family’s. This appears to be true even in “feminist” households. If the wife and mother attends Church and are active in their faith the husband and children tend to be as well. In my experience the opposite does not seem to be as true. I think this will change in the next 20 years as the next generation grows up with the fathers taking a more “active” role in their upbringing and education. Maybe part of this difference is due to difference in male and female psychology and biology. I don’t know. But I have observed if the wife is more active so is the family and I have heard a lot of people say they have seen the same thing.

So why are we insulting half of the faithful?

I know, I know…you all have reason why it isn’t an insult:
“But men and women are different.”,
“but it is Tradition.”,
“But then women might think they should be priests.”,
“but the boys won’t want to serve because they think it is girly.”

The counterarguments to these points have already been brought up. But variations of those arguments stated above have been used to keep us out of higher education, out of sports, out of jobs. They will keep us out of Church as well (and I am not talking about the priesthood.)

There seems to be a feeling on this forum that “feminists” were evil. I was born in 1983, my mother in 1941. As I grew up I watched my mother and her contemporaries respond to the changes in my life compared to theirs. They never believed their lives were horrible but they all expressed true happiness their daughters had more opportunities than they did. I heard stories of smart women being pulled out of high school because their fathers didn’t think they needed that education. I heard stories of women running around an office trying to avoid their boss groping them. I heard a heartbreaking story of a woman married to an abusive man but couldn’t escape because she had no way of supporting herself. I had an uncle that refused to change a his crying son’s diaper because that was “women’s work.”

I do not think men are evil, even men of that time, they were a product of their world. But if that is your tradition…

I know everyone says it isn’t sexism that says no female alter serves. But it looks like it, it sounds like and it sure feels like it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…

My point is if women are the doorway to the family, maybe forcing the point on this issue will cost the Church far more than it will ever gain. We are one of the few religions in the world that gives a woman an honored place (St. Mary), and yet we sure don’t have that image, do we?

Ok- tear me apart.

Kat

 

[snowlake]

Great. That’s his opinion. There’s also plenty of other bishops and Cardinals who hold the opposite opinion of him. So who cares what the various opinions of various bishops and Cardinals are? Whether pro or con, its all valid opinions. Posting in this discusion that Cardinal Arinze thinks its a mistake doesn’t advance anything.

Your or my opinion is just as valid as his…

No one said that there were not other opinions. I think you misunderstand a lot. I truly do not mean to be disrespectful, and I’m sorry if I’ve committed any type of sin against you.
It’s certainly hard to communicate without hearing tone of voice/facial expressions, as well as trying to distill one’s position into the amount of words allowable for a post.

I think the references to Cardinal Arinze were in fact used by people (including myself)
as way of proving that certain opinions are indeed acceptable, and not “completely lacking in reason” or whatever it was that you said. (I’ll have to look it up). Your posts basically said that people were stupid, which I find ironic, because you seemed to misunderstand the posts or made them say more than they actually did.

Please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood you.

 

[Brickmaker]

The cardinal’s opinion was only casually mentioned, until a poster implied that by having a negative opinion of the practice the cardinal was elevating his opinion over canon law.

In fairness I think the poster was not implying anything about the Cardinal himself, only about the use of the Cardinal’s opinion by another poster as a ‘trump card’ and the implication that a Cardinal’s opinion is somehow superior to Canon Law.

Again, that’s how I read it. Others clearly see it otherwise and that’s their prerogative. But they could at least moderate their tone, as the rules of this forum require, when responding to a priest or religious. Otherwise they won’t be the only ones making more diligent use of the report function.

 

[snowlake]

Perhaps because others have been so insistent that Cardinal Arinze’s opinion should carry more weight than Canon Law?

This is another thing that has not happened. Where are all of these phantom comments?