Female altar servers.

[snowlake]

@

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.

No one has been twisting anything but you. If you prize various opinions as you say you do, you will hopefully refrain from telling people that they lack “all logic and reason” and that they are speaking “nonsense”. You have misinterpreted many a post, and have blown many comments way out of proportion. I hope that the discussion can now proceed calmly. If certain falsehoods or misunderstandings need to be cleared up, maybe we can
accomplish more by avoiding sarcasm and personal attacks. If something is wrong, a charitable explanation of why it is so would be much more useful.

 

[choy]

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

here’s an example

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6862046&postcount=100

i know you’re well aware that people here in CAF tend to take comments by the Pope or other Bishops as Law if it supports their opinion. rather than rely on what the Church truly says on the matter, what is actually allowed and what isn’t

 

[snowlake]

here’s an example

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6862046&postcount=100

i know you’re well aware that people here in CAF tend to take comments by the Pope or other Bishops as Law if it supports their opinion. rather than rely on what the Church truly says on the matter, what is actually allowed and what isn’t

re: Pro Vobis’s post quoting Cardinal Arinze: He was trying to show that his own opinion was viable, afterall the Cardinal had a similar one. He was trying to show that his own opinion was not nonsense and lacking in all reason.

 

[choy]

re: Pro Vobis’s post quoting Cardinal Arinze: He was trying to show that his own opinion was viable, afterall the Cardinal had a similar one. He was trying to show that his own opinion was not nonsense and lacking in all reason.

i’ve been around this forums a lot for the past few months to know thats not the case
people post quotes from Pope Benedict and Cardinal Arinze among others and make it sound as if its Law

everyone’s opinion is viable. but that discussion takes away from the facts of the matter. in matters like females in lay ministries in and around the altar, and practices such as CITH, no matter what the opinions are we shouldn’t take the opinions over the facts. and the facts are the Church allows them. these topics have been argued to death over and over and over again in these forums. it would be nice if we can just stick to the facts and bring a conclusion to the discussion, rather than the never ending hurling of opinions

 

[Brickmaker]

@

No one has been twisting anything but you. If you prize various opinions as you say you do, you will hopefully refrain from telling people that they lack “all logic and reason” and that they are speaking “nonsense”. You have misinterpreted many a post, and have blown many comments way out of proportion. I hope that the discussion can now proceed calmly. If certain falsehoods or misunderstandings need to be cleared up, maybe we can
accomplish more by avoiding sarcasm and personal attacks. If something is wrong, a charitable explanation of why it is so would be much more useful.

See? the ‘Edit post’ function is a much better choice than the ‘Report post’ one

 

[CDNowak]

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.

May I ask where this has been observed? I ask because in my experience it is the father’s participation that makes the difference, I know several very faithful women who are significantly more interested in their faith than their husbands, whose children (mostly my peers growing up) have largely fallen away. The families I know where the father has taken the lead seem to have been much more successful in preserving the Faith in their children (this seems to be more pronounced with sons’ as well).

Don’t take me wrong, I do think this is your strongest argument (certainly better than the essentially: “Why Not?” that is usually given as the chief argument). That is just all the more reason to explore it thoroughly.

So why are we insulting half of the faithful?

Is it more insulting to say that women are different than men and have their own roles that men cannot fill, or to tell women they should be more like men?

I know, I know…you all have reason why it isn’t an insult:
“But men and women are different.”,

Last I checked in many wondrous ways,

“but it is Tradition.”,

I won’t touch the T/t argument on this, as I have said before

“But then women might think they should be priests.”,

As has happened at th parish I was at when the change occurred

“but the boys won’t want to serve because they think it is girly.”

As is a strangely universal rule of healthy male psychology: boys want to be men, not androgynous or women.

These arguments have not served to keep women out of the Church, but a neutering of the Church has driven men away. (Do a head count at Mass).

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…

The same *nonsensical *argument could be (and admittedly has been) made regarding the push for female servers and feminism or even women’s ordination. I think we are best served by coming up with real, positive arguments for our position than implying the intolerance of the other side, don’t you?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Let me explain something to everyone–the central concern is the OP’s question, not whether or not we ought to have female altar servers. Did anyone notice the OP’s last post was on page 4 of 10 here?

The L&S forum exists to help people with their questions/concerns. It’s not primarily a debate forum, although there’s room for differences in discussion, of course.

PLEASE! Instead of trying to win arguments, remember this is a ministry to help people understand the liturgy and sacraments of the Church.

This thread is now closed.