Girl Altar Servers?

[katherine2]

fix:

Are you arguing the Vatican initiated the use of female servers or encouraged them? A few canon lawyers and others, IMO, with a liberal agenda, initiated their use. Many did not like it. Years went by. Rome was asked to rule if it was licit. They said it can be done, but did not say it must be done. … All this says that the law was scrutunized do see if they could get away with it. They did**. It was their personal initiative, not an idea from Rome. **Not unlike the hand holding business, the law does not specfically prohibit it, so some take it as a green light to introduce novelty upon novelty.

Well, this may be the crux. News alert, fix. Sometimes, soemone out side of Rome might have a worthy thought. St. Francis comes to mind. Cluny would be another.

As for novelty, “altar boys” as opposed to professed acoyltes, were once a novelty.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Well, this may be the crux. News alert, fix. Sometimes, soemone out side of Rome might have a worthy thought. St. Francis comes to mind. Cluny would be another.

As for novelty, “altar boys” as opposed to professed acoyltes, were once a novelty.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that the “advanced” catholics embrace novelty for novelty sake.

 

[katherine2]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

You gave no reference to prove it was a false claim, just your opinion.
I’m sorry but I cannot discuss with a person who only goes by feelings and will not give any back-up data.
Over and above that, if someone gets to the point of personal slurs, I refuse to go any farther.

here is the reference:

www.google.com

the claim I said is false is false. And it seems you are unable to offer even the feeblest evidence to the contrary.

 

[netmilsmom]

katherine2:

here is the reference:

www.google.com

the claim I said is false is false. And it seems you are unable to offer even the feeblest evidence to the contrary.

Somehow I didn’t get your search string in that address.

The author of the article **feels **differently.
I guess that’s why he is published and you’re not.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

the sequence would be as follows.

1. the idea was proposed by some faithful Catholics based on what they thought best for the welfare of the Church.
2. Most proponets complied with the norms, a handful did not

What norms? The ones conjured up by the “progressives”?

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Pope John Paul II promulgated the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which deliberately removed the “male only” restriction from a variety of liturgical roles, including altar server. The pope spent over a year reviewing the draft code (which was the effort of twenty years of work) with several of his most trusted canon law advisors, and he made hundreds of changes to produce the final version. The few mistakes that made it past this process were quickly corrected within the first year or year and a half.

The idea that the 1983 canon law permission for female altar servers was some sort of “accident” is just wishful thinking on the part of traditionalists.

Nearly all canon lawyers interpreted the 1983 code as allowing female altar servers, even those who did not think it was a good idea. I know it’s a novel idea for many posters here, but canon lawyers seem to understand the concept that the Vatican makes the rules and the rest of us follow them.

Many were surprised when the canon was interpreted as it was. Are you saying the Pope, personally, desired female servers?

 

[jlw]

katherine2:

I’m sorry, that just doesn’t fly. Its a psycho-social observation not a theological principle whcih at best woudl simply affirm the current norm of allowing the parish priest to use his judgement.

If it is true, it is not something unique to altar service. Yet we have Catholic co-education (and single sex education, but like altar service, not dicated by a universal norm but decided locally). We have mixed CCD, Bible study, choirs, etc.

It has the same weakness as those who argue against the sign of peace because they say shaking hands spreads germs yet never raise an objection to hand shaking as a social practice outside of Mass. Catholics are not particularly germ infested people!

Katherine2, you missed the point. It most certainly flies!! Boys not wanting to hang out with girls is a VALID sociological explanation for the lack of boys on the altar once girls arrived on the scene.

It DOES have to do with the MASCULINE and FEMININE natures coliding!! For example, the recent priest “shortage” has to do with alot of things, but I submit it most certainly has something to do with the *seemingly *large numbers of a’hem, less-then-manly men of the collar over the last 35 years??? Quite frankly I think their are PLENTY of men who would love to give their lives to Christ, but are discouraged by the feminization of the priesthood. No??

If you were looking for a theological reason for girls on the altar?? That makes two of us!

 

[katherine2]

Somehow I didn’t get your search string in that address

because there is none, that’s the point.

The author of the article **feels **differently.
I guess that’s why he is published and you’re not.

For a time now, i’ve been wondering if you have forgotten the claim I objected to.

The line of the author’s post which I objected to is his statement that the proponents (those with whom the author disagrees with) claimed that they wished to see female altar server permitted because it would be a “boon” to the church’s worship and liturgy. The proponets did not make this claim.

The easiest way to win a debate is to make up what your adversary’s position is and then knock it down. The authori appears not to want to refelct and discern on this question but to use this old debator’s tactic.

The author can have whatever feelings he wants. He cannot assign feelings to other people that he has no evidence they feel that way. Its partiuclarly crude when he assigns statements to those who see things differently than he does without any evidence or statement from them.

 

[katherine2]

jlw:

Katherine2, you missed the point. It most certainly flies!! Boys not wanting to hang out with girls is a VALID sociological explanation for the lack of boys on the altar once girls arrived on the scene.

Well, a couple of points. First of all, my parish and most I know of have had no problem with both boys and girls as altar servers. If some parishes have different experiences, I understand. So if we are in the realm of looking for a “valid sociological explantion” in those particular parishes that have a lack of boys, this seems to support the current norm of leaving it to the pastor to decide.

And, if this “sociological explantion” is valid, there is no reason to apply it universally and without exeption to all socities, cultures and communities while leave to local option co-ed Catholic schools, CCD, teen clubs, choirs, etc.

If girls chase away boys by nature then the problem should exist universally. Put your engery into forming boy choirs.

 

[Kielbasi]

Many were surprised when the canon was interpreted as it was. Are you saying the Pope, personally, desired female servers?

Apparently he did.

Or at least he didn’t object to the idea when it was implemented, which is the same thing. If the pope had objections to the practice, it was in his power to remove the priests and bishops who implemented the policy. The facts are that he didn’t, and the policy allowing altar girls is now a long standing one. There isn’t a battle between the pope and the bishops on this, they are definitely reading from the same book.

 

[netmilsmom]

katherine2:

The line of the author’s post which I objected to is his statement that the proponents (those with whom the author disagrees with) claimed that they wished to see female altar server permitted because it would be a “boon” to the church’s worship and liturgy. The proponets did not make this claim.

Oh I do remember.
He thinks they did.
You have not proven otherwise.

 

[fix]

Apparently he did.

Or at least he didn’t object to the idea when it was implemented, which is the same thing. If the pope had objections to the practice, it was in his power to remove the priests and bishops who implemented the policy. The facts are that he didn’t, and the policy allowing altar girls is now a long standing one. There isn’t a battle between the pope and the bishops on this, they are definitely reading from the same book.

Your opinion, but not proof. You are entitled to it. And yes, many bishops do support female servers. Any surprise?

 

[Catholic2003]

Apparently he did.

Exactly.

I’m not claiming to read the Pope’s mind, but his actions speak very strongly. And those actions unmistakeably point to an intention that individual bishops be allowed to use female altar servers if they choose to.

For example, take the problem of lay persons giving the homily during mass. Some may say that the Pope and the Vatican have been too “wishy-washy” in combating this abuse, but it is nonetheless still very clear what their position is on the matter, from the 1987 authentic interpretation that diocesan bishops do not have the authority to allow lay persons to give the homily to the 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Whether or not you think that the Pope and the Vatican have done enough to combat this liturgical abuse, there is clear difference between their response on this issue and on the issue of female altar servers.

 

[jlw]

katherine2:

Well, a couple of points. First of all, my parish and most I know of have had no problem with both boys and girls as altar servers. If some parishes have different experiences, I understand. So if we are in the realm of looking for a “valid sociological explantion” in those particular parishes that have a lack of boys, this seems to support the current norm of leaving it to the pastor to decide.

And, if this “sociological explantion” is valid, there is no reason to apply it universally and without exeption to all socities, cultures and communities while leave to local option co-ed Catholic schools, CCD, teen clubs, choirs, etc.

If girls chase away boys by nature then the problem should exist universally. Put your engery into forming boy choirs.

So…you think that it cannot possibly be a reasonable explanation for some boys?? Sorry, I was not submitting that this reasoning was supposed to be a “universal” truth that applied to “all societes, cultures, and communities”??. That’s not what I was doing.

Think, k2, think.

 

[fix]

Catholic2003:

Exactly.

I’m not claiming to read the Pope’s mind, but his actions speak very strongly. And those actions unmistakeably point to an intention that individual bishops be allowed to use female altar servers if they choose to.

For example, take the problem of lay persons giving the homily during mass. Some may say that the Pope and the Vatican have been too “wishy-washy” in combating this abuse, but it is nonetheless still very clear what their position is on the matter, from the 1987 authentic interpretation that diocesan bishops do not have the authority to allow lay persons to give the homily to the 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Whether or not you think that the Pope and the Vatican have done enough to combat this liturgical abuse, there is clear difference between their response on this issue and on the issue of female altar servers.

I am not disagreeing with you on these points. None of us know what actually went on with these decisions. My main point is the genesis was not Rome, but a few “reformers” who took it upon themselves. This has happended before and may happen again. The fruit of all this can be seen in the liturgy today in the Latin rite where liturgical abuse is prevalent. I try to stress the mass is no one’s private property, but some on the left seem to thing they are ordained by Christ to introduce novelty. Just my opinion.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

And yes, many bishops do support female servers. Any surprise?

Successors to the Apostles that they are.

 

[katherine2]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Oh I do remember.
He thinks they did.
You have not proven otherwise.

and explain to my simple mind how one proves such a negative? You have not produced a single proponent who made that claim.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Successors to the Apostles that they are.

Indeed, even if some at times are unfaithful.

 

[katherine2]

jlw:

So…you think that it cannot possibly be a reasonable explanation for some boys?? Sorry, I was not submitting that this reasoning was supposed to be a “universal” truth that applied to “all societes, cultures, and communities”??. That’s not what I was doing.

Well, I don’t think we have significant differences. Is it possible that this is a reasonable explanation for some boys? Sure, its possible. I don’t see it in any situations I’m aware of. If it is possible for some boys in some communities, a pastor might want to consider this when deciding on this matter.

Since we both agree this is not a universal truth, I think we can also agree that we don’t need a universal restriction on this. Local circumstances, local policy, right?

God bless and pray for the Pope.

 

[Deacon_Tony560]

Good point about successors: The bishops are being ‘’ Inclusive" of God’s children. Whereas, we point out the exclusiveness of other religions, and rightly so. Such as the limit of the number of people that can go to heaven.

God bless