Girls as alter servers

[GeorgiaCatholic]

Originally Posted by GeorgiaCatholic
“…the presence of girls at the altar alters the holiness, the sacredness, and the sublimeness of what is transpiring at the altar…”

This is exactly the attitude that makes it difficult not to conclude that the church has a problem with females especially to a young girl trying to find her place in the religion. As I said earlier, I and my daughters have no delusions about female priests, but this attitude makes it hard to believe that the church does not feel that females are not of equal worth and dignity to males. I want to believe it doesn’t, but this makes clinging to that belief hard. I believe females can be seen to have equal worth even if the roles they fill are not the same. I can buy the idea that the altar “boy” experience fosters candidates to the priesthood. I can even buy that boys won’t want to do it if any girls are allowed although I think that reflects a problem with the boys and a problem those boys will have when they need to shepard women in their priesthood. What I can’t buy is that God and the church rather than just some of it’s members believe that the meer presence of girls diminishes the holiness of the sacrifice taking place on the altar.

AltarMan:

This thread now has over 200 postings and I haven’t seen such a suggestion. Could you please point me to the postings that suggest what you do in your posting? I must have missed them…

Yes, you did miss posting #103 where the first line in quotes that I included in my post came from.

 

[AltarMan]

GeorgiaCatholic:

Originally Posted by GeorgiaCatholic
“…the presence of girls at the altar alters the holiness, the sacredness, and the sublimeness of what is transpiring at the altar…”

…Yes, you did miss posting #103 where the first line in quotes that I included in my post came from.

Indeed.

I find cecelia’s posting very thought provoking – I usually don’t read postings that omit punctuation.

While I certainly appreciate her position (it really is thought provoking) the more I ponder this issue, the more I reject the idea of altar girls being a positive thing because the practice was born out of dissent and liturgical abuse.

What I can say is that there is little to combat her position unless we rely on the laws of PCism pushed by sexism/feminism.

 

[davy39]

This is the third thread that I remember about the pros and cons of female altar servers, and I’m getting sort of tired of it. I can see reasons on both sides, but it boils down to the fact that if the Bishop of the diocese says it is permissable, then it is. If you don’t like it, then write a respectable letter letting him know. In our diocese, I believe it is about fifty-fifty. If the polls are true, we have bigger problems than the ongoing boy-girl debate. Such as, Mass attendance is about 30%, only about 40% believe in the Real Presence, and most of us will lose hands down in a debate with an evangelical protestant, so there’s a lot of work to be done. Let’s get things in perspective. God Bless all.

 

[AltarMan]

davy39:

This is the third thread that I remember about the pros and cons of female altar servers, and I’m getting sort of tired of it. I can see reasons on both sides, but it boils down to the fact that if the Bishop of the diocese says it is permissable, then it is. If you don’t like it, then write a respectable letter letting him know. In our diocese, I believe it is about fifty-fifty. If the polls are true, we have bigger problems than the ongoing boy-girl debate. Such as, Mass attendance is about 30%, only about 40% believe in the Real Presence, and most of us will** lose hands down in a debate with an evangelical protestant,** so there’s a lot of work to be done. Let’s get things in perspective. God Bless all.

1.) Is someone holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read this thread?

2.) No matter what your disposition, please don’t insult us with another tired straw-dog “argument” – there may indeed be “bigger problems” in the Church, but it’s rediculous to suggest that should squelch this debate.

3.) Provide proof regarding the 40% Real Presence statistic some people just love to throw around. Mr. Jimmy Akin did a nice job refuting the claims of people like you:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp

4.) Speak for yourself regarding Protestants and apologetics (you do mean from an apologetic standpoint, don’t you?) While you may not pack the gear to engage “evangelical protestants” please don’t try to suggest that’s true of most (or even many) of the people that populate these forums.

 

[Ham1]

AltarMan:

Indeed.

I find cecelia’s posting very thought provoking – I usually don’t read postings that omit punctuation.

While I certainly appreciate her position (it really is thought provoking) the more I ponder this issue, the more I reject the idea of altar girls being a positive thing because the practice was born out of dissent and liturgical abuse.

What I can say is that there is little to combat her position unless we rely on the laws of PCism pushed by sexism/feminism.

Ok. Granted I haven’t read all 235,432 posts in this thread. That being said: Alterman, I have read your “born out of dissent and lturgical abuse” line several times. It seems to be your main point.

What are your facts to back this up? Don’t flame me, I’m just curious.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

You throw the term “heterodox” around quite freely. I also notice that you provided a link to the old 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia. It may interest you to know that Fr. Richstatter authored eight entries in the 1978 New Catholic Encyclopedia. He is an acknowledged expert on Liturgy and Sacramental Theology.

I didn’t condemn the man, but you cannot tell me that the chart you made reference to is not out of line.

This mentions nothing about repeated confession.

I know why we can’t agree on history, you can’t put one and one together.

So, to reiterate, let us again look to the Council. This time, read them together-

CANON I.–If any one saith, that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema.

and

CANON VI.–If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema.

The Church clearly teaches that the Sacrament of Penance was instituted by our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin AND that the Church has observed the practice of secretly confession to a priest alone from the begining. It also says that anyone who denies these things, let them be anathema.

I don’t care what some modernist theologians or historians say-the Church has already spoken on the matter.

 

[Jakub]

This thread has drifted into … something

james

 

[AltarMan]

Ham1:

Ok. Granted I haven’t read all 235,432 posts in this thread. That being said: Alterman, I have read your “born out of dissent and lturgical abuse” line several times. It seems to be your main point.

What are your facts to back this up? Don’t flame me, I’m just curious.

In all sincerity, the “facts” are obvious to anyone who has been a Catholic for the past 25 years. That said, the dissent began in earnest with the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983. More specifically paragraph 230.3 of the Code:

“§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.”

While the code is clear about mentioning instituted lectors, and acolytes in additon to* readers*, EMsHC and those laypersons that lead prayer or baptise, it clearly does not mention altar servers or the function of altar servers.

Anyone denying this fact is in serious denial. Denial that contravenes the Church’s interpretation of the Code.

Nevertheless this is all it took for the dissidents to crank-up the abuse train and permit the use of female altar servers. The abuse became so widespread that the practice was finally approved by the Church in 1994 – over a decade later. Had the code actually allowed the use of female altar servers, permission would not have been needed following the revision of the Code.

There are some very good articles noted on this subject on their thread. Take a peek at a few of them, partricularly:

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur19.htm

 

[George_Waters]

AlterMan,

In your opinion, why would the Church (The Church of Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit) allow an abuse of any kind to continue? What does this say about the gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church?

 

[Catholic2003]

Had the code actually allowed the use of female altar servers, permission would not have been needed following the revision of the Code.

Which explains why permission wasn’t needed. The relevant canon is canon 230 §2 (not §3):

Canon 230 §2 Lay people can receive a temporary assignment to the role of lector in liturgical actions. Likewise, all lay people can exercise the roles of commentator, cantor or other such, in accordance with the law.

That the “other such” roles include service at the altar is explicitly stated by the 1992 authentic interpretation given by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (PCILT):

Lay faithful, men and women, can fulfill certain liturgical functions (c. 230.2)

The doubt: Can service at the altar also be counted among the liturgical functions that the lay faithful, either men or women, can fulfill according to c. 230.2?

The response: Affirmative, in accord with the instruction to be given by the Apostolic See.

July 11, 1992
AAS 86 (1994) 541-542.

An authentic interpretation is used to clarify what the canon law already says. The PCILT has no authority to change canon law, so any suggestion that it did so is ludicrous.

To change canon law, the Pope must himself must promulgate an appropriate document, such as an Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio.

 

[mikew262]

davy39:

This is the third thread that I remember about the pros and cons of female altar servers, and I’m getting sort of tired of it. I can see reasons on both sides, but it boils down to the fact that if the Bishop of the diocese says it is permissable, then it is. If you don’t like it, then write a respectable letter letting him know. In our diocese, I believe it is about fifty-fifty. If the polls are true, we have bigger problems than the ongoing boy-girl debate. Such as, Mass attendance is about 30%, only about 40% believe in the Real Presence, and most of us will lose hands down in a debate with an evangelical protestant, so there’s a lot of work to be done. Let’s get things in perspective. God Bless all.

My point exactly! There are bigger fish to fry.

 

[Ham1]

AltarMan:

In all sincerity, the “facts” are obvious to anyone who has been a Catholic for the past 25 years. That said, the dissent began in earnest with the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983. More specifically paragraph 230.3 of the Code:

“§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.”

While the code is clear about mentioning instituted lectors, and acolytes in additon to* readers*, EMsHC and those laypersons that lead prayer or baptise, it clearly does not mention altar servers or the function of altar servers.

Anyone denying this fact is in serious denial. Denial that contravenes the Church’s interpretation of the Code.

Nevertheless this is all it took for the dissidents to crank-up the abuse train and permit the use of female altar servers. The abuse became so widespread that the practice was finally approved by the Church in 1994 – over a decade later. Had the code actually allowed the use of female altar servers, permission would not have been needed following the revision of the Code.

There are some very good articles noted on this subject on their thread. Take a peek at a few of them, partricularly:

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur19.htm

So, didn’t the Church affirm in 1994 that the original statement in canon law included women? After all, the PCILT doesn’t change canon law, they just clarify and interpret the law. It looks like they interpreted the law to mean that female alter servers are acceptable meaning that they were acceptable under canon law in 1983.

 

[mrs_abbott]

The decision is done to make girls altar servers, for now. There’s nothing we as lay people can do to change that except write letters, protest, etc. if one feels that strongly against it. All I stated in my original post is that I WISH it didn’t happen. People have taken the original post and made it out to be war on little girls who serve.
It’s like the gossip circle in grade school when someone starts something and by the end of the circle, it’s misconstrued and taken WAY out of proportion.
But again, I guess that’s Freedom of Speech, the reason this post was started in the first place.

MrS:

So after a couple of hundred posts… with no real remedy… you can’t just say the matter is done. What matter is done?? More and more priests are saying NO. Sounds like we need to encourage them… the Vatican already has a preference and now they need to see support from the trenches.

Perhaps those who posted, and who have boys, will now find the courage to encourage them to serve. Otherwise we are going to see “Girl-Altar-Boys” threads again and again (but not forever, IMHO)

 

[mrs_abbott]

GeorgiaCatholic:

This is exactly the attitude that makes it difficult not to conclude that the church has a problem with females especially to a young girl trying to find her place in the religion. As I said earlier, I and my daughters have no delusions about female priests, but this attitude makes it hard to believe that the church does not feel that females are not of equal worth and dignity to males. I want to believe it doesn’t, but this makes clinging to that belief hard. I believe females can be seen to have equal worth even if the roles they fill are not the same.

Are you a feminist?

 

[AltarMan]

George Waters:

AlterMan,

In your opinion, why would the Church (The Church of Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit) allow an abuse of any kind to continue? What does this say about the gates of Hell not prevailing against the Church?

Under Pope JPII (at least) not much was done in a practical sense to stem liturgical abuses. He released wonderful papers, but there was scant follow-through. There are many, many liturgical abuses today that are still “allowed” by the Church in a practical sense. This forum is FULL of stories about them and you would have to draw your own conclusions as to why the Holy See dosen’t take a more active position in stopping liturgical abuses.

That said, the very moment the Church allowed female altar servers in 1994 it no longer became a widespread abuse. It was no longer a sticky problem facing the Holy See.

WHY the Holy See chose this course of action of debatible. My very best guess is akin to the “The Truce of 1968." Had JPII actually cracked-down on the abuse, he might not have been as popular as he was. It may even have triggered a schism (of sorts) here in the USA. Had he continued to ignore the problem, he might have seemed even more effete than usual.

 

[George_Waters]

mrs_abbott:

Are you a feminist?

mrs abbott,

I know this question is not addressed to me, but I respectfully wonder why you would ask this question based on the statement “I believe females can be seen to have equal worth even if the roles they fill are not the same.”? Wouldn’t you say ALL humans have equal worth regardless of the roles they fill?

 

[AltarMan]

Catholic2003:

Which explains why permission wasn’t needed. The relevant canon is canon 230 §2 (not §3):

That the “other such” roles include service at the altar is explicitly stated by the 1992 authentic interpretation given by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (PCILT):

An authentic interpretation is used to clarify what the canon law already says. The PCILT has no authority to change canon law, so any suggestion that it did so is ludicrous.

To change canon law, the Pope must himself must promulgate an appropriate document, such as an Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio.

That’s so naive.

If what you suggest is true, it wouldn’t have taken 10 years for a responsum – the sexist/feminists would have demanded it the moment the ink dried on the 1983 revision.

Had the Holy See responded “no” it wouldn’t have changed a darned thing – the abuses would still have continued. The only difference is that the Holy See would seem even more effete.

At this very moment, if the Holy See admitted to making the mistake it did when it caved in 1994, and again prohibited females from serving do you honestly believe there would be a high degree of compliance?

In a word, “no.”

 

[George_Waters]

AltarMan:

Under Pope JPII (at least) not much was done in a practical sense to stem liturgical abuses. He released wonderful papers, but there was scant follow-through. There are many, many liturgical abuses today that are still “allowed” by the Church in a practical sense. This forum is FULL of stories about them and you would have to draw your own conclusions as to why the Holy See dosen’t take a more active position in stopping liturgical abuses.

That said, the very moment the Church allowed female altar servers in 1994 it no longer became a widespread abuse. It was no longer a sticky problem facing the Holy See.

WHY the Holy See chose this course of action of debatible. My very best guess is akin to the “The Truce of 1968." Had JPII actually cracked-down on the abuse, he might not have been as popular as he was. It may even have triggered a schism (of sorts) here in the USA. Had he continued to ignore the problem, he might have seemed even more effete than usual.

Thank you for your answer.

 

[AltarMan]

mrs_abbott:

The decision is done to make girls altar servers, for now. There’s nothing we as lay people can do to change that except write letters, protest, etc. if one feels that strongly against it. All I stated in my original post is that I WISH it didn’t happen. People have taken the original post and made it out to be war on little girls who serve.
It’s like the gossip circle in grade school when someone starts something and by the end of the circle, it’s misconstrued and taken WAY out of proportion.
But again, I guess that’s Freedom of Speech, the reason this post was started in the first place.

LOL! So very true. Remember though, even by only suggesting that you wish the change had not been made, you bring a focus to a tiny foot-hold the sexist/feminists have in the sanctuary. Any questioning of that is a challange to said foot-hold and is therefore verboten…

 

[Catholic2003]

AltarMan:

If what you suggest is true, it wouldn’t have taken 10 years for a responsum – the sexist/feminists would have demanded it the moment the ink dried on the 1983 revision.

Those who supported female altar servers had no need of a dubium; the canon law had already been changed, and female altar servers were already being implemented.

AltarMan:

At this very moment, if the Holy See admitted to making the mistake it did when it caved in 1994, and again prohibited females from serving do you honestly believe there would be a high degree of compliance?

In a word, “no.”

What a poor opinion of the Holy See you must have, if you think the Pope would fail to do the right thing merely because of how it would be received. Did Pope Paul VI decide not teach against contraception because the laity wouldn’t comply? Did Pope John Paul II decide not teach against women priests because of the inevitable dissent? The answer in both cases is a resounding “NO”.

Your hypothesized scenarios about the Holy See “caving in” to feminists are completely lacking in logical consistency as well as in any semblance to the historical facts.