Girls as alter servers

[AltarMan]

GeorgiaCatholic:

Altar Man,

You seem to think slinging “sexist-feminist” around is the ultimate trump card. Can we separate this from the question of altar girls for the moment? I do not consider myself a “feminist” in the sense you seem to mean it. I do strive to understand what my role as a woman is expected to be in the Church. **You might see it as a weakness on my part and think that I should just accept my “lowly” state and learn to live quietly with that rather than strive to find the worthy role God intended for women. ** I do think God and the members of the Church think motherhood is a very worthy and holy role for a woman to have and I thank God for allowing me to be one. What about all the women in the world who are not lucky enough to be a mother? What about all the women in the world who aren’t wives? Is there no other worthy and holy role for them to fill? You seem to feel that the Church is headed for ruin because there are too many women involved already. Society and the Church have seemed to value the role of nun less and less. I am not saying women should be priests. I can see many reasons why this is not a good idea even if it was possible. Those reasons are practical ones not for the reason that women can’t be as holy as men and would “dirty” the sacrafice. So where does that leave women in your mind?

1.) In practice, the term “feminism” is nothing more than a euphemism for “sexism.” I have never seen an exception to this, except when it’s a euphemism for out-and-out misandry.

2.) You have a problem that is shown by your use of “lowly.” Just what do you mean by “strive to find the worthy role God intended for women?” Are you one of those women that craves to be a deaconess?

3.) Women are equal to men. Women are also different than men. If you have trouble with either statement, that’s on you. Please keep in mind that the Church is not going to bend to meet the (current and ever changing) demands of popular culture. I think that is a shock to many…

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**Please make every effort to depersonalize postings: address issues, not particular individual situations. **

 

[ComradeAndrei]

In certain regions, the historical evidence for “once in a lifetime” is so overwhelmingly conclusive that it cannot be denied. However, the preponderance of the evidence is that the “once in a lifetime” rule applied in all regions.

The “once in a lifetime” rule applied for serious public sins (like murder and adultery).

Either way, I will read up on it.

However, nothing changes the fact that abuse does not bring about change. I know Confession has developed throughout the centuries, but abuse (sin) did not cause said change. Only the Church, through Her great wisdom and maternal care for Her children, decides if she should ease their burden-they do not.

 

[netmilsmom]

dwc:

I find the assumption that boys should automatically shun any activity just because girls are involved troublesome and unhealthy. My son (10.5) played indoor soccer all winter in a coed league. All of the kids on the team were serious about soccer and played very well as a team. My son and his friend had no problem playing on a team with girls.

Honestly, study after study after study says boys are wired differently than girls.
The modern push of Acceptance of the opposite sex has gotten us to a really strange place with teenagers (go check out “myspace” and see). That happy development of the feminist push is what is troublesome and unhealthy. Losing an entire generation of boys who have no clue what the strong and protective role they are assigned by God is the most troublesome thing of all.

Your son, of course, would not care whether he was playing soccer with girls, as long as in his male wired competitive brain they were an asset to his team. As long as they were great soccer players. That’s what sport is about.

This is less about sport and more about taking away the significance of boys in our religion. HllsBlls society in general. “Girls Rule” is something that I am NOT teaching my girls. In fact, they are told their place. Next to the boys, not above them. They have no problem with Altar Boys/Choir girls. No Catholic should.

 

[netmilsmom]

GeorgiaCatholic:

Can we separate this from the question of altar girls for the moment? I do not consider myself a “feminist” in the sense you seem to mean it. I do strive to understand what my role as a woman is expected to be in the Church. You might see it as a weakness on my part and think that I should just accept my “lowly” state and learn to live quietly with that rather than strive to find the worthy role God intended for women. I do think God and the members of the Church think motherhood is a very worthy and holy role for a woman to have and I thank God for allowing me to be one. What about all the women in the world who are not lucky enough to be a mother? What about all the women in the world who aren’t wives? Is there no other worthy and holy role for them to fill? You seem to feel that the Church is headed for ruin because there are too many women involved already. Society and the Church have seemed to value the role of nun less and less. I am not saying women should be priests. I can see many reasons why this is not a good idea even if it was possible. Those reasons are practical ones not for the reason that women can’t be as holy as men and would “dirty” the sacrafice. So where does that leave women in your mind?

Um, in our world of the past, Nuns were most important women of our lives, right after mom. They were the nurses who brought you into the world and helped you leave with dignity. They taught us, they fed us when we had no food, they clothed us when we had nothing to wear, they were with us when society shunned us.

Now why do you think they are not as important any more?
Could it be because their role was marginalized by lay women who pushed the feminist agenda???

We reap what we sow.

 

[davy39]

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.

Altarman–1. No there isn’t anybody “holding a gun to my head”. I have as much right to comment as anybody else. 2. I wasn’t trying to insult anybody. I just believe we are trying to beat a dead horse. 3. I believe the 40% statistic was stated by our parish priest on the feast of Corpus Christi during his homily, which was calling for more reverance for the Body of Christ. By the way, what did you mean about “people like me”? .4. I am speaking for myself and many others that are trying to educate themselves so we can better represent the Church if we need to. Have a nice day!

 

[mikew262]

dwc:

I have two daughters and a son. My oldest daughter and my son are altar servers. My youngest daughter is not old enough, but she will serve when she is. My oldest daughter wanted to serve and does a very reverent job and takes it very seriously. My son didn’t want to serve and does it out of protest. He doesn’t like it, doesn’t want to be in front of all those people and complains how we make him when his friends’ parents don’t make them. In our parish school about 65% of the servers are girls.

Now some of you will say the boys don’t want to because the girls do it – hogwash. They do all other sorts of activities, sports, etc with girls and don’t complain about it. As far as girl altar servers being the cause of reduced priest vocations – the timing doesn’t match up. The number of newly ordained priests had dropped off way before altar girls became accepted. There were a lot of other societal changes which affected boys’ desires to become priests before altar girls.

Exactly.

Good post!!

 

[mikew262]

AltarMan:

Obviously somebody thought a response was necessary, because the question was asked. You live in fantasy if you believe the Church cleared the way for altar girls in 1983. It happened it 1994.

I don’t have a low opinion of the Holy See, although I certainly wish JPII had done a better job of administering the Church during his otherwise magnificent tenure.

I do however have a very low opinion of the dissenters and abusers that back the Church into nasty corners such as this one. In this case it was the sexist-feminists and their supporters, much like their participation in the Truce of 1968.

You brought-up artificial contraception. Thanks be to God that Pope JPII stood the ground on that one. While I don’t equate altar girls to the killing of innocent babies, I know first hand that there are large numbers of “Catholics” (many of whom are sexist-feminists in their own right) who are doing everything in their power to undermine the Church when it comes to this area. The very same type of person in many cases that encouraged altar girls long before they were approved by the Church.

Take as many shots as you like, but your sexist-feminist agenda has been underscored each and every time this topic has surfaced.

Contraception = killing innocent babies? What??!! Contraception prevents fertilization from taking place. It’s not killing anything. Yes, both are against church doctrine, but they are 2 different subjects. Off the thread subject, but this needed clarification.

 

[AltarMan]

mikew262:

Contraception = killing innocent babies? What??!! Contraception prevents fertilization from taking place. It’s not killing anything. Yes, both are against church doctrine, but they are 2 different subjects. Off the thread subject, but this needed clarification.

You are so very wrong!

Many artificial “contraceptives” are abortifacients. While they are marketed as “contraceptives” they are indeed abortifacients.

Your comments did absolutely nothing to clarify anything – they just added confusion to the conversation. Do you homework next time.

 

[AltarMan]

davy39:

Altarman–1. No there isn’t anybody “holding a gun to my head”. I have as much right to comment as anybody else. 2. I wasn’t trying to insult anybody. I just believe we are trying to beat a dead horse. 3. I believe the 40% statistic was stated by our parish priest on the feast of Corpus Christi during his homily, which was calling for more reverance for the Body of Christ. By the way, what did you mean about “people like me”? .4. I am speaking for myself and many others that are trying to educate themselves so we can better represent the Church if we need to. Have a nice day!

1.) Who is forcing you to read the thread? LOL!

2.) So? Why add to the beating in that case?

3.) It’s garbage.

4.) Begin by working on your statistics.

 

[AltarMan]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Um, in our world of the past, Nuns were most important women of our lives, right after mom. They were the nurses who brought you into the world and helped you leave with dignity. They taught us, they fed us when we had no food, they clothed us when we had nothing to wear, they were with us when society shunned us.

Now why do you think they are not as important any more?
Could it be because their role was marginalized by lay women who pushed the feminist agenda???

We reap what we sow.

Excellent posting!

 

[Ham1]

Altarman,

Whoa…Relax!

There is seething rage dripping from your keyboard.

It seems to me that the entire discussion comes down to: Did the Holy See affirm that this is allowed out of desparation? Or did the Holy See affirm that this is allowed because they believed it to be the correct interpretation of Canon Law? Either it is a genuine decision or there is conspiracy afoot!!! (Cue: scary music).

Of course, you are free to believe that the Holy See was acting in a corrupt fashion but you should probably keep that to yourself unless you can provide solid evidence that their decision really was an act of “caving” and not an act of genuine interpretation. So far, it seems you have provided much speculation and little evidence as to their reasoning. Unless there is evidence indicating that they just “gave-in” to outside feminist pressures, then there is really little left to discuss.

Thanks!

 

[AltarMan]

Ham1:

Altarman,

Whoa…Relax!

There is seething rage dripping from your keyboard.

It seems to me that the entire discussion comes down to: Did the Holy See affirm that this is allowed out of desparation? Or did the Holy See affirm that this is allowed because they believed it to be the correct interpretation of Canon Law? Either it is a genuine decision or there is conspiracy afoot!!! (Cue: scary music).

Of course, you are free to believe that the Holy See was acting in a corrupt fashion but you should probably keep that to yourself unless you can provide solid evidence that their decision really was an act of “caving” and not an act of genuine interpretation. So far, it seems you have provided much speculation and little evidence as to their reasoning. Unless there is evidence indicating that they just “gave-in” to outside feminist pressures, then there is really little left to discuss.

Thanks!

Please don’t lie. Other than perhaps the posting that suggested that artificial contraception could not be a form of killing babies I feel no “seething rage.” Even it that case it was more of a mild case of irratation.

I don’t think anyone here has ever suggested the Holy See did not approve the use of altar girls. It would be impossible however to ignore the septic genesis surrounding this approval and the simple fact that all slots for serving at the altar should go to males who might possibly be discerning a possible vocation to the priesthood or diaconate. Argue as hard as you want, but that fact is painfully obvious.

Please don’t try to squelch discussion on this matter. While you may not find it productive, you’re also not forced to read threads that deal with this subject.

 

[mrs_abbott]

It wasn’t meant to be hurtful, that’s why I asked the simple question. I simply am trying to understand the viewpoints of others that don’t match mine.
By the way, a person’s worth is judged in God’s eyes, not man’s. God sees what’s deep inside, as opposed to man who just sees what is put forth. Each person is different and unique in his/her own way. Afterall, God created us all differently with different gifts and blessings. That’s why you’ll never find two people who are exactly alike.
George Waters:

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?

 

[Ham1]

AltarMan:

Please don’t lie. Other than perhaps the posting that suggested that artificial contraception could not be a form of killing babies I feel no “seething rage.” Even it that case it was more of a mild case of irratation.

I don’t think anyone here has ever suggested the Holy See did not approve the use of altar girls. It would be impossible however to ignore the septic genesis surrounding this approval and the simple fact that all slots for serving at the altar should go to males who might possibly be discerning a possible vocation to the priesthood or diaconate. Argue as hard as you want, but that fact is painfully obvious.

Please don’t try to squelch discussion on this matter. While you may not find it productive, you’re also not forced to read threads that deal with this subject.

For the record, I didn’t lie. I have no way of knowing what if anything is “dripping” from your keyboard. I believe that it was understood that it appears to me that “seething rage is dripping from your keyboard.” I apologize for any confusion.

Also for the record, I am not some huge supporter of altar girls.

I don’t think anyone here has ever suggested the Holy See did not approve the use of altar girls.

I totally agree. We know that they did in fact approve them. What is being questioned by you is their motivation behind such an action.

So, there are 2 options:

1. The Holy See, without “caving” in any way, legitimately affirmed that altar girls are acceptable under Canon Law.

OR

1. The Holy See affirmed that altar girls are acceptable under Canon Law only because of “septic genesis” and outside pressures.

I subscribe to scenario 1 which I think should be the default position unless evidence can be shown that supports option 2. It is prudent for us to accept the Church’s teaching without going out of our way to suspect their motivation.

So far, you claim option 2 and yet present no evidence at all to support your claim. Why not provide some evidence that option 2 is indeed the truth since it is as you say “painfully obvious”?

 

[mrs_abbott]

Very much agreed. This world needs some good ladies to be great nuns! They lead a great life of service to God and the Church by sacrificing everything in the world to better serve God and follow the example of Mary, our Virgin Mother.
netmil(name removed by moderator):

Um, in our world of the past, Nuns were most important women of our lives, right after mom. They were the nurses who brought you into the world and helped you leave with dignity. They taught us, they fed us when we had no food, they clothed us when we had nothing to wear, they were with us when society shunned us.

Now why do you think they are not as important any more?
Could it be because their role was marginalized by lay women who pushed the feminist agenda???

We reap what we sow.

 

[George_Waters]

mrs_abbott:

It wasn’t meant to be hurtful, that’s why I asked the simple question. I simply am trying to understand the viewpoints of others that don’t match mine.
By the way, a person’s worth is judged in God’s eyes, not man’s. God sees what’s deep inside, as opposed to man who just sees what is put forth. Each person is different and unique in his/her own way. Afterall, God created us all differently with different gifts and blessings. That’s why you’ll never find two people who are exactly alike.

Please do not think I immediately assumed you were trying to be hurtful. That is why I asked as I simply could not see how her statement could be considered feminist. The statement seemed, in my opinion, a very Christian one.
As has been noted “feminist” has been hurled about on this thread as an attack against those of a differing opinion and many have been labeled this though they do not consider themselves feminist and by definition are not. While our opinions differ, I have not found you to be judgmental or to question the beliefs or motivations of others. Besides, I will always give a fellow Kansan the benefit of the doubt!

I agree with your statement about God knowing a person’s worth. That is God’s dominion, not ours and should be left to Him.

God Bless!

 

[mikew262]

AltarMan:

You are so very wrong!

Many artificial “contraceptives” are abortifacients. While they are marketed as “contraceptives” they are indeed abortifacients.

Your comments did absolutely nothing to clarify anything – they just added confusion to the conversation. Do you homework next time.

I’m talking devices or drugs that prevent the egg and sperm from joining, thus you are not killing anything. This is how most people view the use of contraceptives. Something like the “morning after pill” which I suppose comes under the guise of contraception, I agree with you on, does kill the fetus. Your remark however was misleading, it needed to be clarified.

BTW, spare me the sarcastic remarks. It weakens any case you are trying to make.

 

[Giannawannabe]

mikew262:

I’m talking devices or drugs that prevent the egg and sperm from joining, thus you are not killing anything. This is how most people view the use of contraceptives. Something like the “morning after pill” which I suppose comes under the guise of contraception, I agree with you on, does kill the fetus. Your remark however was misleading, it needed to be clarified.

BTW, spare me the sarcastic remarks. It weakens any case you are trying to make.

Many contraceptives, especially The Pill, are abortifacient in nature, not just the “morning after pill”. days.org/birthcontrol.html

 

[mikew262]

Giannawannabe:

Many contraceptives, especially The Pill, are abortifacient in nature, not just the “morning after pill”. days.org/birthcontrol.html

That is not correct. If used for it’s intended purpose, The “Pill” prevents ovulation. No egg, no baby. However, if you took the “Pill”, after you were pregnant, then yes, I’m sure it could cause an abortion. BTW, my info source is WebMD.