Going back to male servers?

[minkymurph]

This is tricky. “Perceiving” it as a step towards ordination is different than it actually being, in many cases, a step towards ordination. I suspect you chose that word carefully and inserted it equally as carefully. Perception is very damaging to reality.

Well spotted. I did choose the word carefully to accommodate contrasting views held in relation to the meaning and purpose of serving at altar. Some see it as a step towards ordination and some don’t.

If our perception of altar service being a step towards ordination is that it is not, one of our subsequent and natural follow-up actions is to open altar service to females. However, our perception is fickle. It changes as our social surroundings change, regardless of true reality.

True.

With that said, it is very obvious that in many cases, if not most, altar service actually is a step towards ordination. I mean “step” only in the sense that it usually applies, not that it is any way mandatory. Again, if females, either because altar service is not perceived as a common step towards ordination or for some other reason, are allowed to serve at the altar, it acts upon a natural tendency of boys of a certain age, which is the natural problem, and creates another problem.

I have stated several times that young boys, by their developmental nature, go through a “girls are icky” phase. Different cultures handle this in different ways, with some stringently discouraging it and others ignoring it or letting it play out its course. In either case, it is still present to some degree or another, and discourages male altar service to a degree commensurate with how much this phase is put up with or not.

Perhaps, but I do think this one is being overplayed and it’s not the real issue. If boys were queuing up to be altar servers, weren’t put off by the girls at all, and all the girls were impeccable in their service, there would still be people saying girls shouldn’t be altar servers.

The created problem is of a logistical nature. As there are only so many masses and so many altar service duties to be carried out, there are only so many altar servers used every week in a parish. Even if in some societies the above-mentioned “phase” is discouraged and plays little part in a boy’s development because of that discouragement, and there are simply tons of male volunteers for altar service, they still have to compete with females for a chance to actually serve. Disclaimer: I know what the preceding sentence sounds like; oh, those poor boys!, but that is not what I mean. Logically, it makes sense, and reality is faithful to this logic.

Well as you’ve put in a disclaimer I’ll let that one go. I love disclaimers, they cover a multitude of sins.

I appreciate it would be disappointing, to say the least, to be told you can’t be an altar server due to over subscription. In addition, if tons of boys volunteered for altar service, they wouldn’t be able to serve each week. However, I’ve never known it to be the case that altar server positions are way over subscribed, (lucky parish if it is) and logistical difficulties are readily resolved. In may Parish they have a rota. Altar servers don’t get to serve each week, but everyone who wants to it gets the opportunity. I suppose it suits in my Parish 'cos a lot of people are away in the summer months. They have caravans and stuff and some of them live there all summer. We have a boat in a place called Fermanagh. As a student, I get long holidays and I stay down there with the kids in summer, (only coming home to do the washing, ) and the other half comes down at the weekend 'cos he’s working during the week. Where we are on the Lough determines what Mass I go to and the other half says I’m a real ‘Roman’ Catholic 'cos I ‘Rome’ all over the country to going to different Masses.

 

[Vianney33]

Have females ever been allowed to serve at the altar in the 2,000 year history of the Church up till the 1990’s?

And why did JPII explicitly forbid the practice in the early 80’s only to approve it in the 90’s? What drastically changed from the 80’s to the 90’s?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Have females ever been allowed to serve at the altar in the 2,000 year history of the Church up till the 1990’s?

And why did JPII explicitly forbid the practice in the early 80’s only to approve it in the 90’s? What drastically changed from the 80’s to the 90’s?

Nothing changed, but an opportunity was recognized in vague language of the canon law and was exploited.

 

[mlldrl]

At the risk or repeating myself I highly suggest those who are on the “it doesn’t harm boys” side of the argument to go to your public library and check out either or Dr. Sax books and read them with an open mind. Something is happening to boys in the US (maybe elsewhere) and it’s not good. While girls have been lifted up (rightly so) boys have lost ground. Something must change.

There’s a public school in my area that is at risk of being taken over because of poor performance. To turn the school around one of the actions taken is to separate the sexes. Boys and girls don’t go to class together, eat together or even share the same hallway. Thus far it’s helping.

For those who says that parents need to do a better job of teaching boys about the roles of women I’d say get real. If you really believe that sitting Bobby, Billy and Tommy down and having a talk with him about not being shy around girls is going to work then you’re nuts. It takes TIME and reinforcement to teach values like that.

I don’t recall what grade I was in but it was to be the first year of elementary school where boys and girls gym class was not co-ed. Then title 9 came down and they said that we couldn’t separate girls from boys. We all hated it. The girls hated dodge ball day and the boys hated jump rope day. Now in many places those ‘boy’ games have been eliminated completely. Just nuts.

There is a natural wild side to boys that is God given and good. But he must learn to use that power for good. Power under control is the mark of a man. Nowadays we are told to raise our sons to be wusses and wonder why they have no drive.

Boys and girls are different and we can meet their needs but their needs are not the same. We’ve sold out boys to lift up girls and that’s a mistake.

It is a mistake to have altar girls. There are other ways girls can serve the Church without supplanting boys.

M

 

[Corki]

I agree, equality does not mean everyone has the same tasks all the time. However, if the issue has everything to do with theology, then it should be discussed from a theological perspective. The argument ‘at a certain age boys don’t want to do things with girls, and don’t want to do what girls do’ cannot be termed a theological argument. It is better defined as an anthropological or sociological argument. In which case, it is equally valid to introduce counter-arguments of an anthropological or sociological nature.

You may have no aversion to men or women, but it is being argued some young boys have an aversion to doing something they see a girl can doing. Is doing something girls and boys do really all that bad? Should we be endorsing the view, covertly or otherwise, that it is? We know for certain boys aren’t put off doing other things because ‘the girls are doing it too.’ So why altar serving?

I can only speak for myself. ** I **have not argued that the reason to have all-boy altar servers is that boys are averse to serving with women. You can take that up with someone else. ** My **reasoning is that altar service is a way to tangibly bring the idea of a priestly vocation into the consiousness of more boys. For me, it’s not about the girls at all. There are lots of things for the girls to do - let them go do them. That’s not the topic of this thread. For me, having a group of boys dedicated to serving at the altar, developing that group in good Catholic fellowship and keeping the discussion of vocation active within the group is a good thing. It is a good environment to foster vocations. Having girls there just dilutes the message. And it’s a very theological message. Sure, there are other ways you could do this for boys. But this is a way that is already built into the liturgy and the traditions of the Church. Why destroy that and then have to build something new to fulfill the same purpose? (and the girls would probably complain about the new all-boy thing too )

Do you think it’s at least possible, that the boys just don’t want to become altar servers, that it there parents and/or teachers who want them to become altar servers and they are using this as an excuse?

Sure, it’s possible. But it’s just as possible that boys don’t volunteer to serve because they aren’t expected to. In my parish all the boys of age are expected to serve. Not all do, but that’s the expectation and if a boy doesn’t, he better be prepared with a good reason why not.

Do you think it’s at least possible that some boys and men would like to see all-male altar servers because they personally are more comfortable around men than women, and removing female altar servers would lessen their personal discomfort?

It’s possible but that has not been my experience. I have two boys who have served for many years. Sometimes the group is all boys, sometimes it’s mixed. In today’s culture, boys are quite comfortable around girls in many different situations.

While this is understandable, should we covertly or otherwise endorse the view that it is acceptable to be less comfortable around members of the opposite sex than our own?

Well, that’s really a topic for another thread. I think that we try to make our youth a little too comfortable around the opposite sex. Many young people have no sence of personal space, of modesty or of how their behavior should be moderated when in the presence of the opposite sex. They are overly familiar. Teen and pre-teens **should be **more comfortable in the company of their own sex. That’s the normal and healthy state at that age. But now you are going off into the area of psychology (my field of training) when I thought you wanted to stick with theology?

 

[Vianney33]

Nothing changed, but an opportunity was recognized in vague language of the canon law and was exploited.

Exploited by whom? JPII is the one who approved the practice.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Exploited by whom? JPII is the one who approved the practice.

Exploited by whiners who unfortunately put the Pope in a bad situation.

 

[Vianney33]

Exploited by whiners who unfortunately put the Pope in a bad situation.

What bad situation? The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff. He certainly could have kept the practice forbidden or else clarified the Canon in question in an orthodox manner.

 

[Melchior_1]

Exploited by whiners who unfortunately put the Pope in a bad situation.

Communist Russia and assassination attempts didn’t faze him. I guess they should have tried whining instead of gunfire.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Communist Russia and assassination attempts didn’t faze him. I guess they should have tried whining instead of gunfire.

That’s a little bit different, I think.

 

[Melchior_1]

That’s a little bit different, I think.

The guy went face to face with the man who shot him.

The man also put up with the whole SSPX debacle and didn’t cave (and offered a tangible solution in the form of the FSSP).

Whining and what not would not have fazed him.

 

[minkymurph]

At the risk or repeating myself I highly suggest those who are on the “it doesn’t harm boys” side of the argument to go to your public library and check out either or Dr. Sax books and read them with an open mind. Something is happening to boys in the US (maybe elsewhere) and it’s not good. While girls have been lifted up (rightly so) boys have lost ground. Something must change.

I agree boys have lost ground in the education stakes and it needs to be addressed.

There’s a public school in my area that is at risk of being taken over because of poor performance. To turn the school around one of the actions taken is to separate the sexes. Boys and girls don’t go to class together, eat together or even share the same hallway. Thus far it’s helping.

And there are other ways of addressing it that don’t involve segregation that have also been proven effective.

For those who says that parents need to do a better job of teaching boys about the roles of women I’d say get real. If you really believe that sitting Bobby, Billy and Tommy down and having a talk with him about not being shy around girls is going to work then you’re nuts.

I’d say hurling out what amounts to a personal insult, which ‘you’re nuts’ could be construed as, when an opinion you don’t share is voiced is pretty immature response. It’s also an exaggerated interpretation of what was said. My point was using ‘avoidance’ is a bad strategy as a means of dealing with something or someone that makes us feel uncomfortable. Sooner or later, a situation will arise when you cannot use ‘avoidance.’ It has also been proven using avoidance to deal with things we don’t like in life is a bad strategy.

It takes TIME and reinforcement to teach values like that.

Did anyone say it didn’t? Did anyone suggest having a talk with little Bobby or Tommy would have an immediate effect? But you have to start some time and the best time to start is when children are young. No point telling them it’s ok to think something at one point in their life, then tell them at a later time they have to think something else.

I don’t recall what grade I was in but it was to be the first year of elementary school where boys and girls gym class was not co-ed. Then title 9 came down and they said that we couldn’t separate girls from boys. We all hated it. The girls hated dodge ball day and the boys hated jump rope day. Now in many places those ‘boy’ games have been eliminated completely. Just nuts.

There are nutty things going on, like not wanting children to participate in sports because they feel like failures if they don’t win. I don’t think anyone here said boys shouldn’t be allowed to boys things or boy games should be stopped.

There is a natural wild side to boys that is God given and good. But he must learn to use that power for good. Power under control is the mark of a man. Nowadays we are told to raise our sons to be wusses and wonder why they have no drive.

Maybe that’s why altar girls scare them.

Boys and girls are different and we can meet their needs but their needs are not the same. We’ve sold out boys to lift up girls and that’s a mistake.

I wouldn’t entirely disagree with you there. But then if I’m ‘nuts,’ my opinion doesn’t count.

 

[minkymurph]

Well, that’s really a topic for another thread. I think that we try to make our youth a little too comfortable around the opposite sex. Many young people have no sence of personal space, of modesty or of how their behavior should be moderated when in the presence of the opposite sex. They are overly familiar. Teen and pre-teens **should be **more comfortable in the company of their own sex. That’s the normal and healthy state at that age. But now you are going off into the area of psychology (my field of training) when I thought you wanted to stick with theology?

I outlined my reasons but I will state them again. If anthropological and and sociological arguments are presented by those who against girls being altar servers, then those who have no objections to girls being altar servers are entitled to introduce anthropological and sociological counter-arguments.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Well spotted. I did choose the word carefully to accommodate contrasting views held in relation to the meaning and purpose of serving at altar. Some see it as a step towards ordination and some don’t.

From what I have read in this thread that is an incorrect assessment since it looks like the majority that support male only servers view the altar server position as a step toward encouraging priestly vocations in young boys. They (like myself) feel this way because the altar servers do what Acolytes do and as stated many times the office of Acolyte was a step for the seminarians as they work toward priestly ordination.

In laymen’s terms the Altar Server position was instituted for boys so they could job shadow their priest and this was done in the hopes that it would help those young lads recognize their calling if they had one.

Now if you know a certain person would never be able to work for your company, why would you let them job shadow you?

 

[minkymurph]

From what I have read in this thread that is an incorrect assessment since it looks like the majority that support male only servers view the altar server position as a step toward encouraging priestly vocations in young boys. They (like myself) feel this way because the altar servers do what Acolytes do and as stated many times the office of Acolyte was a step for the seminarians as they work toward priestly ordination.

This is an incorrect assessment of my meaning.

From what I have read in this thread, some people - irrespective of whether or not you agree with them, whether or not they are right, or whether or not they are in the majority - do not view the altar server position as a step towards entering the priesthood, and don’t think the altar server position should be seen as a step towards entering the priesthood. In addition we don’t know what position people viewing the thread but have not actually posted hold. Therefore, my assessment was not incorrect because people who think this exist.

Now if you know a certain person would never be able to work for your company, why would you let them job shadow you?

Yes - and it frequently happens. Many young people shadow someone in a profession or company they will never be able to work in for learning and experience. When I was at school, being sent as a volunteer to a range of different establishments for learning and experience was part of our education, irrespective of whether or not you would ever be able to work there. I enjoyed the experience and learned much from shadowing people who’s job I would never be able to, or even get a job in their particular establishment in terms of what their job involved, what their company did, and why people chose certain vocations.

However, there’s not many companies girls can’t work in our careers they can follow due to their gender. The same cannot be said of the priesthood so it could be argued they have no need to know or learn anything about what priests do, or why they chose that vocation 'cos they’re never going to become one.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

Yes - and it frequently happens. Many young people shadow someone in a profession or company they will never be able to work in for learning and experience. When I was at school, being sent as a volunteer to a range of different establishments for learning and experience was part of our education, irrespective of whether or not you would ever be able to work there. I enjoyed the experience and learned much from shadowing people who’s job I would never be able to, or even get a job in their particular establishment in terms of what their job involved, what their company did, and why people chose certain vocations.

Your missing the point since there is a possibility for the children to enter those professions, a possibility that does not exist when it comes to women and the priesthood. Whether or not the children end up working in the fields they shadow is irrelevant especially since they have the choice to either pursue them or to find something different.
.

However, there’s not many companies girls can’t work in our careers they can follow due to their gender. The same cannot be said of the priesthood so it could be argued they have no need to know or learn anything about what priests do, or why they chose that vocation 'cos they’re never going to become one.

Understanding the priesthood and job shadowing the priesthood are two completely different things since job shadowing is intended to be used to see if that career choice would be something you would like to pursue in the future. This is the purpose of job shadowing, to see if the places you shadow appeal to your interests.

 

[Bluegoat]

To say that the main purpose for altar servers is to create vocations is simply incorrect. That is not why altar servers were invented. The main purpose of altar servers is to fulfill particular functions. Giving vocations a chance to develop is a secondary issue.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

To say that the main purpose for altar servers is to create vocations is simply incorrect. That is not why altar servers were invented. The main purpose of altar servers is to fulfill particular functions. Giving vocations a chance to develop is a secondary issue.

I don’t agree at all with this. The Church didn’t need boys to assist at the altar but regardless they made these positions anyway. Now why do you think they would have done such a thing? It would seem that the secondary issue was actually the primary reason for why the altar server position was created. Not to mention this would explain why the server position was held as a male only function for as long as it was. The term Altar Server was for the longest time known as Altar Boy which implies the Church created the position for boys to allow them the opportunity to fulfill particular functions during the Mass for the sole purpose of encouraging vocations.

 

[Will_S]

To say that the main purpose for altar servers is to create vocations is simply incorrect. That is not why altar servers were invented. The main purpose of altar servers is to fulfill particular functions. Giving vocations a chance to develop is a secondary issue.

Altar servers are a replacement for acolytes. Acolyte is an office reserved to males. Hence it only makes sense that those persons filling in for acolytes be male. Everyone understood this. Pope Paul said that females cannot serve at the altar. Pope John Paul II said that females cannot serve at the altar.

But then, suddenly, it happened. Not by positive pronouncement (i.e.: I Pope XYZ, declare that females may serve at the altar),

but instead by bureaucratic grammar parsing (i.e.: I, bureaucratic functionary of the Holy See, notice that the word used for “altar server” in canon law, is not an exclusively masculine word, therefore it seems that females are not excluded, notwithstanding the fact that the text was written with the full understanding that only male persons were being referred to, and that even the current Pope has publicly stated that females may not serve.)

 

[minkymurph]

Your missing the point since there is a possibility for the children to enter those professions, a possibility that does not exist when it comes to women and the priesthood. Whether or not the children end up working in the fields they shadow is irrelevant especially since they have the choice to either pursue them or to find something different.

I’m not missing the point. What makes you think I was talking solely about professions?
I eluded to the possibility of children entering certain professions and working in certain establishments in my post, and mentioned this was not the case with the priesthood.

Understanding the priesthood and job shadowing the priesthood are two completely different things since job shadowing is intended to be used to see if that career choice would be something you would like to pursue in the future. This is the purpose of job shadowing, to see if the places you shadow appeal to your interests.

You were the one that made the comparison between job shadowing and the priesthood. I answered accordingly.

Sometimes, that is the purpose of shadowing, but not always. My husband has had apprentices shadow him, not because they are going to do the same job, but to learn something from him that directly relates to the career path they do want to follow. In fact, I know someone who worked alongside a biochemist for two years in order to become an accountant. Yes, I know they could have become either a biochemist or an accountant. The point I’m making is they shadowed the biochemist not to become one, but to develop certain skills, and enhance their knowledge of biochemistry while they were at it.