Male-only Altar Servers?

[Melissa]

No–there’s a significant difference between doing something forbidden (using female altar servers before permission was given) and not doing something which is permitted (not using female altar servers after permission was given). Nowhere has there ever been a requirement to add female altar servers.

 

[beng]

Catholic2003:

From the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, page 1103:

Authentic interpretations are defined in canon 16, and merely declarative interpretations are actually retroactive. Indults are singular administrative acts defined in canon 35. Thus, contrary to your post, the fact that female altar servers are not prohibited could not possibly be an indult.

Canon 230.2 has a permissive and not a preceptive character: “laici … possunt´." ("lay persons ... may´.”) Hence the permission given in this regard by some bishops can in no way be considered as binding on other bishops. In fact, it is the competence of each bishop, in his diocese, after hearing the opinion of the episcopal conference, to make a prudential judgment on what to do, with a view to the ordered development of liturgical life in his own diocese.

If in some diocese, on the basis of Canon 230.2, the bishop permits that, for particular reasons, women may also serve at the altar, this decision must be clearly explained to the faithful in the light of the above-mentioned norm. It shall also be made clear that the norm is already being widely applied, by the fact that women frequently serve as lectors in the liturgy and may also be called upon to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and to carry out other functions, according to the provisions of the same Canon 230.2.

Sorry, female Altar Server should not be a norm. It require permission by Bishop and it needs to be explained to the faithful. Both are never done properly.

I’m not aware of a 1960 year old Church tradition of discriminating against left-handed altar servers.

I’m aware of 1960 years of church tradition prohibiting Female Altar Server. Which is still enforce amongst Eastern Catholic and Orthodox.

 

[Maggie]

Crusader:

Finally, women cannot be lectors in the Catholic Church. That installed ministry is up only to males. They can be readers however.

What’s the difference?

And as far as altar girls vs. altar boys… girls are more aggressive than boys and since we’ve got a shortage of priestly vocations anyway, anything that would help those numbers seems like it would be worthwhile. It seems to me like the altar girls thing started when people believed that women were actually going to be ordained someday. Now that that’s been put to rest, it’s time to recognize where the altar girl concept sprang from and quietly remove it.

 

[TLM_Altar_Boy]

Catholic2003:

• The fact that you consider failing to discriminate against females to be misandry says a lot about your own attitude towards women.
• The fact that I characterize your proposal to categorically disallow females as being altar servers … as discriminating against females clearly shows that I know how to use the dictionary.
• I wonder why the Holy Father couldn’t figure that out. Are you claiming to know more about the subject that he does?
• So it appears that your disdain for “permissions born from disobedience” is somewhat selective, and only applies to those Church decisions that you already personally disagree with.
• I guess you aren’t very familiar with the Church’s teachings on social justice, then.

Catholic2003, you have long since passed the realm of friendly debate and have now begun to attack personally those who disagree with you. I encourage you to reread your posts and refrain from making both general assumptions and personal attacks in the future.

 

[Catholic2003]

Melissa:

No–there’s a significant difference between doing something forbidden (using female altar servers before permission was given) and not doing something which is permitted (not using female altar servers after permission was given). Nowhere has there ever been a requirement to add female altar servers.

Prior to the 2001 CDW instruction, there were some bishops who were requiring the priests in their diocese to add female altar servers. And some of the priests refused, despite their vow of obedience to their bishop. So the 2001 CDW instruction was unquestionably born of disobedience.

 

[beng]

Catholic2003:

Prior to the 2001 CDW instruction, there were some bishops who were requiring the priests in their diocese to add female altar servers. And some of the priests refused, despite their vow of obedience to their bishop. So the 2001 CDW instruction was unquestionably born of disobedience.

And they (the priests) were rightly to challange Bishops ruling [that Female Altar Server is a must] and the CDW confirmed their (the priests) stand

 

[Catholic2003]

TLM Altar Boy:

Catholic2003, you have long since passed the realm of friendly debate and have now begun to attack personally those who disagree with you. I encourage you to reread your posts and refrain from making both general assumptions and personal attacks in the future.

You are completely correct. I apologize. In future, I will watch the wording of my posts to make sure that they focus on the ideas under discussion and not the people who advance those ideas.

 

[Crusader]

Catholic2003:

I guess you aren’t very familiar with the Church’s teachings on social justice, then. The Church was and still is quite vocal in pointing out the unjustness of America’s discrimination against blacks.

“Social justice” (AKA political correctness in this case) should not be allowed to drive the celebration of the Mass.

 

[Catholic2003]

beng:

And they (the priests) were rightly to challange Bishops ruling [that Female Altar Server is a must] and the CDW confirmed their (the priests) stand

This is just a different way of saying the same thing. Using this phraseology, the bishops who allowed female altar servers prior to the 1992 authentic interpretation and the 1994 CDW instruction were right to do so, and the PCILT and CDW confirmed their stand.

So if it is incorrect to say that the 2001 CDW instruction was born of disobedience, then it is equally incorrect to say that the 1994 CDW instruction was born of disobedience.

 

[Crusader]

Catholic2003:

Just as some suggested that having “separate but equal” schools was actually better for blacks. People who endorse discrimination seem to have an unlimited capacity for self-delusion in these matters.

Making sure that young girls have an early positive experience with the Church is very helpful for their vocations, whether it is to become a nun, or to marry and be the mother of future priests, or however else they can serve Christ.

Conversely, the negative consequences of having a young girl’s early experience with the Church be one of being the target of unjust discrimination can be just as devastating.

Looking up misandry in the dictionary gives the definition as “the hatred or oppression of males.” You have to be pretty warped to think that wanting to make sure that young girls to experience the Church as a fair and just institution constitutes the hatred or oppression of males.

You’re struggling to make this into a sexist/feminist issue and it’s not. It’s about priestly vocations and doing absolutely everything we can to support and encourage them.

I think altar server programs deserve a great deal of support. They need respected and strong men to organize them. They need solid priests to lead them. When was the last time you heard of a group of altar boys going on retreat together? WHen was the last time you noticed a group of altar servers with a strong espirit de corps? That bond of fellowship is now gone for the most part.

Secular society has already taken a great toll on the Church in the USA. Let’s keep social causes and misandry out of the sanctuary so we can focus on God and His Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Catholic2003]

“Social justice” (AKA political correctness in this case) should not be allowed to drive the celebration of the Mass.

Social justice is more than political correctness. And given that the focus of the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ, it is only logical that Christian ideals of social justice should be allowed in the Mass. To do otherwise is to tell Christ, “We’re too busy worshiping you to actually follow your ideals.”

 

[beng]

Catholic2003:

This is just a different way of saying the same thing. Using this phraseology, the bishops who allowed female altar servers prior to the 1992 authentic interpretation and the 1994 CDW instruction were right to do so, and the PCILT and CDW confirmed their stand.

So if it is incorrect to say that the 2001 CDW instruction was born of disobedience, then it is equally incorrect to say that the 1994 CDW instruction was born of disobedience

It seems that the Bishop added Female Altar Server just because of pressure not out of necessity. So who is more right? The priest, who felt that there really is no need for female altar server, or the Bishop?

I don’t realize that prior 2001 when the Bishop allowed female altar server per 1992 instruction and 1994 CDW instruction it somehow change meaning to required all priest to have female altar server.

If you can provide source where such change, or maybe similiar change, had occured then you can have your argument.

 

[beng]

Catholic2003:

Social justice is more than political correctness. And given that the focus of the Mass is the sacrifice of Christ, it is only logical that Christian ideals of social justice should be allowed in the Mass. To do otherwise is to tell Christ, “We’re too busy worshiping you to actually follow your ideals.”

Christ have 12 disciple. All males.

After Christ resurrectiom, no one is making Mother Mary or Mary Magdalene a priest.

And if you read detail vision of Anne Catherine Emeerich (it’s not binding btw) you’ll know that Mother Mary did not serve any priestly function. She just accept the communion during Mass.

 

[Catholic2003]

Crusader:

You’re struggling to make this into a sexist/feminist issue and it’s not. It’s about priestly vocations and doing absolutely everything we can to support and encourage them.

I’m not “struggling” to do anything. Recognizing the prohibition of female altar servers as discrimination is a simple matter of looking up the word “discrimination” in the dictionary. I don’t see how that can credibly be termed a “struggle.”

Crusader:

I think altar server programs deserve a great deal of support.

So do I. The difference is that you want to limit this support to only boys and men, whereas I think that all who wish to grow in their love of Christ should be supported.

 

[Iohannes]

Pope John Paul II - Inaestimable Donum - “Women may not act as altar servers”

Pope John Paul II - “…women serve has always been condemned by my predecessors as written in stone”

Pope John Paul II - “…it is a truly noble and bimillenial tradtion to have only boys and men serve the altar. It is the training ground to the priesthood”

 

[Catholic2003]

beng:

It seems that the Bishop added Female Altar Server just because of pressure not out of necessity.

It seems to me that bishops allowed female altar servers because it was the right thing to do. Since both of us are just guessing here, I don’t think there is any point in further speculation.

beng:

So who is more right? The priest, who felt that there really is no need for female altar server, or the Bishop?

Who is more right: the U.S. government, who says that we should drive on the right side of the road, or the individual motorist who feels that it is more efficient to drive on the left side of the road? The answer is that it doesn’t matter who is more right; the correct question to ask is who has the authority to decide the issue.

Before 2001, the bishop is the one who had the authority over this issue in his own diocese. The question of who you or I consider to be more right is irrelevant to this authority.

beng:

I don’t realize that prior 2001 when the Bishop allowed female altar server per 1992 instruction and 1994 CDW instruction it somehow change meaning to required all priest to have female altar server.

If you can provide source where such change, or maybe similiar change, had occured then you can have your argument.

From Adoremus Bulletin:

The Congregation’s letter said that the bishop who originally sought the guidance of the Congregation asked “whether a Diocesan Bishop would be able to oblige his priests to admit women and girls to service at the altar”. The Congregation’s answer is a very firm “no”. Priests may not be required to utilize altar girls, contrary to what some American bishops may have believed. (Press reports indicated this was the prevailing view of the letter.)

 

[Catholic2003]

Iohannes:

Pope John Paul II - Inaestimable Donum - “Women may not act as altar servers”

Inaestimabile Donum was abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

 

[Melissa]

Catholic2003:

Prior to the 2001 CDW instruction, there were some bishops who were requiring the priests in their diocese to add female altar servers. And some of the priests refused, despite their vow of obedience to their bishop. So the 2001 CDW instruction was unquestionably born of disobedience.

Requiring female altar servers would be exceeding the authority given to the bishop. ‘May’ does not equal ‘must’.

 

[beng]

Catholic2003:

It seems to me that bishops allowed female altar servers because it was the right thing to do. Since both of us are just guessing here, I don’t think there is any point in further speculation.

Not really. The norm is male. Female needs to have an indult and it’s not “required.” It’s “allowed.”

So if the Bishop at that time “required” it, then they were incorrect.

Who is more right: the U.S. government, who says that we should drive on the right side of the road, or the individual motorist who feels that it is more efficient to drive on the left side of the road?

Refrain from using false analogy

The answer is that it doesn’t matter who is more right; the correct question to ask is who has the authority to decide the issue.

The utmost authority is from the Pope and look at what Iohanes put (man why’d I forget about that).

And the Bishops has no authority to “required” female altar server.

Before 2001, the bishop is the one who had the authority over this issue in his own diocese. The question of who you or I consider to be more right is irrelevant to this authority.

Again, the Bishop authority is to allowed or disalowed, not to required.

You can have your argument if the law say that female altar server is required.

From Adoremus Bulletin:

This supports my understanding.

 

[Acadien]

In large parish’s, yes, but smaller parish’s dont have enough capable and willing children as it is to staff the alter server team, and they wouldnt be able too.

I do like the idea of sticking to tradition with male-only servers, not to discriminate against girls (<— Me appeasing all the feminists out their) but it has always been males, and in my own (humble) opinion, it makes everything uniform. At least we dont practice Orthodox beliefs and the Tabernacle isnt some big mystery to females…