Phoenix Arizona Diocese Cathedral Won't Allow Girls Serve On Altar

[Brendan]

Having no idea what a swing torch was, I looked it up and gulped at the price. Your parishioners, besides providing their sons for your altar boy program, must be very generous.

We try to be generous, but I have no knowledge of how the parish got them. The program was already up and running well before we moved into the parish. The have been in use for a decade or more, and this parish has existed since the early 1900’s ( new church in a new location though). So those could be ‘leftoevers’.

When I was an altarboy back in the 70’s, my parish had a dozen swing torches that we used at Christmas and Easter. It could be that our parish got more swingtorches from other parishes than no longer desired them.

I was mentioning your parish record to one of the women who prepares the servers in our parish and her first comment wasn’t “So many vocations, how wonderful!” but, rather, “I thought the Church was trying to prevent abuse. Why would you insist on all boys and what are they doing to prevent abuse in their parish if the kids are always in contact with the priest?” That, sadly, indicates the mindset that we are dealing with in my part of the world, where the people have still not recovered from the Mount Cashel scandal.

If one wanted to prevent abuse, then the logical thing to do is to make one on one contact with the priest very difficult to do.

Having 70 altarboys around pretty much precludes the priest being alone with any boy, would it not

 

[Brendan]

True, but the role of altar server in most dioceses is not one of them. No one has a right to serve the community, including the priest, unless the community recognizes that service or acknowledges the call from God that a person may have to serve the community. As you say, it is not about having a right to serve the community, but of having the communal recognition (in our Church made legitimate by the local bishop) to do so.

Also, the Vatican has stated that even when the Bishop gives his approval, he cannon mandate that altar girls be used in a parish. Nor can a pastor mandate that an Associate Pastor or visiting priest use altar girls.

So the ‘terms’ under which a community accepts altar girls is contingent upon the bishop, the pastor and the celebrant allowing them to serve.

. I agree that where the bishop does not want female altar servers, there should be no female altar servers, but where the bishop does allow it, then no argument can be made against it.

The ‘argument’ against them, per the Vatican, can simply be that the celebrant does not desire them to serve. And that is something that the community is bound by obedience to accept.

 

[ChemicalBean]

As for sending the message of “Don’t really need you girls, need the boys more!”. Well, what’s the problem there? Girls know only men can be priests. Teach a child that this is trying to promote a vocation. No more priests - no more Mass, no more sacraments. We need priests. This is undeniable, and we shouldn’t be embarrassed to say it. But we also need women. As I have mentioned in this thread, women play an equally as important role in the Church. It is only a specific kind of axe-grinding feminist ideological stance that will target male only altar boys and cite it as an instance of girls being thrown to the side. Women have other duties and roles that the boys don’t get to do or aren’t encouraged to do. Think about it this way. If there was a war on my front step and they were calling up men to fight. On the other side, women were encouraged to help in manufacturing of weapons to help the war effort. Imagine I went the a factory and said “Oh so the message you send is that you don’t need men, you only need women, huh!”. Well… that’s not true at all. The message we’re sending is that you have a different role in our efforts, and forcefully and obstinately trying to choose this particular role doesn’t make it any less true that you have other roles. The analogy is obviously weak but you see the point.

This is an interesting analogy. I’d like to press it a little more. Suppose the war is over. Men are returning to the homeland and find women working at their old jobs in manufacturing. They are resentful that the presence of these women caused an economic shift. These women who have had to be resourceful heads of households now have marketable skills and earning power, and therefore decision-making ability and influence. The social order has changed and men must now compete and cooperate in it with women. Over time, they will necessarily learn that roles are flexible; as long as income is earned and spent/saved wisely, and family and domestic responsibilities are attended, then their households still thrive, just differently.

Sometimes that lesson is a hard one to learn. It may appear far easier to the old-order group (the men) to react against this new reality; to try to convince others with propaganda that the world is going to hell-in-a-handbasket and that the new order is somehow a radical, and thus dangerous, departure from the norm. Realistically, it was merely an evolution borne of necessity. You can’t go back again. Once those men try to demand their old jobs back or claim a higher wage or status for the same work simply for being a man, they do in fact send the message “We don’t need women, only men.”

This very phenomenon happened in the USA after World War II. There was a huge conservative push to make women see homemaking and mothering as the only respectable feminine work, so as to get them out of the factories. Even college educations for women were billed as most important in filling the role of “Mrs. Johnson.” Don’t believe me? Watch “The Home Economics Story” film, circa 1950. youtube.com/watch?v=nyDjXLLGxVk.

The point here, of course, is that the church discipline HAS changed. The presence of girls and women serving Mass has enriched the church, and the liturgy still thrives - just a little bit differently. Trying to revert it will ultimately look as quaint and backwards as this film does to us today, and smacks of fear. It does send the message “we don’t need girls…we need boys more”, and yes girls do take notice. Trying to convince girls that their place in church ministry is only in an altar-dusting society is about as ridiculous as this film’s depiction that womens’ place in scientific academia is studying the physics of a mixer.

 

[Tsuwano]

Also, the Vatican has stated that even when the Bishop gives his approval, he cannon mandate that altar girls be used in a parish. Nor can a pastor mandate that an Associate Pastor or visiting priest use altar girls.

So the ‘terms’ under which a community accepts altar girls is contingent upon the bishop, the pastor and the celebrant allowing them to serve.

The ‘argument’ against them, per the Vatican, can simply be that the celebrant does not desire them to serve. And that is something that the community is bound by obedience to accept.

Yes, I agree with your views in this post.

 

[Brendan]

The point here, of course, is that the church discipline HAS changed. The presence of girls and women serving Mass has enriched the church, and the liturgy still thrives - just a little bit differently. Trying to revert it will ultimately look as quaint and backwards as this film does to us today, and smacks of fear. .

But no one is doing any ‘reversion’.

Remember, the discipline changed to

Girls are permitted IF and ONLY IF

1. The bishop allows it in his diocese
2. The pastor allows it in his parish
3. The celebrant allows them at his Mass

So what the rector of the Phoenix Cathedral is doing is simply following the Discipline that the Church had outlined.

Here is the new discipline in it’s entirety. This is what the Church holds to in regards to altar girls.

Prot. N.2451/00/L

July 27, 2001

Your Excellency,

Further to recent correspondence, this Congregation resolved to undertake a renewed study of the questions concerning the possible admission of girls, adult women and women religious to serve alongside boys as servers in the Liturgy.

As part of this examination, the Dicastery consulted the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts which replied with a letter of July 23, 2001. The reply of the Pontifical Council was helpful in reaffirming that the questions raised by this Congregation, including the question of whether particular legislation could oblige individual priests in their celebration of the Holy Mass to make use of women to serve at the altar, do not concern the interpretation of the law, but rather are questions of the correct application of the law. The reply of the aforementioned Pontifical Council, therefore, confirms the understanding of this Dicastery that the matter falls within the competence of this Congregation as delineated by the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, § 62. Bearing in mind this authoritative response, this Dicastery, having resolved outstanding questions, was able to conclude its own study. At the present time, therefore, the Congregation would wish to make the following observations.

As is clear from the Responsio ad propositum dubium concerning can. 230, § 2, and its authentic interpretation (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, Prot. n. 2482/93 March 15, 1994, see Notitiae 30 [1994] 333-335), the Diocesan Bishop, in his role as moderator of the liturgical life in the diocese entrusted to his care, has the authority to permit service at the altar by women within the boundaries of the territory entrusted to his care. Moreover his liberty in this question cannot be conditioned by claims in favor of a uniformity between his diocese and other dioceses which would logically lead to the removal of the necessary freedom of action from the individual Diocesan Bishop. Rather, after having heard the opinion of the Episcopal Conference, he is to base his prudential judgment upon what he considers to accord more closely with the local pastoral need for an ordered development of the liturgical life in the diocese entrusted to his care, bearing in mind, among other things, the sensibilities of the faithful, the reasons which would motivate such a permission, and the different liturgical settings and congregations which gather for the Holy Mass (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, March 15, 1994, no. 1).

In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar, nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since “it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar” (Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conference, March 15, 1994, no. 2). Indeed, the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations (cf. ibid.)

With respect to whether the practice of women serving at the altar would truly be of pastoral advantage in the local pastoral situation, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, March 15, 1994, no. 4, cf. also can 228, §1, Interdicasterial Instruction Esslesiae de mysterio, August 15, 1997, no. 4, see Notitiae 34 [1998] 9-42). Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations.

Having thus confirmed and further clarified the contents of its previous response to Your Excellency, this Dicastery wishes to assure you of its gratitude for the opportunity to elaborate further upon this question and that it considers this present letter to be normative.

With every good wish and kind regard, I am, Sincerely yours in Christ,

Jorge A. Card. Medina Estévez
Prefect

 

[centurionguard]

Originally Posted by Brendan

With respect to whether the practice of women serving at the altar would truly be of pastoral advantage in the local pastoral situation, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, March 15, 1994, no. 4, cf. also can 228, §1, Interdicasterial Instruction Ecclesiae de misterio, August 15, 1997, no. 4, see Notitiae 34 [1998] 9-42). Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations.

Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations

And it would seem that in many parishes where women and girls outnumber men and boys on the Sanctuary it does nonetheless cause widespread confusion IMHO.

I say this because in my parish women & girls are by far the majority.:sad_yes:

My parish isn’t the only parish like this in my Archdiocese.

It has nothing to do with being homophobic but my city has the biggest Gay & Lesbian Communities in Atlantic Maritime Canada.

I find myself picking at straws trying to understand why there are a lack of boys and young men serving on the Sanctuary with our priests.

 

[4elise]

As an altar boy living in the Diocese of Phoenix, I am glad Father John has decided to stop girls from being an altar servers. I have been discerning the priesthood, and I’m dismayed that there are no seminaries in Arizona. If more men goes to seminaries, maybe the state of Arizona can finally get a seminary.

You are an altar boy.
Have you served with girls?

If so, has serving with girls discouraged you to consider a vocation to the priesthood?
Would not allowing girls to serve encourage your vocation?

 

[4elise]

But remember, the numbers of priests fell down because of “The Spirit of Vatican II.”

What?

 

[4elise]

Amen, to the bishop. I am a woman and have no need to be in the Sanctuary or boss the Leaders of the Church. God speaks to man, He did so always.

Women trying to lead is a worldly thing and temptation and must be put aside such to obey our Lord.

As a woman, i say that if women want to become a nun, they must seek the convent. they must seek other nuns for inspiration and not the priests.
To me it is ackward to see girls sitting side by side with a priests. to see priests washing women’s feet. this is very worldly.

VII never allow girl altar servers. JPII give in to feminists pressure and allowed. now they know that is not a good to go agianst God’s plan.

Is it worldly to only agree with the Church when it agrees with what we believe? This priest is ‘following God’s plan’ by banning girl altar servers - all the other Bishops and Priests are going against ‘God’s plan’ by allowing it?

Here is Pope Benedict with girl servers, http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c305/benodette/Q1- Q2 2011/StCorb13.jpg

 

[4elise]

The article points out that female altar servers have been in place in American churches since 1983, yet the decline in vocations for the priesthood began long before that. Dioceses were already complaining of shortages in the late 60’s and early 70’s. How then is it possible to claim that female altar servers somehow prohibit boys from seeking the priesthood, as if females on the altar can trump the call and grace of the Holy Spirit? It’s a red herring designed to promote a particular vision of the Church in which the roles and power of women within the institution are limited. Now if someone wishes to defend or promote such a vision of Church, that’s fine, but don’t pretend that limiting girls from serving at the altar during mass will promote vocations to the priesthood. It will take something more than that.

Well said.

 

[4elise]

I do not see how allowing girls to fill a male role will help them seek a female role?

This is what confuses me.

Altar boys are not serving as ‘priests in training’ - but serving the priest during Mass.
Altar girls also serve the priest during Mass – all may go on to be Cantors, Lecturers, Eucharistic Ministers - as boys may be called to religious life and may serve as religious Brothers / girls to be religious Sisters -

Getting ALL young people more involved only strengthens our Church - it is especially difficult now to ‘take back’ this role - what discussions will take place in families where an older sister served and a younger one can not?

 

[4elise]

If the presence of girl altar servers causes there to be a loss of just one man from entering a vocation as a Priest, then that is one less pair of hands to bring us the Lord in the Eucharist, one less Priest to hear confessions, one less Priest to batpize, to marry, to annoint the sick. one less man of Holy Orders to teach, guide and direct the faithful. We need more Priests, not less.

With each rejected vocation that list applies.

One drop of rain can do no harm–yet a thunderstorm filled with drops of rain can lead to flooding and ruin. Big fish were once small fish that were simply allowed to grow.

Does the man, not following the calling have any responsibility?

A young man, called by God to serve as a priest will chose another life path because of girl altar servers? If this is all it would take to keep him from following God’s calling - is this really a loss?

 

[4elise]

IrishPatrick, your use of broad generalizations and unsupported conclusions makes it hard to have a conversation.

I’ll give you just a few points:

1. To say that X% of priests were altar servers means nothing. It’s like saying a certain number of people my age became CEOs because they had a lemonade stand at one point in their childhood. We all did! In my Catholic grade school, we were all altar boys at one point or another. You can’t say it caused a certain behavior, because the majority of boys who were altar servers did not become priests.
2. I know of many parents my age who, in the last 10 to 15 years, have refused to allow their boys to be altar boys. I don’t have to spell out why.
3. Saying Mass, while the penultimate experience for a priest, is only a small part of what a priest does every week. Encouraging boys to to believe that being a priest is all about dressing up in vestments and having everyone hang on their every word gives them a very skewed view of the priesthood. Vocations come from something deeper than, “I was an altar boy - I should be a priest.”
4. Being able to interact with both sexes as people of equal worth in the sight of God is a good thing for a boy to learn.

Each point well made -

 

[louis91766]

This is what confuses me.

Altar boys are not serving as ‘priests in training’ - but serving the priest during Mass.
Altar girls also serve the priest during Mass – all may go on to be Cantors, Lecturers, Eucharistic Ministers - as boys may be called to religious life and may serve as religious Brothers / girls to be religious Sisters -

Getting ALL young people more involved only strengthens our Church - it is especially difficult now to ‘take back’ this role - what discussions will take place in families where an older sister served and a younger one can not?

But how come young ladies serving at the altar are not covering their head as commanded by the Bible? Isn’t this giving a bad example since it shows that we don’t have to follow the Bible, but that we can make up our own rules in this case? As we see the icons and statues of Mary, the Mother of God, we always see her head covered.

 

[StAnastasia]

It has nothing to do with being homophobic but my city has the biggest Gay & Lesbian Communities in Atlantic Maritime Canada.
I find myself picking at straws trying to understand why there are a lack of boys and young men serving on the Sanctuary with our priests.

Perhaps because after the clergy sex scandal boys understandably don’t want to go anywhere near a priest.

 

[NewsTheMan]

Perhaps because after the clergy sex scandal boys understandably don’t want to go anywhere near a priest.

Yeah, because children, like axe-grinding adults, have the same thought that “minority accused, majority guilty”. Please. Children don’t think that about teachers, and they certainly don’t and shouldn’t think that about Priests who are innocent. And lets be clear here about this, so it’s only boys who go “oh, wait, all priests are pedo’s, better not be an altar boy” but girls are fine with it, laughing on their merry way to the altar saying “Don’t worry, it’s only boys their after, this sexual predator and I can work well together!”. Hmph.

Poor argument, poor line of thinking, and not grounded in anything.

 

[StAnastasia]

Poor argument, poor line of thinking, and not grounded in anything.

No. Good argument!

 

[Phemie]

Yeah, because children, like axe-grinding adults, have the same thought that “minority accused, majority guilty”. Please. Children don’t think that about teachers, and they certainly don’t and shouldn’t think that about Priests who are innocent. And lets be clear here about this, so it’s only boys who go “oh, wait, all priests are pedo’s, better not be an altar boy” but girls are fine with it, laughing on their merry way to the altar saying “Don’t worry, it’s only boys their after, this sexual predator and I can work well together!”. Hmph.

Poor argument, poor line of thinking, and not grounded in anything.

You may not believe that the children do but you’d better believe that their parents do and are not shy about telling you that they don’t want their boys alone with a priest anywhere – that’s why even first confession in our parish is in full view of the parents.

In order to get any servers in our parish, two women had to be there and the kids’ only contact with the priest is at the altar.

But I can assure you that kids do talk among themselves, even if they never tell their parents. I remember the schoolyard conversations of 40+ years ago when the altar servers warned each other to stay an arm’s length or two away from a certain cleric and boys who’d been committed to serving, quit saying “I didn’t become an altar server to be groped in the sacristy.”

 

[Benay]

Getting back to the issue of excluding girls/women from serving at the altar, for the expressed reason that this would increase priestly vocations among boys. I find this a spurious argument.

One post noted that a Nebraska parish where girls/women are excluded as altar servers, there are many priestly vocations. This post assumes that excluding girls/women from serving is the reason why there are so many vocations. I find this a simplitic assumption of cause and effect. I am sure, more is being done to encourage boys to consider the prieshood than simply excluding girls/women from the altar.

This drive toward exclusivity in the Church is bothersome simply because Jesus, himself, did not believe in exclusivity. Are we not to believe and behave as he believed and behaved? Jesus was always breaking the rules in favor of acceptance and love. He cared for people and wanted them to feel accepted and loved. He cared for women and did not see them as “unclean.” (Note the story of the woman with the 12 year hemorrhage who touched the hem of his robe. As a good Jew, he would have been contaminated, ritually unclean, and he would have had to go to the Mikvah to restore hs cleanliness. He did not do any of that. Instead, he turned to the woman and said, “Your faith has saved you.” She had broken the rules, yet Jesus treated her kindly and healed her.)

Why are we so quick to applaud exclusivity? We are not an exclusive club. We invite everyone to come to the table.

 

[Benay]

But how come young ladies serving at the altar are not covering their head as commanded by the Bible? Isn’t this giving a bad example since it shows that we don’t have to follow the Bible, but that we can make up our own rules in this case? As we see the icons and statues of Mary, the Mother of God, we always see her head covered.

To follow your own logic, why aren’t you wearing robes like Jesus does? After all we always see him in white robes and long hair.

You forget the context of the times, Jesus culture as Jew. Many things have changed in 2000 years. We no longer dress the same, eat the same, or need healing miracles – we have medical care now – and they didn’t have the same level of knoweldge then. Remember Jesus was not about rigid rules, He was all about loving and caring for one another.