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

[Brendan]

I do not want references to clergy spouting the company line about “well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations” or a priest from your parish crediting his time as an altar server. That is also company speak.

“company speak”, how so. In other words, you think our clergy lie to each other ( this was a letter from Rome to the Bishops of the US after all).

In case you don’t understand, it is in the newly-ordained priest’s corporate interest to credit his altar-boy time with his vocation. All of his peers want to hear that. The Bishop is glad to hear it. He pleases his parish priest with those words. He’s not lying - he has convinced himself that his vocation is correct (not saying it isn’t) and that the proper path to the priesthood is through altar serving (as he is constantly told), so therefore his altar-serving time must have led to his vocation.

So now you are claiming insights into what a priest has convinced himself of. How do you come by this knowledge.

 

[Brendan]

We have 1200 families but not nearly that many boys of age to serve that’s why. Oh and nor do we have the room. It’s a small parish…space wise that is. The altar servers (2) as it is can’t fit in the sanctuary space…

I had mentioned it earlier in the thread. The age of our altarboys range from 5 to 20, with almost all of the boys in that age range serving.

Now we are supposed to have all male readers as well?

Before Mass, two of the older altarboys are chosen amongst themselves to read at Mass instead of serve.

This gives them experience reading God’s Word from the podium. In that way, a young man has some first hand knowledge of one of the aspects of the Liturgy that priests almost always do at Mass, speak from the podium .

So yes, we have male readers too.

 

[rlg94086]

Ya…a EF Mass is not going to go over well here…not in our parish…or really probably anywhere in our town.

Who said anything about an EF Mass? we don’t have an EF Mass at our parish…it’s all OF.

Our current priest has grown our parish by 40% in the 6 years he has been here…so I think he does a pretty good job… But we just don’t have the number of children that are old enough to serve nor would we honestly have space to put them. But quite honestly I don’t think our priest sees the altar connection. I don’t. My brothers served because they were expected to by our parents…I can see that it led them anywhere. It’s a cause/effect that I am just not buying (unless the Pope is selling it (making it mandatory)). We have boys and girls serving and we have the bigest group starting seminary ever…even bigger then any of those years that girls weren’t allowed.

I just think that there are so many other things that can lead to vocations for priests that people tend to overlook.

Well, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, as is your priest, even if the Vatican and USCCB disagree with you.

 

[annaevers]

Altar boys are not serving as ‘priests in training’ - but serving the priest during Mass.

And in the case there is no altar servers, priest has to do the tasks himself. Therefore, they “do” things priest would do. “In Persona Christi”, anyone? Our Most Blessed LORD chose to come as a man, not a woman.

I have already mentioned the woman-acolyte in my parish in her high-heel slippers…

 

[annaevers]

I’ll just stick to the practice of obedience and humility and submit my heart and my faith to the revealed truth.

“(as a woman)” - So do I.

 

[Benay]

My goodness! This thread certainly shows that our Church is alive and well just judging from the diversity of opinion expressed. Good for us.

On another note, I am breathless at the thought of 70 altar servers at a single Mass. Where are they put? Is there seating for all of them or do they just stand behind the Priest throughout Mass? I am in a very large parish church and we would have trouble finding space for 70 servers!

We used to have as many as 8 servers at one Mass (both senior and junior servers) but even that was deemed too many as there aren’t enough “jobs” to go around. We are now limited to a maximum of 2 junior and 2 senior servers – of both genders. There is enough seating for that many and enough jobs for each server to participate in some way. Eucharistic ministers come up from the floor for communion, in addition to the adult servers who also serve as Eucharistic Ministers. None of the junior servers are given this role. Neither the senior nor the junior servers read scripture, these come from the floor of the Church.

Although our parish has a Catholic High School and several Catholic elementary and middle schools, we do not have a pool of 70 junior servers. That is awesome.

This thread is certainly fascinating reading. Can’t say I agree with everyone, but each has a right to speak. That is what makes our Church so strong. We don’t split and start another Church when we disagree. As I said, good for us.

 

[qui_est_ce]

A vocation to the priesthood and a vocation to family life are not incompatible. My own father was called to the priesthood in his teen years. He was a parish priest for eight years before he became a Catholic. His priestly vocation was compatible with fathering four children, who have all turned out well!

But your father was not a Catholic priest. He obviously received a special dispensation allowing him to become a Catholic priest.

I’m not sure how you expect the average Catholic, which is what we are talking about here, accomplish what your father did, which is clearly extraordinary and commendable.

 

[Karenfern]

I note here a fear of girls and desire to remove females from the core of the Church. This is going to turn out badly. What is the ban on girls saying except that they are not pure enough to serve at the altar. What does that say about women entirely. Mary had to be lifted out of the normal population of women to allow her to give birth to Jesus? C’mon.

 

[PaulinVA]

“company speak”, how so. In other words, you think our clergy lie to each other ( this was a letter from Rome to the Bishops of the US after all).
…
So now you are claiming insights into what a priest has convinced himself of. How do you come by this knowledge.

Brenden, am I to take your response to mean that you are unable to provide any insight into your challenge for people to produce “more vocations data than Rome has”. What data are you referring to?

I would really, really like for there to be something more than opinions. It would be very refreshing. There *must *be something more than anecdotes. It would totally stop this thread in it’s tracks, and give us facts. Please, produce the facts.

 

[Brendan]

Brenden, am I to take your response to mean that you are unable to provide any insight into your challenge for people to produce “more vocations data than Rome has”. What data are you referring to?

I would really, really like for there to be something more than opinions. It would be very refreshing. There *must *be something more than anecdotes. It would totally stop this thread in it’s tracks, and give us facts. Please, produce the facts.

Paul.

What I am getting is that you want us to trust YOUR opinion or analysys of vocations over that of what Rome has to say on the subject.

Am I wrong on that?

I have provided that facts, that the bishops of the world collect vocation history from their seminarians and provide that to Rome.

What I hear from you is that this information is invalid because the newly ordained priests are simply saying what they think their peers want to hear.

Or that the statements from Rome, their analysis of the information being provided by the bishops is nothing by ‘company speak’

That is pure conjecture on your part, but yet you present it as fact.

Sorry Paul, the facts are far more on my side than yours.

 

[PaulinVA]

Paul.

What I am getting is that you want us to trust YOUR opinion or analysys of vocations over that of what Rome has to say on the subject.

Am I wrong on that?

I have provided that facts, that the bishops of the world collect vocation history from their seminarians and provide that to Rome.

What I hear from you is that this information is invalid because the newly ordained priests are simply saying what they think their peers want to hear.

Or that the statements from Rome, their analysis of the information being provided by the bishops is nothing by ‘company speak’

That is pure conjecture on your part, but yet you present it as fact.

Sorry Paul, the facts are far more on my side than yours.

Brenden, I think you and I have provided the same quantity of facts at the Church level. Absolutely zero.

I would love to conform my opinion to the facts. I am willing to in a heartbeat. However, none have been presented. To help us out, here is an example of opinions versus facts:

1. Opinion: It is well known that serving as an altar boy leads a young man to a priestly vocation.
2. Fact: In a recently conducted study, “The Call to the Priesthood - a Study of Altar Serving as an Encouragement to a Priestly Vocation”, Paul’s Example Press, 2011, it is noted on page 23 that after following the cohort of young boys in several diocese in the United States for 15 years (age 10 to 25), there is a strong correlation between altar service for three years or more and a feeling of a call to the Priesthood. There was also a significant correlation in boys who thought they had a call at an early age (less then 10 years old) and their subsequent volunteering to be altar servers.

 

[ringil]

I can’t believe this thread is still going. The priest/bishop can choose to have female servers or not PERIOD.

There is no issue. Rome has settled this issue.

 

[rlg94086]

I note here a fear of girls and desire to remove females from the core of the Church. This is going to turn out badly. What is the ban on girls saying except that they are not pure enough to serve at the altar. What does that say about women entirely. Mary had to be lifted out of the normal population of women to allow her to give birth to Jesus? C’mon.

There is no fear, it isn’t about purity, and no one is trying to “remove females from the core of the Church.”

The “fear” comment is unfounded. There is no fear even hinted at in this thread, other than accusations that a poster’s Bishop “fears women,” and she was just making an uncharitable comment.

The reason for restricting altar service to boys has absolutely nothing to do with purity. I don’t believe any poster or citation from the Church makes mention of that. Where do you get that idea?

Altar servers are not the “core of the Church,” so that comment was just ridiculous. From what other “core of the Church” do you think women are being removed?

 

[rlg94086]

I can’t believe this thread is still going. The priest/bishop can choose to have female servers or not PERIOD.

There is no issue. Rome has settled this issue.

Yep. Pretty clear…it doesn’t mean people can’t argue endlessly about it though.

 

[rlg94086]

If the Vatican says girls can serve at the altar (I assume they have said this, right?) that should be enough to allow it.
Doesn’t this priest/Diocese TRUST the word of the Vatican?
Wouldn’t the Vatican have good REASON to change this rule?

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwcomm.htm

1. Canon 230 #2 has a permissive and not a preceptive character: “Laici . . . possunt.” 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.
2. The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishops for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230 2. At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.
3. 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 can 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 #3.

 

[rlg94086]

EXACTLY. Exactly.
What are they so afraid of?
I guess as women, if we end up being smarter, more devoted, and more passionate…there is a fear or a chance we might, you know, TAKE OVER.
Can’t let that happen. Heavens.

 

[Tigg]

Mary had to be lifted out of the normal population of women to allow her to give birth to Jesus? C’mon.

If you banish girls from the altar, the statue of the Virgin should be banished to the closet.

I, for one, would ask your respect in posting comments about our Beloved Blessed Mother since this is a Catholic forum. As I’m sure you know, we believe her to be immaculately conceived and without sin at God’s design, full of grace and unquestionably holy and pure.

I note here a fear of girls and desire to remove females from the core of the Church. This is going to turn out badly. What is the ban on girls saying except that they are not pure enough to serve at the altar. What does that say about women entirely.

I note here something that sounds suspiciously like the radical feminist mantra – that there must be some conspiracy against women perpetrated by men to keep them unfulfilled and unhappy. Is it part of the perceived male subjugation thing? Are you, by chance, pushing an agenda?

 

[Brendan]

If the Vatican says girls can serve at the altar (I assume they have said this, right?) that should be enough to allow it.
Doesn’t this priest/Diocese TRUST the word of the Vatican?
Wouldn’t the Vatican have good REASON to change this rule?

The Vatican also said that Bishops or pastors can choose to forbid girls in service at the altar.

So, yes these priests ARE trusting what the Vatican said

What is the issue is that people like PaulinVa are NOT trusting what the Vatican has to say.

Which is:

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.

This priest in Phoenix, and I, fully trust what the Vatican has to say. It seem that others do not.

Read the whole letter on what the Vatican has to say about the subject.

adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html

 

[rlg94086]

The Vatican also said that Bishops or pastors can choose to forbid girls in service at the altar.

So, yes these priests ARE trusting what the Vatican said

What is the issue is that people like PaulinVa are NOT trusting what the Vatican has to say.

Which is:

This priest in Phoenix, and I, fully trust what the Vatican has to say. It seem that others do not.

Read the whole letter on what the Vatican has to say about the subject.

adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html

Brendan,

Since we all just hate/fear women, we need to join up:
http://www.sign-here.com/gifs/images/lr102.jpg

 

[qui_est_ce]

There is no fear, it isn’t about purity, and no one is trying to “remove females from the core of the Church.”

The “fear” comment is unfounded. There is no fear even hinted at in this thread, other than accusations that a poster’s Bishop “fears women,” and she was just making an uncharitable comment.

The reason for restricting altar service to boys has absolutely nothing to do with purity. I don’t believe any poster or citation from the Church makes mention of that. Where do you get that idea?

Altar servers are not the “core of the Church,” so that comment was just ridiculous. From what other “core of the Church” do you think women are being removed?

As a Catholic woman, I’d like to know that too.