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

[wisdomseeker]

But you’ve never explained why having girls serving poisons the ground. Is your only reason that boys think they have cooties?

Are the girls weeds strangling the call of God? Just their mere presence makes boys stay away and stymies God’s call? God is thwarted by eight year old girls?

Are you in favor of removing children from their homes to prevent that parental discouragement? I’m sorry, that’s a cheap shot - I know you do not. However, your view of God and the men He wants to call to the priesthood is sorta small.

I think that people crowding the Sanctuary is not good because it discourages man from the priesthood. People will begin to have the idea that since lay people can do all these things then there is no need for priests.

just like women serving in teh Sanctuary, man shy away since women can do the job. it is not a good idea. it discourages man from wanting to serve. since somebody else can do it. it is modernism at best, working within the Church. the world accepts whatever people wants to do. the Church is different from the world. what is done in the world, should not be done in the Church.

 

[Brendan]

This is what He said about the parable. It was about the Good News of salvation, not about vocations at all:

I suppose that you think that Rome is wrong on this one too, since the Pontifical Office for Eccelsial Vocations used the exact same anaology in one of it’s 1997 letters.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_13021998_new-vocations_en.html

I know you consider Rome to be in error when they state that altar service by boys is a well known factor in priestly vocations.

Do you also consider Rome to be in error in applying this parable to the concept of vocations?, you certainly implied it with your statement above.

To sow

1. “A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away. Other seeds fell upon thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Mt 13, 3-8).

This passage indicates, in some way, the first step along a pedagogical path, the first attitude of the one would place himself as mediator between the God who calls and the one who is called, and is inspired by God’s action. God the Father is the sower; the Church and the world are the ground wherein He continues to sow His seed in abundance, with absolute liberty and without any kind of exclusion, a liberty that respects that of the ground where the seed falls.

a) Two liberties in dialogue

**The parable of the sower shows that the Christian vocation is a dialogue between God and the human person. The principle interlocutor is God, who calls whom He wills, when He wills and how He wills **“in virtue of his own purpose and grace” (2 Tim 1, 9); who calls everyone to salvation, without allowing Himself to be limited by the dispositions of the recipient. But the liberty of God meets the liberty of man in a mysterious and fascinating dialogue, made up of words and silence, of messages and actions, of looks and gestures, a liberty that is perfect — God’s — and one that is imperfect — man’s. Vocation, therefore, is totally the action of God, but in a real way it is also the action of individual people: the work and penetration of God into the heart of human liberty, but also the effort and struggle of men and women to be free to welcome the gift.

Whoever accompanies a brother or sister on the path of vocational discernment enters into the mystery of liberty, and knows that he will be able to help only if he respects that mystery. Even if, apparently, that must mean a small result. Like the sower in the Gospel.

b) The courage to sow everywhere

It is precisely this respect for both liberties that signifies above all the courage to sow the good seed of the Gospel, of the Lord’s death and resurrection, of faith and, finally, of following (sequela). This is the necessary condition; no pastoral work for vocations can be done if there is not this courage. We have to sow everywhere, in the heart of everyone, without preference or exception. If every human being is a creature of God, he is also the bearer of a gift, of a particular vocation which is waiting to be recognised.

Often in the Church we lament the shortage of vocational responses and we do not recognise that, just as often, the proposal is made within a limited circle of people, and probably immediately withdrawn after a first refusal. It is worthwhile here recalling the words of Paul VI: “Let nobody be ignorant, through our fault, of what he or she should know in order to alter his or her life in a different and better direction”.(97) And yet how many young people have never received any Christian proposal regarding their life and future!

It is excellent to observe the sower of the parable in the abundant gesture of his hand that sows “everywhere”; it is moving to recognise in this icon the heart of God the Father. It is the image of God that sows in the heart of every living person a plan of salvation; or if we wish, it is the image of the “waste” of God’s generosity, that is poured out on all because He wants to save all and call them to Himself.

 

[Corki]

Well said. As I read some of these posts, I see number of individuals, who see a woman’s place as being subserviant to a man in every way, shape or form.

I must have missed those posts. I haven’t seen anyone arguing that this is about women being subservient. Can you list the post numbers where this was asserted?

They fear strong women.

Fear? Again, please specify in which post anyone expressed fear of strong women. I consider myself to be a strong woman so I would like your help determining who to look out for.

Even their smug “corrections” of some terms and posts (my priest calls us Eucharistic Ministers, by the way—that’s how we’re referred to in our parish and diocese!) suggests an insecurity.

That was me. I wasn’t being smug. The Church says we are supposed to be careful about using the correct terminology. If your priest uses the wrong terms, it would be a kindness for you to charitably correct him. (which, BTW, is what we are directed to do here)

I’m glad that our bishop, our parish priests, our diocese does not see things the way these diocese do–and as far as priests from our parish go–we just celebrated the ordination of one of our own recenty.

Congratulations!

And when he was a lay minister, we served together many times. It didn’t scare him off.

You were altar servers together? How did your parish encourage its altar boys to consider vocations?

I know it has been said dozens of times in the two, nearly identical threads here but – the concern is not whether boys who are altar serving will be somehow discouraged from hearing and responding to a vocation. The concern is for those boys who don’t serve. If more boys would serve if it wasn’t a co-ed activity, that’s something we need to at least investigate.

 

[PaulinVA]

I suppose that you think that Rome is wrong on this one too, since the Pontifical Office for Eccelsial Vocations used the exact same analogy in one of it’s 1997 letters.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_13021998_new-vocations_en.html

I know you consider Rome to be in error when they state that altar service by boys is a well known factor in priestly vocations.

Do you also consider Rome to be in error in applying this parable to the concept of vocations?, you certainly implied it with your statement above.

The document uses an alternative exegesis than Jesus Himself used (if He can engage in exegesis of His own words). I leave it to you and the authors to defend the alternative interpretation. Jesus clearly stated what He meant.

As to the passage you quoted, the document talks about priestly vocations and Christian vocations. Perhaps in reading them you are conflating the two and improperly applying them to the present discussion.

The parable of the sower shows that the Christian vocation is a dialogue between God and the human person. The principle interlocutor is God, who calls whom He wills, when He wills and how He wills “in virtue of his own purpose and grace” (*2 Tim *1, 9); who calls everyone to salvation, without allowing Himself to be limited by the dispositions of the recipient. But the liberty of God meets the liberty of man in a mysterious and fascinating dialogue, made up of words and silence, of messages and actions, of looks and gestures, a liberty that is perfect — God’s — and one that is imperfect — man’s. Vocation, therefore, is totally the action of God, but in a real way it is also the action of individual people: the work and penetration of God into the heart of human liberty, but also the effort and struggle of men and women to be free to welcome the gift.

It is precisely this respect for both liberties that signifies above all the courage to sow the good seed of the Gospel, of the Lord’s death and resurrection, of faith and, finally, of following (sequela). This is the necessary condition; no pastoral work for vocations can be done if there is not this courage. We have to sow everywhere, in the heart of everyone, without preference or exception. If every human being is a creature of God, he is also the bearer of a gift, of a particular vocation which is waiting to be recognised.

 

[Tigg]

That was me. I wasn’t being smug. The Church says we are supposed to be careful about using the correct terminology. If your priest uses the wrong terms, it would be a kindness for you to charitably correct him. (which, BTW, is what we are directed to do here)

Or, I think it could have been me, Corki, in my last post. Our pastor prefers we use EMHC which, again, helps distinguish the roles. He, btw, is awesome and none of us (including us women) take offense that the presence of the laity is toned down during the liturgy (as compared to other parishes in town.)

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well said. As I read some of these posts, I see number of individuals, who see a woman’s place as being subserviant to a man in every way, shape or form. They fear strong women. Even their smug “corrections” of some terms and posts (my priest calls us Eucharistic Ministers, by the way—that’s how we’re referred to in our parish and diocese!) suggests an insecurity.

I’m glad that our bishop, our parish priests, our diocese does not see things the way these diocese do–and as far as priests from our parish go–we just celebrated the ordination of one of our own recenty. And when he was a lay minister, we served together many times. It didn’t scare him off.

No one is talking about a woman’s place as being naturally subservient to a man’s. But does it really make sense to allow girls to experience and do some of the priest’s actions if they cannot later become priests? For hundreds, if not thousands of years, the position of altar boy was without deviation certainly a–albeit optional–step in becoming a priest. It’s plain wrong on so many levels to depreciate the availability of that opportunity by allowing girls to do it also. If there were, say, a retreat for young girls with Catholic nuns to discern their potential vocation as such, about how much sense would it make to allow boys to come to that? It’d be ridiculous, and so would be the people who would complain about how it’s “sexist.” And yes, I really do think serving at the altar and a discernment retreat for nuns, at least in this sense, are very analogous.

And about the “Eucharistic Ministers” thing, the majority are not being smug. We are being correct, and regardless of what your parish and diocese call them, they are just as incorrect. It is infinitely important to not call yourself a Eucharistic Minister, because it is incorrect both on a proper term level, but also on a much deeper level. “Eucharistic Minister” implies that what you do is the norm, it’s the everyday, it’s to be expected, it’s done for the sake of doing it or because it fulfills some part of some office you naturally hold. It’s not. It may be in your parish that these people are a regular sight at mass, but it is very often the case that way too many of these people, more than should be, are present. The term “Eucharistic Minister” implies that you take for granted the position, that somehow you’re within the norm for acting as one. You are not. You are not a Eucharistic Minister. You are an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The difference in terms is extremely important. In fact, I don’t even think “Eucharistic Minister” is a term sanctioned by the church for use to describe anyone, ever. Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (a sanctioned term) are the priest and deacon. Then in precedence will come the instituted Acolytes, if there are any. Then in precedence, and only if they are absolutely required, and it is truly beneficial and imperative, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (a sanctioned term).

The difference is twofold. First, we have the obvious change of the word “Eucharist” to “Holy Communion.” To be a minister of the Eucharist implies, in some small way or another, that you are involved, through your ministerial actions alone (ie, just by you moving the host/chalice to each communicant) in the confection of the Eucharist. To be a minister of Holy Communion rather implies that you are just there to transport the physical host/Body or wine/Blood to the communicant, and nothing else, which is true. Secondly, we have the use of the words “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary.” As I mentioned, the only Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are the priest(s) and deacon(s) present. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (you) are only used if and only if there are not enough priest(s) and deacon(s) present. I don’t doubt that your parish is short-staffed on these people. I hope that you fervently exponentialize the amount of praying you do for God to send more priests to your parish so that Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion won’t be required, and so that the lines will cease to blur. I certainly will pray for the same.

I do see, after reading this post, how an air of smugness can be interpreted. But that’s not the intention. The intention is to be correct (not politically) and/or sensible, which is so important in these matters. I don’t think I should have to add a smiley to make me feel okay about posting this.

 

[Tigg]

Are you comparing service at the altar the same thing as joining a sports team? Aren’t you “protecting” future priests from a healthy view of women as God’s servants and exposing them to the dangers posed by such an adolescent view of sexuality? I studied with priests who were totally okay about women’s role in God’s plan and made it okay for me to be a leader in class. They expected me to stand out. St. Edith Stein wrote that women, because of their sensitive nature (definitely a plus) needed more intellectual challenge to strengthen who they are and what they can contribute. Are you calling her a planter of weeds? Gosh, I hope not. I think anything that orients a woman to give the maximum she can to God’s glory and service is a positive. If raising a boy to be afraid of women is constructive, I would hate to be a woman confessing to the priest who results from that indoctrination.** Women’s holiness should be harnessed and not stifled. **Girls should be **encouraged **to serve at the altar alongside boys so that their different natures can be donated to God.

I’m completely failing to see how holiness is stifled in women if they cannot be altar servers! True holiness comes from the heroic practice of Christian virtue and living a life in complete accordance with God’s will. The question has been asked, but remains unanswered, as to how the greatest women in Church history became canonized saints - they were not altar servers, but served God in an extraordinary way - especially along narrow paths and little, hidden means - they suffered. And since they never drew attention to themselves, most likely, they would have been horrified to be seen in a position “up front,” since humility and self mortification were much more their forte.

 

[Califman831]

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. (Genesis 3:16)

I you don’t like it, take it up with the man upstairs. Women have a god given role and its not on the altar, its at at home taking care of the children. Its no wonder modern society is so warped that mothers wish to take leave their young at home with some nanny while the seek to become worldly career women.

 

[louis91766]

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. (Genesis 3:16)

I you don’t like it, take it up with the man upstairs. Women have a god given role and its not on the altar, its at at home taking care of the children. Its no wonder modern society is so warped that mothers wish to take leave their young at home with some nanny while the seek to become worldly career women.

Then how come the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church allows women at the altar?

 

[Corki]

Then how come the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church allows women at the altar?

I’m not sure what you mean by that. As has been previously pointed out, neither the current Pope nor Blessed Pope John Paul II allowed altar girls at Masses in St. Peters.

 

[Skeptic92]

Then how come the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church allows women at the altar?

He doesn’t, I challenge you to find me one Mass in which Bl John Paul II or His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI uses female altar servers within his Masses, or in St Peters or St John Lateran preferable as those Churches are his main Churches/Basilicas

 

[HerrZJA]

He doesn’t, I challenge you to find me one Mass in which Bl John Paul II or His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI uses female altar servers within his Masses, or in St Peters or St John Lateran preferable as those Churches are his main Churches/Basilicas

It wasn’t a mass, but he did recently have at least one female server at a celebration of the Marian Vespers. I realize it’s not quite the same level of solemnity, but it’s a point to consider.

This argument should be based less on what is considered preferable, by whom and for what reason, and more on the virtue of obedience.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

Here is the actual letter from the Vatican on the subject

adoremus.org/CDW-AltarServers.html

As Corki noted,

Per the Vatican, females may be used if

1. The Bishop choses to allow them in his diocese
2. The Pastor choses to allow them in his parish
3. The celebrant of the Mass choses to use them

So if a visiting priest desires to allow altar girls, but the pastor has chosen not to, the visiting priest may not admit girls to serve at his Mass.

Likewise, if a pastor and bishop have chosen to allow female servers, but an associate pastor does not desire them at the Masses he says, girls are not permitted to serve at those Masses.

Boys may not be excluded from altar service.

It is also interesting to note that neither Pope John Paul II nor Pope Benedict have chosen to use female altar servers in St. Peter’s. Altar service there is reserved to boys alone.

Thank you Brendan, The Church has spoken clearly and that is comforting. I know of a Deacon in a northern parish who has both sons and daughters serving at the altar, (by invitation of their Priest) and I only mention that as it reflects the above ruling regarding permission of the Bishop, Priest, etc. I’m sure that if a visiting Priest had objections to female servers, his preference would be honored during his visit, then after his departure, things would return to the parish’s usual custom.

I wonder, do you think perhaps young women have ever felt called to the Religious life (to become Sisters) after serving at the altar, either alongside girls or boys?

I appreciate reading (either above or in another reply) how laypersons (male or female) should* not insist* that they have a “right” to serve, as it seems to me it is an honor and a privilege, preceded by the Priest’s invitation.

I tend to tread softly before insisting on “rights,” as I am a new adult Catholic convert of just seven years now. To me, the example of Our Lady, through her regal, yet modest spirit, is something that welcomes emulation and dismisses pride
:thankyou::thankyou::flowers::harp:

 

[wisdomseeker]

We should be helping the priests and not be a source of temptation to them. I consider women in teh Sanctuary bumpy into priests a temptation… Many priests, i see now will give Eucharist with a women right by his side. We are called into obdience and not disobedience. Not every priest is following the Churchs teachings any more.

 

[Tsuwano]

We should be helping the priests and not be a source of temptation to them. I consider women in teh Sanctuary bumpy into priests a temptation… Many priests, i see now will give Eucharist with a women right by his side. We are called into obdience and not disobedience. Not every priest is following the Churchs teachings any more.

You’re kidding, right? If a young girl serving as an altar server is a temptation to a priest during mass, then both he and the Bishop have a bigger problem to consider. I would also add that if women on the altar serve as a temptation, one hesitates to wonder what sort of temptation women in the pews provide for the same priest. Are we to follow your logic and ban women from entering the church altogether because they may serve as a temptation to the priest?

 

[paperwight66]

You’re kidding, right? If a young girl serving as an altar server is a temptation to a priest during mass, then both he and the Bishop have a bigger problem to consider. I would also add that if women on the altar serve as a temptation, one hesitates to wonder what sort of temptation women in the pews provide for the same priest. Are we to follow your logic and ban women from entering the church altogether because they may serve as a temptation to the priest?

My thoughts exactly. And anyway, we are not talking about women in most cases, but little girls, surely? What bumping is going to happen?

 

[ColNY]

You’re kidding, right? If a young girl serving as an altar server is a temptation to a priest during mass, then both he and the Bishop have a bigger problem to consider. I would also add that if women on the altar serve as a temptation, one hesitates to wonder what sort of temptation women in the pews provide for the same priest. Are we to follow your logic and ban women from entering the church altogether because they may serve as a temptation to the priest?

It’s funny that you mention the “temptation” of women since the priests abuse scandals for which we’re ALL paying (monetarily and otherwise) occurred with altar boys. In fact, I think a lot of priests now actually avoid spending anytime alone with kids–boys and girls-- in a mentoring capacity. Sad, really–since some of my fondess faith memories involve an assistant priest who took the opportunity once to take myself, another girl, and three boys all making our confirmation up to the Cathedral to witness the Oil of Chrism be blessed by the Bishop. The boys were altar servers, but he wanted girls to be part of the experience as well. And to this day, I say a little prayer thanking him because he was one of the first religious in our parish who did take time to say to girls in particular that we are valued in our faith. Before then, we only thought boys mattered.

My last word on this subject: A good priest is going to find ways to inspire both young men and women in the parish to listen for and abide by whatever individual paths they’re called to follow in their faith. Allowing both boys and girls to serve at the altar brings both closer to God. If a boy (or his parents) choose not to serve because “girls do it” then that’s their choice, but I think it’s a pretty lame one. More often than not, though, the decline in altar servers, comes less from boys not wanting to be with girls, but from other things–like sports–taking priorities.

 

[Brendan]

The document uses an alternative exegesis than Jesus Himself used (if He can engage in exegesis of His own words). I leave it to you and the authors to defend the alternative interpretation. .

Here is a little more exegise from that same Congress on Vocations,

The Logo of the Congress is the Sower. There couldn’t be a more significant
image.
In fact using the parable of the Sower as a launching pad means being aware of
the fact that the Divine Sower spreads the seed of his call to the priesthood and
consecrated life in large handfuls. The seed is thrown out abundantly. But there
may be no response because of the unfavorable state of the soil that
characterizes our society: a person’s heart may be a prisoner to various
attachments, distracted by distractions, ensnarled by the brambles of passion.
Styles of life that often reflect a secularized world-view may make their own
negative impact on the young and may suffocate the seed of a vocation as soon
as it germinates.

While cultivating the dispositions of heart — or the soil on which the seed of a
vocation falls — we must at the same time present the priesthood so that its true
nature may be seen, this true nature being described in full harmony with the
teaching of the Church.

-Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski
Opening session at the opening session of the 3rd Continental Congress on
Vocations to the Priesthood and Consecrated Life. Montreal. April 2002.
stlouisabbey.org/publications/grocholewski.pdf

Cardinal Grocholewski is the Chancellor of the Pontifical Gregorian University.

Jesus clearly stated what He meant

Yes, that the seed represented the Word of God. But you are the one limiting God now. What is the Word of God, read John 1:1 for that. It is not just the message of Salvation, but the Incarnate Logos. It is Christ and the see is the Christ, so the Logos is not just Salvation, but all the Christ wants to do in your life.

Paul, I’m in very good company when I use this parable in reference to priestly vocations. Your personal exgesis might not agree, but I would claim that the Cardinal is substantially more versed in Scriptural matters than you are.

Can you honestly claim to be more authoritative on Scripture than he is?

 

[PaulinVA]

Can you honestly claim to be more authoritative on Scripture than he is?

Oh, absolutely not!

But here is the important part of this discussion between the two of us:

The Logo of the Congress is the Sower. There couldn’t be a more significant
image.
In fact using the parable of the Sower as a launching pad means being aware of
the fact that the Divine Sower spreads the seed of his call to the priesthood and
consecrated life in large handfuls

So, the good people involved in these writings have used the parable as a launching pad to expand the story to apply to other** situations**. Yes, that is perfectly acceptable, but it is an expansion. What I wrote was true - Jesus was clearly not talking about the Catholic priesthood in the parable of the sower. He was talking about salvation. Are you disputing this?

But, the crux of our disagreement, if you want to expand the parable of the sower to apply to priestly vocations, is whether altar serving makes the ground more fertile. Does it change the disposition of the heart? And, does the presence of girls somehow dilute the power that you ascribe to boys serving at the altar.

 

[Brendan]

Oh, absolutely not!

But here is the important part of this discussion between the two of us:

So, the good people involved in these writings have used the parable as a launching pad to expand the story to apply to other** situations**. Yes, that is perfectly acceptable, but it is an expansion. What I wrote was true - Jesus was clearly not talking about the Catholic priesthood in the parable of the sower. He was talking about salvation. Are you disputing this?

I am saying what Christ was saying, that He was talking about the Word of God, the Incarnate Logos that John wrote about.

Are you claiming that Christ considers the “Word of God” to be something different than what John wrote about. And if not, does a call to the priesthood happen without the Logos?

You will also note that the Cardinal used the parable in the same sense as I did, that the calling to the priesthood is a seed that can be thrown on fertile, or non fertile ground

the Divine Sower spreads the seed of his call to the priesthood and
consecrated life in large handfuls. The seed is thrown out abundantly. But there
may be no response because of the unfavorable state of the soil

Will you not agree that the Cardinals usage of the parable matches how I have been using it?

FYI, the reason the Cardinal spoke on that topic was that “Sowing on Fertile Ground” was the theme of that years Congress on vocations. Why would the collective bishops of North American choose that as a theme if the parable did not apply to vocations.

But, the crux of our disagreement, if you want to expand the parable of the sower to apply to priestly vocations, is whether altar serving makes the ground more fertile. Does it change the disposition of the heart? And, does the presence of girls somehow dilute the power that you ascribe to boys serving at the altar.

First of all, I know altar serving makes the ground more fertile, as I have seen it in my own parish, and Rome has stated so in it’s letters to the bishops on the subject.

I do understand that you believe that it is simply a matter of Rome lying to the bishops, ‘company speak’ was I believe the term you used.

As to the other points, I will refer you back to the Cardinal’s words

a person’s heart may be a prisoner to various
attachments, distracted by distractions, ensnarled by the brambles of passion.
Styles of life that often reflect a secularized world-view may make their own
negative impact on the young and may suffocate the seed of a vocation as soon
as it germinates.

If the girls are a distraction, then they are to be removed, lest a vocation be suffocated.

If a boy choses not to engage in altar service based on the impression that it’s something that girls do, then the girls should be removed, lest a vocation be suffocated.

If altar girls are used due to a secularized world view that portrays a false understanding of what equality is, then altar girls should not be used.

As I said, if one single vocation is lost anywhere due to these, the price of altar girls is too much.