Politically Correct Impact on Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crusader
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crusader

Guest
I am beginning to wonder about the impact of political correctness as defined by today’s septic secular culture on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

In many cases PCism clashes with the liturgical teachings of the Church, and sadly, PCism seems to be prevailing in more and more cases.

Take for example the non-issue of female altar servers and EMsHC. A pastor might well decide to permanently institute acolytes and lectors (which must be males per the Church) once they are trained. His bishop might even support his plan. Yet instituting enough acolytes and lectors would essentially eliminate females from the sanctuary. While the ACLU wouldn’t dare get involved (at least not yet) the pressures of PCism might well stop the pastor from doing something positive for his flock. (Then there would be the PC driven discussion of how it could be “positive” if it precluded women from the sanctuary.)

Imagine a pastor preaching on the topic of not receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin. While some brave priests do preach on this subject, MANY more do not because they are afraid of the PC backlash. Don’t want to push too many people out of the Church you know…

The same on the homosexual topic. VERY taboo and very constrained by the laws of PCism…

I am wondering when some people will understand that the Catholic Church is not modern society (that changes every 20 minutes?) And just because something is deemed OK by today’s septic secular society, that dosen’t mean that it’s approved by Jesus Christ.

I am especially fascinated by devout Catholics who jump to the side of PCism when it protects their own self interests…
 
When I think of this topic the problem of inclusive language comes to mind. When dealing with people (“men”, as opposed to “men and women”) it is just an excercise in futility and I have little problem either way. But this type of “correctness” also influences how we refer to God.

While God is neither male or female, He has chosen to use only masculine in His revealed word. Avoiding pronouns altogether makes for awkward reading, so we need to stick with refering to God as He refers to himself. This includes the person of the Holy Spirit who is not the feminine side of God.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
This tribunal case indicates that permanently installed lectors might not be the panacea that you think it is.
Click to expand...
I skimmed the site you linked and disagree with you assestment of the case.

If you go to the Decree of Conclusion of the Case (romanrite.com/deccon.html) you will see that last paragraph says (bold emphasis added).

The Tribunal respectfully reminds the petitioner that the point at issue is not the practice in the Archdiocese of Melbourne towards instituted lectors (as suggested on page 31), but whether the respondent has violated the rights of the petitioner (as specified on page 12).

In other words, it has nothing to do with the “office” of lector but to the fact that the lector filed this case as a violation of his rights.
 
Somebody would probably torch the building if the Pastor tried to exclude girls as altar servers or women as lectors or EMHCs, or allowed the reading of Eph. 5:22-27. But then, all of that is a non-issue. The Pastor won’t say “for us men” in the Creed: just leaves a strategic hiccough at that point. 😦
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
This tribunal case indicates that permanently installed lectors might not be the panacea that you think it is.
Click to expand...
You are illustrating my point perfectly. Instead of facing the issue I brought up (on my concerns on how PCism impacts the liturgy) you spent time on trying to denigrate one of my examples.

Fascinatingly enough it’s an example that would most certainly impact your own demonstrated self-interest…
 
40.png
pnewton:
When I think of this topic the problem of inclusive language comes to mind. When dealing with people (“men”, as opposed to “men and women”) it is just an excercise in futility and I have little problem either way. But this type of “correctness” also influences how we refer to God.

While God is neither male or female, He has chosen to use only masculine in His revealed word. Avoiding pronouns altogether makes for awkward reading, so we need to stick with refering to God as He refers to himself. This includes the person of the Holy Spirit who is not the feminine side of God.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. The only time I have seen sexism/feminism disciplined is when radical feminist readers tried to “feminize” the Sunday readings on the fly after they had been told never to do it again.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
This tribunal case indicates that permanently installed lectors might not be the panacea that you think it is.
Click to expand...
Lectors are not “permanently installed.” They are permanently instituted.

Readers are installed for a finite length of time.
 
40.png
Crusader:
Take for example the non-issue of female altar servers and EMsHC. A pastor might well decide to permanently institute acolytes and lectors (which must be males per the Church) once they are trained. His bishop might even support his plan. Yet instituting enough acolytes and lectors would essentially eliminate females from the sanctuary. While the ACLU wouldn’t dare get involved (at least not yet) the pressures of PCism might well stop the pastor from doing something positive for his flock. (Then there would be the PC driven discussion of how it could be “positive” if it precluded women from the sanctuary.)
Click to expand...
A small technicality – only a bishop can “institute” a lector or acolyte, a “pastor” in the sense of the priest who heads a parish cannot do so.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
A small technicality – only a bishop can “institute” a lector or acolyte, a “pastor” in the sense of the priest who heads a parish cannot do so.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
That’s correct. Now here’s a $10M question. Why don’t more bishops institute more lectors and acolytes who are not on their way to the priesthood or permanent diaconate?

Almost has to be a matter of sexist PCism and the fear of what would happen if that did take place…
 
40.png
Crusader:
That’s correct. Now here’s a $10M question. Why don’t more bishops institute more lectors and acolytes who are not on their way to the priesthood or permanent diaconate?

Almost has to be a matter of sexist PCism and the fear of what would happen if that did take place…
Click to expand...
I suspect that the reason is the amount of training that is viewed as being necessary. For a deacon there’s at least two years of formation before institution as a lector and another six months before institution as an acolyte. This could get pretty expensive and so the bishops appear to be spending their money on priests and deacons…

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
I suspect that the reason is the amount of training that is viewed as being necessary. For a deacon there’s at least two years of formation before institution as a lector and another six months before institution as an acolyte. This could get pretty expensive and so the bishops appear to be spending their money on priests and deacons…

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
I don’t see the costs as being that much. The meeting facilities are a sunk cost. Any books or other educational items are paid for by the man looking to become a lector or acolyte – and they wouldn’t be that great to begin with. Priests and laity could provide the formation at no additional expense. Yeah, I know they are already “overloaded.”

Interesting how that bishop in Lincoln Nebraska can institute acolytes without making such a production out of it…
 
40.png
Crusader:
I don’t see the costs as being that much. The meeting facilities are a sunk cost. Any books or other educational items are paid for by the man looking to become a lector or acolyte – and they wouldn’t be that great to begin with. Priests and laity could provide the formation at no additional expense. Yeah, I know they are already “overloaded.”

Interesting how that bishop in Lincoln Nebraska can institute acolytes without making such a production out of it…
Click to expand...
In my diocese we pay the instructor of the class (not much, but we do pay). I’m also not sure how many men are willing to spend two years to be trained for this function when, in point of fact, it’s not needed. Lay people who are trained as readers can minister jsut as well. And, of course, I don’t see using women to be something that is “politically correct” – just something that allows us to use the gifts that God has given the community. Also, I’m curious how you know that the Diocese of Lincoln has men instituted as lectors who are not going on to the priesthood (I’m guessing they are not going on to the diaconate because there’s only two deacons in the whole diocese).

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
In my diocese we pay the instructor of the class (not much, but we do pay).** I’m also not sure how many men are willing to spend two years** to be trained for this function when, in point of fact, it’s not needed. Lay people who are trained as readers can minister jsut as well. And, of course, I don’t see using women to be something that is “politically correct” – just something that allows us to use the gifts that God has given the community. Also, I’m curious how you know that the Diocese of Lincoln has men instituted as lectors who are not going on to the priesthood (I’m guessing they are not going on to the diaconate because there’s only two deacons in the whole diocese).

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
1.) Commitment (versus cost) is different than what you originally posted.

2.) Training is never wasted. I don’t believe a well trained acolyte performs with the same level of competance as an EMHC.

3.) It’s a well known fact that comes up quite a bit on the EWTN forums. That diocese does not use EMHC, period, because they have adequate priests, deacons and acolytes.
 
Crusader said:
1.) Commitment (versus cost) is different than what you originally posted.

2.) Training is never wasted. I don’t believe a well trained acolyte performs with the same level of competance as an EMHC.

3.) It’s a well known fact that comes up quite a bit on the EWTN forums. That diocese does not use EMHC, period, because they have adequate priests, deacons and acolytes.
Click to expand...

Cost is a factor for the bishop, commitment is a factor for the men involved.

I would agree on the second point.

The diocese of Lincoln uses normal lay readers. They do not have enough priests and deacons (does any diocese?) Lincoln is a very small diocese (less than 90,000 Catholics). They have 136 parishes, 157 priests (9 religious, 148 secular) and 2 deacons. This means that most parishes have one priest. Given the small population and the small number of priests, it makes sense to invest in the formation and training of lay men so they can be installed in a permanent ministry. This is good for the Church and good for the community in which these men live and minister. It would, of course, be better if they had more priests and deacons – but that’s an issue for the Church as a whole (outside of the 3rd world countries).

By comparison, my Latin diocese has 2,900,000 souls of whom slightly over 1,000,000 are Catholic. We have 56 parishes, 287 priests (179 diocesan, 108 religious), and 61 deacons. We have two classes of deacons in formation at any given time (normally around 14 men per class). We ordained 3 men to the priesthood this year (our smallest class in several years). Our present bishop sees no need to install men as lectors or acolytes given the large number of deacons we have, and the number in formation.

Deacon Ed
 
We have 31 deacons and 15 in formation. We have already suffered from priestless parishes, but right now have most of our 84 covered. Our bishop has not appointed any lectors or acolytes, probably for most of the reasons that Deacon Ed mentioned. The truth is that woman had a very positive role in the early church. They provided their residences for Mass. They took home the Eucharist for those who could not attend Mass. They had ministeries. There was a ministry of widow. I think it is in keeping with this early church history that women should be readers and altar servers. The modern examples of the women who had Mass in their homes are now running some parishes as administrators.

May God bless you for your faith,
Deacon Tony SFO
 
Deacon Tony560:
We have 31 deacons and 15 in formation. We have already suffered from priestless parishes, but right now have most of our 84 covered. Our bishop has not appointed any lectors or acolytes, probably for most of the reasons that Deacon Ed mentioned. The truth is that woman had a very positive role in the early church. They provided their residences for Mass. They took home the Eucharist for those who could not attend Mass. They had ministeries. There was a ministry of widow. I think it is in keeping with this early church history that women should be readers and altar servers. The modern examples of the women who had Mass in their homes are now running some parishes as administrators.

May God bless you for your faith,
Deacon Tony SFO
Click to expand...
So you are suggesting that it would be a bad thing to have enough instituted acolytes and lectors so that readers and EMHCs would no longer be necessary?
 
40.png
Crusader:
So you are suggesting that it would be a bad thing to have enough instituted acolytes and lectors so that readers and EMHCs would no longer be necessary?
Click to expand...
Or maybe that it would be a good thing if canon 230 §1 were extended to allow women to be permanently instituted. The 1987 Synod of Bishops on the Laity considered this, so it is within the realm of possibility.
 
The reality for my parish is that tonight at the 6PM Mass, it was just Father and me. Our usual older female altar server was not available. Our alternate Reader also a woman did not show up. Women have been a great help in the past of the Church (See St Catherine of Sienna). We can use all the help that we can get.

God bless you,
Deacon Tony
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
Or maybe that it would be a good thing if canon 230 §1 were extended to allow women to be permanently instituted. The 1987 Synod of Bishops on the Laity considered this, so it is within the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...
Ain’t gonna happen. Just like there will never be ordained female deaconesses in the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top