S.F. Catholic Church priest bans girls as altar servers

[ProVobis]

There are more issues I could list, but the point should be clear; having girls serve is not the big issue as to why boys don’t consider priesthood.

You’re probably right. The priesthood doesn’t exactly hold the same prestige (for the lack of a better term) than it had back in the 50’s, when the decline seemed to have started. But that might have been because the laity started running parishes and liturgical matters once they were given the impetus from Vatican II commissions, though the changes started well before Vatican II.

 

[otjm]

wow not trying to be “that new poster” but 14 pages about altar girls?

sheesh louise

Well, such things tie some people’s knickers in a knot.

 

[ProVobis]

wow not trying to be “that new poster” but 14 pages about altar girls?

sheesh louise

Change settings to 100 posts per page and you’ll only have two, now three, pages.

 

[otjm]

You’re probably right. The priesthood doesn’t exactly hold the same prestige (for the lack of a better term) than it had back in the 50’s, when the decline seemed to have started. But that might have been because the laity started running parishes and liturgical matters once they were given the impetus from Vatican II commissions, though the changes started well before Vatican II.

Or it could have been that we went from the “Father knows best” routine of putting priests up on a pedestal, as if ordination granted them wisdom beyond all knowing, to understanding that the essence of priesthood was service, and not an all-knowing domination.

Having lived on both sides of Vatican 2, and having known literally dozens of priests, I have known priests who were aloof except to the wealthy and influential; some who were truly shepherds, some for whom service was first and foremost; a few who seemed to have sought out priesthood as some sort of dais from which to rule.

One was criminally convicted of sodomizing teenagers; one was removed fro having had sexual contact with boys; one died of AIDS; one left the priesthood and became a flight attendant.

Most were between good and great, and most (Including those who were convicted, removed or died, as above) were all ordained prior to Vatican 2.

It has been my observation that the priests who have been ordained since the end of the 80’s to early 90’s have far different agendas than some of the ones who were ordained in the 60’s and 70’s (there is a reason they are called the John Paul 2 priests) and as a group are awesome. And I see them very respected, as they seem to have a far clearer understanding of the term “service” and the term “shepherd”. But that is just my impression. On the other hand, I have heard enough others remark about the younger priests to know that it wasn’t something in the water I was drinking.

I have not left the Church over such matters, nor has it decreased my faith, kept me up at night, or caused loss of sleep, perhaps because well before Vatican 2 I had figured out that ordination did not prevent one or cure one from becoming a pompous (mule).

I was also aware, at an early age (grade school.in the 50’s) that older people (my grandparents, born before the turn of the century) pined for the “older days”. It seems to be a human condition, one that humans seem to turn to when things are not what they had presumed.

I am a bit amused by Traditionalists, as I am also aware of clericalism, which was certainly present in all too many circumstances prior to Vatican 2, and over time has morphed a bit, but not been eliminated. Part of the all-too-human condition. There was good before Vatican 2, and there has been good since Vatican 2. But unless one is able to stand back and look dispassionately, rather than being caught up in the whirlwind, one has a tendency to see only problems now, and have a rose colored glasses view of the past. And few seem able to stand out of the maelstrom of life.

 

[KSU]

otjm, your posts #197 and #198 made some good points. Please consider just three nitpicks. Here are three of your quotes:

(1) “Cardinal Burke was entirely within his right to say that girls may not serve on the altar…[But] …to say that the reduction in the number of men going to seminary is due to girls serving is another prime example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.”

Burke never said girls may not serve. Boiled down, this is literally what he said: “The introduction of girl servers also led many boys to abandon altar service. Young boys don’t want to do things with girls. It’s just natural…I think that this has contributed to a loss of priestly vocations.”

That is not exactly post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which connotes the total or at least primary reason for something. Burke was talking there about only one reason, not the total reason. I.E., here’s another reason he mentioned: “Men are often reluctant to become active in the Church. The feminized environment and the lack of the Church’s effort to engage men has led many men to simply opt out.”

And another reason: “All of a sudden, in the wake of Vatican II, the celebration of the liturgy became very sloppy in many places. It became less attractive to young men, for it was slipshod.” And another: “Men are facing great temptations, particularly, as I mentioned due to pornography and confusion about sexuality and desperately need to be taught how to battle these temptations in Christ.”

I could go on with more reasons Burke mentioned as reasons why men have been less attracted to the priesthood, such as very poor catechesis, but you get the point.

(2) “H]ad I had a boy and he whined about serving with a girl, that would have been brought to such an abrupt halt that he might have suffered some form of dislocation.”

I did raise a boy, as did most of my friends and family. Trust me when I tell you that had you taken that attitude with a red-blooded American boy, two not so good things likely would have happened: he would have felt betrayed by his Dad and may have been turned off to service completely. Children’s psyches are fragile. Burke, again : “A child’s relationship with their father is key to a child’s self‑identification, which takes places when we are growing up. We need that very close and affirming relationship with the mother, but at the same time, it is the relationship with the father, which is of its nature more distant but not less loving, which disciplines our lives.” newemangelization.com/uncategorized/cardinal-raymond-leo-burke-on-the-catholic-man-crisis-and-what-to-do-about-it/#sthash.qULMhnP0.dpuf

(3) “Vatican 2 is not ambiguous.”

My friend, that is not totally true, but rather than risk making it appear that I’m picking on you, let’s just let that one slide.

 

[epan]

I disagree with this priest. His claim is that girls should be excluded because such service may lead to a calling to the priesthood. However, he provides no evidence that allowing girls to serve in such a capacity would preclude any boy from following such an avocation.

If the article is correct, then canon law does allow girls to serve. So, why does this priest act in such a disrespectful manner to girls? He owes his congregation an apology for his sexism, and he should revert the policy back to confirm with more just standards, and to comply with canon law.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

I disagree with this priest. His claim is that girls should be excluded because such service may lead to a calling to the priesthood. However, he provides no evidence that allowing girls to serve in such a capacity would preclude any boy from following such an avocation.

If the article is correct, then canon law does allow girls to serve. So, why does this priest act in such a disrespectful manner to girls? He owes his congregation an apology for his sexism, and he should revert the policy back to confirm with more just standards, and to comply with canon law.

Canon law gives parish priests the authority to decide whether altar girls can belong to a parish. His Archbishop agrees with his decision. They know more about Canon law then you or I do.

He owes no apology.

 

[Tigg]

So, why does this priest act in such a disrespectful manner to girls?

It is important not to focus this debate using political categories such as rights, equality, discrimination, etc., which only serves to fog the issue. We are dealing with the privilege of serving in an act of worship to which nobody has any inherent rights.

~ Fr. Edward McNamara ~
Professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Canon law gives parish priests the authority to decide whether altar girls can belong to a parish. His Archbishop agrees with his decision. They know more about Canon law then you or I do.

He owes no apology.

You may want to re-phrase your statement. Nothing I’m aware of calls into question a girl who was or wants to be an altar server “belonging” to a parish. Or has this priest said that such families should worship elsewhere?

 

[tafan]

I disagree with this priest. His claim is that girls should be excluded because such service may lead to a calling to the priesthood. However, he provides no evidence that allowing girls to serve in such a capacity would preclude any boy from following such an avocation.

If the article is correct, then canon law does allow girls to serve. So, why does this priest act in such a disrespectful manner to girls? He owes his congregation an apology for his sexism, and he should revert the policy back to confirm with more just standards, and to comply with canon law.

This article does a good job of explaining the issue of girl altar servers with respect to canon law: catholicexchange.com/canon-law-and-altar-girls. .

There is nothing in canon law that requires girls to be allowed to be altar servers, it simply allows for them. In 1994, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued an interpretation of the canon law and left it up to the Bishop conferences of each country to determine the issue. In the US the USCCB decided to leave the issue up to each Diocesan Bishop. As long as the pastor in SF is acting in accord with his Bishop (perhaps the Bishop of San Francisco allows each pasted to decide or the Bishop gave this pastor permission to have only boys), then the priest owes no one an apology.

 

[tafan]

Canon law gives parish priests the authority to decide whether altar girls can belong to a parish. His Archbishop agrees with his decision. They know more about Canon law then you or I do.

He owes no apology.

Canon law does not give the priest the authority, the Holy See has given the Bishops conferences the authority. In the US, the USCCB has givens the authority to each local Bishop. It is highly likely that the pastor in question implemented this policy with the approval of the SF Archbishop.

 

[phil19034]

I disagree with this priest. His claim is that girls should be excluded because such service may lead to a calling to the priesthood. However, he provides no evidence that allowing girls to serve in such a capacity would preclude any boy from following such an avocation.

If the article is correct, then canon law does allow girls to serve. So, why does this priest act in such a disrespectful manner to girls? He owes his congregation an apology for his sexism, and he should revert the policy back to confirm with more just standards, and to comply with canon law.

As a previous posted posted, this Parish is a very traditional one. They celebrate mass in the Extraordinary Form on Sundays and during their Ordinary Form Mass the priest has his back to the congregation.

Females were not allowed in 1962, so my guess is that since the Extraordinary form must follow 1962 calendar, etc that 1962 Cannon regarding the liturgy would be in force too.

Also, it’s my understanding that in Parishes with a large EF Mass, that’s the mass where the dedicated Altar boys want to serve the most because they have a ton more to do.

The EF requires a TON more altar boy training because they have to learn Latin prayers, etc.

It’s quite possible that the priest doesn’t want to have two different altar server corps (one for OF and one for EF). Therefore he’s may only wants boys so he can train them all on the EF and only buy one set of Altar server robes (using the EF robs for the OF instead of using Alb for OF and Cassock for EF)

Again let’s not vilify the priest. I seriously doubt it was based on sexist views.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Let’s see, just off the top of my head: the power to celebrate Mass, perform the sacraments, have a say in the interpretation of doctrine, pick Popes…

Or in other words you’re saying that the women who actually run parishes and dioceses and who are the core of our religious education programs don’t actually have any power within the Church. So my comments are in fact correct.

 

[Denise1957]

Or it could have been that we went from the “Father knows best” routine of putting priests up on a pedestal, as if ordination granted them wisdom beyond all knowing, to understanding that the essence of priesthood was service, and not an all-knowing domination.

Having lived on both sides of Vatican 2, and having known literally dozens of priests, I have known priests who were aloof except to the wealthy and influential; some who were truly shepherds, some for whom service was first and foremost; a few who seemed to have sought out priesthood as some sort of dais from which to rule.

One was criminally convicted of sodomizing teenagers; one was removed fro having had sexual contact with boys; one died of AIDS; one left the priesthood and became a flight attendant.

Most were between good and great, and most (Including those who were convicted, removed or died, as above) were all ordained prior to Vatican 2.

It has been my observation that the priests who have been ordained since the end of the 80’s to early 90’s have far different agendas than some of the ones who were ordained in the 60’s and 70’s (there is a reason they are called the John Paul 2 priests) and as a group are awesome. And I see them very respected, as they seem to have a far clearer understanding of the term “service” and the term “shepherd”. But that is just my impression. On the other hand, I have heard enough others remark about the younger priests to know that it wasn’t something in the water I was drinking.

I have not left the Church over such matters, nor has it decreased my faith, kept me up at night, or caused loss of sleep, perhaps because well before Vatican 2 I had figured out that ordination did not prevent one or cure one from becoming a pompous (mule).

I was also aware, at an early age (grade school.in the 50’s) that older people (my grandparents, born before the turn of the century) pined for the “older days”. It seems to be a human condition, one that humans seem to turn to when things are not what they had presumed.

I am a bit amused by Traditionalists, as I am also aware of clericalism, which was certainly present in all too many circumstances prior to Vatican 2, and over time has morphed a bit, but not been eliminated. Part of the all-too-human condition. There was good before Vatican 2, and there has been good since Vatican 2. But unless one is able to stand back and look dispassionately, rather than being caught up in the whirlwind, one has a tendency to see only problems now, and have a rose colored glasses view of the past. And few seem able to stand out of the maelstrom of life.

I have to wonder about making sweeping judgments based on our own personal experience. I have read the posts and commentaries of others who were practicing Catholics before the 60’s, and they tell a different story. If we are to stand back and look dispassionately, should we really make such presumptions about traditionalists?

 

[Elizium23]

Canon law does not give the priest the authority, the Holy See has given the Bishops conferences the authority. In the US, the USCCB has givens the authority to each local Bishop. It is highly likely that the pastor in question implemented this policy with the approval of the SF Archbishop.

The law does give each priest the authority to allow altar girls at their Masses and each pastor has the authority to allow altar girls at their parish, and each bishop has the authority to allow altar girls in his diocese. The episcopal conference only gives an opinion and has no authority in these matters.

Vatican Communication on Female Altar Servers

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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. It must also be clearly understood that the liturgical services mentioned above are carried out by lay people ex temporanea deputatione, according to the judgment of the Bishop, without lay people, be they men or women, having any right to exercise them.

(emphasis mine)

There is actually little that +Cordileone could do as Archbishop of this pastor because the pastor is correctly applying his own authority to the situation. The archbishop could command him under obedience to allow altar girls, but that would be a breach of subsidiarity, and clearly not what +Cordileone chose to do in this situation.

NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SERVE AT THE ALTAR. EVERYONE SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE BISHOP AND THE PASTOR. QUIT ACTING SO OUTRAGED AS IF YOUR “RIGHTS” ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY!

 

[otjm]

otjm, your posts #197 and #198 made some good points. Please consider just three nitpicks. Here are three of your quotes:

(1) “Cardinal Burke was entirely within his right to say that girls may not serve on the altar.”

My latter comment was not directed to the Cardinal, but rather to all those who insist that girls on the altar are the cause of lack of vocations. I can see how one might presume that my first statement might be tied to the second, but they were not intended as such.

Burke never said girls may not serve. "

It is my recollection that in his diocese, he so ruled. If that is wrong, I stand corrected; but that is on the other side of the Rockies, and I don’t follow things “over there” all that much.

That is not exactly post hoc, ergo propter hoc, which connotes the total or at least primary reason for something. Burke was talking there about only one reason, not the total reason. ."

My dad was born in 1912, and at the age of 14 he quit high school and went, with his older brothers, to work setting chokers. In spite of a lack of education, he was a very strong Catholic; and I can assure you that men were opting out long, long before what the Cardinal refers to. My dad was an usher for as long as I can remember - which goes back to about 1950, and he had sharp remarks for the men who would “go out for a smoke” during Mass, and were heading out upon receipt of Communion, or simply getting up and leaving at Communion while not receiving.

I would submit that the sexual revolution and ABC combined have taken far, far more "men (if we wish to call teenagers that) out of the Church and that is the largest source, if you will, for the decline of vocations. Reality: According to CARA, the age group of 18 to 30 has a 21% rate of every week Mass attendance, and the group of 31 to 43 is 22%. When you have lost 45% to 50% (peak attendance being in the late 1950’s at 70%+), then there is going to be a falling off of vocations if for no other reason than that they simply are not attending Church any more. In short, I don’t too much buy the mantra.

And another reason: "All of a sudden, in the wake of Vatican II, the celebration of the liturgy became very sloppy in many places. And another: “Men are facing great temptations, particularly, as I mentioned due to pornography and confusion about sexuality and desperately need to be taught how to battle these temptations in Christ.”

I take the first one to be conjecture. I whole-heartedly agree with the second one.

I could go on with more reasons Burke mentioned as reasons why men have been less attracted to the priesthood, such as very poor catechesis, but you get the point.

Catechesis is no doubt part of the problem; so is secularization.

(2) Trust me when I tell you that had you taken that attitude with a red-blooded American boy, two not so good things likely would have happened: he would have felt betrayed by his Dad and may have been turned off to service completely.

Well, we disagree. There is an element of hyperbole in my statement; but boys not wanting to serve with girls is not an issue that suddenly blooms, stalk, leaves and flowers, in a day. The proverbial grapes have to be picked, stemmed, crushed, and fermented before one has a full blown whine (yes, I spelled that correctly). I have no doubt that boys will fuss and fume about doing things with girls, and I also seriously doubt that boys will have a crisis with their father - or their mother, assuming parents could possibly be on the same page on disciplinary matters - if they are required to suit up and show up at Mass.

Children’s psyches are fragile. Burke, again : "A child’s relationship with their father is key to a child’s self‑identification, which takes places when we are growing up. ]

Right. That is why we now have politically correct treatment of children; their psyches are so fragile that they cannot bear to think that another child might have out-performed them, so mediocrity is now awarded with a star, and later on, with a trophy. Un Hunh.

Not.

I agree with Burke that the father figure is critical in childhood development. But he does not say there that they are fragile, and must be treated with kid gloves. Benjamin Spock was wrong, and those who followed after him were even more wrong. One does not need to beat a child, but he spawned the kid glove treatment and it has only grown worse. I have yet to meet a child who likes discipline (that is, being directed rather than self-directed), but I have met many, many adults who thank their lucky stars that their parents cared enough to be strong disciplinarians.

(3) “Vatican 2 is not ambiguous.”

My friend, that is not totally true, but rather than risk making it appear that I’m picking on you, let’s just let that one slide.

Well, I don’t recall Paul 6th saying it was ambiguous; or JP 1 or JP 2 or Benedict 16 or Francis; or for that matter, any of the bishops who were faithful to the Magisterium. Benedict’s statement that one had to view the documents in the hermeneutic of continuity should have been so painfully obvious as to not need stating, but the world has always held fools and simpletons, and they will be with us to the end of time.

I don’t want to side-track the thread, so let’s not pursue this at length.
And feel free to pick; nits need wits, just not nitwits.

 

[otjm]

I have to wonder about making sweeping judgments based on our own personal experience. I have read the posts and commentaries of others who were practicing Catholics before the 60’s, and they tell a different story. If we are to stand back and look dispassionately, should we really make such presumptions about traditionalists?

Perhaps you could point out which parts you think are “sweeping”. I would be happy to respond, but AI am not sure to what point, or points.

 

[otjm]

The law does give each priest the authority to allow altar girls at their Masses and each pastor has the authority to allow altar girls at their parish, and each bishop has the authority to allow altar girls in his diocese. The episcopal conference only gives an opinion and has no authority in these matters.

That has been my understanding also.

 

[Denise1957]

Perhaps you could point out which parts you think are “sweeping”. I would be happy to respond, but AI am not sure to what point, or points.

Sorry to not have been specific. Your belief that traditionalists have a rose-colored view of the past is the main one. For traditionalists, there’s a lot more to it than having a rose-colored viewpoint of the past (IMO), I can understand how you might think that, though, but I don’t think it’s at all accurate.

 

[KSU]

The law does give each priest the authority to allow altar girls at their Masses and each pastor has the authority to allow altar girls at their parish, and each bishop has the authority to allow altar girls in his diocese. The episcopal conference only gives an opinion and has no authority in these matters.

Vatican Communication on Female Altar Servers

(emphasis mine)

There is actually little that +Cordileone could do as Archbishop of this pastor because the pastor is correctly applying his own authority to the situation. The archbishop could command him under obedience to allow altar girls, but that would be a breach of subsidiarity, and clearly not what +Cordileone chose to do in this situation.

NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SERVE AT THE ALTAR. EVERYONE SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE BISHOP AND THE PASTOR. QUIT ACTING SO OUTRAGED AS IF YOUR “RIGHTS” ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY!

Thank you, Elizium23! I have almost given up trying to get that truth across in this thread. Even now, you can be sure that someone will again post a contrary opinion based only on a superficial reading of cannon law.

BTW, do you happen to know the title of a 2001 (I think) document issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship which, I understand, confirms what you posted ?