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

[pnewton]

pn, you’ve made a case for females being allowed in the sanctuary since all barriers (such as the communion rails) had been removed in the 60’s. That’s why I wasn’t surprised when altar girls were introduced. Perhaps it was the fact that they are liturgically garbed, tend to be younger, and more influenced by parents, that brought the altar girl issue to such controversy? What do you think?

I think the issue there is a lot of resistance to the idea for fear of the slippery slope that leads to female priests. The slippery slope idea can be valid or a fallacy. In this case, when we see what is behind the issue, it seems to be more one of involving the lay more rather than elevating women to clerics. No doubt some feminists ignorant of the Theology of the Body might view altar server as a step to women priests, but as that issue has been defined, it is impossible.

I think the other issue is the fear of loss of vocations. I think many Catholics are worried about the decline of priests in the West. This decline was going on before girls were altar servers and is indicative primarily of increased secularization and intellectual hubris. By the latter, I mean, the more educated we become the more we abandon God. Think Satan on a national scale. “We will not serve.”

The one fear I just flat out disagree with is that boys will not want to serve if girls are serving. In society today, girls and boys are mixed from kindergarten on. It is not a problem. It is not a barrier.

On the other hand, all of the good reasons that boys should serve the altar apply to girls, with the modification that a religious vocation for them cannot be the priesthood.

 

[agnes_therese]

The discussion is of something the Church allows, but does not require. Seems to me we should be able to discuss it without insults.

You have been attempting ad nauseam to show that your statistics are more germane than the statement by the Vatican and every prelate who tells us that the fewer the number of male alter servers, the fewer the number of vocations to the priesthood. Please excuse me if I think that seems a bit pretentious.

The Church requires that in order to deviate from the prescribed norm of male servers, there must be a specific local reason to do so; the decision must be clearly explained to the faithful; it must be done with a view to the ordered development of liturgical life in the parish; and it must be clearly understood that it’s merely temporary. Those requirements are based in large part on the fact that the fewer the number of male alter servers, the fewer the number of vocations to the priesthood.

My friend, you can’t tell me how those requirements were met in your own parish, much less how they have been met even generally for the country. Your statistics are unimportant in any case because they wouldn’t change the Vatican’s position even if they meant something; something I must be missing.

Fr. Illo, who most certainly didn’t want the ugly storm of protest and corrupt media attention, couldn’t meet the requirements. Neither could my pastor. Nor could any other pastor who has shown his discipline and obedience to the Church by returning to the norm.

Thank God for courageous priests like that. The terrible “Spirit of VCII” is finally starting to go back where it came from.

 

[ProVobis]

The one fear I just flat out disagree with is that boys will not want to serve if girls are serving. In society today, girls and boys are mixed from kindergarten on. It is not a problem. It is not a barrier.

That’s why I brought up the possibility of men being turned off priesthood by having women studying alongside them in the seminaries. (I’m told many men change their minds once they set foot inside a seminary.) If anything, I would think this would be more of a vocation issue than serving at the altar when one is much, much younger than 37. (otjm’s average age for ordination.) Note however I’m not overlooking the altar serving issue which can influence future aspirations. One who is denied such service might indeed be discouraged from pursuing a priestly vocation.

 

[otjm]

All this seems to say is that men aren’t exactly beating down doors to become priests. Or at least it’s not their top aspiration in life.

This coming from one who studied nuclear physics when he was still a teenager.

That is an accurate assessment. And there are a multitude of causes, among them the extremely low attendance rate of 18 to 30 year olds to weekly Mass. Every week rate is 21%; for 31-43 it is 22%; those born 1943 - 1960 38%; those born before 1943, 52%.

 

[pnewton]

That’s why I brought up the possibility of men being turned off priesthood by having women studying alongside them in the seminaries. (I’m told many men change their minds once they set foot inside a seminary.)

I do not know if I see this as a problem. Seminary is a time of discernment. In the world, we have women. Even without altar girls, we will have women studying in seminaries. I still believe increasing the role of laity has more to do with this than altar girls, being that women serving the Church as adults that lead some women to the seminary.

 

[KSU]

“Ad nauseum?” “dissent?”. Your charity is lacking.

That seems to be the typical response to fraternal correction by presentation of Cannon Law and magisterial teaching. If you take issue with the Church on a Catholic web site you should expect to be challenged.

 

[baliano]

I asked my brother, who is 7, if he would like to be an alter server when he is of the age. Our sister, who is 13, is an alter server. He said that he would like to. I asked him if other girls were serving, would he still be an alter server? And he said yes, it didn’t matter if there were girls or boys.

News flash: he actually wants to be an alter server, when he is at age, because of our sister.

Having been at that age as a boy I think it his attitude might change when he is 12 or 13.

 

[otjm]

You have been attempting ad nauseam to show that your statistics are more germane than the statement by the Vatican and every prelate who tells us that the fewer the number of male alter servers, the fewer the number of vocations to the priesthood. Please excuse me if I think that seems a bit pretentious.

I would submit you think it is pretentious because you are attributing more weight to a statement from Rome than it deserves.

There is correlation between altar serving and priesthood, and I have not denied that. There is also correlation between a number of other factors and priesthood, and I am suggesting that a) Rome did not say that altar serving is causation, and b) Rome did not say that there are no other factors.
What I am saying is that there is no showing other than apocrypha that girls serving are making any significant impact on the number of boys serving, including the allegation of boys stopping serving at some point.

The Church requires that in order to deviate from the prescribed norm of male servers, there must be a specific local reason to do so; the decision must be clearly explained to the faithful; it must be done with a view to the ordered development of liturgical life in the parish; and it must be clearly understood that it’s merely temporary. Those requirements are based in large part on the fact that the fewer the number of male alter servers, the fewer the number of vocations to the priesthood.

And as I responded, that was done years ago when girls started serving. The requirement that it be done yearly is not in the books. Additionally, you are simply positing that fewer boys serve, and attributing that to girls serving. I say that is simply an unfounded conclusion.

If you want to get to the heart of some of that, in the age group of 18 - 30 the every week Mass attendance rate is 21 % and the 31 to 43 rate is 22%; so there is a vast number of boys whose families don’t go to Mass on a regular basis, let alone have their boys serve Mass. It is not the girls who are preventing boys from serving - I have never seen a substantiated report of that anywhere. boys are not being crowded out; there simply are not enough boys attending Mass weekly to form a large pool from which to draw.

My friend, you can’t tell me how those requirements were met in your own parish, much less how they have been met even generally for the country. Your statistics are unimportant in any case because they wouldn’t change the Vatican’s position even if they meant something; something I must be missing.

what you are missing is that the rule change was literally decades ago. I was in a different parish when the rule change came in. I would lay dollars to donuts you either were not alive then, or do not recall what, if anything occurred in the parish you were in., Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

Fr. Illo, who most certainly didn’t want the ugly storm of protest and corrupt media attention, couldn’t meet the requirements. Neither could my pastor. Nor could any other pastor who has shown his discipline and obedience to the Church by returning to the norm.

Thank God for courageous priests like that. The terrible “Spirit of VCII” is finally starting to go back where it came from.

I don’t consider him courageous; I consider him to be a priest who has looked at the overall characteristics of his parish, and has decided that this course is best for his parish. He is the pastor and that is part of what a pastor needs to do.

Let me get the point across: a) there is a clear correlation between boys serving and priesthood. B) there are a large number of other factors which are critical to a boy deciding at some time to enter the priesthood (and I will list them in a separate post), and among those are issues of the general characteristics of the parish and the families therein. As I noted in another post, my parish has had 3 ordained as priests, 2 as deacons, 1 other who went to seminary and was not ordained; 1 other who started the process for permanent deacon and was not ordained, and 1 who joined a group of sisters which wear an identifiable habit - which is another way of saying, not a liberal group of sisters. We have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration in our parish for well over 15 years (I am a lousy historian, but I think it may now be about 20); we also are a parish which built the first Catholic grade school in 40 years. We have an active vocations committee, which is and has been sponsoring families to take a month to specifically focus on praying daily for vocations.

I am neither negative nor neutral about encouraging vocations. I simply disagree that having girls serve is either preventing boys from serving, or discouraging them from doing so.

And by the way, CARA surveyed US Catholic females born 1982 or later, and found that 29% of the women in that age group (the Millennials) who professed perpetual vows as sisters or nuns in 2014 had been altar servers. Hardly a de minimus correlation.

CARA is doing more studies of vocations and what impacts them, including assessing family support and encouragement of a vocation, faith practice of the family, level of support, parish involvement, ethnic and cultural and other issues, as well as contemporary attitudes towards vocations and other factors within families.

You seem to think that boys serving is the primary source of their considering vocations. I would submit that it is a factor among a number of factors, and that girls serving not only do not detract from that, but also serve to attract girls potential to the religious life. And I suggest that the correlation between serving and priesthood be examined further, particularly in light of other factors which also have a positive impact on the decision to become a priest.

 

[KSU]

I would submit you think it is pretentious because you are attributing more weight to a statement from Rome than it deserves.

There is correlation between altar serving and priesthood, and I have not denied that. There is also correlation between a number of other factors and priesthood, and I am suggesting that a) Rome did not say that altar serving is causation, and b) Rome did not say that there are no other factors.
What I am saying is that there is no showing other than apocrypha that girls serving are making any significant impact on the number of boys serving, including the allegation of boys stopping serving at some point.

And as I responded, that was done years ago when girls started serving. The requirement that it be done yearly is not in the books. Additionally, you are simply positing that fewer boys serve, and attributing that to girls serving. I say that is simply an unfounded conclusion.

If you want to get to the heart of some of that, in the age group of 18 - 30 the every week Mass attendance rate is 21 % and the 31 to 43 rate is 22%; so there is a vast number of boys whose families don’t go to Mass on a regular basis, let alone have their boys serve Mass. It is not the girls who are preventing boys from serving - I have never seen a substantiated report of that anywhere. boys are not being crowded out; there simply are not enough boys attending Mass weekly to form a large pool from which to draw.

what you are missing is that the rule change was literally decades ago. I was in a different parish when the rule change came in. I would lay dollars to donuts you either were not alive then, or do not recall what, if anything occurred in the parish you were in., Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

I don’t consider him courageous; I consider him to be a priest who has looked at the overall characteristics of his parish, and has decided that this course is best for his parish. He is the pastor and that is part of what a pastor needs to do.

Let me get the point across: a) there is a clear correlation between boys serving and priesthood. B) there are a large number of other factors which are critical to a boy deciding at some time to enter the priesthood (and I will list them in a separate post), and among those are issues of the general characteristics of the parish and the families therein. As I noted in another post, my parish has had 3 ordained as priests, 2 as deacons, 1 other who went to seminary and was not ordained; 1 other who started the process for permanent deacon and was not ordained, and 1 who joined a group of sisters which wear an identifiable habit - which is another way of saying, not a liberal group of sisters. We have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration in our parish for well over 15 years (I am a lousy historian, but I think it may now be about 20); we also are a parish which built the first Catholic grade school in 40 years. We have an active vocations committee, which is and has been sponsoring families to take a month to specifically focus on praying daily for vocations.

I am neither negative nor neutral about encouraging vocations. I simply disagree that having girls serve is either preventing boys from serving, or discouraging them from doing so.

And by the way, CARA surveyed US Catholic females born 1982 or later, and found that 29% of the women in that age group (the Millennials) who professed perpetual vows as sisters or nuns in 2014 had been altar servers. Hardly a de minimus correlation.

CARA is doing more studies of vocations and what impacts them, including assessing family support and encouragement of a vocation, faith practice of the family, level of support, parish involvement, ethnic and cultural and other issues, as well as contemporary attitudes towards vocations and other factors within families.

You seem to think that boys serving is the primary source of their considering vocations. I would submit that it is a factor among a number of factors, and that girls serving not only do not detract from that, but also serve to attract girls potential to the religious life. And I suggest that the correlation between serving and priesthood be examined further, particularly in light of other factors which also have a positive impact on the decision to become a priest.

 

[ProVobis]

I still believe increasing the role of laity has more to do with this than altar girls…

I would somewhat agree with you here. I would have had second thoughts about working for any employer who would turn over my abilities to some user. (Fortunately that never happened to me.) But we do now have the “priesthood of the laity” and priests are expected to be more of parish administrators than they used to be; at some point if they feel that too much of this is taken away from them, then they can either ask for transfers or pursue another line of work. There are a lot of ex-priests who have probably been in that position.

 

[pnewton]

That seems to be the typical response to fraternal correction by presentation of Cannon Law and magisterial teaching. If you take issue with the Church on a Catholic web site you should expect to be challenged.

You are not the Church. You are not representative of the position of the Catholic Church. I posted the current application in America above. That is the position of the Church which leaves such decision to national conferences, as per canon law.

So my point is, it is uncharitable to insult people under the guise of fraternal correction toward your own opinion.

Unless you can post one thing the Church teaches I disagreed with. I posted why I agree. I will wait and see what point you think I disagreed with.

 

[KSU]

I would submit you think it is pretentious because you are attributing more weight to a statement from Rome than it deserves.

There is correlation between altar serving and priesthood, and I have not denied that. There is also correlation between a number of other factors and priesthood, and I am suggesting that a) Rome did not say that altar serving is causation, and b) Rome did not say that there are no other factors.
What I am saying is that there is no showing other than apocrypha that girls serving are making any significant impact on the number of boys serving, including the allegation of boys stopping serving at some point.

And as I responded, that was done years ago when girls started serving. The requirement that it be done yearly is not in the books. Additionally, you are simply positing that fewer boys serve, and attributing that to girls serving. I say that is simply an unfounded conclusion.

If you want to get to the heart of some of that, in the age group of 18 - 30 the every week Mass attendance rate is 21 % and the 31 to 43 rate is 22%; so there is a vast number of boys whose families don’t go to Mass on a regular basis, let alone have their boys serve Mass. It is not the girls who are preventing boys from serving - I have never seen a substantiated report of that anywhere. boys are not being crowded out; there simply are not enough boys attending Mass weekly to form a large pool from which to draw.

what you are missing is that the rule change was literally decades ago. I was in a different parish when the rule change came in. I would lay dollars to donuts you either were not alive then, or do not recall what, if anything occurred in the parish you were in., Your point is irrelevant to the discussion.

I don’t consider him courageous; I consider him to be a priest who has looked at the overall characteristics of his parish, and has decided that this course is best for his parish. He is the pastor and that is part of what a pastor needs to do.
Let me get the point across: a) there is a clear correlation between boys serving and priesthood. B) there are a large number of other factors which are critical to a boy deciding at some time to enter the priesthood (and I will list them in a separate post), and among those are issues of the general characteristics of the parish and the families therein. As I noted in another post, my parish has had 3 ordained as priests, 2 as deacons, 1 other who went to seminary and was not ordained; 1 other who started the process for permanent deacon and was not ordained, and 1 who joined a group of sisters which wear an identifiable habit - which is another way of saying, not a liberal group of sisters. We have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration in our parish for well over 15 years (I am a lousy historian, but I think it may now be about 20); we also are a parish which built the first Catholic grade school in 40 years. We have an active vocations committee, which is and has been sponsoring families to take a month to specifically focus on praying daily for vocations.

I am neither negative nor neutral about encouraging vocations. I simply disagree that having girls serve is either preventing boys from serving, or discouraging them from doing so.

And by the way, CARA surveyed US Catholic females born 1982 or later, and found that 29% of the women in that age group (the Millennials) who professed perpetual vows as sisters or nuns in 2014 had been altar servers. Hardly a de minimus correlation.

CARA is doing more studies of vocations and what impacts them, including assessing family support and encouragement of a vocation, faith practice of the family, level of support, parish involvement, ethnic and cultural and other issues, as well as contemporary attitudes towards vocations and other factors within families.

You seem to think that boys serving is the primary source of their considering vocations. I would submit that it is a factor among a number of factors, and that girls serving not only do not detract from that, but also serve to attract girls potential to the religious life. And I suggest that the correlation between serving and priesthood be examined further, particularly in light of other factors which also have a positive impact on the decision to become a priest.

ot, you never state my position correctly, but at least your M O is not discourteous. Thanks for that.

 

[baliano]

When Altar Boys actually assisted in the Mass, were required to study the Latin prayers at the foot of the altar, prepare the altar, dress according to a proper code and functioned as more than gofers, there was an attraction for many to consider the Priesthood. I know it to be absolutely true because I was one and I did consider the priesthood.

In the new OF Mass where there is no real participation by Altar Servers beyond being gofers I tend to agree with those who say there is no strong attraction to consider the priesthood. It will take more than ousting girls to repair the vacuum left “in the spirit of Vatican II”.

 

[otjm]

That’s why I brought up the possibility of men being turned off priesthood by having women studying alongside them in the seminaries. (I’m told many men change their minds once they set foot inside a seminary.) If anything, I would think this would be more of a vocation issue than serving at the altar when one is much, much younger than 37. (otjm’s average age for ordination.) Note however I’m not overlooking the altar serving issue which can influence future aspirations. One who is denied such service might indeed be discouraged from pursuing a priestly vocation.

The statistic is from CARA.

And I seriously doubt that women studying in classrooms with men has much if anything to do with men leaving seminary, with the possible exception that the man may discern that he is not called to a life of celibacy. I would assume it would be a very rare individual who quit because he felt women should not have theology degrees… if ever.

And if that (celibacy) is the issue, frankly, I would much rather he discern that while in seminary; I know all too many men who were ordained and asked to be laicized because the celibate life was not their calling.

This gets back to the issue that a call to a celibate life does not necessarily mean that one is called to be a priest; and the bottom line is that celibacy is a requirement, while priesthood is a call in the Roman rite. (Note: I am excepting professed religious).

That is not to say that some men who are called to priesthood are not also called to celibacy; but I have met not a few to whom celibacy is a cross rather than a vocation.

Unless and until the Roman rite expands the ordination to married men, that is the way it is going to be, and part of the discernment process of seminary is coming to terms with the issue of celibacy.

There are also other reasons that seminarians drop out; some find the study too rigorous, or find that seeing priesthood up close and personal, it is not what they thought.

And discernment is not just for the seminarian; some are invited to not continue; I have two relatives (one of my dad’s first cousins, and one of my second cousins) who were invited to not come forward to be ordained deacons, both in their third/fourth year of theology.

 

[ProVobis]

When Altar Boys actually assisted in the Mass, were required to study the Latin prayers at the foot of the altar, prepare the altar, dress according to a proper code and functioned as more than gofers, there was an attraction for many to consider the Priesthood. I know it to be absolutely true because I was one and I did consider the priesthood.

In the new OF Mass where there is no real participation by Altar Servers beyond being gofers I tend to agree with those who say there is no strong attraction to consider the priesthood. It will take more than ousting girls to repair the vacuum left “in the spirit of Vatican II”.

Indeed.

 

[otjm]

ot, you never state my position correctly, but at least your M O is not discourteous. Thanks for that.

I don’t intend to be discourteous, and I certainly hope I do not come across that way. I will try to state your position better, if I can discern where I am not doing so.

 

[ProVobis]

I asked my brother, who is 7, if he would like to be an alter server when he is of the age. Our sister, who is 13, is an alter server. He said that he would like to. I asked him if other girls were serving, would he still be an alter server? And he said yes, it didn’t matter if there were girls or boys.

News flash: he actually wants to be an alter server, when he is at age, because of our sister.

I was once approached by a female classmate who wanted me to mentor her younger brother in serving. This was back in 1958 or 59. He wasn’t able to handle the Latin but I appreciated the gesture on her part.

 

[otjm]

The one fear I just flat out disagree with is that boys will not want to serve if girls are serving. In society today, girls and boys are mixed from kindergarten on. It is not a problem. It is not a barrier.

On the other hand, all of the good reasons that boys should serve the altar apply to girls, with the modification that a religious vocation for them cannot be the priesthood.

I am willing to accept that there is a period of time where boys generally will prefer to not associate with girls; actually, there appears to be a time where girls go through that; but in terms of socialization, they do so a bit before boys do. And from what I have read, the time slot is not absolute, but for boys seems to be somewhere between 7th grade and freshman high school.

However, what I do disagree with from other posters is that this is so strong that boys will drop out en masse. Boys are not cut out like cookies; they vary in their likes, dislikes, and even in the level of maturity at any given point. But to presume that their psyches are going to be warped unless the parent allows the boy to dictate what the boy will or will not do is not founded on reality; it is founded on parental failure to teach.

Everyone is going to have a period of time they have to cooperate with someone they don’t like. Boys objecting to serving with girls is a prime teaching point (along with a series of teaching points from there on out) which too many parents simply abdicate. And I suspect, with a great majority of families where both parents work, having a pre-teen or early teen start to make a fuss results in an issue of picking battles rather than any significant issue with the boy. When you both put in an 8 hour day plus transportation, and come home to find your son whining about having to serve, it is far easier to say “Yeah, whatever” and let them bail than to address the issue.

They are in school with girls at the same age, and with teaching methods which involve group activities, the same issue (Ugh! Girls!) arises in the classrooms. Amazingly, the boys seem to survive it there…

 

[Prodigal_40s]

That seems to be the typical response to fraternal correction by presentation of Cannon Law and magisterial teaching. If you take issue with the Church on a Catholic web site you should expect to be challenged.

I consider your posts in this thread to be spot on and I like your approach to argument which is charitable but refusing to give in on issues that are effecting the life blood of the Church

 

[otjm]

I’m glad you brought up discernment of a possible vocation. Before girls were allowed to serve at the altar, what were the usual ways in which women discerned a vocation?

Also, if we were to take the view that girls are to discern a religious vocation by serving at the altar, shouldn’t boys, or young men, be able discern a vocation by volunteering at a women’s religious order? Why aren’t boys or young men clamoring to discern a vocation to the priesthood by being involved in a female religious order? Maybe they are, and I’ve just not heard of it.

Back when I was in high school (ancient history), there were more Catholic high schools (and they were more Catholic than say, what we have seen 20 years ago) and many were segregated; boys in one school, girls in another.

And there were a plethora of professed women who taught; with the girls high school, it was primarily sisters teaching; with the boys high schools, it might be priests and sisters, and some laity (I attended one of those) or it might be priests and scholastics (also like the one I attended).

There was no secret that the sisters recruited heavily out of the high schools; and the girls could join without a college degree; some later might get one, and some not.

As to your second question, which is really a red herring, boys are most likely not clamoring to do so for the same reason girls were not clamoring in grade and high school to be involved in orders. Orders didn’t then, nor do they now have any place for grade and high school kids.

However, I will give you 10 points for the most creative red herring I have ever seen.