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

[ProVobis]

I forgot all about that. I do not do well at cross-tread posting, but I will be happy to explain. I had this funny thing pass through my head that we use the word “dress” as a verb and as a noun. So I started laughing and thought it an irony. So yes, you are correct I did refer to the robes as dresses as a pun in contrast to the verb dressing.

However, if you note, the whole point of that post was that such externals should *not *be a determination of masculinity. I have never worn a kilt, but given the need, I would.

IOW, you were in the subjunctive mode. Trying to help you out here.

 

[otjm]

Different charisms require different preparation.

The charism of priest, by definition, is fundamentally connected to service at the altar.

The charisms of women religious are fundamentally different. And NONE of those charisms are associated with altar service.

To recycle some bits from earlier in the thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12717035&postcount=282

While it is correlation and not causation, according to CARA, young women making professional vows noted that 29% of them reported serving as altar servers.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I forgot all about that. I do not do well at cross-tread posting, but I will be happy to explain. I had this funny thing pass through my head that we use the word “dress” as a verb and as a noun. So I started laughing and thought it an irony. So yes, you are correct I did refer to the robes as dresses as a pun in contrast to the verb dressing.

However, if you note, the whole point of that post was that such externals should *not *be a determination of masculinity. I have never worn a kilt, but given the need, I would.

So you admitted that you wrote it? Good.

This whole debate is hinged around setting the Mass within the confines of secular squabbles.

IOW, you were in the subjunctive mode. Trying to help you out here.

Good luck with that

 

[pnewton]

IOW, you were in the subjunctive mode. Trying to help you out here.

Well, if you note, I try and shove humor in ever now to relieve tension. So it falls flat sometimes. And it sometimes offends, then I have to apologize, though I try and avoid the latter.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

IOW, you were in the subjunctive mode. Trying to help you out here.

Seriously though I mean it I really do. I love funny homilies and wee jokes at Mass.

No actually I don’t. I think the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is something that takes precedence over everything else including “diversity”, “equality” and all the other nonsense that comes from individuals who either don’t believe in the Mass or are too focused on the World and all its hypocritical and selfish fleeting nonsense.

Better stop being “uncharitable”

 

[ProVobis]

While it is correlation and not causation, according to CARA, young women making professional vows noted that 29% of them reported serving as altar servers.

As opposed to virtually 0% of those many more taking their vows before the 70’s?

Just sayin…

 

[pnewton]

No actually I don’t. I think the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is something that takes precedence over everything else including “diversity”, “equality” and all the other nonsense that comes from individuals who either don’t believe in the Mass or are too focused on the World and all its hypocritical and selfish fleeting nonsense.

There is a third option. Those who believe in diversity in this area (altar girls) may see it as beneficial. Since most priests and bishop in the US do this, I do not think it can be said they do not believe in Mass or that they are too focused on the world. Nor do I think the practice should be called nonsense. Charity, by the way, according to St. Paul, is the greatest of virtues.

 

[ProVobis]

Seriously though I mean it I really do. I love funny homilies and wee jokes at Mass.

No actually I don’t. I think the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is something that takes precedence over everything else including “diversity”, “equality” and all the other nonsense that comes from individuals who either don’t believe in the Mass or are too focused on the World and all its hypocritical and selfish fleeting nonsense.

Better stop being “uncharitable”

Hard to disagree with that, except to some the “nonsense” becomes a matter of winning or losing and people generally don’t like to lose. Once the foot’s inside that door, it’s difficult to focus on much else.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Hard to disagree with that, except to some the “nonsense” becomes a matter of winning or losing and people generally don’t like to lose. Once the foot’s inside that door, it’s difficult to focus on much else.

Spot on. I admittedly have that sense of competitiveness sometimes and then realise that it’s got nothing to do with vainglorious individualism. It amuses me when you talk to the supporters of “inclusivity” because they never give a straight answer, admit to things they say or do until pushed. I’m sure Our Lord and Saviour just wants the Church to remain strong.

 

[pnewton]

“2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way”

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Hard to disagree with that, except to some the “nonsense” becomes a matter of winning or losing and people generally don’t like to lose. Once the foot’s inside that door, it’s difficult to focus on much else.

The latest trend is to insinuate that “diversity” is something that the Holy Spirit has willed and some include quotations from sacred scripture. I’m always wary of doing the latter because if I get it wrong…I’ll displease our Lord Jesus Christ

 

[ProVobis]

“2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way”

Of course, but favorable to whom?

 

[pnewton]

Of course, but favorable to whom?

The most favorable to the person making the statement. Let me give some examples.

If a priest or bishops wants to allow girls to serve the altar, they should not be assumed to be liberal, feminist, modernist, or worldly. The default position should be that they are a good shepherd acting in best interest of the flock.

On the other hand, if a priest or bishop does not want to allow altar girls, they should not be viewed as misogynist, unfair, partial or mean. They too should be give due benefit of the doubt.

When I did not post a response because I did not recognize something from last month on another thread, it should not be assumed that I was dodging until pushed. I always endeavor to give straight answers and to treat others with the same respect I ask for.

Now with all three of these situations, there still exists the possibility of recognizing a pattern that indicates a deeper issue. This would not be rash judgment, but a reasonable judgment. If, for example, I made a habit of hit and run posts, then I would rightly be judged, if someone was inclined to do so.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

On this thread I really don’t care about the positions of individuals politically. It’s a fact that young boys are drawn to the faith when they’re involved in the sacrifice of the Mass. That’s not a point scoring thing on either side. It’s a logical fact. Aligned to this when the Church is shown to be outside secular concerns over “sex quotas” and “fair and equal opportunities” the example is set that the Church allows us to go closer to God because we are not meant for this World. We follow Christ and that will upset a lot of people unfortunately

 

[otjm]

As opposed to virtually 0% of those many more taking their vows before the 70’s?

Just sayin…

Well of course; 50, 60, 70 years ago society was exactly like it is now, right? Sexual morality was at an all time low; secularism was rampant in the US, radical feminism was at its height and glory…

Not.

So I guess you would say that given society as it is today, with 55,000+ abortions, teaching near teens and teens methods of birth control, and with only 21% of 18 to 30 year old adults attending Mass on a weekly basis, we should cut out any girls serving Mass, because, after all, 29% of those making final professions did so.

Oh, and let’s add that in 1966, there were 181,421 sisters, and now they are 49,883, or a 72.5% drop off; so I guess you would be comfortable stopping something that is correlated to young women making that commitment.

“Just sayin’”? Or just throwing in non sequiturs?

There are currently more women professed over the age of 90 (11%) than there are under the age of 60 (under 40:1%; 40 - 49 2%; 50 - 59 6%, or a total 9%).

What we are seeing is the near total collapse of professed women religious in the US.

Also interesting is the countries in the world, where between 2002 and 2012 (a short ten year period) there has been growth in the number of professed women religious: Tanzania, the Philippines, Vietnam, and India, all countries which have a more focused and more active sense of faith, and none of which have the issues which Europe and North America have - materialism, secularism, hedonism to name a few significant ones.

But then, again, why would we want to do anything which might result in encouraging women to enter the professed religious life?

I don’t see anyone in this thread who doesn’t want to see an increase in vocations. Too many comments in this thread appear to be along the lines of “Rome said it, I believe it, that ends it”, which is closely parallel to “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”.

Encouraging children to serve Mass is but one of a multitude of things parishes need to be doing to foster vocations. I have no problem with boys having a priority to serve, but until it is shown that boys are losing places to serve to girls, doing away with girls serving is a non-starter. And the idea that boys are quitting en masse when they reach the age of not liking girls lacks any statistics anywhere, and is simply urban myth; and for those boys who choose to quit, that is a matter of parenting. Boys are no of such fragile psyches that having to serve with a girl is going to be a life changing event. There are ample activities which boys of that age group may participate in where there are no girls.

I would submit that there may be more damage to a possible vocation from a priest, parent, or family member who is negative about vocations than there ever will be for boys having to serve Mass with girls.

We need mentors; prayer groups; retreats; Adoration; more and better religious education; and a host of other means of encouraging vocations both to the priesthood and the professed religious life.

And we need more parents going to Mass (the age group of 31 to 43 is hardly better than the younger group). If the parents are not taking the family to weekly Mass, how are children going to be raised with a strong faith?

John Paul 2 started the emphasis on new evangelization, and Benedict 16 and Francis have continued that. And neither of them have suggested that is only something the priests are to do.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

The latest trend is to insinuate that “diversity” is something that the Holy Spirit has willed and some include quotations from sacred scripture. I’m always wary of doing the latter because if I get it wrong…I’ll displease our Lord Jesus Christ

I have known a number of older Catholics who would agree that “diversity” in fact is not of the Holy Spirit – and would welcome a return to the non-“diverse” days when in the same small city there would be the “Polish church,” the “French church,” the “Irish church,” the “Portuguese church,” and so on. I would have thought we’ve gone beyond that.

 

[KSU]

“2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way”

You want an application of 2478 from us and from the poster you ridiculed, as well as from alter boys and their parents, when you uncharitably and gratuitously said, “… we put the altar boys in white dresses to serve”. It doesn’t matter how hilarious you think it was.

You did not apply 2478 to yourself in order to avoid rash judgment when, straight out of left field, you accused me of being “uncharitable”. You were referring to my use of the term “Ad nauseam” in my discussion with otjm concerning his endless use of CARA statistics in an attempt to cast doubt on the Vatican’s belief in the value of alter boys. You also were referring to my use of the words “dissident practice” in reference to the practice of those clerics who choose to ignore the norm for alter servers prescribed by the Vatican. A practice, BTW, which you said you welcome.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I have known a number of older Catholics who would agree that “diversity” in fact is not of the Holy Spirit – and would welcome a return to the non-“diverse” days when in the same small city there would be the “Polish church,” the “French church,” the “Irish church,” the “Portuguese church,” and so on. I would have thought we’ve gone beyond that.

Oh right. So does that mean that the church needs to be “reformulated, rethought” to advance with the times and be part of this “wonderful and varied yet inclusive” patchwork of everything?

If so…I think I’ve heard this before

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Are there are Catholics who just want the Church to be an extension of their secular lives?

I pray to Our Lord and Saviour for the Church Militant that we can find the strength to believe in the Sacred Mysteries and the Blessed Sacrifice of the Mass

 

[pnewton]

You want an application of 2478 from us and from the poster you ridiculed, as well as from alter boys and their parents, when you uncharitably and gratuitously said, “… we put the altar boys in white dresses to serve”. It doesn’t matter how hilarious you think it was.

That was not, by definition, rash judgment. If however the statement offended you, then I deeply apologize for it and will try and be more careful.