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

[ProVobis]

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.

Indeed the training has to be more extensive. The servers also have to prepare the altars when switching from the OF to EF and vice versa, unless someone else volunteers which is seldom.

 

[ProVobis]

I would submit that the sexual revolution and ABC combined …if for no other reason than that they simply are not attending Church any more. …
…
Catechesis is no doubt part of the problem; so is secularization.

Sounds like a chicken or egg thing. Very convoluted if one is trying a cause-effect analysis.

 

[August_Carlson]

I don’t have a dog in this hunt because I am not disturbed by either girls or boys serving at Mass as long as they do so with true reverence, dignity and intention of purpose. I do, however, have some experience in the sanctuary because I serve at the altar regularly – at least four times a week. I also assist in the training of altar servers – boys and girls. So I think I can say this with some authority: It takes a very special young person to serve, and it is a very great honor.

The sanctuary is one of the most sacred places on earth. It’s the place where eternity meets the temporal world, where heaven and earth are joined together. The Lord is made fully present in the sanctuary. To serve is to be in the presence of God. Every gesture has meaning, every bow, the way we hold our hands together, the way we sit at full attention, the way we walk with grace and purpose, the way we kneel, the way we speak and sing and listen.

Each item that is handled is precious beyond earthly value: thuribles, pattens, cruets, purificators, bells and candles; the missal. The corps of altar servers must be obedient and attentive. They must be properly dressed and properly groomed. They must arrive on time and according to the schedule. They must be as polite in the sacristy as they are in the sanctuary. We are a community that assists those who serve – the priest, the deacon, the lectors, the cantors, the ordinary and extraordinary ministers. When we are present, we get to witness – up-close and personal – the eternal liturgical drama of the Mass. It is a breathtakingly joyful experience – and if we are called to serve, we take part in a greatness beyond all human comprehension.

I could not object to a Pastor who wishes to have a corp of servers who are exclusively male. He has his reasons. Perhaps he believes that, by encouraging male involvement, he may be able to encourage vocations to the priesthood or the deaconate. And, he may be right. It’s his parish. He knows what it’s like on the ground, and it’s his duty and his charism, to lead. Regardless of what we may think, it is his prerogative as Pastor to make decisions such as this, and we, as obedient parishioners should trust his judgement. I trust he means no ill. To make this decision a battle of the sexes is to politicize his authority and encourage dissent. There must be no dissent in the sanctuary.

 

[Elizium23]

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 ?

Congregation for Divine Worship Letter on Altar Servers

Prot. N.2451/00/L

As is clear from the Responsio ad propositum dubium concerning can. 230, § 2, and its authentic interpretation (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, Prot. n. 2482/93 March 15, 1994, see Notitiae 30 [1994] 333-335), the Diocesan Bishop, in his role as moderator of the liturgical life in the diocese entrusted to his care, has the authority to permit service at the altar by women within the boundaries of the territory entrusted to his care. Moreover his liberty in this question cannot be conditioned by claims in favor of a uniformity between his diocese and other dioceses which would logically lead to the removal of the necessary freedom of action from the individual Diocesan Bishop. Rather, after having heard the opinion of the Episcopal Conference, he is to base his prudential judgment upon what he considers to accord more closely with the local pastoral need for an ordered development of the liturgical life in the diocese entrusted to his care, bearing in mind, among other things, the sensibilities of the faithful, the reasons which would motivate such a permission, and the different liturgical settings and congregations which gather for the Holy Mass (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, March 15, 1994, no. 1).

In accord with the above cited instructions of the Holy See such an authorization may not, in any way, exclude men or, in particular, boys from service at the altar, nor require that priests of the diocese would make use of female altar servers, since “it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar” (Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conference, March 15, 1994, no. 2). Indeed, the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain, not least of all due to the well known assistance that such programs have provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations (cf. ibid.)

With respect to whether the practice of women serving at the altar would truly be of pastoral advantage in the local pastoral situation, it is perhaps helpful to recall that the non-ordained faithful do not have a right to service at the altar, rather they are capable of being admitted to such service by the Sacred Pastors (cf. Circular Letter to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, March 15, 1994, no. 4, cf. also can 228, §1, Interdicasterial Instruction Esslesiae de mysterio, August 15, 1997, no. 4, see Notitiae 34 [1998] 9-42). Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I could not object to a Pastor who wishes to have a corp of servers who are exclusively male. He has his reasons. Perhaps he believes that, by encouraging male involvement, he may be able to encourage vocations to the priesthood or the deaconate. And, he may be right. It’s his parish. He knows what it’s like on the ground, and it’s his duty and his charism, to lead. **Regardless of what we may think, it is his prerogative as Pastor to make decisions such as this, and we, as obedient parishioners should trust his judgement. **I trust he means no ill. To make this decision a battle of the sexes is to politicize his authority and encourage dissent. There must be no dissent in the sanctuary.

Exactly.

 

[religioussoup]

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.

I agree. Unless girls being alter servers have somehow impacted the number of boys into the priesthood, I do not think that denying these young female volunteers the right to serve is right whatsoever.

 

[KSU]

Congregation for Divine Worship Letter on Altar Servers

OK, now you are just showing off. But seriously, your research abilities are making me jealous.
Thank you, again.

 

[Elizium23]

I agree. Unless girls being alter servers have somehow impacted the number of boys into the priesthood, I do not think that denying these young female volunteers the right to serve is right whatsoever.

We just went over this but let me spell it out in simple little words so that you can understand. Nobody has a right to serve. Nobody has a right to serve. NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SERVE!

Not boys, not girls, not men, nobody. This all happens at the pastor’s and bishop’s pleasure.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

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?

I apologise for my poor grammar. Where I said that canon law gives parish priests the authority to decide whether altar girls can belong to a parish I should have revised it to say:

Canon law gives parish priests the authority to decide whether altar girls can participate as altar servers for the parish.

Again I apologise for the confusion.

 

[otjm]

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.

I think if you go back and read my post again, you will see that I did not say that all Traditionalists have rose colored glasses; but there certainly is a subset within them which does. And any number of them have expounded in the forums over the years in ways that reflect their views. All of them? Certainly not. But too many of them have a romanticized view of the Church prior to Vatican 2; little history, and no real experience.

 

[virgo]

We just went over this but let me spell it out in simple little words so that you can understand. Nobody has a right to serve. Nobody has a right to serve. NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SERVE!

Not boys, not girls, not men, nobody. This all happens at the pastor’s and bishop’s pleasure.

Would you still say that if this priest had commanded that all altar servers be female? Somehow, I think I know the answer to that.

 

[Denise1957]

I think if you go back and read my post again, you will see that I did not say that all Traditionalists have rose colored glasses; but there certainly is a subset within them which does. And any number of them have expounded in the forums over the years in ways that reflect their views. All of them? Certainly not. But too many of them have a romanticized view of the Church prior to Vatican 2; little history, and no real experience.

In what way have many traditionalists romanticized the Church prior to Vatican ll, in your opinion? Do you really believe that that’s all there is to it? Have you taken the time to really and truly understand what they are saying? Do you care about them enough to try to understand?

 

[ProVobis]

Would you still say that if this priest had commanded that all altar servers be female? Somehow, I think I know the answer to that.

Right. Then he’ll be accused of something else.

 

[ProVobis]

I think if you go back and read my post again, you will see that I did not say that all Traditionalists have rose colored glasses; but there certainly is a subset within them which does. And any number of them have expounded in the forums over the years in ways that reflect their views. All of them? Certainly not. But too many of them have a romanticized view of the Church prior to Vatican 2; little history, and no real experience.

One probably would find many, many more who are stuck in the “spirit of Vatican 2,” who have never read any of the Church documents on anything and just went with what they heard.

 

[KSU]

…Well, I don’t recall Paul 6th saying [VCII] was ambiguous; or JP 1 or JP 2 or Benedict 16 .

Nobody should be surprised that there is confusion (honest and otherwise) in the pews about the policy regarding female alter servers if the proper understanding of even the most noteworthy Church documents since the last Council is lacking. Since this thread is just about burned out, otjm, here are a few quotes and links underlying my firm belief that VCII documents coulda/shoulda been much more clear:

Begin quotes

The present translations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council are “imprecise”, according to Archbishop William Levada, the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Zenit reports that he suggested that the problem should be resolved by a careful, official, re-translation of the Council documents, perhaps in ten years time, to mark the Council’s 50th anniversary.
To date, no translation of Vatican II documents has been presented as official…In his address, Archbishop Levada explained that ambiguous translations had been made of the Council’s texts, in particular of “Dei Verbum,” suggesting the urgency of a total revision of the texts to correct the various interpretations and translations, which, he believes, do not reflect the authentic meaning of what the conciliar fathers wished to transmit. cathnews.acu.edu.au/510/62.php

[Benedict] praised some of the council’s achievements…But he also lamented what he described as widespread distortions of the council’s teachings…This “council of the media” was responsible for “many calamities, so many problems, so much misery,” the pope said. “Seminaries closed, convents closed, liturgy trivialized.” …Under Pope Benedict, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith… continued to censure or criticize theologians whose writings, often invoking the spirit if not the letter of Vatican II documents, deviated from orthodoxy in areas that included sexual morality, the mystery of the incarnation and the possibility of salvation without Christ.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300756.htm

Writing in L’Osservatore Romano, Australian Cardinal George Pell reflects on difficulties with liturgical translations in the years following Vatican II…Unfortunately, Cardinal Pell remarks, Vatican II did not provide guidance on translating the liturgy into the vernacular. The one Vatican document on that subject, Comme le Prévoit, was not entirely authoritative and gave only general guidelines. In English translations, the cardinal recalls, translations for years followed the principle of “dynamic equivalence,” and in practice ‘the translation was not always equivalent and even less frequently dynamic.” catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20572

Why do you suppose, otjm, the final VCII documents are so easily mistranslated? Here’s a strong hint:
John Paul was aghast at the back-biting and political infighting he experienced at the Second Vatican Council and resolved himself not to allow such to continue under his own reign. He was convinced that a church which allowed such behavior could not meet the challenges of posed by communism, secularism, Islam, or anything else… atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/communism.htm

And to make matters worse for a clear understanding of VCII: catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=589&repos=6&subrepos=2&searchid=1052162

 

[ProVobis]

The present translations of the documents of the Second Vatican Council are “imprecise”, according to Archbishop William Levada, the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Zenit reports that he suggested that the problem should be resolved by a careful, official, re-translation of the Council documents, perhaps in ten years time, to mark the Council’s 50th anniversary.
To date, no translation of Vatican II documents has been presented as official…In his address, Archbishop Levada explained that ambiguous translations had been made of the Council’s texts, in particular of “Dei Verbum,” suggesting the urgency of a total revision of the texts to correct the various interpretations and translations, which, he believes, do not reflect the authentic meaning of what the conciliar fathers wished to transmit. cathnews.acu.edu.au/510/62.php

This is good to know. I think a lot of Latin students were hard pressed to accept the first round of somewhat biased translations to these documents.

 

[KSU]

This is good to know. I think a lot of Latin students were hard pressed to accept the first round of somewhat biased translations to these documents.

Glad you found it useful, Pro. The good Sisters at St. Stanislaus in the “Polish ghetto” where I was raised in the fifties (to be religiously and politically conservative–some fled Poland where they learned about progressivism the hard way) gave up trying to make me even semi-proficient in the “dead language.” A regret I’ll take to the grave. But, at least I did like to learn the Latin roots of modern English.

 

[Estevao]

Awesome, great decision by this priest. The parishioners who don’t like it can go and be Episcopals and just get it over with.

 

[awsiukiewicz]

The position of deacon used to reserved for men who were planning to become ordained as priests.

transitional diaconate for semanarians studying for the priesthood…permenate diaconate for married men…should their wife die…he would have to remain single…

 

[NeedsMercy]

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.

Your comments are still, in fact, incorrect. Your efforts to put words in my mouth are failing. Just stop it.