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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Only on CAF, would a minor issue such as the sex of alter serves elicit 22 pages of dialogue.
 
ringil said:
Only on CAF, would a minor issue such as the sex of alter serves elicit 22 pages of dialogue.
Click to expand...
Right now, we have 321 posts. Consider other popular outlets:

SFgate (secular) - 254 comments
The Huffington Post (secular) - 231 comments
The National Catholic Reporter (Catholic) -1188 comments

Doesn’t seem we’re making a big deal out of it relative to other sites. Especially considering this is a Catholic discussion forum.
 
irishpatrick said:
I think it would be healthy for this discussion if EVERYONE remembered that this conversation (at its foundation) is NOT about boys or girls serving at the altar. The real topic is the Priesthood. Catholic Churches do not have to have servers; however, all Catholic Churches need Priests.

Therefore, the real subject is: How do we increase vocations, and will a male only altar serving rule help in that pursuit?

If switching to an all male altar serving rule results in just one extra Priest each year (across the entire USA), then it is a worthwhile change, because Priests bring us Christ!
Click to expand...
There is a correlation between serving as an altar boy and being ordained, but there is not causation. And while CARA’s research indicated that of the priests the surveyed, 80% had been altar boys, 20% of the respondents had not.

There are a lot of the issues which correlate also; an active vocations program on the parish level, and on the diocesan level immediately come to mind. So does Adoration, particularly Perpetual Adoration. So does going to a Catholic grade and high school. so does family prayer nightly. And the list goes on and on.

In the discussion in this thread, no one has said that because of girls serving, boys are not able to (that is, there isn’t room for some of them). The only comments have been that boys quit serving when they get to the point in their development that they don’t want to be around girls; and the indication (with absolutely no proof whatsoever) is that boys bail out of serving en masse. That is totally unsubstantiated, and one poster said when his son decided that emptying the dishwasher was “girl” work, he quickly as a parent disabused the boy of the notion.

Thus we get to two points; there is absolutely no proof - and not even any comment, indicating that because girls serve, boys are not being able to.

The second point is that there is an indication that boys will not serve with girls at some point; but this is far more a point of parenting decisions. Parents who let their children dictate what the child will or will not do are abdicating their parental responsibility of teaching their children that sometimes, it is necessary to do a task even when it is mildly unpleasant.

So there is no necessity to tell girls they can’t, in order that “one” boy might - or might not - decide to become a priest. When the statistics indicate that one out of somewhere between 100 and 200 altar boys will be ordained, there is no indication that removing girls is going to make any impact whatsoever. It is far more likely that active vocation programs - not just for altar boys, but for all the boys who don’t serve, including all those who go to public school - will have more impact than the easy out of banning girls on the assumption that we will have all sorts of priests as a result.

Or even one more.
 
otjm said:
There is a correlation between serving as an altar boy and being ordained, but there is not causation. And while CARA’s research indicated that of the priests the surveyed, 80% had been altar boys, 20% of the respondents had not.

There are a lot of the issues which correlate also; an active vocations program on the parish level, and on the diocesan level immediately come to mind. So does Adoration, particularly Perpetual Adoration. So does going to a Catholic grade and high school. so does family prayer nightly. And the list goes on and on.

In the discussion in this thread, no one has said that because of girls serving, boys are not able to (that is, there isn’t room for some of them). The only comments have been that boys quit serving when they get to the point in their development that they don’t want to be around girls; and the indication (with absolutely no proof whatsoever) is that boys bail out of serving en masse. That is totally unsubstantiated, and one poster said when his son decided that emptying the dishwasher was “girl” work, he quickly as a parent disabused the boy of the notion.

Thus we get to two points; there is absolutely no proof - and not even any comment, indicating that because girls serve, boys are not being able to.

The second point is that there is an indication that boys will not serve with girls at some point; but this is far more a point of parenting decisions. Parents who let their children dictate what the child will or will not do are abdicating their parental responsibility of teaching their children that sometimes, it is necessary to do a task even when it is mildly unpleasant.

So there is no necessity to tell girls they can’t, in order that “one” boy might - or might not - decide to become a priest. When the statistics indicate that one out of somewhere between 100 and 200 altar boys will be ordained, there is no indication that removing girls is going to make any impact whatsoever. It is far more likely that active vocation programs - not just for altar boys, but for all the boys who don’t serve, including all those who go to public school - will have more impact than the easy out of banning girls on the assumption that we will have all sorts of priests as a result.

Or even one more.
Click to expand...
 
otjm said:
There is a correlation between serving as an altar boy and being ordained, but there is not causation. And while CARA’s research indicated that of the priests the surveyed, 80% had been altar boys, 20% of the respondents had not.

There are a lot of the issues which correlate also; an active vocations program on the parish level, and on the diocesan level immediately come to mind. So does Adoration, particularly Perpetual Adoration. So does going to a Catholic grade and high school. so does family prayer nightly. And the list goes on and on.

In the discussion in this thread, no one has said that because of girls serving, boys are not able to (that is, there isn’t room for some of them). The only comments have been that boys quit serving when they get to the point in their development that they don’t want to be around girls; and the indication (with absolutely no proof whatsoever) is that boys bail out of serving en masse. That is totally unsubstantiated, and one poster said when his son decided that emptying the dishwasher was “girl” work, he quickly as a parent disabused the boy of the notion.

Thus we get to two points; there is absolutely no proof - and not even any comment, indicating that because girls serve, boys are not being able to.

The second point is that there is an indication that boys will not serve with girls at some point; but this is far more a point of parenting decisions. Parents who let their children dictate what the child will or will not do are abdicating their parental responsibility of teaching their children that sometimes, it is necessary to do a task even when it is mildly unpleasant.

So there is no necessity to tell girls they can’t, in order that “one” boy might - or might not - decide to become a priest. When the statistics indicate that one out of somewhere between 100 and 200 altar boys will be ordained, there is no indication that removing girls is going to make any impact whatsoever. It is far more likely that active vocation programs - not just for altar boys, but for all the boys who don’t serve, including all those who go to public school - will have more impact than the easy out of banning girls on the assumption that we will have all sorts of priests as a result.

Or even one more.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but what about the third point: Boys don’t want to catch cooties? I even saw it in a Superbowl commercial.
 
otjm said:
There is a correlation between serving as an altar boy and being ordained, but there is not causation. And while CARA’s research indicated that of the priests the surveyed, 80% had been altar boys, 20% of the respondents had not.

There are a lot of the issues which correlate also; an active vocations program on the parish level, and on the diocesan level immediately come to mind. So does Adoration, particularly Perpetual Adoration. So does going to a Catholic grade and high school. so does family prayer nightly. And the list goes on and on.

In the discussion in this thread, no one has said that because of girls serving, boys are not able to (that is, there isn’t room for some of them). The only comments have been that boys quit serving when they get to the point in their development that they don’t want to be around girls; and the indication (with absolutely no proof whatsoever) is that boys bail out of serving en masse. That is totally unsubstantiated, and one poster said when his son decided that emptying the dishwasher was “girl” work, he quickly as a parent disabused the boy of the notion.

Thus we get to two points; there is absolutely no proof - and not even any comment, indicating that because girls serve, boys are not being able to.

The second point is that there is an indication that boys will not serve with girls at some point; but this is far more a point of parenting decisions. Parents who let their children dictate what the child will or will not do are abdicating their parental responsibility of teaching their children that sometimes, it is necessary to do a task even when it is mildly unpleasant.

So there is no necessity to tell girls they can’t, in order that “one” boy might - or might not - decide to become a priest. When the statistics indicate that one out of somewhere between 100 and 200 altar boys will be ordained, there is no indication that removing girls is going to make any impact whatsoever. It is far more likely that active vocation programs - not just for altar boys, but for all the boys who don’t serve, including all those who go to public school - will have more impact than the easy out of banning girls on the assumption that we will have all sorts of priests as a result.

Or even one more.
Click to expand...
There are cases in which Parishes have switched from coed severrs, to male only servers, and in those cases there have been substantial increases in the number of servers in those parishes (some cite an increase of 450%). That is not something to ignore.

Further, the CARA study cannot determine causation, yet there is no argument that there is a correlation. Therefore, I find it to be unlikely that we would not see a gain of at least one Ordinand per year if all parishes changes to male only servers.

There are, as you point out, many other “things” to be done that will help increase vocations, yet the point of this thread is to consider whether or not a male only server rule would help increase vocations–and I will state, again, that if we gain just one Priest–it is worthwhile (changing to all male servers) because Priests bring us Christ, no one else can. It does not need to equate to many new vocations, just one additional Ordinand each year is enough to justify the change.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
-First, please don’t send me any more PMs telling me that I need to conduct my supposed personal attacks on you through PMs like the other poster you claim in your PM is doing.
-Second, a personal attack isn’t someone using your own words and claims to prove that you think women have no power within the Church. That would be disproving your claim by using what you have said. A personal attack would be claiming someone has psychological issues with women and calling them a “nut” because you don’t agree with them.
-Third, my conclusion that you think women don’t have any power in the Church would only be incorrect or based on my “homemade, faulty assumptions” if you didn’t say- “Ummm, perhaps you haven’t noticed, but all priests, and all those in the Church in any position of power—temporal or spiritual—are male.” since that statement very clearly claims that women (who can’t be termed as priests or male) don’t hold any position of power in the Church. You did say that right? Or is there another poster on this thread with your same username, join date, location, number of posts, and avatar?
Click to expand...
Fine, I will not send you any more pms. Excuse me for trying to be civil with you. But I will not have any further discussions with you on this thread, either. Second, I will not discuss Burke on this thread. I said that I wouldn’t and I won’t. Period. End of story. Third, your conclusion is still wrong. It was wrong yesterday. It is wrong today. It will be wrong again tomorrow when you repeat it again for the umpteenth time. Goodbye.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
-First, please don’t send me any more PMs telling me that I need to conduct my supposed personal attacks on you through PMs like the other poster you claim in your PM is doing.
Click to expand...
(((sigh)))

Look, old dude, I was just trying to keep things civil, by keeping things private and off the thread, but since you feel like airing your dirty linen in public…

Your statement that I told you to “conduct my supposed personal attacks on you through PMs like the other poster you claim in your PM is doing” is a lie and you know it. I **never **told you that anyone was conducting an ongoing personal attack against using private messaging. This was a *stupid *lie, because it is so easily proved to be untrue, or did you forget about the moderators???
 
😃

I always like to keep discussions cordial and remain polite and respectful. I follow the rules of the forum
 
SWolf said:
Well said.

This also shows the utter absurdity of changing doctrine and weaken pastoral discipline to “get with the times”.
Click to expand...
Doctrine has not changed. Pastoral discipline is not weakened. Rather, the decision to allow girls to serve or not is a strengthening of the pastoral element of discipline, even if some would oppose altar girls, or in this case, not allowing altar girls.
 
otjm said:
As to the “pink palace”, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman theologian teaching, if she is true to the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
St. Teresa of Avila would agree, along with St. Catherine and St. Therese.
 
pnewton said:
St. Teresa of Avila would agree, along with St. Catherine and St. Therese.
Click to expand...
Except that “pink palace” has little to do with women per se. I wish to disband that myth. It really shouldn’t be part of this discussion.
 
pnewton said:
Doctrine has not changed. Pastoral discipline is not weakened. Rather, the decision to allow girls to serve or not is a strengthening of the pastoral element of discipline, even if some would oppose altar girls, or in this case, not allowing altar girls.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

My post was a response to a post by Elezium regarding the broader topic of vocations.
 
ProVobis said:
Except that “pink palace” has little to do with women per se. I wish to disband that myth. It really shouldn’t be part of this discussion.
Click to expand...
Well said! That’s the problem though. When you actually call this out, you never get an answer which is why I live my life following the Black and White rules of the Catholic faith
 
ProVobis said:
Except that “pink palace” has little to do with women per se. I wish to disband that myth. It really shouldn’t be part of this discussion.
Click to expand...
Okay. I missed that. However, I note as I think back on those three Doctors of the Church, and going back to the time of St. Paul, the Catholic Church has been on the forefront of women’s rights, not the misogynistic organization it is represented as by feminists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top