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

[otjm]

I’m lost, ot. What is the difference between the correlation of alter boys and priests, as we all agree is behind the Vatican’s directive, and “causation” which you say is an error? Causation of what?

Some people react to the issue of boys serving as if it were the cause of their vocation. Not you; but I have certainly come across them. CARA noted the issue in one of their reports (in fact, if I recall, they were discussing the correlation of vocations and adoration) and their comment is that participation in Adoration is far likelier due to an attitude of religiosity.

I don’t think you are you are denying that an increase in alter boys (i.e., less alter girls who displace boys) increases the chances of more priests.

What I am disagreeing with is that girls are displacing boys.
Let’s go back to it once more: in 1965 there were about the same number of parishes (17,000+) and 994 vocations, and if you average 20 boys serving per parish, that works out to something less than one boy for every 125 who serve, who are ordained. At that time, about 50% of Catholics attended Mass weekly.

Currently, with about the same number of parishes, but with a little less than half of the number of Catholics attending Mass (now about 23%) and with altar girls serving, we are getting about half as many priests (494). However, the age group which would have children, those 30 to 43, whose attendance rate is 23%, are fewer in number than in 1965 because family size has been reducing over those 49 years; so the actual ration of altar boys to vocations actually appears to be slightly better.

Thus the problem is not girls serving it is families not attending Mass. Anotehr way of saying is is that in 1965, with 50% family attendance we had 994 vocations; with now 23% attendance we have 494 ordained. The rate of boys serving to those being ordained is about the same from the 1965 year and 2014. If, as alleged, girsl were "replacing’ boys, one would expect a drop off, but there is none; in fact it would appear there are marginally a few more vocations.

Believe me, ot, I may be dense, but I am not making any argument, straw man or otherwise. I am not even disagreeing with you; I can’t because I don’t understand what the argument, if any, is about.

What people are saying is that if we got rid of girls, more boys would become priests. A) there is no showing that girls are actually “replacing” boys. If we have half as many families attending Mass weekly as we did 49 years ago, there are simply fewer boys attending Mass. And it should be less than half as many boys, because families are smaller than they were 49 years ago.

B) there is a correlation between serving and vocation; and that correlation seems to remain the same in spite of girls serving; we seem to be getting the same or slightly better ration of vocations for families attending Mass on a regular basis. Additionally, CARA research showed 29% of young women making permanent professions had served; so there is a positive correlation for vocations there too. The comment about girls not becoming priests is simply a red herring.

A far greater problem in the future is not girls serving; it is the downhill slope of fewer and fewer baptisms each year. This has noting to do with girls serving; it has to do with the fact that fewer people are getting married; those that are getting married are doing so later and later, and more people are refusing to have children; coupled with this is the fall-off of Mass attendance.

 

[otjm]

That’s the key word isn’t it? This was due to fewer boys going into service in certain places and was requested on that basis; it was in Northern Ireland anyway. However the Vatican encourages altar boys. Undeniable Fact.
The rest of your post is irrelevant

I can talk until the cows come home, but if you do not understand what is actually happening, it won’t make any difference.

In the US, we have about as many ordinations per family attending Mass regularly in 2014, as we had in 1965. It has absolutely nothing to do with girls serving. It has to do with Mass attendance. The rate of Mass attendance in 2014 is a little less than half of what it was in 1965. And families are having fewer children now than they were then.

And the ordination rate is about half of what it was in 1965.

When there are half or fewer the number of boys in 2014 to serve Mass as there were in 1965, and the same number of parishes, then there are fewer boys to serve. Girls are not “replacing” them; they are taking up the positions that otherwise would be empty.
Irrelevant? No, just not understood.

 

[ProVobis]

No idea what point you’re making

I don’t either, because Pius XII must have had some basis for issuing in 1947 Mediator Dei, which allowed the Pope, and only the Pope, to make changes in the liturgy.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I can talk until the cows come home, but if you do not understand what is actually happening, it won’t make any difference.

In the US, we have about as many ordinations per family attending Mass regularly in 2014, as we had in 1965. It has absolutely nothing to do with girls serving. It has to do with Mass attendance. The rate of Mass attendance in 2014 is a little less than half of what it was in 1965. And families are having fewer children now than they were then.

And the ordination rate is about half of what it was in 1965.

When there are half or fewer the number of boys in 2014 to serve Mass as there were in 1965, and the same number of parishes, then there are fewer boys to serve. Girls are not “replacing” them; they are taking up the positions that otherwise would be empty.
Irrelevant? No, just not understood.

Ditto. I think there’s an irony in implying I don’t understand. The Vatican has encouraged altar boys in parishes. That’s something that has come from the Holy See. If you disagree with what the Church orders without any very obvious moral grounds based on core church teaching…well…the Catholic Church never was and never will be a democracy. HTH

 

[otjm]

I don’t either, because Pius XII must have had some basis for issuing in 1947 Mediator Dei, which allowed the Pope, and only the Pope, to make changes in the liturgy.

and when the changes were made both to Canon law and the Liturgy, it was under the authority of the Pope. Which is why girls can serve.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

and when the changes were made both to Canon law and the Liturgy, it was under the authority of the Pope. Which is why girls can serve.

What part of the Vatican “permits” altar girls but altar boys are “encouraged to serve” do you not understand?

 

[KSU]

Some people react to the issue of boys serving as if it were the cause of their vocation. Not you; but I have certainly come across them. CARA noted the issue in one of their reports (in fact, if I recall, they were discussing the correlation of vocations and adoration) and their comment is that participation in Adoration is far likelier due to an attitude of religiosity.

What I am disagreeing with is that girls are displacing boys.
Let’s go back to it once more: in 1965 there were about the same number of parishes (17,000+) and 994 vocations, and if you average 20 boys serving per parish, that works out to something less than one boy for every 125 who serve, who are ordained. At that time, about 50% of Catholics attended Mass weekly.

Currently, with about the same number of parishes, but with a little less than half of the number of Catholics attending Mass (now about 23%) and with altar girls serving, we are getting about half as many priests (494). However, the age group which would have children, those 30 to 43, whose attendance rate is 23%, are fewer in number than in 1965 because family size has been reducing over those 49 years; so the actual ration of altar boys to vocations actually appears to be slightly better.

Thus the problem is not girls serving it is families not attending Mass. Anotehr way of saying is is that in 1965, with 50% family attendance we had 994 vocations; with now 23% attendance we have 494 ordained. The rate of boys serving to those being ordained is about the same from the 1965 year and 2014. If, as alleged, girsl were "replacing’ boys, one would expect a drop off, but there is none; in fact it would appear there are marginally a few more vocations.

What people are saying is that if we got rid of girls, more boys would become priests. A) there is no showing that girls are actually “replacing” boys. If we have half as many families attending Mass weekly as we did 49 years ago, there are simply fewer boys attending Mass. And it should be less than half as many boys, because families are smaller than they were 49 years ago.

B) there is a correlation between serving and vocation; and that correlation seems to remain the same in spite of girls serving; we seem to be getting the same or slightly better ration of vocations for families attending Mass on a regular basis. Additionally, CARA research showed 29% of young women making permanent professions had served; so there is a positive correlation for vocations there too. The comment about girls not becoming priests is simply a red herring.

A far greater problem in the future is not girls serving; it is the downhill slope of fewer and fewer baptisms each year. This has noting to do with girls serving; it has to do with the fact that fewer people are getting married; those that are getting married are doing so later and later, and more people are refusing to have children; coupled with this is the fall-off of Mass attendance.

Thanks, ot; I remember now what you are trying to say by the use of CARA stats. The “causation” thing was throwing me off.

It seems your position can be boiled down to two contentions:

“What people are saying is that if we got rid of girls [as servers], more boys would become priests [but] there is no showing that girls are actually ‘replacing’ boys”; and, second

There are many valid reasons for the priest shortage since VCII.

I don’t know, ot, how true the former is, but nobody has denied the latter.

So, if your purpose is to convince people that the former is true, that is where you should employ CARA’s stats. If you can’t because CARA did not specifically address that pivotal point in its study, they should go back and do a proper, scientific study as to whether girls are replacing boy servers. Part of such new study would be an examination of the truth of the Vatican’s (and every other prelate who has addressed the issue) contention that young boys tend to stay away from serving with girls.

 

[otjm]

Ditto. I think there’s an irony in implying I don’t understand. The Vatican has encouraged altar boys in parishes. That’s something that has come from the Holy See. If you disagree with what the Church orders without any very obvious moral grounds based on core church teaching…well…the Catholic Church never was and never will be a democracy. HTH

What the Church orders is that girls may serve; the Church has not ordered that girls not serve. It is not a moral issue, except perhaps in your view, but that is not substantiated by Church law. I did not make the changes to the Liturgy nor to Canon law, nor did I request them. Nor did I ask the archbishop of our archdiocese to allow girls to serve, which authority was granted to him by Rome.

For some reason, it would appear you seem to think that I am pro altar girls. I don’t really care one way or the other; if Pope Francis says tomorrow they may not, well, then, I would expect my parish to no longer have them.

But it is pure poppycock that girls are preventing boys from serving, or that they are taking away positions for boys to serve, or that they are having any impact whatsoever on the number of vocations.

What is causing the reduction in the number of vocations is that parents no longer attend Mass on a regular basis to the same level they were attending 49 years ago, and if Johnny or Greg is not attending Mass, then it is highly likely Johnny or Greg is not going to think about becoming a priest. And that has absolutely nothing to do with Barbara or Suzie serving at Mass.

That is such a simple concept, that I am left with the assumption that what we have here is not only a failure, per Cool Hand Luke, to communicate, but more egregiously, a willingness not to look at the facts, or as the wag said, “don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up.”

When we have the same ration (or even a bit better) of families attending Mass now to the number of vocations as we did in 1965, then girls serving is not having any impact whatsoever.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Thanks, ot; I remember now what you are trying to say by the use of CARA stats. The “causation” thing was throwing me off.

It seems your position can be boiled down to two contentions:

“What people are saying is that if we got rid of girls [as servers], more boys would become priests [but] there is no showing that girls are actually ‘replacing’ boys”; and

There are many valid reasons for the priest shortage since VCII.

I don’t know how true the former is, but nobody has denied the latter.

So, if your purpose is to convince people that the former is true, that is where you should employ CARA’s stats. If you can’t because CARA did not specifically address that pivotal point in its study, they should go back and do a proper, scientific study as to whether girls are replacing boy servers. Part of such new study would be an examination of the truth of the Vatican’s (and every other prelate who has addressed the issue) contention that young boys tend to stay away from serving with girls.

Tbh this is an occasion where Church teaching dictates that parishes include altar boys because the Vatican has expressly encouraged it. Stats and figures etc etc etc etc mean nothing to me and when we start basing these directions from the Holy See then there’s a huge problem.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

What the Church orders is that girls may serve; the Church has not ordered that girls not serve. It is not a moral issue, except perhaps in your view, but that is not substantiated by Church law. I did not make the changes to the Liturgy nor to Canon law, nor did I request them. Nor did I ask the archbishop of our archdiocese to allow girls to serve, which authority was granted to him by Rome.

For some reason, it would appear you seem to think that I am pro altar girls. I don’t really care one way or the other; if Pope Francis says tomorrow they may not, well, then, I would expect my parish to no longer have them.

But it is pure poppycock that girls are preventing boys from serving, or that they are taking away positions for boys to serve, or that they are having any impact whatsoever on the number of vocations.

What is causing the reduction in the number of vocations is that parents no longer attend Mass on a regular basis to the same level they were attending 49 years ago, and if Johnny or Greg is not attending Mass, then it is highly likely Johnny or Greg is not going to think about becoming a priest. And that has absolutely nothing to do with Barbara or Suzie serving at Mass.

That is such a simple concept, that I am left with the assumption that what we have here is not only a failure, per Cool Hand Luke, to communicate, but more egregiously, a willingness not to look at the facts, or as the wag said, “don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up.”

When we have the same ration (or even a bit better) of families attending Mass now to the number of vocations as we did in 1965, then girls serving is not having any impact whatsoever.

It’s not a moral issue and it’s a direction that’s come from the Holy See. I find your tone very rude and insulting and I post on here as if the person where standing facing me. Try it some time

 

[otjm]

Tbh this is an occasion where Church teaching dictates that parishes include altar boys because the Vatican has expressly encouraged it. Stats and figures etc etc etc etc mean nothing to me and when we start basing these directions from the Holy See then there’s a huge problem.

OK, again I don’t know what is going on in Northern Ireland. Boys are being used here as altar boys. It seems to me that Rome’s statements indicate that they don’t want boys excluded (something that I have never suggested should happen), nor is there any evidence that boys are being excluded; so if boys and girls are both serving it is complying with Rome’s request.

 

[eViLpOpTaRt]

it’s about time!

the next thing they need to do is re-institute the discipline of meatless fridays. this will quickly separate the nominal catholics from the real catholics or at least those who really care about what they believe in

Nominal Catholics are more likely to become Catholics if they’re somewhat affiliated with the Church rather than not.

Why drive them away. This emphasis on meatless Fridays smacks of bondieuserie.

 

[Denise1957]

When we have the same ration (or even a bit better) of families attending Mass now to the number of vocations as we did in 1965, then girls serving is not having any impact whatsoever.

Has there been a documented scientific study by the Church as to your ideas regarding serving of girls at the altar, and that it does not have any impact whatsoever (on vocations of boys or men to the priesthood)? Has the Church stated your views as being fact?

 

[otjm]

It’s not a moral issue and it’s a direction that’s come from the Holy See. I find your tone very rude and insulting and I post on here as if the person where standing facing me. Try it some time

I am not trying to be rude; I am trying to respond to your comment that facts don’t seem to matter.

I have a close friend who was born in the United States, and not long after he was born, his family returned to the southwest coast of Ireland where they remained until he was in his teenage years, so he has dual citizenship. My dad was half Irish (and half Dutch, which he seemed to consistently overlook), so my friend and I have had many conversations about Ireland and its culture.

Among other things, my friend has remarked a number of times of how the “boys” (his word, not mine) would mix it up over not much. The “Try it some time” reminds me of those conversations. Sorry, I don’t have enough Irish in me to take up the challenge.

I have tried to answer you; you seem to not care what I have to say in response to your comments. Perhaps we should say a prayer for each other and let the matter drop.

God bless!

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I am not trying to be rude; I am trying to respond to your comment that facts don’t seem to matter.

I have a close friend who was born in the United States, and not long after he was born, his family returned to the southwest coast of Ireland where they remained until he was in his teenage years, so he has dual citizenship. My dad was half Irish (and half Dutch, which he seemed to consistently overlook), so my friend and I have had many conversations about Ireland and its culture.

Among other things, my friend has remarked a number of times of how the “boys” (his word, not mine) would mix it up over not much. The “Try it some time” reminds me of those conversations. Sorry, I don’t have enough Irish in me to take up the challenge.

I have tried to answer you; you seem to not care what I have to say in response to your comments. Perhaps we should say a prayer for each other and let the matter drop.

God bless!

You should treat people with more respect mate.

 

[otjm]

Has there been a documented scientific study by the Church as to your ideas regarding serving of girls at the altar, and that it does not have any impact whatsoever (on vocations of boys or men to the priesthood)? Has the Church stated your views as being fact?

Yes, the studies are by CARA, Center for Applied Research of the Apostolate. At least some of the studies have been conducted on behalf of the bishops of the United States if not the majority of them. If you have questions as to who requested the studies, please contact CARA directly.

The information about Mass attendance is from several studies which CARA has done; the information is on their website or is available by searching, for example, using CARA Mass statistics, or CARA ordinations. Not all is immediately available on their website, but are reports which can be found individually.

As to any impact whatsoever, no study is ever going to answer that because it would require asking every boy who ever served whether or not he ever thought of a vocation, whether or not he ever served with girls, and what effect that had.

However, there is a clear set of statistics which CARA has: number of ordinations in various years (I have noted 2 - 1965 and 2014); and of Mass attendance in various years (I have noted both 1965 and 2014, including their breakdown of attendance by age group recently, particularly the age group of 18 to 30 and 31 to 43).

The statistics of birth rates in families is published elsewhere.

As to what the Church has stated, it is set out in the thread above; they have allowed girls to serve, and want boys to serve. Some are interpreting that as wanting only boys to serve; but Rome is eminently capable of saying that, by saying that girls may not serve. Since they did not say girls may not serve, then it would logically follow that they are saying that boys are not to be excluded.

There are apocryphal statements that boys are being excluded (with absolutely no evidence whatsoever), that boys are quitting serving because they don’t like girls (again, apocryphal, and an issue of parenting).

However, the only facts which have been shown have come from CARA studies, and in looking at Mass attendance between 1965 (about 50% ) and Mass attendance now (about 21% to 23%, so a little less than half as many), and ordinations in 1965 (994) and 2014 (494, or a hair over 49% as many), there simply is not the drop that would occur if girls were causing boys to not think about vocations.

Which is to say, there is no statistic shown that vocations have dropped as a percentage of families attending Mass. Clearly, vocations have dropped. But they parallel the drop in Mass attendance. That surprised me; I thought that it was worse.

CARA makes no bones about it; they note that while vocations have been edging up, it would take about 200 more per year simply to replace the priests who are retiring or dying. That is not good news.

Essentially it comes down to the fact that some people are in a range of not liking girls serving Mass, to being adamantly opposed to it; but none of them have shown any facts that it is having any impact whatsoever. They are the ones protesting that girls are somehow causing boys to not consider a vocation; then fine; let them get together, put up the money for a properly designed study, and show it - or not show it. Anything else is simply urban myth.

And the bottom line is that if girls serving Mass were having an impact on vocations, then the rate of vocations should be significantly lower, instead or paralleling the rate of Mass attendance.

 

[JimG]

Nominal Catholics are more likely to become Catholics if they’re somewhat affiliated with the Church rather than not.

Why drive them away. This emphasis on meatless Fridays smacks of bondieuserie.

Actually, I never gave up meatless Fridays. My wife refused to change that!

 

[ProVobis]

Nominal Catholics are more likely to become Catholics if they’re somewhat affiliated with the Church rather than not.

Why drive them away. This emphasis on meatless Fridays smacks of bondieuserie.

How about Friday penance per current canon law?

 

[otjm]

So, if your purpose is to convince people that the former is true, that is where you should employ CARA’s stats. If you can’t because CARA did not specifically address that pivotal point in its study, they should go back and do a proper, scientific study as to whether girls are replacing boy servers. Part of such new study would be an examination of the truth of the Vatican’s (and every other prelate who has addressed the issue) contention that young boys tend to stay away from serving with girls.

I disagree; it is looking for a problem where none shows.

Let’s try looking at it from another direction.

People make statements based on opinions (as opposed to facts). That can be amply shown in any number of threads in Catholic Answers, and is being shown in this thread. Whether the Vatican has stated that boys tend to stay away from serving because of girls is not something I can address, as I have never seen the Vatican make that statement, but for the sake of the discussion, let’s assume that some prelate or more has said that.

What is their evidence? That are no known studies showing it. The Church is not micro managed; unless a bishop contacts Rome about an issue, or unless Rome sends out a questionnaire to all bishops, or someone in a diocese contacts Rome, Rome has no idea what is going on in the diocese. And to the best of my knowledge, Rome has not done a study (which I would not anticipate them doing) nor has it commissioned a study (which would be the normal way of doing one). So in short, there is no evidence anyone has shown anywhere that Rome has done anything more than that one or more prelates may have said that in their opinion, which is not substantiated in any way), girls are going to prevent boys from serving, or somehow impact boys’ attitude towards vocations.

But let’s assume further: that what has occurred is that in one or maybe a few parishes, somebody with an agenda has specifically excluded boys from serving in that parish. So the parents write Rome, and Rome responds. There are 17,000+ parishes kin the US, and given that common sense is not all that common, that would not surprise me.

But the fact is, that if it occurred in a dozen parishes, that is not evidence that it is widespread; if it was 17 parishes it would be one in one thousand, or one tenth of on percent.

I have yet to hear that it is occurring anywhere - although again, I would not be surprised.

But occurring in one place does not make it widespread.

However, let’s assume that somehow, girls serving is causing boys to not serve, and therefore not consider a vocation (which would indicate causation, not correlation). Then there would logically be a drop in the ratio of vocations.

However, CARA’s reported statistics show no drop in the ratio of Mass attendance to the ration of ordinations; if anything, the two are basically hand-in-glove parallel.

Where it the evidence of a significant drop in vocations? The numbers clearly show a drop, but they are in almost exactly the same rate, or ratio, of Mass attendance. The vocation rate should be lower; but it isn’t.

Any comment by Rome about the issue of girls impacting vocations is not a matter of doctrine, nor is it a matter of morals. It is a matter of sociology if anything, as that is the area of documented scientific study (with a tip of the hat to Denise 1957) which would show it. And if a prelate Rome makes a comment without anything further, then it is an unsubstantiated opinion. However, I have not seen any such specific statements from Rome, only second hand statements that “Rome said”. Rome may have; I just have not seen it.

My kids are all grown and married, and I don’t have a dog in this fight. I am not against boys serving - I served, starting in 1958; I went to seminary in college. Neither am I pushing for girls to serve; that is at the pleasure of Rome, which permitted it, and my archbishop (4 or 5 ago) who allowed it. Having seen one young woman from my parish make perpetual vows to an order which wears an identifiable habit, I have seen the impact that serving may have on girls. On the other hand, if Rome says tomorrow they shall not, ok.

What I don’t like is urban myths and apocrypha. and that is the sum and substance of those against it; not facts, but opinions founded not on facts but likes and dislikes. And that is not grounds for making decisions.

 

[otjm]

You should treat people with more respect mate.

That was not the intent. My apologies.