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

[ProVobis]

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),

I’d be curious as to how they count Mass attendance in parishes where one may find standing room only on Palm Sunday and only about 20 on Jan 1.

 

[KSU]

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 ratio of ordinations…** But, ot, that obviously is comparing apples to oranges; it’s not a ratio relevant to the issue. A relevant ratio would be the number of of boys displaced by girls (for all reasons) to the number of vocations over the last 20 years. Yes, that would require one heck of an expensive, long, detailed study which we will never see.**.

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 It actually is a matter of Church discipline which, if ignored for no sufficient reason–and a misinformed sociological notion of “equality of the sexes before God” is not a sufficient reason–could very well become a morals issue, depending on the particular circumstances. … And if a prelate in 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.

This, ot, is a first hand, specific statement from the Holy See:
“2) The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishops for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230 2. At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.” ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwcomm.htm

 

[otjm]

This, ot, is a first hand, specific statement from the Holy See:
“2) The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishops for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230 2. At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.” ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwcomm.htm

Thank you for posting. No one yet has come forward showing a widespread, consistent, and pervasive refusal to use boys. Or for that matter, any exclusion. Or even a preference being given to girls, with boys having fewer spots available because of the preference.

There may well be anecdotal evidence of it occurring somewhere, but with 17,000 parishes, it takes more than “I talked to someone who…”

You have put forward the statement; it does not say girls should not serve; it does make clear that boys are not to be excluded. Boys not excluded is not synonymous with boys only. Rome is eminently capable of saying that, and your quote does not establish boys only.

That is within the province of the bishop. And if the bishop does not decide to exclude girls, he is not in violation of any dictum, let alone rule from Rome. If the bishop allows both boys and girls, the bishop is not failing to acknowledge a noble tradition:, nor is he failing an obligation to support such groups of altar boys.

The quoted statement does not contradict anything I have said. Rome acknowledges the noble tradition; but Rome does not say it is the noble tradition of boys only, which it appears is how some are reading it.

And the final proof in the pudding is that ordinations are paralleling Mass attendance; there is no showing of any fall-off unrelated to Mass attendance fall off.

I have not denied a correlation between serving and vocation; CARA has not denied it, and the opinions that girls serving is why we have fewer vocations does not match the parallel reduction between vocations and Mass attendance. When it is obvious on the face of it that there is as close a correlation between vocations and Mass attendance, then it is up to those who say there is a different reason for the drop in vocations to show that reason. No one - including Rome according to your posting - is showing that.

I understand that there are opinions ranging from not liking girls serving to those abhorring it. But personal likes or dislikes are not evidence that the presence of girls is causative of the drop in vocations; it is on evidence of feelings from distaste to abhorrence.

And I am not faulting anyone for their feelings. Nor am I saying their feelings are wrong; I am only saying that their feelings are not evidence, nor is a suspicion based on feelings any evidence. Do the survey; get the answer, whatever it is. That is evidence.

Anything else is conjecture.

 

[Denise1957]

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.

So where has CARA made the statement that it’s a fact that girls serving at the altar has no impact whatsoever on male vocations to the priesthood?

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you for posting. No one yet has come forward showing a widespread, consistent, and pervasive refusal to use boys. Or for that matter, any exclusion. Or even a preference being given to girls, with boys having fewer spots available because of the preference.

There may well be anecdotal evidence of it occurring somewhere, but with 17,000 parishes, it takes more than “I talked to someone who…”

You have put forward the statement; it does not say girls should not serve; it does make clear that boys are not to be excluded. Boys not excluded is not synonymous with boys only. Rome is eminently capable of saying that, and your quote does not establish boys only.

That is within the province of the bishop. And if the bishop does not decide to exclude girls, he is not in violation of any dictum, let alone rule from Rome. If the bishop allows both boys and girls, the bishop is not failing to acknowledge a noble tradition:, nor is he failing an obligation to support such groups of altar boys.

The quoted statement does not contradict anything I have said. Rome acknowledges the noble tradition; but Rome does not say it is the noble tradition of boys only, which it appears is how some are reading it.

And the final proof in the pudding is that ordinations are paralleling Mass attendance; there is no showing of any fall-off unrelated to Mass attendance fall off.

I have not denied a correlation between serving and vocation; CARA has not denied it, and the opinions that girls serving is why we have fewer vocations does not match the parallel reduction between vocations and Mass attendance. When it is obvious on the face of it that there is as close a correlation between vocations and Mass attendance, then it is up to those who say there is a different reason for the drop in vocations to show that reason. No one - including Rome according to your posting - is showing that.

I understand that there are opinions ranging from not liking girls serving to those abhorring it. But personal likes or dislikes are not evidence that the presence of girls is causative of the drop in vocations; it is on evidence of feelings from distaste to abhorrence.

And I am not faulting anyone for their feelings. Nor am I saying their feelings are wrong; I am only saying that their feelings are not evidence, nor is a suspicion based on feelings any evidence. Do the survey; get the answer, whatever it is. That is evidence.

Anything else is conjecture.

What’s the point of all this? The Vatican has allowed altar girls and Cardinal Arinze thinks it was a mistake among other things. Is there something you wish to change in regards to the status of female altar serving?

 

[Denise1957]

Thank you for posting. No one yet has come forward showing a widespread, consistent, and pervasive refusal to use boys. Or for that matter, any exclusion. Or even a preference being given to girls, with boys having fewer spots available because of the preference.

There may well be anecdotal evidence of it occurring somewhere, but with 17,000 parishes, it takes more than “I talked to someone who…”

How about the refusal to use girls? I think it was in the 1990’s (my memory is a bit hazy about the date) when Bishop Fabian Bruskowitz (sp?) banned altar girls in the entire diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska. Vocations to the priesthood then went WAY up. The seminary there was full, and the diocese of Lincoln led the U.S. in vocations to the priesthood. The bishop has since retired, and I don’t know if his successor has kept the same policy.

 

[otjm]

So where has CARA made the statement that it’s a fact that girls serving at the altar has no impact whatsoever on male vocations to the priesthood?

Trying to prove a negative is next to impossible.

Where is your evidence that it is an issue? It is simply conjecture based on opinion not fact.

Please state facts showing that girls serving is impacting male vocations and I will contact CARA personally.

And please, spare me the “a teenager said” or “a pre-teen said”. The average age of those ordained is 37. People are entering seminary not only after college, but some after a graduate degree and work experience.

And 80% of them served as altar boys, which puts them in the midst of altar girl servers also.

And 20% had a vocation without ever serving.

 

[otjm]

What’s the point of all this? The Vatican has allowed altar girls and Cardinal Arinze thinks it was a mistake among other things. Is there something you wish to change in regards to the status of female altar serving?

Cardinal Arinze has an opinion, just like those in this thread have one.

Opinions are not evidence, and I am not the one proposing that altar girls are keeping anyone from a vocation.

 

[Denise1957]

Trying to prove a negative is next to impossible.

Where is your evidence that it is an issue? It is simply conjecture based on opinion not fact.

Please state facts showing that girls serving is impacting male vocations and I will contact CARA personally.

I’m not understanding what you’re referring to here. You’re the one who said that it’s a fact that girls serving at the altar have no impact whatsoever on vocations to the priesthood.

 

[otjm]

How about the refusal to use girls? I think it was in the 1990’s (my memory is a bit hazy about the date) when Bishop Fabian Bruskowitz (sp?) banned altar girls in the entire diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska. Vocations to the priesthood then went WAY up. The seminary there was full, and the diocese of Lincoln led the U.S. in vocations to the priesthood. The bishop has since retired, and I don’t know if his successor has kept the same policy.

And none of that is evidence that girls had anything to do with vocations or lack of them. The 90’were the start of what has been called the John Paul 2 priests, as he had a profound effect on young men.

So do a survey of the men of that time, in Nebraska. Do a thorough study; ask them if they would have had a vocation if they had had to serve with girls at the time Please, please, provide evidence. If it is your position that altar girls are causing a drop in vocations, do the study! Provide something besides a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument.

That, by the way, is something a good, scientifically structured study would make sure to eliminate. Many things happen after something else happens, and people say “Well it happened because of what happened before.” Correlation is not causation.

 

[otjm]

I’m not understanding what you’re referring to here. You’re the one who said that it’s a fact that girls serving at the altar have no impact whatsoever on vocations to the priesthood.

What I actually said is there is no evidence.

 

[Denise1957]

What I actually said is there is no evidence.

I’m not the one who keeps referring to my opinions as “facts.” It’s a term that I don’t personally use very often, but you use it frequently. But we don’t have to accept an opinion as fact, even though you are certainly entitled to your opinion. You seem to be getting upset about this issue, so maybe it’s best to take a break.

 

[otjm]

I’m not the one who keeps referring to my opinions as “facts.” It’s a term that I don’t personally use very often, but you use it frequently. But we don’t have to accept an opinion as fact, even though you are certainly entitled to your opinion. You seem to be getting upset about this issue, so maybe it’s best to take a break.

I am not the one proposing that altar girls are causing a loss in vocations.

My opinion? Or CARA facts?

CARA facts show an almost exact correlation between the reduction in Mass attendance and vocations. One would reasonably assume that if there were additional negative impacts to vocations, that there would be fewer vocations; here, the negative issue being girls also serving. But CARA facts show about 47% as many people attending Mass in 2014 as there were in 1965, but 49% as many vocations in 2014 as in 1965, or a slight improvement. So how does one explain a slightly better ratio of ordinations to Mass attendance now, if girls serving are supposed to be making it worse? There were no girl servers in 1965.

And that is not an opinion. Them’s the facts.

So again please show me causation; I can’t even find a correlation.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I’m not the one who keeps referring to my opinions as “facts.” It’s a term that I don’t personally use very often, but you use it frequently. But we don’t have to accept an opinion as fact, even though you are certainly entitled to your opinion. You seem to be getting upset about this issue, so maybe it’s best to take a break.

This isn’t about this specific poster but have you noticed that this approach which is “I don’t really care BUT…” is adopted by people who want to change church teaching. What I don’t get is why not just say it?

 

[Prodigal_40s]

That was not the intent. My apologies.

No problem. Some of your points are unclear and you get frustrated with this. You shouldn’t take it out on other posters though

 

[KSU]

ot, you keep saying things like this: “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 … And if a prelate in 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.”

Therefore in my post #511, I posted this to show you a specific, first hand statement by the Holy See itself about the issue of girls impacting vocations:

“2) The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishops [of allowing alter girls] for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230 2. At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.”

The Holy See thus confirmed the “well known” fact that alter boys equal priestly vocations. You really don’t want to deny, then, the obvious simple logic that priestly vocations will increase more or less in accordance with an increase in the number of alter boys.

The exact ratio will be kaleidoscopic, of course, because it will depend on the factors in play at any given time, including the number of alter boys displaced by alter girls for any of the reasons discussed in this thread. That again is simple logic whether one believes it or not.

However, ot, your post #512 and every one of your posts after that studiously ignores the logic and argues instead a dozen other unrelated things, viz.: “An unsubstantiated opinion” by Rome; no study has shown it; and, “no one yet has come forward showing a widespread, consistent, and pervasive refusal to use boys. Or for that matter, any exclusion. Or even a preference being given to girls, with boys having fewer spots available because of the preference”, etc., etc.

If we avoid the inherent logic brought out by a debate, ot, we settle nothing.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

ot, you keep saying things like this: “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 … And if a prelate in 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.”

Therefore in my post #511, I posted this to show you a specific, first hand statement by the Holy See itself about the issue of girls impacting vocations:

“2) The Holy See respects the decision adopted by certain Bishops [of allowing alter girls] for specific local reasons on the basis of the provisions of Canon 230 2. At the same time, however, the Holy See wishes to recall that it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar. As is well known, this has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.”

The Holy See thus confirmed the “well known” fact that alter boys equal priestly vocations. You really don’t want to deny, then, the obvious simple logic that priestly vocations will increase more or less in accordance with an increase in the number of alter boys.

The exact ratio will be kaleidoscopic, of course, because it will depend on the factors in play at any given time, including the number of alter boys displaced by alter girls for any of the reasons discussed in this thread. That again is simple logic whether one believes it or not.

However, ot, your post #512 and every one of your posts after that studiously ignores the logic and argues instead a dozen other unrelated things, viz.: “An unsubstantiated opinion” by Rome; no study has shown it; and, “no one yet has come forward showing a widespread, consistent, and pervasive refusal to use boys. Or for that matter, any exclusion. Or even a preference being given to girls, with boys having fewer spots available because of the preference”, etc., etc.

If we avoid the inherent logic brought out by a debate, ot, we settle nothing.

That was the point I was making to ot but in 2) in your post you detailed it which I should have done.

I think argumentative posts that don’t contain any facts lead to their posters losing their temper and resorting to insults. I’m satisfied with ot’s apology so that’s sound but your point above is very salient as you’ve provided “evidence” that the Holy See want churches to have altar boys.

 

[ProVobis]

… I am not the one proposing that altar girls are keeping anyone from a vocation.

So what is it exactly you want to change? Or is it just another case of argumentum gratia argumenti (argument for the sake of argument).

 

[Prodigal_40s]

So what is it exactly you want to change? Or is it just another case of argumentum gratia argumenti (argument for the sake of argument).

The thing I’m changing is using this forum. Ot is probably a good lad and I’d end up having a beer or a coffee with him as well as a laugh at how irate you can get on here. That’s the trouble though. Anonymity and the misinterpretation of posts leads to conflict.

Pnewton and all the other posters on here are ok. i just hope everyone understands that the Church needs to be timeless and hold truths that are always held so that we can aspire to Sainthood. Key word is ASPIRE to anyone who misinterprets me…there I go again!! :crying:

Tarra for now and God Bless all of you.

Blessed Michael, Archangel,
defend us in the hour of conflict;
be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God restrain him, we humbly pray;
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God, thrust, down to hell, Satan,
and with him the other wicked spirits
who wander through the world for the ruin of souls.
Amen.

 

[KSU]

The thing I’m changing is using this forum. Ot is probably a good lad and I’d end up having a beer or a coffee with him as well as a laugh at how irate you can get on here. That’s the trouble though. Anonymity and the misinterpretation of posts leads to conflict

Please reconsider, Prodigal. The barbs we trade here are just junior grade. Here’s how the pros do it:

The exchange between Churchill & Lady Astor:
She said, “If you were my husband I’d give you poison.”
He said, “If you were my wife, I’d drink it.”

A member of Parliament to Disraeli: “Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of some unspeakable disease.”
“That depends, Sir,” said Disraeli, “whether I embrace your policies or your mistress.”

“I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.” - Clarence Darrow

“Thank you for sending me a copy of your book; I’ll waste no time reading it.” - Moses Hadas

“I didn’t attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.” - Mark Twain

“He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends…” - Oscar Wilde

“I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a friend… if you have one.” - George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill
“Cannot possibly attend first night, will attend second… if there is one.” - Winston Churchill, in response.