Vatican II and M / F seating

[Gilly_flower]

I’m all in favour of segregation if it means the men take on the care of their children in church…

 

[adamhovey1988]

I went to a Syriac Orthodox church that was like that. It wasn’t strictly enforced though, it’s just the way they did things.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Remember also that in previous eras, young children often stayed home from Mass until they were old enough to follow and take part in the service as an adult would do. Or if babies in arms were brought, they were expected to be in the cry room with their mother.

It’s only in recent eras that churches have encouraged parents to bring the whole family, including crying babies and little squirmy kids, to Mass.

 

[Todd_Easton]

would the early Church have had seating separated by sex? Men on one side, women on the other?

Well, that would explain why St Paul said, “The women should keep silence in the churches… If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Cor 14:34-35) Imagine the disorder if women on one side of the assembly tried to ask questions of their husbands on the other side of the assembly.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I believe the 1917 Code of Canon Law had it as a law that men and women be separated, so that was in effect until Vatican II. The code gathered together Church rules into a common code for the first time, so it may not have been obligatory; local custom could prevail in some circumstances. But I am pretty sure the separation by gender was on the books.

No, the 1917 CIC didn’t mandate gender segregation. The Woywod/Smith commentary notes this. Gender segregation was a practice determined by culture, and it fell into desuetude.

I wouldn’t object to it, but I would not even begin to think of it as something that would be preferable in today’s world.

Remember also that in previous eras, young children often stayed home from Mass until they were old enough to follow and take part in the service as an adult would do. Or if babies in arms were brought, they were expected to be in the cry room with their mother.

It’s only in recent eras that churches have encouraged parents to bring the whole family, including crying babies and little squirmy kids, to Mass.

I never knew that. I always had the stereotype that the whole family, or at least one parent with some or all of the kids in tow (the others either being taken by the other parent, or if old enough, going by themselves), just went from babyhood onwards. Only severe illness excused one from assisting at Holy Mass.

 

[redcatholic]

100 pews for women
One card table for the 3 ushers who are men in the back.
My parish.

I exaggerate but not by much.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I have known of many families who went to Mass in two or more “shifts”. And many of those parents (usually fathers) weren’t Catholic and some of those parents, sadly, didn’t go at all. Catholics were a very low percentage in my part of the country, and many if not most of them married Protestants. Some converted to Catholicism and some didn’t. It usually fell upon the mother to ensure the Catholic upbringing of the children, which then raises the question of what happens if the mother dies.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Nope. Back in my parents’ pre-Vatican II era, it was not unheard of for some priests to tell parents of unruly kids or loud babies that they should not be bringing the child to church, or suggest that they sit in the back or someplace where the kid wouldn’t disrupt services.

Not all priests were like that of course, and some welcomed little children, but many did not.

A couple with young children would often take turns with one parent going to Sunday Mass while the other watched the kids at home, and then the other parent would attend a different Mass later and let the parent who had already been to Mass watch the little kids. Or some variation of this involving another sitter like grandma, older sibling etc.

My own parents did the trade off until I hit about age 4 and could reliably sit through a Mass without making noise or being too squirmy.

 

[Zaccheus]

I’m all in favour of segregation if it means the men take on the care of their children in church…

How likely is that?

 

[Dovekin]

the 1917 CIC didn’t mandate gender segregation. The Woywod/Smith commentary notes this. Gender segregation was a practice determined by culture, and it fell into desuetude.

Yes, just as I said, it was not obligatory:

Can. 1262 §1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.

It is more obvious in Byzantine churches, since the iconostasis also separates women from men. This encouraged people to separate according to the icons.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Last year at SingCon 2019, we sat that way for Great Vespers - women on the side of the Theotokos and men on the side of Our Lord. Scroll down to the very last video (that’s Sat. eve):

UGCC MUSIC

And it was magnificent hearing all the men and women singing antiphonally.

I wish we did that for the entire weekend but Sunday morning everyone sat wherever they wanted…

 

[Margaret_Ann]

My own parents did the trade off until I hit about age 4 and could reliably sit through a Mass without making noise or being too squirmy.

My mom told me that I slept in church when I was a baby. Now I couldn’t even think of it.

 

[dochawk]

“Men and women may not have been separated.” Does this mean he was in doubt?

I think that’s more of a subjunctive/conditional grammar than actual doubt.

Anyway, he had a lot more of a problem than how they were dressed . . .

 

[billsherman]

That’s an interesting question. Synagogue worship was evidently segregated by sex, so it’s reasonable to suppose that the same practice was carried over into early Christian worship, though I don’t think I’ve ever seen this even mentioned in any history book.

It certainly is. Unfortunately we know tragically little about Christian worship practices in the first century.

What we do know is that sex segregated synagogues are a later creation. Some Jewish scholars hold that they weren’t common until the early modern period (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries), but most argue that their origins are much earlier.

I’m not aware of any evidence that synagogues were segregated by sex in the first century (but it also isn’t something I’ve specifically looked into). If anyone has any better insight, I’d love to see it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Nope. Back in my parents’ pre-Vatican II era, it was not unheard of for some priests to tell parents of unruly kids or loud babies that they should not be bringing the child to church, or suggest that they sit in the back or someplace where the kid wouldn’t disrupt services.

Not all priests were like that of course, and some welcomed little children, but many did not.

I never knew of this being a problem, any cry room situations tended to be “self-policing” — if your child is acting up, off to the cry room you go. Been there, done that, many times, with my own son. I don’t recall anyone ever having to be told.

 

[angell1]

i remember reading that it was mainly done because the kiss of peace used to be part of the liturgy and it was to prevent any awkward situations in that regard.

as for whether or not we shold to back to that, i don’t tink it would be a good diea in today’s world. and besides, there is no more kiss of peace, so it seems like pretty much a moot point. there is no theoligical reason why men and women have to be separated

 

[dochawk]

I don’t recall anyone ever having to be told.

i generally don’t get bothered by children–but there are extreme cases! I once had to stop a toddler from coming into the Holy Place during byzantine liturgy because the parents were simply letting her wander wherever, and exercising no supervision. And a couple of times in RC Masses, I’ve encountered parents who simply let a child wail on and on. In one of these, it was severe enough to break the priest’s concentration during the Consecration! At that point, hee asked.

i remember reading that it was mainly done because the kiss of peace used to be part of the liturgy and it was to prevent any awkward situations in that regard.

The problem was more “making out” during the homily.


And from some accounts I’ve seen, it sometimes involved lower clergy!!!

 

[27lw]

Tis_Bearself:

Nope. Back in my parents’ pre-Vatican II era, it was not unheard of for some priests to tell parents of unruly kids or loud babies that they should not be bringing the child to church, or suggest that they sit in the back or someplace where the kid wouldn’t disrupt services.

Not all priests were like that of course, and some welcomed little children, but many did not.

I never knew of this being a problem, any cry room situations tended to be “self-policing” — if your child is acting up, off to the cry room you go. Been there, done that, many times, with my own son. I don’t recall anyone ever having to be told.

But were there cry rooms before the new style of churches (1960s-70s era)? I don’t think there were.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Tis_Bearself:

Nope. Back in my parents’ pre-Vatican II era, it was not unheard of for some priests to tell parents of unruly kids or loud babies that they should not be bringing the child to church, or suggest that they sit in the back or someplace where the kid wouldn’t disrupt services.

Not all priests were like that of course, and some welcomed little children, but many did not.

I never knew of this being a problem, any cry room situations tended to be “self-policing” — if your child is acting up, off to the cry room you go. Been there, done that, many times, with my own son. I don’t recall anyone ever having to be told.

But were there cry rooms before the new style of churches (1960s-70s era)? I don’t think there were.

I honestly don’t know. I just took it for granted that there had always been cry rooms in some form or fashion. I’d never seen them before — when my catechist was taking me for a tour of the church and showing me different features, he showed me the cry room and said “this is for our future juvenile delinquents”. Very wry sense of humor, he would have reminded you of Dick Cavett. Requiescat in pace, Father Jack.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Cry rooms were a pre-Vatican II invention. It was actually the modern-built or “wreckovated” churches that tended to not have them, since the post-VII Mass was encouraging everyone, even little kids, to be part of the liturgy and there was less emphasis on sitting silently while the priest said Mass. Cry rooms, in the form of all-purpose glass walled rooms that could be used for a lot of different purposes, started coming back in churches built in the 90s or so. I also don’t think the old-fashioned kind were as spacious or nice as the ones today.

My mother was not happy with our parish because it did not have one. Apparently she was used to there being one in the 40s and 50s.