Vatican paper comes in praise of altar girls [John Allen]

[curlycool89]

It would be hard to prove such a connection and I do believe that the connection between the two would be a minor one but as I quoted in post #42:

Being hard to prove doesn’t excuse the fact that you haven’t. Until it is proven, you and others are free to propose it as a hypothesis or a theory, but you are not free to present it as a fact. That is fraudulent and deceitful.

This shows that it was at one time condemned.

So was CITH and at one time so was laity receiving the precious blood. We’re also talking about the TLM Mass, and in that case I would say that it is inappropriate to have female alter servers, given the larger and more symbolic duty that the server occupies there.

In the NO though, the server does not occupy a very large role; it’s as little as prepare the alter, bring up the cross during the profession, hold the sacramentary, bring up water during the lavabo rite (during daily masses at our university chapel, the server brings up the bread/wine at the offertory, brings the chalices to the alter, and does the lavabo rite).

 

[jenkiedad]

. . . the server does not occupy a very large role; it’s as little as prepare the alter, bring up the cross during the profession, hold the sacramentary, bring up water during the lavabo rite (during daily masses at our university chapel, the server brings up the bread/wine at the offertory, brings the chalices to the alter, and does the lavabo rite).

My own Church had a bulletin announcement this weekend inviting boys or girls, ages 9 through 15, to attend upcoming altar server training next Saturday for 1-1/2 hours. As I understand it, this is all the “formal training” that’s involved. After this the “newbie” serves Mass with a “veteran” a few times, and after this OJT they’re good to solo.

That’s a far cry from my days as an altar server in Pre-Vatican II with the TLM. There were many hours of training involved (from nuns) and we had to prove we knew all the prayers and responses in Latin before we were fully qualified. Yes, there was a certain prestige in being an altar server. And I still think there is today, even with the lesser amount of training.

With regard to reducing the potential candidates for the priesthood, I don’t believe any boy is turned down that sincerely wants to serve. It just seems that the pool of available servers is limited. Without girls applying, and only allowing boys, there would be a shortage of servers.

The policy of allowing female altar servers has been Ok’d throughout our Archdiocese (of San Antonio) and we’ve been blessed with ever increasing enrollment at our seminary. At last report, the seminary was either at or very near capacity. I don’t think you can show that allowing altar girls will reduce enrollment at seminaries. I know at least one case where that is refuted.

 

[irishpatrick]

To all,

It would seem to me that people are not actually reading my posts. There is a charge that I have not proved my point/theory. It is not a theory. The Vatican has made statements that male altar serving does in fact encourge vocations to the Priesthood. That alone should be enough, but it seems people would rather win a debate, than concede to obvious truths.

Beyond what the Vatican has said, the nature of young men and boys is such that people should be able to acknowledge that boys of a certain age will routinely choose to volunteer for activities that have other boys or young men because they want to be involved in MALE activities. There are less male altar servers today for two reasons: (1) Parishes feel pressured to pick females; (2) Not as many males are volunteering because they now see it as female activity. (point: the 60-40 split at the celebration supports that, over time there will be less males).

Young males thirst for male role models. They thirst for male activities that they enter into with other males–their peers, with mature adult men to lead them and form them. As I said in a different place, Moms and women can teach and love young men, but only a man can help turn a boy into a man! I realize that in today’s culture such points are considered blasphemous…yet truth is still truth. Boys and young men are different than girls and young women, yet society seems to want to say they are the same.

The other obvious truth is that most young Catholic men have been taught to treat females with a certain level of respect. When females are on the altar, males will often allow the females to do the majority of the work because they feel it is a sign of respect and honor given to those females (meanwhile those males are NOT as involved and they are NOT as invested in the altar server role as are their female counterparts because they were busy being young gentlemen).

To the one obvious data point that shows where this situation really settles into is the fact that 85% of all Priests say they were once altar servers.

There are no formal studies, so if that is what people want, than you will be able to feel like you won this debate, and there is likely little reason for you to remain here. However, there is a great deal of information (some of it I posted on this thread) that points to the clear truth that the existence of female altar servers discourages males from serving.

So, I have another question:

**Do you believe that the existence of female altar servers discourages at least some males from altar serving? **

 

[irishpatrick]

My own Church had a bulletin announcement this weekend inviting boys or girls, ages 9 through 15, to attend upcoming altar server training next Saturday for 1-1/2 hours. As I understand it, this is all the “formal training” that’s involved. After this the “newbie” serves Mass with a “veteran” a few times, and after this OJT they’re good to solo.

That’s a far cry from my days as an altar server in Pre-Vatican II with the TLM. There were many hours of training involved (from nuns) and we had to prove we knew all the prayers and responses in Latin before we were fully qualified. Yes, there was a certain prestige in being an altar server. And I still think there is today, even with the lesser amount of training.

With regard to reducing the potential candidates for the priesthood, I don’t believe any boy is turned down that sincerely wants to serve. It just seems that the pool of available servers is limited. Without girls applying, and only allowing boys, there would be a shortage of servers.

The policy of allowing female altar servers has been Ok’d throughout our Archdiocese (of San Antonio) and we’ve been blessed with ever increasing enrollment at our seminary. At last report, the seminary was either at or very near capacity. I don’t think you can show that allowing altar girls will reduce enrollment at seminaries. I know at least one case where that is refuted.

Many boys will not enter activities that they perceive to be female roles, or even if they perceive them to be soft gender roles. Girls do not care about such things at the same depth boys do. Modern university life has erased the knowledge that the genders are completely different–most colleges propagate the myth that we are all the same…utter evil nonsense.

Beyond, that are only rare times when churches need more than one to two servers. They act as if they need four or more, and that just is not the case. It is similar to the the abuse of using Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers for communion…they should be the exception, not the rule.

 

[irishpatrick]

Thank you. Your member name tells the truth!

 

[irishpatrick]

Fellow Catholics,

One less Priest means there is one less man to take the bread and water and change them into Jesus’s Real Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

It means one less man to hear confessions.

It means on less man to perform all the sacraments.

It means on less man to say Mass.

It means one less man to adminster to people in need and the sick.

Multiply those clear facts by the thousands/millions who could be served by that one Priest over a lifetime of ministry and you might start understanding the loss the Church feels every time we lose a Priest, or everytime a man rejects the call God places on his heart.

I will say again: if there is even the remotest chance that female altar servers discourages even one young man from hearing the call, than imo THAT PRICE IS TOO HIGH. After all, female altar servers, like so many other things, is really just another form of scial engineering.

If you can say that the chance is zero, than you are standing on firm ground to object to all male altar servers.

If, however, you cannot say that the chance is zero, than your position is faulty at best, and immoral regarding the health of Church at the extreme.

Think about it…can you say with 100% certainty that there is ZERO chance the existence of female altar servers has an impact on vocations?

 

[pnewton]

Fello
I will say again: if there is even the remotest chance that female altar servers discourages even one young man from hearing the call, than imo THAT PRICE IS TOO HIGH. After all, female altar servers, like so many other things, is really just another form of scial engineering.

If you can say that the chance is zero, than you are standing on firm ground to object to all male altar servers.

If, however, you cannot say that the chance is zero, than your position is faulty at best, and immoral regarding the health of Church at the extreme.

The other option is that I always reject this type of argument. It is classic politician rhetoric. Sorry if that offends, but I do not accept zero chance, absolute, do or die, arguments. That is simply not the way or reality. Since there is not a zero chance of anything, I never weigh things by such standards.

Can you also say that there is a zero chance that some girl who serves the altar will so develop her reverence by such an act that she goes to Heaven instead of the Hell she would go to if she was not allowed to serve? After all, the price of one soul was such that Jesus would give his life.

It is an useless argument either way. For every instance it is used to support an action, there is a counter that the zero chance pitch could be used for.

If we spend a trillion dollars for health care and it saves one life is it not worth it?

If spending a trillion dollars for health care causes one person to starve to death, was it worth it?

 

[pnewton]

The Vatican has made statements that male altar serving does in fact encourge vocations to the Priesthood. That alone should be enough, but it seems people would rather win a debate, than concede to obvious truths.

The obvious truth is that if we listen to the Vatican, we should listen too* all* that is said, not just the parts we like. Until they disallow female altar servers, we should listen to the current disciplinary practice. Girls are allowed to serve the altar. "That alone should be enough"

If that changes, then we need to listen to that.

 

[pnewton]

**

**Do you believe that the existence of female altar servers discourages at least some males from altar serving? **

**
There is also not a zero percent chance that one boy would decide to server the altar because of girls, or specifically a girl, that serves the altar. Particularly in the time when vocations are more likely to be chosen, being around girls is not considered repugnant to most adolescent boys.

 

[irishpatrick]

The other option is that I always reject this type of argument. It is classic politician rhetoric. Sorry if that offends, but I do not accept zero chance, absolute, do or die, arguments. That is simply not the way or reality. Since there is not a zero chance of anything, I never weigh things by such standards.

I am guessing you also reject generalizations, since you reject absolutes (btw, you must reject Christ as being God, right?).

Please cease referring to this as political. If there is any political, it is female altar servers.

 

[irishpatrick]

---

There is also not a zero percent chance that one boy would decide to server the altar because of girls, or specifically a girl, that serves the altar. Particularly in the time when vocations are more likely to be chosen, being around girls is not considered repugnant to most adolescent boys.

Hmm, 60% to 40% in sixteen years! That does not disturb you? We went from 100% male servers down to 40% male servers (at that celebration at least) in a little over a decade, and that does not disturb you? With 85% of all Priests having said they were altar servers, and now the males in server ranks is much lower, that does not disturb you?

I wonder, if seminary X and seminary Y served the same general area, and if X had considerably more vocations than Y, wouldn’t we be correct to draw the conclusion that seminary “X” is doing something better to encourage vocations, than of seminary Y?

I say this respectfully: the inability of many people today to draw obvious conclusions based on simple logic astounds me. It only stands to reason that if 85% of all Priests were altar servers, than we want MORE male altar servers, not less. The simply fact that female can NEVER be ordained should tell us having them as altar servers is a harmful experiment.

I do agree btw, boys do not find being around girls to be repugnant in many cases…yet I never said they did feel that way (please read what I write, do not infer things that are not there). I said that boys enter into activities with their male peers and they will often refrain from entering things that are considered female activities or even gender-soft activities. In no way does that implay they somehow feel repulses by females…that is your sping, not mine.

 

[irishpatrick]

The obvious truth is that if we listen to the Vatican, we should listen too* all* that is said, not just the parts we like. Until they disallow female altar servers, we should listen to the current disciplinary practice. Girls are allowed to serve the altar. "That alone should be enough"

If that changes, then we need to listen to that.

In practice it is enough, and I 100% accept that truth.

Yet, there is no reason if we lay Catholics feel strongly about something that we cannot approach our Priests or Bishops about that subject, especially regarding a fairly new discipline that seems to make no sense at all.

 

[irishpatrick]

To all,

Despite my feelings about this subject (which I think I have made clear), I am convinced that changing back to all male altar servers will not happen, and it will not happen for one reason:

THE CLERGY SEXUAL ABUSE CRISIS!

 

[irishpatrick]

The other option is that I always reject this type of argument. It is classic politician rhetoric. Sorry if that offends, but I do not accept zero chance, absolute, do or die, arguments. That is simply not the way or reality. Since there is not a zero chance of anything, I never weigh things by such standards.

Can you also say that there is a zero chance that some girl who serves the altar will so develop her reverence by such an act that she goes to Heaven instead of the Hell she would go to if she was not allowed to serve? After all, the price of one soul was such that Jesus would give his life.

It is an useless argument either way. For every instance it is used to support an action, there is a counter that the zero chance pitch could be used for.

If we spend a trillion dollars for health care and it saves one life is it not worth it?

If spending a trillion dollars for health care causes one person to starve to death, was it worth it?

Desiring to win a debate does not advance the kingdom, nor will it add one single Priest to the ranks. Presenting worthless (to this discussion) counter-points is an utter waste of time and just reflects a desire to win a debate.

For me, I live in the real world, with real problems that require real solutions. If we want more Priests, than we have to make changes that create an environment to encourage more men to enter the Priesthood. That includes better formation for parents so they encourage their sons; better general formation for Catholics in general; a more committed sense in every parish to pray for vocations; and yes even considering reversing the decision regarding female altar servers. We either take the need for more Priests seriously, or we just remain inside a rather silly debate bubble that does the world no good at all.

We need more Christ and more Priests and we should do every moral thing we can to expand both! IMO.

 

[pnewton]

I am guessing you also reject generalizations, since you reject absolutes (btw, you must reject Christ as being God, right?).

I did not say I reject absolutes. It is the zero chance argument I do not value. Your last post relies on probability and comparison and is totally valid. Such things need be considered, although one can not imply a cause and affect.

The number of priests was in decline decades before females ever served the altar. Interestingly enough, in the last decade as this practice has become more common place, this decline has slowed and even stopped, by some standards. The number of ordinations is up slightly.

If I was a bishop and had to make the decision on whether to allow girls to serve, I really do not know what I would decide. I see both sides. Still, I believe in supporting the decision 100%.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Here is what cardinal Arinze has to say about this.

i hope he will be our next pope.

youtube.com/watch?v=KWByiwHE4MY

 

[irishpatrick]

I did not say I reject absolutes. It is the zero chance argument I do not value. Your last post relies on probability and comparison and is totally valid. Such things need be considered, although one can not imply a cause and affect.

The number of priests was in decline decades before females ever served the altar. Interestingly enough, in the last decade as this practice has become more common place, this decline has slowed and even stopped, by some standards. The number of ordinations is up slightly.

If I was a bishop and had to make the decision on whether to allow girls to serve, I really do not know what I would decide. I see both sides. Still, I believe in supporting the decision 100%.

Zero chance arguments are every bit as valid as generalizations. If you reject one, you should reject the other.

I also find it not unrelated to ponder the fact that female altar serving was approved in 1994 and the Vatican was well aware of the abuse crisis even at that early date. I have ZERO doubt that allowing female altar servers were at least a partial response to the current PC world we live in…it was and is (imo) social engineering. I seriously challenge you to read the piece at the following link:

totustuus.com/girlservers.htm

Beyond that, the following excerpt from the 1994 letter from the Vatican tells us what the Vatican at that time thought of the decision:

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.

*“has led to…”

“obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue…”*

Not exactly what I would call weak language. Placing my arguments aside, the view of the Congregation dealing with this is that male altar “HAS” led to vocations, and that we are obligated to continue that tradition. A 60/40 split does not reflect us continuing that tradition and it shows no respect for what the Vatican has declared as “has led to…”

The word they used was “has,” not “might.”

 

[irishpatrick]

Here is what cardinal Arinze has to say about this.

i hope he will be our next pope.

youtube.com/watch?v=KWByiwHE4MY

Awesome. As I suspected before going to the link, he felt it was a mistake.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Awesome. As I suspected before going to the link, he felt it was a mistake.

yes, it was. a big one. JPII seemed to have allowed somethings because he was under a lot of pressure from the liberals and could not do much against. nobody listened to him. nobody seemed to care about what he was saying. many things were introduced by the liberals and the pope could do nothing about it. they just introduced and it still being introduced in the Church without authorization from the Vatican. every man for himself. this is the mentality. every one came to believe that this is their Church and they can do as they please.

 

[irishpatrick]

yes, it was. a big one. JPII seemed to have allowed somethings because he was under a lot of pressure from the liberals and could not do much against. nobody listened to him. nobody seemed to care about what he was saying. many things were introduced by the liberals and the pope could do nothing about it. they just introduced and it still being introduced in the Church without authorization from the Vatican. every man for himself. this is the mentality. every one came to believe that this is their Church and they can do as they please.

He could have stopped it, he chose not to. There are many theories as to why, yet we do not know for certain. Yet, I do believe it was and is a mistake. I believe it was the Church caving in to politcal correctness and the secular agenda to one day have female Priests.