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

[NewEnglandPriest]

However, that does not exactly mean altar server insofar as children are concerned. Furthermore, the Code was revised before this indult was granted. In addition, those bishops and pastor who do not allow female altar servers are well within their right.

The 1994 “landmark letter” was an official interpretation of canon 230, 2. It did not grant anything that wasn’t already present in the canon.
Secondly, it officially interpreted the canon as permiting but not requiring female altar servers.
Third, as far as I can tell canon 230, 2 was interpreted this way beginning in 1983 by several bishops after the code’s promulgation . The dubium was submitted after a decade of disagreements over how to interpret the canon. Thus we have the official interpretation present in the 1994 letter.

In 1994, the CDWDS issued a letter stating that bishops are not bound to accept girls at the altar, nor could the particular national episcopal conference impel the Ordinaries to do so. Some seven years later, in 2001, the CDWDS also reaffirmed the priest’s right not to have girls serve at the altar, even if their local bishop permits it. Here is the relevent text from the 2001 letter:

All of these issues revolve around the wording of the canon. Once again, contrary to your previous statement, the option of female altar servers is indeed codified.

These are the interpretations of the CDWDS, not mine.

No, the CDWDS specifically stated that the option is indeed codified in 230, 2. Anything to the contrary is an incorrect interpretation.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Yes, never mind Cardinal Arinze thinks it was a mistake.

Cardinal Arinze is welcome to his opinion. But unless he comes here to debate it then let’s just stick to arguing with each other.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

In fact there was a rational discussion beginning discussing the article in L’Osservatore Romano, which now has little chance of occurring.

Let’s see. the discussion was basically: “Fr. Z says this!” “Cardinal Arinze says this!” “The author is a feminist!”
Peppered in between were pro- female altar server comments that were essentially ignored. If there was any rational discussion it wasn’t coming from those who oppose female altar servers.

 

[MarkThompson]

Let’s see. the discussion was basically: “Fr. Z says this!” “Cardinal Arinze says this!” “The author is a feminist!”
Peppered in between were pro- female altar server comments that were essentially ignored. If there was any rational discussion it wasn’t coming from those who oppose female altar servers.

I’m generally against altar girls because (1) I think it actually is quite likely that vocations are furthered by having boys serve in a male, clericalized atmosphere and (2) I think it’s good for the Church to take a visible stand on a minor issue and show that it will not be subject to the whims of public opinion and will stick a finger in the eye of political correctness. Nevertheless, this comment is dead on.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’m generally against altar girls because (1) I think it actually is quite likely that vocations are furthered by having boys serve in a male, clericalized atmosphere and (2) I think it’s good for the Church to take a visible stand on a minor issue and show that it will not be subject to the whims of public opinion and will stick a finger in the eye of political correctness. Nevertheless, this comment is dead on.

1. On this issue, I think there’s a lot of agreement or at least sympathy.
2. On this issue, in my humble opinion, we’re still being controlled by public opinion if we refuse to do something just because its also perceived as politically correct.

And they said my posts had killed all rational discussion!

 

[StrawberryJam]

In an article in the August 7 edition of L’Osservatore Romano, Lucetta Scaraffia defended the 1994 Vatican decision to permit female altar servers. Describing service at the altar as an …

More…

The parish I attend had a pastor before the current one who was bragging about how he was one of, if not the first in our arch to have altar girls.

I do still see altar servers that are boys, but they are far and few between.

Boys in my generation did not want to sign up for things if it would mean girls would be there.
Today, is another day. I don’t think there is the same stigma involved.
There could be other factors as to why parents may not be encouraging their boys to this vocation.
It is a strong probability.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

And you expected what? The Spanish Inquisition?

Maybe Don’t we do a lot of verbal flogging to each other on CAF?

Personally I don’t see how having a girl serve as an alter girl stops vocations from happening. I think there are many more things at work here. Really–if I was a parent…I would make very clear to my girl that girls can not be priests. From what I’ve seen of how priests get critiqued no matter what they do…I’d rather be a nun anyday:thumbsup:

 

[Sirach2]

New England Pries:

Let’s see. the discussion was basically: “Fr. Z says this!” “Cardinal Arinze says this!” “The author is a feminist!”

What scandalized me in reading Fr. Z’s analysis was not only his failure to support this lawful Church practice, as he should, but the public detraction of a reporter on his website. It is one thing to confine his critique to her article, but he went beyond the realms of integrity when he attempted to destroy her reputation for past journalizing. Did he feel the need to protect the public? I would never go to Fr. Z for confession as a result of seeing this abuse and total lack of charity!

Benedictgal also went beyond the discussion at hand to further demean this reporter’s reputation. Why else would she requote Fr. Z? “I would suspect, and again, this is speculation because the Holy See has not commented on the current article in question, that the same would hold true for this piece, as well.” I read three accounts of the “brain dead” issue, and did not find the specific wording alleged by Benedictgal as Fr. Lombardi’s comment. I do not see why this seed was planted, thereby instilling in the reader that past practice is proof of present error, and therefore, Scaraffia’s comments are unworthy of anyone’s attention.
Fr. Lombardi's words:

In a Sept. 2 statement he said the article “cannot be considered a position of the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church,” but was simply a contribution to an ongoing discussion.

Benedictgal:

Fr. Lombardi was quick to point out that this controversial piece on brain death and organ transplants, "“is not an act of the Church’s magisterium, nor a document of a pontifical organism,” and that the reflections expressed in it “are to be attributed to the author of the text, and are not binding for the Holy See.”

 

[Just_Lurking]

Third, as far as I can tell canon 230, 2 was interpreted this way beginning in 1983 by several bishops after the code’s promulgation . The dubium was submitted after a decade of disagreements over how to interpret the canon. Thus we have the official interpretation present in the 1994 letter.

The Canon Law Society of America’s The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, published in 1985 with nihil obstat and imprimatur, goes though some canonical reasoning and then concludes (page 648):

Hence, there is no solid legal basis for excluding female altar servers. The 1970 instruction, Liturgicae instaurationes, and the 1980 instruction, Inaestimabile donum, had each reaffirmed the prohibition against female altar servers, but neither document has any force beyond that of the former law.

 

[Dicerning]

Right, because priests = altar servers. Handing the priest the cruets is a real in persona christi act. Oh the chaos that reigns!

Pastor?

 

[Dicerning]

The parish I grew up in had a corps of about 50 male only alter servers complete with mentors among the High School aged boys. They served all the way up until seniors in H.S. and it was revered as a great honor to serve at the altar. Annually our priest gave a retreat for servers imploring to us the sole reason we were chosen to serve at the altar was for the dicernment of the vocation of the priesthood. Today 35 years later that priest is long retired and my aging mother remains a memeber of the parish where there has not been a SINGLE male altar server for 5 years…NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Perhaps I should seek out my old parish priest from years ago and accuse him of being a bald faced liar.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with female altar servers.
One interesting idea is to separate male and female altar servers when they are at a young age (and/or just starting to be an altar server). This will destroy the issue of boys not being altar servers because they are ‘awkward’ around girls (or however you want to phrase it). It will also allow girls to altar serve as well as boys.

And, yes, I do know of vocations that have been made because of altar serving. I have a female friend of mine who is contemplating becoming a religious sister because of her service as an altar server.

 

[ProVobis]

Personally I don’t see how having a girl serve as an alter girl stops vocations from happening.

Then why haven’t we seen a substantial increase in women entering religious life (as benedictgal has already stated) by now? I mean the kind where they start teaching grade school kids again.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Then why haven’t we seen an increase in women entering religious life (as benedictgal has already stated) by now?

That logic doesn’t necessarily work, though. Just because vocations to the female religious life haven’t increase, does not mean that female altar servers stop it. Stopping vocations and increasing vocations are two different things.

However, I have never seen (maybe someone can provide them) hard statistics showing that being a male altar server increases vocations.

 

[ProVobis]

That logic doesn’t necessarily work, though.

I deleted that post after I had read the previous poster who claims it actually did steer her one friend to the religious vocation. So all should be well now.

 

[ProVobis]

However, I have never seen (maybe someone can provide them) hard statistics showing that being a male altar server increases vocations.

Point taken. We’ll just have to find another way to increase those vocations, I guess. Nothing seems to be working these days. What do you suggest?

 

[ProVobis]

I’d rather be a nun anyday:thumbsup:

:nun1: And you might even get a Christmas card from me. I still have this attachment to my 8th-grade nun teacher who taught me a lot of things.

 

[ProVobis]

And they said my posts had killed all rational discussion!

Venting isn’t rational?

 

[bmadamsberry]

Point taken. We’ll just have to find another way to increase those vocations, I guess. Nothing seems to be working these days. What do you suggest?

Sorry. I must have posted before you deleted it. Again, sorry.
I suggest many of the programs that are already in place. They all seem good to me. The problem is, however, that one cannot judge the effectiveness of a vocations program for (at a minimum) 4 years (usually more) because the person needs to actually be ordained.
I think that being an altar server helps strengthen one’s desire to enter the priesthood, but I don’t think that in-and-of itself it increases priestly vocations. That’s why I suggest that you split male and female altar servers, only allowing them to serve together when they get older and more mature/less awkward.

 

[benedictgal]

The 1994 “landmark letter” was an official interpretation of canon 230, 2. It did not grant anything that wasn’t already present in the canon.
Secondly, it officially interpreted the canon as permiting but not requiring female altar servers.
Third, as far as I can tell canon 230, 2 was interpreted this way beginning in 1983 by several bishops after the code’s promulgation . The dubium was submitted after a decade of disagreements over how to interpret the canon. Thus we have the official interpretation present in the 1994 letter.

All of these issues revolve around the wording of the canon. Once again, contrary to your previous statement, the option of female altar servers is indeed codified.

No, the CDWDS specifically stated that the option is indeed codified in 230, 2. Anything to the contrary is an incorrect interpretation.

However, Father, with all due respect, while it may be codified, this particular issue does come with parameters and conditions. Just because it may be allowed, that does not mean that priests and bishops have to do this. Furthermore, if they choose their legitimate option not to allow female altar servers, the priests and bishops should not be condemned.

In addition, the Holy See made it quite clear that the preference remains for boys to serve as they tied this with priestly vocations. As I asked in a previous post, does anyone know just how many vocations to the convent sprang from girls serving at the altar?