At our cathedral, we had about four former altar servers who are know in the seminary. My dad’s former parish has one and another parish as one more. My parochial vicar was an altar server and felt the calling rather young.
But, the interpretation that counts here is from the CDWDS, not the Canon Law Society, since it does not act with the same authority as the Congregation. In this case, the CDWDS, since it is a part of the Holy See, has the right to interpret the Code.
I just don’t see the hard statistics. Furthermore, even if every seminarian was an altar server, this doesn’t mean that altar serving increases vocations. Rather, the best one could really prove from the simple fact of a seminarian having been an altar server is that being an altar server strengthend their call.
And the reverse is also true … if the priests and bishops ALLOW female altar servers under their legitimate option … they should not be condemned either, nor should they be castigated using the pitiful lack of vocations excuse.
With all due respect, just because it seems, as I am reading your posts, that you have issues with Fr. Z, that does not necessarily mean that his words do not have merit. The author of the article has had a history of diessenting from Church teaching. She has also written several pieces that do not line up with what the Church holds. Thus, she has a history of being at odds with the Church on a few counts. This is a trend. Furthermore, Fr. Z is not the only one who has seen this pattern, so has Sander Magiiestro from the online publication Chiesa.
We don’t need to rely on anecdotes, a consistent 70+% of ordinands have been altar servers according to the annual survey of US ordinands (USCCB/CARA).(nearly 75% for diocesan).
They were influenced by the times they live in.
.
Contrast the words I found of Fr. Lombardi, not the alleged words you ascribed to him to defame the reporter. He did not stoop to defame her, but to say that the brain dead issue is an “ongoing discussion.” Fr. Z left little to one’s imagination as he took elaborate measures to link his readers to other sites. I have little doubt about his methods of disseminating information.
As I said earlier, the article simply narrated HER opinion, and it did not call for the public defamation that you, through Fr. Z, provided to the readers here. There was nothing sinful or problematic in her words that warranted further detraction, and on public websites, it is all too easy to fall into that trap, even though we post anonymously.
Actually, disagreement is not defamation. What Ms. Scarrafia wrote was an op-ed piece that does not necessarily reflect Catholic teaching. Even her reasonings behind her support are not necessarily consistent.
How is anyone picking on girls?Nothing like picking on little girls to prove how Catholic we are…
My problem is not in “disagreeing” with her article, to which folks may engage as a normal and legitimate response. My disagreement is in taking the issue of her article beyond the discussion of its contents, to bringing in a host of allegations that were not pertinent to this topic and which I consider as defamation and detraction.
I’ll be happy to link my source, and the reason I did not do so initially was because you failed to cite yours. Where did you physically read your version of Fr. Lombardi’s words?
That does not justify anyone taking her over the coals in public judgment. She is responsible for her own faulty reporting, and Fr. Lombardi, IMO, gave the only appropriate response.
I did indicate that it was from Fr. Z and from another article. However, now that this thread has been merged, there is no telling where one thread begins and where the posts intersect.
I was mainly just trying to provide some evidence that it was well known among canon lawyers that the 1983 code did actually change the rules for female altar servers, well prior to the 1994 letter.
There can be no debate that the 1983 law changed many things, including altar serving. It just took many years for people on the left within the Church to realize they had their opening.
I think that’s the goal!Oh good grief. You guys didn’t learn when the Mods closed the last thread on this subject?
What is wrong with this topic? It is in the right place and is about the faith???
However, the CDWDS certainly outweighs the common and constant opinoin of learned persons because it is part of the Roman Curia. The society you quoted is not, and, it’s also the last option.
You misunderstand! It is a worthy topic, but unfortunately, cynicism and mockery creep in with a few well-placed posts, and before you know it, it suffers an unfortunate death.
Of course that is true. However, it is also a fact that only men can be ordained. It is also a fact that 85% of Priests were once altar servers, and that today a very large percentage of altar servers are females, and for every female server there is one less male server. It has nothing to with fairness or equality or impurity or any of that nonsense. It has to do with the fact that only men can be ordained, so only males should be serving in an area that has always been a early training ground for future vocations to the Prieshood.
Well, there is nearly 200 posts, so it has been covered fairly well. I doubt anyone has changed their mind.