What Does the Pope Say About Female Servers?

[Layman]

To: EvelynEVF

Sure. I’m a practical man. I want the best Mass I can find, one which encourages piety, with many graces attendant (hopefully). I’ll take an N. O. Mass if I can’t get to a Latin.

However, the only properly performed, Latin, ‘ad orientem’ N. O. Mass I know of in London is at the Oratory on Brompton Road.

What’s strange to me is I think priests are missing a trick, here. **A well said Latin Mass, in an old-fashioned church [candles, icons, statues, darkness and points of light, with a good choir singing Gregorian Chant and organ booming out those thrilling low notes] is a real boost to fervour, and quite moving. **

Why not take out this treasure and display it, instead of constantly trying to make up stuff to appeal to fads and opinion?

To:Weepixie

The Tamil mass was alienating; there was them, and there was me. **It also puts them in a kind of ghetto; they won’t meet many of the native Londoners at their masses, if any. **Rather silly to dump Latin to usher in this, I think.

 

[weepixie71]

I’ll just note that I go to a very reverent Novus Ordo Mass, where the priest goes by the book. The music isn’t always ideal, but there is lots of chanting. Those of you who believe that the EF is the only reverent form out there just haven’t found a good NO parish yet. I will admit that in all my travels, I’ve seen an awful lot of illicit stuff in the Novus Ordo, but really transcendent NO Masses do happen, even with altar girls up there!

i agree when they are done right, (or should i say rite) [ok bad pun] they are very beautiful. they are just getting harder and harder to find. and i think as catholics that fact that we are letting our priests and bishops do these things to our holy mass is offensive to God. and a couple times i have been burned thinking ahhhhh a nice conservative parish who want to do it right and then a pastor changes and there goes the mass…i dont have to worry at the EM if the priest is going to do something off the wall, or give it his own twist.

 

[spellinggirl]

I’m sorry, but I can’t see anything wrong with females being altar servers. I am the head server at my church, and it has brought me so much closer to God in so many ways. I think it’s the best thing I’ve ever done and God wanted me to do it so I could reconnect with Him.

Female altar servers are NOT the product of women’s lib, just giving girls the opportunity to serve the Lord. We are all equal in God’s eyes.

Why do some people find girls at the altar “distracting”? I have been told by many at my church that I do a really good job serving because I never make mistakes, always help to train new servers, and am extremely reverent.

Your thoughts?

 

[Layman]

“We are all equal in God’s eyes.”

Surely not. A sinner is not the equal of a good man, who in turn is not the equal of a living saint, like Padre Pio, surely? Men are not ‘equal to’ women, either. They are different beings.
*
“Why do some people find girls at the altar “distracting”?”*

Because traditionally they’re not meant to be there (which is circular logic, I know), women will look at her and think “how pretty she is or what nice hair she has”, boys may lust after her, depending on her age, her female pals will admire her or be jealous of her being ‘on-stage’ getting all the attention and … drat … hang on, where are we in the Mass again …?

Heh heh, I know as a young near-heretic I don’t think I was ever jealous of altar boys. Never paid 'em a moment’s thought.

Also: I vaguely remember that the Church is not equal-opportunities because of Eve committing the first of man’s sins and I think St. Paul said the voice of a woman should not be raised in the synagogue, so there’s a precedent for it.

 

[spellinggirl]

“We are all equal in God’s eyes.”

Surely not. A sinner is not the equal of a good man, who in turn is not the equal of a living saint, like Padre Pio, surely? Men are not ‘equal to’ women, either. They are different beings.
*
“Why do some people find girls at the altar “distracting”?”*

Because traditionally they’re not meant to be there (which is circular logic, I know), women will look at her and think “how pretty she is or what nice hair she has”, boys may lust after her, depending on her age, her female pals will admire her or be jealous of her being ‘on-stage’ getting all the attention and … drat … hang on, where are we in the Mass again …?

Heh heh, I know as a young near-heretic I don’t think I was ever jealous of altar boys. Never paid 'em a moment’s thought.

Also: I vaguely remember that the Church is not equal-opportunities because of Eve committing the first of man’s sins and I think St. Paul said the voice of a woman should not be raised in the synagogue, so there’s a precedent for it.

Well, people who think those things think that of their own accord, not mine. People should look at altar servers (male or female) and admire them for their devotion to God.

I just don’t see what’s so wrong about it. I know traditionally, boys have served, but traditions change. I don’t serve differently from boys. I am an altar server, plain and simple. And I do my job well.

If Eve committed the first sin, does that make women forever lower than men? Because she sinned, does that make me unworthy to serve?

Sorry, I’m really passionate about what I do.

 

[Layman]

“People should look at altar servers (male or female) and admire them for their devotion to God.”

Actually, they shouldn’t really notice them at all. We go to Mass to humble ourselves before God, not admire his creatures.

“Sorry, I’m really passionate about what I do.”

Passion is no indication of the worth of something. I vaguely recall early monks striving to overcome their passions. That word has been used lately by advertisers to gee people up into buying consumer goods. I also dislike the phrase “I am loving this …”, another word that has been bowderlised and emptied of meaning.

See how important having a dead language in our Mass is? Hard to vulgarise Latin, unless you’re a Cambridge scholar

“If Eve committed the first sin, does that make women forever lower than men? Because she sinned, does that make me unworthy to serve?”

**I think women have been put in the background of our religion because it’s too easy to excite them to a bad end. Like at pop concerts. Girls go temporarily crazy at these. **

Because it seems harder to get a man to do pious works, and because they are emotionally ‘simple’, or steady, perhaps they’re better for the serious job of attending the priest(?) I also read in occult books that menstruation is taboo in a lot of cultures, and that it ‘changes the vibration’ of a woman. Just my opinion, there, I must add.

**I think the overall problem is that men do not now fear death. **When people were dropping from TB and scarlet fever and war we were more pious; we knew we were mortal.

Funnily enough, I think modernism really got going in the 1940’s, which was also when antibiotics and contraceptives became more widely available, I think(?)

Now it seems to me we fear nothing, not even God. Hence we can fiddle around with our sacred rites.

Still, now that we have the Motu Proprio, it’ll be interesting to see if the Latin Mass gets going or stays as a ‘specialism’ in the wider church.

Personally, as I have relatives in Ireland, all I want is one near me there I can get to easily. I’m sorted out here in London. That will be a great day.

 

[spellinggirl]

“People should look at altar servers (male or female) and admire them for their devotion to God.”

Actually, they shouldn’t really notice them at all. We go to Mass to humble ourselves before God, not admire his creatures.

“Sorry, I’m really passionate about what I do.”

Passion is no indication of the worth of something. I vaguely recall early monks striving to overcome their passions. That word has been used lately by advertisers to gee people up into buying consumer goods. I also dislike the phrase “I am loving this …”, another word that has been bowderlised and emptied of meaning.

See how important having a dead language in our Mass is? Hard to vulgarise Latin, unless you’re a Cambridge scholar

“If Eve committed the first sin, does that make women forever lower than men? Because she sinned, does that make me unworthy to serve?”

**I think women have been put in the background of our religion because it’s too easy to excite them to a bad end. Like at pop concerts. Girls go temporarily crazy at these. **

Because it seems harder to get a man to do pious works, and because they are emotionally ‘simple’, or steady, perhaps they’re better for the serious job of attending the priest(?) I also read in occult books that menstruation is taboo in a lot of cultures, and that it ‘changes the vibration’ of a woman. Just my opinion, there, I must add.

**I think the overall problem is that men do not now fear death. **When people were dropping from TB and scarlet fever and war we were more pious; we knew we were mortal.

Funnily enough, I think modernism really got going in the 1940’s, which was also when antibiotics and contraceptives became more widely available, I think(?)

Now it seems to me we fear nothing, not even God. Hence we can fiddle around with our sacred rites.

Still, now that we have the Motu Proprio, it’ll be interesting to see if the Latin Mass gets going or stays as a ‘specialism’ in the wider church.

Personally, as I have relatives in Ireland, all I want is one near me there I can get to easily. I’m sorted out here in London. That will be a great day.

Whoah, I never said anything about Latin Mass! I’ve never been to one, but I think it’s a great idea! I’m pretty interested in languages (especially Romance languages) and Latin intrigues me. If they offered it at my school, I would take it, no questions asked.

Please do not generalize about what women do and do not do. Going crazy at concerts is a personal decision, not what ALL women do. Menstruation changes the way women act if they let it. Self-control is one of the great things about being human.

 

[weepixie71]

Well, people who think those things think that of their own accord, not mine. People should look at altar servers (male or female) and admire them for their devotion to God.

I just don’t see what’s so wrong about it. I know traditionally, boys have served, but traditions change. I don’t serve differently from boys. I am an altar server, plain and simple. And I do my job well.

If Eve committed the first sin, does that make women forever lower than men? Because she sinned, does that make me unworthy to serve?

Sorry, I’m really passionate about what I do.

you sound like a really sweet young lady. but this isnt a tradition that comes and goes. altar boys have been dated back, as i have mentioned earlier, to 251AD. so you are going against a very long standing tradition.
Formally, only young men, among whom the Church hoped to recruit for the priesthood, and seminarians, who need the training, are Acolytes; and thus altar boy.
so the job of altar boy went from recruit to priesthood to a free for all because females can not ever become priests. a lot of catholics feel that at a critical time when we are having a shortage of priests that this is unwise.
i know all you want is to be up close and personal with Christ. and im sure that it feels like you are part of the action. but the reality is whether you are in the pew or at the altar, only the priest is part of the action of the trans-substantiation. a boy however, when he gets moved the way you do, he can say “wow, i want to do that one day.” and you never will. by serving you may very well be taking some boys wow away and losing a priest.

 

[weepixie71]

“People should look at altar servers (male or female) and admire them for their devotion to God.”

Actually, they shouldn’t really notice them at all. We go to Mass to humble ourselves before God, not admire his creatures.

“Sorry, I’m really passionate about what I do.”

Passion is no indication of the worth of something. I vaguely recall early monks striving to overcome their passions. That word has been used lately by advertisers to gee people up into buying consumer goods. I also dislike the phrase “I am loving this …”, another word that has been bowderlised and emptied of meaning.

See how important having a dead language in our Mass is? Hard to vulgarise Latin, unless you’re a Cambridge scholar

“If Eve committed the first sin, does that make women forever lower than men? Because she sinned, does that make me unworthy to serve?”

**I think women have been put in the background of our religion because it’s too easy to excite them to a bad end. Like at pop concerts. Girls go temporarily crazy at these. **

Because it seems harder to get a man to do pious works, and because they are emotionally ‘simple’, or steady, perhaps they’re better for the serious job of attending the priest(?) I also read in occult books that menstruation is taboo in a lot of cultures, and that it ‘changes the vibration’ of a woman. Just my opinion, there, I must add.

**I think the overall problem is that men do not now fear death. **When people were dropping from TB and scarlet fever and war we were more pious; we knew we were mortal.

Funnily enough, I think modernism really got going in the 1940’s, which was also when antibiotics and contraceptives became more widely available, I think(?)

Now it seems to me we fear nothing, not even God. Hence we can fiddle around with our sacred rites.

Still, now that we have the Motu Proprio, it’ll be interesting to see if the Latin Mass gets going or stays as a ‘specialism’ in the wider church.

Personally, as I have relatives in Ireland, all I want is one near me there I can get to easily. I’m sorted out here in London. That will be a great day.

here is my two cents: the tridentine mass will thrive! it will take a while but it will. not all but a lot of people who attend the OM have the typical american family… a nice house, 2.5 kids if you include pets, etc. they are not having enough children to to replace themselves.
have you seen the families in a tridentine mass? unless there are problems they tend to have on average 6-8 children. lower divorce rate, so father sees to the young going to church and praying with the families.
while they can not get their boys to participate in mass ours are thriving. future traditional priests in st louis are piling up in the seminary. so many that they had to add on a wing and the people who worked in the office have to now work in the basement. the offices were turned to dorms.
so keep praying for a mass we can be confident will please the Lord!

 

[savienu]

I’m sorry, but I can’t see anything wrong with females being altar servers. I am the head server at my church, and it has brought me so much closer to God in so many ways. I think it’s the best thing I’ve ever done and God wanted me to do it so I could reconnect with Him.

Female altar servers are NOT the product of women’s lib, just giving girls the opportunity to serve the Lord. We are all equal in God’s eyes.

Why do some people find girls at the altar “distracting”? I have been told by many at my church that I do a really good job serving because I never make mistakes, always help to train new servers, and am extremely reverent.

Your thoughts?

So, for someone who says that it has nothing to do with women’s lib, you use a lot of “women’s lib” language. We ARE equal, in dignity, in God’s eyes. But equal does not mean the same. Men and women have different roles, and I think it is a poverty that we have so convinced our women that the only value is in things that men do.
Girls at the altar does not look or feel right, and this is coming from someone who WAS an altar server, (albeit, come to find out, illicitly…) Once you have seen the altar with all boys, or all men, in cassocks and surplus, serving at the altar of the Lord, you can never go back to women, unveiled, in albs and sinctures, assisting a priest. It is a NOVELTY that has only been allowed since 1995! That was almost 2000 years of Church History without females serving at the altar. What’s more likely to be wrong, honestly?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

altar boys have been dated back, as i have mentioned earlier, to 251AD. so you are going against a very long standing tradition.

You’ve made this claim twice in this thread. I asked you once before where you got this date. Let me explain why I asked – it isn’t possible! First, the liturgy that was celebrated in 251 had no altar servers. It wasn’t structured around an altar as we know it today. The historical liturgy of that era was much simpler in structure. It was presided over by the bishop and assisted by the deacons. There were no altar servers – they had not yet come into being.

In fact, we really don’t see altar servers in any form until well into the 8th or 9th century when we see young men studying for the priesthood who spent part of their apprenticeship serving. That is, they were already on their way to the priesthood.

So, once again, I ask where you got this date as nothing in my studies has indicate any such thing.

Deacon Ed

 

[Extempore]

Girls at the altar does not look or feel right, and this is coming from someone who WAS an altar server, (albeit, come to find out, illicitly…) Once you have seen the altar with all boys, or all men, in cassocks and surplus, serving at the altar of the Lord, you can never go back to women, unveiled, in albs and sinctures, assisting a priest.

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. The subject of altar girls is more than simply a feminist topic and it goes much deeper than that. It is a product of a change of thinking that has occurred within the Church. The idea I speak of is the feeling that we are not being “useful” in the Mass unless we are physically doing something. This idea of participation through action is a uniquely Vatican II concept. It has replaced the concept that we ARE participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass when we observe it and offer our prayers to God throughout. The closer we get to the altar - the more “involved” we become does not change this fact. It does not make us participate “better.”

Regarding the lack of willing male altar servers in the Novus Ordo, this does not surprise me at all for it is a product of the changes that have occurred within the Mass in recent years including a scaling down on the duties of the altar servers. Those who attend the TLM can attest to this - the roles of the altar servers are much more intricate in the latter, which often requires training. At the same time it, no doubt, produces innumerable spiritual benefits to the young men who volunteer to serve.

Finally, the fault may lie with individual parishes and with individual families themselves. Are families properly catechizing their sons on the importance of serving at Mass? Are they informing them of the meaning behind this? Are the priests doing so? Or has it simply become something that children reluctantly do because of half-hearted encouragement on the part of the Priest and parents?

 

[weepixie71]

You’ve made this claim twice in this thread. I asked you once before where you got this date. Let me explain why I asked – it isn’t possible! First, the liturgy that was celebrated in 251 had no altar servers. It wasn’t structured around an altar as we know it today. The historical liturgy of that era was much simpler in structure. It was presided over by the bishop and assisted by the deacons. There were no altar servers – they had not yet come into being.

In fact, we really don’t see altar servers in any form until well into the 8th or 9th century when we see young men studying for the priesthood who spent part of their apprenticeship serving. That is, they were already on their way to the priesthood.

So, once again, I ask where you got this date as nothing in my studies has indicate any such thing.

Deacon Ed

st paul himself founded churches in at least 20 cities before he was martyred in 62AD. so there had to be some kind of structure from the very beginning.

histclo.com/act/rel/altar/altar.html

if you read this site you may also understand why traditionalists are so upset about female servers

acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2007/05/history-and-graces-received-from-altar.html

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

but traditions change.

No, they don’t.

That’s why they are called traditions.

 

[ASD]

You can raise her to be a great homemaker. And I don’t mean that derogatorily.

It’s such a shame that the disclaimer is required. Based on Christian principles of humble service, shouldn’t we think of homemakers as the best among us? I think people used to see them in something like that light.

savienu;4697610:

If you went to a TLM, you would see where the boys are. Boys are not going to want to do what they think is “girly.” Girls being on the altar will keep boys away, every time. There are plenty of other things your daughter could do to serve the church, without taking on a traditionally male role.

Such as what? People occasionally make this comment but fail to back it up with suggestions.

Moderate: Choir has traditionally been considered just as important as serving on the altar.

Slightly simplified illustration: (1) An ordained Priest in the central clerical role, (2) altar boys speaking responses in a kind of junior clerical role, (3) the choir singing Priest’s prayers in a kind of minor clerical role; e.g., Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc; & (4) lay men and women who were free to assist at Mass in many different ways (read along in Missal, follow along without Missal, pray rosary, etc; real diversity and inclusiveness).

So, for a long time serving at the altar and singing in the choir were considered comparable.

(On the other hand, to my mind, at NO/OF now it seems like we’re all altar boys who “participate” by vocalizing rote responses. In a sense, kyrie’s point seems very mainstream: Vocalizing rote responses like an altar boy is the only thing that really counts as “service” or “particpation.” The ironic thing, of course, is that gents who used to serve on the altar but now assist in the pews always say that it’s actually harder to enter into the Mass in a spiritual way when one is serving, watching for cues, etc.)

BTW, I hope you won’t respond that your daughter doesn’t have a good singing voice because in my experience, that’s not a requirement. uch:

Immoderate: The Church to some extent still accepts an old view which sees the old-fashioned family as the fundamental unit of society. Liberal individualism and feminist derivatives, on the other hand, see individuals as the fundamental unit. In the latter view, comparable isn’t good enough; the same roles have to be open to every individual; any difference at all is per se pernicious.

Some people, maybe including you, kyrie, think that the Church has got to get with it; like, the Church is obligated to conform to the liberal individual ideology of the surrounding culture. I don’t. To my mind, it makes just as much sense for the Church to stand fast and show people a different way.

The Church can and should resist ideologies of liberal individualism.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[savienu]

It’s such a shame that the disclaimer is required. Based on Christian principles of humble service, shouldn’t we think of homemakers as the best among us? I think people used to see them in something like that light.

Moderate: Choir has traditionally been considered just as important as serving on the altar.

Slightly simplified illustration: (1) An ordained Priest in the central clerical role, (2) altar boys speaking responses in a kind of junior clerical role, (3) the choir singing Priest’s prayers in a kind of minor clerical role; e.g., Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc; & (4) lay men and women who were free to assist at Mass in many different ways (read along in Missal, follow along without Missal, pray rosary, etc; real diversity and inclusiveness).

So, for a long time serving at the altar and singing in the choir were considered comparable.

(On the other hand, to my mind, at NO/OF now it seems like we’re all altar boys who “participate” by vocalizing rote responses. In a sense, kyrie’s point seems very mainstream: Vocalizing rote responses like an altar boy is the only thing that really counts as “service” or “particpation.” The ironic thing, of course, is that gents who used to serve on the altar but now assist in the pews always say that it’s actually harder to enter into the Mass in a spiritual way when one is serving, watching for cues, etc.)

BTW, I hope you won’t respond that your daughter doesn’t have a good singing voice because in my experience, that’s not a requirement. uch:

Immoderate: The Church to some extent still accepts an old view which sees the old-fashioned family as the fundamental unit of society. Liberal individualism and feminist derivatives, on the other hand, see individuals as the fundamental unit. In the latter view, comparable isn’t good enough; the same roles have to be open to every individual; any difference at all is per se pernicious.

Some people, maybe including you, kyrie, think that the Church has got to get with it; like, the Church is obligated to conform to the liberal individual ideology of the surrounding culture. I don’t. To my mind, it makes just as much sense for the Church to stand fast and show people a different way.

The Church can and should resist ideologies of liberal individualism.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

I can’t believe I didn’t think about the Choir!! I sang in the Choir my entire childhood- and I was definitely participating in the Mass that way.

 

[EvelynEVF]

…i dont have to worry at the EM if the priest is going to do something off the wall, or give it his own twist.

Yes, it’s much harder to go off the cuff in Latin I’ve only been to one truly invalid Mass (a weekday Mass, no less!) and the priest just ad libbed the whole thing. Never could have done that in EF, because a)it’s Latin, and b)if his latin was good enough to ad lib, it would have been good enough to really understand everything in the rubrics, and he wouldn’t have wanted to deviate.

I hope that the new translations come out soon and are a great encouragement. When I read literal translations, they are often nothing like what we actually hear.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

st paul himself founded churches in at least 20 cities before he was martyred in 62AD. so there had to be some kind of structure from the very beginning.

histclo.com/act/rel/altar/altar.html

if you read this site you may also understand why traditionalists are so upset about female servers

acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2007/05/history-and-graces-received-from-altar.html

While it is true that there was a structure for the Pauline churches it had nothing to do with altar servers. Paul’s structure included bishops and deacons only (see his letter to Timothy). By the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch (start of the 2nd century) the structure had included priests and deacons under a single bishop. By the year 251 (the date you cited) we do have a rather well-known letter by Pope Cornelius who writes about having “42 acolytes” in the city of Rome. However, those acolytes were, primarily, assigned to assist the deacons and, later, became the messengers (what deacons had originally been) for the pope. While they may have assisted the pope in liturgical functions the exact type of help is not documented.

These acolytes had to be 20 years old before they were “ordained” into that minor order (although it is anachronistic to speak of minor orders at this point in history). They would hold that office for four years before moving to the next level.

It is, therefore, inaccurate to say that we had altar boys in 251. The functions of the altar boys that we see today and that of the acolytes of 251 were quite different.

The second of the two web sites you cite is a little more accurate with regard to the history of altar servers and clearly indicates that the altar server is not to be confused with the acolyte.

It would appear, however, that your post makes that mistake and confuses the acolytes of 251 with altar servers. Either that or you have projected a late development of the Church onto the early church without sufficient historical research. In either event, your claim that there were altar servers in 251 is simply erroneous if, by that term, you are attempting to show that the functions of today’s altar servers existed then.

Deacon Ed

 

[weepixie71]

Pope Cornelius who writes about having “42 acolytes” in the city of Rome. However, those acolytes were, primarily, assigned to assist the deacons and, later, became the messengers

acolyte ( ) n. One who assists the celebrant in the performance of liturgical rites. A devoted follower or attendant.

as far as i know the definition of this word never changed.

im afraid on this issue we are going to agree to disagree.

i would hope with your duties as a deacon you would have attended a traditional mass. i am sure you have just because you obviously love history. and the tridentine mass is a large connection to catholic history.
an acolyte(altar boy) for the traditional mass, and the acolyte(server)for your mass have very different duties. this does not make our acolytes any less of an altar boy. we have so many acolytes in our mass that there are 5 pews at our altar. on sunday they are almost full. because they are sitting at the altar just studying the future duties of a priest and not handling the bread and wine does not make them any less of an acolyte.

when someone writes that a pope says he had acolytes then they did exist and if meant just watching and studying the mass in hopes to be made a priest on day… well that is what being an altar boy is all about. and it just proves my point from the very beginning. modernists skewed what altar boys really were so they could have their “servers”. the original intent is not for another person in the laity to perform at the altar who can never have hopes of becoming a priest. the proof is in our mass.

so by what you are writing back i can only assume that your ideas (not mine) of what an acolyte is and why they existed in the first place, is incorrect.

it also so seems very silly to me to make girls server when your modern church are so needy for future priests!

 

[LexKnight]

Hi everyone. New reader and first time poster so please be gentle!

Where I come from it has never, in my memory, been a problem to use female altar-servers. Admittedly I’m relatively young; I probably didn’t pay too much attention before I was 6 (when the rules were changed), lol. I suppose because of this I find it quite odd that the idea of female servers poses a problem. It provides people, regardless of gender, with a great way to be actively participating in the Mass. This is good because, contrary to what some people here are suggesting, the Mass is not simply a spectacle that is to be observed. Rather, it is a sacrament that the community participates in, in various ways. This can be as simple as joining in with the congregation when they say prayers, or it could be taking a more active role; such as that of a music minister or an altar-server. That said, one is not obliged to take on such roles if they don’t want to – however if one is both able and willing I don’t see why there should be something stopping them.

So my question is – why not? I believe that Jesus would be absolutely thrilled that there would be women who wished to serve him in any way they could. So far nobody has been able to provide an adequate reason as to why any girl or women should not be allowed to be an altar-server. To prove this, I want to discuss the common responses we are getting here:

Male altar-servers are the way it’s always been. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!

I’ll be frank “because it’s always been that way” is not a good excuse at all. For a long time women weren’t allowed to vote, or get certain jobs simply because of the fact that they were biologically different. Did that make it right? At risk of sounding like an extreme bra-burning feminist (not that I have any bras to burn, being a guy, lol) the answer is no. Of course not! Heck, for a long time in some Western countries women weren’t even allowed to refuse their husband sex if they didn’t feel like it at the time (to use and extreme example)! I’m sure many people are glad society changed their attitude on that issue.

The idea that “if something isn’t broken that we shouldn’t try to improve on it” is also lazy at best. Sure, we could sufficient. However I personally don’t think that “sufficient” is a good enough. Female altar-servers certainly don’t make a Mass any worse, and the opportunity to serve God in this way may even bring some of these young ladies closer to God. We all have our own unique spiritualities and I think we would be failing our duties as Christians if we were to deny a girl or woman the chance to get closer to God - if this is one way she may do so.

By having female altar-servers we are denying young men the chance to be altar-servers. This is having a negative impact upon vocations to the priesthood.

This one is equally hard to swallow. In my experience no guy is ever denied the chance to become an altar-boy by the presence of a young lady who wishes to do the role too. Both male and female altar-servers can serve alongside each other if both wish to volunteer for the role.

Some people suggested that seeing women doing this role would mean that people would see it as a “girly” task and therefore not decide to do it. Again, this is really not the case. I don’t know about you, but when someone says to me “altar-server” my mind still automatically conjures images of altar-boys moreso than altar-girls. Not necessarily because I think this should be the case, but because in the public eye the role is still seen as predominantly male. Where I come from we still generally have a relatively equal number of boys and girls as altar-servers; thus it has become more of a unisex role.

The idea of the altar-server as priest-in-training has also faded into obscurity in recent years. As a result, it is not necessarily the case that those choosing not to be altar-boys will miss hearing their call to the priesthood (although, as I said above, the likelihood that a boy would not choose to be an altar-server because a girl also does the role is quite miniscule). This leads on to my next point:

Women altar-servers are a devious back-door into promoting the idea of women priests!

See what I just said – but basically the idea of altar-servers as a lead-in to the priesthood is not prevalent in today’s society.

The female altar-servers have girly-bits that might distract the men of the congregation.

Yes, but the same could be said about the effect of attractive male altar-servers on the young women of the congregation.

Since ugly altar-servers may distract people I propose that instead we put aside the idea of gender and only allow really average-looking people of either gender to be altar-servers. Thus no lust and no problem! (/joke)

Women are inherently moody and emotional. Especially when ‘that time of the month’ comes around!

I’m sure that many women would be offended by the first half of this point as it suggests that they lack the self-control to perform a task without letting their emotions interfere. In most lines of work this generally doesn’t prove to be a problem, I don’t see why it would be any different in altar-serving. I’ve also met some pretty emotional men in my time who certainly need to get control of their emotions better than some of the women I know.

Part 2: While PMS does exist (I’m not a PMS denier!), it generally doesn’t prevent most women from doing tasks they have been assigned. Yes, for some women it can be a problem but generally most have a level of self-control that allows them to overcome their mood-swings.

(I have to cut my post here, it’s too long, lol. More in the next post…)