Will "Altar Girls" lead to Women Priests?

[pnewton]

But Canon Law does protect customs.

I do not know what application you are referring to. I do know that when the Tridentine Mass was unified, some variations were allowed in orders that had long established customs. I think 100 years was the figure used at that time. Is this what you refer to?

 

[ConstantineTG]

With all due respect, I think you’re stuck on the labeling. You’re the one who’s brought up “traditionalists” and “dissenters”, etc. Why even go there? Why can’t we be Catholics discussing our opinions?

Then lets! I have no problem with it, but it seems that every time I defend something the Church allows I have been labeled a modernist who supports abortion, gay rights, women priests and artificial birth control. I guess labeling just comes with the territory. And please be fair to me, I did not brought up “dissenters”. I merely replied to someone who did. I present evidence A:

Yes, it tells me that the Church has been a little to generous in trying to appease dissenters in the last few decades. And now they have made a rod for their own back because they have gone as far as they can possibly go and the dissenters still are not satisfied.

Like someone else said, I don’t know if it’s possible to “dissent” against an optional discipline that was outlawed for the entire history of the Church until very recently. I’m not a “traditionalist”…I don’t think that I know better than the Church. It’s just my opinion that this optional allowance isn’t a great idea and I’d like to see less priests taking the option. Is that dissent or is it just my opinion?

Take it up with the guy whom I just replied to which I quoted above. He is the one that claimed that alter girls were allowed to calm down dissenters. If you read all my posts since that one I quoted, I in fact said I have never met anyone who’s been clamoring for altar girls, so I know not these dissenters they speak of.

These are the facts: he institution of altar girls (unlike that of altar boys, which is across the board approved of and allowed no matter what) was a liturgical abuse for many, many years. Eventually, Rome decided to allow altar girls *not across the board *but only at the discretion of the local bishops and with the agreement of each individual parish priest. And the GIRM straight out says that although girls are now *permitted *to serve if the priest agrees to it, this is not to be at the expense of instituting altar boys…Thus, boys are the ones who should be strongly *encouraged *to serve because of the possibility of inspiring future vocations to the priesthood. Boys, not girls. That’s from the GIRM.

No argument from me. Again if you bothered to read all my previous posts, last 2 pages only, I said the following:

I for one am not in favor, but I recognize the need for it in certain situations and since the Church allows for it, I accept it. I’m not going to create imaginary enemies just to justify an anti- stance.

So from that, I conclude that having altar girls is not a liturgical abuse anymore but having boys serve is still better and makes more sense in my opinion. Therefore, I hope more bishops and priests utilize their right to stand up and say no to the practice of instituting altar girls. Because any girl that serves at the altar is one less boy that’s serving at the altar. That’s not dissent. I think that’s a pretty rational opinion to have given the history and the facts of the matter.

Again, no complaints from me. I am for altar boys. But if the boys are not standing up to the plate and if it allowed, then open it up for girls. And if that does happen the we should accept it. We should not be complaining and such against what the Church has allowed. Clamoring for the stop of the practice is not the way to fight it. The same as clamoring for stopping the use of EMHCs is not the way to fight it. Pray and encourage boys to be servers. Pray for more priestly vocations. When trying to solve something, you solve the root, not the edges.

It tells me that it’s simply allowed under certain circumstances, as I just explained, and that Rome no longer considers it a liturgical abuse. That’s all.

If its allowed then the Church through its leaders have found that there is some worth to it, even though the practice is limited. Lets not be negative on something that the Church allows.

 

[CDNowak]

As I said later, having an opinion that girls should not be altar servers is not misogynistic. However, I went back through the thread and came up with eight posts that showed a contempt for women before I quit.

It should be possible to discuss this subject without demeaning women.

Given the seriousness of the charge, it would be helpful to know which posts. I’m pushing it because I think that it should be addressed where it occurs, but at the same time shouldn’t be bandied about carelessly (the fact that you double checked makes it seem like the first).

 

[ProVobis]

I do not know what application you are referring to. I do know that when the Tridentine Mass was unified, some variations were allowed in orders that had long established customs. I think 100 years was the figure used at that time. Is this what you refer to?

These actually. And I’m referring to the custom of having no women in the sanctuary.

Can. 23 Only that custom introduced by a community of the faithful and approved by the legislator according to the norm of the following canons has the force of law.

Can. 24 §1. No custom which is contrary to divine law can obtain the force of law.

§2. A custom contrary to or beyond canon law (praeter ius canonicum) cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.

Can. 25 No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.

Can. 26 Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law (praeter legem canonicam) obtains the force of law **only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. ** Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.

Can. 27 Custom is the best interpreter of laws.

Can. 28 Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 5, a contrary custom or law revokes a custom which is contrary to or beyond the law (praeter legem). Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.

 

[CDNowak]

These actually. And I’m referring to the custom of having no women in the sanctuary.

I do hope that Archbishop Burke in (one or more of his capacities:legal texts or CDW) is leaking inside information in the intro to the German report. If the lack of mention in canon law is insufficient to extend altar girls to the EF then what does that bode for custom and interpretation.

For the OF the 1994 ruling makes it difficult to invoke custom (let alone the the ruling that allowed women as readers, 1984 at the latest, revoking said custom).

 

[kozlosap]

“evolution of women”? Please describe.

Thank you,
Ed

Ed - what I meant was the social evolution of women such as being able to own property, vote, attend college, sit on juries and work in professional fields that were previously male dominated. In almost every instance, women were “not allowed” to participate in any of the aforementioned activities less than 100 years ago.

 

[PaulinVA]

Given the seriousness of the charge, it would be helpful to know which posts. I’m pushing it because I think that it should be addressed where it occurs, but at the same time shouldn’t be bandied about carelessly (the fact that you double checked makes it seem like the first).

I don’t want to derail the thread by posting these statements and having ten pages of refutations and attacks and getting the thread locked.

Reread those first several pages of posts and look for yourself.

 

[Samantha79]

Yes! God set aside the Sancturary of every Roman Catholic Church for men, not for intruders. Men celebrate Mass, Men serve at Mass, and Men assist at Mass. Sorry if I am not very “politically correct” to say that! I was raised with a Traditional Catholic education and I will defend Traditional Catholic values forever no matter how much the modernists try to defile the Sanctuary. It is called a Sanctuary because it is supposed to be kept SAFE FOR THE LORD FROM INTRUDERS. Not anyone allowed to run around in there.

Please take your women-hating attitude someone else. You have shown nothing but hate, anger, and disrespect towards females since you starting posting on here. Having a respectful opinion that only men should be priests, altar servers, and participate in the Mass on the altar is one thing, but your animosity towards women is definitely another!!

The moderator needs to consider shutting yet another thread down and this is it!

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t want to derail the thread by posting these statements and having ten pages of refutations and attacks and getting the thread locked.

Reread those first several pages of posts and look for yourself.

Do you think posting the #s would be ok? Maybe not? I noticed those posts too, there were a few that were just really inappropriate.

 

[paperwight]

What is it that is specifically “male” about any of the things that Altar servers do?

Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it. Dressing-up in a frock, fetching and carrying food, helping someone wash their hands … all well-known masculine things, those.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

By all means…please do. If someone is going to slander and falsely accuse someone, they should at least try to present their “evidence”

Do you think posting the #s would be ok? Maybe not? I noticed those posts too, there were a few that were just really inappropriate.

 

[pnewton]

Yes! God set aside the Sancturary of every Roman Catholic Church for men, not for intruders.

The two genders, as God has created them are male and female. Similar terms may be used; men and women, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. When the genders are set in apposition to each other as men and intruders, yes, that comes across as nails on a chalk board to the intruder gender. In fact, I do not think I have ever seen that use word used before as a gender.

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of begging the question? I ask because the argument that women (the correct gender term opposite men) are intruders does just that.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

By all means…please do. If someone is going to slander and falsely accuse someone, they should at least try to present their “evidence”

OK- how about this one!

They are filled with the Traditional Catholic families where it is not odd to see mother and father with 4-7 kids in tow every Sunday…where on the other hand at NO parishes, where the number of spouses who contracept match the national average, the families are very small and it is nothing to see a young married couple in there 30’s who have been married for over 10 years, yet have no children…and the ones that do, usually have 1 or 2 at the most. Chew on that for a while…

In the comment above, whether you like it or not, you have just made a very sweeping and hurtful generalization of any woman who attends the OF and does not have children.
If you want to talk about slander and false accusation, maybe you need to take a look at your own wqrds.

Shall I continue?

 

[ProVobis]

I do hope that Archbishop Burke in (one or more of his capacities:legal texts or CDW) is leaking inside information in the intro to the German report. If the lack of mention in canon law is insufficient to extend altar girls to the EF then what does that bode for custom and interpretation.

For the OF the 1994 ruling makes it difficult to invoke custom (let alone the the ruling that allowed women as readers, 1984 at the latest, revoking said custom).

The Vatican could remove the canon law that even hints at allowing women in the sanctuary to avoid the conflict. Archbishop Burke just may be in that position to do so. Just saying.

 

[PaulinVA]

By all means…please do. If someone is going to slander and falsely accuse someone, they should at least try to present their “evidence”

I have not libeled anyone, I have not falsely accused anyone, since I did not name any names.

If an individual does not think that this thread, and the individual’s posts, have an anti-woman tone, then they should move on.

 

[Bluegoat]

By all means…please do. If someone is going to slander and falsely accuse someone, they should at least try to present their “evidence”

This one was already mentioned. Especially the bit about defiling the sanctuary. ( Although I don’t expect that to get much traction, since if it were accepted, it would mean that the men would have to take care of the linens, which would be a miracle in most parishes.)

Yes! God set aside the Sanctuary of every Roman Catholic Church for men, not for intruders. Men celebrate Mass, Men serve at Mass, and Men assist at Mass. Sorry if I am not very “politically correct” to say that! I was raised with a Traditional Catholic education and I will defend Traditional Catholic values forever no matter how much the modernists try to defile the Sanctuary. It is called a Sanctuary because it is supposed to be kept SAFE FOR THE LORD FROM INTRUDERS. Not anyone allowed to run around in there.

Then there are these two, which if you look at the context, are pretty much telling any female posters to shut up, because they have no right to have an opinion of the matter.

Another problem is women telling men that their attitudes are not acceptable. To which men say “Ok then I will go some place where they are because I didn’t come to church to be treat like a child by a bunch of wannabe surrogate mothers, bye.”

Men who deal with their emotions in a womanly way such as by acting in a passive aggressive manner and making little bitchy comments trying to score points are another part of the problem to.

There were also several posts near the beginning implying that anyone who wanted or accepted female servers was out to destroy the church and part of some kind of conspiracy, as well as a femi-nazi.

I can respect the idea that males should only be servers, but some of the posts in this thread have been uncharitable, irrational, and inappropriate.

 

[Milesius]

Then there are these two, which if you look at the context, are pretty much telling any female posters to shut up, because they have no right to have an opinion of the matter.

Yes lets look at the context shall we.

What I am saying is that if men don’t go to church because there are women there, than they are pathetic. If boys refuse to be altar servers because girls do it, they should seriously get a talking to from their parents.

Women are not an alternate species. It is possible to talk to them, to serve with them, to work on committees with them. If any man told me he wasn’t more involved because there were a lot of women, I cannot see that as anything other than an excuse.

And FWIW, I think in a lot of cases things are dominated by women because men haven’t stepped up.

Look, people here are saying girls should not be servers because it makes it “girly”, and boys will then not be involved. Of all the arguments against the idea of altar girls, this is the worst. The same logic would say that we should not have girls in the choir, or in church at all, because the boys will not want to go. We could tell women they cannot be part of parish councils and such, so as to attract more men! That is not an acceptable attitude, no matter what the context.

To which I was replying when I said:

Another problem is women telling men that their attitudes are not acceptable. To which men say “Ok then I will go some place where they are because I didn’t come to church to be treat like a child by a bunch of wannabe surrogate mothers, bye.”

It was you telling men not only to shut up but that they actually need to change the way they think because according to you it is not acceptable to think like that…

It is women acting like the thought police, that try to force men to be more relationship centred and emotionally in touch that drive men away from church. God did not make men that way, and by trying to get men to change by applying emotional pressure you are trying to change His very God given nature and you will simply drive the man away.

 

[pnewton]

This one was already mentioned. Especially the bit about defiling the sanctuary. ( Although I don’t expect that to get much traction, since if it were accepted, it would mean that the men would have to take care of the linens, which would be a miracle in most parishes.)

I am curious. In the traditional chapels, do men do the cleaning, sweeping, mopping? Do they also serve as a men’s altar society?

 

[ProVobis]

If an individual does not think that this thread, and the individual’s posts, have an anti-woman tone, then they should move on.

What exactly is an anti-woman tone? Would you say the same thing about I Corintheans?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I am curious. In the traditional chapels, do men do the cleaning, sweeping, mopping? Do they also serve as a men’s altar society?

Of course not, that would be “woman’s work!!”

(This is supposed to be sacastic, BTW!)