women not allowed to distribute the Precious Body?

[RyanBlack]

Unjust discrimination involves depriving someone of a **right **due to a characteristic (such as race). Since being an EMHC isn’t a right, choosing one person over another can’t be unjust discrimination. It can be a poor decision. It can even be a decision with a gravely wrong motive but it’s not “unjust discrimination”. Housing, employment, food, education - these are rights. Being an EMHC isn’t.

Frankly, the priest shouldn’t have to explain his choices to anyone. If someone feels slighted by his decision, they should speak to him privately but it’s not anyone else’s place to do so.

I’m not interested in secular, legal definitions of unjust discrimination in the context of what should and should not be done in the Church. I’m quite aware that no one has a right to be an EMHC, or an altar server, a lector, a cantor, a deacon, or a priest. However, if a priest were to exclude systematically all people of a certain race from serving, that is gravely unjust and sinful, and in the everyday, common sense use of the term discrimination, a matter of unjust racial discrimination.

 

[RyanBlack]

Frankly, the priest shouldn’t have to explain his choices to anyone. If someone feels slighted by his decision, they should speak to him privately but it’s not anyone else’s place to do so.

I think it depends on what sort of choices the priest is making. When a priest does bad things, he should be held accountable. When priests do things that appear to be wrong, but actually have a good reason for doing so, they should explain their reasons for doing so, so as to avoid scandalizing the faithful.

 

[Corki]

would you tell this lady that she shouldn’t feel this way, because she and the other African-Americans have no right to serve in the first place, but that the pastor does have a right to exclude them, or anyone else, for whatever reason? Would you tell her that she is the one being uncharitable for calling the actions of the priest evil? Would you tell her that being excluded on the basis of her race is not really that big of a deal, because, after all, it’s not like she’s being denied a job or the right to vote?

No of course I wouldn’t tell her that, and I would encourage her to speak to the priest and to the Bishop. What I wouldn’t do is storm into the priest’s office, accuse him of being a grave sinner and call him “wicked” and “evil”. One wrong (his possibly racially motivated actions) does not excuse another wrong (gross disrespect for a member of the clergy).

 

[RyanBlack]

No of course I wouldn’t tell her that, and I would encourage her to speak to the priest and to the Bishop. What I wouldn’t do is storm into the priest’s office, accuse him of being a grave sinner and call him “wicked” and “evil”. One wrong (his possibly racially motivated actions) does not excuse another wrong (gross disrespect for a member of the clergy).

If I actually knew that the priest’s decision was driven by racism, I would have no problem in telling him he was sinning gravely and engaging in evil. If I merely suspected racism
I would ask for an explanation.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a worthless conversation because the “what if” keeps moving.

It is a logical application of your position.

That you cannot refute it without also refuting your position is what makes you find it a “worthless conversation.”

Point: if one permits a pastor to enforce into policy his erroneous and gravely immoral views about an entire gender, then one ought to also permit a pastor to enforce into policy his erroneous and gravely immoral views about an entire race.

One cannot object to one without the other.

And if one does not object to one, then one is permitting a sinful ideation to flourish.

My son’s theology teaches has mentioned that every year there are a couple of students who take every single topic to a ridiculous extreme with “but what if” questions. This is just like that.

I agree with you that there are some ridiculous “what if” questions. For example, I find the “what if Jesus had been stoned to death instead of crucified, would we be venerating rocks instead of a cross?” to be an example of such.

However, that doesn’t mean all “what if” questions are absurd.

There is no “correct thing to do” because there is no real context.

It’s a hypothetical, so, as hypotheticals go, we can all discuss and opine and consider all the different permutations as to what would be the correct thing to do.

That’s why this is a discussion forum.

I am not operating under any delusion that this discussion is of profound import. This is nothing more than a bunch of us virtually sitting around someone’s patio, drinking our favorite cocktail and eating something deliciously unhealthy, while discussing religion.

There are many incorrect things to do, including maligning priests and attributing evil motives to what could very well be innocent acts.

Indeed. Maligning priests who are merely doing innocent acts is a very bad thing to do, and wouldn’t be tolerated.

So would accusing folks of maligning priests who aren’t. That would be a very bad thing to do as well, don’t you think?

IF you have a priest who manifests (whatever form that takes) racism and enforces it (how do you enforce racism?)

Umm…by not letting a particular race serve as EMHCs. That would be one example.

 

[TrueLight]

The priest should be fair and not have any EMHC’s at all.

 

[teebee1]

Just because the pastor has the authority to decide the gender of the persons assisting him, it does not mean that he is correct or that he is making a wise decision. A wise leader tries to build community and not tear apart community. This is much more important in religious settings than in secular settings.

There are more important decisions a pastor needs to deal with than the gender of his assistants.

 

[PRmerger]

Just because the pastor has the authority to decide the gender of the persons assisting him, it does not mean that he is correct or that he is making a wise decision. A wise leader tries to build community and not tear apart community. This is much more important in religious settings than in secular settings.

There are more important decisions a pastor needs to deal with than the gender of his assistants.

Egg-zactly.

 

[Tigg]

why is it, that whenever female liturgical roles are brought up, it seems like people think the presence of females is somehow irreverent? what is it that we do that does not measure up to the holiness of more natural reverence of men?

I’m not saying that’s what you meant but I do see a lot of posts on here that imply such a sentiment

It’s not at all about reverence. You should read “Ungodly Rage” and understand the steps the radical feminists have taken and their underlying reasons for doing so.

 

[Tigg]

Last week all of the Dominican priests at my parish were replaced with “conservative” diocesan priests. (This has been quite controversial and many longtime members have left the parish. My parish could definitely use prayers.) Anyway, one of the changes the new pastor made is not allowing the female lay Eucharistic ministers to distribute the Precious Body, but they are allowed to distribute the Precious Blood. I was quite confused by this, and I don’t believe I’ve seen this at any other parish. Does anyone know what this is about? Is this the traditional way, and if so, what is the meaning behind it?

Our pastor will not allow women to distribute the Precious Body either, and as a woman, I am not at all miffed about it. He also does not allow any female altar servers since some of the boys were driven away because it got to be too “girly” for them and he believes serving Mass helps promote vocations to the priesthood. He is in no way sexist, but he does promote traditional values and is not at all concerned with being politically correct.

We’d love to have more of these controversial priests you speak of…please send them our way. (In fact, maybe we could trade - one on one!)

 

[PRmerger]

He also does not allow any female altar servers since some of the boys were driven away because it got to be too “girly” for them and he believes serving Mass helps promote vocations to the priesthood.

Oh, dear.

Out of all the arguments for male-only altar servers, this is the one that is the most absurd. Most absurd.

The solution to this is NOT to say, “Hey, girls! Don’t serve because the boys won’t want to!”

Rather, the solution is to teach our boys to have respect for girls, and girls wanting to do something ought not make something scornful to them.

A similar objection might be: Boys find the albs too girly. “They look like a dress, Mom! So I don’t want to be an altar server!”

https://www.churchsupplywarehouse.com/images/products/555-556_8_26_2013_4_40_22_PM.jpg

And, they would be correct. The albs do indeed look “girly”.

Following this paradigm, the priest should declare, “Altar boys no longer need to wear albs! They can wear manly looking gear! That way, we don’t diminish the vocation pool!”

 

[phil19034]

Oh, dear.

Out of all the arguments for male-only altar servers, this is the one that is the most absurd. Most absurd.

The solution to this is NOT to say, “Hey, girls! Don’t serve because the boys won’t want to!”

Rather, the solution is to teach our boys to have respect for girls, and girls wanting to do something ought not make something scornful to them.

A similar objection might be: Boys find the albs too girly. “They look like a dress, Mom! So I don’t want to be an altar server!”

https://www.churchsupplywarehouse.com/images/products/555-556_8_26_2013_4_40_22_PM.jpg

And, they would be correct. The albs do indeed look “girly”.

Following this paradigm, the priest should declare, “Altar boys no longer need to wear albs! They can wear manly looking gear! That way, we don’t diminish the vocation pool!”

If there are no altar girls, then the altar boys don’t have to wear albs and can go back to wearing choir dress like seminarians and priests in choir. Just saying…

 

[PRmerger]

If there are no altar girls, then the altar boys don’t have to wear albs and can go back to wearing choir dress like seminarians and priests in choir. Just saying…

And what if they say they don’t want to be an altar boy because the choir dresses are…well, dresses. Like what girls wear?

Using the paradigm that was being espoused earlier, rather than telling our boys, “Buck up and deal with it” we would say, “Ok. We’ll just change the way the altar boys dress so you won’t feel girly.”

 

[UnorthodoxIdiot]

And what if they say they don’t want to be an altar boy because the choir dresses are…well, dresses. Like what girls wear?

Using the paradigm that was being espoused earlier, rather than telling our boys, “Buck up and deal with it” we would say, “Ok. We’ll just change the way the altar boys dress so you won’t feel girly.”

Dress: clothing; apparel; garb:Example:The dress of the 18th century was colorful.

Choir Dress isn’t a literal dress…

 

[phil19034]

And what if they say they don’t want to be an altar boy because the choir dresses are…well, dresses. Like what girls wear?

Using the paradigm that was being espoused earlier, rather than telling our boys, “Buck up and deal with it” we would say, “Ok. We’ll just change the way the altar boys dress so you won’t feel girly.”

Well, then they would think that all Catholic Clergy dress like girls… But they are not dresses, they are linen robes and they don’t all have lace.

Personally, I don’t like female lectors, servers and EMHCs. Not because they are woman, but because I don’t like secular clothes in the sanctuary. If I was a priest, I would have all EMHCs, servers, and lectors sitting choir and in choir dress. Male cantors / scholas in choir dress too, and female cantors / scholas dressed in the choir robs used by the parish choir.

If I was a priest, my Masses would be ETWN like. But, I’m not a priest

Truthfully, instead of girls serving as altar girls, I would rather each parish have youth groups for girls like these:

— Maidens of the Miraculous Medal, here’s a like to one MMM group (this one is dedicated to the EF, but they don’t have all be dedicated to the EF) latinmasstrenton.org/lmt/MMM/
— Blessed Imelda Society – blessedimelda.org/index.html

Look at this Church’s photo album. They just had one of there sons become a FSSP priest. They have a TON of Altar Boys and they have TONs of girls who are part the Blessed Imelda Society praying in Adoration each week.

materecclesiae.org/viewalbum.php?albid=55

they have a lot of young people too… I wish I lived closer to this Church.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Something I have noticed in society:

It is a negative notion; Girly
It is a positive notion; not Girly–> Boyish +

 

[phil19034]

Something I have noticed in society:

It is a negative notion; Girly
It is a positive notion; not Girly–> Boyish +

Yeap, that’s why it’s now fashionable for women (esp young women) to wear men’s watches. And men’s button down shirts… but for some reason they think they are allowed to leave more top buttons open then men can…

 

[EasterJoy]

***Can. 910 §1. **The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.

**§2. **The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte or another member of the Christian faithful designated according to the norm of ⇒ can. 230, §3.

**Can. 230 §1. **Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.

Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.

**§2. **Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.

**§3. *When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.

I know of no place in canon law where men are preferred over women for some duty that women are allowed to carry out, but only know of those ministries to which women cannot be admitted by liturgical rite at all. There does not seem to be a preference for men over women, then, but only a preference for the ordained over the laity for certain functions, with Orders reserved to men. That is not to say, however, that a priest isn’t entirely free to choose whomever he wants. I have a hard time imagining who would argue with that. Who doesn’t just do what the priest wants? As for the dictates of the bishop, of course that goes double–who would argue with the bishop on matters of liturgy in his diocese? Only if it were a matter of rights–such as the rights of the faithful to be given the sacraments, when the faithful are properly disposed–but no one has a right to anything being discussed here.

 

[felsguy]

**That is not to say, however, that a priest isn’t entirely free to choose whomever he wants. I have a hard time imagining who would argue with that. Who doesn’t just do what the priest wants? **As for the dictates of the bishop, of course that goes double–who would argue with the bishop on matters of liturgy in his diocese? Only if it were a matter of rights–such as the rights of the faithful to be given the sacraments, when the faithful are properly disposed–but no one has a right to anything being discussed here.

Just in the spirit of a friendly discussion on a slow night here on CAF, would you say the same if a priest only allowed (or forbade) Hispanics* to distribute one or other of the sacred species?

.

• as an example of a specific ethnic group; feel free to substitute Italian, Irish, Polish, or any other ethnic group.

 

[PRmerger]

Dress: clothing; apparel; garb:Example:The dress of the 18th century was colorful.

Choir Dress isn’t a literal dress…

I understand that.

Point that is not being addressed: why the double standard?

In the first example, with the boys not wanting to be with girls, the conclusion is: let’s not have girls serve so the boys will want to. And then we will have more fodder for priestly vocations.

In the 2nd example, with the boys not wanting to wear girly albs, the conclusion is: let’s try to convince the boys that it’s ok to wear “dresses”. That it’s fine to wear albs because that is what altar servers do.

Why not use the paradigm of the 2nd example for the 1st? Why not try to convince the boys that it’s ok to serve with girls?