Yesterday, reporter of all things Catholic John Allen covered the story of the pentennial International Pilgrimage of Altar Servers that brought an estimated 50,000 alter servers to Rome for a rally with the Holy Father. Of particular interest, Allen notes, was the predominance of female attendees:
For the first time this year, the female altar servers in attendance outnumbered the males. According to organizers, the balance was roughly 60-40 in favor of females. The official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, pointed to the turnout as a symbol of “the massive entry in recent decades of girls and young women into a role once reserved exclusively to males.”
That’s striking given that in some quarters, the very idea of altar girls remains controversial.
There are many fine altar girls out there, and their desire to serve is admirable. It reflects, in fact, a very feminine quality, like Martha, they feel compelled to serve the one they love. But as the 1994 letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship permitting girls to serve on the altar noted, the tradition of having boys serve at the altar “has led to a reassuring development of priestly vocations. Thus the obligation to support such groups of altar boys will always continue.” But the predominance of altar girls would suggest that allowing girls to serve negatively effects groups of altar boys. In fact, they are driving boys away from altar serving. And for those boys who do continue to serve, the presence of altar girls makes it difficult for altar serving to be considered an apprenticeship for the priesthood. If altar serving is going to continue as a way of fostering priestly vocations, it seems that another form of service needs to be found for altar girls.
August 5th, 2010 | 5:39 pm
Well, I’m not a Catholic, so this is not really my battle. But, do you really think that a 60-40 gender split is going to rob you of a future generation of priests? That seems like pretty superficial analysis of why someone would choose to go into the priesthood.
August 5th, 2010 | 6:12 pm
Socialogically boys and girls of the prepubety age grps exclude each other from activities. Boys who hang out with girls and priests may be suspect by their peers.
August 5th, 2010 | 6:15 pm
Parent of three altar servers here (two female, one male).
I guess the problem I have with restricting girls from altar service is the fact that women play so many other “service” roles during Mass these days: lectors, cantors, Eucharistic ministers, etc. When adult women are visibly serving, how do you restrict young girls? In many ways it seems counterproductive.
In our parish, altar servers are fairly evenly split between male and female (same with other “service” roles during Mass.) The participation of young girls doesn’t seem to have a negative impact on the participation of boys (if anything, it’s not generally considered “cool” for either boys or girls to serve, so that might be more of a deterrent for some. And those boys probably aren’t on a fast track to the priesthood anyway, for other reasons.
Generally speaking, kids in the families of regular Mass attendees are the ones who serve. So they are more likely to come from families that value the sacraments, prayer, spiritual formation, etc. That’s where you find your future priests.
August 5th, 2010 | 6:46 pm
I don’t know if it’d “rob us of a future generation of priests,” but it will impact priestly vocations negatively. Boys often don’t want to do what girls do, and that girls are serving necessarily means there are fewer opportunities for boys to serve, and fewer demands on boys to serve. Further — although not the direct subject of the post — letting girls serve at the altar in this capacity confuses people about the nature of the (male-only) priesthood. It’s not a good policy, given the beliefs, structure and practice of the Catholic church.
There are other ways for girls to serve — many parishes who have done away with altar girls have instituted other sorts of clubs for girls with serious, rigorous duties.
August 5th, 2010 | 6:51 pm
My gratitude for Meghan’s post.
I’ll start with the obligatory “some of my best friends are altar girls” line. But…
This is what most Catholics in the pews see on Sundays: Father, assisted by half a dozen girls, and a dozen good-hearted ladies over age 45 serving as “extraordinary ministers” of Holy Communion. One priest surrounded by women and girls.
A great way to keep boys at the age of 10 from being interested in any activity is to let girls run it.
A completely different approach is practiced in churches where the old Latin Mass is said: an army of uniformed, regimented boys with fun toys like swinging candles on sticks, incense, and brass bells.
It’s not a superficial analysis–we boys are just superficial, if by that we mean “interested in externals”.
If any diocese in the country had the courage to adopt a “boys-only” rule on serving Mass, my money would be on higher vocations after 25 years. It’s not an idea that has been tried and found wanting; rather, it has been found socially offensive and consequently not tried.
August 5th, 2010 | 8:53 pm
Or the church could, you know, allow women priests…
August 5th, 2010 | 9:09 pm
I have 3 boys and the altar service was a good way to get them to go to Mass. They were not in awe of the proceedings as I was when I served.
In fact it was best not to watch them squirming, studying indifference,or reaming out the newbies. Once with the Bishop presiding I noticed their heads cocked as they listened to the ringing of the crozier as middle son pinged it cheekily with his fingernail. I should say the Bishop wasn’t holding it at the moment. Lots of fun !
Many of the girls were naturally dignified and poised, no effort required and rose to the occasion the limelight afforded. That’s probably a no brainer for girls. The end for my sons came when one tall graceful and assertive girl managed to beat him regularly to the cross and the tall size gown. Seniority lost to sorority. He did not want it as much as she did. Come to think of it ,the priesthood is probably being held in reserve for boys who find it less alluring than girls do in these dismal times for priests.
Having lived through the gender wars I was interested that the competition with the girls was
taken for granted. I was dismayed and they moved on cheerfully to other battles with boys and girls.
August 5th, 2010 | 9:35 pm
I must admit I was waiting for a comment like John’s “Or the church could, you know, allow women priests…” There will not be women priests for a variety of reasons. The simplest are the following: In Jesus’ time it was very common for women priests; but Jesus choose twelve as his closest; even though Jesus did have many women as disciples who did serve prominent roles but not as priests; Jesus told us that the Spirit will be with the Apostles; the Church is still guided by that same Spirit; the Church, guided by the Spirit has made it abundantly clear that only men can be priests; in persona Christi. There are many, many roles for women in the Church. The Blessed Virgin Mary is a great role model – Do as He tells you. Peace in Christ.
August 5th, 2010 | 10:57 pm
My recollection is having an interest in girls from a reasonably young age. (Dumb question: is there an age cut-off for being a server?) Where I grew up there was not a strong distinction between boys’ activities and girls’ activities — and given the way the culture is shifting, that is probably even more so today. So, I don’t really buy the argument that girls are going to scare boys away.
August 5th, 2010 | 11:36 pm
“So, I don’t really buy the argument that girls are going to scare boys away.”
Having been a boy some not-too-many years ago, my experience is different; grade-school boys are less eager to do something when made to do so with grade-school girls. Further, I would think that “interest in girls” is probably not helpful for cultivating a sense of reverence and mystery at the altar. Moreover, there remains the matter of numbers: every girl serving is taking the place of a boy who could be serving. Finally, Allen’s reporting of a 60-40 girl-boy split suggests something is out of whack, and again, I think it’s partially that serving at the altar has come to be seen by young boys as something effeminate.
On that last note, although I’m in a mainline denomination (I’m not Catholic, actually), I’ve often wondered if the low number of men involved in church has something to do with women ministers. All the PC inculcation and diversity training in the world won’t change the fact that most men do not want to be under the authority of a woman — as talented, gracious, competent and kind as many of the women ministers I’ve had have been.
(I suppose it would be interesting to track down, say, 200 years of data on church attendance, see if you could break it down by males and females, and see if there’s any statistically significant correlation between the introduction of female clergy in mainline denominations in the 1970s and male attendance, or if there is anything interesting regarding male-female attendance in American religious groups that have long been open to women in leadership — certain pentecostal and holiness traditions, for instance.)
As far as “Eucharistic ministers,” my sense of it is that they’re used unnecessarily. When I attend Mass (I’m actually a Protestant who pops into Mass now and then), daily or Sunday, I see a small army of men and women march up front to help distribute communion to a congregation that’s too small to justify the numbers. I’d do away with them altogether, unless they are absolutely necessary in a given case — as I understand it, they’re supposed to be “extraordinary” ministers of holy communion.
Just $.02 from a friendly outsider. Peace, all.
August 6th, 2010 | 1:08 am
I’m with John. The Catholic Church needs to wake up and realize that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is a fundamental denial of the gospel. Male authority over women was a result of the fall (Gen 3:16), not part of God’s original plan. The saving action of Christ means we have been liberated from sin to now live the fully human lives that God had intended for us. As those redeemed by Christ and called to live perfectly (Mt 5:48) the life of God’s Kingdom, our very calling as Christians compels us to live out the full equality of men and women (Gal 3:28) that was part of God’s original plan of creation (Gen 1:27, 2:23). Yet the Church continues to maintain a hierarchical power structure in which men are the masters of women. This is a denial of the gospel.
While it is true that women are increasingly represented in various positions in the Church (including in the Vatican), all the most important and prominent positions, such as pastor, bishop, cardinal, and pope, are reserved to men. It’s simply not credible to say that the Church accepts the full equality of women when women are systematically excluded from key positions of authority. Much as the U.S. Supreme Court found the system of racially segregated schools to be inherently unequal in Brown vs. Board of Education, we need to recognize that the exclusion of women from the priesthood creates a Church that is inherently unequal. I am not claiming that equality is the same thing as identity. But it is precisely because men and women are different that we need both to be represented in positions of authority.
The scriptural arguments used to support the reservation of the priesthood to males (such as those offered by Stan) are weak. First of all, it’s hardly legitimate to draw a straight line between “the twelve” and the ordained priesthood. There were many apostles outside the “the twelve”, and they clearly played a role in establishing presbyters (cf. Acts 14:23) without first receiving authority to do so from the twelve (cf. Gal 1:11 – 2:10). [It should also be noted that some of these other apostles were women (e.g. Junia -- Rom 16:7, Mary Magdalene, etc).] Second, even if you want to say that priesthood comes only from the twelve, that doesn’t settle things either. Jesus didn’t choose any gentiles to be among the twelve, yet the Church discovered after a period of time that it was God’s will for them to be baptized and eventually ordained. So the “Jesus didn’t do it so we can’t” argument doesn’t work either.
All you are left with then is an argument about symbolism- can a woman signify Christ who was male? Of course she can. The saints are icons of Christs, and we have many women saints. If a woman can be an icon of Christ in her manner of living, why can’t she be when leading mass? And if your hangup is really just a matter of concern about gendered symbolism in the mass and not a fear of women having authority, then why not reserve priesthood to men but open up pastorships, the episcopacy and papacy to people other than priests?
August 6th, 2010 | 6:51 am
Irenaeus is absolutely right. There’s a demographic tipping point that, once arrived at, leads to more males leaving positions and while females take their place. Rebecca West said it decades ago, something about seeing a woman do what he can do is demoralizing to a man, and he’ll simply stop doing it.
Several protestant denominations have hit that point, attendance at most churches has arrived there, college admissions have hit that point, and now it looks like altar servers have.
If I was a catholic bishop, I’d set strict guidelines that girls are to make up no more than 1/3 of the altar staff. Forty percent seems to be about as high as you can go before the males drop interest.
August 6th, 2010 | 8:09 am
Vincent,
There is indeed some significant symbolism at play. The all-powerful God, who is beyond the limitations of gender, could have identified Himself to Abraham, Moses and the people of Israel as a female, but He didn’t. He could have chosen female priests or priests of both genders for Israel, but He didn’t. He could have incarnated as a woman, but He didn’t. He could have chosen females for the first priests/bishops, but He didn’t. He could have inspired St. Paul to argue for the inclusion of women to the priesthood, just as he (Paul) argued for the conversion of gentiles directly to Christ without first becoming Jews, but He didn’t. There is no doubt that the all-powerful God could set the terms of our conception of Him in any manner He saw fit: as male, or female, human or animal, or as something completely unknown to humankind. But He chose the manner He did. He identified Himself as male. There is no argument that Christ was an iconoclast, he fulfilled the law and the prophets, but did so in His own terms. So if God had wanted us to perceive Him as female He would have made sure that we did. And to advance the argument that God was merely submitting to the misogynist cultural norms of antiquity doesn’t hold up on a cultural level –almost every ancient culture besides Israel had priestesses– nor does it hold up on a theological level –would an all-good God conform to an unjust cultural norm? God created them male and female- equal but so beautifully complementary. In the terms of revelation He is the male, we are the female-his bride. In God’s church, the priest represents Christ-God the Son- and we are His bride. If the God/Christ/the priest were a priestess that would make our relationship to a same-sex marriage and that is against the natural law and the revealed law of the God who made nature. Hope this helps!
August 6th, 2010 | 10:12 am
It’s funny, I’ve noticed that people of both sexes who are all gung-ho for women clergy in any denomination, seem to be completely indifferent to the issue of male church attendance.
August 6th, 2010 | 10:35 am
The church I served from the 2nd grade till I graduated high school thankfully held off on female altar servers until a new age-y PC priest came in after I went to college.
Is there no place left in the world, or in the Church, were boys can train to become men without being feminized? It’s not called the Church Militant for nothing, and in the past 40 years, all we’ve seen are its warriors beat down, degraded, and in the end, nullified.
The best way to recruit more boys to participate in the Mass as altar servers is to impress on them that it is the main WEAPON in the BATTLE against EVIL. A boy needs a battle. That’ll fire him up to serve the Lord.
August 6th, 2010 | 11:22 am
Thomas,
But God isn’t male. as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“By calling God ‘Father,’ the LANGUAGE of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.” (#239)
and
“In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.” (#370)
And God did not just reveal himself to us as male. There are a number of female images of God in scripture (e.g. Isa 66:13 and Mt 23:37 just to name two).
Furthermore, you seem to be saying that God wouldn’t have allowed himself to be portrayed in a way in scripture that would have been limited by the cultures in which it was produced. That is not really what we Catholics believe about how God inspired the scripture. God worked through human authors who were very much conditioned by their cultures. For example, because the bible was written in monarchichal societies, God is quite frequently presented as a king (and never as the elected leader of a democracy). But that doesn’t mean the Church should advocate the abandonment of democracy and a return to monarchy in civil society or the abolishment of the electoral conclave as a means of choosing a pope.
Also, I don’t believe that the Church has ever taught that it was necessary for the second person of the Trinity to have been incarnated as a male in order for us to be saved. Obviously Christ was either going to be male or female, but it is a logical fallacy (and theologically unwarranted) to assume that because he was male that he had to be male.
If the Church misinterpreted the bible with regard to slavery for its first 18 centuries, and misinterpreted the bible with regard to religious liberty through its first 19 centuries, isn’t it just possible that we have misinterpreted the bible with regard to women’s ordination for the first 20 centuries? God’s promise that the Spirit would guide the Church in all truth was not a guarantee that nothing taught by the church would ever be incomplete or erroneous. Precisely to fulfill the commission that God has given us as the Church we must remain open to the corrections that the Holy Spirit may be offering us in each age.
August 6th, 2010 | 11:23 am
Phil: Amen
August 6th, 2010 | 11:24 am
It’s really not about symbolism. First of all, the saints are not “icons of Christ,” and I do not think that they would claim to be. They are people whose lives and works *point to* Christ (as John the Baptist does, for example). This is not the same thing as “signifying Christ,” or as being a human window through whom one looks to see Christ. Look at a saint; what you see is a person pointing away from him- or herself, towards God. In fact, I would imagine that the first and most effective step away from sainthood is to say, “I can represent Christ just as much as you can.”
It’s also not about symbolism for the simple reason that sacraments aren’t symbols. They are realities. The bread in the priests hands is not meant to make us think of Jesus; it *is* Jesus. The priest whose hands lift Jesus in sacrificial offering is also, at that moment, standing in the person of Jesus. So also the priest in the confessional. In confession, I’m not supposed merely to be reminded of what it might be like to talk to Jesus, but to believe — as I do — that I am in fact confessing to Jesus Himself.
The priest, actually, is the one who functions as an icon of Christ, in that in his sacramental actions we do look through him to find God the Son. This is not symbolic; an icon, like a sacrament, is the outward manifestation of an unseen reality. And whether we like it or not, the reality in this instance is that the second Person of the Trinity is the Son. This is not up for grabs.
August 6th, 2010 | 11:38 am
I didn’t get the impression Meghan was saying that the presence of girls drove the boys away (though there might be a legitimate point there.) I thought it was the simple point that the altar service corps can’t actively be used as a medium for priestly vocation building, if girls are involved in significant numbers. Even to a Protestant, that seems like a duh kind of point, rather than a controversial or limited one.
August 6th, 2010 | 11:53 am
Vincent,
You’ve written some big posts here on the subject, well-considered and thought-provoking. Why all the concern about women getting the priesthood, tho? And does it matter to you that if women get the priesthood, there will be no males in the parish hierarchy and even fewer men in the pews than there already are?
August 6th, 2010 | 12:38 pm
I’m not Catholic–I’m LDS. Our worship services are led by lay clergy, most of whom are married, so I don’t know how much observations of my church pertain to worries about a paid, celibate priesthood.
At my church, only young men bless and pass the sacrament. I’m sure there are plenty of 12 to 14-year-old girls who would be willing and worthy to do so, and they’d likely be easier to manage, too, thanks to their generally greater maturity at that age.
But thankfully, instead, we show the young men that they are needed, appreciated, capable and totally irreplaceable. It’s a wise practice, because discipleship in youth trains men for greater discipleship in adulthood.
I’ve noticed that if I want to support my husband in leading our family spiritually, the surest way I can kill his motivation dead in the water is by doing his tasks for him.
He’s no dummy. He knows when he’s needed, and when he’s not needed. My sons notice that too.
A “not needed” message that goes on long enough tends to look and sound like “not wanted”.
August 6th, 2010 | 1:08 pm
There is a sure theological foundation for the reasoning for male only priesthood. Only when one wishes to revive an old heresy could one think otherwise – and that is that Jesus Christ was not fully man as well as fully God. The priest stands in His place, “becoming” Him at the moment of consecration, relating to the Church as His spouse – Holy Mother Church. Unless one wishes to revive such ignorance of the Truth a female representing Jesus Christ’s position could only be a symbol of some kind of lesbian relationship!! If there ever is such a PC correction you will know that you are in some other “catholic” church than the True one. The predicted apostasy will have become a reality.
August 6th, 2010 | 1:24 pm
I’m also intrigued that we’d have this post concurrent with 50 Things A Woman Should Be Able To Do.
August 6th, 2010 | 1:46 pm
Altar girls. Another idiotic modernist brain hemorrhage perpetrated by the quran kisser JPII “the great.”
If you’re in a Church with girls bustling about what attempts to be a sanctuary, get up and leave.
And to the gender confused poster above, God Almighty is FATHER. And the second person of the Holy Trinity is SON.
August 6th, 2010 | 2:11 pm
“women priests?”
No such thing exists.
Parishes that allow only boys to serve at the altar foster vocations. Tried, true and simple as that. Dioceses and parishes will get the vocations that they deserve with positively or negatively. My small parish run by the Fraternity of Saint Peter has produced 1/3 of the seminarians for the entire diocese. Holiness, orthodoxy and tradition thrive.
August 6th, 2010 | 2:18 pm
Vincent,
Thanks for your reply, but you have misrepresented what I wrote on several points and I think you miss the mark on a few others. The first misrepresentation is that I claimed God is male. I did not say God is male; I said He chose to reveal Himself as male. Two very distinct statements, the first in contradiction of what the Catholic Church teaches, and the second in line with what the Church has always believed according to sacred scripture.
Second you claim Isa 66:13 and Mt 23:37 reveal God as female, but I think you oversell the significance of these passages. There is a big difference between using metaphors to describe God’s actions, as is done in the passages you cite– “how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings” (Mt. 23:37) or “As one whom the mother caresseth, so will I comfort you,” (Isa 66:13)—and direct references to God as Father, as at Mt. 5:48: “Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect” or at Mt. 5:45 “That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven”. In fact our Lord makes 17 references to God as Father in the Sermon on the Mount alone, the most important of which being when he commands us to do likewise: “Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father…” Mt. 6:9ff.
Next you say that I argue “that God wouldn’t have allowed himself to be portrayed in a way in scripture that would have been limited by the cultures in which it was produced”. That is not what I said. I said God would not allow an UNJUST cultural construct (supposed Israelite misogyny) to influence his decision to incarnate as female if that were what He desired. So your monarchy/democracy comparison does not bear.
I never claimed that Christ had to be male, or that the Church taught this. I said “He could have incarnated as a woman, but He didn’t.” He COULD have incarnated in any way He chose, and He CHOSE to be male.
Finally you wrote: “If the Church misinterpreted the bible with regard to slavery for its first 18 centuries, and misinterpreted the bible with regard to religious liberty through its first 19 centuries, isn’t it just possible that we have misinterpreted the bible with regard to women’s ordination for the first 20 centuries?” The short answer to this last question is NO. Catholics believe that the Church is incapable of misinterpreting scripture. Her interpretation can become fuller or more nuanced over time, but Her interpretation will never change and thus cannot be wrong. Of course, the general understanding of Her interpretation often is.
August 6th, 2010 | 3:13 pm
Alter Girls? Not in the FSSP Mass I attend. Deo Gratias!
August 6th, 2010 | 3:20 pm
A woman can no more be a priest than two men can marry or Doritos can be used for the Eucharist. Each is an example of invalid matter for a sacrament.
August 6th, 2010 | 4:15 pm
I’m Anglo-Catholic, and my church holds firmly that priesthood is a male vocation. We do have female acolytes; I won’t say “altar girls” because while we have many children and young people who serve, we have acolytes of all ages (up to 80+). I am one of the adult acolytes; I feel it is a true privilege to serve at the altar, and in no way is it stepping into the role of the (male) priests. As one of the commentors noted, the acolytes are not icons of Christ – the priest is – and the acolytes (male and female) are under the authority of the priest, so I would say it’s a pastoral rather than a theological issue.
I am surprised by the comments that suggested that having girls serve would reduce the number of boys who could serve. Technically, maybe, but I would say that depends on a lot of other factors. My church has three main services (Saturday night vigil mass, plus two Sunday masses), Wednesday evening mass, and morning mass Tuesday through Friday. There are ample opportunities for service at the altar on a regular basis. If we didn’t have women serving, we’d just have fewer people up at the altar, and have to double-up roles that are now separate (like ringing the bells, chalice bearing, etc.)
It probably helps that we have a young, energetic curate, and (until he headed off to seminary to become a priest) a young, energetic youth minister to be role models for the boys. All our sub-deacons are male as well, so there is no shortage of men front and center during mass. I do agree that it’s very important to make sure that church service doesn’t become a women’s-only club, but I would suggest that’s a pastoral issue.
August 6th, 2010 | 4:54 pm
Meghan doesn’t touch on this, but it occurs to me to wonder about the correlation between gender of altar servers and *female* vocations to the religious life.
Our parish does have a male-only policy for altar serving (and according to the son of mine who’s old enough, being an altar server is cool. He presents himself to serve every Sunday, whether he’s on the rota or not, and Father usually works him in somewhere).
For a small parish, we have in recent years sent a large number of young men to our diocesan discernment days, which is heartening. From our parish, too, in the last three years, two young women have joined religious orders, one a Carmelite house, and one the Nashville Dominicans. I have no idea whether there are any causal patterns anywhere in all of this, but the thought did strike me that in the rise of the altar girl there might be an effect on the number of young women seeking the religious life, just as there might be an effect on vocations to the priesthood. This isn’t an argument, mind you, just a strand of thought.
Up the road from us, by the way, in a neighboring parish, virtually all the altar servers at any Mass are women in their fifties and sixties. By all reports, they sign up for the available slots and are not about to relinquish their “ministry” to some kid. Our parish has gained a few families this way . . .
August 6th, 2010 | 7:48 pm
If the parish has a parochial school all of the kids in a certain grade (4th or 5th or 6th) should be an altar server. If there is no school all of the kids in confirmation classes should have to serve as an alter server. Everyone serves. Everyone get service hours. My son does not want to be an altar server because “only girls” serve in our parish.
August 6th, 2010 | 11:38 pm
As a lifelong Catholic, educated from kindergarten through graduate school in a Catholic school, I really have to marvel at some of the statements herein.
1) If a greater role for women decreases men’s participation in the Church, because he doesn’t want a woman over him, why should the Church chose to support his idiotic misogyny?
2) Regardless of the 12 being all male, there is evidence, both theological and historical, that suggest that some of Jesus’ closest followers were female, and performed the functions of the priesthood, including baptism and consecration. This leads into my third point that:
3) As Catholics, we don’t, and cannot, view the Bible in an ahistorical vacuum. The New Testament was compiled in an environment of political maneuvering that aimed to consolidate a message that showcased the salvific power of the early Roman Empire
August 6th, 2010 | 11:47 pm
And as such reinforces male roles as superior, and disregards women as sinners and prostitutes.
Lastly, the Church is often wrong. Arguing that it is never wrong is, frankly, scary. Infallibility has only ever been evoked twice, and once was to say the doctrine itself was infallible. The Church is built on The rock of Saint Peter, the rock the builders threw away, a man who denied Christ thrice out of fear, an imperfect Apostle if there ever was one. To argue that the Church cannot be wrong about female ordination is bull-headed and irrational.
I’m sorry for the two posts, typing from my phone is a pain.
Oh, and it was probably the 11 years of Jesuit education that you can look to blame my views on. ;)
August 7th, 2010 | 12:06 am
Andrew, I do believe that in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz has made a policy of “boys only” altar serving. He runs his diocese in a rather orthodox manner. It comes as no surprise that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter has their major English-speaking seminary located in his diocese.
August 7th, 2010 | 1:48 am
Sean asked:
“Why all the concern about women getting the priesthood, tho?”
Because I worry about raising my daughters in a Church where they are treated as a lower caste, unfit to hold authority. Because I worry about the misogyny of those like Jason who see the very presence of females in the sanctuary as somehow polluting or sacrilegious.
“And does it matter to you that if women get the priesthood, there will be no males in the parish hierarchy and even fewer men in the pews than there already are?”
I don’t think this is true. There are plenty of men who are emotionally mature enough to handle a woman in a position of authority or even many women in such positions. (Children and teenagers is a different story and I wouldn’t mind a 50/50 rule for altar servers similar to the 1/3 rule you suggested.)
Sally,
(1) You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between sacraments and symbols. Yes, I understand that sacraments are not just symbols, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t symbols. (2) While the Eucharist, Reconciliation, and Holy Orders are sacraments, the priest himself is not a sacrament. (3) You are incorrectly applying a unique aspect of the sacrament of the Eucharist (transubstantiation) to the other sacraments. When I confess my sins, yes, I speaking to Jesus through the priest (and He to me). But that does not mean that priest is Chirst. He is not transubstantiated into Christ in the same way the bread becomes the Lord’s body in the Eucharist. In baptism, the water symbolizes eternal life (among other things), but it is not transubstantiated into eternal life.
August 7th, 2010 | 2:08 am
Thomas,
Thanks for your reply. I’ll be as brief as possible given that I’ve already written so much.
- The Catechism says that God is not male, and has revealed Godself through both male and female images (albeit more male than female). It’s not a matter of one being part of God’s essence and the other being only metaphorical.
- There are many more feminine references to God in scripture. I won’t attempt attempt to detail them here as many fine articles are available on the subject.
- In a cultural context in which women were considered vastly inferior to men, is it any surprise that the biblical authors overwhelmingly described God in male terms?
- Do you believe a monarchical system of government in which the governed have no representation is inherently unjust? If so, then you need to think further about your argument on this point.
- I suggest you study the scriptural arguments used by popes, saints, councils, and doctors of the Church to support slavery and religious persecution. (Try John Noonan’s “A Church That Can and Cannot Change”.) There ain’t no way around it: they weren’t just “incomplete”; they were wrong.
August 7th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
“As a lifelong Catholic, educated from kindergarten through graduate school in a Catholic school,”
This makes me giggle Al your trying to use this as your justification for I’m not sure what..great knowledge? The fact is that since Vatican 2, the Churches, schools, priests, religious, and laity have been washed out by a tidal waye of bad liberal theology. It’s taken a Catholic Church which was strong and dominant in the world to a feeble, guitar strumming shadow of Her former self. From your post I can tell your teachers have done their job well. However, I fear not, chastisement is coming which will straighten everything out. Look out for civil war in France and Italy. This is the sign given that it’s on and liberalism inthe Church is over. Deo Gratias!
August 7th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
I may have a limited observation, but in the few parishes where the use of girls as Altar Servers is DISCOURAGED, there are no shortages of boys as Altar Servers.
Oh, the girls are there, active in the parish, and there is plenty to do, but they are not serving at the Altar.
They had before, and more than one family was miffed over it. Lots of faith formation and meetings occurred to bring everyone together.
One parish still has the girls in the Processions, with candles and at the Recessional. However most of the duties are not done by the girls, but by boys or young men.
August 7th, 2010 | 8:52 pm
Ah yes, John, I forgot how education was such a detriment to the traditionalist. The centuries of the “dominant Church” brought with it the Crusades, the Inquisition, indulgences, Popes like the Borgias, the absolute devastation of New World natives, and so on, and so forth.
Vatican II has revitalised the Church, especially in places like my homeland, third world countries who were alienated by the Latin Mass. The plain fact of the decline of the Church in western cultures is a result of decline in religious belief in general amongq
August 7th, 2010 | 9:02 pm
Educated and professional people. And yes, there has been a decline in all mainline religions, while the extremes blossom.
Now, I’m only 30, so I know nothing about the Church pre-VII. But I’d like to think a smaller Church that gets it right is better than a larger Church which has inequality, iniquity, and, yes, sin, within its dogma.
P.S. The theology of the Church is largely unchanged from pre-VII, VII largely addressed how we worship, which is not part of our dogma, our belief structure, but part of how we address each other as a community.
August 7th, 2010 | 11:53 pm
Education a detriment Al? More like the lack thereof which has always been a detriment.
The priests I know who say only the Latin Mass are a heck of a lot more educated than any other priests that i’ve met. Not disrespecting these non Latin speaking priests but Latin is a difficult language to learn and those that know it are pretty learned.
“crusades” Al? You write that as if it were a bad thing. In your 30 years of “Catholic” education were you ever taught about the crusades? Did you ever learn about the actual crusades and why they occurred not the liberal, anti western/Catholic blather? Obviously not or you wouldn’t be here disparaging the acts of people who saved the religion and culture you sure seem to be proud of.
The inquisition? Do tell us your thoughts on this. Let us hear about the protestant inspired, imaginary millions who were burned at the stake. Actual figure killed during inquisition: less than 200. Spain was a Catholic state that had thrown out the brutal Muslims after 700 years. I think I can understand that they were a bit protective of their faith and culture.
“absolute devastation” C’mon Al, ever visit the pyramids in Mexico? They used to slaughter untold numbers of babies and adults on those things in pagan rituals. And unlike the imagined millions killed by the inquisition, they have the bones to prove it, this is historical fact. And yes I know all about the horrendous European diseases that unfortunately killed many natives. The Catholic Spaniards were a God send to those natives who were trapped in a merciless, brutal pagan society. The Spanish also advanced their society by about 1000 years when they arrived bringing many advances such as wheeled vehicles to the new world which had not yet been invented.
The Borgias? Sure, bad popes, we also had Paul the VI in our time who was one of the worst popes. Bad popes, good popes, they come and go the Church herself is pure.
Do tell me what your homeland is and I’ll bet you a dollar that Vatican 2 has NOT revitalized the Church there. The “plain fact” as you state is that Vatican 2 has annihilated the Church. Everywhere in the Western world it is in apostasy and decline, did this happen in the Orthodox Church as well? A: No. Surely if it’s a general falling away in belief around the world as you state the same should have occurred in the Orthodox world. Correct?
You are correct about one thing, a smaller Church is indeed better. The non believers and the outright heretics are being pruned away by Pope Benedict. In fact, it’s very difficult to find a liberal Bishop he has appointed or promoted in his time as Pope. He says the Latin Mass privately and made it available for any priest in the world to say. The Latin Mass locations in Germany alone have increased 480% since the Motu Proprio. Vatican 2? Lots of those Churches are being consolidated and closed down, oh well, maybe the “sinful dogma” in it has scared all the people away or perhaps just the bad music.
August 8th, 2010 | 2:05 pm
As woman cannot be lectors or acolytes it always boggled my mind that we let them substitute for lectors and acolytes. A layman can become an instituted lector, and so it makes sense that a man can substitute for him. But a woman cannot be an instituted lector. So why can she do the office while being unable to have it?
It think the whole altar girl thing is terribly shoddy and shows a huge inconsistency. As does letting laity freely in and out of the sanctuary. Technically the Church law is still that any choir that has women in it cannot be in the presyberterium. And yet women are allowed in there taking on all sorts of clerical duties when they can never be clerics. The Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, which ruled that the 1983 CIC actually allowed altar girls (so the CDW did not choose to permit it…rather the PCILT read the law as already allowing it) still spoke of the need for an “army of boys” and ruled that individual priests could refuse the practice, and bishops could refuse it in their dioceses (so altar girls need the bishop to permit the priest to permit them). Which is very dubious since the whole point of the interpretation was that it was speaking of laity in general, not boys. So why the expansion of the canon to also include the ability to forbid girls but not forbid boys. I think even they could not bring themselves to see the two as the same.
There have been several priests who have ended the novelty of altar girls in their parish, and substitute instead some kind of altar society for girls, where they could do things pertaining to the altar outside of Mass (like flowers and such).
August 8th, 2010 | 6:30 pm
Having married priests is technically a possibility, but having female priests will never happen in the Catholic Church. That matter has been dealt with over the years and a number of popes have put this thought to bed, most recently Pope John Paul II.
August 8th, 2010 | 7:16 pm
Oh, where to start?
There was argument that God is not a male, or a female. The catechism says it; it`s true, still; the fact that God speaks of Himself as a male(every each time) got to mean something.
Rememeber the Genesis? Who was created first? And what does it says later? Eve was created because he couldn`t find anybody else, to be his help, i believe it was intentional, to show her irreplacability of her`s role, but the role is still to support, not to order. Somebody said that it was overcomed by new testament, but it is not to forget, that we are still living on this earth (even though world`s kind of behaviour is not for us), but it`s like this: we are free of this earth`s laws and ways, but still: marriage,(which is an earthly not heavenly reality) is permitted, and even given to some(actually to the most) as a way to live, regardlessly for it being a roadblock for preaching the gospel, and the full comittment to God. My point is that some laws of the earth still apply to the Church, and so is the case of gender (but gender has nothing to do with the intensity of the inside life with Christ, and thus these differneces influence – or determine only some of the persons external activities and vocations having to do with the other members of the Church).
It seems to me that some scripture passages have been deliberatly overlooked, by both sides in this argument. It were those by st. Paul where he forbid womens from teaching( but not from prophesizing), and from ruling over men also “Just as the law(of Moses) says.” Which means some old bounds needed to remain, even though we are freed from most of them (ritual sacrifice, ritual washing, and so on…).
Does that means that womens must turn down any bussines offer that makes them ruling men? No because the bussines is world related, so if the state permits that, that`s it, but than in the Church, and in a Christian family, things souppouse to be as said, and i won`t say anything considering the Christian organizations.
The main question was to me: How is that equall, if women can`t command a man, and man can command a women? The thing is rather simple. It`s a matter of vocations, not of value. Women is called to serve, the man is called to overlook, and treat them as Christ treats his Church.
There was somebody saying something about “In persona Christi” thing. Well I personally think that if Jesus is inside womens, and the womens are led by a Holy Spirit she could, and I think that in many aspects of life they do represent the Christ. And the argument that with the priestess it would look like some kind of lesbian relationship(since she would be representing Christ, and the believers in church a bride) is not worth, because I`m a man, and I still represent a “bride” in the church, and nobody has anything against that. So that wouldn`t be a problem. Real thing is that which Paul said:”I permit no women to rule over man”.
These restrictions(along with marriage, and anything else that is still of no relevance to spiritual life, and traces back from old testament) will completly falter when Christ comes again, and establishes his new Kingdom. Than it won`t matter are you women, or not. Even now in important things it is not of great relevance, depends on what in life is the person orientated. Sorry for bad English.
August 8th, 2010 | 8:06 pm
[...] the newsfeeds at the weekend in search of BF fodder, and I stumbled across this piece linking to this one, outlining how a recent pilgrimage of altar servers in Rome showed the gender balance as being [...]
August 8th, 2010 | 10:12 pm
Marin,
On woman being man’s “helper” in Genesis: The Hebrew word here is “ezer”. The same word is used to describe God in 16 different places in the Bible (e.g. Psalm 191:2), so it doesn’t necessarily imply subordination.
You are right that Paul did not permit women to hold authority over men. But he also told slaves to obey and submit to their masters and men not have long hair. Just because Paul said something in one of his letters doesn’t make it an eternal law for the Church. Biblical exegesis, at least as it is understood by the Catholic Church, is a bit more complex than that.
You are also right that God is overwhelmingly described in male terms in the Bible. As I have explained this has to do with the cultural outlook of the writers. In their day, femininity implied weakness and a host of other traits that one would not want to associate with God. But just because biblical authors chose a particular way of describing God doesn’t mean we can’t point out weaknesses with that description or metaphor. The bible also describes God as being confused about where Adam and Eve were, changing his mind, regretting his previous actions, indiscriminately killing innocent civilians, and needing to be talked out of smiting his own people by Moses. The fact that that the biblical authors (bound by the culture, time period, and place in revelation history) thought of God in these terms doesn’t mean that they are true. We don’t believe that the bible was just handed down from the sky. It most certainly is the Word of God, but it is the Word of God mediated through finite, culture-bound human beings. We have to respect that in how we interpret it.
You make a great point about men in the church representing the bride of Christ and thus the absurdity of the argument that a woman can’t signify Christ.
August 9th, 2010 | 1:34 pm
I see no reason for NOT having “alter girls” I was an alter boy 59-60 B 4 I went to public HS
BTW K-8 I never heard a single whisper/rumour or anything about “Don’t be alone with Father XX” now the nuns at least once a week would say “Don’ talk about the priests” then I did not give it a thought , now 45 yrs later I wonder why ?
August 9th, 2010 | 1:48 pm
You should be aware that at the time of Jesus, there were females in positions of religious authority. Jesus had female followers. The bible was translated and compiled AFTER Jesus’ death, in a time where women were suppressed by men. The Hebrew references to God don’t give a gender. That is an English translation stupidity. In truth Women were not portrayed as important in the bible because of the MEN who compiled it. The bible wasn’t the only writings of the apostles. It’s just the ones that some self-righteous fools liked.
August 9th, 2010 | 2:04 pm
Women AND girls should be allowed to partake of any and ALL parts of the worship service that is held at their church or synagogue.
This is NOT the dark ages and all that nonsense has been proven wrong.
Women are strong and most are proven leaders. Women will continue to rise and break the glass ceilings wherever they are and it will only be for the good of humanity.
It isn’t women’s egos that start wars, but it is the women who bury their sons, grandsons, brothers, and fathers.
August 9th, 2010 | 2:23 pm
Idiotic articles like these make me want to quit being Catholic. If boys are so afraid of girls being altar servers, they shouldn’t be priests at all. Priests are supposed to be able to help and get along with everyone. GIRLS RULE!
August 9th, 2010 | 2:59 pm
I remember attending a Mass in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where there was a teenage female altar server. There were also some seminarians there to solicit funds. One of the seminarians did the Gospel reading but when it came time for the Eucharist and they got up to try to help, the celebrant motioned for them to sit back down because the altar girl had the experience to do things the way he wanted.
BTW, has anyone seen any statistical evidence that supports this assertion that altar boys become priests, beyond the odd anecdotal accounts???
August 9th, 2010 | 3:09 pm
Papa’s just letting the ladies do the dishes.
August 9th, 2010 | 3:52 pm
I mean really this is ridiculous! Women need to take a larger role in the all boys club that is the Catholic Church. Honestly this article is practically begging for remarks about the abuse of young boys within the church, I think its funny how this is claiming that boys are afraid of girls and a church that is so anti-homosexual will seperate boys from girls. I don’t think the boys are afraid of girls rather the church is afraid of women infiltrating their fort that is the Vatican.
August 9th, 2010 | 4:05 pm
As ice cream sales go up in a yearly cycle there is a corresponding increase in deaths by drowning. It is therefore prudent that ice cream be banned due to it’s use leading to deaths by drowning….
Or a third variable, hotter temperatures during the Summer, could be driving both changes.
Correlation is not causation. This is sloppy logic that may simply be covering a barely hidden misogyny.
August 9th, 2010 | 6:32 pm
Thank goodness for the safety of the Traditional Latin Mass from these ridiculous novelties. If there’s one thing more ridiculous than a girl dressed as an altar boy, it’s a female cleric in a dog collar.
Thank you, Archbishop Lefebvre!
August 9th, 2010 | 8:05 pm
Respectfully, Meghan i couldn’t disagree more with your conclusions. If the Holy Father had an issue with female alter servers then he would come out and say as much. It’s bad enough that some perceive the Catholic Church as the Church of No (see Anne Rice’s FB fan page if in doubt) but to draw the conclusion that alter girls are harmful to priestly vocations is about the most insane thing i’ve read.
I consider myself a conservative Roman Catholic, completely in obedience to our Holy Catholic church…but until B16 himself comes out with a piece like this, i remain in the belief that alter girls are a wonderful way for females to feel more included with the Holy Mass.
August 9th, 2010 | 8:48 pm
Boys (and their parents) will be more inclined toward service as altar boys when the Church gets the priestly penchant for buggery under control.
August 9th, 2010 | 10:02 pm
My son is 13 years old. During school break he is playing soccer with both boys and girls. I found out that children who have equal access to sports, class activities etc. are not brainwashed about gender. As an example, ipads, ipods, iphones are for both boys and girls. Yet Barbie and toys are focused on gender.
August 9th, 2010 | 10:42 pm
I think its a good thing, but the most appropriate is to be 50-50 thats will be cool
August 10th, 2010 | 5:54 pm
Pope John Paul II told Mother Teresa that as long as he was Pope, there would never be altar girls. Two days later she was greatly shocked by the nonsensical clarification of liturgical law permissive of altar girls from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. What happened in 1994? The Holy Father was in the hospital. The prefect took it upon himself to make the change. Afterwards, the Pope was furious. He told Mother Teresa that he allowed the change to stand because he did not want the public scandal of a Vatican fighting itself. If you look at the document in the ACTA, you will note that it is signed by the prefect, but the Pope never put his name to it.
Cardinal Ratzinger was a close friend and supporter of the Pope and he did not forget those who took advantage of Pope John Paul II. As Pope Benedict XV he has done much to clean house and to keep firmer control. He was a strong critic of the Assisi Conference and the religious indifferentism promoted by some of the liturgists. That is history, now. He also did much as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to salvage the damage from a problematical response to American canonists about the validity of Mormon baptism. The question arose because rebaptism is not the practice of the Church and because of marriage annulment cases. The more progressive Congregation for Divine Worship argued for the validity. Appreciating that there was a defect in intention (Mormons are Polytheists and not true Monotheists and Trinitarians), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a clarification that such baptism was deemed invalid.
Today in the U.S., only the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska excludes females from service at the altar. The Holy See, especially Cardinal Arinze, has tried to stress the traditional important of altar boys; however, strong language that was to be added to this effect in the General Instructions was struck when many American bishops complained. The girls may be very pious and good, but I lament the loss of the boys. Even attempts to dress them differently have been shot down by liturgists. Why can we not keep our boys in surplice and cassock and our girls in something else, either an adapted alb or better yet a junior habit with veil? We are not even supposed to refer to them as altar boys and altar girls, but generically as altar servers. I would prefer to call them “altar boys” and “hand maids.” But I doubt any of this will ever fly… too bad.
August 12th, 2010 | 7:50 pm
I feel sorry for boys these days. If they can’t have a female that is in a position of authority over them, then they may as well forget going to med school or law school. They will find it “not cool”. The women that have been applying and entering these fields outnumber the boys 60 to 40. Boys at this stage have an advantage as the medical and law schools attempt to keep a 50/50 margin. This is done at the expense of girls that are superior to many of the boys applying. Maybe as parents we need to do a better job of not fostering the notion that having a female coworker or authority figure is somehow emasculating. Masculinity should not be thought of as the ability to put your foot on the neck of someone else. If that is the case, then boys would only be useful in military combat.
Most of the priest I know think that women should be able to become priest and feel that Rome is really on the wrong track. It is loss of power that keeps this issue going. I found the discussions interesting for one reason. This should not even be an issue in 2010.
August 16th, 2010 | 8:33 pm
Friends,
We will all be judged based upon how we meet our obligations for our state in life. Women especially should worry about their role as wives and mothers rather than being busybodies in the sanctuary. Young girls today are being set up for failure in this regard. Most are winding up as career whores on the pill. “Altar Girls” are a manifestation of a heretical degenerate feminist agenda. I feel sorry for all you “novus ordo” Catholics. You have no idea what has been taken from you.
August 22nd, 2010 | 8:38 pm
This issue has been a great concern to me for several years. I am a cradle Catholic, who left the church, only to return and spend as much time as possible studying the teachings of the Catholic Church. My studies molded me into a traditional Catholic, much to my surprise. The modern church and its incorrect teachings changed Catholicism, and not for the better. I share the feeling of many who have written before me, there is little to add.
I have just returned from dropping off my son at the U of Dayton, a Catholic College run by Marianist priests. Mass was held in the morning and I could not believe that out of 20 EEM only 2 were male. The altar servers were female. At my local church, large parish, 2/3 or more of the EEM are female and it is a rare day when a male altar server is seen. This issue is similar my Mother and sisters Catholic Church. I am looking for an answer to the cause of decline in male participation at Mass. If anyone can refer me to articles on this issue I would be thankful.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact