Anger at Vatican plan to ban altar girls

Gaurdian (UK) ^ | 24 September 2003 | John Hooper

[A. Pole]

While this is true, it is also true that banning them will not keep them Catholic. And it will not encourage them to raise their children Catholic.

What good the progressive woman agenda brought to the Episcopalian Church? Priestesses, bishopesses and more.

[Lorianne]

I don't know. It is hard for me to see how a Church who's heirachy is all men could be "alienating" to men. Even so, men don't participate in the same numbers as women and I believe this has been the case for a very long time. It would seem the Catholic church itself would be interested in the whys of this situation.

[nickcarraway]

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by ``lay minister.'' Many women function in roles that could be more or less described as such. I guess it depends on how you define ``minister.'' [and by the way, in most parishes and diocese most of the staff are female- you can check this yourself. Often, the only male/males are the actual priests] There are actually very few roles that women are restricted from.

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

As a Catholic women and mother, I would be more offended and less likely to continue to raise my children in a Catholic tradition if they bent to the whims of every group of the to the dillution of doctrine.

[Lorianne]

Could be, I don't know. But if it IS true that women are the natural teachers, I'd think the Church would want to keep in the Church so as to have a next generation.

[sinkspur]

I think most folks would accept it, especially if accompanied by any decent catechesis.

What sort of catechesis would you devise that would explain why, all of a sudden, receiving in the hand, as was the practice of the early Church, is no longer allowed?

I, frankly, wouldn't even attempt it.

I'll bet the bishops are burning up the Congregation of Worship's e-mail boxes in response to this draft.

Somebody released it so that it would be killed.

[A. Pole]

Glad to see others of the same mind rather than flamers dumping on those of us who don't blindly agree with everything that comes out of the Vatican.

Open your eyes then, and see what has happened with the Episcopalian Church.

[disclaimer]

The reasoning is twofold:
(1) The introduction of altar girls began as an act of disobedience.
(2) Traditionally, the acolytate is the early training ground for priests. The introduction of girls, who cannot be priests, interferes with recruitment for the priestly ministry.

100% right on wideawake. The feminists have been attacking the Catholic church for some time now. In addition to the alter girl invasion, the language has been under attack for as well. References to 'Him' have been replaced with 'God' in the hymns, and the word 'mankind' is now 'people' as just a few examples. That rascally union of world-wide womyn (UWWW) never miss an opportunity to spread their religion.

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

I keep missing posts that appear to be rather colorful!

[nickcarraway]

I don't know. It is hard for me to see how a Church who's heirachy is all men could be "alienating" to men.

Well, your assumption is that whether members of the hierarchy are the same sex as one is either alienating or comforting. That may be the case for you, but it's not something that occurs to me. There are any number of all-male groups that are alienating to me. For example, the Democrat party's hierarchy is almost exclusively male, but it alienates me.

[A. Pole]

Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus was an act of disobedience, and thank God for that.

Rosa Park was fighting for political rights and equality. The Church is not a democracy. And God is not an elected official.

Whether or not there is a girl standing next to a 10 - 14 year old boy (the age of altar servers) during the mass is not going to affect a young man's decision to enter the priesthood when he is 18 - 20.

How do you know?

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

I'm unaware how anyone is being stifled. I am not and neither are my daughters. And certainly the Vatican, like any corporation or government, can do more than one thing at a time.

[nickcarraway]

Even so, men don't participate in the same numbers as women and I believe this has been the case for a very long time.

my question is the reason for this because of something that is inherent in the nature of men and women? By the way, you must admit that this is not only true of Catholicism.

It would seem the Catholic church itself would be interested in the whys of this situation.

This is itself may be a sign they are.

[Cousin Eddie]

"Rules" have changed throughout the history of the church. Priests could get married for the first few centuries. Should we go back to that rule and castigate all of the popes who've banned priestly marriage for the past 1600 or 1700 years?

To say that no customs should ever change in the church is ridiculous. Core beliefs should hold firm, but customs and practices have always been open to change, granted very slowly and with lots of deliberation.

I am not one who wants radical change in the church...I am far more of a traditionalist (14 of my first 16 years of education were at Catholic schools), but I'm not one of these no change, not no way, not no how types of Catholics.

In my mothers day, she was never allowed to set foot on the altar. Her uncle was a pastor and very prominent in his diocese which traditionally had been very conservative. The only exception was when the woman got married...the kneeler was put on the altar. Well, she married a non-Catholic and because of that they had to kneel at the communion rail...heaven forbid a non-Catholic (Christian nevertheless) step foot on the altar.

Obviously that rule has been relaxed. My mother is an elderly Eucharistic minister and obviously steps foot on the altar every week. And you will never meet a more conservative Catholic. (E.g, she can't stand any instrument but organ music in the church.) The fact that the rules allow women to step foot on that altar won't damn us all for eternity, it hasn't ruined the church. The same is true of woman wearing veils.

Traditions and customs can AND SHOULD evolve over time. Core beliefs should not change. I've never understood Catholics that hyperventilate about altered customs like BVM nuns not dressing as Black Veiled Monsters anymore. Those people need to get a life.

Last part of this vent...my favorite nun in the world -- as good a person as you will ever meet -- asked me a trick question..."How many sacraments are there?" Of course I answered "seven". "Ahaa!", she replied, "But only for you." She has no desire to be a priest (she's in her twilight years), and I frankly am not sure where I stand on the subject, but on the other hand stop insulting women by telling them that people can participate in seven sacraments...only men can.

[sinkspur]

Traditionally, the acolytate is the early training ground for priests. The introduction of girls, who cannot be priests, interferes with recruitment for the priestly ministry.

This may have been true in the days of minor seminaries and men going directly into college seminaries.

Today, however, when most seminarians enter after college, or even later, altar service could hardly qualify as a "training ground" for priests. Besides, there's very little for servers to do at Novus Ordo Masses.

[nickcarraway]

It is hard for me to see how a Church who's heirachy is all men could be "alienating" to men.

Isn't there something about Christianity itself that can be alienating to men, especially young men?

[shaggy eel]

The proof will be in the next generation.

,,, no, it won't. Generations have been used to altar boys serving. Girls always knew that task wasn't open to them just as I knew I'd never be able to land a job in a lingerie shop, despite my desperate continued pleas for inclusion. What Catholics should expect now is a tightening up in traditional routines, a sense of realignment and direction not a departure to letting pillow biting bishops call the shots as the Anglicans are doing.

I completely agree with those on this thread who have said that the Church will have to sort out the sexual molestation fiascos of the past. That behaviour cannot continue if the Church wants growth in the light of crediblity. Those who have let such things happen should be held accountable for certain.

[A. Pole]

Decades of the church priests having sex with little boys with protection from above. And what problem does the church find to deal...? girl alter boys. Go figure

Do you mean that heterosexual priests should be tempted too?

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

"What sort of catechesis would you devise..."

Well, I'm not a theologian, and I also would disagree with the change. But if I were a theologian called upon to defend it, I'd simply say that though there is nothing doctrinally wrong with the practice, it is a matter of discipline, and thus mostly susceptible to arguments from prudence.

I'd continue that in the years since the practice was introduced, it hasn't substantially increased reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, or effected any other desired outcome, but in many cases has led to abuses.

I'd then remind folks that in matters of discipline, not just matters of faith and morals, we are bound by the instructions of our sacred pastors, and that's that.


sitetst

[Pan_Yans Wife]

There are teachers, and there are teachers. Jesus was called Rabbi!

There are roles for everyone, within their sex. And there is nothing shameful or unworthy in either sex. To make everything fair and equal actually causes much more harm to our society, than is often intended.

I am not a feminist, but I am not meek and retiring in my role as wife and mother, daughter and sister, friend or citizen.

In making the structure of the mass a political issue, instead of a spiritual one, the church is weakened. Again, I am not a Catholic. But I believe that the church has rules, for a reason. If the rules are altered too much, it will cease to be the Catholic church.

THAT IS THE GOAL OF THE FEMINISTS.

For that reason, I am against it. Because as they tear apart the church, they are destroying our families, our communities and our nation. Our nation will not survive with out the faithful.