Anger at Vatican plan to ban altar girls

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

[Lorianne]

A heated battle has been joined in the Vatican between moderates and conservatives over a directive, called for by the Pope, that would bar altar girls and stop millions of Roman Catholics around the world dancing, or even clapping, in their churches. _________________

Anger at Vatican plan to ban altar girls

John Hooper in Rome Wednesday September 24, 2003 The Guardian

A heated battle has been joined in the Vatican between moderates and conservatives over a directive, called for by the Pope, that would bar altar girls and stop millions of Roman Catholics around the world dancing, or even clapping, in their churches. The document would also clamp down on adult, lay pastoral assistants. It would forbid priests during sermons quoting from ethical texts other than the Gospels. And it would rank services jointly celebrated with Protestant ministers or Orthodox priests alongside black masses as one of the four "most serious" abuses

In a clear effort to block, or, at least dilute, the measure, a leaked text of the draft was this week published in Jesus, the monthly review of the Society of St Paul, an international Catholic organisation.

One Vatican insider was yesterday quoted by the Rome newspaper Il Messaggero as saying it contained "idiocies so mad as to incite fear".

The document was compiled by officials from two Vatican ministries, responsible for doctrine and liturgy, after the Pope called earlier this year for new guidelines on the way masses are held. Many clerics had complained that liberalisation and experiment in recent decades had left them not knowing what was allowed.

Catholics in western, and particularly northern, Europe are likely to be most taken aback by the Vatican officials' determination to block one of the few means of participation in church ritual for women.

The draft text states that priests should only allow girls to help them at mass if they have a special dispensation from their bishop and there is "just cause", which Italian commentators took to mean an absence of boys. According to the leaked draft, priests ought "never to feel themselves obliged to recruit girls".

In developing countries, where the Catholic church now has most of its members, the most controversial injunction will be the one banning "applause and dance within the place of worship, even outside the celebration of [mass]".

Dance is an integral part of worship in Africa and Asia and has figured in numerous services attended by the Pope. Clapping is also commonplace in Italy at weddings, baptisms and even during funerals.

The draft "instruction" was reportedly tabled in June and came in for stiff criticism at a meeting of the two departments. A final version is due to be published this year.

[Aquinasfan]

Just like the overwhelming acceptance of Humanae Vitae?

And the overwhelming acceptance of the Church's position regarding abortion. Truth isn't found in counting noses.

[ninenot]

The progression of the Church from its current wandering in the desert toward Her destiny will be accompanied by Her progress in understanding and implementing liturgy. In a way, tossing altargirlies, and EEM's is like an alcoholic tossing the bottle. It was nice while it lasted--but it's not real.

Your insouciant indifference to authority comes as no surprise--you are the articulate leftist on these matters--and you'll get over the shock of it all.

BTW--the parallel between the disciples bailing after Christ's announcement of 'eating His flesh' and the disciples bailing after Humanae Vitae is really too obvious for me to bring to your attention, is it not, Deacon?

[ninenot]

it had better consider its appeal to future worshippers

Christ didn't appeal to too many folks when He was on the Cross.

Why should the Church, His Body on Earth, "appeal" any more than He?

You don't seem to get it: the Truth is the Truth, no more, no less. The problem that the Truth has in this world is that it's only a candle compared to the lights of Vegas, or D.C., or Hollywood--or money, dames, you-name-it.

But the Church cannot possibly be MORE than the Truth, that little candle, or that bleeding hulk, dying.

What do YOU consider Life to be?

Chesterton says it better--see my FR home page.

[YoungKentuckyConservative]

This seems to be a suicidal religion.

And by design. Religion has go to go so he new "idols" of our era can be manufactured and worshipped. No different than what Stalin, Mao and Lenin did. Speaking of which, ever seen the status of Lenin out in Seattle? If you don't know of what I speak.....

http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/000682.php

[ASA.Ranger]

Stay with the Holy Mother Church Crusader! You adequately define the problems. I was raised in the Church, educated by the Church and had to avoid getting my butt packed by the homo clergy in the Church. The alter boys made attempts to advise our parents and the authorities of the queer priests. We were ignored. There may still be some anger about the issue by men but not too much by the females. Thank God that the seasoned alter boys protected the uninitiated younger boys. Girl alter servers probably would not provide assistance. To heck with the Catholic women and girlie men who refused to recognize the homo problem until now. I left the Church right out of High School but have kept in touch with the issues. There are organizations that pander to women and the girlie men. I’ve tried the New Age stuff but it is populated by too many of the homo and feminine ministries. The weirdoes have singing bowls and the boys love the boys and the girls love the girls. There are places for pseudo and cafeteria Catholics where they may feel more comfortable. They should go there. Spirituality may be defined as feeling all warm and fuzzy about the smell of an apple pie. The Church is a Religion based on the principles of Christ and clarity. Those who confuse their personal spirituality with the Canon need to be elsewhere. The isle dancing, singing pop tunes, and queering and feminizing the Church will lead to demise of Christ’s Authority, moral guidance and the perpetuation of the Church. Although my issues with the Church are my own, I still respect the Church but not the cafeteria Catholics. The Holy Mother Church is not a democracy – never was. The Pope is the power and if the pseudo and cafeteria types don’t like it they can protest, leave and then maybe I can come back to a healthy Mother Church. The Church does not need an sexually integrated Army --- It needs a “Few Good Men.”

[Renatus]

Will conservatism now sweep throughout the Church?`

I sure hope so.

[sinkspur]

In a way, tossing altargirlies, and EEM's is like an alcoholic tossing the bottle. It was nice while it lasted--but it's not real.

You're funny, ninenot. And surprisingly reactionary.

Neither will be "tossed." There will be the usual "guidelines" issued, but the Vatican will not restrict either.

[ninenot]

Not reactionary at all. Never have been. Have been holding back about the Vatican's mistakes for quite a while. Now that THEY have admitted them, I can finally say what I thought all along.

BTW, the progress of the Church will not be impeded by your unhappiness with the new regulations. Get ready now.

[Renatus]

Neither will be "tossed." There will be the usual "guidelines" issued, but the Vatican will not restrict either.

How do you know that?

[sinkspur]

BTW--the parallel between the disciples bailing after Christ's announcement of 'eating His flesh' and the disciples bailing after Humanae Vitae is really too obvious for me to bring to your attention, is it not, Deacon?

You draw an equivalency that I don't accept.

Christ didn't appoint a papal commission to study the institution of the Eucharist, as John XXIII and Paul VI did with birth control, thus instilling in the mind of the faithful the idea that contraception might be subject to revision.

[The Iguana]

If these retrogressions are imposed, I'm sure Rome will be able to advance arguments that will be accepted by clergy and laity alike. Right? Just like the overwhelming acceptance of Humanae Vitae?

I take it then that you dissent from Humanae Vitae?

Whether you do or not, I wonder if you've considered the implications of this particular example.

Why is Humane Vitae not accepted among most of the American laity? Many reasons, to be sure. One of which is of course the reluctance of prelates to teach it.

In our sex-crazed society, however, it's surely not an easy sell even so.

Given recent surveys that suggest many Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence, I might suggest that the problem of dissent in the prelacy is a lot more widespread than contraception. And that perhaps Rome shouldn't necessarily follow (once again) the path of least resistance - which is to say doing what seems to be popular.

[sinkspur]

How do you know that?

The word is out that bishops and cardinals are largely in disagreement with the proposed restrictions.

The Vatican bureaucrats would have to buck the men who would have to enforce these retrogressions.

Rubrics are not matters of faith, and not worth risking wholesale disobedience, which I believe you would have.

[Poohbah]

Does a psychiatrist need to have first-hand experience of schizophrenia in order to effectively treat a schizophrenic patient?

Not really, because it is, at root, a medical condition--i.e., certain chemicals in the brain are not in balance, and this causes the brain to not work right. Treatment thus becomes a matter of prescribing the right medication in the proper dosage.

My concern is that the systematic exclusion of married life from the ranks of the clergy is not necessarily a good thing.

I think the Orthodox Church has the right idea: married men may be ordained, but ordained men may not marry. It seemed a good enough rule for the permanent deaconate; what is the problem with extending it to the priesthood? Answer: nothing, as celibacy is a disciplinary rule only.

[sinkspur]

Have been holding back about the Vatican's mistakes for quite a while. Now that THEY have admitted them, I can finally say what I thought all along.

These are Vatican bureaucrats attempting to pull back on practices of 10, 15, and 25 years. And meeting significant resistance, apparently.

BTW, the progress of the Church will not be impeded by your unhappiness with the new regulations. Get ready now.

I sleep comfortably in the knowledge that the Vatican will issue "guidelines" but nothing that will bind bishops one way or another.

Can't risk wholesale disobedience, which the "shot over the bow" this week from prelates portends.

[ladyjane]

Catholicism was the original Christian faith starting with the Jews who followed Christ.

Somehow I think the Greek Orthodox might disagree with you.

[ninenot]

These are Vatican bureaucrats attempting to pull back on practices of 10, 15, and 25 years

Yeah--10, 15, 25 years--practically the same as "immemorial tradition," right?

The Vatican has the authority and the Bishops, priests, and deacons have the liberty to disobey. Many will.

[Poohbah]

Somehow I think the Greek Orthodox might disagree with you.

Touche, milady! (c8

[sinkspur]

The Vatican has the authority and the Bishops, priests, and deacons have the liberty to disobey. Many will.

Most will, if the reaction gauged this week is any indication, and if the Vatican issues a "do it because I say so" directive.

Cooler heads will prevail.

[TheCrusader]

"then maybe I can come back to a healthy Mother Church. The Church does not need an sexually integrated Army --- It needs a “Few Good Men.”

This is exactly why you should come back, and sooner rather than later. The True Church, (not the imposter outward structure we see today), needs you back. Your return would help make the Church healthy again because only conservative/traditional Catholics can show the rest what the faith is really all about. I attend the Latin Mass (indult), that is where the true faith lies in my opinion. There is no nonsense there. Thanks for taking the time to make this post,

regards,

Jim

[TheCrusader]

"The crux of the whole problem stems from the "lawful church authority" which has forsaken the faithful in order to protect its own. Where's the humility in that?"

This was not lawful authority, but the usurpation of authority by sinful perverts and their enablers. As for their lack of humility, I do not base my faith, or my humility on how well others practice theirs. That's just a huge copout.