You misunderstood me. I was referring to the decline in vocations, which is caused mostly by modernist "reforms". Next, modernists want more "reforms" to fix the problems they caused.
Sadly, this is the way it seems to proceed all too often.
It is incorrect to suggest that the use of altar girls has caused the vocations crisis - on its face, in fact, since vocations began plummeting in the 1960s's and altar girls have only been authorized over the last several years. I would even hesitate to say that it has exacerbated the crisis, since we have yet to have an age cohort that was eligible to serve as altar boys during the current period reach the age for seminary - at least in any real numbers.
However: this will not always be the case.
Given the grave crisis in vocations - whatever the cause - it simply makes little sense to further diminish the pool of potential priests by reducing the number of slots available to boys.
The original policy was promulgated only as a last resort of sorts. Yet this is not how it is being used in North American parishes. My parish is a large one, 2,500 families or so, and yet there are more altar girls than boys. And it is not for lack of boy applicants; there are some on the waiting list. Though given that there also seem to be no restrictions on footwear or dress underneath, it's hardly the only problem they have with altar servants.
There's no denying that progressives in the Church have backed this move as a first step toward ordination of woman. I do not doubt that many of those practicing it have no such intention; nevertheless, it's the first chip in the edifice. Once one is used to seeing girls or young women on the dias, it becomes less of a leap of imagination to conceive of women wearing the collar.
There's also no doubt that the Church has far graver problems facing it than the widespread abuse of the altar girl policy. But I fail to see why different problems cannot be attacked independently.