Posted on 01/28/2015 10:42:11 AM PST by keat
A Roman Catholic church in San Francisco has become one of a handful around the country to prohibit girls from being altar servers.
The Rev. Joseph Illo decided to train only boys to assist him at Mass after he was assigned to Star of the Sea Church in the Richmond district last year because he thinks the primary purpose of altar service is preparation for the priesthood, which women are ineligible to join, Illo told television station KPIX.
"The specifics of serving at the altar is a priestly function," Illo said. "And the Catholic church does not ordain women."
Illo said in a statement posted on the church's website Sunday that boys often lose interest in altar service when the programs are co-ed because "girls generally do a better job."
"I want to emphasize that we are not discontinuing altar girls because females are somehow incapable or unworthy. Girls are generally more capable and certainly just as worthy as boys," the statement said. "It is simply giving boys a role they can call their own, and more importantly recognizing the priesthood as a specifically fatherly charism."
Existing altar girls will be allowed to continue carrying the cross, washing the priest's hands and performing other duties of altar servers until they are phased out through Star of the Sea's new boys-only program, Illo said.
Girls and women have been permitted to serve Mass alongside priests since Pope John Paul II approved the practice in 1994. But a mixed-gender altar service is not a requirement, and the decision is usually left up to local bishops. San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone authorized Star of the Sea's move to only having altar boys.
Some churchgoers told KPIX they were unhappy with the change.
"Those who can or cannot serve based on gender, that is discriminatory," parishioner Dunstan Alabanza said.
I’m sure they do. But that would be taking an instrumental view of the Eucharist, wouldn’t it? We don’t do that. Also, it isn’t nice to imply that the faithful assisting quietly from their pews aren’t serving the Church. That is clericalism, and it stinks.
When the practice of having any-child altar servers is changed to having male-only altar servers, THEN it turns into a matter of rights.
No lay person has a right to serve at Mass. It is always a privilege, which can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all.
The rest of your post then applies, but the value of the Eucharist is obscured by the now-changed countersign of “no-females allowed”
Maybe you don’t understand what the Eucharist is. It’s a sacrifice, in which the priest exercises the priesthood of Jesus who supplies the part of both priest and victim. This Eucharist is one with the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. The Eucharistic action is addressed not to you except at rare moments; almost all of it is directed to the Father. This too has been obscured by the introduction of countersigns. You are there to add your sacrifice of praise and worship to the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the priest. Any concept of the Mass as mere assembly or meal is gravely inadequate; such concepts are far down the list of what the Mass is.
Should girls have been allowed to be altar servers in the first place? Probably not. But changing it back is worse than leaving it like it is.
You might as well say that cracking down on the sale of indulgences was a mistake.
You may be under the impression that girl altar servers is a display of feminist activism. But I’ve never seen even a hint of that. Not as an altar boy, nor as a parent.
I’m not worried about feminism. I’m worried about clericalism. I’m worried about instrumentalizing the Mass. I’m worried about tampering with the sign value of the Eucharist. And yes, in a subsidiary way I’m worried about blocking vocations.
I am old enough to remember pre-Vatican II. Prior to Vatican II, there WAS a viewpoint that altar serving was preparation for the priesthood. After Vatican II, but BEFORE female altar servers, that viewpoint changed from priesthood preparation to layperson involvement in the Mass.
Somewhere you have picked up the idea that the Mass is a talent show, where you’re not really involved till you get up to do something. You are mistaken. Again, you are deceived by clericalism, which causes you to disrespect the participation of the faithful who are not externally busy.
+1
Well said. And you have described children’s behavior perfectly.
What you are thinking of is “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.” ALL "Eucharistic ministers" are "ordinary" ones -- being all priests.
As you say, precision counts.
I see you fixed it. +1 for getting it right.
You seem to think the Bible is the last word on everything. That is a mistake.
I marvel that you consider yourself qualified to have an opinion about these matters. I’m sure you would be shocked to be told your views are protestant.
I was responding to Romulus, so unless you read the post I was responding to, then you are taking my reply out of context. Perhaps you require some clarification.
There is no “right” to be an altar server. Agreed?
But that was not the point of my reply to Romulus.
Romulus was concerned with issues that obscure the seriousness of the Eucharist. And he is right to be concerned about this.
= = =
I contend that changing who can be an altar server becomes an issue that obscures the seriousness of the Eucharist. Child altar servers are not an important aspect of the Eucharist...but by excluding some who could previously act as altar servers, then makes the gender of the altar servers BECOMES an obscuring issue.
Better to leave it as is, than change it...or change it back real slow.
Romulus was concerned with issues that obscure the seriousness of the Eucharist. And he is right to be concerned about this.
Romulus is concerned with issues that obscure the nature of the Eucharist. Romulus is also concerned with FR etiquette, which expects as a matter of courtesy that other posters will be pinged when mentioned in a post.
To your mostly incoherent penultimate paragraph, I respond only that you still seem not to get what the Eucharist is, and what's being obscured.
Let's start with this:
“Somewhere you have picked up the idea that the Mass is a talent show, where you’re not really involved till you get up to do something.” - Romulus
I never did anything of the sort. If you read my post, I was explaining the attitude shift that came with Vatican II, which DID call for greater involvement by lay persons.
A “talent show”??? Who exactly are YOU to try and perceive how I view the Mass? Do you have any particular qualifications that I should be aware of that allow you to toss out childish insults based on your misreading of a paragraph?
I see in a previous set of replies that you managed to anger ThomasMoore, a conservative Catholic deacon who's a long-term Freeper and a highly knowledgeable Catholic.
Nice. Good to know who I'm dealing with.
Criticism is one thing... the first 20 or so posts are not exactly constructive.
You
do
not
have
a
clue
about
FR etiquette.
Don’t lecture me about etiquette. You’re one of the most evil-tempered Catholic Freepers that I’ve had the displeasure of responding to. Seriously.
You’ve questioned the credentials of a Deacon. And angered him to the point where he had to leave the discussion. Who is actually one of the most even-tempered people on this board. I would assume that you are too proud to be ashamed of that.
Where?
See, this is the problem. A great many people appealing to Vatican II (usually Sacrosanctum Concilium) are not at all well informed about what it really says. Where do you get the idea that Vatican II expressed a desire that lay people should be up and about at Mass? If "up and about" is not what you meant, what do you mean by "greater involvement"? In what sense are lay people in the pews, especially those receiving Holy Communion when in a state of grace and properly disposed, not fully involved already? Why are you intent on externalizing participation? This is why I call your view of the Mass a talent show -- because you don't display any other understanding.
Do you even understand what I mean when I raise the matter of clericalism?
For the record, I do have certain qualifications that entitle me to comment. Not least of them is that I instruct seminarians about serving at Mass, at the request of the Professor of Liturgy at the major seminary of the archdiocese where I live. I am Master of Ceremonies at our archdiocese's pro-cathedral. I am DRE in my parish. I am not a big shot, but have been studying and doing this stuff for a while, under the supervision of priest-scholars who know their business.
“The Eucharist is a sacrament, and as such it’s harmful for the sign value of the Eucharist to be submerged or obscured by countersigns.” - Romulus, post 42
Exactly where did you use the word “nature” so that you could correct me that I didn’t use the word “nature” when I was agreeing with you?
I must have missed that.
No, where did you get the credentials that allow you to be a major jerk?
Actually I am serene and irenic. Just think it’s important to make myself quite clear on certain subjects.
Yes, I did question those credentials. I and a great many others at FR were strung along for years by a fake in Dallas pretending to be a deacon in good standing. He was a liar. Maybe ThomasMore remembers him. I will not mention the name; it seems to engage the sympathy of the mods, for some reason I can’t fathom.
Yes, I did say that most (permanent) diaconal formation programs in this country are toxic. I stand by that. It is not intended to be a personal slam on anyone, but is a frank assessment of the inadequate formation they’ve received. Guessing that I’m more or less the same age as Thomas More, I’m able to speak with first hand knowledge of the less-than-worthless Catholic religious instruction peddled in the decades after the Council, which is largely to blame for the fact that very few of my contemporaries have or practice the Catholic faith.
If you want to fuss about evil-tempered FReepers, consider making a complaint about the vicious Catholic baiting at the top of this thread.
Romulus seems to know his stuff. I wouldn’t take him on so lightly.
Hey, the Bible says its OK to have the Mass in English. I read it here on FR.
Hey, you were wrong, and you’ve been schooled. I’d say you had a good day.
Until you insulted me. That was just rude.
I am going to dip my toe into this thread and say “Thank You” for your service. It takes a lot dedication to become a Deacon. Many do appreciate your service and your comments on FR, too.
“Where do you get the idea that Vatican II expressed a desire that lay people should be up and about at Mass?” - Romulus
I never said that greater involvement was ONLY in the Mass.
It comes from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and in the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity. These documents note that lay people are called to be saints AND lay people are called by Christ to take part in the mission of the Church.
Romulus the Great; however, believes that lay people can best serve the mission of the Church by sitting in the pews (”In what sense are lay people in the pews, especially those receiving Holy Communion when in a state of grace and properly disposed, not fully involved already?”).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.