Altar Girls

[iggyjoan]

well at my parish the 'girl alterboys' as you call them do a heck of a job better then the alter boys, and i think it's totally fine girls can serve. i think if they were not allowed that would be a form of sexism, and totally wrong. girls can do the job as good, if not better, than the boys. young girls should be allowed to serve God other ways then just attending mass, and serving at the alter is the way to do it.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1194532' date='Feb 14 2007, 01:50 AM']of course if you observe the application in any parish: generally the more girls start signing up the less boys want to sign up and the less they do. those that do sign up no longer see it as a tool of discernment for the priesthood because, well, there are girls there too... it seems like a natural stage and right for every lay man and woman to go through with no consideration of anything.

JPII's allowance was a very reluctant one. He once promised Mother Theresa (at least according to her, a pretty impeachable source of non-lies) that he would never allow it. He finally did allow it not because he thought it was a good idea; and not because he thought the symbolism even remotely taught the correct sexually symbolic meaning of the liturgy, but because everyone was already disobeying Rome on the issue and it was becoming such a point of contention that was driving so many people to grave sins of disobedience and the whole culture had completely forgotten what altar boys were anyway already that he figured: let's open this up to the decision of the bishops so that we no longer have this huge sign of division and people committing potentially grave sins in the Liturgy.

I don't think he was right to concede like this. But this is clearly what he did. The reluctance of it proves that he had no contention against this symbolic idea of the altar boy being the stage in the discernment of the priesthood akin to the stage of dating in the discernment of marriage.[/quote]

JPII was not one to concede to people just because they disobey him or disagree with him. that is a bad argument about his motivation. He would not change what he allowed just so some people aren't commiting 'grave sins of disobedience'.....they are supposed to obey him whether they agree with him or not. they change THEIR ways, he doesnt change his. just because "Everyone was already disobeying Rome" doesnt mean JPII would change his mind. he tells the people what is acceptable in the Liturgy, they don't tell him.

“Therefore, in the event that Your Excellency found it opportune to authorize service of women at the altar, it would remain important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation, lest confusion might be introduced, thereby hampering the development of priestly vocations.”

You bolded the last clause, but ignored the first few. It does not say that having women serving DOES hamper the development of priestly vocations. it says that it is possible that it could, and so to prevent that it is "important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation"....read the whole passage, not just the part you want to see.

"Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite
Can. 230 §1. Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte. Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.
§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.
§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PV.HTM""]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PV.HTM"[/url]

This, which was promulgated by JPII (the very man who allowed female servers), mentions acolytes in the first paragraph. the rest was unnecessary and you are just underlining and bolding parts that make it sound like they support you. You shouldn't try to make Church documents support you, you should support them. 2: This talks about how lay [i]persons[/i] may serve as "commentators or cantors or other functions according to the norm of the law". the norm IS male only, but we are permitted by teh Holy See itself to use female servers. You can't be more Catholic than the pope. 3: what was teh point of this paragraph? I really don't see why you left it there unless you just want me to read the part you underlined and bolded.....it wasnt even a complete thought. if you read the rest of teh paragraph it isnt even talking about serving. it is talking about ordinary acolyte duties, which MAY be taken over by lay PERSONS (does not use the word men or males).....you are just taking random parts of canon law and not reading the whole in context. you dont even read complete thoughts. read the whole thing and then start arguing. JPII allowed it anyway, and so it isnt a sin for women to serve, and you cant prove that it is. you can't prove that it is evil and never should be allowed, because obviously a POPE saw a need to. you are not the pope. maybe let the Holy See do its job and you do yours as a member of the faithful.

[Knight of the Holy Rosary]

Boys have a future on the altar. Girls do not. Where is the complication? Pope John Paul the Great said that girls [i]may[/i] (not should) be admitted to the altar according to pastoral [i]need[/i]... unless all of America's Catholic boys have been abducted by aliens...where's the need?

[Aloysius]

John Paul II did, on occassion, concede on points he thought were not important in order to preserve unity on points he felt were important. Mother Theresa said that John Paul II told her he would not allow altar girls; he clearly disagreed with the idea of altar girls.

Can. 230 §1 indicates what is to be the norm; stable ministries of acolytes et cetera. Can. 230 §2 indicates what is allowable temporarily in extended extraordinary circumstances. Can. 230 §3 indicates what is extra-ordinarily allowable but not preferred.

By 'explain clearly the nature of this innovation' it is to be understood that this is an extra-ordinary indult against the universal norm of the Church.

Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it clear what Rome prefers and what John Paul II preferred. It is perfectly reasonable to think that he conceded in order to avoid a coninual public display of disobedience and disunity in the Church; after Vatican II many many liturgical decisions have been made with the same motivations; not focusing on what was preferred by the tradition of the Church but by what is most expedient to avoid schisms and disunities. When it came down to the root doctrinal issues, Rome stayed strong like she had to, but in liturgical issues she conceded a lot to appease those who no longer understood the immemorial traditions of he Church.

"[47.] It is altogether laudable to maintain the noble custom by which boys or youths, customarily termed servers, provide service of the altar after the manner of acolytes, and receive catechesis regarding their function in accordance with their power of comprehension.[119] Nor should it be forgotten that a great number of sacred ministers over the course of the centuries have come from among boys such as these.[120] Associations for them, including also the participation and assistance of their parents, should be established or promoted, and in such a way greater pastoral care will be provided for the ministers. Whenever such associations are international in nature, it pertains to the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to establish them or to approve and revise their statutes.[121] Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.[122]"

"Girls or women" is a concession, an afterthought, an allowance against a laudable practice at the discretion of the bishop. It's not supposed to be lauded and promoted as the norm; it's permitted that a bishop may allow it in necessity. Nothing more.

But ultimately, if you want to be clear about what John Paul II's preference was, you must look not at what power he conceded in the spirit of collegiality to his brother bishops to decide, but what he himself did as pastor of his own diocese. Pope John Paul II never allowed altar girls in the Diocese of Rome.

here's an interesting perspective from a Catholic Apologist who was alive at the time of the controversy which I think really helps to shed some light on why John Paul II would act against his own manifested liturgical opinions: there was much more at play and at stake that he had to consider:

“…My understanding of the Vatican's thinking at the time on altar girls is this: In the United States and in other countries there is a trend toward using litigation to force change for 'gender equality.' In the context of current American jurisprudence, a court suit to force altar girls on the Church might well be successful. Once the courts decided that they had the authority to force altar girls on the Church, they might just go all the way and force women deacons, and finally priests. If the Church approved altar girls, the first lawsuit would address the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which would be easier to defend given the unbroken history in the Old Testament days of male Jewish priests and rabbis, and in the past two thousand years of male priests and deacons. So my understanding is that the Holy Father's decision to approve altar girls was based on a prudential judgment that it would result in less overall damage to the Church.”

(I can't find who said that quote, but it's not that important as I'm drawing more on his argument than his credibility... found it on this article: [url="http://www.totustuus.com/girlservers.htm"]http://www.totustuus.com/girlservers.htm[/url] )

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1203624' date='Feb 23 2007, 07:05 PM']John Paul II did, on accassion, concede on points he thought were not important in order to preserve unity on points he felt were important. Mother Theresa said that John Paul II told her he would not allow altar girls; he clearly disagreed with the idea of altar girls.

Can. 230 §1 indicates what is to be the norm; stable ministries of acolytes et cetera. Can. 230 §2 indicates what is allowable temporarily in extended extraordinary circumstances. Can. 230 §3 indicates what is extra-ordinarily allowable but not preferred.

By 'explain clearly the nature of this innovation' it is to be understood that this is an extra-ordinary indult against the universal norm of the Church.

Redemptionis Sacramentum makes it clear what Rome prefers and what John Paul II preferred. It is perfectly reasonable to think that he conceded in order to avoid a coninual public display of disobedience and disunity in the Church; after Vatican II many many liturgical decisions have been made with the same motivations; not focusing on what was preferred by the tradition of the Church but by what is most expedient to avoid schisms and disunities. When it came down to the root doctrinal issues, Rome stayed strong like she had to, but in liturgical issues she conceded a lot to appease those who no longer understood the immemorial traditions of he Church.

"[47.] It is altogether laudable to maintain the noble custom by which boys or youths, customarily termed servers, provide service of the altar after the manner of acolytes, and receive catechesis regarding their function in accordance with their power of comprehension.[119] Nor should it be forgotten that a great number of sacred ministers over the course of the centuries have come from among boys such as these.[120] Associations for them, including also the participation and assistance of their parents, should be established or promoted, and in such a way greater pastoral care will be provided for the ministers. Whenever such associations are international in nature, it pertains to the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to establish them or to approve and revise their statutes.[121] Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.[122]"

"Girls or women" is a concession, an afterthought, an allowance against a laudable practice at the discretion of the bishop. It's not supposed to be lauded and promoted as the norm; it's permitted that a bishop may allow it in necessity. Nothing more.

But ultimately, if you want to be clear about what John Paul II's preference was, you must look not at what power he conceded in the spirit of collegiality to his brother bishops to decide, but what he himself did as pastor of his own diocese. Pope John Paul II never allowed altar girls in the Diocese of Rome.[/quote]

I never denied that Rome (JPII) preferred boys or that they were the norm. I know they are, and in ideal circumstances they would be the only ones serving at the altar. My argument is that there is a necessity right now in the US. I don't know about Europe, I dont have the privilege of having any European experience, but in the US boys just don't serve. At least at my parish, in which there are not quite twice as many young girls as boys, only half of the boys serve. That is not enough to always have all boys up there, we need girls to step it up. and they do. I do agree that ideally only boys would serve, but we are not in an ideal situation right now. I wasn't attempting ( i dont have great confidence in my debate skills......i have problems with patience and intelligence :-P) to argue that they should be on the altar, or that JPII was glad that they were, only that he saw a need and that there is still one. If it WAS about sexual theology and that women were 'dating the Church', that never would have happened.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote]"You bolded the last clause, but ignored the first few. It does not say that having women serving DOES hamper the development of priestly vocations. it says that it is possible that it could, and so to prevent that it is "important to explain clearly to the faithful the nature of this innovation"....read the whole passage, not just the part you want to see."[/quote]They point out that “[i]the obligation to support groups of altar boys will always remain[/i].” But after saying this they right away point that it “[i]provided since time immemorial in encouraging future priestly vocations[/i].” So we know the tone of the message is that they are advocating male altar servers (altar boys) over female altar servers. But then in reference to the permission (not approval) to use females on the altar they admit that it is permissible but that this “[i]innovation[/i]” could cause confusion among the faithful, that females are admitted, thus hampering priestly vocations. If they were simply referring to a few cases they would not have publicly released this letter intending it for the general population nor would they of two times so strongly indicated this connection. Although, this is a change in argument from the poster since what I originally posted was.[quote]"Personally I believe that female altar servers should be abolished because it is confusing to the faithful, hampers religious vocations to the Priesthood, and it relaxes the force to adopt males to be Altar Boys."[/quote]This is what I wrote. This does not contradict what the Vatican has instructed and in fact it uses the very same language stipulations, and I did that by design. No where did I say that it is “always” true thus my argument is being manipulated in order to make a flashy show in the attempt to discredit the user in question, here it would be myself. I advise any user not seeing such a clear statement in this letter to read it over again but to those whom oppose this Vatican directive, the best argument that one could use is that it is not a document but a letter.[quote]"I really don't see why you left it there unless you just want me to read the part you underlined and bolded.....it wasnt even a complete thought."[/quote]The office of acolyte is what an Altar Boy is in essence. So right off hand we see that the Vatican in her Canon Law says that men are the ones to fulfill theses roles. But then we see in the later passage that “[i]lay persons[/i]” (inferring females) may “by [i]temporary designation[/i]” assist in such a role when “[i]the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking[/i].” Meaning that there are not enough males to be Altar Boys that females may be searched out and in my argument I pointed out there are enough males.

The user in question that I quoted above stated that female altar servers had become “[i]necessary[/i]” to the extent that males and females must be admitted equally. One in this case would have to prove that there is a “SEVER” lacking of males in the Parish ([i]just not youth for even adults can fulfill this role[/i]). Maybe the user who made such an argument lives with the Amazonian Women where there are no men, but in such case I don’t see why they would be allowing men. Regardless, the canon is very clear and for those who do not see the connection I suggest one speak with a Canon lawyer.[quote]"You can't prove that it is evil and never should be allowed, because obviously a POPE saw a need to. You are not the pope. Maybe let the Holy See do its job and you do yours as a member of the faithful." (with spelling and grammar corrections)[/quote]To this statement I have little to say other than that the Vatican and the Pope were pretty clear on this issue. I have never once claimed that females serving on the altar are “evil” but rather that it is not the norm of law and I feel that it should be abolished because the law making it permissible to have female altar servers present is not being followed. Thus, I do not have the burden of proof to say that it is evil for it is not my case argument. Again there is a misconstruing of what I have written in order to create “drama.” A tool often used for those persons fearing their argument is not complete or total.

I agree I am not the Pope but as a [b]Baptized[/b] and [b]Confirmed[/b] Catholic I have the obligation to reaffirm truth always and to make know those laws and doctrines of the True Church, regardless if I agree with them or not. [i]([b]Personal Thoughts[/b]) If I were to usurp the job of the Pope or the Vatican (Which [b]I would'nt[/b]) I think that I simply would ban it universally then for those Priests that require it they would simply seek a dispensation from my universal ban[/i]. Nonetheless I have not taken this argument but I have voiced that I think it should be abolished, for reasons I have posted now three times. So I am doing exactly that in writing here, being a member of the faithful.

[b]I remind the respectful and honorable members of this message board, namely the user in question, to keep to my actual writing and not indulge in delusions.[/b]

Edited February 24, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Mr.Cat]

Deleted... Double Post

Edited February 24, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[fearundercontrol]

I see your point pyranima and part of me agrees with it. However more of me disagrees. I have been an altar server for about 10 years and this is something that I have loved doing ever since I started. It is an honor and has helped me see the sacredness of the Mass and made it more important to me. I love being able to serve God and the Church in this way, small as it may be.

[got2luvjc]

I think many boys just serve the altar because they think the priests needs someone to hold a book and someone to help wash his hands. as far as I can see from the pews, the boys I've seen don't even think that being an altar boy is a helpful means to discern the priesthood

if the purpose of being an altar boy is to discern the priesthood, doesn't that mean that if a boy knows the priesthood is not for him, then he should not be an altar boy anymore?

[God the Father]

Step away from the vehicle too, please, before you kill some one.

And the voting booth while you're at it.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='God the Father' post='1207475' date='Mar 3 2007, 08:46 PM']Step away from the vehicle too, please, before you kill some one.

And the voting booth while you're at it.[/quote]
:applause:

[got2luvjc]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1207481' date='Mar 3 2007, 09:52 PM']:applause:[/quote]

why don't we just bury ourselves alive... since apparently the only thing we're good for is giving birth...

[iggyjoan]

ha.

NOT TRUE.

[God the Father]

[quote name='iggyjoan' post='1208701' date='Mar 5 2007, 06:42 PM']ha.

NOT TRUE.[/quote]

You had to make it dirty.

[iggyjoan]

what do you mean?

Girls are NOT useless!