The Diocese of Phoenix
The Diocese of Phoenix has been in the news recently. First, the rector of the Cathedral there banned altar girls. His rationale is that there is a close connection between serving at the altar and vocations to the priesthood, and boys and young men do not want to be altar servers if girls are allowed.
Now the bishop, Bishop Olmstead, has announced that the distribution of communion under both species is going to be radically restricted in his diocese. Instead of being an option for any mass, it is now only an option for a handful of occasions: chrism masses, marriages, the feast of Corpus Christi, etc. On the website there is a long Q&A which attempts to explain the changes, but many of the rationales seem weak. Perhaps the most bizarre is that this change represents a liberalization of the practice when viewed from the standpoint of the universal church. Indeed, the Church in the US has been at the forefront in making communion under both species widely available, and it is rare or non-existent in many countries. The revisions to the General Instructions of the Roman Missal expand the opportunities available in all countries; but Bishop Olmstead has decided to restrict the practice to the narrowest possible under the new GIRM; the net effect is to almost eliminate the practice in his Diocese.
Now in both cases these actions are allowable: as someone pointedly reminded me (in reference to altar girls) both these practices were “an indulgence and not a right.” But such an explanation strikes me as being pastorally lacking: it is, in the end, an appeal to law and authority, and do not address the Church as a community of believers.
Truthfully, I cannot see much good coming out of either change. I have never been persuaded that only allowing boys to be altar servers will result in an increase of vocations: no one has provided anything except anecdotal evidence (quickly contradicted by the experience of others) and explanations which depend on very dubious theories of gender. And, as my wife asked me when I told her about the decision on altar girls: do we want men as priests who are unwilling to associate with women in a common activity?
The changes on reception under both species strike me as having clericalist underpinnings. Thus, one explanation is that in distributing communion under both kinds, parishes might be forced to rely on lay ministers—the horror, the horror. In the same vein, clerics and quasi-clerics are exempted: non-concelebrating priests and seminarians are allowed to receive under both species at any mass.
There has been a lively discussion elsewhere in the blogosphere: Deacon Greg Kandra had short article that prompted a furious exchange. Anthony Ruff, OSB, has a rather acerbic response to the Bishop’s Q&A on the changes. I also found some interesting responses (pro and con) from priests and laity in the diocese.
Comments are closed.
While my personal opinion would be a little more liberal in the distribution of the precious blood, I understand where His Excellency is coming from. Far to often, there is lack of proper training for Extraordinary Minsters of the Eucharist. I would personally recommend the availability of both species on Chrism Mass, Holy Thursday, Easter Vigil/Easter Sunday, the other Sundays of Easter, Pentecost, Corpus Christi and Christmas and perhaps the other Holy Days of Obligation. Or another option would be to have both species under intinction. I am curious to see what the actual guidelines will be when they are published though.
If memory serves, it was precisely acknowledged by JP II that the link between being an acolyte and priestly formation was long since broken, and that the discipline of only male servers so longer could have that rationale. Maybe someone could look up the document?
On the other hand, if my two daughter who serve now hear of this, Phoenix has handed them the excuse they’ve been looking for…..
I have been following this discussion a bit, and agree with you that the whole thing has clericalist underpinnings. There are those of course who say that this isn’t true, it’s just preserving the proper role of the priest. Which basically proves the point. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck….you get it.
The objections to reception of Communion under both species seem to fall under two categories. The first is about spills. The way some folks go on, you’d think people were slopping the Precious Blood around like they were in a bar that should have closed two hours ago. After further discussion, it turns out no one has actually seen anything very disrespectful happening, but they emphasize, it could. As I pointed out in Deacon Greg’s thread; if a spill does happen, there are respectful and prescribed ways of dealing with it.
The second came from some people who said there were very serious problems in that diocese, and the place is just being shaped up. As to that, I wouldn’t know, I’ve never been there. But it has the feel of a smackdown.
The ironic part is that I rarely receive from the chalice myself, unless I am an EMHC (I am a little bit of a germophobe). But I’m thinking maybe that should change, since it is indeed a privilege, and we have seen that it can be withdrawn.
They closed the comments at Deacon Kandra but I’ll mention it here. Theologically how is accidental spilling of the wine onto the floor tragic whereas it’s passing out of our system hours later in the bathroom into a toilet bowl is not tragic. Same goes for the host. We need dogmatic theologians for some… to describe why neither is tragic. At which point does Christ withdraw Himself from either species when there is droppage or elimination.
Odd that such never comes up in any books….or in homilies.
As soon as it wouldn’t be called bread or wine (for the wine, that’s virtually as soon as you swallow) it is no longer understood to be the Body and Blood of Christ:
http://vox-nova.com/2010/03/31/quid-sumit-mus-sacramental-presence-for-father-larry/
But, even though the spilled species of wine would still be the Blood of Christ, you are right that it is not tragic in itself. Jesus is in no danger. The only thing that is really at issue is if people are being flippant or careless. To me the best solution here is appropriate training and catechesis, not withholding the cup from the laity. That is a major step backwards.
Theologically how is accidental spilling of the wine onto the floor tragic whereas it’s passing out of our system hours later in the bathroom into a toilet bowl is not tragic.
Theologically, these are very different, as Brett says. Once the Body and Blood is eaten, it’s no longer the Body and Blood.
No, but then we don’t want priests who are middle-school boys either.
My wife was being her usual sharp tongued self, but her broader point was this: as the child goes, so the man. If middle-school boys demonstrate misogyny, this is something we wait for them to outgrow, and possibly try to educate out of. We certainly should not encourage it in any way. Barring girls from being altar servers and telling boys they are “special” and can be altar servers (which is what they will hear) will, in my opinion (and my wife’s) only foster their misogyny.
” If middle-school boys demonstrate misogyny, this is something we wait for them to outgrow, and possibly try to educate out of.” I agree with you. Our response to a lot of things which our kids expressed discomfort about was, “So??” Part of growing up includes stretching.
Thanks for writing about this. So much for evangelizing non-believers. If this type of thing is difficult for believers to accept, what must people who are so cynical about religion (for good reason many times) think? Aren’t we to be salt? Aren’t we to be the light? Sometimes I just do not understand my Church at times. I love Her, but I disagree.
Well hopefully this isn’t our Church at all. One bishop does not the Church make. If this trend spreads, I’m gonna start sweating though.
Exclusionary to the core of it.
Stopping girls being altar servers (I always kinda preferred the term alter boys, but people don’t usually get my drift) may not increase vocations to the priesthood, but it will very possibly increase the numbers of boys serving at Mass.
It was a well-noted phenomenon that when girls started serving, the boys often quit.
Wouldn’t a better response be to then reach out to boys and encourage them to serve? As I noted above, fostering their misogyny to get more boys as altar servers seems counter productive.
Also, I have to question this “well-noted phenomenon.” It usually only seems to be noted by people who oppose altar girls in the first place.
A lot of things contribute to kids of either sex dropping out of serving after about age 12; not the least of which are the insanely busy schedules schools and parents seem to push on them; they have to be not only stellar students, but play in the sports, be in band, drama, and debate.
I am not against altar girls, and I heartily agree that boys should be encouraged strongly to serve.
Two or three of my daughters have served. But since I first saw girls serving (which in parts of Canada was ahead of the curve) I saw boys quitting.
The Church says it’s allowed if the Bishop and parish priest approve. Who am I to disapprove?
The chapel parish in which I now reside, and which has never seen an EF Mass and has had more than its share of odd liturgies also seems to have a consistently higher ratio of boy servers to girl, but then we also have adult males in charge and in the sanctuary most of the time.
A CNS summary of an article in L’Osservatore Romano” in praise of altar girls:
Permitting girls to serve at the altar marked the end of a form of inequality in the church and allowed girls to experience the formative power of directly assisting with the mystery of the Eucharist — the core of the Christian faith, said the Vatican newspaper.
Assisting the priest during Mass is both a service and a privilege and represents “a deep and responsible way to live one’s Christian identity,” said an article published Aug. 7 in L’Osservatore Romano.
“The exclusion of girls from all of this, for the sole reason of their being female, has always weighed heavily and represented a deep inequality within Catholic education,” it said.
Even though there may have been many parishioners who begrudgingly accepted the presence of girls as servers only when there were no boys to fill the role, “overcoming this barrier was very important for young women,” it said.
Permitting girls to assist at the altar “has meant the idea they were impure because of their gender came to an end” and has meant girls, too, “could live out this extraordinarily important formative experience,” it said.
The original, in Italian, can be found at:
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/commenti/2010/180q01b1.html
So it would seem that the Vatican thinks altar girls are a good idea.
David,
You say that “telling boys they are “special” and can be altar servers (which is what they will hear) will, in my opinion (and my wife’s) only foster their misogyny.”
Do you see any place for “only boys” or “only girls” activities, groups, or classes? I’m not advocating for complete segregation between girls and boys for their entire childhood, but I see a lot of good in giving boys and girls the opportunity to play, learn, socialize (e.g., Boy and Girl Scouts, some single-sex classes, etc.) without the distraction of the opposite sex. And I don’t see any reason to think that this encourages misogyny.
Thales, I think you asked me this before. I see some place for separate sex activities, but I tend to subject them to some scrutiny to make sure they are not driven by sexual stereotyping or discrimination against one gender or the other (primarily discrimination against women, though I have occasionally seen discrimination against men). But more and more I am beginning to question the necessity of this. Sports is one obvious example where it may be desirable, but last week I looked out the window and saw one of my women students tearing up the turf playing rugby with the our club team. It is co-ed and definitely not a sport for the faint of heart. She is a lot smaller than many of the men she is playing against, but was clearly playing as an equal.
Hhmm, you’re right, now that you mention it, I think we’ve talked about this before. I guess we’ll have to disagree. In my experience, I’ve seen some real benefit in giving girls and boys the opportunity to socialize with their own gender — I think it gives them space to lower their guards and to gain confidence in themselves, due to the fact that they are not in the presence of the opposite sex. And I see this to be a benefit for adults also. I’m sorry that you don’t feel the same way, since I think you’re overlooking the great good to be gained in occasions of male-male, and female-female companionship.
You bring up sports. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with coed sports. But I think you’re misunderstanding the point of single-sex sports: the idea behind single-sex sports is not merely to give the players an even playing field so as to minimize the physical advantage men would have over women. It’s to give girls, for example, an environment where they can be free from the uncomfortableness that would result from being with boys. (In particular, I’m not thinking of girls/women who are playing competitive sports and who have no insecurity when it comes to competing with boys — I’m thinking of the example of the highschool class of girls with all athletic abilities who would be more comfortable exercising in a single-sex environment.)
Thales, let me be clear: I am not opposed a priori to single sex gatherings—my favorite drinking group tends to all male gatherings and I had no objections on gender grounds when one of my sons wanted to be a cub scout. However, I have come to apply a hermeneutic of suspicion to same sex gatherings, since they often seem to be intended to reinforce gender constructs I believe are inimical. Let’s deconstruct the very example you gave. (In doing so, I am not accusing you of anything: I believe you advanced it in good faith.) Why is it that “girls of all athletic abilities” would be more comfortable in a single-sex environment? What does this presuppose about women versus men? Are these differences innate, or the result of social gender conventions that portray boys and men as daring and willing to make fools of themselves, whereas girls are demur and more cautious?
These gender constructs cut both ways, to the detriment of men as well as women. My son dances ballet and is actually gotten pretty good. I remember the reaction of many friends and family when my wife first signed him up: “oh, shouldn’t he play soccer instead?” “Won’t his friends think he’s gay?” “He’s going to get beaten up a lot because dance is for sissies.” (With regards to the last: he is now 6-4, 180 lbs and all muscle. Nobody messes with him.)
So, going back to the original question: what good is served by segregating young men and women by preventing young women from serving at the altar?
David,
About my “girls of all athletic abilities” example, I’m not making any commentary about “gender constructs” (whatever that term means). I’m only making the not-so-strange observation that sometimes girls are comfortable around just girls (and vice versa for boys), especially in environments which may be vulnerable or potentially embarrassing for the girls. Such environments include sexual health class, college dormitories, and a class of 14-year-old girls required to do athletics. (I trust that you’re not one of those who ridiculously thinks that Catholic University’s recent decision to have single-sex dorms is discriminatory. If so, there’s a far bigger gulf between us.) So I’m making no commentary about gender constructs — if the group of boys wants to do ballet, I’ve got no objection; if the group of girls wants to play football, I’ve got no objection. I’m only talking about the fact that at times, girls are more comfortable around girls (and vice versa).
Why is this the case? I would say because of innate differences between males and females. And I would say that it’s not a bad idea for society to recognize these innate differences and, accordingly, to allow time and space for these differences. (I’m firmly in favor of single-sex bathrooms!) As I said above, I think that this gives girls and boys the space to lower their guards, and so to gain confidence in themselves and to develop same-gender companionships. And I don’t see this to be a necessary cause of misogyny.
As for your question about altar servers: I’m with JP. I’m not in favor of preventing girl altar servers – it’s permitted by the Church, after all. But I do see a benefit in encouraging boys to be altar servers specifically (while encouraging girls to serve the church in other ways). Why do I think is this a good idea? Because of two principles, with which I suspect you disagree.
1. I think altar serving is a great way to get boys to consider (and possibly join) the priesthood. This year’s USCCB survey for newly ordained says that 71% were altar servers previously, and 2/3 were encouraged to consider the priesthood by a priest (and obviously, being an altar server is a great opportunity to encounter a priest). To me, it seems almost self-evident that if a boy altar-served, this would increase the chances of him considering the possibility of being a priest.
2. Like JP, in my own experience, I tend to see boys as being less interested in altar serving if there are girls involved. I’m not saying that that is a bad thing or a good thing — it’s just the way boys tend to be, in my experience.
I am for separate-sex restrooms and dormitories, and any other circumstance which is necessary to respect people’s privacy and boundaries. Co-ed sports are fine, up to a point. I’m thinking in particular of wrestling; speaking of boundaries. You shouldn’t set up a situation where there is physical contact that would get the cops called in other circumstances. Or situations which are more likely to get kids injured. We all have “Safe Environments” training, we need to make sure that environments are indeed safe.
I don’t think altar girls falls under this category, I have gone on record many times as being in support of both boys and girls being able to serve at the altar. However in places where it has been decided for one reason or another that this isn’t going to happen, I make a plea for substituting something for the girls that is a learning experience, that will help them grow, not just busy-work. When I was in school, many years ago, the girls had choir practice while the boys had altar server training. We learned music and served God at the same time. I enjoyed it so much that I never quit; 45 plus years later I am still involved in choir and Church music. I’m sure there are other things, too, but don’t just sideline the girls. The message that you are not needed is a hurtful one.
Melody, agreed! I think the big task is to get both girls and boys interested and involved in participating in the life of the Church, so that they will continue to do so as they grow into adults.
David, I’m curious what you think of this: I know of some churches, including my own, that have both male and female altar servers, but have them in different groups, serving different masses and differentiated in dress (e.g., girls wear the alb instead of cassock and surplice). The rationale, I think, is that this allows inclusionism while still preserving for the boys the connection between altar serving and clerical vocations. (At my church, this system applies only to high school and junior high school servers. Before that age, all the kids serve together.)
Different outfits? Sure, though I have my doubts about dressing altar boys as “little priests” since they are not clerics. Serving different masses: why? Again, I am just not convinced that gender segregation has any benefit, and may be insidious in this area. Young men and women can and should learn to work together in all settings, profane and religious.
Basically, the boys have a sort of confraternity for spiritual and catechetical formation in Christian manhood (sorry if you don’t like that term, but it doesn’t mean anything insidious) that includes altar serving as its chief ministry. In other words, gender segregation at mass isn’t the point. I understand your concern, but this is far from the only opportunity for young men and women to work together in religious settings.
By the way, I take it no one seems to think there’s any good to be served by limiting the distribution of Communion to priests? The Vatican’s position, if I’m not mistaken, is that EMs should be used only when necessary, not become a regular practice.
I understand about the confraternity. But even if gender segregation at mass is not the intent, it is a foreseeable consequence, and not one I think is a good one. If there are alternatives, they should be explored. Yes, there are other opportunities for men and women to work together, but I have to keep asking: why segregate them in this one?
With regards to the distribution of communion by priests: I never really understood the Vatican rationale for restricting EMs to situations of serious necessity. I don’t see how it distracts from the centrality of the priest’s role in the mass.
The obvious solution is to eliminate communion altogether. Then we wouldn’t have to concern ourselves with profanation. And there really is no reason we have to stop at banning altar girls. There is the whole issue of priests not staying on script, even those times they are actually trying to do so. With technology, we should hire an actor to perform the sacrifice of the mass, and just replay videos of it at regular masses. That would be far more pleasing to God I’m sure. Then there is the problem of the people in pews wearing clothes that are “immodest”, and so displeasing to God. So to solve all these problems, each person needs to create their own personal chapel where they can watch an actor offer the sacrifice on a video monitor. God will be so pleased. Lord knows that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because he cared passionately about the theatre habits of the middle and upper classes.
For the win! And yes, it would eliminate “communion.”
M.Z., having you been taking your sarcasm pills again? :-)
That was tried once. I think it was the Jansenists? Didn’t fly.
Do any of you know the troubled history of that wretched diocese in Phoenix? A drunken bishop hitting and running; the diocese getting turned over to the corrupt, reactionary and pedophile-hiding Archbishop in Santa Fe until Rome was able to find somebody competent enough; the disgruntlement regarding their ridiculously over-priced Archdiocesan schools. That diocese is a mess, and this seems to me to be just a diversion from their real problems.
I understand where His Excellency is coming from. Far to often, there is lack of proper training for Extraordinary Minsters of the Eucharist.
The Bishop fails in his duty to properly train EMs so he eliminates their need. Might he look in the mirror?
On the second question, as to reserving altar server to potental priestly candidates, i will say my parish does not decline girls nor for that matter boys with Downs Syndrome or other disabilites that make them ineligible for the priesthood.
Of course, we have some sad history in the 1950s, where the priestly candidate issue was used to allow college prep students but not those boys on a vo-tech track. It neatly fell along racial lines as well, but of course, it had nothing to do with that.
I don’t think we are changing, regardless of what any bishop says.
Kurt,
could you provide a detailed reference to the college prep vs. votech incident? This one is new to me.
Also, thanks for mentioning kids with disabilities. My son with Down syndrome was interested at one point in being an altar server, but for a lot of reasons we did not allow him to pursue it.
Finally, I agree completely with your comment about lack of training reflecting more on the pastors and the bishop that on the EMs.
David,
Personally, I think our Downs syndrome altar server enhances the liturgy more than any other server. It would be a pastoral, moral, and spiritual shame to “pink slip” this young server because of a “priestly candidate” rule.
On the other matter, like much of the South, we had segregation in the Catholic churches in Washington. Cardinal O’Boyle gave into those d*mn liberal activist, dissenting, disobedient pressure groups and ended forced segregation at Mass, in Catholic schools and hospitals, in reception of Communion (whites first, Blacks second), etc. But it was a gradual process. There was an interim period in the 1950s when the formal prohibition of Black boys as altar servers in my parish was ended, but (in the era of “tracking”, another dodge to resist de-segregation), a new policy was announced that to foster vocations, only college prep boys would be asked to serve.
Lastly, just to point that that so called “traditionalism” seems to have less tradition rather than a constantly shifting rationale for their preferences, I would remind folks that in the 1940s, the conservative opposition to the “Dialogue Mass” was that the altar server was not a little potential prtest in training, but represented the laity and therefore we were taking away little Billy’s purpose by saying the Latin responses.
Thales,
sorry for not defining “gender constructs”—sometimes I forget I am not at a bull session with my colleagues from the humanities. Gender construct is shorthand for socially constructed gender roles. That is, gender roles which are often regarded as being innate or “natural” but which in fact are the product of cultural preconceptions about how men and women “ought” to behave. For instance, the whole notion of women as “the weaker sex” (i.e. not just physically weaker, but emotionally and intellectually weaker) has essentially no basis in nature and is a social construction.
Are there differences between the genders: yes, of course. Are the implications of those differences obvious? Sometimes. Nevertheless, I think feminist scholarship (and the various waves of feminism since the 19th century) has taught us that “self-evident” assertions about gender need to be interrogated: we need to ask ourselves if they are “real” or if they are just social patterns that act to the detriment of women and men.
So in your example about women’s athletics, I noticed right away you couched this as being about women (and not gender neutral) and I had to ask if it was a social construct. I am not insisting that it is, but I believe that this question is a legitimate one. For what it is worth, I asked my wife (my touchstone on issues of gender) and she said that in high school she would have preferred coed gym classes because the athletically minded females were ruthless in their scorn towards less accomplished women when men were not around.
Similarly, when you write “I’m only talking about the fact that at times, girls are more comfortable around girls (and vice versa).” or “it’s just the way boys tend to be” I have to ask: is this “natural” or is it socially imposed, and then is it neutral, something the Church should accept, or is it something the Church should oppose? Again, the answer depends: not all social constructions are intrinsically evil.
And, turning again to the question of altar servers: I do not believe that the church should respond to the fact that boys do not want to do things girls are doing by either banning or discouraging girls from being altar servers. (Encouraging girls to serve in another capacity is tantamount to discouraging them from being servers.) I think that this is a teaching moment for the Church to help young men and young women understand on a practical level what St. Paul means when he says “there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free in Christ Jesus.” This is not to say that we should ignore the social construct our young men operate in—not all all unless we want to cause a lot of pain and frustration all around. But altar servers provides a teaching moment and it should be exploited.
Finally, with regard to priestly vocations: the data certainly shows a correlation between service and vocations. But it is a big and unwarranted step from this to say that we should discourage girls from serving so as to encourage boys to consider a vocation to the priesthood. Altar service can certainly provide a likely pool and priests can use this to start discussions about vocations, but again, this seems unconnected with whether or not girls are serving at the same time. I talk to my calculus classes about becoming a math major, even though I know more than 1/2 do not want to be majors.
David,
Let me assure you that I’m no proponent of the notion that women are “the weaker sex” (i.e. not just physically weaker, but emotionally and intellectually weaker). That is abhorrent to me, and seems to me an obviously incorrect and discriminatory way of looking at the world.
Also, I’ll say it again: when I brought up the women’s athletics example, I had no thought whatsoever about what you describe as gender constructs. Instead, I was trying to come up with an obvious instance of girls being more comfortable and being more able to lower their guards and more able to find themselves, grow in maturity, and develop friendships among their gender, because they would be without the distraction of boys. I think this holds just as equally with boys. And I think that such opportunities for segregated activity and socialization are valuable for the development of both boys and girls. Remember, I brought up the women’s athletics example in order to respond to your apparent position that the only valid instance of segregation would be in a sports context in order to level the playing field for women. I thought that to be quite incorrect, and I tried to give an obvious example of valuable segregation, namely, girls being more comfortable being around girls in the athletic setting. Let me reiterate again: I was making no statement about gender constructs — I wouldn’t want to see my hypothetical class of 14-year-old girls being required to learning sewing and discouraged from vigorous athletics; I’d rather see them encouraged to gain real exercise by football, basketball, rock climbing, or any other “manly” sport.
To be clear, I’m no advocate for complete segregation. That extreme is even worse. Boys and girls, men and women, need to have interaction among the sexes too, in order to be well-rounded individuals. But I’m also a firm believer that boys and girls, men and women, have much to gain by occasional opportunities for wholesome segregated activity — and I don’t see these opportunities as being suspect due to the danger of misogyny the way you seem to consider them. I suspect that our different positions on the benefits and detriments of segregated socialization are the result of our different experiences, good and bad, with examples of such socialization.
I guess the bottom line for me is this: all in moderation! I think for an individual to become well-rounded he or she should have some time alone, some time in small groups, some time in a family settings, some time in crowds, some time with people his or her own age, some time with older people needing hospice care, some time with babies and infants, some time with people of the opposite sex, and some time with people of the same sex.
Re: your wife’s comment about her experience of girls showing scorn.
That is a very interesting perspective and I thank you for it. But I think it actually is a point in my favor. Sadly, the athletic girls were showing a true inability to act maturely toward other girls who had different non-athletic abilities and talents. True, their immature behavior was lessened or non-existent when boys were around. But the presence of boys wasn’t a cure of the immature behavior — it was only a mask for it, as the athletic girls would have still retained an immature way of socializing with girls who were different. It seems to me that one way to try to instill in girls a maturity so that they are able to socialize with other girls who are different from them, is to have additional opportunities for the girls to interact with each other without boys around – for example, in non-athletic settings – so that they can get to know each other and come to respect the other girls’ different non-athletic talents.
Re: you ask whether the fact that “girls are comfortable with girls” is “natural” or whether it is socially imposed.
I can’t answer this question definitively, because the answer is “in some ways and times, yes, and in some ways and times, no”. I think I would go back to my point about all in moderation. It’s natural and good for girls/boys to be more comfortable with girls/boys in some settings (eg, dormitories), but it can be unnatural and bad when this comfort or discomfort goes to the extreme in both directions. It’s all about the mean. Society should encourage norms that are wholesome and conducive to the well-rounded development of the boy/girl, and should discourage those that are not so conducive.
Re: altar servers.
I guess I think that there are other ways that girls can be made to feel special and appreciated, and fully included in the life of the parish and Church ministry, besides altar serving.
Here’s another thought I had (I don’t know how valid it is; it might not be worthwhile): I like the idea of a parish priest specifically encouraging boys to consider the priesthood. Suppose the priest permits both girls and boys to altar serve. Suppose that the priest also goes out and specifically enlists as altar servers the boys who he wants to talk about the priesthood with. And suppose the priest has a dinner and a vocation talk once a year with these boys. I don’t think the girl altar servers would be included in these talks, but I wonder whether they would feel slighted. Hopefully, it can be conveyed to the girls that there are other ways by which they can serve Church, and that they are encouraged and appreciated for the talents that they bring to the Church – but it still seems to be a little bit of an awkward situation they are placed in. Just a thought.
Thales,
I think you are inching towards a more pastorally sound proposal. Allow boys and girls as altar severs. Also allow Downs syndrome boys as servers and boys who a certain they are not called to the priesthood but who have other legitimate, spiritual interests in altar servers. But also a pastor should engage young men with a potential priestly vocation. Take them to dinner, invite them to spiritual conferences, talk to them, etc. But let’s not just say that we will take any non-disabled boy and decline any girl as an altar server.
Kurt,
I pretty much agree with your comment. Just to be clear, I’m not proposing any one solution to the altar server question and I’m certainly not advocating for the “servers must be priestly candidates” approach. As I’ve mentioned on Vox Nova before, my brother has Downs, so that is an issue that hits close to home. He has altar served for years, and it’s been good for him, for the parish, and for the other servers he serves with.
I don’t have any one answer to the altar server question; in fact, there is probably no one “right” answer because it all depends greatly from parish to parish. But I agree with you here, with Melody above, and with brian martin below: that a parish should speak to both boys and girls, should engage both groups, should encourage vocations in both groups, should try to get both groups interested and involved in participating in the life of the Church. How exactly that is done, I don’t have answers and probably depends on the particular parish dynamics. But I see some benefit in limited segregated activities because I think both girls and boys can benefit from some time in a single-sex group. That’s the reason why I entered into this debate in the first place, because I think David doesn’t see the same benefit that I do. But I’m no sexist: just as a parish engages a group of boys about possible priestly vocation, so does it need to engage the girls about possible vocations for them too, organizing events for them, etc. And of course, the segregation should be limited, with plenty of opportunities for non-segregation (eg, youth groups, etc.)
Thales,
I appreciate your response. I agree there can be merit for engaging boys as a group — merit in their spiritual development. I don’t think reserving altar service to them alone is an appropriate way of doing that, but the point still stands.
Further, and I hope you will agree, a sound program for promoting priestly vocations needs more than just talking to the boys separate from the girls. A pastor/confessor should be able to make some evaluation that a particular boy might be a priestly candidate other than the fact that he is male. And it is with those boys he might direct some particular time and direction — rather than to just boys in general. I think it is rather ham-fisted to just say “boys in the priestly vocations pool; girls out of the pool.”
Lastly, due sad events that the faithful have recently become aware of, too much attention (even with the best and most innocent of intentions) by a priest to a boy or group of boys only could be unwelcome and counterproductive. I know of priests who found their vocation with the primary help of married couples, layersons and religious sisters. I think with the sad legacy we now suffer from, it is all the more important that we not shuffle off vocation promotion to just the priests.
Thales,
I think are views are parallel, but we have a different sense of the role of sex discrimination in shaping gender groupings. I would only add that wile I am suspicious of such separations, I am not paranoid about it (if that makes nay sense). While a useful context, this has gotten us a bit astray from the main point I wanted to make: that I saw no good reasons for barring girls from being altar servers, and felt as though I had reason for suspecting misogyny.
With regards to your last suggestion about altar servers, I want to align myself with the comments by Kurt and Brian: your idea has a great deal of merit, but needs to be centered on a broader program for encouraging vocations.
You are correct in one point, that any discussion with just boys about a vocation to the priesthood will be somewhat uncomfortable for girls. This is a function of having a male only priesthood. One way to ameliorate this would be to have a broader discussion about vocations to the priesthood and religious life (of which being a diocesan priest is one option). This would allow all servers to be included, present more options, and allow a pedagogic discussion about the male-only priesthood in a broader setting.
Kurt,
Yes, good points.
David,
Fair enough. And yes, I agree, it’s important to have a comprehensive broad discussion with boys/girls about vocations and about serving the Church and about them getting involved in the parish. But I guess I come back to my belief that grouping everyone together is insufficient. Priesthood is a vocation reserved only for males, while female religious orders are reserved only for women, and in order to get boys specifically interested in the priesthood and girls specifically interested in female religious life, as a general rule in my experience, boys benefit from considering their potential vocation from a male perspective, and girls benefit from considering their potential vocation from a female perspective.
…female religious orders are reserved only for women, and in order to get boys specifically interested in the priesthood and girls specifically interested in female religious life, as a general rule in my experience, boys benefit from considering their potential vocation from a male perspective, and girls benefit from considering their potential vocation from a female perspective.
I’m not denying the merit in your conclusion that boys and girls considering a vocation in the church would benefit from hearing from someone of their own gender. But I think your post could be “cleaned up” in several ways.
1. The merit in this does not exclude that they would also benefit from hearing from married couples, laypersons and (for women) their pastors/confessors.
2. Those who are working to promote vocations needs to do more discernment that gathering the children of one gender and talking to them. A priest in his ministry of promoting vocations to the priesthood needs to make a discernment as to which particular boys are potential priestly candidates. Simply having separate boy/girl groups and talking to the boys doesn’t cut it.
3. The vocation to the religious life is a vocation to the religious life. It is not a male or female thing. You can make a meaningful distinction between the calling to a monastic life and the religious life in the active apostolate, but saying only women can be women religious is like saying only women can be women nurses. Factually true but says nothing.
Kurt,
1. Agreed, that’s very important. I never said anything to the contrary.
2. Agreed, that’s very important. I never said anything to the contrary.
3. Agreed. I realize that religious life for men is not limited to priesthood. There is monastic life, non-priestly consecrated life, and even life as a lay person in a religious community. I didn’t mean to ignore these. I was just speaking simply and in shorthand (and thus, I was inaccurate, as you point out), in order to make the point that there is virtue in speaking to males from a male perspective, and speaking to females from a female perspective, when it comes to encouraging religious vocations.
Remember, I only got into this conversation because I thought David was giving short shrift to the value of segregated activities and socialization for boys and girls. I see value in such segregation, to a limited extent, because I think it allows boys and girls (and men and women) to understand aspects of themselves as humans created male and female, and to develop aspects of their relationship with other people and with God and with His Church, in a way that is not as easily possible if they were always around the opposite sex.
If it is a matter of encouraging vocations…then I would suggest that the answer is opening up the concept of vocations a bit more. Here is what I mean. When we talk about people being called to vocations here is what is discussed: Priesthood, Religious life, deacons, married and single….
Married? Single? Vocations?…What about people called to lay ecclesial ministry? What about people being called to be healers, teachers etc. What would happen, if when talking about vocation, and discerning God’s Calling in people’s lives, the Church would encourage discernment of God’s call in all of our lives. It seems to me that if we talked more along the lines that each of us is called by God to do something, we open up the possibility of the priesthood by virtue of the fact that we are opening up a braoder discussion of calling.
Thus we could eliminate exclusionary, mysoginistic nonsense as a way of encouraging boys to the priesthood.
Brian…agreed. Vocations are more than just the priesthood. Disabled people have vocations too. I have seen a man with Downs Syndrome serve ably at the altar. I hope my son (who has another disability) may also serve some day.
That said, I also agree that not everyone is called to altar service. We’ve had kids up there who serve as little more than a distraction. One little guy was the son of one of our lay-chaplains. He was asked to sit-out a year.
Not everyone is called to every ministry. This is not necessarily due to gender (although it may be in some cases). Tone deaf people should not be in the choir…a person who constantly fidgets should not be on the altar if it is going to interfere with the celebration of Mass.
I think callings should be discussed more and people educated as to what may actually be a calling.
Absolutely. It may be my calling to minister to people as a therapist.
Not all ministry is in the confines of the church.
It seems to me that if we talk about looking at what God wants in our live..not just whether or not he wants us to be Priests…we are opening up the possibility that people may see their call to the priesthood…through something other than being an alter server.
Altar servers are basically a stand-in for an acolyte, in other words, when there’s no acolyte available, others can fill-in and perform their role. An acolyte is one of the minor orders (though they’re not called that any more), in other words, one of the stages you go through on your way to becoming a priest. So I think there are good grounds for thinking of altar-serving as being associated with the priesthood.
As a father of sons, I can easily believe that boys would be less attracted to altar-serving when girls are involved. As it is they might feel funny putting on garments that resemble dresses, especially if they also happen to sport lace. But at least, if only boys and men are wearing them, it’s clear that they are men’s garments. When girls start wearing them they start to seem like dresses again.
I also believe, from conversations with teenage boys, including some of my nephews, that a lot of boys are repelled from the idea of becoming a priest because it’s perceived that a lot, if not most, priests are gay. The priesthood is just not perceived as a manly occupation.
When you couple the notion that it’s un-manly to be a priest, with the image of an unmanly priest surrounded by altar girls and majority women readers and EMs, the altar starts to appear, in a boy’s imagination, as having a decidedly feminine cast to it.
Thus, I believe many, many boys are being turned off from the priesthood from a very young age. It may not be a pleasant thought, but I think this is a large part of what we’re dealing with.
“The priesthood is just not perceived as a manly occupation.”
Please see my above comments about socially constructed gender roles. While we might have to accept the reality of these social preconceptions, I don’t think we as a Church have to accept their validity or pander to them.
My point was that this may be a hindrance to vocations. You can argue that we shouldn’t pander to “socially constructed gender roles”, but if they are a reality, and if we want to solve the vocations problem in the real world, then maybe we have to take them into account. Which is more important, vocations or “not pandering to socially constructed gender roles”?
Careful: I did say that we should accept their reality. We need to work through them because this is not an either/or situation: we both need more vocations and we need to challenge social constructs that are inimical to the Gospel message.
Pacyderminator wrote:
“I know of some churches, including my own, that have both male and female altar servers, but have them in different groups, serving different masses and differentiated in dress (e.g., girls wear the alb instead of cassock and surplice).”
I was doing some more reading on altar servers, and it appears that this practice is contrary to the guidelines given by the USCCB:
http://nccbuscc.org/liturgy/current/servers.shtml
In particular, these guidelines say:
#2 No distinction should be made between the functions carried out in the sanctuary by men and boys and those carried out by women and girls.
#6 All servers should wear the same liturgical vesture.
Altar servers are basically a stand-in for an acolyte, in other words, when there’s no acolyte available, others can fill-in and perform their role. An acolyte is one of the minor orders (though they’re not called that any more), in other words, one of the stages you go through on your way to becoming a priest.
You are corrrect an altar server is not an acolyte. An acolyte is not a minor order, it is a lay ministry. Acolyte was, for the few centuries between Trent and Vatican II, a minor order that WAS one of the stages in preparation for the priesthood. Before that, it was an order in its own right and before minor orders, the church accepted lay ministries as their own charismatic callings to men and women.
In other words, the only thin thread here is that it is a substitute for a ministry that had been a stage to the priesthood for a previous period of time in history.
As for the theory that one should hang with the boys so you are not thought to be gay, I’ll leave for another time.
Kurt, I tend to agree with your points, but one correction: per the Motu
PriopuProprio of Paul VI, the name “minor order” was changed to “ministry” the number reduced to two: acolyte and lector. Only men can be ordained to these positions, and indeed, candidates for priesthood and the diaconate are given minor orders. (In my diocese, the class of deacons being ordained in May will be made acolytes in November.) But for the most part, in practice the sense of these as an ordained ministry is pretty much an archaism, with churches throughout the world letting lay men and women serve in these positions.David,
I have to disagree that the Motu Proprio of Paul VI, properly understood, simply changed the name. It was deliberately a change that went beyond nomenclature. It was a change of the essence of the ministry. Just as Paul VI also permitted both transitional and stable deacons, he also permitted transitional and stable lectors and acolytes.
Kurt,
I read it just yesterday and didn’t get that sense. If you care to, can you point to any specific passages that give you this reading?
I think it suggests that in almost every sentence. Perhaps we need to sit down with a bottle of wine and go through it line by line! if neither of us enlightens the other, I’m sure the wine will.
Deal! I will buy the first bottle.
Laypersons, in the form of altar boys, have served in the position of acolyte for centuries. My point was that “altar server” is not a ministry in its own right, but is a substitute for an acolyte when one is not available. It happens to be the case that acolytes are not available for most parish masses, nevertheless it is officially an ordained ministry related to the priesthood.
agellius,
I hate to get into the details of this when I have the opportunity to do so with David and a bottle of wine, but…
Yes, altar servers have served as acolytes since Trent. The first to be permitted to do this were women (in convents) and then it was extended to males in parish churches.
It is not a ministry to which one is ordained to but to which one is institued. Contrary to the past, acolytes are not clergy even in the canonical but non-sacramental sense.
From Paul VI:
it is in accordance with the reality itself and with the contemporary outlook that the above-mentioned ministries should no longer be called minor orders; their conferral will not be called ordination, but institution. Only those who have received the diaconate, however, will be clerics in the true sense and will be so regarded.
“As for the theory that one should hang with the boys so you are not thought to be gay, I’ll leave for another time.”
Nice strawman.
It looks like Bishop Olmstead is following the new changes in the “GIRM”. But, it also seems to be at his discretion. So, I’m not sure what good can come of his restricting the distribution of Communion under both species. None?
As a former altar girl I’m not sure whether restricting the altar servers to males would necessarily encourage misogynistic tendencies among the men. Wouldn’t these male altar servers have other interactions with females throughout the rest of the week? One compromise could be to have females serve as cross bearers and not as altar servers. This is how I started out before I became an altar server. I think the problem lies more with setting females up for a bummer let down since their is no way that the Church is ever going to allow there to be female priests. Maybe married priests but not female priests. I think the problem lies more with birth control than male altar servers. But in some cases the guys may be discouraged to altar serve if they see females serving on the altar. I think it all depends on the person and his upbringing.
I think the problem lies more with setting females up for a bummer let down since their is no way that the Church is ever going to allow there to be female priests.
Is your point that as young girls increase in holiness, understanding of the Mass and participation in the Christian life, it is simply natural and understandable they would have a desire to be a priest?
That is a possible consequence or benefit, Kurt, depending on how you view it. The fact that young girls altar serving would increase in holiness, understanding of the Mass, and participation in Christian life may also encourage them to become nuns or consecrated laity. I know I started discerning whether or not to become a nun while in high school.
The fact that young girls altar serving would increase in holiness, understanding of the Mass, and participation in Christian life may also encourage them to become nuns or consecrated laity.
Teresa, I fully agree with you here. And it would be a shame to lose this opportunity because of a misguided edict preventing this awesome possibility. God bless.
Correction: Meant to say I think the problem of decreased vocations to the priesthood lies more with the use of birth control than “female altar severs”.
Teresa, with regards to boys being discouraged by girls serving, see my previous comments.
What does birth control have to do with anything here?
Babies that aren’t conceived don’t become priests and nuns. ;)
I’m actually with Teresa here. Altar girls don’t strike me as a problem at all, but large families tend to favor vocations in a couple ways. First of all, more Catholics means more vocations. But secondly, in a family with several children, there is not so much pressure to be the one who provides grandkids or to take over the family business. It is also easier to consider a single vocation when one is surrounded by siblings and nieces and nephews because the extended family provides a bit of reprieve from the solitude of religious life (esp. for the diocesan priest, who is more likely both to live alone and to work near his family of origin than folks in religious orders).
Brett,
I think more than anything else, you are making the arguement for ordaining married men.
“I have never been persuaded that only allowing boys to be altar servers will result in an increase of vocations: no one has provided anything except anecdotal evidence (quickly contradicted by the experience of others) and explanations which depend on very dubious theories of gender.”
I agree that having female altar servers hasn’t necessarily caused a decrease in priestly vocations and was just offering another possibility for the decrease in priestly vocations. Over the years the family size has decreased and there is no doubt in my mind that birth control has been a factor in the decrease of both the size of families today and the decrease in vocations to the priesthood.
“Over the years the family size has decreased and there is no doubt in my mind that birth control has been a factor in the decrease of both the size of families today and the decrease in vocations to the priesthood.”
No surprise there since it is well known that Catholic families use birth control at rates nearly identical to non-Catholics.
I would be interested in hearing more about the decrease in family size and vocations, but I’m not going to let this become a thread about birth control. One question I would be interested in is how to promote vocations given the reality of smaller families.
I think better catechetical instruction would help. I also think it takes a concerted effort on the part of parents, priests, nuns, catechetics teachers, CYO leaders, et al. to encourage males to enter the priesthood and females to become nuns or for both men and women to choose other roles within the Church.
Maybe a series of homilies would be a good idea? Instead of relying on people attending an extra meeting outside of Church bring the information on various Church teachings straight to the laity.
Good point about homilies. My pastor preaches on it every year on Good Shepherd Sunday (4th Sunday of Easter, I think).
@Brett and Teresa…I think you’ve shone light on an elephant in the living room.
In our chapel parish, for the first 8 or so years we were there, we were the only family with more than three children. Most families had only two. And there was no mystery as to why the families were small.
Mass was more of a social event than a spiritual one. It was pretty weird at times. The lay-people were permitted to do nearly anything outside of the Consecration.
Interestingly, this situation as rectified somewhat. Liturgies are more faithful, and we seem to have lots of babies…and families with four or more children are no longer the butt of jokes.
I wish I could say we’ve had a priestly vocation show up, but that has not been the case at this point. No nuns or sisters either.
But we’ve had much less problem getting people, particularly men and boys to serve the altar. Go Figure.
“Babies that aren’t conceived don’t become priests and nuns. ;)”
Spot on, @brettsalkeld!!
I know I am going to get a lot of negative feedback to this, but here goes:
Maybe the rise of female altar servers is indeed a work of the Holy Spirit, and the intent is indeed to raise them to ministry in the Church — in the diaconate. The fact that history and Orthodoxy shows there can be women deacons should make us pause and wonder if some might actually be stopping a vocation in the Church because of their misunderstanding of gender.
Possibly @HenryKarlson. After looking it up I was surprised to see that Orthodoxy does indeed show that women can be deacons. Thanks for teaching me something new. God Bless.
David writes, “Careful: I did say that we should accept their reality. We need to work through them because this is not an either/or situation: we both need more vocations and we need to challenge social constructs that are inimical to the Gospel message.”
It seems you are now equating “socially constructed gender roles” with “social constructs that are inimical to the Gospel message”. If I accepted that equation then I would agree with you, but as of now I’m not convinced.
Kurt writes, “It is not a ministry to which one is ordained to but to which one is institued.”
I know it’s not an ordained ministry. I misspoke, sorry.