I have two words for you: Altar Girls. Word in the street is the Vatican is considering guidelines to crack down on liturgical abuses, and one of the items up for discussion is altar girls. As most of your know, Arlington Diocese doesn’t have altar girls due to an administrative ruling by the late Bishop Keating. Keating’s successor, Bishop Loverde, has not issued any directive related to the issue and many Arlington priests are not keen on the idea of altar girls.
We’ll have to wait and see what the guidelines are when they are finalized, but in the mean time, here’s the most meaningful quote from the article:
“‘This premature news is creating a journalistic sensation that is not helpful,’ [a] Vatican official said.”
13 comments
Comments are closed.
Since my conversion, I have mostly dwelled within the blissful Eden that is the Arlington diocese. It still surprises me to see girls on the altar when I go to other dioceses. It also shocks me to see the vehement feelings some people have when it comes to the subject — on the part of those who want altar girls, that is. They seem to want to “teach the Church a lesson” by imposing their opinion on our local church. (How come whenever the Vatican mandates something, they “impose” it, but whenever latitudinarian Catholics want to do something, they’re “reforming”?)
The most serious practical objection to altar girls that I’ve heard is that most priests cite their experience serving at Mass as a prod toward embracing their vocation. Given that Arlington doesn’t lack for vocations, and hasn’t for a long time, why mess with a winning formula? Judge a tree by its fruit, and when that tree bears good fruit, don’t change how you nurture it.
At last, prayers are being answered. Thank you, Jesus. As the mother of four young children (so far), one son and three daughters, I have worried about the day I have to explain to my girls why we (my husband and I) will not let them serve at the altar when they see that others girls not unlike they serving at their parishes.
Not too long ago, my oldest daughter, five, pointed across our church’s altar rail (yes, some parishes still kneel at rails to receive Our Lord)and said, “Girls don’t go back there, Mommy. Only boys — like Father.” I sighed a sigh of relief and thanked God. Now, please, may we see that the powers that be in Rome have the same spiritual acumen.
Hasn’t happened yet, M. — keep praying!
Perhaps it’s because I was born in 1980, and have never known (that I’ve noticed) a Mass served entirely by either sex, but I have to question why the inclusion of girls as servers is such an issue amongst the orthodox that I usually stand next to when debates on change sprout up amongst the St. Blog’s community.
The reference to vocations is an interesting one, as Eric mentions above. But yet, I still see a number of boys serving at Mass every Sunday. They’re getting the exposure. Maybe increased exposure like Eric suggests might bring more boys to consider a religious vocation, though, so I’ll concede that this is a valid point.
My major question is: why should I be against girl servers? Perhaps there is a significance theologically that should exclude the presence of girls, but I’ve never really read up on the subject, nor have I given it much thought since it has been a fact of the Mass existing a priori my entire life.
I can see why some traditionalists might not like it because it interferes with what they are used to, but I also don’t accept unjustified nostalgia as a reason for cutting girls out of serving.
Please, somebody tell me why I’m wrong! :-)
Josh,
There isn’t any theological reason why girls can’t serve (if there were, they wouldn’t be allowed to, after all).
But there are 3 reasons I can think of why people get excited over them:
1. The vocations thing already mentioned.
2. It encourages people to think of serving at the altar as something one is, as you put it, “cut out of”. As if everyone should be wondering over the sanctuary as a matter of natural right, and only be asked to refrain for some important theological reason.
When I was a little girl in the pre-altar girl days, I didn’t think of not being an altar girl as a denial of my rights. I thought that the sanctuary – the place that God comes down into – was a very special place that no one had a right to go into, and that the boys were very lucky to get the special dispensation of being altar boys. Lucky, not extra meritorious. Even though no one ever spelled it out for me, I intuitively picked up that no one could merit the awesome priviledge.
Insisting that everyone with the inclination deserves a chance to be an altar server cheapens the sense that what is going on on the altar (i.e. the Eucharist) is very special and precious, and not to be approached lightly. I think it also by extension cheapens the sense that we are very lucky (not meritorious) to have been given the gift of faith and the opportunity
to receive the Eucharist.
3. This last reason isn’t as exalted as the others, but probably explains where the bitterness people feel about this issue is coming from:
I was only born in 1976, and I’m pretty sure that as someone who was born in 1980 you should be able to remember the pre-altar girl days very clearly. Before altar girls were actually allowed, a lot of parishes (including I’m gathering yours) used them illicitly. And altar girls were naturally never the only illicit practice. You could use it as a litmus test when you first walked into a parish; if there were altar girls, you could be sure immediately that there would be plenty of other improper or distasteful practices going on the parish as well. Thus people have been condititioned, if you like, to see altar girls as the harbringers of all sorts of other awful things.
Plus, it rankles a bit, I suppose, that after people complained to the Vatican all those years about parishes using altar girls illictly, the Vatican ended up solving the problem by just declaring the practice licit, as if those who were protesting the practice were making a big silly fuss about nothing, and the disobedient pastors had been in the right all along. (As I said, this last reason wasn’t exalted, but that’s human nature I suppose.)
About my point #2, I should probably add that my parish when I was little didn’t have lectors or Eucharistic ministers either, the choir didn’t sing from the sanctuary, and there was a communion rail. So “no altar girls” wasn’t the only element contributing to the sense that the sanctuary was special. But it was an important contributing element nonetheless.
+J.M.J+
Someone on the HMS blog thinks that the actual prohibition may be against girls/women singing in a church choir, rather than altar girls. Could be; the secular news media often gets things wrong when it comes to Church documents.
In Jesu et Maria,
In October 1987, Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., wrote Admittance of Women to Service at the Altar as Acolytes and Lectors for the Synod on the Laity at the request of Francis Cardinal Arinze — yes, the Cardinal Arinze, may his tribe increase. A pertinent excerpt follows:
“The sanctuary, and in particular the altar, is the sacred place, the Eucharist is the sacred act, its celebration the sacred time, and the priest the sacred person in the most profound and mysterious center of the entire Christian religion. The acolyte participates in this most Holy of Holies–most holy of times, places, and persons–by being the immediate assistant at the
altar of the Priest acting ‘in persona Christi.’ This he does especially by helping to prepare the sacrificial gifts. In this role as a helper or assistant of the priest he becomes, as it were, the hands of the priest. For this reason, while it would not lead to the invalidity of the Sacrament for a woman to act as acolyte, it would be in serious disharmony with the very nature and character of the whole order of grace and redenption, the mediation of the priest and the symbolic character of men and women. In addition it would be a confusion of the role which is specifically that of the woman as representative of creation and the Church.”
Unfortunately, I do not possess the entire text, however, I’d be pleased to email additional excerpts to anyone who requests them.
Finally, as the father of a West Virginia family, who regularly visits Sacred Heart Church in Winchester, Virginia, I pray, “May God bless Bishop Loverde.”
Earl
Times Against Humanity
So you know Father Krempa at Sacred Heart? He’s a fantastic priest — presided at our wedding, and baptized our son Charlie. You’re lucky to hear his homilies, as he is the best homilist I have ever heard. A very holy man.
Anne,
Thanks for taking the time to explain that a little more clearly to me. I appreciate it!
It cannot be repeated enough that ‘altar boys’ as we know them were originally an indult to acommodate places where there were not enough clerics — i.e., tonsured men on their way to the priesthood — to serve. I was reminded of this recently while reading a splendid book from the 20’s on prelatial vesture. It says something like “Where boys are permitted to act in the place of clerics as servers…”
And the reason they were boys was to avoid the possibility of someone sexually active being present in the sanctuary.
David,
Now THAT helps me stand up a bit and say, “That’s why we should scale back on female servers.”
Thanks for passing that along.
Of course, the reason there aren’t enough tonsured clerics is that Paul VI reformed the minor orders, instituting the ministries of acolyte and lector. In doing so, he defined them as lay ministries (not clerical) and as being able to be conferred only on men.
I believe that the restriction of the ministries to men has been the reason that no one except men going on to the diaconate and priesthood are instituted in these ministries. I requested institution several years ago in Boston and was told, basically, “we don’t do that”. At the time my reason for the request was so that I could help with adoration in the parish, as only a cleric or acolyte is supposed to place the host in the monstrance (acolytes cannot give the blessing, however, only deacons or priests).
Both the Council of Trent and the Second Vatican Council urged that the minor orders be restored in order to enhance Catholic worship and to not open ourselves up to mockery with the orders (now ministries) as formalistic stepping stones to the priesthood. Maybe if a third council weighs in on it, no? Third time every time?