Regardless of what you think of the substance of the bishop's decision, I strongly commend your loyalty and support to him.
There has been a strange current of anti-clericalism among "traditional" Catholics in recent years, and it disturbs me. To be Catholic is to be united with ones bishop, not because we agree with him sufficiently, but because he is the bishop!
We believe in the sacramental reality of the other six sacraments, what about the sacramental reality of holy orders -- which (only) a bishop has in its fullness? A bishop -- whatever he is like -- stands in the shoes of the Apostles!
It's easy to be united with the bishop when he does everything we like; the test comes when he doesn't.
That's so true...all of it! Rebuking a prelate is a fine deed! St. Catherine of Sienna did so and not just to any old bishop but to the Pope himself! But there is a difference between disapproving and even scolding a bishop and what is sadly seen in many traditional communities today, as you say.
"It's easy to be united with the bishop when he does everything we like; the test comes when he doesn't."
Honestly, truer words were never spoken. Obedience on my terms is an oxymoron!
Question on the Altar Girls policy:
Will parishes have individual discretion on this policy, or is this being imposed on everyone, like it was here in Milwaukee?
It will be at the discretion of the individual pastor. So I daresay that some parishes will use altar girls and some will refrain.
To me those seem like to completley opposite moves, allowing the tridentine mass, and then allowing female altar servers?
To me those seem like to completley opposite moves, allowing the tridentine mass, and then allowing female altar servers?
Both are exactly the same move. The bishop is allowing more freedom within the bounds allowed by the Holy See.
I thought the bishop had to write a letter to the faithful to explain why this innovation was needed. Oh we would he? None of his brother bishops have.
I'm pretty sure he did and that it's on the Arlington Diocese' web-site. But for some reason my computer can't access their website.
As a member of the Arlington Diocese and the mother of an altar server, the introduction of girls as altar servers is in my opinion a very bad idea. More details here. It offers no enhancement of the liturgy and discourages boys from participating.
I have lived all over the United States and have never seen such active altar server programs as in the Arlington Diocese. Our parish has over 100 boys participating! This is an administrative decision, not a doctrinal decision. There is no canonical or liturgical reason to prevent girls from being altar servers. Therefore, I have no qualms about expressing my misgivings about the bishop's administrative judgment in this particular matter. He is still the bishop and I will humbly obey. However, when the number of boys serving at Mass decreases followed by a decrease in vocations, it will take great restraint not to say I told you so.
However, when the number of boys serving at Mass decreases followed by a decrease in vocations, it will take great restraint not to say I told you so.
No problem. I'll say it for you.
Of course that's what's going to happen. If he thinks there's no connection between the all-boy acolyte pool and eventual vocations to the priesthood, I've got a gold mine he might be interested in buying.
If some boys want to be altar servers just because there aren't any girls, well, those aren't boys that I'm hoping will become priests.
The priesthood is not a boys' club. It is a vocation from God.
Also, I think the terminology should be kept clear. Acolytes, who are specially instituted, are only male. They have special functions in the Mass. Altar servers are not acolytes.
Kathy,
Trying to think of a charitable way to respond to your implications. Young boys are more comfortable around other young boys. As I said, the parishes in our area have over 100 boys participating as altar servers. How many parishes with co-ed altar servers can say that?
Is that what is important? That parishes can talk about large numbers of altar servers?
If I adopted the Kathy System of rhetoric, I'd accuse you of hating men and trying to argue for the ordination of women. That would be unfair, just as your assessment of our motives is unfair. Not to mention childish.
I've brought up four sons - the youngest of whom writes this blog - and I think I understand boys reasonably well. When a very little boy becomes accustomed to seeing women all over the sanctuary during the Mass, he unconsciously forms the impression that, with the exception of the guy in the long green dress, the Mass is a girl thing. This is unappealing to boys and young men, and decreases a boy's willingness to consider seriously whether he may have a vocation to the priesthood. It's only reasonable not to put additional obstacles in his way. Whether anybody approves of it or not, the priesthood is all male and will always be all male, world without end, amen. The experience of centuries has shown that serving at Mass is a great fosterer of priestly vocations, and much is lost and nothing gained by bollixing it up.
If I adopted the Elinor system of rhetoric, I would call you childish. So let's just put an end to the name calling, which I have NOT done, okay?
I have five brothers, and I have studied theology with many, many good seminarians, most of whom are now priests whom I admire and respect and support with my prayers. And also some whose motives seemed, from the outside, to be somewhat questionable--as if they were going into the seminary to run away from contact with women. You never know, and in any case I pray for them too. I think I understand boys and men reasonably well also.
Part of discernment is the purification of motives. This happens over time, and some of the purification occurs within the priestly life, after ordination. But the motive of being a boy among boys, well, that is so far from being enough to sustain a priestly vocation that maybe it would in the long run be better for the priesthood if this were eliminated as a factor at this early, early stage.
In any case, the girls have permission from the Holy See and the local Ordinary, as well as the pastor in Arlington parishes. That's quite a lot of permission, isn't it?
"But the motive of being a boy among boys, well, that is so far from being enough to sustain a priestly vocation"
These are not the motives. The motives for a male-only altar server aren't because then they won't have to be in contact with any icky girls. There is still school, domestic life, and life in general.
The motives are that a boy, in the position of serving the altar, is more inspired to follow a priestly vocation if he gets the sense of the environment being something that boys and men do. When a girl comes in, like it or not, it severely cripples if not absolutely destroy that environment.
As I said, girls serving on the altar, for whatever reason, be it rational or totally irrational, is just unsettling to a boy. When a boy is unsettled in that environment, he is discouraged greatly from pursuing a priestly vocation. That is one negative consequence versus what positive consequences?
There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost from the mixing what should be a male environment that often leads to a priestly vocation with girls.
In addition, simply look at recent history. Today, vocations are on the rise. They are rising from what was quite a few big factors. Female altar servers is not the biggest of them (since this was only enacted in 1995), but it is one of them. Arlington was split into it's own diocese in the 70's and never allowed altar girls except in things like nursing homes and other places the article mentions. Arlington has never had a problem with vocations, and the idea that the fact that boys saw that this is something males in their right mind's actually do is didn't play a role, indeed, a BIG role in this is ludicrous.
The Diocese of Lincoln doesn't allow girls to serve the altar either, and while they trail Arlington in the number of vocations category, they've haven't been really strapped for priests and are much the better for it.
But if we want to keep it simple, let's just put it like this. Up until a day ago, Arlington did not allow altar girls. They suffered no harm because of it, yet the bishop decides to change it. So there must be something to gain in order to merit changing the successful status quo. These advantages, that is, real advantages and not "well the girls feel more included", are what and where?
By the way, the issue here isn't whether they do have permission, but if they should have permission.
At the risk of being pedantic - not that that is always out of place - I didn't say you were childish, I said your habit of assuming invidious motives to other people's arguments, and then griping about them, is childish. There's a difference, and it really isn't so difficult to see. Perhaps you're right, however, and this habit is more adolescent than childish. In any case, it's very silly and gets us nowhere.
I think I understand boys and men reasonably well also.
I thought so too, before I had any of my own, but I didn't, in spite of having three brothers. The point is that you don't understand boys, if you think that having girls on the altar doesn't give boys the impression that Mass is a girl thing, and disincline them to consider a vocation to the priesthood. It does, and the fact that this feeling is unfashionable doesn't matter a hill of beans.
Greg,
My question for you is: why is it "unsettling" for boy if a girl or woman is on the altar? (Not as a priest of course, but in a role that is allowed for a girl or woman.) Why does the fact that girls do something make it a less attractive activity for a boy? Does it have nothing to do with "ickiness?"
And why should someone be barred from a legitimate activity because of someone else's possibly "totally irrational" reaction?
Elinor, really, knock off the namecalling.
I do think that for some boys having girls on the altar gives them the impression of it being a "girl thing."
And this reaction is ridiculous, sexist, and should be discouraged by the adults in their life. It will cut them off from other positive activities for no good reason.
And if they persist in this attitude to adulthood, and if their bishop catches them in it, he should refuse to ordain them. Because becoming a priest for the motive of being in an exclusively male group is not a good, religious, priestly motive.
"My question for you is: why is it "unsettling" for boy if a girl or woman is on the altar?"
For exactly the same reason my mere and I have been saying: it gives boys the feeling this is some girly activity. Plain and simple. You may be thinking "you keep saying that". Yeah, well, that's because it's true. You might be wondering, "why does it give boys that impression?" Because that's what boys are like. It's in their nature, and you can't change that nature.
The fact that this is allowed doesn't have crap to do with it. Boys are technically allowed to apply make-up. That doesn't mean it will be pretty damn wierd and really out of place if they do!
There are just things that only boys do and things only girls do, and then things that both do. Boys and girls go to the playground. But boys play with trucks. Imagine all of the sudden, a girl or two decide they want to come over and play with the trucks in the dirt, too. The boys come to think that maybe playing with trucks isn't really something boys do. The girls are strictly speaking allowed to play with trucks and it is a legitimate activity, but it is out of place by the simple quirks of nature. The same goes for dolls at tea parties. Boys are allowed to do it and it's legitimate and all, but that does not change the fact that it is highly irregular and very irksome to girls when a troop of girls ask to join them for a tea party and to play dress up with the dolls.
There are things it's good, great, fine for boys and girls to engage in together! Then there are also things that it is very healthy for children to engage in with members of their own sex.
Talking about ones feelings is a girl thing. Talking about cars is a guy thing. Going to boy-band concerts is a girl thing. Serving the altar is a boy thing.
And serving the altar is absolutely one of those things that should be used as something children of exclusively the same sex do especially when you consider that it leads directly to the priesthood! Which, though it shouldn't be a motive for joining, is an all-male thing. Not all altar boys go on to be priests, of course, but practically all priests were once altar boys, many of them for quite a long time.
Now, in conclusion, I'll point something out to you. You totally failed to answer my question. Instead of typing it up again, I'll just copy and paste:
But if we want to keep it simple, let's just put it like this. Up until a day ago, Arlington did not allow altar girls. They suffered no harm because of it, yet the bishop decides to change it. So there must be something to gain in order to merit changing the succesful status quo. These advantages, that is, real advantages and not "well the girls feel more included", are what and where?
I should think you must find it rather a waste of time to talk to people: you already know what their motives are, and what they're really thinking, and you know they're only pretending not to call you names. Why bother listening? Let's see if you can take this in: if I called you a whiny pinhead I'd be calling names; if I point out that your style of argument - assuming vicious motives and then arguing against them, rather than against the point - is one much in vogue among teenagers, I'm criticizing your argument. Do you understand? Names = mere abuse. Criticism = identifying and objecting to a specific idea or process of thought. If you think you can scare me away from exposing your flawed reasoning by pretending to think that I'm calling names, you're wonderfully mistaken. There, now we can get back to the point.
To summarize what you seem to be saying:
1. Boys should not feel that they want altar service to be a boys-only activity.
2. If they do feel this way, it's because they don't want girls around.
3. If they go on feeling this way, and the bishop learns of it, he won't ordain them.
I don't often have a correspondent who argues all my points so forcefully. The fact is that dioceses which have this idea in place in their seminary system - that boys and men shouldn't feel the way boys and men do feel, because it's sexist - have few vocations, and those few are of the I-feel-your-pain type of drippy men who are easily bullied. Why in the world would Greg, or any other young man, want to be ordained to serve in such a diocese, under a chancery full of snippy feminists? The point about Arlington is that its priests tend to be men, not poor emasculated creatures, intimidated by accusations that everything men want they want because it gives them a chance to put women down. A boy is no more a sexist because he wants to be a part of the great and ancient masculine tradition of the altar than a woman is sexist because she doesn't want a man sitting in on her conversations with her girlfriends. Men and women are different: claiming that it's sexist to exemplify those differences is unoriginal at best, and dishonest at worst.
I'm just gonna throw this out there but the fact is that acolytes are actual altar servers. Or should I say it the other way round, altar servers are acolytes. An acolyte was a minor order before 1969, and traditionally it was the role of acolytes to serve mass. However when the Church realized that it was unfeasable to have an acolyte at every mass it allowed lay men/boys to fill their role. So in the liturgical, practical, and historical sense, it isn't rational to have girls serving mass.
Greg, I'm beginning to think that the advantage is that young men who think like you, who think in the strange and very angry way your mother thinks and has raised you to think, will NOT serve Mass because you find it a girly activity, will NOT go to seminary because you didn't serve Mass, and will NOT be ordained.
We don't need a hundred priests from each parish. We need one or two--and those one or two should be able to relate to other people without being mean.
And if fewer mean people are ordained, THAT'S THE ADVANTAGE.
Peter:
In the absence of an instituted acolyte, lay ministers may be deputed to serve at the altar and assist the priest and the deacon; they may carry the cross, the candles, the thurible, the bread, the wine, and the water, and they may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers.
(General Instruction of the Roman Missal, paragraph 100)
Look, I realize this is a painful subject, and I've certainly said enough, especially considered I'm not personally involved. Adieu.
I sort of hesitate to get into this because I don't live in the Arlington Diocese so I don't have a dog in this fight, but.....if guys won't want to serve on the altar because it's a girly thing and it should be a guy thing, would girls think that mass is a guy thing and think why should I go? Not that that's a worthy motivation, I'm just saying. And if one doesn't advocate altar girls, what about women EM's or lectors?
Aren't there some dioceses which have altar girls and still have lots of vocations? Like Peoria? Rapid City, SD?
OK, maybe boys might not want to serve because they think of it as a girly thing, but when they get older and more discerning and start thinking about what they want to do with their life, won't they have outgrown such a childish attitude?? I mean, if a guy doesn't become a priest because as a boy he didn't want to be an altar server because he might have to serve with girls, have we really lost much of a vocation?
Actually, I don't see why we even need altar servers. They don't seem to have much to do. Our parish has about 50-50 composition of the sexes but the Saturday Vigil mass has no kids who wish to serve (with the exception of one 15 year old boy) so adult men serve. I suppose if a woman wanted to serve, she could, but none have volunteered. Lots of women EM's though. I used to be a lector myself. (despite my gender nonspecific moniker, I am a woman).
Has anyone noticed that ushers are almost universally male? What's up with that????
It's nice that Bsp. Loverde is allowing the Trid. Mass. We in the Diocese of Richmond have had two Trid mass parishes, one going back about 18 years. And we are supposed to be the "bad" diocese as compared to Arlington (though Bsp DiLorenzo has improved things markedly). Well, better late than never I say.
Somewhere on one of the comments on this subject, someone said Front Royal is "practically in West Virginia". That is not really so, but if it were, is that a bad thing??? Is something WRONG with West Virginia? OK, so it's pretty far west by Northern Virginia standards I suppose, but it does have Christendom College and Human Life International. By golly, that ought to count for something. Those of us who live west of the Blue Ridge are not all trailer park dwelling rednecks with missing teeth!!!! Some of us even wear shoes and know how to read. Imagine that!!!!!
I was born in Front Royal but never have attended the parish there having been an Episcopalian until I was 37 years old and having moved away from FR when I was 8. I live about an hour away now and retain a fondness for the place, now that the smelly Viscose plant has closed and it's become sort of a little Vatican in the mountains.
Part one.
"who think in the strange and very angry way your mother thinks and has raised you to think"
There we see it again. With liberals and some conservatives (which I think you must be judging by your blogroll), if someone disagrees with them, they're sexist, or maybe homophobic, but certainly angry and very unhappy people. As it happens, I'm a very happy guy. I take after my mom in that manner. Regardless of that fact, I'll thank you not to make assumptions about how I am being brought up by my mom.
You further show your ignorance by saying that I'm the sort who doesn't serve Mass because of qualms I have with a policy and would rather sit around moaning about how bad the people who are serving do it. If you actually knew diddly-squat about me you would know that I serve Mass every morning. Sound pious and boastful to say that? Hey, you're the one who brought up the assertion here.
I am discerning a priestly vocation, and should circumstances remain as they are, I'll join the seminary. Again, you show your ignorance.
If current circumstances persevere and I complete seminary, I may be ordained God-willing. Any more ad hominem assumptions for me?
"We don't need a hundred priests from each parish."
Uh..hu. And who is saying that we do?
"We need one or two--and those one or two should be able to relate to other people without being mean."
First off, we're not getting one or two from each parish, or even one or two per every five parishes. Lastly, "mean" is a word meaning "someone who tells me something I don't want to hear". So unless I have actively just called you a name (rest assured I spoke of your ignorance in pity and not ins spite), I find myself wondering if being judged "mean" is a pro or a con.
This isn't a painful subject, and since it's not a matter of Church doctrine, it is therefore not imperative on the consciences of the faithful. In other words, we can not agree with any viewpoint and still be Catholics in good standing.
In conclusion, you once again failed to answer my question.
Now Marty, greetings!
"if guys won't want to serve on the altar because it's a girly thing and it should be a guy thing, would girls think that mass is a guy thing and think why should I go?"
There's one big difference. The congregation is and always has been made up of males and females so if a child, be they boy or girl, stops wanting to go, it's most likely going to be out of "church is boring" and not "I'm wearing a ridiculous get-up and kneeling next to a girl...what the hell have the done to me?"
Part two.
"And if one doesn't advocate altar girls, what about women EM's or lectors?"
As I said in the post above (post, mind you, not the comment above), I don't advocate women EM's except when there is absolutely no avoiding it. As for lectors, I really don't see a problem with that because I don't see how a boy would be put off by that. No boy is going to encompass every soul who steps foot on the altar into the confraternity of altar service. When you think about it, the lectors, man or woman, are frequently up there for not very long at all. But the time they're up on the altar reading is not a huge factor. It is the vain and maybe shallow things like who are the one's dressed up, what do they do, do they behave like silly asses, etc. that enter into a boys senses. Shallow, maybe, and vain, but still what grabs a boys attention and gets him interested more than who is on the altar, how long, and why. When you introduce women lectors, you're really not doing anything to discourage boys of serving the altar and then the priesthood, but you are when you introduce girls all of the sudden into the cassock and surplice (or alb, as it is in many places today). It isn't only the altar server role that grabs a boy's interest, but it really is a huge part. Other parts that need to be carried out well or will help scare off the next generation of priests is celebrating the Mass with dignity as opposed to if it were a zoo. Words I live by are "it starts with the little things." It starts with the little things, even the most minute detail that we'd never think to consider, and that may turn out to be a huge encourager or huge discourager. Don't get me wrong, celebrating the Mass is, far from being a minute detail, is a HUGE playing factor, but I thought I would bring up the fact.
"Aren't there some dioceses which have altar girls and still have lots of vocations?"
There are, et Deo Gratias! Sed erant...oh sorry. As I was saying, but they are growing in vocations not because girls serving the altar helped in any way, shape, or form, but because they are growing despite the damage done.
Part Three
"but when they get older and more discerning and start thinking about what they want to do with their life, won't they have outgrown such a childish attitude??"
Good point! Wouldn't they? You'd think so, but by the time guys drop that way of thinking the damage has already been done in the religious context. They've already been put off and their reconsideration of religion as a vocation will have to fall to prayers. People will always fall away, but that possibility needn't be exaserbated by futile and value-less things. They've already had it properly ingrained that this is some pretty dumb thing that just didn't appeal to them, be that because of seeming effeminate in their childhood or not. By this time, his entire opinion of religion, let alone serving, has gone down the drain and will, as I said, have to be revived by prayers. (1 Tim 2:1)
"We in the Diocese of Richmond have had two Trid mass parishes, one going back about 18 years."
I know. I live in the Diocese of Richmond and attend one of those Tridentine Parishes every morning and serve them. And by the way, the servers, I believe, are necessary at the Novus Ordo too, but at the Tridentine Mass, the servers do a lot.
"And we are supposed to be the "bad" diocese as compared to Arlington"
Err, well, we are. But I'm not going to become on of these bitch-fest types, so I'll leave it at that!(the above is discussion, not bitching in case anyone was thinking otherwise)
"though Bsp DiLorenzo has improved things markedly"
He has, and he will. But still, you know, he's been in office for getting on for two years now...time to roll up a sleeve or two, don't you think. And when he does, I'll back him up to the hilt (yes, on, and off the blog).
"Somewhere on one of the comments on this subject, someone said Front Royal is "practically in West Virginia". That is not really so, but if it were, is that a bad thing???"
Haha! That was my mom, and no, she wasn't saying it was a bad thing. Rather, she was talking about Bishop Loverde's has established a Tridentine Mass at a parish that's pretty out there for a lot of people.
O goodie! I thought that I would back down to spare your feelings. I mistakenly thought that you were in the diocese of Arlington and were feeling personally injured by your bishop, and that's why you're overreacting. So I thought I'd back down while you and your mom learn to deal with your pain.
But now I see that you're in Richmond. So I can say this: just because I haven't given you an answer that you can fit into your narrow view of the universe does not mean that I haven't answered your question. It just means that you have a lot of growing up to do.
"Boys play with trucks." Just how old are the altar servers in Richmond?
Part one.
See, there you go again. Just making assumptions hither and yon. There's no pain about this. Yes, believe it or not, you can disapprove about something it still not feel pain over it.
Again, you use a bunch of phrases that whine about how I don't agree with you.
I'm Overreacting.
Meaning I don't agree with this move and don't cringe in the face of someone who does.
I have a "narrow view of the universe".
That can apply to any subject you want it to, but always means I don't agree with you, therefore I'm narrow, sexist, homophobic, unhappy, and just BAD BAD BAD all around.
You say I "have a lot of growing up to do".
Once again, this is because I just don't agree with you, and since I haven't backed down and said "whatever", I'm narrow and have a lot of growing up to do. That makes a lot of sense, poopyhead. (yes, I am being sarcastic)
Now another point you make. I'm somehow not allowed to disapprove of this move, or at least not to this extent (this extent being not leaving with a "whatever") because I don't live in the diocese. Just once more, you show your glaring ignorance of practically anything about me.
I lived in the Diocese of Arlington till I was about 9. I still love the place, and very much consider it home. I told you earlier I'm discerning a priestly vocation (I had occasion to tell because, yes, you made another assumption to avoid answering a question). Should circumstances remain, I'll look to serve in the Diocese of Arlington. As such, I'm very interested in seeing its greatness preserved. Will this move destroy it? Some say absolutely yes and some absolutely not. Time will be the ultimate judge, but you'd rather not see the windows of a house you're about to move in to shot out a couple of days before you do move in. Just so, I'm concerned for Arlington, both because of, but not exclusive to, the fact that I will want to serve there. No, my position in life right now doesn't allow me to send money to the Bishop's Lenten appeal, or to give time to teaching CCD, or to give anything like that. Instead, I'm looking to give my life. I think that gives me some standing in which to voice my opinion.
Now, I don't know why I just told you that since I really don't need to live in any diocese, have lived, for any amount of time or no amount of time, or even to know where it is in order to be able to disapprove in good prudence. But what the heck, I'll throw you a bone and provide a reason anyway.
Part two.
The fact that I live in the Diocese of Richmond right now doesn't change a thing with regards to anything, but especially not to the fact that you have failed to, in any way, answer my question. I asked you that since the male-only altar server role was very successful for the Diocese, where and what are the great advantages to changing it? You decide to scapegoat the fact that I don't agree with you, the fact that I don't live in the Diocese right now, and then leave the rest to futile assumptions instead of take on the question. Again I ask you, where and what are the advantages to changing this? The facts show that altar girls have never been conducive to, really, anything. What's different about Arlington that all of the sudden makes the advantages flood in and make an (love ya', Bishop Loverde, but) unnecessary change, well, necessary or helpful on any grounds?
Your question. Basically, all the altar boys that there are are pretty young, just at the age where the solemnity and dignity of the role of the altar server makes it's biggest impression. It's no surprise that I have not seen a single boy over about 10 serving in forever (before you say it, I do serve, just at a different parish and every day).
Your question alerted me to a fact. I was just about to answer the latter, the average age of girl altar servers down here, when it occurred to me: that demographic is pretty young too! Is this a sign that girls, too, are coming to think that this is childish? I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised. In either case, the age of altar girls is pretty young.
I'm in CCD one Sunday and the lady in charge of recruiting and scheduling altar servers comes into the room and with a pen and paper and asks if anyone wants to put their names down. Silence. Eventually one person, I can't remember if it was a male or female, puts their name down. One person, out of a class of approximately 16, all but one of them being (as of right now) regular church-goers. This is working like a dream, no?
Yes, I'm sorry I assumed that you are able to feel pain. After all only girls talk about feelings, right?
Maybe you just don't know what you're talking about. Because you haven't ever been to my mom's parish. It's a big suburban parish with boy and girl altar servers. They range from fourth grade to seniors in high school, at least half boys. Some boys serve on their vacations home from college. There's a long waiting list.
By the by, if I want to call you names
I'll do it. But I haven't. Except to say that you're immature and have a narrow view of the world. And nothing in parts one and two has convinced me otherwise.
Especially the TOTAL lack of regard you show for the girls who might want to be altar servers. As is legitimate for them. This is a role that you (apparently, I assume,) find meaningful. Yet you would deny it to others without a single consideration for them. That is a childish game of "I want to play with my own toys and no icky girls can touch them," and no white-washing with these tenuous arguments about ordination to the priesthood can change that.
By the way, 10 year old boys don't spend a whole lot of time pushing trucks around on the floor. (There I go, ASSUMING that you don't mean Dodge pickups.)
Why don't we play a little game for boys and girls? You ask me questions, in the middle of an angry diatribe. Then you won't like my answers, so you'll say I haven't given you any answers. And so on.
Part one.
"After all only girls talk about feelings, right?"
That has nothing to do with it. You see that I don't agree and say that I'm feeling pain over this. It's a knee-jerk response. Again I say, you can disapprove about something it still not feel pain over it. And then you turn the tables and say I'm the one with a narrow view.
"And nothing in parts one and two has convinced me otherwise."
Exactly who's being narrow-minded now?
"They range from fourth grade to seniors in high school, at least half boys. Some boys serve on their vacations home from college. There's a long waiting list."
Wow! That's surprising, and I appear to be alone here in posessing the ability to admit when someone has pointed something relevant out to me. All I know is that I have been around a whole bunch parishes around here, and they're almost all strapped for alter servers. And I live in the biggest part of the state. I served at one parish for quite a while and served practically every Sunday because we just didn't have enough servers. The only parish around here that isn't strapped for servers is only that way because it's the second biggest parish in the state.
"Except to say that you're immature and have a narrow view of the world."
First of all, I never accused you of calling names, but rather making unfounded assumptions as a replacement for answering questions.
"Especially the TOTAL lack of regard you show for the girls who might want to be altar servers."
You know what, big whoop. We don't get everything we want. Like I said, I can get a silly idea into my head that I want to serve as a nun, and even I went into the most liberal order out there, I still wouldn't be able to join. That must be showing total disregard for my feelings, right? Because, I mean, I didn't get what I wanted because I'm a guy and you have to be a girl, right? No, you make the false assumption that because I believe something to be reserved for one gender, it's because I have a total disregard for the other sex, I have something against them, etc etc. Give me a break. I'm going to get a job soon and would really appreciate it if they would give me twice the minimum wage. But it won't happen. Boo-hoo, poor me! Such disregard! It's discrimination! See how ridiculous an argument that is?
"Except to say that you're immature and have a narrow view of the world."
Again with the "narrow view". Translation: you don't agree with me and haven't changed your opinion because I disagree with you. Reminds me of the book Good-bye, Good Men (yeah, a couple of claims were quite possibly wrong but all but a couple went eerily un-denied) where a seminarian wouldn't change his orthodoxy simply because his professors didn't like it, and what's more he wouldn't approve or participate in abominable acts with his fellow students and teachers. As a result, he would be told that he's rigid, narrow, closed-minded, has anger issues and is shuttled off to a sociologist who tells him he's unfit for practically anything. I don‘t claim to be being martyred like this, but you get the idea.
Part two.
"Yet you would deny it to others without a single consideration for them."
Do you know that? Do you know that if I were one of those pastors, and I were approached by a girl who would like to be a server, I would unequivocally say "no, go to hell and do severe penance for asking"? No, you don't know. What you did was, you guessed it, assumed that I would based on the fact that I don't agree that girls should be altar servers. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't do that. I would tell the girl that I appreciate the offer but that it would be better to reserve that particular service should be reserved for boys, but that there were numerous other things she would be most welcome and helpful to serve at. But my telling you that doesn't change anything in your mind (is this narrowness at work?!) because you're not interested in knowing how I would truly act and behave, but just that I disagree with you. Therefore, I have no consideration for the girl(s), total disregard, etc etc. Grow up.
"is a childish game of "I want to play with my own toys and no icky girls can touch them,""
The metaphor of the playing with toys was meant to show you that that is just the human nature of young boys. It shows how they think, but not the reason why the altar server should be male-only.
"and no white-washing with these tenuous arguments about ordination to the priesthood can change that."
Honestly, I used to use that argument a lot when I was younger and was presented with an argument I just didn't have an counter for. Instead of showing me why my position on why the altar server's role is especially conducive to fostering priestly vocations and thus is just better to keep to males (to put it very briefly) so you just tell me that I'm wrong and ask me to trust that.
"By the way, 10 year old boys don't spend a whole lot of time pushing trucks around on the floor."
Oh give me a break! You know what I mean but, again, don't have a reply so present counter arguments like "now to be precise, there weren't 1000 people but more like 1001. So there."
"You ask me questions, in the middle of an angry diatribe."
Like the "pain" stuff, I don't agree so I'm angry. But you know I'm angry because you know me. As a friend of mine says, if you can read my mind why do you read my blog?
"Then you won't like my answers, so you'll say I haven't given you any answers. And so on."
You don't answer my questions though, and up till now you haven't given me any answers. You tell me I'm experiencing emotional pain, that I'm angry, narrow, don't know what I'm talking about, immature, disregard girl's feelings, point out the most arbitrary fact, and generally picking for scraps.
For the fourth time, you fail to answer my question. I'll stop asking because, after fours presentings of the question, I can keep thinking that you’ve just inadvertently missed the question in the midst of ad hominem arguments and blatant unfounded assumptions.
What's possibly to be most wondered at in this whole thing is the fact that you're reacting the way you are despite being, by every indication your profile gives, a fine person, a fine Catholic, and have fine taste, too! You also speak of the richness of the Church's heritage. You aren't aware that the altar server has been part of the Church's heritage for eons and has been male-only for just as long, and that it was apparently dear enough to the Church to be condemned (see here). But we should just disregard this tradition and piece of our heritage just like that...what?
Now I can keep doing this as long as you can, but please, I beg you Ms. Kathy, answer my question that I asked in this comment or put an end to this folly.
God bless you, Greg. You're obviously an earnest and good kid. Smart, too, although possibly not quite as smart as you think. Now if we could just get you to realize that you're too angry and too inconsiderate to be a good priest, maybe there's a chance you'll grow out of it.
But maybe you'll go into a formation program, throw your anger around at your formators and the people you're sent to serve, and blame everyone but yourself for all the problems you get into.
(Because it's really unconvincing to me when you say that you would be oh so nice to girls who want to be altar servers, and then turn around and say harshly to me, "Grow up." The kindness you say is in you, is not. That's the kindness you will WISH you have, but don't. And that will be very frustrating for an earnest young priest.)
Purification is a process. I wish you grace and peace as you continue to discern your vocation.
"Smart, too, although possibly not quite as smart as you think."
Becuase I disagree with you.
"Now if we could just get you to realize that you're too angry and too inconsiderate to be a good priest, maybe there's a chance you'll grow out of it."
I disagree with you, so I'm angry. We've been through this before. You don't know much, that is, anything about my person, character, or general disposition but say that I'm angry because I resent baseless and unfounded assumptions about my charachter.
"But maybe you'll go into a formation program, throw your anger around at your formators"
First of all, there's no such word as "formators". Not simply a spelling errors like I make a lot of, but a word that does not exist. Possibly not quite as smart as you think? (I say that tongue in cheek).
A formation program? That's what the seminary professors said in the seventies, eighties, and in the nineties as well at a lot of places.
Now as a matter of fact, I am in a formation program - CCD. I'm in my fourth term and all my teachers so far (there have been five, since one set was a married couple) say that I'm not afraid to stand up and say "no, that's wrong" and that I'm all sorts of good stuff. I stand there blushing while they say I'm smart, I'm funny, I'm polite, I'm a great guy, I'd be a good priest, and honestly, it gets a bit embarassing sometimes (always appreciated, but embarassing too, you know?). I don't say any of that to be self-righteous, proud, boastful, arrogant, or anything like that, but rather in my defense. More importantly, I've never been accused of being angry, inconsiderate, immature, unhappy, or any of the other blatantly ignorant decrees you passed on my character. These folks know me a whole lot better than you do, and were with me in times that would make one annoyed if anything would.
"Because it's really unconvincing to me when you say that you would be oh so nice to girls who want to be altar servers, and then turn around and say harshly to me, "Grow up.""
"The kindness you say is in you, is not."
"That's the kindness you will WISH you have, but don't."
As I predicted, you know much better what I would do than I because, after all, we've had some correspondence in the comment box of my blog, right? How narrow of you. Again, if you can read my mind, why do you read my blog? (I adore the quote)
"Purification is a process."
Actually, agreeing with you (which, let's be honest, is what we're talking about here) is not hard at all! You're orthodox and believe in the necessity of doctrinal assent (see here and here)! We should have dinner! It's just this one point we don't agree on comes up and lights fireworks inside of you. You need to resolve your anger issues. (I say that tongue in cheek).
I return that good-will. God Bless! But since you've failed to answer my question for the fifth time, you've forfeited further discussion.
Wow! I am surprised at myself that I just sat here and read most of your discussion, but I was interested to see how both of you concluded your points--there are things to be learned from both of your attitudes. A good word to Greg: keep up the good work. I have been impressed by the kindness and politeness you have shown throughout this 'conversation.' Yes, much kindness. As I learned from the deep love and attention of my mother to me while growing up: true love is shown when you are tough when you need to be tough as well as when you are soft when you need to be soft. The kindest thing you can do for a person is to help them get to heaven--even if it means telling them things that are hard to hear, and making the roads away from heaven much rougher to travel. I hope you continue in your kindness to souls in your pastoral duties as a priest! May God bless and support you in your pursuit and discernment.
man with black hat: "I will go to the altar of God..."
Hi David! I actually came across that post. A very good read.
california loan mortgage stated california loan mortgage stated california loan mortgage stated. gambling gambling law online gambling gambling law online gambling gambling law online.
Commenting by HaloScan
