On WaPo we find this tendentious poll.
I’m not suggesting how you should vote… but…
Here are the results so far.
UPDATE 22 Nov 1324 GMT:
UPDATE 22 Nov 1552 GMT:
UPDATE 22 Nov 2134 GMT:
UPDATE 23 Nov 2206 GMT:
UPDATE 30 Nov 0038 GMT:
Something very curious has occurred with that poll. Very curious indeed.
Did they not like the results they originally obtained?
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
on Daily Rome Shot 1176: That’s concelebration, my friends.: “White to mate in 2. [NB: I’ll hold comments with solutions ’till the next day so there won’t be “spoilers”…”
on Daily Rome Shot 1175: Where I was: “No one I know was waiting with bated breath for news from the Synod. For the most part it was…”
on 16 November – St. Gertrude and the Purgatory Prayer: “Thank you for this. Hypothetically – and only hypothetically – would Paul VI’s 1967 changes to indulgenced acts apply if…”
on 16 November – St. Gertrude and the Purgatory Prayer: “Also, the “days” promised in the old indulgence decrees weren’t “days in purgatory” but rather “penitential day,” refering to the…” on I had a funny thought about a possible US Ambassador to the Holy See – UPDATED: “A state can refuse an incoming ambassador, but it is highly unusual and doesn’t do relations between states any good.…” on USA Day 2 – Scratching that itch: “Marching may not usually be sailors’ strongest suit, but never in my life have I seen it done so poorly.…”
on Daily Rome Shot 1175: Where I was: “Delusional or just plain lying. This scenario is more likely dozens of people will remember that it happened and ask…” on Daily Rome Shot 1175: Where I was: ““one of the most historic moments in their lives, for it has redirected the focus of where the church is…” on Daily Rome Shot 1175: Where I was: “Arjun Erigaisi crushes Magnus Carlsen in 20 moves with the black pieces — the World no. 1’s 1st loss in…”
on I had a funny thought about a possible US Ambassador to the Holy See – UPDATED: “It makes sense that bishops would represent the Holy See as ambassadors, as the Holy See exists to protect and…”
on I had a funny thought about a possible US Ambassador to the Holy See – UPDATED: “can a foreign sovereign refuse to acknowledge/accept another nation’s choice of Ambassador, or at least do so without breaking off…”
on I had a funny thought about a possible US Ambassador to the Holy See – UPDATED: “I am afraid some chuckle head at the Vatican would figure out a way to laicize Bishop Strickland before he…”
Loading ...
A Daily Prayer for Priests
Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.
WDTPRS
020 8133 4535
651-447-6265
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Loading ... Loading ...
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Use my code for a discount
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
Voted no last night.
I think only Americans can vote. I can’t see any polling option.
Follow the blue link above. I am not in the US and I have just voted.
I kinda like “It’s complicated.” I don’t think it’s ideal and have no problem with priests/bishops restricting serving at the altar to males, but I’m not 100% opposed on principle to females serving except in the case of the TLM. So, I voted accordingly.
Steve Woods had a list on how to increase vocations to the priesthood.
Having all male servers was on the list.
Just voted “no”. “No” is now up to 42%.
I love the “it’s complicated” option – tragic testimony of our age.
Without being unkind to anyone who may have replied in good faith above, it is ONLY complicated because of four decades of confusion and obscurantism on the part of our Bishops.
It is the role of our shepherds to lead us into light, where the Faith remains a beloved Mystery (and you can only truly love what you know) but where things like this are not complicated.
What appalls me more than the gender issue is the number of priests who say Mass without any servers at all. Especially when they have a large grade school attached to their parish.
When I was a lad, at least half the boys in each class willingly became altar boys. (The girls became “Martha Sisters” and did a lot of the sacristan work, keeping the altar and sacristy neat and clean).
I would imagine that I became an altar boy because my Dad was one and talked approvingly about his experience. He once served in a Eucharistic Congress in the 20s in Duluth, with Cardinals and Archbishops and Bishops and thousands in the congregation.
I didn’t vote but would have voted “it’s complicated” because at my parish, the daily Masses are often served by a 75-year-old woman. I’m relatively sure she has no aspirations to the priesthood. :-)
Our parish priest is also elderly and is disabled. It’s painful for him to walk, and I think it would be hard for him to have to say Mass without a server.
I voted “it’s complicated.” I think it should not be prohibited, but should be permitted in emergencies. Of course, that was the whole idea behind EMHCs, and look what happened. But that doesn’t mean that the original idea is bad, just that people went a little nuts with it. In general, it should just be boys.
The No’s are catching up…
I voted ‘No”.
Women have no place in the Sanctuary. It would be better to have no servers at all than to allow females.
Rather than think in terms of ‘our rights’ or hurting people’s feelings, consider how God feels about it. God tells us how He wants to be worshiped. Its not our choice. Women cannot receive the diaconate at any level, so quit faking it.
I voted that “it’s complicated.” While I understand the reasons for only boys serving at the altar and agree with these reasons, forbidding girls would further affirm my daughters in their belief that the Catholic Church is a completely misogynist organization. [Hmmm.]
TLM should definitely have boys only serving at the altar.
“NO” has taken the lead! :)
I think we can better encourage male servers without outlawing female ones. The problem, to me, isn’t necessarily female serves, its that almost ALL servers are female at several places I have been. Which is, I think, because girls are more likely to volunteer. We need to be encouraging more boys to serve, and hopefully you will eventually see more volunteering as they start to see that its “cool” (they see other boys doing it).
With encouragement, maybe we can have such an abundance of male servers that female servers become unnecessary (or at least rare) in practice without needing go “outlaw” them.
Another solution is to stop the idea that serving is only for the very young. We need more teenagers serving, as these are the ones who might be in a place to consider the priesthood. Yet serving at parishes near me seems confined to the 7-10 age range.
While I haven’t voted yet, I did catch a piece on this issue from the DC CBS affiliate last night. The mother in question was going on about how refusing her daughter as a server was severely harmful to the parish’s sense of “community”. I also liked that they just interviewed her and only got a statement from the pastor (who was right in stating that he wanted to provide an opportunity for boys to hopefully consider vocations to the priesthood).
I’m sorry, but the Church is not a democracy, as much as most American catholics try to believe it could be. Personally, I find altar girls to be distracting (especially in my parish, where it’s been consistently boys for as long as the parish has been there, AND the girls look out of place in a cassock and surplice). My daughter, seeing that, wants to be a server, and my wife is okay with this, even though I am not (and I’m actively trying to convince them of that). I find it odd in my wife’s case that while she’s definitely for an all male priesthood (since it’s something exclusive to them, much like childbirth is to women), she’s also fine with altar girls. It drives me batty.
Part of me wants to get my own cassock and surplice and serve, just so the girls don’t have to. Wonder how THAT will go over in the house.
Sometimes it makes me think I missed my calling, but then again, I have a wonderful wife and two wonderful little girls, so maybe that evens out?
Non-Americans can vote too.
I voted “NO”
I’ve said it before, but very few boys are going to be attracted to something that looks to them like a “girl thing.” It’s just the way boys are. My 4-year-old son looks through toy catalogues on his own and identifies certain things as being “for boys.” Part of boys’ healthy identity development involves separating themselves from “girl things” and seeking out things that are “for boys.”
Also, I’m not sanguine about the idea of teenage boys and teenage girls serving side by side at the altar. Those boys’ minds need to be on the Holy Sacrifice.
I voted “yes”. I believe that young boys or girls making life time decisions at 8 – 12 is something of the past. The happiest, most fulfilled, well-adjusted priests that I have encountered, made a vocational decision after college. Everyone should have a ‘crack’ at caring for the church also. At 76, I don’t do ladders, but have to find younger people to hang banners, etc. We are in mission country and for the past 2 years have had a foreign priest who doesn’t prepare the altar, lock doors, etc. Diocesan priests seem to know how to care for everything and all the community should know as well. Peace and have a blessed thanksgiving ….
Two new young female altar servers were introduced at mass a week ago. If priests send the message that it is a desirable role for girls to serve at the altar, it will continue. I think boys and young men may feel like it’s a girly thing to serve on the altar. Sad. I voted NO.
We had more than 100 boys serving at our relatively small (fewer than 2000 families) parish in northern Virginia. They started in fifth grade and worked their way up the hierarchy to become “master servers” as juniors or seniors in high school. In fact, we had so many six-footers in the rotation that the sacristan had to order additional extra-long cassocks to accommodate them. The little boys literally looked up to these guys, who included top athletes and cool kids, so it was not hard to attract recruits. One of the most difficult parts of leaving that parish for a relocation to Notre Dame was the fact that our sons will no longer have that service opportunity — every parish around here has more girls than boys serving, and all of them wear the “bathrobes” instead of what our boys regard as the more appropriate cassock and surplice. And don’t get me started on the sandals and sneakers and hair-twirling.
All this fuss is coming as quite a surprise to the parish in question, as the pastor actually made the decision about a year and a half ago. Somebody appears to have decided (with the help of the local VOTF chapter) that this would be a good time to gain some publicity. In the Diocese of Arlington, it will most likely have a counterproductive effect, as they want the bishop to force all pastors to use girls alongside the boys. Currently it’s running less than half.
“We need to be encouraging more boys to serve”
Which is best (perhaps only) done by making it a “guy thing”, not a “gal thing”. As a practical matter wholly apart from doctrine, it tends to be largely one or the other, not both. And the reason we need to encourage more altar boys is that this is the best way of encouraging more priestly vocations.
As of 9:30 am Tuesday local time:
Yes. – 43%
No. – 55%
It’s complicated. – 2%
We got ’em on the run! Vote early and often!! VIVA CHRISO REY!!!
Rats! That’s supposed to be “CHRISTO.” (Oy.)
While I understand the reasons for only boys serving at the altar and agree with these reasons, forbidding girls would further affirm my daughters in their belief that the Catholic Church is a completely misogynist organization,
I’m surprised that no feminists have made the argument (or, if so, I haven’t come across it) that allowing female altar servers, when there are no women priests, might be interpreted as reinforcing the notion that a woman’s place is to be subordinate to, and to serve, men.
I’m not saying that I interpret it in that fashion; but I think it’s a reasonable inference one could make from having female servers but no female priests, if one were so inclined. In other words, having only male altar servers could arguably be something that feminists would support. A real feminist might not want her daughters to be altar servers, for that reason.
PS — I just voted (no), and “no” is at 56%!
I voted NO!
What nonsense. WaPo is on the war path. Two days ago they published an awful piece in the local section about how a local priest was persecuting girls. You should have seen the photo accompanying the article. It was a pure hatchet job.
I do not believe, as a general rule, girls ought to be altar servers, but I can CERTAINLY think of exceptions. It IS complicated. That said, liberals aren’t interested in nuance, or fairness, or decency, or recognizing that there are opposing points of view. Given how REPUGNANT most liberal opposition to the Church is, and the massive amount of confusion out there, I think a simple “no” is called for therefore. I support this priest, and he has my prayers.
Oh, and in the EF, this is not an issue. Only men can serve the older right, and I hope that remains the case, no matter happens in the OF.
Something has them scared:
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13056
@Tom Ryan:
Ha! I stopped reading after the snarky comment about the altar rail. Darn right bring it back!
“I’m surprised that no feminists have made the argument (or, if so, I haven’t come across it) that allowing female altar servers, when there are no women priests, might be interpreted as reinforcing the notion that a woman’s place is to be subordinate to, and to serve, men. “
In my experience, and especially in the case of adults or parents of the children in question, the last thing on their mind is serving anybody. They are there to make a statement. Whatever intrinsic value a young lady might acquire from altar service, that is all well and good, but that is not the essential reason for why they are there.
voted no.
(But I have to concede, that not having a daughter, particularly one with love of Christ and His Church, makes it easy.)
Another of many misinterpretation of Vatican II. Another example of Bishops/Priests failing to teach. Another example of so-called church leaders giving the impression the church is a democracy. Another example of how Bishops and Priests interpret good leadership with being popular and to maintain their popularity they foster abuses of the Liturgy.
I have always understood that the Church still intends to have male altar servers, and that the use of female altar servers is intended to be only in instances where there are not sufficient male servers. I certainly remember when I was a teenager the position changing in my parish and diocese; much to my disgruntlement as a server at the time.
Why? Well firstly the change that allowed girls to serve was one that appeared to be interpreted very broadly: i.e. even when there were suffficient male servers, girls were allowed to serve. Secondly because it immediately had the effect of discouraging a number of boys from serving; it became a girly thing.
Subsequently I have become convinced that girls on the altar actively discourages the boys from attending; they also seem to have greater difficulty standing up straight (although not always). I also believe that the greater familiarity with the details of the liturgy and the priest’s role that a server can gain can make them more inclined to think about a priestly vocation.
Maybe the change and the way it was done that I am talking about was from the bishops of England & Wales rather than the Vatican but I would really welcome it if Fr Z or other well-informed readers could point to the documents in which the Church sets out the rules so we know what the “Red” is in the case; that would be marvellous
If I went over to the poll, I would vote NO.
I, for one, am tired of women always wanting to ‘run the show’ when it comes to the Mass. That was the main reason I gave up being a lector and a cantor, and ‘returned to my roots’ in going exclusively to the TLM.
I WANT to see men and boys serving at the altar! Women do NOT belong in the sanctuary!
And I’m also tired of whining mothers who complain about their daughters not being allowed to serve! I applaud the priest who stands his ground and has only boys serving!
The Church is ‘not’ a democracy, people!
[OK, end of rant]
Maybe a good way to understand this is to ask if men should be allowed to become nuns and wear the habit as well. For all roles to be interchangeable. Or is it a role specially designed for the unique role that women play in the life of the Church. Nothing against women at all, or girls in any way but I can see the point of Altar Servers going on to become Priests and I just don’t like the idea that boys and girls on the Altar and in the Sanctuary may be thinking about things, like mutual attractions, or crushes, when the only thing on their minds should be Mass. Mixing the roles around just doesn’t seem right and I can see problems with it where there were none before. Would the parents of a girl who belongs to Girl Scouts feel as comfomtable allowing a boy into the group and mixing with girls of the same age without predjudice of any kind whatsoever. I think not.
I voted ‘No’ of course, but let’s be honest here…
Just having boys serve at the altar by itself will not really do much to encourage them in a priestly vocation. Priests should make it a point to have instructional classes for the boys that teach them from a young age about the faith, about the mass in its entirety, and also basic apologetics. Have two tiers of classes, one for young boys, one for older boys. Give the older boys seniority over the younger.
Also there should be strictness. End the pansy way of doing things and treat the service of altar boys more like you would in the military. I can definately day that boys are attracted to authority figures and discipline especially at a young age. Get better cassocks, have the boys iron them. Encourage proper dress, BRING BACK PROPER POMP AND CEREMONY TO THE MASS!!! Candles, vestments, incense, you have altar servers, make them do something worthwhile, and the old Mass does precisely that!!! Boys will want to be a part of that! Make the Mass a true celebration every week!
Boys NEED to find things to be involved in. Celebrating the Mass properly, having a splendid service with all the great splendor, adoration etc. with classes that teach them about the Mass and why teh priest sys this and we do that and they should do this has a lot to do with it too! It’s not simply the presense of girls but also the sad state of the Mass and the deemphasizing of the Call to arms of the Church Militant and the call to heroism and to be a Crusader that is missing! Today most people in the Church treat the Crusades and military conflict as a bad thing… yes, war is a tragic and evil thing, but the call to serve and fight for what is good is certainly not! End this stupid feminine aura! THe CHurch is at war until the end of time and needs to be masculine! Bring Masculinity back to the Church, or else risk boys leaving the faith to be secular, or risk allowing boys to be feminized and demoralized, or risk sending them on a silver platter to Islam!
Also girls should be encouraged in other areas. And have separate classes for them too so they also understand the role of the priesthood and what makes man himself a central idea about our faith and the distinctions of sex made with purpose. They should learn about the faith and how to defend it just as well.
Girls will have great opportunities to join a choir alongside boys, Girls can serve with getting the altar ready and preparing things, girls can also get together with their own groups for prayer, for adoration, for other community things. There is plenty that can be done, it just requires a group of faithful men and women to push these things through and an initial boldness to risk offending some people.
I have witnessed three parishes each doing something different to address this very issue. A pastor at one parish eliminated females serving at the altar beginning one year from his announcement. At first there was a stir, but a year later there was little opposition.
At another parish, the pastor decided to allow all female altar servers to remain and serve out their time; however, all new altar servers were boys only from that time forward. This is a slow way of introducing only boys, but there was hardly any fallout over this in that parish.
There is another parish that did something all together different where they segregated altar servers. At certain scheduled Masses (including those on weekdays with school students) there are only girls serving with girls, or only boys serving with boys. The girls wear the plain server alb whereas the boys wear the traditional cassock and surplice. This arrangement has apparently satisified everyone on all sides of the issue at this parish.
@bernadette: …forbidding girls would further affirm my daughters in their belief that the Catholic Church is a completely misogynist organization.…
Then it is up to mothers (and fathers) to correctly teach their daughters why “boys only” is NOT misogyny.
–Guy Power
Frankly if boys and girls would only be educated about the faith and about the priesthood and the role of men versus the role of women, and boys were given preference as altar servers over girls whenever applicable through specific division of duties and placement during the mass, then nobody would have a problem with altar girls being present in appreciateive ways and vocations would grow for both priests and nuns.
As always it will come down to EDUCATION of the faith and proper masculine and female roles. For adults and children alike.
I voted “no”, and don’t think it’s complicated.
My grandmother – and countless grandmothers with and before her – would have laughed at the question.
That’s enough for me.
Mundabor
Girl servers in one of my previous parishes, with a Benedictine monk as the pastor, wore little silver tiaras in their hair and silver spangling shoes. Why this is significant, is that the girls are not being trained in a Spirituality of Serving, which boys were, at least in the old days. Now, it is like some sort of badge of honor, instead of a humble, unpretentious office of serving the priest and God and being for the young ladies, some sort of “I have arrived” office.
Also, there is power in these positions, which a young lady does not need.
Dear Fr. Z,
From one of the comments under the poll(which btw is now 62% NO), which PERSONALLY attacks you , it looks like the devil really really really hates you.
That make you my hero !
Viva Cristo Rey!
Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!
This is what I posted on another blog about the matter (I voted “no”):
I can remember some years ago – when our two girls were about the 9-10 range – one of the “powers-that-be” at a particular small parish we attneded at the time suggested our girls may want to serve…
I said, “No, thank you. We (my wife and myself) think that allowing girl servers may hinder a young male from serving – thus, it may hinder a possible vocation to the priesthood.” (our girls had no problem with this at all)
The man was shocked. (like I had three heads or something)
It is estimated the number of priests who were altar boys when they were young is well over 70%
Why, in this day and age of vocations to the priesthood dropping like a rock, do bishops and priests continue to allow girls to serve at the altar of Sacrifice – when the evidence is so abundantly clear we need priests – is beyond me.
As an aside about our daughters and our decision not to let them serve – we have three boys – two of them at “the age” for serving (11 & 12).
However, they do not want to serve because they are painfully shy and do not want to “get up in front of everyone” and have them “looking at them.”
Something to be said here for the Ad Orientem posture (true, those serving at the altar of Sacrifice – even during this posture – do not always “face east” but, it would be helpful, I surmise).
As of right now, 1:14 p.m. CT, 36% for, 63% against.
“I think only Americans can vote. I can’t see any polling option.”
I was able to (in Scandinavia).
I am a Catholic priest and consider myself very tolerant, patient, and realistic in regard to the current state of affairs, yet if firmly believe that the whole idea of girl altar servers is a spiritual abomination. For centuries the Church has used the service of the Sacred Altar as a seed bed for future vocations, as young men could see for themselves, up close, and be forever inspired by the holy celebration of the most sublime mysteries coming through the hands of the priests. I believe that if we saw the spiritual truth of the whole situation revealed for a moment, we would die of horror.
“Maybe a good way to understand this is to ask if men should be allowed to become nuns and wear the habit as well. For all roles to be interchangeable.”
I’ve got a MUCH better idea: Let women give up their places on the lifeboats to men when the ship goes down. Watch them ditch any illusions real fast about assuming a man’s role.
Perhaps someone can document the widely circulated account that the interpretation of canon law permitting female altar servers was implemented by a Vatican subterfuge while Pope Paul II was severely ill in the hospital. And without the official protocol number which (as I understand it) would qualify its inclusion in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (“Acts of the Apostolic See”), the official register of the Holy See. And that John Paul was furious when he found that his previously stated intention–and his promise to Mother Teresa that altar girls would never be approved–had been circumvented. However, once it was a fait accompli he allowed it to stand, rather than risk the chaos of recension of a Vatican announcement whose hasty implementation was already underway.
Paul VI refused to allow women to be instituted as acolytes because it is directly contrary to the tradition of the Church. Even after he made it a “lay ministry,” he still recognized that an immemorial tradition cannot be simply ignored. This is still the law of the Church. As I understand it, it is only on the technicality that there is no positive law against girls taking the role of acolytes in the absence of a real instituted acolyte that they are allowed to fulfill this role.
In other words, serving is the job of acolytes. Acolytes must always be male. There is a reason why acolytes are male; the tradition of the Church. In the absence of an acolyte, someone else can take the acolyte’s role. This has always been done by boys, who most resemble real acolytes; for real acolytes, even now, are always and only male (and who were previously also clerics). However, I understand that Blessed John Paul II pointed out that there is no positive law anymore saying that only boys could take this role in the absence of real (male) acolytes. Therefore, there is technically no law against the practice. HOWEVER, I recall reading a response from the CDW that clarified that this is not the norm and that no priest ever has to allow girls to serve at the Mass he is saying.
Acolyte is a male-only lay ministry. Why would we want girls to take on a male role? Also, there is still some real relationship to priesthood. This does regard vocations, as other have said. However, it is also required that men be instituted acolytes before ordination as deacons and priests. This means that the Church has decided NOT TO DO AWAY with the traditional association of the office of acolyte and the process of becoming a cleric. The Church maintains the tradition of treating this lay ministry as a step on the way to the ordained ministry (even if lay acolytes no long have to be on the way to ordained ministry). The main rationale behind all of this is that we can’t just dump an an immemorial tradition; or in any case, the Church has decided against this for this matter. Therefore, as the Church has not dumped the tradition, may we not dump it.
And if Blessed John Paul II is interceding in heaven, may he fix this problem along with communion on the hand.
Blaise said: “I have always understood that the Church still intends to have male altar servers, and that the use of female altar servers is intended to be only in instances where there are not sufficient male servers.”
There is no requiremnt that that there be a shortage of male servers – it’s the bishops call whether female later servers are permitted in his diocese. Redemptionis Sacramentum 47 says “Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.”
Blaise said: “I have always understood that the Church still intends to have male altar servers, and that the use of female altar servers is intended to be only in instances where there are not sufficient male servers.”
There is no requirement that that there be a shortage of male servers – it’s the bishop’ s call whether female later servers are permitted in his diocese. Redemptionis Sacramentum 47 says “Girls or women may also be admitted to this service of the altar, at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop and in observance of the established norms.”
No: 63%
I have never received an adequate explanation as to precisely why there are no duly-appointed Acolytes in dioceses. I mean the position of Acolyte still exists, there are still young men who are not even necessarily seminary-bound yet have a strong devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and would thrive with such a dignified assignment, and there is a need in virtually every diocese (excepting perhaps Lincoln, NE).
Does anyone have a good explanation for why there are no acolytes (except seminarians) in my diocese?
Voted No.
Unfortunately no amount of “apologetics” will work on some people of the pro-girl-altar-boy camp – it takes two to Catechize.
These articles are tiresome, and the comments are always the same. There’s a lovely “fellowship” for people who don’t agree with Catholic Dogma – it’s called Protestantism!
I am against altar girls – it contradicts the cultural anthropology of the liturgy expressed in sacred tradition. It is also unfair to young boys and girls alike. I belong to a parish that has the most young men studying for the priesthood in the entire diocese – and it is the only parish in the area that does not have altar girls. But allow me to comment on one “urban legend.” It is true that Mother Teresa did not want altar girls and told Pope John Paul II so. But many traditional Catholics try to attribute the Pope’s capitulation to his hospitalization, semi-comatose state, et c. This is nonsense. Before permission was granted, a bishop who is a close friend of my pastor told the Pope during his “ad limina” that the movement for altar girls was an attack on the male priesthood. The Pope replied, “I know…but the Episcopal Conferences want it.” Later, when a distinguished world-class philosopher (a woman) brought the subject up and asked the Pope not to approve altar girls, the Pope became visibly annoyed and changed the subject. It is ironical that the Pope who promoted “the theology of the body” should have made such a mistake about the iconic meaning of maleness at the altar.
I notice most of the comments in favor of girls as altar servers seem to be beside themselves with fury about the influence of all of us who’ve voted no. Several seem interested in continuing to bash the Church in general.
I guess I’m not exactly surprised. The poll IS from the Washington Post, after all. Not exactly the bastion of Truth, that.
I think that everyone should know that this poll is being artificially inflated by a Father John Zuhlsdorf. He’s a disgusting priest who frequently wishes that those who disagree with him would die off, he calls it ‘the biological solution’ and spends much of his time begging his readers for money so that he can indulge in his bird and food fetish. He regualrly urges his readers to vote in such polls so that they reflect the views of his own readership. https://wdtprs.com/2011/11/action-item-wdtprs-…
Man oh man Ii think they do not like you;>)
[Feel free to use the donation button on the left side bar! o{]:¬) ]
The Bishop for the Diocese has responded to a communication from the pro-altar-boy-girl group and can be read here:
http://web.me.com/zickel/Site_71/Let_them_serve/Entries/2011/11/22_The_response_from_the_Bishop’s_office.html
It’s all a bit silly, really.
Something very curious has occurred with that poll. Very curious indeed.
Did they not like the results they originally obtained?
As of 11:53 PST the results are in OUR favor:
Yes: 41%
No: 56%
Too Complicated: 2%
Total votes: 1,106
–Guy