Phoenix Diocesan Cathedral: No Altar Girls (And the Liberals Go Wild)

Poor Fr. John Lankeit. He has quickly become persona non grata within his diocese after making the decidedly unpopular decision (with certain segments of the parish) to stop the practice of using young girls as altar servers.

It's a strange-looking equation, I know, but another priest has used it to justify his decision to ban girls from serving at Mass. Father John Lankeit, rector of the Phoenix diocesan cathedral, SS. Simon and Jude, argued, "The connection between serving at the altar and priesthood is historic. It is part of the differentiation between boys and girls, as Christ established the priesthood by choosing men. Serving at the altar is a specifically priestly act," according to the Arizona Republic. Girls will be allowed to be sacristans, preparing things for Mass like the altar societies of old.

Lankeit points out that not permitting girls to serve is part of the pastor's prerogative, but I wonder what would happen if he started restricting the ministry of lector to men, since that office, like the instituted ministry of acolyte, was also formerly part of preparation for priesthood. For that matter, "porter" was once the first step to holy orders, so by that logic hospitality ministers should all be men, too.

Those who took this practice too seriously for their own good are of course, going crazy (or as Fr. Zuhlsdorf likes to say, "throwing a nutty") over it. Before I respond, I always like to check the history of a situation. What has the Vatican said regarding altar girls to serving Mass? When did it happen? Why did it happen?

I found a few things. First, a helpful explanation on EWTN's website:

Many Catholics are perplexed by the authorization of girl altar servers by the Pope. They are uncertain about the pastoral wisdom of this decision given 1) the shortage of vocations to the priesthood, 2) the traditional place of altar boys as a source of vocations, 3) the tendency of some younger boys to not want to share activities with girls and 4) the natural religiosity of the female sex which results in their saturating non-ordained offices in the Church. Yet, it is a decision which has been made by the highest authority in the Church and to which Catholics must defer and make their peace.

See: [/library/curia/cdwcomm.htm]*

It is important to make some theological distinctions, too. This is not a matter of faith but of Church discipline. While having boys serve at the altar is a long-standing ecclesiastical tradition it is nonetheless a human institution, NOT divine, and therefore capable of change for sufficient reason. The judgment about what is sufficient rests with the Holy See.

What MIGHT have been those reasons? Since the Church had already opened other non-ordained offices to women (Reader, Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister, chancellor, marriage tribunal official and so on), all of which were previously excluded to women, and in some cases lay men also), the exclusion of girls from the unofficial office of "altar server" was something of an anomaly. In fact, it was on canonical grounds which the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts proposed ending this exclusion. For his part, the Pope may have been looking ahead to the publication only a few weeks later of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, his letter affirming the male only priesthood. The two decisions taken together amount to drawing precise theological lines between what is Church tradition and what is Apostolic Tradition, allowing women all offices in the Church not excluded by Divine Law (such as the priesthood).

* The letter to Catholic Dioceses from the Congregation for Divine Worship was released March 15, 1994.

Then I found on the Vatican's website, the Congregation for Divine Worship And The Discipline Of The Sacrament Instruction index, which included this section (Chapter II, The Participation of the Lay Christian Faithful In the Eucharistic Celebration, 2. The Ministries of the Lay Christian Faithful In the Celebration of the Holy Mass) Emphasis mine:

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

What I find interesting in section 47 is that the entire section speaks mostly of using boys or youth as servers because it bears the fruit of sacred ministers. This is the focus of Fr. Lankeit. In an age of dwindling vocations, he simply wants to create an environment in which a young boy has the opportunity to experience service at the altar, which may allow him more opportunities to discern a vocation to the priesthood or diaconate.

Here is where presumption entered: Many parishes looked at this new practice of using altar girls as a right, as though young girls were entitled to it; evidently under the guise of "fairness." But it was never to be received in that way from the very beginning. The Congregation for Divine Worship made it clear from the start that this practice was under the authority of the Bishop and he was to use discretion whether to make it available or not.

Furthermore, the practice was to be done in observance of the established norms. What are those "norms?" The Traditional Latin Mass is a good example. Just recently, the Vatican came out and said that female servers were not allowed to serve at the Extraordinary Mass.

Permission for female altar servers came with the Circular Letter of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments of 1994. However, the rubrics of the 1962 Missal did not allow for females on the sanctuary during Mass.

The letter, signed by Mgr Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, said that "permitting female altar servers does not apply to the Extraordinary Form".

All I know is that the young boys at our local Traditional Latin Mass loathe putting on their long black cassocks and smelling perfume, obviously from when a girl wore them when serving the Ordinary Form Mass.

Do I blame them? Of course not. I can also say from observation the results of allowing young girls to serve at Mass are telling. Whenever I attend an OFM, and girls are serving, they are either the majority of the servers or the entirety of them. Boys at that age typically don't want to be involved if girls are doing it.

On the other hand, I observe my local EFM, where we have a large processional. In fact, there are usually no less than 14 boys and young men serving at the altar. We have boys as young as 6, high school boys, and a few in their late twenties and early thirties who serve. When the seminarians show up, it gets pretty crowded!

Does this exclude girls from contributing to the parish? No. There are other areas of service available but since they're not as prominent as serving at the altar, often they're overlooked or minimized. These services can be within the sacristy or outside of it within the many activities of a parish. It can be involvement with CCD or a ministry to the poor and invalid. We have a hurting world that is desperate need of the saving graces of our loving heavenly Father and there are a myriad of ways to respond. Serving the altar during Mass is just one part of it.

However, I will say this: our parish that celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass has produced more vocations than I've ever seen in my life from any other parish. These young men are responding to the more traditional expression of our Catholic faith and the proof is in the numbers.

I would love to learn how much the vocations have increased since 1994, in the parishes that have used altar girls. I'm suspecting -- not much. But such logic seems to fall upon deaf ears for those who insist upon "fairness" but have no understanding of the larger issue at stake; I'm sure such a statistic will never be shared.

Bishop Trautman, the Liturgy, Tradition, and Rubrics #Catholic

This past Sunday while at Mass, I had another one of those "aha" moments regarding the liturgy. It has to do with children. First, my understanding of children and security:

Children need a loving home in order to grow into secure adults. A home where love and protection exists will give a child the necessary sense of security that enables him to absorb the rest of his world. If a child is worried about being fed or avoiding physical abuse, then not much is left of their reasoning skills to analyze the world. They are in constant survival mode. It isn't a surprise then when these children become teenagers -- living off the street, always in survival mode, never looking beyond themselves in order to contribute something meaningful to society.

This past Sunday, I realized this is one of the gifts of the liturgy. It gives God's children a sense of security. When we uphold tradition, we are strengthened and bonded to one another in a spirit of unity. However, the tradition must have its historical connection explained, otherwise it can become an empty shell of ritual that fails to communicate the blessings it was meant to convey.

This is what happened to me as a young woman: I saw no connection to the past with regard to tradition. The liturgy had become dry and lifeless because during my spiritual formation -- it was not consistently explained (and consistent is the operative word) how the liturgy began with Jesus and the Last Supper and then traveled all the way to me. I never received that explanation of continuity, which makes me wonder how much my life would have been different if I had. I was restless, looking for security, and since I didn't understand what the Catholic Church had, I left.

Family identity is a powerful thing. In my own family, we joke about certain traits as being a part of our identity. Why should it be any different with God's family? We also have traits, those of God's Son, Jesus Christ, which we should seek and embrace with full affection. Traits such as compassion, forgiveness, love, mercy, kindness, discipline, and a commitment toward doing what is right. Study Jesus Christ and you'll see those traits and more. We are to follow Him and the world is to recognize it and say, "They have been with Jesus." (Acts 4:13)

So where do we, as God's family, learn about our identity? Where is that identity strengthened? I say the liturgy is what supports that identity, shapes it, and emphasizes it. The liturgy, as it has been passed down to us from generation to generation, gives us a sense of security as it reminds us that God is in control. He loved us enough to sacrifice His only Son for our salvation. He will love us enough to provide for everything else we will need.

The new English translation of the Roman Missal is about to be introduced to the United States Catholic parishes. There has been much debate about it, and from what I can tell, the most vociferous responses have been from those who want to continue experimenting with it. It doesn't seem to phase them that this "experimentation" led to thousands of Catholics leaving the Church because the liturgy was neutered. They also seem to defy further proof by not only ignoring the growing encroachment of sinful philosophies such as radical feminism and homosexuality, but receiving such with open arms.

In 2005, Bishop Donald Trautman gave an interview in which he reflected upon the liturgy and the reasons behind the changes. First, I had no idea the revision of the Roman Missal was in the works for that long. But what struck me was the bishop's views on liturgy. For instance (emphasis mine):

The people who are fighting to go back to Latin, for example, had a wonderful experience when Mass was in that language. They're saying they met the Lord that way, and they're trying to keep that form, not understanding that the form and language of the liturgy is never an absolute. Only God is absolute, and there are different ways we express our love and our prayer.

"Fighting to go back to Latin" seems misunderstood. Latin never was outlawed or in Catholic Church terms, abrogated. (I had to look that one up. Abrogated: to abolish by authoritative action, to treat as non-existent.)

And why can't the form and language of the liturgy be absolute? This statement doesn't sit well with me. I am a firm believer in absolutes with every fiber of my being. I admit I struggle with understanding God's mercy toward us who are sinners. But I believe with everything within me that if God is absolute, then He has given His Church absolutes to follow. There is a right way, and a wrong way. Disrespectful money-changers in the Temple found out from Jesus' righteous anger that their way was the wrong way. The sinful woman who washed and anointed Jesus' feet with her tears and perfume, found the right way.

Whenever someone starts to talk about something "never being an absolute," red flags start flying all over the place. For instance, Bishop Trautman talks about the Latin Mass as though those who love it are trying to fight some evolutionary impetus toward a more civilized understanding of the liturgy. However, from everything I've been observing and studying, almost the complete opposite seems to be true. After over 40 years, the liturgy has been abused, often remade into a worship of self. Obviously I'm no liturgist, but when you have a priest dressing up on Halloween like Barney the Dinosaur and an EMHC woman wearing devil's horns on her head, even I can recognize that something has seriously gone awry.

What happens when children have no adult supervision? Sure, they may feel delirious with their freedoms, but does this serve them well? Do they know how to act responsibly or is that freedom an exercise in self-indulgence that often leads to bad judgement?

This is what I see when I discover liturgical abuse which to me, stems from a worldly idea to "experiment" and cast doubt on any such old-fashioned idea as an "absolute." To me, a priest is indeed a spiritual father. We have a crisis of fatherhood right now in the Catholic Church. We need strong fathers who aren't afraid to lovingly discipline their children. We need men who will stand up and say, "Yes. There are such things as absolutes and our liturgy contains them, for they are the bones of our faith - these bones are what holds the Body of Christ together." We need fathers who will ensure that we get the proper nourishment in order to have strong bones, because believe me -- the world is looking to break our bones.

When I look at fathering, I cannot help but be thankful for my own father. (Hi, Dad!) He taught my brother and I absolutes. There may be a few ways to complete a task, but there are more wrong ways than right and he taught us as many "right ways" as possible. I grew up recognizing that there is a reward from seeking God's right way. Our heavenly Father protects us and provides for us. Nothing happens to us that is not for our own good. As Christians, we grow into an understanding that life is not always easy, but God uses every circumstance to draw us closer to Him and to mold us into the shape of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Because of my earthly father, and my heavenly one - I am a fairly secure woman. I have my moments where I may feel a little anxious or shaky, but for the most part -- I know God is in control. When I attend the Traditional Latin Mass, that message is sent to me strong and clear. I am worshipping God as He has been worshipped since the beginning of the Church, not necessarily because of the Latin (which wasn't spoken by Jesus or His disciples), but because the Latin has preserved for me the meaning of the liturgy. The Latin hasn't been tampered with or forced into some wacky "experiment." The Latin language is solid, like a mountain, a sure plane to stand upon, a sturdy oak tree to hold onto.

Again, Bishop Trautman shows his opinion of standards (emphasis mine):

In Roman Catholic liturgy, we have rubrics-the liturgical laws that define how a priest is to celebrate Eucharist, how a congregation is to respond. But do we want to be rubricists, legalists? No, it's the spirit of the law that we want to live.

Why is it that following the rubrics is cast in a legalistic light? Is tradition always such a burdensome yoke that we must fight to escape? Why are the rubrics not presented as beautiful treasures that help guide us to safety? There is commonly an accusatory tone toward the rubrics when progressive Catholics speak of them. It is narrow-mindedness and uncreative thought that leads to such opinions.

I hear this "spirit of the law" often named when conversation turns toward religious matters. But what about the spirit of the law? Do we really know it well enough to start going off the tracks into our own imaginations? There is a saying among artists: You first need to know the rules before you start breaking them. When we're talking about our faith, I don't believe we can break any rules and not pay for it. The moment someone says, "Well, I know what the rubrics say but I'm going to do it this way instead," is the moment a slippery slope has been introduced. Because no matter how badly we'd like to think of ourselves as being honorable and capable of doing the right thing; there is a greater chance of us doing the wrong thing because we forget the rules.

We need to be constantly reminded of the rules. If for nothing else, because our flesh is a wild thing, never relenting from seeking its own will.

And so the rules to me are the rubrics. To me, we are to live "the spirit of the law" in our daily lives. But for our Sunday obligation, the rubrics within the Mass are to instruct us, remind us, and encourage us not to forget what Jesus Christ has done for us.

For those of us who yearn for that security and the Catholic identity that binds us together, I believe this new translation will do something good. It will start the process of cleaning up the house and putting it back in order after reckless and irresponsible teenagers had an unsupervised house party. Let the renewal begin.

In Praise of an Intelligent Liturgy #Catholic

Sometimes I can't help but be excited by the timing of my return to the Catholic Church. First, I am in awe by the grace the Lord has extended to me, that He would allow me to see -- really see His truth and beauty in the Mass. Second, I am thrilled to be a witness to His protection and strengthening of His Church. Finally, I admit there is a certain sense of satisfaction in knowing that the enemy's attempts to destroy the Church by introducing a worship of Self, has failed.

A friend long ago told me that if he really wanted to improve his tennis game, he didn't play with people who had his same skill level. He played with those who would wipe him out. But he learned and improved his game by playing them. This universal truth is evident in all walks of life. We attend school and are taught by teachers who know more than us. We get hired into jobs where we may not know how to accomplish a certain task but we grow into it. We surround ourselves with people who are good people because we wish to be good. In essence, in order to learn and grow, we need to be challenged.

Enter the liturgy. After Vatican II, many changes were made to it, and some of those changes were unwise. Now after forty years, many can see how damaging to the Church many of those changes were. The liturgy was "dumbed-down" because supposedly, the language that was used before was archaic and stifling. It no longer represented the new freedoms the world was embracing. To be modern, the Church agreed to throw out the beauty and mystery of our faith in order to appeal to the world. If the idea was to keep the parishioners in the pews with a new translation of the missal, it failed miserably.

Instead, by changing the liturgy into a celebration of Self, it did the complete opposite. Over the past forty years, Catholics left in droves, nuns became radicalized feminist lesbians, homosexuality became rampant within seminaries, to the point where more traditional seminarians were kicked out because they were "repressed" and narrow-minded. Catholic politicians who should have known better voted for abortion-rights and currently, are pushing for the Marxist ideal of "social justice." As Jesus said, if you want to judge a tree, look at its fruit. Although those who initially thought Vatican II was the right direction for the Church, I think its safe to say there were issues both with the plan and the strategy. I also think the heart of the Church is the liturgy and the heart was ripped out and replaced with a smaller, weaker one.

As a result, our Catholic identity was drastically changed, leaving many confused and ungrounded.

This is why I am thrilled by the new translation of the missal. I believe it is placing us in the right direction. From a great article in The Australian (emphasis mine):

The new translation places a heavier emphasis on Christ's sacrifice and underlines the dependence of individuals on God. In one of the most controversial changes, the words of the consecration in the mass specify that Christ shed his blood "for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins", rather than "for all" as the present translation puts it.

Cardinal Pell said the change reflected the official Latin version of the Roman Missal, and although Christ died for everybody, this would remind worshippers of the need for personal repentance.

In the creed, the faithful will now say "I believe" rather than "we believe", emphasising the importance of personal belief.

Most of the changes are in the parts of the mass said by priests, with changes in the laity's responses deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid confusion.

A new Latin edition of the missal was published under Pope John Paul II in 2002, and the next step was to produce authentic vernacular translations.

After a major education program that will start later this year and is already under way for priests in some dioceses, the new translation is likely to be introduced from Pentecost Sunday in June next year.

and

Professor Rowland, author of Ratzinger's Faith: the Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, said the new translation was "theo-centric liturgy", focused on the worship of God, rather than "self-centric liturgy", focused on community celebration of the parish, the Year 7 class, or the netball team.

She said the new translation of the mass was close to Pope Benedict's heart.

"He has complained about 'sacro-pop' and 'emotional primitivism' in liturgy, and said everything associated with the Eucharist must be marked by beauty."

Professor Rowland said the new translation was in accord with the Church's 1963 text Constitution on the Scared Liturgy. That instruction called for the rites of the mass, which dated back to the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century, to be simplified with "due care being taken to preserve their substance" so that "devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved".

Professor Rowland said the Second Vatican Council's call for renewal was widely misinterpreted in the 1960s, with pushes from some for outlandish changes that were never envisaged at the council.

In 1966, for example, an article in a prominent Jesuit magazine in the US called for Catholic worship to employ "the language of the Beatles".

"The new translation of the missal settles the issue," Professor Rowland said.

"I'm not surprised it has taken almost nine years. They had to get it right, and they have."

Full article

Amen and amen. I may add a few more thoughts later on this one.

Vatican Approves New Missal, Bishops Decide When to Implement #Catholic

WASHINGTON—The Vatican has given its “recognitio,” or statement of acceptance, of the proposed U.S. version of the new edition of the Roman Missal. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) now must decide when to authorize its use in dioceses and parishes in the United States.

Full Story

I am very interested in the new missal's release. Since my return to the Catholic Church, I've been noticing everything about the liturgy - both within the Novus Ordo (or "New Mass," the one that evolved after Vatican II) and the Traditional Latin Mass (also called the Tridentine Mass and the Gregorian Rite).

I look at our liturgy as a defining element of who we are as Catholics, what we believe, and what is important. The liturgy has the power to exalt God and His Son, Jesus Christ. In humbling ourselves before that power, our souls are lifted, cleansed, and renewed.

I think almost any Catholic can agree that there have been times when the liturgy has been miscommunicated and, as often noted, abused. Instead of leading us toward worship of our heavenly Father and His Son, it has elevated Self. The problem is, Self and God cannot be elevated at the same time.

So we have a new translation of the liturgy that I believe will have more "oomph" when it comes to understanding Catholic identity. I believe it will help fulfill the true mission of our liturgy, which from my understanding to this point - is to remember what God did for us by sacrificing His Son, and the peace that is extended toward all by His great love for us.

Now, all that needs to happen is for the Bishops to decide when to roll this lovely liturgy into our parishes. I still have hope it will happen this year.

The #Catholic Liturgy: "A Standard of Measure"

The liturgy has been an ongoing passion of mine ever since returning to the Catholic Church. When I was a young girl, the liturgy was not as exciting. In fact, I was often bored and inactive during much of it. As I learn more about the liturgy, I think my boredom was the result of a few developments. Vatican II and the "personalization" of the liturgy was one. Another was what I suspect was a deviation from "a standard of measure." I take that quote from one of Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog posts today, Feedback: "I am 59 years old and like the current liturgy."

In this post, Fr. Zuhlsdorf relates the feedback of a person who likes the modern liturgy and has no desire to attend a more traditional Mass. Fr. Z says (emphasis mine):

First, I note that this has more to do with what his preferences and likes are concerned than perhaps about what the Church’s liturgy requires. It is perfectly okay to like some things more than others. But out liturgical choices are not to be grounded solely in our likes, which are not only subjective, but shifting. Thus, it is nice that he is "okay" with chants. The Church says that Gregorian chant has pride of place.

It is great that the writer "likes" the current liturgy. His liking it, however, is not our standard of measure. There are those who don’t like it, to one degree or another.

The "standard of measure" caught my eye. Just earlier, I had read an entry from Larry D. at his blog, "Acts of the Apostasy" about an unfortunate Mass he attended that seemed more like a talk show than a Mass. He was concerned and wrote to the pastor about it. Today he posted the response, which both shocked and saddened me, yet not a surprise. (It is worth reading his account of the Mass that concerned him and his letter, which is linked in this entry.)

If anyone knows about the "personalization" and "personal expression" of church, it is a non-denominational church member. I both witnessed and participated in some wild stuff. Although I now look back on those days with a certain sense of embarrassment - it was where I was spiritually. The upside is that it has given me an even greater appreciation for the liturgy now that I've returned.

It has been no small source of astonishment to me that many Catholic Churches have tried to emulate the crazy-quilt approach to church by non-denominational churches. A little piece of "liturgical dance" here, a bit of clapping there - all to somehow communicate a sense of ownership to what is occurring. Clapping is a response to what? It is a response to entertainment - a performance, the recognition of man's accomplishment, or an agreement with what just transpired. In either case, it is a pause to allow a congregation to leave the interior room of intimacy with God and instead, retreat to the outer courts of noise and shallow thought.

So why a standard? Why is it so important to have the rubrics of the Catholic liturgy followed? I don't have a clear answer but do have some thoughts at this point. I may appreciate standards more because I was raised by two parents who disciplined me. Any child will initially resist discipline because it is in their nature to be selfish. Selfishness needs to be routed out; but with love and consistent correction. If left to their own childish desires, a young girl or boy would grow up thinking the whole world revolved around them. Believe me, working with adults that have this worldview is no picnic. (Out of a warped sense of justification, I've led the conversation with such adults toward their upbringing. All of them came from permissive parenting.)

I have brought this viewpoint to the liturgy, and looked at the rubrics as spiritual discipline. If this is true, then the rubrics are meant to correct my more selfish desires (which wants to be the center of attention) and discipline me toward thinking of something outside of self - which is God. This leads me to wonder if there is any place within Catholicism for the need for self-expression. Music comes to mind, although most of that which was written in the 60's and 70's smacks too much of "me-me-me" and too little of "Him-Him-Him." Art, of course, is my favorite. There is some glorious Catholic art that is still being created as well as the historical pieces. But is the role of the Church to satisfy some deep-desire of ours to be recognized and awarded? I think not.

In fact, the more I attend the Holy Sacrifice of Mass, the more I am convinced of its perfection. Everything is included to connect me to God, to remind me of my responsibilities as a Christian, and to exhort me to go forward into the world and be a channel of God's love. All of this happens within a Mass according to the rubrics without one iota of "personalization" or self-expression involved. If one is aware of the liturgy and prayerfully enters into it - much awaits them on the other side.

But every time a deviation from the rubrics occurs, a person or persons become disconnected from the mystery of what is occurring and are reminded more of self than God. In Larry D's post today, there were some interesting comments. One was from Adrienne who wisely pointed out:

I have finally discovered that becoming involved in these matters becomes a real danger to a person's spiritual life.

When we realized that all we did on the drive home after Mass was to b*tch, it was time to move on.

How true. I still have a difficult time knowing when it's the right time to confront and when to simply lay the sword down and walk away. I believe we're to fight for what's right, but there is also a time when the fight only makes it worse, not better. Loving one another and reconciling our differences is what God calls us to do. And nothing can tear apart a church faster than people thinking they're doing "the right thing."

So. I'm left with hoping that Pope Benedict XVI and his Papal Master of Ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini will put the liturgy back on track toward what it intended to do. Not as an instrument of self-expression but a vehicle to transport us all beyond ourselves and into the mysteries of heaven.