The Editors
This is not a local story, but one that represents larger trends in the church—in the priesthood, the liturgy and in the role of the people of God. Recently Sts. Simon and Jude Cathedral in Phoenix, Ariz., changed its policy on altar servers. From now on only boys may serve; girls may apply for jobs as sacristans. Why? The rector of the cathedral told The Catholic Sun that the cathedral is not alone in making this regulation. A parish in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the Diocese of Lincoln, Neb., he argues, have found that replacing girls with boys as servers leads to more vocations to the priesthood.
These moves to limit laywomen’s access to the altar threaten to drag the church back into the pre-Vatican II world. One wonders if next the altar rail will return, another barrier between the priests and the people.
According to the rector, people who are upset about this decision concerning Mass servers make a mistake in considering it “a question of rights,” as if someone’s rights were being denied. But, he says, no one has a “right” to be a server or even more a priest. One must be “called” to any church office. When the secular world comments on who should be an altar server, he says, it has only an emotional view, unguided by the light of reason.
The key issue is the status of the baptized: that the laity may be called by the Spirit to offer their talents in various roles. The rejection of altar girls disregards the counsel of the Second Vatican Council that the charisms of the baptized “are to be received with thanksgiving and consolation.” By virtue of baptism, the council reminds us, “there is neither male nor female. For you are all ‘one’ in Christ Jesus.” There is “a true equality between all with regard to the dignity and activity which is common to all the faithful in building up the Body of Christ” (“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,” Nos. 12, 32).
That this call should be fully welcomed does not appear to be a priority in Phoenix. Yes, the Vatican instruction “Sacrament of Redemption” (2004) allows women servers, but it leaves the decision to local bishops. In Phoenix the bishop leaves it to the pastors. This pastor did not consult the parish council, he says, because its members are not theologically trained.
Another issue is the image of the priesthood today. Is it wise to re-enforce the sense of the priesthood as a clerical caste? Is the acolyte supposed to be like the page who serves Sir Galahad until King Arthur dubs him a knight? In a culture where parents want their daughters to have the same opportunities as their sons—in co-ed Catholic colleges, in the armed services, in athletics, in employment—the church can look irrelevant, even foolish, in shunting them aside. The more the priesthood is presented as an exclusive club, the smaller and more remote it will become. Those who put up barriers between themselves and the people should, using modern parlance, recall Jesus’ words to his disciples: “Look, how many times do I have to tell you? You are here to serve.”
Inevitably the issue of women’s roles in the church raises the question of women’s ordination to the priesthood. Recently a cardinal in Lisbon and some bishops in Brazil, among others, also raised the question; but since Pope Benedict XVI, despite continued agitation, has reaffirmed the policy of John Paul II to allow no discussion of the topic, the matter of altar servers must be considered a separate and independent issue.
In no way should policies imply that women are second-class citizens—welcome to tidy up the sacristy, arrange flowers and clean linens but not to set the gifts at the altar or hold the sacramentary or censer. Rather, they must be welcomed into every service and leadership role, including catechists, lectors, chancellors and general secretaries of bishops’ conferences. (The diaconate for women remains an open question and ought to be explored.) Churches that invite all their people to bring all their talents to the welfare of the congregation will thrive. To tell a young woman that she may no longer pour the water on the priest’s fingers at the Lavabo looks like sexism. If the ban in these dioceses continues and spreads, perhaps women and girls will consider withholding their other services to the parishes, and men and boys, in solidarity with their sisters, will decline the honor of acolyte.
Having girls share serving opportunities with boys is an expression of their equality in Christ. Parishes must create a variety of social and service activities. A distinguishing characteristic of today’s young men and women, even when they are not “devout” in the usual sense, is their rejection of discrimination in any form. They are highly sensitive to any hint of exclusionary policies in organizations. Perhaps if more young people believed they could continue that commitment to equality as priests, more would be ready to follow a priestly vocation.
Comments
Catholics still constitute the single largest religious denomination in the US, accounting for 23.9% of the adult population. But that is because Evangelical churches are not grouped together. These churches, though, are home to 26.3% of the American people, divided among the different Protestant denominations.) Baptists run a distant second, with 12.7%. If they qualified as a separate denomination, the Americans who have deserted the Catholic Church of their childhood would constitute the third-largest religious group in the country, with 10.1% of the population. http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=56894
And you really think the problem is Susie with her ponytail reverently assisting at mass....really? Moreover, I know several parents who worried about whether to allow their children to serve and were reassured that both boys and girls now do.
I am aghast that we still have people around who can't deal with treating women and girls with respect and dignity and letting them answer the Holy Spirit's call. How dare you try to stifle the Spirit. I think he is making himself quite clear as the above stats show- you are sadly disappointing our Lord with your bigotry, pettiness and small-mindedness.
I am not so sure that they are so flush that they wouldn't notice if, say, their collections dropped by 75% or more and their Bishops Appeals went to near zero. They have had to pay out billions in settlements. They are closing churhes by the dozens, as well as schools. I would love for there to be some way to influence these willfully deaf men, but short of depriving them of their luxurious lifestyles and stopping the flow of money from the pews, I don't see any way of getting their attention.
So if his pastoral members show up for the next meeting they deserve the disrespect they were given by him....especially if they think like me that the ban was just a retro publicity ploy.
Thanks for bringing some facts to bear upon some of these speculations. A few more facts:
While several of the above commentators note that the Catholic church is hemorraghing membership headed for the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and other main line churches, we might do well to check what the actual numbers are. According to studies quoted by USA Today, the most recent year membership in the Catholic church grew by just under 1%. Doesn't sound great, but it is growing, not hemorraging, membership. That's not the case with our mainline Protestant brothers, with Presbyterians, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches all losing membership, Episcopals around 2% and Presbyterians 2.6% annually. Those are frightening numbers. Clearly, the argument that the Church would benefit by following these churches by going all-in for abortion, etc, doesn't seem to supported by the facts-mainline Protestant churches are losing, not gaining, membership as a result of the directions they have chosen.
Charles: with love, let me point out that the words and imagery you use come not from scripture but from the images and teachings of the Church during the Dark Ages...not exactly a time of purity, chastity, and moral living within the church itself. The early church of Christ was more simple, loving, and accepting of leadership roles for both men and women. It was to women that are Lord first revealed himself after the resurrection and it is the woman at the well who is called the first evangelist. Your church came later, when corruption, debauchery, and decadence engulfed the church. It was also a time of severe condemnation of women as scapegoats for the evil practices of men. That is not good enough for us- for our mothers, daughters, wives, or friends nor for us men. It certainly is not good enough for the Blessed Mother, who is a role model for all of us. Accepting women and girls on the altar does not deny the difference between men and women. It does acknowledge God's unconditional love for all and our shared desire to serve Him.
Ms. Thomas,
I brought up liberal Protestantism because there are two posters on this thread who said they now attend the Episcopal church, one of whom also discussed the number of people leaving the Catholic Church.Before addressing the substance of the piece, I make two observations: First, returning to the pre-Vatican II days is a GOOD thing. Back when Mass was a grand holy experience instead of a God-forsaken rock concert, when Churches looked like Churches instead of movie theatres, when nuns wore nuns' clothing, when people knelt and received Communion in awe and fear, instead of taking Him into their filthy dirty hands as if they were grabbing for a potato chip. Taking the Church back to the pre-Vatican II times? Lord, haste the day.
Secondly, there was a mention made in this piece of the Priest not consulting the "Parish Council" before making this decision. Of course he shouldn't. There shouldn't even be any such thing as a parish Council. The Priest is the Father of the family. That is why Catholics call a Priest "Father." (It is unclear what the author of this piece would call him - dude or bro or whatever.) Now, in your knowledge of human families, how many fathers do you know who allow their children to form a council and tell him how to run the family? How many fathers do you know need approval from their children before making a decision? How ridiculous.
Now, as to the substance of the piece: My opinion is that female altar servers should be absolutely forbidden. The contrary view, expressed in this piece, stems from the profoundly preposterous belief that women can do everything that men can do. And of course, they cannot. Men and women are equal, this is true - but they have different parts, and different functions. Consider the mathematical statement "5+1" and the mathematical statement "3x2." We can agree, can we not, that these statements are equal? But, they have different parts (the first has a 5 and a 1, and the second has a 3 and a 2), and different functions (the first has the function of addition and the second the function of multiplication). If you try to take these statements with different parts and give them the same function, they become UNequal. (5+1 does not equal 3+2, nor does 5x1 equal 3x2.) They are only equal when we recognize their different functions.
Altar servers are boys because allowing boys to experience what is going on "behind the altar rail" may inspire them to become Priests. And of course only males can be Priests. (This piece seems to want to change that, but it is absolutely unchangeable - it would be easier to change the earth into a flat plane instead of a sphere.) To put some girl in that position takes the position away from a boy, whom - if he had been allowed to participate as a server - may have been inspired to become a Priest.
As with every other aspect of life, we can look to the Blessed Mother as our example. She, the Queen of Heaven and Earth, was happy to just be behind the scenes, and to use the analogy of this piece, cleaning the linens and arranging the flowers, while the male Apostles were busy being Bishops. And if that is good enough for Her Omnipotent Majesty, it is good enough for women today.
Ms. Thomas:
Here you go: http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2010/11/pies-damned-pies-and-statistics-is.html59% of those raised Presbyterian are no longer Presbyterian, 56% of those raised Episcopalian are no longer Episcopalian. As I said, if liberal mainstream Protestantism is growing anywhere, I am not aware of it.
I am very happy that you are pro-life. I know that many other progressive Catholics are as well. My point was that changing Catholicism to resemble mainstream liberal Protestantism, which is not pro-life, will not help the Church. The answer to the Church's problems is not the answer of liberal Protestantism, which is to conform Christianity to the spirit of modern liberalism.
It has become a constant theme of progressive Catholics that one third of Catholics have left, with the implication being that they have left because the Church is not significantly progressive. There is, however, little evidence to support that inclination. One half of those who have left have left for evangelical Protestantism which, on a variety of social issues, is more conservative in practice than American Catholicism.
It should also be noted that the number of those raised Episcopalian, for example, who no longer practice that faith is nearly 60%. Which is consistent with a far larger trend: liberal mainstream Protestantism everywhere is shrinking. If there is an exception to this trend, I have yet to hear of it. Those who think that the Catholic Church will solve its problems by becoming just like liberal Protestantism, by allowing contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and female clergy, are mistaken.I would say to Anne though . 'they' have enough money for two or more generations.. so withholding money which is too often suggested... will do nothing.
Arnold R. has a good analysis of how we got here.. that I totally agree with.
But the fearful anonymous conservative letter writers and posters who are a small minority , have found that their complaints are always acted upon by the hierarchy..maybe because the complaints echo the hierarchy's agenda. These complaints have worked since 1980s [Say hello to Fr.Tom Reese SJ]
However the anonymity of these anonymous complaints should be their weakness.
remember in sports the yell "How are we losing to these guys" .???
Pew Catholics have not yet found a way/tactic to express their extreme displeasure with the governance of the Faith. The conservatives and hierarchy say complaints about governance are dissent/heresy/excommunicable. This is like saying that crappy governance has been enshrined in doctrine by 'tradition' by the HS .. so get used to it. That is blasphemous
@ Bruce:
You have a flair for imagery in your writing.
I doubt its the fearful laity that has motivated the fundamentalists to be in the ascendancy. Look to the top. As soon as the Vatican II findings became doctrine the fundamentalists determined to roll them back. Paul VI, in spite of his broadly supportive attitude to the Vatican II risorgimento, was the first to violate its spirit when he issued Humanae Vitae. After John Paul I's unexpected death the fundamentalists in the top levels of the Church's feudal structure made their comeback. The Conclave Cardinals, many shocked by some of the excesses commited when some risorgimento enthusiasts rode off in various directions, chose the arch conservative, John Paul II. The longer he reigned, the more time he had to choose bishops and cardinals who could be relied on to toe the ultra orthodox line. Through the nuncios, the importance of the bishops' conferences has been eroded. Benedict XVI has continued the process. No doubt when the cleansing has been completed, the Vatican will be assured of complete compliance. Thus the fundamentalists are emboldened and are able to turn back the clock, all the while proclaiming to be acting in harmony with Vatican II.
Reform is light years away. The control freaks are in charge and the psychological barriers are erected once more to glorify the separateness of the clergy from the laity. It's back to pray, pay and obey, little by little and bit by bit. Thank heavens the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not control freaks. Christ has set us free and we wish to be so. Not that we should resist the proper formation of our souls. We must, of course, listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. We all need to pray for discernment in following the magisterium, rather than to obey a spirit killing hierarchy. The psalmist says God's people are his joy and delight. Not much joy ahead of us for some time yet, methinks.
I began going to mass at an Episcopal church three or four years ago once I realized that by sitting in the pews of a Catholic parish, and giving of my "time, talent and treasure" I was supporting the system that has totally shut out the voices of the laity, and enabling an increasingly dysfunctional hierarchy. As a woman, I finally decided that the church's treatment of women as officially second-class could not continue if enough women had enough gumption to say "Enough - I am no longer giving you any money, nor will I teach religious ed classes, arrange the flowers, organize the parish picnic, iron the altar cloths, nor do any of the other dozens of jobs that women do for the church without pay nor recognition. I will be willing to arrange the flowers and teach the children and do the other nurturing tasks when my insight and understanding as a woman are also incorporated into the church's teachings and governance as fully equal to those of men. I will again arrange the flowers when women give homilies and when women may stand at the altar and consecrate the bread and wine."
Catholics have had one body-punch after another in recent years. In terms of liturgy, it is one thing after another. The roll-back to the 50s church is acclerating. In terms of the dishonesty and venal behaviour of the hierarchy, even though there are now norms for lay people working for the church including background checks and fingerprinting, and even a process for handling cases of ordinary priests accused of sexual crimes, there are still no sanctions or policies or guidelines applicable to bishops who enable crimes and protect criminals. They consider themselves to be above the law - both God's law and civil law.
The Vatican has yet to discipline even a single bishop who stood by and allowed priests to molest tens of thousands of children. And because it hasn't. we have the Cloyne Report, we have Kansas City, we have Philadelphia (again). Yet, the Vatican wasted little time in forcing a bishop in Australia to resign because he had committed a heinous sin - suggesting that the church consider ordaining women (it is officially an equal sin to pedophilia according to Rome. But Rome tries to ignore pedophilia committed by clergy as much as possible. Ordaining women, in their minds, is as evil as abortion in terms of how its handled by the hierarchs in Rome). When the kettle got too hot for Law, he was whisked to Rome and given a luxury apartment, several important jobs, including vetting new bishops and a staff to provide him with all the comfort and service he "deserved" (the staff includes nuns to do his housekeeping and cooking and other menial tasks - the "complementary" role the male clergy have decided that women are supposed to play - which is to be always subservient to men - to serve the men.
Like Kathryn, I attend a small Episcopal parish - there are three masses every Sunday with a total attendance of about 200. There are two full-time priests, a seminarian, and a deacon. Most non-Catholic churches are quite small and it is actually possible to be recognized as a real person rather than as simply a check in an envelope. In our Episcopal parish, both priests were greeting us by name after only two weeks. One is a woman, and she is fantastic, especially as a homilist. Our male priest is great also, and together, they provide a true complementarity. God made them male and female in God's image. I realized after going to this church for a while, that to have a healthy church - in the wholistic sense - it must reflect God's image and that means male AND female as equals. Not male as master, woman as servant, or male as superior, woman as inferior, men's work and women's work (barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?) which is how the church defines "complementarity."
If Catholics really cared enough about what is happening to close their wallets the bishops might suddenly discover what it means to "listen" instead of simply "pontificate." They may begin to act as if THE church actually includes the 99.9% of people who are not orgained or consecrated religious. They are used to the imperial model - they will not easily give it up.
It's up to the people in the pews. Many millions of us have left, one by one. That is not enough to effect change. Those who are still in the pews could effect change, and in so doing, maybe bring back some of the millions who have left in despair. But it requires them to have enough courage to close their wallets and say why they are doing so - write letters (they won't be answered, but write them anyway)Because if enough of them do, sooner or later, they will be asked why their donations have stopped. It's rather sad thing, isn't it, when the only "voice" the people of God have is their money.
Going, Going, Gone, altar girls, the latest sign of the revisionist spirit that has entered our Church, beginning the dismantling Vatican Council II. Gone too, the buoyant refrain of Bl.JPII, “Do not be afraid,” being replaced with the tight triumphalistic maniple mentality of the pre-Vatican II Church, bogged down with such things as black Dracula-like clergy capes, gaudy tasseled-sash cassocks, waist-length lace albs ( gone the more masculine in-ostentatious linen vestures) and pom pom Birettas and so much more. Clericalism is coming back, a clear manifestation of the fear of the laity, especially women!
Or is all of this linked to the quest for unity between Orthodox Christianity and the Catholic Church? I say this remembering what an Orthodox priest once told me, that, a great hinderance to Orthodox/Catholic unity is the presence of laity in the sanctuary, especially women!
Personally, I see nothing wrong with altar girls and for that matter with women serving as lectors. In fact why not allow women in the deaconate? JPII did say that the deaconate is not part of Holy Orders, but separate from it. And I’d even like to see some enlightened Pope in the future name laity, women, men, married or single, to the College of Cardinals, not eligible of course for election to the Papacy, but serving simply as advisors and electors of the Pope. And useful perhaps on diplomatic missions.
But admittedly, I am conflicted in that I do not support women in the presbyterate because Bl.JPII said that his teaching on that subject was “definitive” some say, “ex cathedra” which seems to me to pretty much close the book!
The Gospel of Luke dealing with the Annunciation further conflicts me, as the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity had no difficulty in accepting the ministry of the girl virgin Mary. If anyone ever served the altar of the Lord and announced the Word, Blessed Mary certainly did! - But then things are being revised - so it doesn’t matter?
The problem in Phioenix as in the tarditionalist approach is Father/Msgr, etc. is the answer man and the laty , even those on a parish council, are not sufficiently intelligent and too emotional.
A sort of broad ad hominem from the pastor there, who, I think, is not very pastoral, but very taken with his position.
That kind of posture is not ony alienating but indicative of a terible gulf that needs to breached -something the editors here have tried to point up.
Please tell me though: why do you keep mentioning "modesty" with regard to women alone? Do you mean humbleness? or do you mean modesty in the sense of discretion and chastity - modesty in dress, behavior, and attitude? Does this then suggest that modesty or the lack of modesty is exclusively a problem for women?
This is of course related to the discussion topic because you seem to believe that a failure to see "modesty, selflessness, motherhood as the highest ideals of womanhood (as fatherhood should be the highest ideal for males, by the way!)" contributes somehow to the scarcity of men called to the priesthood. So, logically, it is because women are immodest, selfish, and eschewing motherhood that we have these problems. Aside from the fact that in making this argument, you are implicitly saying men are so weak as to be rendered emasculated by strong women and incapable of hearing God's call, why the repeated reference to modesty? And aren't men and father's called to selflessness, too?
Like the church of old you embrace, you are revealing a limiting, repressive view of women - you are blaming women for the ills we are discussing and exhibiting in so doing a fundamental failure to appreciate that God made women diverse and that being modest and selfish are not exclusively related to motherhood. You can't be a good mother without being those things but you can't be a good person in general without them. Women, and our culture that allows them to live their lives according to their own values, are not the problem. The problem is that the Holy Spirit is not calling people to the church. That is obvious whether you look in the pews or the seminaries. Perhaps that is because the Holy Spirit is trying to tell the Church something while calling people to serve and worship God in other, more loving ways.
I'm sorry you feel the need to blame women for so much - yes, you'll say you blame the culture not the women themselves but really, that's just a way to sugar coat it. I will pray that you can accept women as multi-dimensional and that you can teach your pupils to do so, too.
Year after year, our diocesan newspaper trumpets all its new ordinations: male permanent deacons shown prostrate on the floor of the cathedral and vowing themselves in obedience to their bishop.
Deep beneath the streets of Rome, in chambers where early Christians held and hid their rituals, the walls show women presiding at tables where bread was broken and shared and Jesus remembered. That was the reality of the lived Gospel then. How have we forgotten so much? Why is our church so afraid of women (even the miniature version) when it comes to the altar or the ambo?
@Kathy
You say: I don't need Bill M. to define femininity for me, nor do I need him to define masculinity for my sons.
"Bill M" isn't defining anything. If I were, than you would be right to ignore me. The Church teaches that men and women are fundamentally equal AND complementary. That isn't "my" truth-it is supposed to be "the" truth.
Look, I know I am not going to change anybody's mind here. If that were my purpose, you'd be right to rip me, because I'd be overstepping my bounds. I'm just trying to stand up for the truth: the truth the Church teaches us. Now, I have come to believe deep in my heart and soul that the complementarity of the sexes is true, and that a full understanding of this truth will lead us to live happier lives. But you shouldn't care that I think or say that.
You should care about whether or not what I pointed to-the need for modesty, selflessness, motherhood as the highest ideals of womanhood (as fatherhood should be the highest ideal for males, by the way!)-is true, and good, and beautiful.
So Kathy-forget me. Don't lose sight of truth though.
As for the notion that I'm suggesting that women are to blame for all of men's problems, I'd say you are half-right. You see-I'm for equality after all.
The fact that we can't even discuss such a possibility, and the failure to understand the deep significance of motherhood, modesty, and selflessness, is the reason we live in such a fragmented society today.
You quote, and then write:
"Has our denial of the complementarity of the sexes, especially in America, led to our boys' overall failure in life these days?"
There it is: men's problems today can be blamed on women. "Jane Crowism" is back.
This is typical of the response I get when I ask people to consider the fact that complementarity of the sexes is recognized as TRUTH-rather than mere ideology-in the Chuch. Rather than and ad hominem attack, can you talk instead about what I'm really asking about:
1) Why do we feel modesty and selflessness are less-than-ideal goals to promote in our young women?
2) When women want to be "more like men" in every way-especially when it comes to promiscuity, ultra-competitiveness, "market" values above all else-does it hurt our overall society?
3) How is it that amazing women like Mary Ann Glendon, the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard, can understand the need for complementarity-and the scourge of abortion-and still be as successful in her professional life as she has been?
I also work in a parish where a great many men have decided to pursue the priesthood. I have never seen a correlation between whether there are girls and women serving at the altar and the results in vocations. When I worked in parishes where females never served, we also never had a vocation come from the parish.
There are a myriad of reasons why someone feels called to the priesthood, beginning with the promptings of the Spirit, of course. I think that they include a sense of joy and satisfaction in the priests they know, as well as reverent liturgy, quality preaching, an emphasis on how all of this should take root and flower in our daily lives.
Vibrant parishes are also key. Who wants to join a moribund institution, only to die a slow death of frustration and boredom?
The third thing that I think leads to encouraging vocations is a sense of fidelity to the tradition and the spirituality that flows from it. I find this in both those who are called to priesthood as well as those who are called to lay ministry. They want to be the next page in that 'book of tradition', handing down the faith we received from the apostles. They don't want to be Sufis or be promoting Hindu spirituality, or some sort of eco-Buddhism. They want to be Catholics, to know that they are Catholics and to encourage others to meet the Lord as Catholics.
Priests and parish leadership who invest their energies in those three goals - building vibrant parishes, encouraging a healthy sense of the 'Catholic difference' and finding joy in ministry - will see others who want to serve the church.
If we worked on those priorities, it wouldn't matter who served at the altar.
There it is: men's problems today can be blamed on women. "Jane Crowism" is back.
In writing about a "willingness to examine honestly what contributes to, and what detracts from, priestly vocations" Msgr. Lankelt seems to calling into question the character of his parish council.
When I asked the students in one of my honors English classes last year to enumerate the finest ideals of womanhood, why did they seek to exclude modesty and selflessness? They told me it was because that would make them seem "weak," and they needed to be strong, "like men."
Until we recognize that Mother Mary has gone out of the world for too many of our young women, our young men will continue to flounder, and so will our society.
It's not so much hatred of women, but fear that decides issues like this one.
A call is not something decided by a pope, bishop or priest; it is something that comes from a God who created men and women who could follow the example of Jesus, the only human being who showed us how to live our lives without fear or hostility.
As long as the hierarchy keeps rearranging the deck chairs, the Catholic Church will contine to implode.
That seems like you are blaming women - or in this case, girls and young women - for the decline in the number of priests. Yes, yes...I like that..let's blame women for any perceived failing in men...good.
But wouldn't that be like blaming cultural confusion of say the 1960s for the rape of children....oh, there goes that silly emotionalism again.
And of course, we would want to reinstate a culture that would put men of almighty authority in close, secretive proximity to young boys again...now wouldn't we...free of those prying, knowing eyes of women...or in fact are those sins also to be placed at women's feet...
Father, the reasons for the decline of the number of priests has more to do with the lack of relevancy the church has today to Jesus-loving Christians of all genders than poor boys confused because their classmates and chums are serving with them on the altar. And when I say "relevancy," I don't mean trends or those every shifting cultural sands that the church of course must stand firmly against - progress in human understanding is afterall something the church has been so good at thwarting. By relevancy, I mean whether such a repressive, demeaning, elitist organization actually is in synch with a loving God, a saving Jesus or the Holy Spirit.
Father, the decline in the number of priests has more to do with the attitudes of men like you who actually are the ones deaf to the Holy Spirit, not these young men who have a much more healthy attitudes toward women than you clearly have. I will pray for you and the Church..may God save you both.
We are in a Catholic Church that is hemorrhaging members on a daily basis. Perhaps Father Lankeit, born after Vatican II, thinks all will be well if we can turn the clock back; make the Church a bit more exclusive, quiet the rabble, get rid of communion in the hand, get rid of women on the altar, and suddenly the seminaries will be full again.
It is a shame that he feels so far above his parish council that he does not need or value their input. The "my way or the highway" attitude, especially for a man with an undergraduate degree in psychology, seems .. gee... like the Church in the 50's.
The pre-Vatican II, 1950's church culture resulted in most of the baby boomers leaving the church. I am mystified by the apparent desire to resurrect the most disastrous era in recent Church history.
"America Magazine is a near occasion of sin...".
The same, and worse, was believed by some Popes concerning the U.S. Constitution and Democracy. Among the many sinful aspects of Americanism were (1.) too cozy a relationship between American Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, and (2.) the American sentiment that salvation was readily available to people of other faiths.
Things did not work out well for Italians, though. By the millions, they were excommunicated by Pope Pius IX for participating in, and voting for, a secular government. The new unification of Italy into a single Nation put an end to the temporal power of the Church and it's rule over the former Papal States. There was nothing 'near' about the occasion of all those Italian sins and sinners.
I would hate to think that a spirited discussion of challenging ideas would be viewed as a near occasion of sin. I can't think of a more effective way to bring thought and analysis to a screeching halt - even before the discussion begins.
It's not simply a matter of John Paul I's not allowing discussion of women priests. John Paul II, exercising the authority Christ gave to Peter, reaffirmed the teaching of the Church that it lacked the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, in his role as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, ruled that this teaching belonged to the deposit of the Faith and had been set forth infallibly.
It should also be noted that all Churches that trace their lineage to the Apostles fully share this teaching. Any move to ordain women priests in the Catholic Church would be viewed as breaking with Apostolic tradition by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and end any hope of reunion with the Churches of the East.Pages