Here are three of our noble band of servers from St Mary’s. These guys (with about a dozen more) serve at the 11:00 High Mass.
We have all male servers at St Mary’s, and one of the things we do in their instruction is to remind them that they are helping to lead the worship in everything they do–their body language, the way they sit in the sanctuary, the way they perform their tasks, the way the listen (or not) to the homily and join in the singing. All of it is helping to lead the worship.
The procession is slow and stately. We tell the boys that as they process in they are leading the whole congregation into the sanctuary of God. All the people rushing in from their busy lives see them march slowly and beautifully behind the cross and candles into the presence of God, and as they do, they are caught up in the dignity, the majesty and the humble glory of Divine Worship. The procession leads the whole congregation into God’s presence, and the boys do this with great seriousness and strength.
In the weeks to come I hope to have some more photos from St Mary’s to post on the blog along with commentary on why we do what we do in our parish.
And that, dear Father, is how vocations are formed!Keep up the great work!
Hello Father,Not a comment on the post, just using this as a way to get in touch to ask: can I use the Newman and Romero pics off your sidebar? Does anybody own them?Thanks!
I just hope there’s more than one Catholic church in your area so that girls who want to serve Mass can without being shown the “know grills aloud” klubhouse door. God knows if little boys occasionally encounter a female doctor or a girl on their little league time their little egos will suffer and we’ll have no more pro baseball players or male doctors.I’m sure it works the same for the priesthood.Just what we need. Priests who are insecure in their masculinity and need props from day one. I hope you are making the men roll up the pennies too. Porter’s job, you know. Or do you contract out that particular scut work as equal opportunity employment? I can guess who irons all the purificators too. I have a hunch it’s not the all male gang.Snaps for your boys, but no thanks for pushing the girls aside.
“God knows if little boys occasionally encounter a female doctor or a girl on their little league time their little egos will suffer and we’ll have no more pro baseball players or male doctors.I’m sure it works the same for the priesthood.”Pedanticaly sarcastic much?Time and time and time again I attend parishes when traveling where the women definately rule the roost in the music department, lectoring, EMs, and anything else that is semi clerical.Why is it such an affront to have this for boys?
Wow, Gemoftheocean, its ok. We are all parts of the whole. The criteria of one job does not invalidate another.
Hey “gemoftheocean” – check out Amy’s comments on a post similar to yours over at Fr. Z’s blog – http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/09/observations-of-a-priest-new-to-the-tlm/#commentsLook under the article “Observations of a priest new to the TLM”, for: “To address the comments made by Karen”. Comment by Amy H — 28 September 2008 @ 3:19 pmAmy’s comments are truly a “gem” and might provide you with some useful insights.
Gem of the Ocean. I don’t know your background, so I can’t judge. I do know a couple of things: I work with high school students, and I asked them (not their feminist grandmothers) what they thought of boy only servers. Their reply was, “That’s cool. We like to see the boys do their own thing. We don’t have to do everything with them all the time. We like having our own jobs to do and our own clubs sometimes.”The other thing is this: people love to see the young men doing this job and doing it with pride. The other thing I know is that when the girls join the boys go. It’s just the way it is. Religion seems ‘girly’ enough already, and when the girls start serving it seems sissy to do so, and the boys scoot. As it stands, we have dozens of boys who want to serve, and it is considered a manly and great way for them to live out their faith.
Torculus, as GemoftheOcean’s name is Karen, and her objections (and tone) are nearly identical to the post on Fr Z’s blog, I suspect we’re talking about the same contributor.
I wait for your additional posts on “training” your servers! My own parish is currently struggling to throw off the careless attitude of our servers so please know you’ll be read carefully and with gratitude.
Having concelebrated Mass at your parish, Fr. Dwight, I can tell interested readers that something very special is going on in your little corner of the Confederacy.p.s. – I have to tell you something amusing – my Mother looks at your blog once in a while and asked me – “is Father Dwight bedridden – when does he get the time to write so much”? I assured her that, to the best of my knowledge, you are not bedridden.
Fr. Dwight, you are right. I am the same person who posted to Fr. Z’s column. And to torculus: I found Amy’s responses not in the smallest bit logical or impressive.Fr. Dwight, as for your high school girls, they have no clue what us girls in the 50s and 60s and 70s went through. They have no memory of seeing altar boys serve Mass one day, then turn around and argue the pro-choice side of the abortion debate in the public school the very next day. I had that happen to me personally. I wasn’t allowed to serve Mass, but it was I who was defending pro-life to my classmates when the boy who’d literally served Mass the day before defended the pro choice decision. It was disgusting then and the thought of going back to being shoved in the corner by default is disgusting to me now.If you have boys who are at a stage when to serve Mass might be sissy, there is no reason you can’t form a separate team of just those boys for pastoral reason. But don’t shut the girls out entirely.But believe me, I could have easily lost the faith due to that injustice. It seemed to me then and seems to me now the height of hypocrisy. The 15 year old girls today have no memory of the “men only in the dining room of certain public restaurants for men’s only” lunch hours. They didn’t have a high school math teacher tell them that girls weren’t smart enough to major in math in college (as a college friend of mine told me – she and another girl were so angry at the teacher they did in fact graduate as math majors to prove him wrong.As for women stabbing other women in the back – nothing new.It’s right to keep th priesthood for men only .. but start making up specious reasons why girls shouldn’t serve Mass and no matter how nicely some girls will smile and say “yes Father” know that a percentage of them will be saying to themselves “that reasoning is full of BS” and then you turn them off to trusting you. Then when you DO say something they should believe and listen to as doctrine it’s too late, you’ve lost them. Not unlike the boy who cried wolf.My ENTIRE interactions with priests outside of Mass before I went to high school?Other than receiving Communion and Penance, *precisely* ONE time when the priest said to me “Hi lefty!” when I was six and crossed myself left-handed. Your priest would know all your male classmates by name, because they got to learn to swerve Mass? But you? Might as well have been wallpaper.
“The 15 year old girls today have no memory of the “men only in the dining room of certain public restaurants for men’s only” lunch hours. They didn’t have a high school math teacher tell them that girls weren’t smart enough to major in math in college (as a college friend of mine told me – she and another girl were so angry at the teacher they did in fact graduate as math majors to prove him wrong.”And being that those AREN’T problems they face, the list of grievances you offer from the past – however emotive and sad – don’t justify or demand that girls need this today.Your argument against priests demonstrating a favoritism for one group (boys who serve) is fair enough reason why they should NOT be unfamiliar with non-servers… Not why everyone should serve.That their were some juveniles who were servers and pro-abortion… Aside from dramatic emotive effect, I really CANNOT understand why those hypocrites should preclude have altar boys.
“gem” (Karen?) – Would you care to elaborate on why you didn’t find Amy’s thoughts logical or impressive? I must admit, I am a little confused by what appears to be an uncritical and even dismissive tone.I beg patience from all herein. Apologies, Father Longenecker, for the cross referencing.Amy stated a pragmatic reason that affirms an ontological reason for having altar boys. Her arguments may not seem sophisticated, though she made several entirely reasonable points that take the issue to a deeper and impressive level of appreciation. In consideration to our co-bloggers, a few lines of what she said are worth repeating here:”(T)he very mystical reason that makes men the most appropriate – in fact, the rightful bearers of the sacraments is true for all men, of all ages, in all capacities of serving (at) the altar. If a man is the only one who can [be ordained to be able to] pour the wine and consecrate the Blood of Our Lord, according to his nature as a man, then a young man is the only one who should hand him the cruet to do it. The role of the altar server is simply too close (spatially and theologically, to a degree) to the role of the priest to warrant a complete change in the nature of the person filling that role.”Her progression of thought reveals a considered plan: (1) a term is given (men are bearers of the sacraments); she then states a (2) succinct qualification of that premise (why this is true: only a man is able); (3) a subsequent justification is given (based on ontology) for her premise (it is by a man’s nature (!) he is able to consecrate); and then (4) concludes (i.e., altar servers should only be altar boys) with a reason for limiting the role of altar server to boys which is predicated on the relationship between the role of the server and the priest, i.e., there is a (5) context or condition which necessarily connects the role of altar boy and priest (“the role of altar server is simply too close spatially and theologically… to warrant a change in the nature (!) of the person (server)”). She proposes an ontological connection between the role of server and priest which she then uses to qualify keeping the role of server limited to boys. There is an essential opportunity (possibility of priestly vocation) afforded by having boys in proximity to the altar and the role and person of the priest who, himself, is ontologically configured to Christ (CCC1583) through ordination.I think it fair to say that typically a person responds to a call from God because they have awakened to the continuum of grace, a progression that (in hindsight especially) reveals God having touched and guided that person throughout his or her life in a manner that points the person in a specific direction (religious life, married life, chaste single life). I suggest that, like the Faith which is more caught than taught, vocations are nurtured and caught when young men are in close proximity to the altar of sacrifice and the priest (alter Christus). If I understand some of the comments made by other women on Fr. Z’s blog, the issue is not so much why girls should be excluded but rather why boys are more appropriate to the task, since it is by their nature boys (who will one day be eligible men) are able to (after appropriate formation) be ordained. Allowing females to serve at the altar necessarily invites confusion about the process or progression (context and condition) that allows for (identifies and nurtures) priestly vocations.BTW – “gem” (Karen), your request (demand?) for answers or justification of certain practices is understandable and necessary in that you have helped to identify an apparent weakness in the arguments with respect to pastoral practice.
At St Joseph’s School, where I am chaplain we have two altar guilds: Guild of St Martha for girls and Guild of St Stephen for boys. The girls are lectors, cantors, ushers at Mass. They also help with the linens, vestments, preparing the vessels for Mass, maintaining candles and flowers. The boys move the furniture (we have to set up for Mass each week) move the pews, and serve Mass.It is arguable that the girls actually do more behind the scenes, and ‘up front’ have more important a role as lectors and cantors as the boys do.We have tried, and succeeded I think, in creating separate but equal roles for the boys and girls. Judging by the response and participation it also seems quite popular.
This is an issue which I have thought about a great deal, because I have a friend who I believe left St. Mary’s for the confines of OLR for this very reason.Like most controversies, this one is also a complex issue. But to distill it down to one of its basic tenets it becomes an issue of what we want versus what God wants. And although the answer to this may not be empirically obvious, I find it better to defer to the option which might lend itself to a possible increase in priestly vocations. God knows we need that.Is it fair that men and women not do everything the other does? Perhaps not. But this might be a case where we defer to what God wants and has ordained even though His choice may not be explicitly stated. It may not appear fair or equal, but it might be so for a reason. God has certainly made that the case with pregnancy. Barring some bizarre act of science, I think men will always be left out of the club that allows women to experience the regularly recurring miracle of birth.Its far easier to say me me me me……much more difficult and humbling to say, be it done according to Thy will.
My sons were longtime servers at St. Mary’s, and my daughters, who understand the reasons for a boys-only policy, are content with it, and support it in the interest of encouraging priestly vocations.
Father – how wonderful to see these young men serving God. I like your explanation of bringing people into the worship space in processing slowly and reverently.Our sons are altar servers and our priest works very hard with them to help them serve our parish and God in a reverent fashion.Our sons are quite happy with this boys only activity. They see enough girls in different areas of their lives. Our sons are also Boy Scouts . . . and there are no girls in that club. I just don’t understand why people feel the need to push the agenda of “we want girls to belong”. I don’t see anyone pushing for boys to enter into Girl Scouts…Just saying –
Simple Sinner: SOME girls are not ALL girls. No one is forcing anyone to serve, but the nattering ninnies should mind their own beeswax and let those girls who desire to serve have a go at it. They can keep to their ironing if they choose. There will always be SOME girls who do want to serve. I don’t know why we have to shove individuals into little boxes when they don’t have to be.Torculus: I don’t find AMy’s arguments rational. IF a then b…I don’t accept “a.” Men ONLY bearers of sacraments? Really? A male priest is required for valid Eucharist to be sure … but someone is slipping a gear if they don’t realize that out of the ordinary ANYONE can baptize in case of necessity. And guess what. A male “organ” is not required. [When it comes down to it, a person need not even be Catholic or *anything* – just have the intent and use the right formula. And did you never hear of marriage where the couple confer the sacrament to each other…and assuming you don’t believe in two gay guys marrying, one of those people is also lacking that all important to you genitalia. In a new post, Fr. Dwight mentions that it’s quite true the priest doesn’t usually “need” the server to get Mass accomplished (other than have at least one person present to give the responses) but the server does represent the people. I don’t know why I’d *always* have to be represented by a male. I love when boys do serve Mass, but I get the same feeling when girls serve Mass. Ever stop and think why they don’t use the term “minor orders” any more? hint: they’re man made constructs. Yes, we have priests and deacons with laying on of hands – a sacrament — but do you really want to muddy the waters with pretending the minor orders are sacraments? Geez, there’s even a difference between eastern /western rites whether or not the subdiaconate was a minor or major order – look it up in the old Catholic encyclopedia on line if you didn’t know that.Also, ALL the laity is supposed to be equal. If you’re going to let women read, they should be allowed to serve too.Another clue: NONE of the boys you typically see serving are instituted acolytes. That’s generally reserved for seminaries.I’d have to look this one up myself again, but if memory serves at one point in the eastern rites notaries were considered a minor order.How far do you want to take this? Be consistent. You duffers will have to step up and always roll up the pennies, job of the porter you know. And do all the locking up too. AND may as well do all the laundry and floor buffing etc. Many men do help out like this – but hey, stop counting on Susie, Mary, and Jane to do all the scut work. It’s noble scut work, but somehow when it suits the guys they invoke the “male only” rule when it’s to their advantage, and when it’s not convenient some of them put it on the women.Also, I am not “confused” nor is any girl with a brain in her head. She’d be stupid if she didn’t ask why women can’t be priests. And there are perfectly good and valid reasons why not. But if you try and throw up some smoke and mirrors BS about how she’s not suited, she’ll KNOW she is being BS [because she won’t buy Amy’s premise either] and then when you really need her to listen to VALID reasons about the important matters like why she can’t be a priest then it’s too late because you’ve tried to BS her too much before. Save your ammo, sparky, for the important things.Why cause needless suffering where there doesn’t have to be.Fr. Dwight, I commend you for trying to give the girls something to do [although, when I was 9 or 10, necessary as doing the altar linens is, that sure as shooting would NOT have attracted me … so if you’ve suckered girls that young into doing more “housework” good for you. As a grownup, I’ve done my share, and it’s important, but to a lot of 10 year old girls they’ll think you’re just trying to con them into more housework.[And I pity the poor boy who is a good reader and shut out. God know the “Z” crowd constantly b*tch and moan about “all the wimmin readers.” We COULD use more men. Aren’t you afraid of turning them from that calling, if they’re good at it? And not all girls would want to read, but they might kill for a turn as thurifer. And I pity the poor boy with the voice of an angel. Though I guess if he was in a “male schola only” he could hang the sign on the clubhouse. [Some men can’t even stand it to have women in the schola and at one point preferred castrati to women]OBpoet: c’mon, men are ALWAYS included in creating a baby. Even if the woman in question uses a turkey baster. I don’t know many men who want to get morning sickness, do you? It’s a tired chestnut, like men would really be lining up to give birth if they could.Cnimakuni: I don’t say boys/girls only clubs don’t have their place. But they are rough equivalents. I’d bet you’d howl loudly enough if it was decided that girls are less klutzy than guys and should be the only servers. If father pastorally needs to have separate boy/girl server teams because some boys are not secure enough in their masculinity at X age, then fine. All I’m asking is not to shut the girls out entirelly.
“but the nattering ninnies should mind their own beeswax and let those girls who desire to serve have a go at it. “I feel the same way abou the nattering ninnies who use the occasion of a photo post where a priest is proudly showing off the fine young men who serve at his parish as an excuse to start an ideological com box war.
I applaud the young men who serve.Someone needs to stand up for the girls who serve. God knows a number of you would throw them under the bus.
Gem:Yes, men would be lining up. I know, because I encounter them in my medical practice every day. You obviously devalue the experience with comments about morning sickness. They see it as the miraculous gift it is.You just do not seem to get it. It is not about what you want, or I want, or anyone wants save what God wants. If there were no other ways to serve, it would be a different issue, but there are endless ways for each of us to serve. I think this has become an issue of vanity, not one of service. Our place is kneeling in the pew, not being on stage. The role of serving the altar of the Lord has always been a select calling, now just as it was 3000 years ago.
“c’mon, men are ALWAYS included in creating a baby. Even if the woman in question uses a turkey baster.”Hmmmm…….seems you have overlooked at least one very important conception that did not involve a man.
OBpoet:”I think this has become an Issue of vanity rather than of service.”Game, set, match me.Congrats on fitting in very nicely with the guys back in the 50s who couldn’t stand it if a girl beat them at tiddlywinks.Yep. You just KNOW “Everybody’s motive.” I’d bet my bottom dollar you’d NEVER question why a boy would want to serve. Oh, but the girls? Why “unwomanly” “castrating blanks.”You’re probably sorry you can’t still advertise a job as “Male” or “female” in the want ads.I don’t think girls should have to fight for everything, and having their motives question because they don’t fit the little box you shove them in.And if you want to go with the Holy Spirit as an “It” as per the Greek – yeah, that’s one conception that didn’t need a Male.
“Yep. You just KNOW “Everybody’s motive.” I’d bet my bottom dollar you’d NEVER question why a boy would want to serve. Oh, but the girls? Why “unwomanly” “castrating blanks.””Once the discussion – how this post came to this, I am not sure – gets to this level of irrational emotive accuastion and vitriol, I lose any hope for it.
So why are the girls motives ALWAYS suspect? I suppose one may as well question why a man would want to be a gynecologist!
Gem:Allow me to state it again. It’s not about what any of us want. That the first sign of vanity.
OBpoet: got a registered letter from Jesus did you? I’m sure that will fetch a very good price on ebay.
First, I have met and I know our Gem here. She is a devout sacristan at her church who takes very, very seriously the training of young boys and girls to serve the priest at Mass. I have seen her “in action”, so to speak, and I can vouch for her devotion to the Faith. The term “catholic” means universal and there is room for female altar servers. My own daughter is one at my parish (she is a sixth grader) and she is proud to be such. In fact, it is encouraging to see all of the kids helping each other and doing their best in their “guild” of making sure the priest can do his role smoothly. And an important role it is. Only men can be priests, but I have to agree with Karen, it doesn’t mean that women cannot have a role in the Liturgy to extend to such service. You, Father, have an advantage over fellow priests – you are married, with family. A good number of your brother priests do not have that chance to interact so closely with 50% of the population, i.e., the female of the species. I am not advocating marriage for priests here, but I think a priest can haev a greater appreciation for his flock and how to shepherd them by seeing them in various duties; otherwise, there is a rick, I think, that any person – and a priest is not exempt – of “pigeonholing” people into roles based on their gender. Mind you, some roles mandate a certain gender, but service by the laity should not be one of them.My $.02. If you do not like a Novus Ordo Mass where the servers are mixed and the Liturgy still manages to be reverent, then I would not recommend coming to Mass at my parish, although you are always welcome.
My apologies for my lousy typing above – “rick” was meant to be “risk.”
I would say it was compiled rather than registered, and Ebay is a great source for the Nestle-Aland version where one can land it for half-price or less. The English translations I have plenty of from numerous gifts. But His message supports my point, not yours. If there is a verse that you think makes your point Id like to hear.And its not a contest. It’s the table of the Lord. And if there were a contest, you would be so far behind with your devaluing of pregnancy, that your Seeker would have to catch the Golden Snitch for your team to have any chance at winning.Digit: There is no need to vouch, though I understand why you feel so compelled.Again, it is not about what we want.
Obpoet:Do you really understand why I am “compelled” to do anything? That’s a rather presumptuous statement that in my line of business would earn a “Objection! Calls for speculation!”
Anything? No. The action you stated? Easily. The preponderance of evidence, distasteful evidence as it may be, leaves the objection overruled.
obpoet: you assume too much
And this is known how?