Altar Girls Altercation
In regard to the article by Helen Hitchcock on altar girls [May 1993], I found several points in her article disturbing. She stated, “the theological reasons for the restrictions [against altar girls] will become more fully developed in time.” But then she goes on to give reasons to support the restrictions, which I found weak at best. Her reasons include the following:
1. “The altar server’s function is to directly serve the priest” and is an “extension of the priest’s hands.” Why maleness is required to serve the priest is far from clear.
2. She states that having boy altar servers provides a “rich source of vocation to the priesthood” and is “probably one reason for the remarkable participation of Catholic men in the life of the Church.” Since when does the Roman Catholic Church make certain roles exclusive to a particular group of people to encourage them to become more active in the Church? This is bad theology, and this practice would certainly not be justified for women or minority groups.
3. “Human nature being what it is, pre-teenage boys and girls do not always mix well.” I would hope the theological basis for the gender of altar servers would go beyond a very petty social dilemma. Male and female acolytes in other denominations have proven to work well together. Altar boys that would rather quit than work with girls speaks more about the boys’ lack of dedication to serving the Church than anything else.
It is also most notable that she neglects to point out that the early Christian Church had deaconesses (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 459), a fact that would undermine the whole argument against altar girls.
While it is certainly proper that bishops and priests obey the law of the Church, it seems a good time to examine the issue of altar girls so that reasonable arguments can be given to support (or negate) the Church’s stance. Furthermore, I would like to challenge the argument she cited against women priests. The restriction against women priests does not seem well founded on the argument that Christ only chose male apostles because he deliberately intended that women not be apostles. Based on this reasoning Gentiles should not be priests because of Christ’s decision to pick only Jews as apostles (an issue that was very controversial in the early Church).
This reasoning obviously does not hold up here. Again, Christ’s decision to choose both single and married apostles conflicts with the Roman Catholic stance on the marital status of priests. Therefore, the argument to include or exclude certain groups from the priesthood based on whom Christ chose as apostles is farfrom conclusive. Perhaps Christ chose only male apostles, not because women were unqualified, but because he could see that the social position of women at the time would have made his work of spreading the gospel that much more difficult.
Furthermore, the biblical references (1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12) often used to oppose women’s roles in the Church are interpreted by many as having social and cultural influences of the period in which they were written. The discrepancy between these biblical references and the roles women now have in the Church (e.g. lector and eucharistic minister) can be justified by this interpretation. Therefore, the biblical references cannot carry much weight in the debate over women’s roles in the Church.
In closing I would like to say that this is not an issue about women gaining power in the Church, rather it is about allowing women to serve the Church to their full potential using their God-given talents.
Debbie Volk
Ardmore, Pennsylvania
Editor’s reply: 1. Whether we approve of adolescent human nature or not, we’re not going to change it. The simple fact is that ten-year-old boys don’t like to associate with ten-year-old girls; there is a natural tendency for them to engage in male-only activities. The anecdotal evidence shows that where altar girls are used, the number of altar boys declines. In many parishes altar girls have supplanted altar boys entirely. Even if true, you might ask, does this matter? Yes, because most priestly vocations come from the ranks of former altar boys. Being an altar boy gives a young man a chance to see what the priestly life is like, and he gets to know priests personally–very important for nurturing vocations.
2. You cite Ludwig Ott apparently in support of the sacrament of orders being conferred on women (those styled “deaconesses” in the early centuries). Curious, since your citation is to a section which has as its title the proposition that “[t]he sacrament of order can be validly received by a baptized person of the male sex only.”
Ott notes, “In the early Church the deaconesses formed a special rank, which approached that of the clergy [which means they weren’t clergy]. . .. [T]hey were denied priestly functions. . . . Their principal duties were to assist at the baptism of women and to care for the poor and sick.” In other words, these were lay women who took on religious duties analogous to those taken on by many nuns today, but they weren’t female deacons because they weren’t ordained. For an account of this question, see Aim George Martimort, Deaconesses (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986).
3. The cultural argument I always have found to be singularly unpersuasive. Yes, in Jewish society women held an inferior legal position to men, but the Holy Land was not far from places where the Eastern mystery religions prevailed, and these new religions had priestesses, which means female priests were not unknown to the Jews.
To those who say Jesus refrained from ordaining women because such an act would have been too big a shock to Jewish sensibilities, recall that he had little regard for sensibilities when he did a much more shocking thing: He claimed to be God. If he had no qualms about saying that, why would he have had qualms about ordaining women?
4. For a scholarly examination of the issue, see Manfred Hauke’s Women in the Priesthood? (available postpaid from This Rock for $21.95). If you prefer a woman’s view, consider “Why a Male Priesthood?” by Prof. Joyce A. Little of the University of St. Thomas in Houston. Her article appeared in the Social Justice Review in 1987.
Upping the Anti
Greetings in the name of our Lord! Many thanks for your quick and in-depth letters. They have helped us tremendously. It’s so great to know we are not alone.
I wish I could say there were some positive breakthroughs, but the battle rages on in regards to sharing our Catholic faith. (I sometimes laugh because technically speaking we are still Protestants in the process of converting this year or spring.)
Sometimes it feels as though we have been graced with all the skeptics, pessimists, and anti-Catholics; to be honest I never dreamed we’d ever be experiencing this kind of persecution. It’s truly incredible. It has only been the graces of God which have sustained us.
My husband, who works with ministers and theologians, came home with the enclosed article from Antithesis [a now-defunct Evangelical magazine]. You are probably familiar with their publication, but just in case you aren’t we felt you needed to see its distortions of Hahn, Kreeft, Keating, Matatics, Vanauken, O’Neil, This Rock, etc. This is the material my husband’s boss has been circulating behind my husband’s back. Finally, one of the guys agreed to share some “anti” in exchange for true Catholic material. I’m anxious to see the results.
Because of what you are involved in, I need not go into detail about our situation. Let’s just say I’m praying to reach the balance of not being so consumed with defending the truth that it paralyzes me from doing or thinking of much else. It’s difficult to know when to pull back and just remain silent.
Dorlene Martin
Bartlesville, Oklahoma
More Than He Ever Knew
The four-part instructional series we put on was a tremendous success. One Evangelical is looking into the Church, two Fundamentalists are questioning their beliefs, two ex-Catholics are re-evaluating Catholicism, many confused Catholics are pleasantly reinforced, and many more lukewarm Catholics have had the fire of their faith rekindled after hearing the difference in the faiths and the types of tough doctrinal/scriptural questions Fundamentalists raise. I don’t know how many times I heard a Catholic say he learned more about the faith in one session than he ever knew before in his life.
Dianne Abbott
Fremont, Ohio
Strident and Sarcastic
I am sure that most of your readers would join me in saying how important a work you and your staff are doing in publishing This Rock. The need for apologetics is great. As a convert to Catholicism, I am often faced with the opportunity to defend my faith. This Rock has been a valuable asset in that effort. I applaud and thank you.
What I am not sure of, though, is how many of your readers would agree with me on my next point, which, unfortunately, is a criticism; let’s call it a “concern.” Am I alone in this? Am I too sensitive? Or do others also sometimes cringe at a statement, paragraph, or article which, although accurate in its truth, is presented in such a strident or sarcastic manner that I fear we many win the battle only to lose the war?
The most recent instance of this is the reply to “An anti-Marian Catholic” [June 1993, p. 4]. John C. Smith, Jr. is obviously being “discipled” by anti-Catholics (he certainly has their party-line down pat). But let’s not show him the door out of the Church. We can’t afford to lose any Catholic who really cares about his faith (especially in light of those who are so lukewarm) and is energetically defending what he believes to be true. Rather, answer his arguments firmly, but in love. Sometimes academic answers are best, sometimes a simple example will help. Your response, however, I believe, hurts more than it helps.
We all become angry from time to time with the Fundamentalist teachings that are so blatantly anti-Catholic. But these misguided Protestants (and sometimes Catholics) are not our enemies–Satan is! His plan for the Church is division and strife–let’s not help him divide by alienating our audience.
Cynthia H. Coyle
Roanoke, Virginia
Editor’s reply: You seem to have misinterpreted my comments to Mr. Smith. He railed against “worshiping Mary.” He brought up all the standard Fundamentalist arguments. If he hadn’t said he attended a Catholic parish, no one would have guessed his actual religious affiliation.
I said, in what I thought was clear irony, that “[w]e’re sorry to learn you’re about to leave the Catholic Church–or so it seems you must if you reject the notion of the communion of saints.” I wasn’t asking Mr. Smith to leave; I wasn’t saying I want him to leave. I was saying the logic of his own position, if followed, will lead him out.
I think I am accurate in stating that my words were neither “strident” nor “sarcastic” since irony is to be distinguished from stridency and sarcasm. At times I may fall into the modes of writing you decry, but I don’t think I did so this time.
African Elbow Grease
Thank you for sending some books, tracts, and tapes as requested and for helping me in defending the Catholic faith. I therefore promise to use the opportunity offered me to continue to proclaim the creed abroad and will not be afraid and silenced. The material offered me is going to broadening my knowledge in Scriptures, and more especially to fight in the Church’s name. I wish I could afford to offer you my widow’s mite, to keep your non-money making business moving, but I am sorry, I have tried so many ways, yet things are not moving orderly.
My prayer is, may the Almighty God help you in all your undertakings, strengthen you, and finally add more grease to your joints, and more push to your elbows. I will be much enthused if you send me some copies on information on how to arrange a seminar for parishioners. Thank you.
Peter Amonh
St. Paul’s Catholic Seminary
Achimata-Accra
Ghana, West Africa