As I mentioned in yesterday's post, something has been happening over the last fifty years that is best described as an "escorting out". This "escorting" has been pushing out the historic teachings of the Church and replacing them with modern ideas--largely influenced by feminism. It has impacted people's thinking about ordination (leading them to want women to be ordained; just like the protestants do), but it has also touched on other areas that we do not think about. The push to ordain women in the Catholic Church has been encouraged by things that have happened in other arenas. That is to say, as people have gotten more used to seeing females take duties at the altar during Mass it has made many of them easily slip into wanting women to be priests as well.
Let me explain, moving from the general to the specific. Generally speaking, the men (adult males) were escorted out of the Catholic Church. The numbers of faithfully committed men in the Church are certainly down (though there are a few signs that they are starting to come back in some areas). As a result of this, over the last fifty years, men have also reduced their involvement in the Church. Specifically speaking, the men have been "escorted out" of the chancel (the area around the altar).
Few, if any, men understand that the chancel is properly the place for the clergy (which, as I defended yesterday, is obviously limited to males in the Catholic Church) and only secondarily the place for any lay people at all. Even those men who do attend Church, often just sit quietly in the pew and have no engagement with the life of the Church in other areas. Yes, there are certainly some notable exceptions -- but that is the point, they are exceptions to the general norm. Vocations to the permanent diaconate and the priesthood are down. Fewer and fewer men are willing to engage with the Church. The trend is clear: women do the work, and most men sit back and watch (which influences their service as husbands and fathers whether they like it or not!).
As a result, the Church realized that she needed to look at the situation, and make a few adjustments to remedy this. In 1983, when the new code of Canon Law was promulgated, it allowed (notice the word "allow" does not mean "require" or "expect") women to serve as a temporary (notice the word "temporary" does not mean "keep doing it as long as you want with no end in sight") reader (Canon 230.2). The paragraph that mentions this does not actually say "women can serve as a lector", but it does use the generic word for "laity" which is neither male nor female. When it gives this permission, however, it is quite a different explanation than what we see actually happening today.
The paragraph before Canon 230.2 (230.1) should, however, be looked at to see the context in which it shows up. It is the first paragraph in the section and sets the tone for what comes afterward. It refers to adult males holding the position of "lector". "Holding the position of" means that they are in that position (not an ordained position, but an appointed one) "on a stable basis". Thus, men (and not women) are expected to hold a stable ministry of lector in a parish; that is the first point of the section. Then, only after that has been made clear, does it say that "lay people" can "fulfill the function of lector". Do you see the wording there? That means that the laity, male or female, who are not "instituted lectors" (which only males can be) can "fulfill the function" of the lector. When someone "fulfills a function" it means to do the job even though it is not yours; in other words, they are not actually lectors (for that is only the position of a man who has been "instituted" as a "lector" by a bishop). This is the reason why I will use the term "reader" when the individual is not an instituted lector.
Why would the Church allow other laity to "fulfill the function" if it expected there to be an instituted lector in the parish? Only because there were parishes without an instituted lector, so they were allowing (in those odd circumstances) a lay person to "fill in". The third paragraph in Canon 230 makes the context clear by explaining that this is to be done when "ministers are not available" (i.e. properly instituted ministers). As I said above, the description does not say that they can fill in as long as they want to do so, or that this situation is supposed to become permanent. In fact, it says precisely that they can fill in only "temporarily". Yes, that is the wording. To allow it on a temporary basis is because the desire is that the problem of not having a male who is an instituted lector would eventually be remedied. How many parishioners even know that this is what the Church wants?
Once, however, that you "allow" something--even if you state that it should be temporary--you have opened to door for it becoming permanently grandfathered in (or maybe we should say "grandmothered in"?). Think of what it would be like in the average Catholic parish for the priest to say: "Sadly, we do not have an instituted lector the way the Church wants. We are therefore going to remedy this situation." He would then proceed to relieve all of the "temporary" lectors from their position so that a properly instituted lector (again, an adult male) could fulfill his role. Can you imagine the uproar that would ensue (I know of one situation where many people left a parish because the priest did this very thing)? The priest would quickly be branded an archaic, Vatican II-hating, misogynist (all because he wanted to do what the Church told him to do!).
I cannot imagine that this is what the Church intended when she chose to allow a temporary solution to the problem of fewer males fulfilling their roles. When priests are afraid to obey the Church because of a potential backlash from the parish, something is seriously wrong with the Church (which hearkens back to yesterday's post about the Clergy being under attack). Feminism has come a long way, and it has infiltrated the Church in so many areas, that we are scarcely aware of it. Certainly, habits are hard to break, but there is more at stake here than whether a person can "do a ministry" that he or she wants in the Church.
If men are neglecting to step up where they are supposed to in the lay-duties of the Church, then it is either because they are ignorant of their duties (which I am trying to remedy with this post), or it is because their spirit has been whipped; they have been emotionally and spiritually "escorted out" of the Church. I know that many of them fit into both categories, but we can remedy this if we are willing to do the hard work. Many of these men likely are sitting back thinking to themselves: "if it is OK for women to do this, and they are willing, then I don't have to". Abdication sometimes is caused by direct rebellion, and other times by sheer laziness.
Is this where we intended to be? Is it good for the Church to run on a temporary permission, and just forget about the ideal? What can we do to encourage the move back to what is best? There are certainly many ways in which women can serve the Church, but if they are "temporarily" filling the roles that men are supposed to be filling on a permanent basis, then what happens to those roles that women are called to fulfill? Is anyone doing them? Are they being neglected? Certainly a first step in this direction is for women to seek out the wonderful ministries that are properly theirs, and intentionally encourage the men in their lives to take their proper place. Men also must "man up" and realize that there is no position in the Kingdom of Christ for a "bench warmer". Not every man needs to be an instituted lector, but if none of them in a parish will serve that role, then something is definitely not right.
