We forgot to turn on the sprinklers in the vegetable garden until late the other night. So my wife and I headed out about 8:30 to get them. Then, we headed back out to turn off the water about 9:30 (the lines run from a well so it's basically "free"), and she said "which one you want?" "I'll get the one in the field, you get the one by the chapel" I told her. You see, the one by the chapel is clearly visible from the security light and I did not want her trekking down through the dark field. I took a flashlight with me just in case there were any snakes roaming around late at night. About 10 feet from the faucet I heard a rustle in the bushes to my left; nothing visible in the flashlight, so I skirted the area and kept going. Then the thought went through my mind, "if someone's gonna get bit I'm glad it will be me and not her".
There are some "man's duties" that we all know instinctively, but we are not used to thinking about them. It is the man's duty to go out in the dangerous areas and "get bitten" if need be, in order to protect the women and children. Yet, today we are so used to seeing movies where men stand back, and the women "take point" in military actions that it seems archaic for me to speak this way. I am not about to try to explain the thinking of a woman who wants to "take point" and head into danger (I am not a woman so I cannot understand it), but all men (even those who are cowards) know the sense of "I need to man-up because that's my job".
I find it interesting that this seems to have been generally squelched when it comes to serving at the altar. As I have been pointing out, men are being escorted out of the Church in various ways. I think it starts when they are young. As much of the Mass has been "feminized" making it soft, cuddly, and sweet, so those males who really want to be men are turned off by it and slowly fade away. When there are girls serving as altar boys, the boys will naturally think of it as a "girly" thing, and most will not want to be there. Start escorting them out when they are 10 years old, and it will a foregone conclusion that they will check out (at least mentally) by the time that they are 18.
When did this allowance for girls serving at the altar come about? It was actually a result of a (somewhat stretched) interpretation of the Canon referred to in yesterday's post (230.2) which does not directly refer to altar servers. When it was noticed that it said that laity can fulfill the role of lector and acolyte, those who were already (yes, that means disobediently) allowing girls to serve at the altar, asked whether it was OK ("I'm doing this, you're not gonna stop me right?"). The result was a letter, in 1994, that gave permission for girls to serve at the altar. In essence, a way was found to justify a behavior that was already occurring, so the permission was "squeezed out of the text" (in my humble opinion).
Yet, in that very same letter, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments said that this was "permissive" and not "prescriptive"; meaning each Bishop could decide whether he wanted girls serving at his altars or not (and also that no priest was bound to have girls serve at the altar for him). It also stated emphatically that: "it will always be very appropriate to follow the noble tradition of having boys serve at the altar."
So then, if the allowance came from a notion of finding a "loophole" in the text of Canon Law, then I must ask, what was the motivation? Was it a sense of egalitarianism in regard to liturgical duties? Quite possibly, though we can never be certain. Yet, why would the CDW declare that it is "always very appropriate" to have just altar boys if one's sex made no difference in the chancel? There clearly is a difference. I heard of a priest who once told the girl altar servers that they would no longer be allowed to serve at the altar because (as he told them) "you cannot be called to holy orders, so it is not healthy for you to be here, and it keeps the boys who may be called to holy orders away from the altar". Quite a powerful statement.
Were people who wanted altar girls motivated by a lack of altar boys? I am not sure that this was the case the way that it was with a lack of instituted lectors (as mentioned in the previous post). Since it was already going on (in disobedience, I must point out again), it is hard to believe that there was a holy and reverent intent behind it. No sinful behavior is ever motivated by holiness! So then, once again, it appears that the motivation was egalitarianism. There were those who desired to allow the girls to "do something" and others who intentionally were aiming at feminizing the Mass (after all, girls certainly look much prettier walking around up there than do those clumsy boys!).
There is another factor that is often not thought of. As a priest, I have had many altar servers and as much as I have to admit that the girls often do a better job, I also have to admit that it makes me nervous to have girls there. If while celebrating the Mass I run into an altar boy, no big deal. If I run into an altar girl, big problem. I am not sure who would be more embarrassed, me or the girl. A priest should not have to think about things like this when he is at the altar. Guys can brush against each other, and it is not a problem (just watch a football game!), but I cannot tell you how many times I have had to stop and gauge my actions, the position of my hands, and the manner of comments because the server was a girl and I did not want to give the wrong impression.
I will always obey the Church, but I must confess that I do not agree that allowing girls to serve at the altar is the best long term practice--it clearly has discouraged numerous boys from considering the vocation to the priesthood. I have heard of various boys who reject serving at the altar (and consequently reject considering the vocation to the priesthood) because they have been led to believe that it is "sissy stuff". Telling girls that they can serve at the altar, but "not to like it too much" gives the wrong impression to just about everyone. It is dogma that the priesthood is exclusively male, and confusing the "training ground" for the priesthood makes it difficult to keep that clear. Furthermore, whenever we discourage boys and men from fulfilling their proper Church roles, they become more and more passive in their spirituality (thus helping all of them to be "escorted out of the Church").
As we seek to restore a godly masculinity and femininity we must be teaching boys and girls about what they are (and can be) called to as the people of God. There must be an encouragement for girls to see their proper roles and say "I want to do that" or "that is what I am called to". The same is true for boys. As I said in my beginning illustration, boys need to be able to say "I want to take my place before God", and if that place is holy orders, then he needs a clear setting in which he can make that decision. He needs to be able to look at the altar and say "I want to serve there" without any discouragement. Serving alongside a godly priest who can encourage him to faithfulness (as only a man can do with a young boy) is a necessary setting, and it should not be confused by the wrong images.
