FJI

Competition or Complementarity? A Defense of Male Altar Servers

By | February 2, 2015

Father Joseph Illo found himself in the center of national media attention after he announced his decision last week to disallow female altar servers at Star of the Sea parish in San Francisco. Many responses have been negative, with the most recent media commentary titled: “Altar Server Scandal Is Reminder of How Far The Catholic Church Has To Go With Women.” The situation has predictably brought the public square to focus on questions regarding the role of women within the Church, and whether decisions like these are unjustly discriminatory. Popular media responses seem to indicate that they are, and that Fr. Illo’s decision is emblematic of Catholic patriarchy and intransigence.

But as a Catholic woman and former altar server, I understand and fully support Father Illo’s decision.

Although technically the Church has permitted female altar servers, it remains true that She does not require it. In fact, the salient sentence from the Code of Canon Law (230) regarding the involvement of both men and women as altar servers (among other offices) permits it with the caveat, “by temporary designation.” This phrasing invites a question about the soundness of what has so often become the norm in American parishes where female serving is concerned. So now we must ask: Why might it be fitting that women not serve at the altar, even if Canon Law permits it?

We should begin by noting that altar boys originally served the priest with offering the Mass as acolytes. This was the highest of what were called the minor orders, which were elements of priestly formation and preparation. Minor orders was distinguished from “major,” or “sacred” orders, in which the seminarian was ordained to the holy office of priesthood. After minor orders was reformed in 1972, the acolyte became a lay ministry rather than an order. It was then that canon law included an article that permitted men and women (as implied in the use of the Latin laici, or lay people) to stand in for acolytes as needed. Thus began the transition from acolyte seminarians to what are today called altar boys and girls.

The media is employing this canon law allowance to criticize and oppose Fr. Illo’s decision. We should note two things about the allowance, though. First, as we have seen, the role of an acolyte is inherently related to the priesthood, and second, the contemporary altar girl bears no resemblance to that purpose for which the office was created. Many think that the Catholic Church has taken a step in the right direction by opening her doors more widely to the involvement of females in the liturgy. But given that the Church never has and never will ordain women, it’s difficult to see how altar girls could ever benefit from their service in the way that altar boys can. As Fr. Illo himself said, “Nothing awakens a desire for the priesthood like service at the altar among the brotherhood of young men.”

Now I’d like to emphasize the flip side of this discussion. Too often is the Catholic Church—in this case, Father Joseph Illo—criticized for speaking of what women cannot do. But nearly everyone omits that the Church also speaks more highly of women than any institution you could name. And when the Church uses the word “woman” She uses it to mean a woman’s entire personhood, not her contribution to the workplace alone (feminism), or the beauty of her body alone (pornography). Our recent popes have spoken often of the importance and dignity of women in and for the Church. Consider, for instance, the following excerpt from Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity of Woman, John Paul II):

Therefore the Church gives thanks for each and every woman: for mothers, for sisters, for wives; for women consecrated to God in virginity; for women dedicated to the many human beings who await the gratuitous love of another person; for women who watch over the human persons in the family, which is the fundamental sign of the human community; for women who work professionally, and who at times are burdened by a great social responsibility; for “perfect” women and for “weak” women - for all women as they have come forth from the heart of God in all the beauty and richness of their femininity; as they have been embraced by his eternal love; as, together with men, they are pilgrims on this earth, which is the temporal “homeland” of all people and is transformed sometimes into a “valley of tears”; as they assume, together with men, a common responsibility for the destiny of humanity according to daily necessities and according to that definitive destiny which the human family has in God himself, in the bosom of the ineffable Trinity.

I would hardly call this discrimination or patriarchy. Just because the Church points to fundamental differences and therefore characteristic role discrepancies between men and women does not mean that She considers women as lesser. There is surely a difference between inequality and complementarity, a difference that much of the media seems to overlook.

The critical role of men in society and culture is also largely ignored amid debate over women’s roles in the Church. Unfortunately, the feminist movement has effected an environment in which any emphasis of our need for masculine virtue is perceived as an exclusion of feminine virtue, rather than a complement to it. This mentality is gravely dangerous, and the Church has fallen prey to it.

Thus when considering an issue like whether or not girls should be altar servers, we must look at the matter in the context of our culture’s current state, rather than simply one priest’s decision. We are suffering now from a terrible cultural crisis in terms of how we view the roles of men and women; the distinction between the two is fading in the popular eye, and is perhaps almost invisible. The Church, in turn, is facing that same crisis.

Cultural dynamics, including loss of home life, bad catechesis, the feminist movement, and the eruption of widespread pornography consumption, have ushered in the cessation of celebrating male virtue. The importance of men being made in the Holy Trinity’s image, or the value of selflessness for the sake of a woman and family, or the inseparable connection between human sexuality and a lifelong commitment between a man and woman, have all been lost, and this loss is affecting the Church in a devastating way. Men have been “grievously wounded” by it, as Cardinal Burke stated in a January 5 interview. He continued:

The goodness and importance of men became very obscured, and for all practical purposes, were not emphasized at all. This is despite the fact that it was a long tradition in the Church, especially through the devotion of St. Joseph, to stress the manly character of the man who sacrifices his life for the sake of the home, who prepares with chivalry to defend his wife and his children and who works to provide the livelihood for the family. So much of this tradition of heralding the heroic nature of manhood has been lost in the Church today.

The priesthood is inherently a masculine vocation because Christ is the exemplar for priesthood. The relationship between Christ and His Church is essentially the relationship between a bridegroom and his bride, male and female. It is right for men to seek to imitate Christ, the most perfect paradigm of the masculine role. If masculinity is no longer valuable, why embrace the priestly vocation, which is an imitation of Christ as the High Priest? If no one around you values the masculine virtues, why choose something so intrinsically male?

And so we may return to Fr. Illo’s decision. Viewed by the modern eye, it appears archaic, discriminatory, and uncharitable toward women. But viewed in light of the Church’s rich tradition of the male priesthood and the inherent dignity and complementarity of both male and female, he is exercising a prudential judgment that is clearly keeping the Wisdom of the Church in mind. Instead of viewing him with a primarily critical eye, I invite my readers to consider his decision in light of the under-tapped potential of altar serving for male discernment and the complementarity that the Church holds to exist between man and woman.

Print Friendly
  • http://practicaldistributism.blogspot.com David Cooney

    Thank you for this article.

  • gsk

    Very very sharp, Elisabeth. It’s time to delve into authentic masculine virtue, and see how it differs from the aberrations all around us.

  • Justin White

    It seems this breaks down into two points: 1) we need to reclaim celebration of both sexes and the unique gifts they bring, and 2) that means only males should be altar servers. As right as the first is, the second doesn’t follow from it. Without the emphasis on being a pathway to the priesthood, it seems serving at the altar can be a wonderful opportunity for both sexes to pursue vocations. For instance, why can’t a girl be equally moved to “religious life” (a stupid phrase for it’s implication that other lives aren’t “religious”, but I’ll go with it because it’s the one in use) by serving at the altar? Or even if they didn’t feel that call, couldn’t they further understand their call to the married or single life by their more intimate connection with the Mass, just as a boy could? Allowing girls to serve at the altar could/would encourage a more robust understanding of vocation all around, a discussion we desperately need to have; currently, the common understanding of vocation is “the priesthood and that’s it”, which is a horribly impoverished mindset. Getting our youth more involved at the Mass, boys and girls, could be a key element to reclaiming a proper understanding of vocation.

    In addition, as an aside to the above, saying that altar serving should serve as a pathway to the priesthood says something odd about those boy altar servers who don’t go on to be priests. We surely wouldn’t chastise them for it, because we’d say they simply discerned their call to be one that wasn’t to the priesthood. There’s simply no reason we couldn’t say the same thing about girls who serve and don’t enter religious life, but yet become wonderful Catholic leaders in their vocation all the same. Ultimately, the reclamation of the virtues of the sexes that the author calls for does not require an all-male altar server corps.

  • Joseph McDonald

    A couple of questions/observations. The Mass in the Extraordinary Form seems to use both altar servers and acolytes, or, perhaps more accurately the altar servers are acolytes, although in one Latin high mass, I noted both altar servers (boys of seeming lesser degree) and acolytes (older boys, perhaps a seminarian or two, who seemed to be doing the good and interesting stuff). In any case there was a plurality of them, perhaps 8 ot 12 (I thought it a bit disrespectful to count when I had enough trouble following along in the Latin missal without thinking myself a rad trid).

    But what are to make of Francis’s recent call for Catholic men to be less “macho”? In the feminized post-Vatican II disintegration of the Church, it’s hard to find a macho male. We are very nice, docile, polite, love and honor and cherish our wives, respect our children, and let others handle the remote. Is Michael Voris the new model for a macho male Catholic? Not bad, perhaps, although I do wish he’d be much more nuanced in his critique of Notre Dame. Maybe that’s what the Holy Father had in mind. Be fully male, but somewhat less militant, please. There are children and women present.

    So far, I conclude that Francis, as a fellow Argentine, has the stereotypical South American macho male in his sights and needs to be brought up to speed on the many milquetoasts inhabiting the American Church (but certainly not among the male readers of Ethika Politika, of course).

  • LawProf61

    Color me unimpressed. (Not by the writing of this piece, which is eloquent and lovely.) The language of “complementarity” has been used by too many for too long within the Church as a euphemism for “know your place,” and co-opted by many outside the Church as an excuse to exclude women from untold other pursuits as well. As a mother, I look forward to seeing both of my children serving at the altar (should they wish to), notwithstanding the fact that I feel no particular desire that either of them would choose the priesthood or a religious order. It is a way of understanding better what is transpiring in the sacrifice of the Mass, and being able to be a more active participant in it. I have always thought that it was one of JPII’s most wonderful gifts to permit girls as altar servers. As to where it will lead after a few generations become accustomed to seeing females on the altar, I cannot say. I would not be as quick to conclude that the Church “will never” ordain women. I suspect there were those who believed that the Mass would never be in anything but Latin, as it was for hundreds of years. And yet, here we are.

  • Michelle

    Thank you. A wonderful article. And thank you Father Illo for your courage.

  • mgseamanjr

    So, Justin White, how do you deal with these two well established facts:

    1) Parishes where both boys and girls are altar servers see a decline in boys serving.
    2) Parishes and dioceses that allow only boys to serve see an increase in vocations to the priesthood.

    You are less likely to see female altar servers “moved to religious life” but you will may see them start to demand to be allowed to be consecrated as clergy (which is probably why many people who share your feelings like the idea of female altar servers to begin with).

  • That Guy

    I’m sorry, but the church cannot (not will not-cannot) ordain women. That is a matter of dogma, not discipline, i.e., unalterable teaching. Pope Francis himself said on the idea that, “The Church has spoken and said no…That door is closed.”

  • Justin White

    Without knowing the methodologies and scopes of where these “well established facts” are coming from, I see only correlation, not causation. That said, let’s play your game, assume both points are true, and see what happens. I refute them thus:

    1) Well, yeah, duh. This happens by the same logic as “as soon as we decriminalized X, crime dropped!”. There’s a finite number of spots for altar servers. Go from “all boys” to “boys and girls”, and you will, by definition, have fewer boys. This is both silly and irrelevant.

    2) So what? This is exactly the sort of impoverished mentality of vocations I mentioned in my first post: I’m far more concerned with all parishioners discerning their vocation (priesthood, married, or single), than the number of parishioners discerning one particular vocation.

    Your last piece is mere anecdote/assertion, with the same level of argumentative sophistication as “If You Give A Mouse A Cookie”. Just as those in charge of the mouse are partially at fault for his gluttony, so the parish community is in charge of instructing both it’s boys and it’s girls about the teachings of the Church, so this “demand” you speak of wouldn’t be as much of an issue. This ought to keep girls in our faith from being as morally formed as Veruca Salt, which your argument assumes they are.

    Note: every bit of the problems raised here are solved by more thorough and active faith formation, not the crappy catechesis we have now in our country, where a teenager’s faith entering high school is about as deep as their belief in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy.

  • Valdir Lima

    THANK YOU very much indeed for this excellent article. And thank God it was written by a woman. God bless.

  • mgseamanjr

    You state, “There is a finite number of spots for altar servers” an “Go from ‘all boys’ to ‘boys and girls’ and you will, by definition, have fewer boys.” What? There is no limit to the number of altar servers in a parish. Are you even Catholic? Sorry but it is your allegation that is “silly” and nonsensical. It so happens that boys, especially at an adolescent age, find it less appealing to serve with females and so drop off the rosters when they are added.

    Your second point is exactly the statement I expected from you. You are obviously a very left-leaning individual. You think it is more important that we have less vocations so long as our altar servers can prove some sort of “gender equality” in the church point you wish to make.

    Let me spell out my last point for you: the reason that “progressives” (no doubt like you) pushed for female altar servers was to get the “camel’s nose in the tent.” It is a first step, in their view, to a female priesthood. If you don’t believe this, then you are naive.

  • Churchill4President

    Excellent article!

  • Churchill4President

    I just saw a study that showed that religious women (nuns) are at their lowest numbers in history. When they were at their highest — before Vatican 2 — they were not allowed to be “altar servers”.

    So allowing females to be altar servers has done nothing to increase the numbers of Catholic woman who lead consecrated lives. In fact it has had the opposite effect.

    Priestly vocations are down as well.

    Since all of the modernist reforms of Vatican 2, the Roman Catholic Church is dying a death of a thousand cuts.

  • Churchill4President

    Yes, here we are, thanks to modernists, the Catholic Church is on life support throughout most of the world.

  • Churchill4President

    Please stop playing college law professor. You should put your own arguments through the same rigorous sophistic scrutiny.

  • Churchill4President

    Very well said!

    Pope Francis’s remarks about men being less macho are way off base and says more about the Latino culture he grew up with than the reality that the Church and Western civilization has become feminized.

  • Churchill4President

    Excellent observation about the “nose in the tent”. I also think this strategy applies to the scores of Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers that I see at Sunday Mass — most who are women.

  • Justin White

    First, correlation does not mean causation. Second, “I just saw a study” isn’t exactly convincing…ever. Finally, the number of priestly ordinations is a ridiculously impoverished way to quantify the life of the Church.

  • Justin White

    There are X servers of Masses held at any given parish in a given week. For any given Mass, there can be X number of servers. Therefore, if the max number of servers goes from being “all group Y” to “groups Y and Z”, numbers of Y will decrease.

    Yes, I’m Catholic. What does that have to do with your previous observation?

    Boys find serving with girls less appealing at an adolescent age because boys of that age don’t want to do anything with girls. Go to a 6th grade dance, they’ll be standing on separate walls. Should we remove girls from grade school dances to let boys dance freely? No, we just accept that this is part of adolescence and try to give kids chances to socialize.

    Is “left-leaning individual” an insult? It’s a) an odd assumption, b) not true, and c) irrelevant. Again, at this point, you’re discussing “vocations” in a way that harms the Church. “Vocations” does not equal “priesthood”. There are as many vocations as there are people in the Church.

    Your “last point” is wildly presumptive, in your attempt to change the topic. This has nothing to do with the female priesthood, but again, your watered down understanding of vocations won’t let you see that.

  • Justin White

    Seriously? You’re going to run to “no female Eucharistic Ministers” next?

  • Justin White

    A) I have, and B) as the one “arguing” against me, that’s your job, and C) making better arguments than you doesn’t make someone a “college law professor”, nor is that an insult. If you’d like to engage me with something relevant, that’s what this comment section is for, feel free.

  • Michelle Thuldanin

    Just read this whole thread and I wanted to say that you hold you own very well and with dignity. I see both sides of this, but agree that altar serving is not THE definitive reason for priestly ordination numbers decline. I would say not enough people know or practice the faith like they should and one hour a week at Mass isn’t going to give anyone what they need to live a fully Catholic life. The graces are undeniable, but if we cherry pick what we will and won’t do when we walk out the door, it won’t be a very deep faith. I think that is way more detrimental that girl altar servers.

  • mgseamanjr

    Sorry Justin but you are not making sense. There is nothing that prevents a pastor from enrolling more servers. The only outcome is that, if a pastor decides that he can only have a certain number of servers per mass, and the total number of servers goes up, then each server will be assigned less masses. It does not follow at all that the number of male servers goes down due to the number of total servers going up. The boys drop out for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it is no longer perceived as a first step to the priesthood. You are so married to the idea that the Catholic church should drill some misguided gender equality into our youth that you would forsake greater numbers of vocations to achieve that goal. You strike me as a prime example of liberalism gone amok.

  • Justin White

    This has gotten ridiculous. The point you make at the top is nitpicky and not at all relevant to the point of the argument either of us were making. The second point you make, actually, I partially agree with: the boys certainly do drop out for a variety of reasons, and I’d even maybe agree that “no longer path to priesthood” is not the least of those reasons. That said, neither of us have any real way of measuring this, so, like your first point, it’s still not helpful to the issue as a whole. The last section of your post is an unfounded assumption about my mindset, PLUS (!!!) you manage to continue perpetuating the impoverished understanding of vocations as exclusively Holy Orders that I’ve mentioned multiple times, and which is at the crux of my entire point. To go from there to “liberalism gone amok” is yet another bold (as well as unfounded, nonsensical, and impossible to measure) assumption, and is indicative of a brand of thought characterized more by paranoia than by critical thought. It’s easy to say “that seems liberal, ergo it’s bad”, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. It’s far more beneficial to yourself, me, and society as a whole to look past labels and focus more on, you know, not ending your posts with ad hominems.