However, is your suggestion that females are not allowed to serve at the Mass or that they are allowed to serve at Mass, so long as they maintain some sort of distance from the altar?

Of course, I think the distance thing is a prudential decision from the Church to not fall back into the error (as per apparently some local circles did in 400+/-AD) whereby deaconesses were construed to be ordained or to somehow take on some psuedo-priestly role.

In our day and age when the Holy Father has confirmed that females are not able to take on the priestly role, and that the emphasis has been on the service in the Church regardless of sex, it is clear that issue of altar girls is not as prudentially repulsive as I think you would like it to be. And of course the issue is not a matter of theology, but discipline. Of course you are entitled to opine that female altar servers is not a prudential decision; you will however disagree with JPII. But it is clear he maintains that the male altar service is more appropriate.

In any case I graciously end, too, with my own opinion that I think the goal should be male altar servers; but not to restrict female altar servers on the basis of sex only.

If no altar server went near the altar, then why stipulate that women couldn’t do it. Whatever’s being restricted for women in part. is clearly allowed to men in the same role. The male altar server has to *approach* the altar for this restriction to make any sense at all. Now I end my case. Good night.

Well, shoot. Re: last post, how am I supposed to read others’ opinions without looking back to see if people have responded? That’s a puzzler.

“It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.” –Roman Theological Forum.

It is clear the quote above is simply indicating the use of female altar servers is reaching a point where women are carrying out roles not suited to their sex (aka: Apparently acting as priests). Notice the “and” between the two points. Divorce the latter part (ie, taking on roles proper to priests) and the reason at the end does not makes sense (ie, only applicable to a male priesthood). They need to get it straight or at least indicate that they think female altar service is reserved to the male priesthood only (but that, obviously, does not make sense).

As for the other quote you give from an apparent older Code of Canon Law:

“A woman may not be a minister of the Mass, except when no male is available and for a just cause, and under the condition that she make the responses from a distance, not under any circumstances approaching the altar.”

It is clear in this case old Canon Law refers to “service” when it states “minister”. Obviously, this is because the woman is not able to go up to the altar and act as a priest (thus “minister” must mean “serve”).

In any case don’t forget the altar servers in the Tridentine Mass never actually approached the altar like the priest. I think approach means actually ascending the “steps” to the high altar, not necessarily being in the sanctuary or near the altar in the particular case described in the apparent 1917 Code of Canon Law.

In any case it sounds like that quote more or less supports female altar servers. Doesn’t it?

You can defend John Paul II’s right to allow vestal virgins, I mean altar girls, without agreeing to the soundness, justness, prudence, or even sanity of his decision.

Why do you feel compelled to defend the indefensible?

“This condition is very significant, and was also reflected in the wording of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 813, §2, of the old Code, already referred to, stated: “A woman may not be a minister of the Mass, except when no male is available and for a just cause, and under the condition that she make the responses from a distance, not under any circumstances approaching the altar” (emphasis added). 6″

This is a citation from canon law, and says that a woman may in fact serve as a *minister* (now that can’t mean a priest, can it?) provided she make the responses (so *minister* just has to mean altar server, right?) provided she not approach the altar for any reason. So she can say the responses from, I presume, outside the sanctuary. No lighting of candles (one of the essential jobs of an altar boy, so Cath. Enc. informs me), no approaching the altar, no handling of sacred vessels. Seeing as in the NOM the laity usually says the responses, all this canon allows for women/girls is a function that altar boys no longer have!

Frankly, I’m confused as to why you’re still arguing, John-Boy. It’s clear that altar girls weren’t used legitimately in the past. All I would argue (if I were you) is that Pope John Paul changed those rules. But perhaps you realize that that fact alone, minus precedent and in fact *contrary* to precedent (and prudence, and right reasoning), is not a satisfactory justification.

“[the] general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West. 3
Martimort also recalls that Popes ever since St. Gelasius in 494 had denounced this practice as an abuse. It appears there were already feminist influences making themselves felt in Sicily and southern Italy at that time, and Pope St. Gelasius felt obliged to write to the bishops of those regions saying

We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt [mépris] with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender. 4
Every edition of the Roman Missal from 1570 till 1962 carried the prohibition of female altar servers, as did the 1917 Code of Canon Law (c. 813, §2), not to mention the documents of the post-conciliar liturgical reform in their earlier and less radical phase.

In short, it appears that the 1994 Vatican permission for altar girls was the most radical single liturgical change ever officially permitted by the Church’s supreme authority.”

So someone out there in the blogosphere with a copy of the canons of Laodicea propping up their coffee table care to submit the requisite canon for our edification?

That is a woman could serve the liturgy but not minister (act as a psuedo priest) at the altar are valid points.

“Ministering at the altar, even in a subordinate capacity, is likewise forbidden” as indicated in the Catholic Encyclopedia article “Woman” on New Advent.

However, I think it’s appropriate to judge by the context of the surrounding discussion that the intent is the females are not permitted to take on the priestly role as “minister.” Even the complete quote you cite states “much more [reflecting on a womans silence in Church] should she abstain from the ministry of the altar.”

Now it is clear based upon the first several sentences in this particular paragraph that the ministry is in fact the ordained ministry:

“In religious and moral matters, the common obligations and responsibilities of men and women are the same. There is not one law for a man and another for a woman, and in this, of course, the canons follow the teachings of Christ. Women, however, are not capable of certain functions pertaining to religion. Thus, a woman is not capable of receiving sacred orders (cap. Novae, 10 de poen.).”

Neglect my last comment.

The above comment from Tobias is incorrect!

The bracketed [i.e. service] is copied directly from a quote in the Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent) article “Deaconesses.”

“That is subject of debate” — I meant “That is THE subject of THIS debate”

“For the umpteenth time, yes, deaconnesses seem to have had a liturgical role, yes. But not in the function of altar girls, which is what we are trying to discuss here.”

By this I meant that they did not have a *legitimate* role as altar servers — the roles that overlap between deaconness and acolyte were condemned as abuses.