I enjoyed Bishop Loverde's comment on the news this am...something akin to "If the Vatican sees fit to allow both options, I feel I should do the same in our diocese..."

In my opinion, it's a change that's a day late and a dollar short. The institutional church's focus on protecting the male priesthood has created an institution that, in it's commitment to maintaining at all costs the man-made traditions (with a lower-case t) has failed to encourage all of the faithful to honor the Church's true Traditions (with a capital T).

Regardless of gender, the faithful desire to serve, and as society has advanced to permit women such freedom, the Church should have seen it's own limited perspective for what it was, and encouraged women.

It is hard for me anymore to believe the institutional church that remains today in all it's sickness is the same Rock Christ meant to leave us...

In fact, Lasinva, the Vatican has not seen fit to "allow both options" in any equal sense. The Vatican said that the all-male altar boy custom is worthy and noble and merits continuation, and indeed even in those places where the bishop allows altar girls, he is supposed to retain a committed program of maintaining the cadre of boy servers. The Vatican in 1994 said that IN THOSE PLACES WHERE THERE IS ALREADY (against the rules) the forbidden (at that time) practice of using altar girls, the bishop may petition Rome for permission to grant an allowance to use them, a kind of de-facto admission by the bishop that he cannot control his own priests. There is simply no way to make this into 'two equal options, either of which is perfectly and totally accepted.'

Bishop Loverde is either totally ignorant of what Rome said and meant, or is crazy about what is good for the Church, or is a snake. Pick your poison: ignoramus, insane, or criminal.

The anti female bias shown by opponents of altar girls is amazing. If there are 100 altar boys, why would 20 or more altar girls be such a scandal? So what if both servers are girls? We are all baptised in Christ equally and all share the rewards Jesus died on the cross to give us. I highly doubt Jesus would advocate the type of discriminatin that is so evident by those who lament the fact that boys and girls can participate equally.

Michael's comment is silly. Maintaining the tradition of altar boys has nothing to do with an "anti-female bias." It has everything to do with the very real impact that boys serving at the altar has on vocations to the priesthood.

Bishop Keating called the altar boys his "farm team." Most of the priests in the diocese once served as altar boys, a testimony to the impact of that close liturgical connection to the priest and the Mass.

Every time a girl serves Mass (and there are a finite number of spaces each Sunday) a boy is deprived of the opportunity. It also creates a false hope that girls will be able at some future time to be priests. In view of the fact that the feminists have promoted this illusory hope and linked it to "let the lasses serve the Masses" I think altar girls are a problem not a solution.

One last comment: A friend from West VA sent me a sad e-mail about the experience in his parish in Berkley Springs. Altar girls came in. Gradually the boys left. Then the girls lost interest. Now there are no altar servers in his parish at all. It would be interesting for the bishops to conduct a survey on the impact girl servers have on the overall numbers of boys serving at the altar.

Interesting comment by Mary Ann. If there are no altar servers in a parish (girls or boys), I believe your friend should question what the parish priest is doing. I would suspect that the priest is not doing an adequate job if there is no interest by anyone in serving. If altar girls are wrong, then why not ban women Eucharistic ministers? Perhaps you wish to. In the final anaylsis, we ought to ask ourselves what opinion on the matter Jesus would have. I doubt Jesus would banish girls from serving at the altar since he included women in his group of disciples at a time when this was the opposite of what the culture at the time allowed.

Mary Ann's comments are so narrow-minded. Anything to prevent women from participating, right?

a.) The number of servers is not limited. When I was an altar server, my church allowed whoever showed up to serve. So there's no cap on who can serve when. That's a bunch of hooey.

b.) Great generalization about one church. Um, your friend's little story does not forecast a national calamity or shortage. There are obviously other issues in that parish.

Frankly, as a Catholic, I'm sick and tired of the hierarchy and its arcane rules. There's nothing beautiful about discrimination, be it of women, Democrats or homosexuals. It's quite sad and the Church is driving so many people away with its closed-minded thinking.

I agree with Mary Ann. By allowing girls to serve at Mass, you are creating a false hope. The reason it has been altar BOYS (not "servers") is because the Church is hoping that by participating in the Mass, the boys will want to pursue a life as a priest or other form of religious vocation. Sure it's a great thought to allow girls and women to participate in Mass, but there are MANY other options as to how they can participate. They could be in the choir, play the organ, do any of the readings, be an usher, etc... Just because they are not participating in the EXACT duties of "altar server" doesn't mean they aren't participating in the ceremony of the Mass itself. Some people like the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church, and that does not make them, by any means, a person who discriminates or a person who is "closed-minded"! They simply enjoy the fact that no matter what the Church is blamed for, she always has a way of sticking through it, and coming out stronger. It's unfortunate that so many "Catholics" want to change so much about the Rock that Christ left for us; the one upon which PETER built the Catholic Church...

A dear friend of mine who is devoutly Jewish pointed out quite fairly that the spirituality of men and women different and evolved differently over history and how we worship and the roles the sexes take in worshipping services of many faiths is not really a matter of equality or lack thereof. Fair point.

I worship in a Byzantine-Ruthenian rite Catholic parish. For those unfamiliar, we are very orthodox and traditional. No one plays a guitar and we don't sing "Amazing Grace." We don't have pipe organs; we chant like Russians. (And yes, we are under the Pope.) It's just an older form of worship. (I am not saying older is better, it is just preferred by those of us who worship that way. I have friends who love folk Masses and play guitar in them.)

We have four Easter Divine Liturgies in my parish. The first commemorates the unseen Resurrection in the Tomb, the second commemorates the arrival of the Myrrh-Bearing Women, who discover the empty Tomb itself. The second Liturgy is related to my point, which I'll get to in a roundabout way (sorry in advance).

That second Liturgy always makes me reflect upon the role of women in Jesus' earthly life and minstry:

Specifically, Jesus counted women among his dearest friends at a time when women had the legal status of children (at best); He performed His first public miracle at the behest of a woman (His Mother); He heard the sorrow of his friends Mary and Martha and raised their brother Lazarus; He scolded His disciple for complaining when Mary annointed Him with expensive oil before His Crucifixion (she was doing something highly considerate and merciful, after all); He was followed to the Cross by weeping women; and the first human beings to actually learn of His Resurrection were women (i.e., the aforementioned Myrrh Bearing ones). I am reminded that in Orthodoxy and Byzantine Catholicism, some of the great saints, including some female saints, have the lofty title of "equal to the apostles." This is not a modernist, feminist labeling at all - so dear conservatives, do not get your hackles up -it is actually a very ancient and centuries-old way to describe the importance of a saint who may have affected the conversion of a nation or the spirituality of many, and is appended regardless of sex.

I find it interesting that altar girls are such a hot topic and that is has been so tied to modern societal concepts of equality. Is it really about equality? Is it really about society? Or is it about a service model used to bring young people into adulthood in the church? Defining what issue or need you wish to solve by the solution of permitting altar girls seems to be at the heart of this. For those who prefer tradition, there are many, many traditional ways in which men and women may contribute in the church and in worship services. If this breeds such controversy, has there been enough creativity to be inclusive in more "conservative" fashion?

I am sure that this will play out on the micro-level of community; parish by parish. I do not believe it is a male versus female thing at all; frankly, as described above, women often provide the best examples of human behavior in the Scriptures. I didn't learn this as a kid in CCD, though; I learned it as an adult paying attention at church and studying what we know of the history of the early church and its great saints. If Roman Catholic girls and the parents of Roman Catholic girls are feeling the need to request they serve in what was seen as a boy's role for so long, perhaps there has not been enough mainstream education and thinking about the roles of female saints and how modern women may follow their example and serve in these modern times?

I do not pretend to know the answer to difficult questions. Frankly, I'm glad it is one that my church will not have to deal with.