Whispers in the Wasteland

What's the big deal?

At CatholicMatch.com a poster asks: "What I don't understand is what's the big deal about altar girls?"

One reason is that the seed of priestly vocations is most frequently planted in altar boys. While it's not the exclusive seedbed for vocations, it is given prominent mention in Pope JPII's exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis.

Another reason might be psychology (I use "might" because I'm no more than an amateur psychologist). In my limited exposure to churchs that have both male and female altar servers, it is usually an overwhelming ratio of female to male servers (is anybody else's observation different? If different, is it because of a pastor's active discouragement of altar girls?).

Again, in my capacity as amateur psychologist, I think it's a boy's natural preference to be involved in exclusive activities (that is, it's not a culturally indoctrinated preference). It seems to me women and girls are blind to that exclusive preference, especially now in this post-feminist culture.

Whether that's just a fear of female cooties or the ravings of a cantankerous bigoted old man playing psychologist, I have yet to encounter an alternate explanation other than an appeal to fairness. Or perhaps I'm wrong about the overwhelming dominance of altar girls where it's allowed. But during a period of great need for priestly vocations, "what's the big deal?" falls far too short as a reason to allow altar girls.

Since I'm aware of my feelings, I'm aware of the possibility that the above might come across as too defensive. I'm really agnostic over whether the poster was truly ignorant of the reasons against altar girls or willfully blind of the reasons against altar girls. I'm really charitable enough to concede that she posed the question with the utmost sincerity and innocence, "what's the big deal?"

My sore spot is not over altar girls, but the question itself: "what's the big deal?" I'm a traditionalist, but not in the way most people here would understand. I'm not going to be confused with those who love the Traditional Latin Mass (n.b.: I'm not opposed to the TLM either). Change is common enough these days that people are comfortable with change such that, often enough, they don't see what might be wrong with change. Sometimes it's chronological snobbery (e.g. "that is so old fashioned"), but more often it's an indifference toward tradition -- "what's the big deal?" -- as if the burden of proof lies with tradition, and not with those who propose the change.

As such I stand very much with Chesterton's democracy of the dead over that of the democracy of those who happen to be living. Often enough, the reasons for tradition are too complex or beyond the capacity of those living defenders of tradition to properly explain. Chesterton explains the proper attitude for reformers to take (hat tip to Chesterton.org):

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

To the question "what's the big deal about altar girls?" the best answer is "go away and think."