Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Should Girls Serve at the Altar? A Former Altar Girl Weighs In

littlenuns

While working a summer job in high school, one of my Catholic, male co-workers and I were leaving a building. I was ahead of him, so opened the door and stepped aside so he could pass.

“Oh no!” He cried sarcastically, “You just emasculated me!”

We then joked that a woman’s real role was obviously to be in the kitchen, and after a good laugh we went our separate ways.

Our changing attitudes towards gender roles don’t stop at held doors and pulled out chairs. Obviously, if feminism is to have any value at all, and if Catholicism has any self-respect, then girls need to be on the altar at Mass, right? Otherwise our husbands will beat us and dominate us and tell us not to worry our pretty little heads about any important man-things we might encounter. Further, if other boys don’t like girls on the altar serving with them, then they’ve obviously been indoctrinated by their misogynistic parents to hate women.

Seem far-fetched, even a little hysterical? Yeah. I think so too.

I was a girl altar server. I served for roughly eight years in my parish. While I didn’t have a bad experience, I also have to be honest and admit that I didn’t gain anything more on the altar than I could have by just being in the pew. For a while serving was just something I did when I went to Mass: I goofed off with the other kids behind the scenes and followed the rubrics when Father told us to shape up.

As I got older and more serious about my faith, I felt guilty about the goofing off.  I told myself that I should only serve if I could do it with a prayerful and humble attitude, because serving was a way to participate in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. With that resolution came the realization that I had merely discovered the proper disposition that any layman in the congregation should have. If I was in the pew, I was participating.

I didn’t need to be on the altar, so what was my goal? It’s not that girls don’t have the ability to be altar servers; it’s just that we don’t get much from it. We can’t use the experience as a way to discern a vocation, for two reasons: one, it is metaphysically impossible for a woman to become a priest, and two, if a woman is serious about pursuing a vocation, she starts seeking orders of nuns and spending time with them, and those nuns are not on the altar.

Sometimes people who identified as “feminist” would try to convince me that the Church was unfair to women. I just had another perspective: I don’t think that anyone would argue that their young son “has a right” to spend time with a religious order of nuns, or that he should take part in a retreat held by a convent that is geared towards fostering the vocations of young women to the religious life. I mean, such a retreat is obviously not a formal profession of vows, and boys ought to be allowed to do vocation exercises designed for women religious, because he can do works of mercy just as well as any girl, right?

Such a boy might conclude the same thing I did:  it might be nice, but nothing is gained except a sense of not belonging. He won’t ever be joining an order of nuns. The experience would be little more than an exercise in futility.

As faithful Catholics with an understanding of vocation, we should be able to acknowledge the God-given differences between men and women without being accused of preferring one gender over another. Catholic parents should want their sons to consider a vocation to the priesthood seriously, and putting them on the altar is a means to that end because the connection is blatantly obvious. This position is not anti-woman. It just acknowledges that the Church has different gifts to offer women.

Further, it is obviously right to point out that a man should not dominate or abuse a woman and confine her strictly to a culturally-conditioned role. Mother Church agrees with this, while maintaining the complementarity of the sexes and emphasizing the differences in vocation.

To illustrate: A man can cook supper for his family, change diapers, sing and dance if he likes, and even knit sweaters. Women can build IKEA cabinets, take out the trash, drink beer, and refuse to shave their armpits. The Church is not concerned with these actions and does not go out on a limb to assign them to one gender or the other. It does, however, correctly maintain with the authority of Christ that certain men, if chosen, may be ordained to the priesthood. As John Paul II stated in Mulieris Dignitatem,

In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.

Certain men, not all, can become ordained priests. Women cannot.

Men do not become priests — and boys do not become altar servers — to discriminate against women, or to form a boys-only club. The priesthood is a call to servitude: to serve as an instrument of Christ and to administer to His flock. It’s a hard life, if lived correctly. Altar servers are put in a position to serve the Mass and witness this firsthand, and for a young boy it is a significant experience that gives him a front-row seat to the life of the priest.

I know I didn’t commit a mortal sin by being a girl altar server. Nobody treated me badly, either. My parish priests were very solid, orthodox men, and the boys on the altar were good kids. Other than some good-natured teasing (Don’t wear heels! We will have to get you a longer cassock!”), nobody could be accused of treating me in misogynist manner. Nothing was necessarily broken, but nothing was gained either. It seems to me, then, that this makes girl servers an imprudent practice; not only because it might affect boys negatively, but because it’s just a fact that girls will pursue religious vocations differently than boys. Our missions in life are separate, necessary, and irreplaceable. My experience taught me that we aren’t affirming our daughters in any special way by insisting they serve on the altar.

Our daughters deserve better – and that starts by giving them opportunities to foster a religious vocation in a relevant setting.

95 thoughts on “Should Girls Serve at the Altar? A Former Altar Girl Weighs In”

  1. Though I am in agreement with you that it’s best for girls not to be altar servers, you seem to imply that the only reason a boy becomes an altar server is to expose him to the particular priestly ministry for the purpose of vocational discernment. Though I agree that that is an important part of serving, it isn’t the only reason a boy or man might serve.

    I, too, served as a boy. And I serve again now as an adult at my parish. Why did I start serving again as an adult? There are many reasons. First, when I was initially exposed to the Extraordinary Form about 10 years ago, I sought to understand the liturgy deeper. My parish needed more servers, so I signed up. On a standard Sunday sung mass, we use 7-9 servers. The higher positions, notably MC and Thurifer, are generally reserved for at least older boys if not adults.

    In addition, at my parish we have a strong fellowship among the men who serve and the priests. Once or twice a year, we take the priests out for dinner and talk amongst the men. It is a little bit of a club for those who serve. We take great joy as many of the boys we’ve served with grow up and become members of the adult group. These are the friendships, at this time in my life as a husband and father, that I cherish the most.

    We only have two priests at a very active parish, and there’s a lot of work to be done, particularly around big feast days (holy week is a ton of work!) We do training, polish all of the brass in the parish, keep the sacristy clean, maintain the liturgical artifacts, etc.

    And though I’m not and will never be a priest, the edification I get from serving the priest is incredibly fulfilling. I still remember the first time I served the Extraordinary Form. I knelt behind the priest in prayer, as he broke the host in two, I could hear — but not see — the cracking of the body of Christ, and was immediately brought mentally into meditation on the death of Our Lord. A harrowing and beautiful experience.

    Please don’t take this as too strongly of a criticism — you don’t experience.

    Reply
    • Yes, part of the problem people easily miss is that having girl and boy altar servers is connected with the idea that altar serving is only a kid thing. Church is considered a family event, and altar serving is just something to keep the kids occupied.

      Well no, men should be encouraged to altar serve if it is needed. At a Latin Mass it is not uncommon to see grown men altar serving because there is much to be done at that mass. Serving at a latin mass you actually have to do things and voice responses with the priest at times.

      Reply
  2. Five Sons

    Today, five sons,
    Served on the altar.
    Determined boys
    Who would not falter.

    Boys, at home,
    Who fight and shove
    But on the altar
    Assist with love.

    At home shouting,
    From top of lung.
    On the altar,
    Latin’s sung.

    At home running
    Can’t sit still.
    On the altar
    Disciplined will.

    At home throwing
    Cereal, toast.
    On the altar
    Adoring Host.

    At home bedrooms,
    Scattered scene.
    On the altar
    Order, serene.

    I, proud, mother,
    Faithful to Rome,
    Five sons on the altar,
    Five men at home.

    Reply
  3. gender roles..

    This’ll probably come across as leaden pedantry, but there are only two sexes – male and female – and using the language of the enemy is not helpful. There are sex roles.

    In capitulating to disobedient clerics in the matter of girls as altar servers, Pope Saint John Paul II conditioned those clerics to persist in their disobedience; Hey, he caved on altar girls, let’s keep doing x and y and eventually he will cave on x and y.

    While it is fine that your personal experience led you to the right conclusion, if the Magisterium had simply followed Ecclesiastical tradition, all of that mess could have been avoided and we would not have to continually reinvent the liturgical wheel.

    O, and just try to find a Lil’ Licit Liturgy that does not feature a feminine creature as an altar server.

    C’est la vie.

    Reply
    • Of course there are two sexes. Men and women have different vocational roles, and these roles affirm them. These differences just do not extend to trivialities, like who should be allowed to wear pants. That’s the only distinction I’m trying to make.

      Reply
      • Becky, please consider Pope Benedict’s words addressed to the Curia just three years ago, in which he spoke of

        “the famous saying of Simone de Beauvoir: “one is not born a woman, one becomes so” (on ne naît pas femme, on le devient). These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as acreature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defense of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.”

        Reply
        • Using the word “Gender” correctly is not unorthodox. The Pope is very rightly denouncing actual deviance here. (Transgender-ism, etc.)

          Reply
    • The word “gender” is not the language of the enemy. It has long been used to mean male or female. The term “sex roles” can very well mean something other than that. I think “gender” was the wise word choice here.

      Reply
        • No one is talking about “should transgender children be permitted to serve at the altar?” It was clear that this article’s use of the word “gender” was its traditional meaning of male or female, and to insist otherwise is ridiculous. I would argue that your preferred term, “sex roles”, is much more likely to be perceived as something untoward than “gender”.

          Reply
          • No one is talking about “should transgender children be permitted to serve at the altar?

            If you can not see that short distance down the road then you are essentially blind.

            C’est la vie

          • Are you being willfully obtuse for the sake of insisting upon your own correctness? We weren’t discussing gender in that way. Of course that’s an issue that’s going to come up at some point, because it’s an issue plaguing modern societies worldwide. It also had nothing to do with the use of “gender” in this context. You (and the other guy here who’s bent out of shape about this word) know full well that there is a legitimate, non-political use of “gender” and are choosing to be prissy about it among fellow Catholics who actually agree with you regarding the word’s use in political contexts.

          • One doesn’t offer an opinion if one thinks he is wrong; and, you are wrong in your assertion that the author was not writing about boys and girls when she used the word, gender.

            O, and ascribing motives to others and/or identifying another’s mood is an activity you ought shy away from for that would necessitate possessing afflatus whereas you seem confused on the natural plane vis a vis reading comprehension.

            On the other hand, it might be of interest to you to discover the meaning of psychological process of projection.

            Now, MJ was addressing the author with the cautioning preface that what he would write could be misconstrued as leaden pedantry and it was you who took offense in precisely the way that was unintended.

            People have sex, language has gender as one redoubtable watergate burglar was known for saying

          • The only traditional meaning of gender is in respect to whether words are grammatically male, female, or neuter.

            Human beings, plants, and animals have sexes. Nouns, adjectives, and articles in many (but not all) languages have genders.

          • “Gender and sex are not interchangeable.” I was going to cite R. V. Young’s “The Gay Invention: Homosexuality Is a Linguistic as Well as a Moral Error,” but the essay the quote comes from is much more fun and has just been selected by the editors of The American Scholar as one of eleven favorite literary essays published in that journal in the past decade: Helen Hazen, Endless Rewriting”.

          • Young’s essay is enlightening in that it shows that while sodomy exists, homosexuals do not. People might recognize this a hundred years from now. “There might be a fact of the greatest significance reported by Thucydides which will only be recognized as such a hundred years from now.”—Jacob Burckhardt. This will be after the next synod.

          • Young points out that some “gay” advocates argued that some people are “homosexual by nature” and must be accommodated out of a sense of justice; while others argued that “nature” is a mere “social construct” and that society has no right to arbitrarily limit individual freedom. The arguing out of both sides of one’s mouth seems to indicate an issue that was no longer philosophical but rather political, and therefore beyond reasoned argument.

            Some people feel that something similar happened when the liturgy changed in 1970s. According to James Hitchcock, “Liturgy and Ritual”, “Liturgical change after the Council was originally justified as a return to the oldest liturgical forms, a program of “re-form” in which the ultimate criterion was the practice of the Apostles. But innovators almost immediately found this to be inadequate and turned instead to contemporary culture as their primary inspiration. (This ambiguity remains. Catholics who express dissatisfaction with the reformed liturgy may be told either that the Church has returned to its ancient roots or that it has adapted itself to modern needs.)”

      • Thanks! My thoughts exactly. The Church of course has it’s enemies but we should be able to talk in terms of gender without being accused of being unorthodox.

        Reply
      • Thanks! My thoughts exactly. The Church of course has its enemies but we should be able to talk in terms of gender without being accused of being unorthodox.

        Reply
      • Until the recent past, careful writers used “gender” as a synonym for “sex” only in a facetious sense. Now that the word’s been nakedly politicized, it makes even less sense to accept the enemy’s usage. If speech can be queered, thought will follow, and the ability to see the human person as God-made and God-given will be marginalized.

        Reply
  4. Great insight. But I do have a couple of issues.

    First, it seems like you are stating an unspoken rule that one should only do something if there is a benefit (i.e. utilitarian). So you conclude that since altar serving is not that beneficial for a girl, it should not be allowed. However, one could also counter-argue that a value can be artifically placed on altar serving for either sex. For an example, in Canada, you can count altar serving toward the “volunteer hours” requirement to apply for any University. So a girl could reason that serving at mass is a good way to rack up hours. So I do question whether the utilitarian view is correct in the first place.

    Second, I did have issue with your claim that

    “Further, it is obviously right to point out that a man should not dominate or abuse a woman and confine her strictly to a culturally-conditioned role.

    I very much agree with the first part of your sentence but I do question the bold section. Why is it wrong to discourage deviance from culturally defined roles? If a culture does not discourage deviance, how is a culture to ever form or sustain itself?

    For those reasons, I do believe that a culture should always discourage deviance, whether it be on the part of men or women. Sure, exceptions can be made in extreme cases like when a husband dies and a wife has no one to support her, she must enter the work force. But I do not see how a culture can sustain itself if it allows men or women to simply do whatever they choose to do in life. That will just lead back to the same problem with female altar servers etc.

    I think once one understands that cultural norms are things that came into being over centuries of accumulated wisdom of men and women, one realizes that these norms are needed for relationships to function correctly. So it is essential that they are safeguarded and deviance be shunned. Otherwise, it seems like we are encouraging people to spit in the face of those who went before them (which essentially is a root problem behind the crisis in the Church today).

    Reply
    • The argument I am making stems from the premise that if we decide who is to serve on the altar (men or women), that it is reasonable to consider the benefits this service can confer on either group. This is a prudential judgment, not utilitarianism. I am making
      AN argument, not the ONLY argument.

      Further, am I being utilitarian by deciding to exclusively attend the Traditional Latin Mass
      because I recognize that it is spiritually healthy for me to do so? I am by your definition. I am, after all, just thinking of myself am I not?

      I also work and I out-earn my husband. So.

      Reply
        • Consider how much it benefits the children for the mother to have a full-time role in their lives, rather than a part-time role? I believe an argument could definitely be made that children w/ part-time parents are in an extreme situation – even if an all to common one.

          Old cultural norms aside, how many “working moms” are adhering to Catholic truth on contraception? Or marriage? or motherhood for that matter? Many conflicts exist between a mother when she cannot fully focus on her vocation as a mother in married life. Not only do the children suffer, but the husband suffers.

          As a man who supports his wife and 5 children, I can tell you that I value my wife far more at home “in the kitchen” raising and teaching my children than I ever did when she was working. When we had our 2nd child it was understood that we could no longer provide part-time parenting – someone besides the daycare or babysitter needed to raise our children.

          I would like to add that I understand that many people have a family structure where grandparents or other close relatives can help with the proper raising of children, but who intends this? What parent wants to share the raising of their children w/ someone besides their spouse? What child wishes to be raised by someone other than their parents? Sure there are situations where this would be better – but only out of necessity.

          We live in a society where women want to be men, but men don’t really want to compete with women to be a man – this is why so many men avoid marriage. At the same time many women overwork themselves trying to meet the demands of motherhood and work life. You can’t be successful in all things, a house divided will fall. The children will suffer, the husband will suffer, the wife will suffer.

          Worse yet, the full potential of marriage will be stymied by worldly distractions. Fewer or no children will be conceived. Struggles between husbands and wife will arise. Marriages will fail. Then all the worldly success born of selfish desires will fall like a house of cards. Society is not to blame, social norms are the majority result of personal choices.

          Reply
          • I want to add that my comments are not meant to be an attack against Becky or DesingerByDesign who may have very legitimate reasons for working or supporting such ideas.

          • I certainly know it’s not an attack! I’m 100% in agreement with you on the fundamentals. I think you’re a little insensitive to to couples in different situations, but I perceive no malice. I’m lucky too- I am able to work from home. My vocation as a mother comes first!

      • Becky DeVendra,

        Thank you for your reply!

        I am not sure you have addressed my objection. As I pointed out, you can always construct a value of anything, whether it be altar serving or digging holes in the backyard. So your argument does fail in that respect and I hope you do acknowledge that much.

        But you seem to have misunderstood the problem with utilitarianism. The flaw of utilitarianism is not that you are doing something for yourself. Rather, it is that you can arbitrarily choose to give value to things depending on which utility function you might choose. So in your argument, the flaw was that you didn’t argue a particular utility function as actually true. You broadly argued that there was no utility in altar serving as far as your own case was concerned.

        As for you earning more than your husband, I am not sure what you intend for me to infer from it.

        But more importantly, you earning more than your husband does not say anything about whether or not cultural deviance should be suppressed. If your husband does not earn enough for your family to survive (or satisfy basic needs) and absolutely lacks the means to do so and improve the situation, by all means, enter the work force yourself. Otherwise, I think such behavior should be shunned by society or looked upon negatively, lest it become contagious and spread.

        Now if you want to get in to an argument as to whether there is any wisdom behind maintaining a cultural norm that women belong in the home and not in the work place, I would be happy to get into that as well.

        I hope that clarifies my position better and answers the question you posed on utilitarianism.

        Reply
        • Thanks for the reply- I
          was addressing what you defined as utilitarianism in your first post: “it seems like you
          are stating an unspoken rule that one should only do something if there is a
          benefit (i.e. utilitarian)”

          Like I said, this is only one argument, not the only one, and unless you don’t think
          that our girls should benefit from their religious vocations (or in their
          search for one) I’m not too sure why you take issue with my perspective on this
          issue. I’ve seen similar arguments (to the one I present here) against
          artificial contraception- we tell our girls that is does not affirm them, that
          it is beneath their dignity, and after that is understood further issues may be
          discussed.

          Reply
          • Thanks again for clarifying!

            I apologize if my statement in my original post was not clear. But this is why I gave the example of the “volunteer hours for altar serving” scenario which is very common in Canada. In such a scenario, a person can easily dismiss your argument as not effective because their kid can rack up hours for University applications very easily. “Two birds in one stone”, they might say. A parent might even argue that maintaining a cultural norm (if it should be challenged following the example of Christ) at the cost of such a benefit that their little girl will receive is unacceptable. To bring up another point, the parent can argue that their girl can be a female altar server while also attending retreats at convents (which do not count as volunteer hours).

            Anyway, I am just pointing out that this from of argument in this particular topic is not advantageous. I do not disagree with your conclusion that female altar servers should not be allowed. However, I do have disagreements with the argumentation itself and that is why we had this discussion.

            We also obviously disagree on the importance of cultural norms and your interpretation of Mulieris Dignitatem. You see the passage as saying in every age, we can break the cultural norms. I see the passage as being unable to bestow such authority using the example of Christ. Christ came to a society that was not yet Christian and where Christian norms were yet to be fostered. To simply say that we can keep deviating from even Christian norms held in Christian societies for centuries would imply complete cultural instability and disregard for those who lived before us.

          • Ok, I think I see- I maintain that volunteer hours can’t be
            equated with the discovery of a vocation. If a boy altar server discovers one, he stays on the altar. If a girl discovers one, she leaves. I would agree that serving for volunteer hours only is gross- and utilitarian. They really do that in Canada? How silly.

            I am certainly not encouraging deviance by quoting Mulieris Dignitatem. I was affirming the Church’s views on the dignity of women and the all-male priesthood, while at the same time pointing out that trivialities like wearing pants, being employed, etc. are things that the Church does not care to assign to one gender or the other and that’s it. That’s hardly deviating from Christian norms.

          • But can’t a person legitimately argue that you create a dilemma that is not there? Because a girl could altar serve and then also participate in retreats at convents, no? And yes, they do unfortunately do that in Canada and the practice is not something recent as well. How would they miss out on the discovery of a vocation in this manner?

            On the deviance from norms, wouldn’t women entering the work force be a deviance of what was held in Christian societies for centuries? Please note that I do not mean a particular woman entering the work force in circumstances where she has no other alternative. Those exceptions exist in all norms. What I am speaking of here is the general case.

          • Of course a working woman is not a “deviant”- that’s such hyperbole. Is a man deviant if he is a father and stays home with his children, cooks for them, changes their diapers, and does household chores? Is he deviating from his role as father, as man of the house? Of course not. If you want to argue that we should go back to the period of a Jane Austen novel and treat women like property, then you won’t find support for that from Mother Church.

          • See, this is where we completely disagree. In your position, cultural norms that arose in a Christian society are just arbitrary rules. A person can not only break them but by your reasoning, it is actually good to break them so that one has some really true freedom.

            First, I find your view as being presumptuous. It assumes that cultural norms that arose or were preserved in a Christian society were by people who did not know better. Since you know better now, you can break free of them. So in essence, I find it very disrespectful of those who lived before you and the collective wisdom of many who lived before you. You think your own life experience is sufficient to overrule that entirely.

            Second, I don’t think you appreciate the reasons behind the need for a woman to stay at home. For an example, some reasons off the top of my head

            1) A woman who works has to serve too many people, her boss at work, her husband and her children
            2) A woman who works is less likely to prefer raising children since it hinders her career progress
            3) A woman who works will spend relatively less time with her children compared to a woman who stays at home
            4) Too many women in the work places leads to a higher chance of extra-marital affairs due to “working relationships” going too far
            5) A working woman is less likely to submit to her husband
            6) When a husband and a wife both work, there is more chance for disagreement when there are contending career goals or complications (need for relocation, both have to work late nights)
            7) The close mother-child relationship that used to be so commonly understood in the old days has become near extinct as mothers entered the work force
            8) Promotes the idea that men and women are interchangeable
            9) Children receive a bad example from their own mother that life of a woman is about pursuing a career
            10) More often, the working mother doesn’t actually know what their son or daughter is doing
            11) Children and her family used to be the sole treasure of a married woman. But now, she has her career to worry about.
            12) Grand parents have to be put in retirement homes because there is no-one in the family to take care of them (hey, the woman is out working too)

            Please note that everything I listed above comes true for mothers who stay at home but try to pursue their own interests as well. But the problem with a working woman is that she does not even try to hide the fact that she wants to pursue another interest.

            As for positives of a working woman?

            1) A family can supply more worldly goods, luxuries and better worldly services for their children (financial stability etc)
            2) A woman can brag that she can do what men do too
            3) A woman can brag that she earns more than her husband (I am not speaking of you here but I know many who do tend to say this like it means something else)
            4) Easy to promote “gender ideologies” since it becomes an established silent norm that men and women are interchangeable.

            Did you consider those things before you advocated the complete discarding of Christian cultural norm of a “woman staying at home”?

          • Let’s remember that it was the industrial revolution that took MEN out of the home and not Christianity. Before that the farmer, or craftsman or shop keeper was there to mentor his sons to be men. There is a “real man” crisis in America. Instead of trying to hold women back from “taking your place” just step up and do it yourselves!!! When we step up and act like true Christian men, then the rest of these problems vanish. The church would be flooded with altarboys and priests! Don’t blame hard working and good intentioned women for filling the vacuum that we have left. The best thing we can do for the wives and daughters that we love and cherish: esto vir!

          • As a personal rule, I try to not get engaged in restarting discussions after sometime has elapsed. But here and then I do have to make an exception. I feel that this is one of it because you are making some bold assertions here.

            Now your thesis, and that of some others on this thread, have been that the reason for the crisis is that men aren’t stepping up to their game. Nothing is wrong with our “hard working” women these days they say, it is all the fault of men.

            There are many problems with this thesis but I think it suffices to point out the following issues for the scope of this discussion.

            1) Female altar servers did not become allowed as a result of a lack of men. It was allowed as a compromise to appease the feminist attacks at the time.

            2) As long as you have females volunteering, you will have to schedule them in no matter how many boys volunteer. So having males step up does not solve the problem of female altar servers. As long as they are allowed, they will be around. You know what works best? Banning them.

            As for your comment on hard working women, working hard does not mean they are always doing something good. Drug dealers work hard as well but I am sure many would agree that they are worse than an infection to society. Similarly, women who think they should be juggling work with being a mother due to no pressing circumstances, in my opinion, is just as much a grave problem. In fact, I would go so far as to assert that women who decided to get on this “working woman” bandwagon were most certainly to blame for a generation that was completely messed up and did not understand something simple as that of a mother’s love. If you disagree, please answer my points made to Becky in the above post.

          • Mr. Jokin! “Drug dealers…”??
            In my opinion, that seems to be going too far to make a point. (Besides, drug dealers are LAZY.) I wrote “…hard working and good intentioned…” but you seem to use examples of bad intentions to refute me. Is that logical? I have a mother, a sister, a wife, four daughters and five granddaughters. I have great respect for and at least a bit of understanding of women. Respect and love are good starting points for discussions.

            So then, I know lots of good men, even some great men, but I stand by my point that we need legions more. I am not much in favor of altar girls but I’m not terribly put off by it, either. What does bother me is seeing ONLY girls. Where ARE the boys?? Women are not banned from the MLB, NBA or NFL, but there are enough men so women cannot compete. Women flooded the work force during WWII. Guess why? Was it because Mom thought arc welding would be fun? No. Man shortage. While it is true that there may still be a few altar girls even if there was, as I wrote, a flood of boys then what of it? A few altar girls here and there with the majority being altar boys will not throw the earth off tilt. esto vir! (Please avoid the “all men’s fault” hyperbole. Good sons and good daughters have good mothers and good fathers. We are all in this TOGETHER.)

            Women need not be banned from working either, but please, families, avoid daycare and headstart like the plague! Better to live simply on one income and not hire out the raising of our children. My children had everything they needed but not everything the TV commercials said they should have. When families cook their own food and entertain themselves the money saved is enormous. (By the way. My mother made artilliary rounds for the Korean War while my dad was in that war, but when it was time to raise a family my mother was there. When were were older, she went back to work. Just FYI)

            P.S. Somebody here wrote a remark about women in the workforce being a cause of infidelity. Please! Virtue lesson number one is that you, yourself must posses a virtue. Just as no one can actually “make you mad”, but your virtue of patience must prevail so too with chastity. I must not and do not depend on other people to make me chaste.
            Now, love one another as Christ has loved us!

          • I read the statement. Thanks. Very well written.

            The one thing that bothers me in that open letter, especially because it is true, is that boys seem to abandon when girls come in. I know that I was a boy many decades ago but what gives? Has America stopped raising sons? Girls did not scare me away from anything I desired. Get your sons to desire holiness and service to God as much as they desire video games and that’s the end of that!

          • My notion is that girls are growing up faster than boys. My eyes tell me this, but other things do too. When a neighbor’s boy was celebrating his 13th birthday, I congratulated him: “Now you’re a teenager!” He said, “I’m a teenager, but I’m still a kid.”

            The heroine of a novel I’ve been quoting here, there, and everywhere said to a mother, “Teach sacrifice to your girls and heroism to your boys.” Let’s pray that the current generation of young Catholic parents are doing that. By the way, this was not sexism on the author’s part: the heroine was the heroic one, and her husband the suffering one.

          • Dennis,

            Would your argument be then that girls are actually seeking holiness more than boys (who seem to desire video games more)?

            Also, please stop making this discussion into something that it is not. Girls were allowed as altar servers not due to some shortage. Can you point me a single document that describes parish priests requesting permission for altar servers because there aren’t enough men volunteering? If not, what is with this argument of yours?

          • Thank you Dennis for your reply.

            You said
            “n my opinion, that seems to be going too far to make a point. (Besides,drug dealers are LAZY.) I wrote “…hard working and good
            intentioned…” but you seem to use examples of bad intentions to refute me. Is that logical?”

            Drug dealers may have very good intentions (feed their family, pay medical bills for a family member etc.) So my point was not in regards to intent. I was merely pointing out that “working hard” does not translate to “doing good for society”. In fact, it can be a plague on society. Thus, I pointed out that I hold the “working woman”, especially those who are mothers, to be persons who inflict similar damage to society. Your accusation that it is illogical does not seem to apply.

            You said:
            Women flooded the work force during WWII. Guess why? Was it because Mom thought arc welding would be fun? No. Man shortage.

            Women flooded the work-force during WWII due to a shortage of men and no-one really disagreed with that. What I point out is that women stayed in the work-force and continued to try and make their way into it after the war for no other reason than motivations of “equality” and “feminism”. But most certainly, the women working during WWII did cost us a generation. Perhaps it was a major event in history that lead us down this road. A main source through which tradition and culture was passed down was suddenly lost to children due to their mothers being away. Then again, the effects of the working mother during that period were perhaps also mitigated because it was a time when ties between extended families were strong and could make up in some way for what was lacking. But, what we saw in the attitude and behavior of women after the war was most certainly destructive.

            You said:
            While it is true that there may still be a few altar girls even if there
            was, as I wrote, a flood of boys then what of it? A few altar girls
            here and there with the majority being altar boys will not throw the
            earth off tilt.

            This is where I feel the real problem lies. You believe that the tradition of having only male altar servers can be played around with no consequences. This is the same problem that Becky, the author of this article, has as well.

            In the minds of those who think this way, traditions are merely arbitrary constructs that can be changed with no consequences. We are suppossed to oppose these traditions based on our own life experiences which ironically are suppossed to overrule centuries of collective wisdom.

            Let me put it this way, the working mother does not realize until it is too late that she should have spent her time at home with her children. In fact, most do not realize till they see their children grow up to be very distanced from them and they finally end up in a retirement home. But if one had asked them about their choice when they were still in their 40’s, they would have talked about the need for breaking down norms and traditions. I believe it is the same with altar servers in this case.

            You said:
            “Somebody here wrote a remark about women in the workforce being a cause of infidelity. Please! Virtue lesson number one is that you, yourself must posses a virtue.

            I am not even sure what you are disputing. It is again an age old adage that you do not keep the hay and fire together. If you expect women to form “working relationships” with their male co-workers with whom they spend almost as much time (or more) with their own family, anyone can see the increased possibility of an affair down the road.

            The saints of the Church have always advised in the past against such close relations between unmarried men and women for this very reason. But yet again, you would have us believe that men and women have suddenly changed in their natures and feel no pangs of concupiscence.

            You said:
            ” (By the way. My mother made artilliary rounds for the Korean War while my dad was in that war, but when it was time to raise a family my mother was there. When were were older, she went back to work. Just FYI)”

            I do not want to get into a discussion on this particular issue in regards to a concrete personal fact of yours. That will only cause you to be upset with me and possibly render this discussion unfruitful.

            However, for the record, I do not support the idea of any woman entering the work-force unless her husband cannot provide her and the family with basic needs to survive.

          • Coming to this party late, I think we will all find in Jane Austen working women, e.g. the servants. Women, including married women, have always worked, if only in service, the fields or behind the counters in shops. It was doubtlessly most comfortable for married women to work in their own husbands’ fields or in their own husbands’ shops or even as landladies. But this does not take away from that fact that women, if not all women, or not middle-class and upper-class women, have always worked for pay. I find the idea that “women working” is somehow deviant when both my grandmothers (b. 1904 and 1915) and at least two of my great-grandmothers worked, either for a living or for “pin money”.

        • Thanks for the reply- I was addressing what you defined as utilitarianism in your first post: “it seems like you are stating an unspoken rule that one should only do something if there is a benefit (i.e. utilitarian)”

          Like I said, this is only one argument, not the only one, and unless you don’t think that our girls should benefit from their religious vocations (or in their search for one) I’m not too sure why you take issue with my perspective on this issue. I’ve seen similar arguments (to the one I present here) against artificial contraception- we tell our girls that it is does not affirm them, that it is beneath their dignity, and after that is understood further issues may be discussed.

          Reply
        • Thanks for the reply- I was addressing what you defined as utilitarianism in your first post: “it seems like you are stating an unspoken rule that one should only do something if there is a benefit (i.e. utilitarian)”

          Like I said, this is only one argument, not the only one, and unless you don’t think that our girls should benefit from their religious vocations (or in their search for one) I’m not too sure why you take issue with my perspective on this issue. I’ve seen similar arguments (to the one I present here) against artificial contraception- we tell our girls that it does not affirm them, that it is beneath their dignity, and after that is understood further issues may be discussed.

          Reply
          • Thanks again for clarifying!

            I apologize if my statement in my original post was not clear. But this is why I gave the example of the “volunteer hours for altar serving” scenario which is very common in Canada. In such a scenario, a person can easily dismiss your argument as not effective because their kid can rack up hours for University applications very easily. “Two birds in one stone”, they might say. A parent might even argue that maintaining a cultural norm (if it should be challenged following the example of Christ) at the cost of such a benefit that their little girl will receive is unacceptable. To bring up another point, the parent can argue that their girl can be a female altar server while also attending retreats at convents (which do not count as volunteer hours).

            Anyway, I am just pointing out that this from of argument in this particular topic is not advantageous. I do not disagree with your conclusion that female altar servers should not be allowed. However, I do have disagreements with the argumentation itself and that is why we had this discussion.

            We also obviously disagree on the importance of cultural norms and your interpretation of Mulieris Dignitatem. You see the passage as saying in every age, we can break the cultural norms since Christ did the same. I see the passage as being unable to bestow such authority using the example of Christ. Christ came to a society that was not yet Christian and where Christian norms were yet to be fostered. To simply say that we can keep deviating from even Christian norms held in Christian societies for centuries would imply complete cultural instability and disregard for those who lived before us.

      • But, to hell with tradition for it does not bind anybody any more but “we” decide who is to serve and not serve in the sanctuary because this generation is the bestest ever educated and holy.

        O, and girls in the sanctuary has not one thing – not one thing at all – to do with the feminisation of the Church, so, we’ve got that going for us which is nice

        http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt88.html

        Reply
      • It is amusing to hear the banter regarding altar servers. Never heard a man be upset that he cannot become a NUN…. I visited the Cape one summer and really felt the usurption of the altar girls taking the place of the boys, as they were better equipped (?) and the women who proudly held the Bible high abover their heads grinning from ear to ear) as they descended the Altar at the end of Mass. (Not to mention reading the Bible and giving the disertation afterward as though making a silent but very loud Statement!!! It is always the Progressive women who are not happy in the state of womanhood and needs to feel the (so called) importance of Man I really do not mean this to be so sarcastic but it was not amusing to have to endure a Mass which seemed to be more a fight of the sexes rather than a Perfect Prayer and Worship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. A man cannot produce a child, is that not enough to make a woman feel extremely special… Why not just enjoy the differences and leave it at that. (All meant in charity)’

        Reply
    • Everything about our faith is done to achieve some sort of “benefit” — the ultimate benefit being salvation. Every sacrament, every commandment, every Church law has some sort of practical benefit attached to it. The Church doesn’t direct us to do something in the name of God just for funsies. There is always a purpose, always a benefit, from the ways we practice our faith.

      You asked, “Why is it wrong to discourage deviance from culturally defined roles?” It is not always wrong. It *is* wrong when certain roles have nothing to do with glorifying God or participating in the functionality of the Church body, and everything to do with devaluing a group of people (many times women) in favor of a more powerful group (many times men). That really doesn’t apply to the altar server issue, but the point needs to be made.

      As long as girls and women have some sort of significant opportunity to serve God through serving the Church, and as long as Catholic parents are encouraging their sons to serve in a significant way, there is no need to have female altar servers. Many parishes opened up the role to girls simply because boys were no longer participating. Outside of the altar service, girls really lack a role altogether in most parishes, and we need to make it more clear to them what opportunities are available.

      Maybe the heart of the issue is that Catholic men and boys need to fulfill their own culturally defined roles and start serving the church again (perhaps in more meaningful ways than volunteering to set up the post-Mass doughnut table?) so that women and girls no longer have to pick up their slack.

      Reply
      • First, I think you and Becky have misunderstood me as criticizing doing something for ones benefit. That is not my position so it does not make sense to attack it.

        When I accuse someone of being utilitarian, what I mean is that the person attempts to see some utility in an act or object according to an arbitrary utility function. In this case, it was true in regards to Becky’s analysis. Her whole argument is that since there is no benefit to be an altar server, doesn’t really matter what type of benefit it may be, one should simply not pursue it. My point was that such reasoning is mistaken because one can always put a utility upon any act.

        As for culturally defined roles, your argument seems to be that such roles require women to do something that does not glorify God. I certainly agree that there are non-Christian cultures with such roles. But I am speaking here of cultural norms that arose in Christian societies (I apologize for not being clear). To that end, I do not see what is against glorifying God when a woman spends her time at home, submits to her husband, raises children, and takes care of the family by cooking and does other household chores. Can you enlighten me about what is wrong with that picture?

        On the last part of your post, can you provide any documented evidence that the main reason women were allowed in the sanctuary was that men were not stepping up-to the task? Because as far as I am aware, that was not a popular argument when they started offending the norm back then. It was my understanding that the practice of female altar servers were allowed because many at the time were criticizing the Church for her opposition to abortion and female ordinations.

        Reply
        • “As for culturally defined roles, your argument seems to be that such roles require women to do something that does not glorify God.”

          No, that’s not what I was saying. I’m saying some roles came to be for reasons that had nothing to do with glorifying God, nothing to do with the salvation of a woman’s soul, and everything to do with the desires and whims of men, Christian or otherwise.

          “I do not see what is against glorifying God when a woman spends her time at home, submits to her husband, raises children, and takes care of the family by cooking and does other household chores.”

          I don’t either… I have been a stay-at-home-mom and was properly humbled by the role, and most certainly grew in my faith and service to God. Why are “household chores” the first thing men think of when discussing women’s roles? I wasn’t even talking about something so trivial, yet you jumped right to it. Folding laundry and doing dishes is part of life, period.

          As for your request for documented evidence… no, I didn’t realize this was a point that required citation, so I haven’t tracked down the hard numbers on this. I have no doubt the practice originated in liberal Catholics getting all up in arms about equality. What I’m saying is I have attended parishes where boys no longer bothered to participate, and girls were the ones stepping up. My husband claims the boys stopped serving because it wasn’t just a “boy” thing anymore once girls were invited to be servers — to which I said, that is a horribly stupid reason to stop serving your Church.

          For the record, I think that ideally, altar servers should be boys, as priests should be unmarried men. I have no problem with letting the guys do their guy thing without protest from women, and honestly, I wish they would. We have plenty to do as it is. My concern is that men love to bark about how things should be, without considering their own culpability in the cultural changes that have occurred within the Church.

          Reply
          • You said:
            No, that’s not what I was saying. I’m saying some roles came to be for reasons that had nothing to do with glorifying God, nothing to do with the salvation of a woman’s soul, and everything to do with the desires and whims of men, Christian or otherwise.

            I agree with you 100%. There are roles like concubines or prostitutes that were fostered in certain societies that have nothing to do with glorifying God.

            But what I am speaking about here are cultural roles that came into being or were viewed positively in Christian societies. Being a stay at home mother or a nun would be such roles. Roles like concubines and prostitutes would be examples of roles that were shunned in Christian societies. My point is that we should preserve such Christian cultural norms, obviously not those of pagan origin.

            You said:
            Why are “household chores” the first thing men think of when discussing women’s roles? I wasn’t even talking about something so trivial, yet you jumped right to it. Folding laundry and doing dishes is part of life, period.

            Well… if a woman is at home, how is it that unnatural or biased to think of her as doing household chores? 🙂 Just to clarify, I used that phrase with the perspective that it captures the idea “tasks at home”. Also, that was not the only thing I mentioned that such a woman would be doing. It was also not the first thing that came to my mind because as you can see, it was included last on the list.

            You said:
            I have no doubt the practice originated in liberal Catholics getting all up in arms about equality. What I’m saying is I have attended parishes where boys no longer bothered to participate, and girls were the ones stepping up. My husband claims the boys stopped serving because it wasn’t just a “boy” thing anymore once girls were invited to be servers — to which I said, that is a horribly stupid reason to stop serving your Church.

            So ok, it seems that you yourself believe that your previous claim was possibly inaccurate and that the practice of using altar girls was indeed of liberal origin.

            Your evidence for the previous claim also seems to be from your experience after female servers were allowed (at least that is how I understood the observation of your husband).

            You must surely admit then that it would be rash to blame men for not stepping up to serve as the origin of the problem, no?

            But I do certainly agree with your idea overall that lay Catholics are also responsible to a large degree for the spread of these abuses. If they had been strong and risen up against such abuses in large numbers, such things would have never come to pass. But instead, there was always a small minority left stranded by a majority that did want such abusive changes.

  5. Two things.

    First, no Catholic should be using “gender” as a synonym for “sex”. “Gender” used as a genteelism is an abuse of language and of reason. “Gender” is a grammatical category. It describes nouns, which can be masculine, feminine, or neuter. “Sex” is a biological category. It describes living things, male and female. Gender has been hijacked by people playing sexual politics to re-define the human person. In Pope Benedict’s 2012 Christmas allocution to the Roman curia, he identifies and demolishes this dangerous fad and its underlying gender ideology, which attempts to redefine the human person as a willed construct.

    Second, the Eucharist is an end – in fact, THE end – and not a means. The Mass therefore is never to be instrumentalized, even for a good purpose. “Because serving by boys produces priestly vocations” is true, but it isn’t the reason girl altar servers are objectionable. “Because it promotes piety among the young” is likewise utilitarian and unacceptable. The Mass is sacramental. It’s a sign, and to signify honestly any signifier must be true to type. Women can’t be ordained because they can’t signify as alter Christus, the Bridegroom offering himself to the Father for his spouse the Church, in a Eucharist that’s one with the heavenly wedding feast of the Lamb. No, altar boys aren’t ordained, but as ministering hands, they’re an extension and augmentation of the celebrant, underscoring the sign value of his maleness. A liturgy cannot speak with clarity when countersigns are introduced into the sanctuary. The presence of female servers is always bad: at best, it obscures the maleness of the priest, reducing it to a mere curiosity. At worst, it is scandalous, encouraging a misunderstanding of the male priesthood as evidence of sexual exclusion and domination.

    Reply
    • “Because serving by boys produces priestly vocations” is true, but it isn’t the reason girl altar servers are objectionable. “Because it promotes piety among the young” is likewise utilitarian and unacceptable.” The Mass is sacramental. It’s a sign, and to signify honestly any signifier must be true to type.

      Bingo. Well put.

      There’s some value in the discussion of vocations. But that’s not the crux of the problem with female altar servers.

      Reply
    • As you well know, Romulus, Saint Vincent of Lerins taught that the most religious in the church were the ones most opposed to novelty, so, what does that have to say about the near universal ho-hum when it comes to the noxious novelty of girls in the sanctuary?

      O, that’s right, those mean old men in the old church were sexists – or, ought MJ write, genderists?

      Saint vincent : For it has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations</I.

      Reply
  6. Thank you. The Lincoln diocese, I am told, where there are no little girls serving at the altar has the highest vocation rate per capita of US dioceses. Just a coincidence? Well, it helps that this diocese has always been faithful and did not look away from the ‘Call to Action’ types but would not allow them to disseminate heterodoxy in that diocese. And there were other things as well.

    Reply
  7. The church doesn’t “give gifts,” the Holy Spirit does. Women should be on the altar and at the pulpit it that is what God calls her to do. This is why I left Catholicism – man-made, watered down rules.

    Reply
    • If you left it’s because of your pride and not the Church. Perhaps you
      should meditate on the WORD of God as well as the Holy Magisterium on
      the virtue of obedience!

      Matt 18:3 “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

      Amen, Amen.

      Reply
      • Where in 1 Corinthians 12: 7-11 does it say anything about men or women receiving gifts based on any gender distinction? Pope Francis just said that there should be more women theologians, the analogy was women are strawberries in the cake of theology. There is a place for women – what did Jesus say to Martha when she was perseverating about Mary’s thirst for the Word? Why would any other woman be different?

        Reply
  8. Being an altar server in my all-girl Catholic high school paved the way for my discerning a religious/consecrated vocation now. Aren’t sisters, nuns and consecrated virgins as equally important as priests?

    Reply
    • No, they are not. Priests can do that which not even the angels in heaven can do – confect the Eucharist. Girls can’t do that either.

      Reply
    • “Priests are sewers. They drain off the world’s sins. They are spiritual garbage
      men.” — Peter Kreeft

      “The insignificance of the priest also surprised her. She had always understood that Catholicism was priest-ridden. But the priest seemed to be no more than a craftsman, of much less personal importance than the chaplain at school. All the priest did was turn up with his little mate and lay on the Body and Blood of Christ as the plumber lays on the water. He picked up his tools and vanished once the tap of Eternal Life had been turned on.” — Fr. Bryan Houghton

      Reply
  9. Hi Becky! Thank you for the article, I appreciate your insights on the issue and
    you have a beautiful writing style as well. Cute picture of the little Nuns!

    Reply
  10. Thank you for writing this…..the subject doesn’t come up often enough. I have two boys that serve on the altar. The hard fact is, girls serving on the altar with boys is very discouraging and un-motivating for the boys. No way around that one. Altar serving is a boy thing, can’t we just let them have it? We should trust in the way God ordered things and know that wherever His will is for us in His Church, that’s where we’ll be happiest!

    Reply
  11. If we believe I Corinthians 12: 7-11, then the gifts from the Holy Spirit are endowed based on our natural talents, not gender. Pope Francis himself just said that in the cake of theology (men), more strawberries (women) are needed. Children should be allowed to altar-serve equally, as they should be allowed to grow in the Word. If I am correct, I believe that every time Aquila is mentioned in Acts II, Timothy, Romans or Corinthians, he is mentioned with Priscilla. Any what did Jesus say to Martha about Mary? A preoccupation with stereo-typed gender roles isn’t necessarily healthy.

    Reply
  12. As a former altar girl, I’m really sorry that you feel you got nothing from the experience and that you could have gotten the same experience from the pew, because that’s simply not true. My understanding of the Mass, my knowledge of what goes on at the altar and my attention were all incredibly enhanced by being a server. I am about as conservative and traditional a Catholic as you will find, but I firmly believe that girls have every right to be altar servers. Altar serving is not the beginning of a priestly vocation, as many seem to think. I don’t know of any boys who are altar servers who are thinking of becoming priests. That comes from the home, not the altar serving. Girls should absolutely be given the opportunity to assist at the altar, as a way to enrich their faith and to get them actively participating in Mass. This is one issue that other Conservative Catholics and I will never agree on. There can be no more relevant setting in which to foster a vocation than on altar. Altar serving is not anything like a retreat at a convent for women religious. There’s no comparison. Altar serving is an ministry in the church that can open boys and girls up to the possibilities of future ministry and possibly a religious vocation.

    Reply
  13. I was an altar girl, and I gained a lot from the experience. I do not agree that altar serving is a way to introduce boys to the vocation of the priesthood. That comes from the home. A boy can serve on the altar until the cows come home, and it won’t make him think of being a priest unless that is fostered at home. A girl can serve on the altar until the cows come home, too, without thinking that she should have the ‘right’ to become a priest.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...