December 1,
1982 Your Excellency:
You must certainly be aware of the proliferation of the abuse of "altar girls" throughout the United States of America. This abuse is causing great distress to many of the faithful; but what distresses them even more is your failure, as the Pope's representative in this country, to curtail this flagrant defiance of Church Law and immemorial Tradition. We make special mention of immemorial Tradition, as girls have never been permitted to serve at the altar at any time in the history of the Church. We note that those promoting the employment of altar girls tend to be the same people who are advocating the ordination of priestesses within the Church. It is not being unduly suspicious to wonder whether accustoming the faithful to the sight of girls serving Mass is not intended to prepare them for the sight of priestesses celebrating Mass, or at least purporting to do so. As a woman could never be ordained validly, a priestess could never celebrate a valid Mass. Liberal Catholics in the United States make no secret of the fact that they consider altar girls an important step in their campaign for priestesses. The following statement appeared in the January, 1977, issue of Today's Parish:
The decision of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and Canada to open the door to the ordination of women puts greater pressure on Roman Catholics to remove final barriers to full recognition of women as ministers to the parish community. What is now a fact must soon be faced and formulated in liturgy. The time has come for women priests!
Whatever the motivation for inducing girls to serve at the altar, Your Excellency would certainly agree that it is totally forbidden by the current law of the Church. The Third Instruction on the Correct Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 5 September 1970, states:
The traditional liturgical norms of the Church prohibit women (young girls, married women, religious) from serving the priest at the altar, even in women's chapels, houses, convents, schools, and institutes.
Prompted by widespread defiance of this instruction, the Holy See reiterated it in the Instruction Inaestimabile Donum, 3 April 1980. This Instruction condemned twenty-six of the more serious liturgical abuses prevalent within the Roman Rite today, particularly in the U.S.A. No. 18 states:
Women are not permitted to act as altar servers.
No. 27 states:
If anything has been introduced that is at variance with these indications it is to be corrected.
Your Excellency, far from the abuse ceasing after the publication of Inaestimabile Donum it has proliferated, providing another indication of the schismatic attitude of the Bishops of the United States of America, and the complete inability of the Holy See to exercise any control over them. Here is a recent case that has been brought to our attention. The 5 September 1982 Newsletter of St. Catherine of Siena Church, Miami, Florida, invited girls to volunteer for training as altar servers. The Pastor, Father Haduk, stated quite openly that girls cannot undertake this office "officially" but "bishops and priests are beginning to grant permission for girls to serve." Father Haduk is quite correct in claiming the complicity of bishops in this gesture of defiance. In the 11 February 1982 issue of The Licking Countian, Bishop Edward J. Herrmann, of Columbus, Ohio, admitted that although "present discipline prohibits the use of female altar servers" he was not prepared to accept the authority of Rome: "...many parishes in our country, and even some in our own diocese, do have altar girls."
In November, 1980, seven months after the publication of Inaestimabile Donum, a faithful Catholic in the Diocese of Oakland, California, wrote to Bishop John S. Cummins, drawing his attention to the fact that Father Danielson of St. Paschal's Church had announced his intention of using altar girls. He provided Bishop Cummins with a copy of the relevant parish newsletter, sent a copy to Father Danielson, not wishing to make his complaint in an underhanded way, and begged the bishop "to stop Father Danielson from perpetrating this deplorable act in open defiance of the Magisterium of Rome." In his reply, Bishop Cummins made it clear that he endorsed Father Danielson's act of rebellion, which is not really surprising given the schismatic mentality which permeates the hierarchy of the U.S.A., and he also displayed such a complete lack of elementary logic that we feel bound to wonder whether he is capable of rational thinking. Bishop Cummins stated firstly that Father Danielson was abiding by the Roman decision, and then stated that he was permitting altar girls—which is precisely what this decision had forbidden. Here are his exact words:
Father Danielson's allowance of young women who already have been taking part in the Mass is sensible. He is quite clear that he is abiding by the Roman decision but that he does not want to offend the religious sensibilities of these young women. I agree with him, and with the authority I have, can approve of his decision.
We trust that Your Excellency will agree that no comment is necessary here. Bishop Cummins's contempt for the authority of the Pope is equalled by his contempt for Catholics who wish to uphold orthodoxy and Church discipline. He informed the layman who had written this very courteous letter making the amply justified complaint concerning Father Danielson that he was "negative," and that: "Given your present negative attitude, I do not intend to guarantee you the courtesy of a reply in the future."
We are also very concerned at the extent to which the American hierarchy is able to "cover up" Church legislation on so many important matters. As you are aware, the American Bishops petitioned Rome, requesting that their defiance of Church law in the matter of altar girls should be legalized, as had been the case with their rebellion in the matter of Communion in the hand. But this time the Vatican refused to succumb to the blackmail of the fait accompli technique and sent a negative reply. According to Our Sunday Visitor, 14 December 1975, Bishop Walter Curtis of Bridgeport, Connecticut, claimed that the reply was ambiguous and should not be published as it would cause confusion. Bishop George Guilfoyle of Camden, New Jersey, said that the answer was not ambiguous at all. Archbishop Bernardin then attempted to justify the cover up by alleging that the reply also involved other questions concerning the roles permitted women, and that these were ambiguous. The bishops decided to keep the report a secret.
There is even further evidence of a cover up. We possess a statement by Mr. Thomas J. Barbarie, Editor of The Catholic Commentator, official journal of the diocese of Baton Rouge, who claims that USCC (United States Catholic Conference) had intervened to prevent publication of the Roman decision. Mr. Barbarie states that:
A few years back, a message traveled from the Rome bureau of a Catholic wire service to the Washington headquarters. It read, in part: "Heard here not for publication that the USCC request on altar girls had been turned down formally by the Vatican but that USCC officials do not want to make it public." That, needless to say, was not made public—despite the alleged commitment to freedom of the press that prevailed in the "news" agency.
Finally, Your Excellency, we must express our grave concern at a claim which has been made to us that the U. S. hierarchy is exercising considerable pressure in Rome to have the Pope's decision reversed. We have no doubt at all that if they are successful there will be no press embargo on this news. We appreciate that from the standpoint of your personal convenience another surrender by the Vatican might make life easier for you. If the law is changed to placate the lawbreakers you will not be troubled with letters such as this one on the subject of altar girls. Nonetheless, we would beg Your Excellency to place the good of the Church before every other consideration, and urge the Holy Father to stand firm in the face of the schismatic Bishops of America. We would further suggest that until he begins removing bishops who refuse to obey his instructions he cannot expect those instructions to be taken seriously. No doubt Your Excellency could suggest many suitable candidates for removal from episcopal office to His Holiness, but should you have any difficulty in compiling a list we would certainly be happy to extend our full cooperation.
We remain, Your Excellency, your obedient servants in Christ.
The Editors
The Most Reverend Pio Laghi
The Apostolic Delegation
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20008
