The Diocese of Phoenix

The Diocese of Phoenix September 23, 2011

The Diocese of Phoenix has been in the news recently.  First, the rector of the Cathedral there banned altar girls.   His rationale is that there is a close connection between serving at the altar and vocations to the priesthood, and boys and young men do not want to be altar servers if girls are allowed.

Now the bishop, Bishop Olmstead, has announced that the distribution of communion under both species is going to be radically restricted in his diocese.  Instead of being an option for any mass, it is now only an option for a handful of occasions:  chrism masses, marriages, the feast of Corpus Christi, etc.  On the website there is a long Q&A which attempts to explain the changes, but many of the rationales seem weak.  Perhaps the most bizarre  is that this change represents a liberalization of the practice when viewed from the standpoint of the universal church.   Indeed, the Church in the US has been at the forefront in making communion under both species widely available, and it is rare or non-existent in many countries.  The revisions to the General Instructions of the Roman Missal expand the opportunities available in all countries; but Bishop Olmstead has decided to restrict the practice to the narrowest possible under the new GIRM; the net effect is to almost eliminate the practice in his Diocese.

Now in both cases these actions are allowable:  as someone pointedly reminded me (in reference to altar girls) both these practices were “an indulgence and not a right.”   But such an explanation strikes me as being pastorally lacking:  it is, in the end, an appeal to law and authority, and do not address the Church as a community of believers.

Truthfully, I cannot see much good coming out of either change.  I have never been persuaded that only allowing boys to be altar servers will result in an increase of vocations:  no one has provided anything except anecdotal evidence (quickly contradicted by the experience of others) and explanations which depend on very dubious theories of gender.  And, as my wife asked me when I told her about the decision on altar girls:  do we want men as priests who are unwilling to associate with women in a common activity?

The changes on reception under both species strike me as having clericalist underpinnings.  Thus, one explanation is that in distributing communion under both kinds, parishes might be forced to rely on lay ministers—the horror, the horror.  In the same vein, clerics and quasi-clerics are exempted:  non-concelebrating priests and seminarians are allowed to receive under both species at any mass.

There has been a lively discussion elsewhere in the blogosphere:  Deacon Greg Kandra had short article that prompted a furious exchange.  Anthony Ruff, OSB, has a rather acerbic response to the Bishop’s Q&A on the changes.   I also found some interesting responses (pro and con) from priests and laity in the diocese.


Browse Our Archives