The strangest aspect of latest Vatican leaks is that they seem to have a basis in fact, writes Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent
It seemed a case of don't put your daughter on the altar, Mrs Worthington. According to Jesus, an Italian religious monthly, the Vatican believed Mass should be recaptured at last as a boys' zone. And it wanted those cheeky parishioners, who are spending far too much time dancing and clapping in the aisles, to be corralled again, kept away from everything sacred by reinstalled altar rails. What was at first described this week as a draft document was soon simply being called daft - full of "idiocies so mad as to incite fear", as the Rome daily Il Messaggero put it.
The draft also warned against the use of unbiblical language during Mass, such as poetry. And "self-service" Communion - apparently a reference to taking the consecrated host directly from the chalice instead of receiving it on your tongue from the hand of a priest - was to be frowned on.
Roll up, roll up, roll back.
Two things were remarkable about the report. The first was the ease with which people believed it, but then there is a widespread conviction that the lunatics have taken over in Rome - a Church in which women are the backbone and in which altar girls outnumber altar boys in so many parishes, including in Ireland. The second was that, unbelievably, the "ban" seems to have a basis in fact.
Last April, when Pope John Paul II released his encyclical Ecclesia De Eucharistia, he said he had directed the Curia to produce "a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature", to address abuses of the Eucharistic liturgy. That second document has yet to appear. Some say it will be published in November, others say early next year.
Jesus, which published only details of the draft in this month's issue, will reportedly publish the entire document next month. It is very unusual for a magazine published outside the Vatican to have the entire text of a Vatican document in advance. Some speculate there is mischief afoot.
Il Messaggero, which carried a substantial portion of the text on Tuesday, reported that it had been rejected in June by cardinals and bishops asked to review it. They were said to have found it too harsh.
The document was drafted by four officials from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and four from the Congregation for Divine Worship. Its working title is Pignus Redemptionist Ac Futurae Gloriae (A Pledge Of Redemption For Future Glory). According to Jesus it is a 200-paragraph text covering 37 abuses. The four main types of abuse are the sacrilegious use of Eucharistic bread and wine, the celebration of Mass by someone without proper faculties, concelebration with ministers of other Christian communities and the sacrilegious consecration of bread and wine, as in a black mass.
The document called on priests, deacons and the faithful to alert their bishops when they encountered liturgical abuses. It disapproved of "liturgical dance" and frowned on the encouragement of applause during the Eucharistic liturgy - a common practice at St Peter's basilica. This could be seen as a criticism of some papal ceremonies. Relevant Vatican officials have not commented.
In 1992 the Vatican gave bishops the power to decide whether to allow altar girls in their dioceses. Some conservative Catholics are against the practice, saying their presence erodes a traditional recruiting ground for priests and might also be the beginnings of a female priesthood.
The issue played a major role in Cardinal Connell becoming Archbishop of Dublin, in 1988. In 1987 the chances of the favourite for the job, Donal Murray, then an auxiliary bishop in Dublin and now Bishop of Limerick, were destroyed when RTÉ reported that he allowed altar girls in Bray, Co Wicklow.
It wasn't until a meeting in Rome on June 30th, 1992, that members of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts agreed that "either men or women" could serve at the altar. The Pope confirmed their decision and ordered its promulgation on July 11th, 1992.
Had this happened five years earlier, Bishop Murray would now most likely be Archbishop of Dublin. He seems to have been ahead of his time - probably not something that could be said about the Vatican this week.