Rev. Fr. Dr. Okhueleigbe Osemhantie Amos
It has become pastorally necessary to offer a measured clarification on a practice that, though well intentioned, raises important liturgical questions in parishes across Nigeria. While my primary academic training lies in Journalism and Media Studies, my priestly responsibility demands fidelity to the Church’s liturgical discipline, which is neither arbitrary nor merely aesthetic, but deeply theological in structure and intent.
The renewal initiated by the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council significantly advanced the principle of actuosa participatio, that is, the full, conscious, and active participation of the faithful in the sacred liturgy. Within this framework, provision has been made for the laity, including women, to assist in certain liturgical functions. However, such participation remains carefully regulated so that it enhances, rather than obscures, the theological clarity of the Eucharistic celebration.
In many parishes, especially during celebrations such as Mother’s Day, women, particularly members of the Catholic Women Organisation (CWO), are invited to serve at the altar. In practice, four patterns have emerged:
- Approach A: Serving entirely in CWO uniform (wrapper, blouse, head tie).
- Approach B: CWO uniform supplemented with a makeshift scapular of the same fabric.
- Approach C: CWO uniform worn beneath a proper liturgical vestment such as the alb.
- Approach D: CWO uniform beneath an alb, further combined with additional elements like a scapular.
To evaluate these approaches, one must return to first principles. The participation of the laity in the sanctuary is grounded in the theology of the common priesthood of all the baptized, yet this remains essentially distinct from the ministerial priesthood conferred through ordination. The Code of Canon Law (Can. 230 §2) permits laypersons to fulfil certain liturgical roles by temporary deputation. This deputation, however, does not confer autonomy over liturgical expression.
The governing principle here is what liturgists often describe as sacred sobriety, which is a norm deeply embedded in the Roman Rite. The liturgy demands a noble simplicity (nobilis simplicitas), where all visible elements direct attention to the mystery being celebrated rather than to personal, cultural, or associational identities.
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM nn. 335–336) is explicit that liturgical vestments are not decorative additions but sacramental signs. The alb, in particular, is not merely a garment; it is the vestis baptismalis, the baptismal robe that signifies new life in Christ. Its universality is deliberate; it erases distinction and emphasises ecclesial unity before the altar.
Furthermore, the document Redemptionis Sacramentum (n. 47) reiterates that where women are admitted to altar service by the diocesan bishop, they must observe the same discipline and decorum required of all servers. This includes conformity in vesture.
From this standpoint, Approaches A and B are liturgically deficient. The use of the CWO uniform within the sanctuary, even when creatively modified into quasi liturgical forms, introduces an extraneous symbolic layer that the liturgy neither recognises nor permits. Such a practice, however well considered, is not inculturation. Such hybridisation contravenes GIRM n. 343, which reserves the regulation of liturgical vesture to competent ecclesiastical authority. A fabricated scapular from CWO material, however pious its intention, lacks liturgical legitimacy and risks reducing the sanctuary to a stage for improvisation.
By contrast, Approaches C and D align more closely with ecclesial discipline, particularly Approach C. When the CWO uniform is worn beneath the alb, it remains a private or communal identifier without intruding into the liturgical sign system. The alb effectively absorbs all secondary identities into the singular identity of the baptized minister serving at the altar.
Even here, however, caution is required. The addition of non prescribed elements, as seen in Approach D, must be avoided unless explicitly approved. The Roman Rite values clarity of sign. The multiplication of vestural elements, especially those without juridical or liturgical grounding, introduces ambiguity into what should be a transparent symbolic language.
There is also a broader ecclesiological concern. The Church’s liturgy is universal. It transcends tribe, sodality, and association. If each group, CMO, CYON, Holy Childhood, and others, were to import its uniform into the sanctuary, the result would not be inculturation but fragmentation, a visual theology of division rather than unity. The sanctuary would gradually become a mosaic of identities instead of a sacramental expression of the Una, Sancta, Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia.
It must therefore be firmly stated: the sanctuary is not the space for the display of sodality identity but the place of liturgical conformity. The logic of the liturgy is kenotic; it calls for a self emptying in which personal and group distinctions recede so that Christ, the true celebrant, may be more clearly revealed.
In conclusion, while the involvement of women, especially through structured bodies like the CWO, remains pastorally commendable and theologically grounded, such participation must always be governed by the Church’s liturgical norms. The most appropriate and universally acceptable practice is that which corresponds to Approach C: the wearing of the alb, or cassock and surplice where customary, with any CWO identity remaining non visible within the sanctuary.
Anything beyond this risks distorting the delicate balance between participation and propriety, between devotion and discipline.
The liturgy is not ours to reinvent; it is ours to receive, guard, and celebrate with fidelity.
Rev. Fr. Okhueleigbe Osemhantie Amos
Catholic Priest | Journalist | Lecturer
Comments are closed.