Month: March 2006

Confirmation Names

A reader writes:

My girlfriend is teaching the Confirmation class at her parish this year, and the confirmandi just picked their saint names.  One of them chose the name Moses.  I know the greats of the Old Testament are generally considered saints in their own right (or at least, that’s my understanding), but can an Old Testament name be used for Confirmation?

Confirmandi? Wasn’t that an old Jack Kirby comic published by DC? The Last Boy In The Church or something?

(Sorry. Just kidding.)

The answer is that there isn’t a rule here. Canon law does not presently make any provision regarding confirmation names.

As a result, one is free to take a name or not take a name, and there are no canonical restrictions on what such names might be.

That’s not to say that there are no moral limitations on what one could choose. If an uppity young ‘un wanted to take "Hitler" as a confirmation name then the others involved would be quite entitled to say "Nix on that."

A good rule of thumb to follow, though it doesn’t have canonical force when it comes to confirmation, would be what the Code of Canon Law says about baptismal names:

Can.  855

Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to
take care that a name foreign to Christian sensibility is not given.

"Moses" is not a name that is foreign to Christian sensibility. It may be a name that has Jewish resonances, but it’s part of the Judeo-Christian patrimony, and so it would not be a problem for a confirmand to take this name.

Now CNS Gets Into The Act

Here’s another newsitorial–this time from Catholic News Service.

It has the startling headline:

In immigration law, distinctions of ‘legal,’ ‘illegal’ fairly recent

Huh? Really? Nobody distinguished between legal and illegal aliens until recently?

How does this headline get justified? Let’s look at the opening of the story:

Here’s a little-understood fact about immigration law: Until well into the 20th century, pretty much anyone who showed up at a port of entry or walked across a border got to stay in the United States.

In other words, one reason so many people today can say "my ancestors followed the law when they came here" is because until fairly recently there was no distinction made about whether someone arrived legally or not. With few exceptions, anyone who got here was admitted.

You’ll note that I’ve put two phrases in blue here and two phrases in red.

The blue phrases are designed by the reporter (Patricia Zapor) to convey the impression that it is a "fact" that "there was no distinction made about whether someone arrived legally or not." That serve to justify the headline of the piece.

But the phrases in red indicate that the blue phrases–and the story as a whole–is creating an inaccurate impression. The reporter knows that there was a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, because she concedes that she says people got legally in "pretty much" of the time and that there were "exceptions."

That means that she’s deliberately slanting the news. She knows that the impression she’s trying to create isn’t accurate, but she’s creating it anyway because of her agenda.

Either that or she’s too slow witted to realize the contradiction.

It’s hard to credit the later idea, though, because the contradiction gets more blatant as the story goes on. Later we read:

"The number who got sent back at Ellis Island was less than 2 percent," Meissner told Catholic News Service in an interview, "possibly less than 1 percent."

And those rejections were almost always because the people suffered from an illness that might make them financially dependent upon the community, she said. For instance, a then-common eye infection left victims blind and presumably unable to support themselves. People who had it were turned away.

There were some exceptions to the open-door policy, explains an immigration law history article provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau, as the agency Meissner headed in the 1990s is now called. An 1882 Chinese exclusion law that remained on the books until 1943 was originally aimed at limiting cheap labor.

Other laws of the era excluded polygamists, those with criminal records for "moral turpitude," people with contagious diseases or epilepsy, professional beggars, anarchists and those who were insane.

So it turns out that there were a whole bunch of categories of people who could not legally enter the country, meaning that if they did enter it that their entry was illegal.

The percentage of people who showed up and were disallowed entry may have been smaller than it is today–or it may not have been smaller at all. I don’t know that more than 1-2% of aliens who show up at U.S. airports today get turned away. The story doesn’t go into that. And it’s not the number of people turned away from Ellis Island that indicates how large a problem illegal immigration was, anyway. It’s the number of people who circumvented Ellis Island and similar institutions that’s an indicator of how many illegals there were.

In any event, the story contains abundant evidence that there was a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. "Pretty much anybody" is not the same thing as "anybody."

So what we have here is another instance of a unprofessional story that violates journalistic ethics with a blatant attempt to slant the news in favor of the author’s agenda.

GET THE STORY.

AFP’s Newsitorials

The AFP has a real problem–the same problem that the rest of the Mainstream Media has: It’s can’t stop itself from slanting the news to fit it’s political agenda, and in the most ham-handed, obvoius ways.

Consider the following opening paragraph from an AFP new story:

At least 14,000 mostly Hispanic students stormed out of school classes across Los Angeles in a snowballing protest against Washington’s plans for a draconian crackdown on illegal immigration.

Now look at the last line of the same story:

At least 11 million illegal immigrants, most of them from neighbouring Mexico, live in the United States and are responsible for keeping the human machinery of US cities humming.

This piece is unsigned and is not presented as an editorial. It’s presented as a straight news piece.

Why then is the AFP so blatantly editorializing, referring to "Washington’s plans for a draconian crackdown on illegal immigration" and playing up the role of illegal aliens as being "responsible for keeping the human machinery of US cities humming"?

"Draconian" is an evaluative term, and reporters who make a pretense of objectivity have no business evaluating government programs and telling us whether they are draconian or harmful or beneficial or necessary or anything else.

Neither do they have any business putting positive slants on the role of people who are breaking the law. It would be fair to say that illegal immigrants are tightly knit into the American economy at present, but to say that they keep things "humming" puts a positive spin on their presence.

If an individual reader of the story wanted to conclude that the presence of illegal aliens is a positive thing and that it outweighs the damage done to society by widespread breaking of the law that their presence entails then that would be an opinion that a person might legitimately hold. So would the contrary opinion that the damage done to society outweighs the benefits. It’s a judgment call whether a benefit outweighs a harm or visa versa.

And that’s the point.

It’s a judgment call, and reporters pretending to objectivity have no business making such evaluative judgment calls on behalf of their readers. They should be taking a "Just the facts, ma’am," approach, and leave the editorializing to . . . well . . . editors.

This kind of editorial masquerading as a news story–a "newsitorial," if you will–and especially one as blatantly editorial as this–is just unacceptable from an organization that does not openly and honestly declare itself a partisan entity.

Who do they think they’re fooling?

GET THE STORY.

Attendance At Masses For Special Intentions

A reader writes:

Is there any rule about having to actually attend the a mass that you have said for someone?  Does attending somehow increase the grace that the person receives from the mass?

There is no rule that you have to attend a Mass that is being said for a special intention of yours. This is clear from the fact that people often make offerings to religious orders in distant locations to say Masses for their intentions. It is also clear from the Church’s legislation regarding Mass offerings

ONLINE HERE.

As you can see, these canons do not make any provisions regarding what the laity of give Mass offerings must do. The burden is all on the priest to make sure that the Mass is celebrated in a timely manner. The faithful are not bound to do anything after they have made the offering. In fact, the Code provides that:

Can.  954

If in certain churches or oratories more Masses are asked to be celebrated than can be celebrated there, it is permitted for them to be celebrated elsewhere unless the donors have expressly indicated a contrary intention.

This means that if your church is getting too many requests for Masses that your priest can e-mail his priest buddy up in Alaska and ask him to celebrate Mass for your intention–unless you indicated otherwise (he’ll also need to PayPal your the Mass offering to his priest buddy in this case; see can. 955).

The Code thus does not envision people having an obligation to attend the Masses celebrated for their intentions.

It may be customary in some places–particular in parish settings–for folks to show up at the Masses being celebrated for their intentions, but this is not required or suggested by the Church’s law.

As to the grace that would be given to a person for whom you are having Mass said, your attendance or non-attendance has no bearing on the intrinsic efficacy of the Mass. The person will receive whatever grace God wants them to have on the basis of having Mass said for them.

That being said, if you do attend then it can show an extra level of concern on your part (you went out of your way to personally unite yourself with the prayers of this Mass for this person) and that can serve as a kind of "extra prayer" that you are "saying" by your actions for your friend.

Parents For Confirmation Sponsors?

A reader writes:

Hi Jimmy, Can my mother be my Confirmation sponsor ?  I thought I read a Canon Law stating no parents or spouses of the candidate can be a sponsor. Thanking you in advance of a prompt response, God bless you,

I’m afraid that your mom cannot be your confirmation sponsor. Here’s the canon law on that:

First, the Code of Canon Law establishes that for a person to serve as a confirmation sponsor he or she must meet the requirements of a sponsor for baptism:

Can.  893

§1. To perform the function of sponsor, a person must fulfill the conditions mentioned in can. 874 [which lays out the requirements for baptismal sponsors].

§2. It is desirable to choose as sponsor the one who undertook the same function in baptism.

If we then look at Canon 874 to see what the requirements are for baptismal sponsors, we find:

Can.  874

§1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a person must:

1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

§2. A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

So I’m afraid that your mom can’t serve as your confirmation sponsor. It would be preferable (see canon 893 §2, quoted above) if one of your sponsors at baptism (your godparents) were your confirmation sponsor–assuming they still meet all the requirements of canon 874–but this is not required.

Hope this helps!

Return To Confession

A reader writes:

My husband had decided to go to confession after 45 years–and it’s next Wednesday.

I smoothed the way by speaking with Father who will hold our Wednesday evening confessions in his office (not together of course).  My husband is getting scrupples BUT more than that—he’s wondering if there was a booklet for someone like him to offer clues or ideas or direction.

Have you written anything about those who haven’t gone since they were kids and how to not feel guilty about forgetting things?  He’s so worried.  It’s not so much that he’s scared but he’s worried that he’ll forget to say everything and that it won’t count. I’ve told him it’s OK.  Just express sincere remorse and that God knows!  But… do you have anything?

There certainly are booklets that your husband could use. Catholic Answers carries one that is titled something like "The Little Catechism Of Confession" (see shop.catholic.com). The problem is that if his confession is scheduled for Wednesday, it wouldn’t be possible to get this booklet unless you had it overnighted.

You might try going to a local Catholic bookstore, if there is one in your town, as they would probably have things of this nature.

Or you could Google "examination of conscience" and see what comes up.

HERE’S AN EXAMPLE OF AN ONLINE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE.

Because your husband has not been to confession in some time (and it’s great that he’s coming back to it!), I recommend a few things:

1) He should not stress out about confessing the number of times he committed particular sins if he can’t remember. Nobody is obliged to confess more than they can remember, so if all he can say is "I did this particular sin a lot" then that’s okay. (On the other hand, if he knows the specific number then he should say it.)

2) He should not stress out about sins that he has forgotten. The Church teaches that the sacrament works as long as the person does not deliberately hold back a mortal sin that he knows about. If he can’t remember a mortal sin that he committed then he isn’t obliged to confess it. It is enough that he would confess it if he remembered it.

3) To cover unremembered mortal sins, it is customary for people to add at the end of their confession "And for all my sins I am sorry."

4) To help him not worry about forgetting to mention something that he meant to say, he should consider using a written memory aid. This could be a list of his sins that he makes up in advance, or it could be printing up an examination of conscience and putting a check mark by the ones he means to confess.

5) When he confesses, he should be as direct as possible, simply saying, "I have to confess that I frequently did this . . . . and I have to confess that I sometimes did that" and not worry about giving a lot of background detail. Being matter of fact in this way will make it easier to get through the confession. The priest can ask clarifying questions if he needs to.

6) After confession your husband should IMMEDIATELY destroy any written aid he used in the confession. I recommend tearing it up and flushing it down the toilet in the nearest men’s room.

I hope this helps, and it’s great that your husband is coming back to the practice of his faith!

Dating Without An Annulment

A reader writes:

Are there any official guidelines for divorced people dating before seeking an annulment?  I know someone who is doing this and claims that they aren’t "breaking any rules" by doing so.  I say that its a mockery of the sacrament, as well as an abuse of the other person.

To answer this question, I need to distinguish two different situations: Some people are in need of what is called a "documentary process" annulment. These are cases where it is so clear that a marriage is null that all that has to be done is to present certain documents that will prove nullity. The most common kind of annulment in this category is when Catholics (who are obliged to observe the Catholic form of marriage) get married outside the Church without a dispensation. Another case would be a priest who jumps ship and attempts marriage without being laicized.

In these cases the nullity of the marriage is so obvious and certain that an extensive investigation is not needed, which is why the documentary process exists. It is possible, even before the annulment is granted, to be certain that one is not married to one’s former spouse.

In such cases, unless there is something else affecting the situation (like being an unlaicized priest), one is entitled to regard oneself as free to marry someone else, and it would not be wrong in principle to investigate prospective marriage partners. (Though it would still be prudent for a variety of reasons to get the documentary process annulment first.)

Most annulment cases, though, are not documentary process ones. They require an extensive, formal investigation, and they are known as "ordinary process" annulments. In these cases it is not clear prior to investigation that a person is free to marry, which is why the investigation is necessary.

Such marriages are presumed valid, and parties are obliged to regard themselves as still bound to their prior spouse until such time as it is proven that the marriage was null.

So what about dating before the annulment in their case?

"Dating" is a phenomenon that only appears in certain cultures. As a result, one won’t find it explicitly mentioned in the Code of Canon Law, which applies to cultures all over the world.

What one will find is a canon that requires the faithful to act in communion with the Church even in their daily activities:

Can. 209 §1.

The
Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to
maintain communion with the Church.

Things that would impair their communion with the Church, such as actions not consistent with Catholic morality, violate this obligation.

Further, the Code provides:

Can. 210

All the
Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote
the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their
own condition.

One thus cannot get around what moral theology would say on the grounds that one isn’t "breaking any rules" that are explicitly found in canon law. Canon law itself requires people to live in a moral manner and strive for holiness.

And even if canon law didn’t say this, the fundamental moral obligations to act in accordance with one’s state of life and to pursue holiness would remain.

Where this question really belongs is thus not in canon law but in moral theology: Is it moral to be dating someone if you are divorced and don’t have an annulment?

Dating is a romantic activity, and it is simply inappropriate to engage in romantic activity with one person when you must regard yourself as married to another. To do so is a violation of the Ninth Commandment (not coveting one’s neighbor’s spouse) that puts one in danger of temptations to violate the Sixth Commandment (not committing adultery).

Those who would need an ordinary process annulment must regard themselves as still married, and so for them dating in this condition has the same moral character as dating someone other than their spouses while still married.

Moral theology would repudiate the actions of a man who knows that he is bound to his wife yet dates another woman, and so it repudiates the actions of a man who must presume that he is bound to his wife yet dates someone else.

In addition, pursuing romance with someone else when you are presumed bound to another is just cruel. It not only tempts you to violate your marital obligations, it tempts another person into an immoral situation as well.

It also messes with both of your feelings and–should and annulment not be forthcoming–will lead you to the very distressing choice between continuing the relationship in violation of your marital obligations or ceasing the relationship and all the pain that will mean.

Bottom line: Dating when you are not clearly free to contract marriage is fundamentally disordered on multiple fronts and just plain wrong.

20

Looking For Fr. Altier Homilies

A reader writes:

Greetings from Bombay, India. I have been reading your posts on your awesome Blog Spot for quite some time.

I am a great, great Fan of Father Altier’s Homilies from India.

I am a Cradle Catholic and my family has been Catholic for a little over 4 Centuries. My Ancestors were converted to Catholicism from Hinduism by zealous Portuguese Jesuit and Franciscan Missionaries in the 16th Century when Goa was a Portuguese Colony.

In Goa, we have the incorrupt body of Saint Francis Xavier which is kept in a casket at the Cathedral of the Bom Jesus — which in Portuguese means the Good Jesus.

I have been reading the awesome Homilies of Father Robert Altier from March 2001 when I was living in the United States and I continued reading them when I returned to India in early 2002 and till the last day when they were available on "A Voice in the Desert" that is Ash Wednesday 2006.

I am very sad and depressed that the current Homilies are no longer available nor are the Archives available anymore. I feel also sad that I did not download any of the Homilies when they were available neither the current ones nor any from the Archives.

My Spiritual Life will indeed be disrupted if it isn’t already as a result of the unfortunate ban or censorship on the Homilies of Father Altier. They were life giving to me in more ways than one and I was specially looking forward to them during this Holy Season of Lent as well as during the forthcoming Holy Season of Easter.

Therefore, I would be most grateful if you could tell me if there are any Web Sites that are hosting Father Altier’s Homilies since "A Voice in the Desert"  has been shut down.

Finally, I would be most grateful if you could mail me the "URL’S" of Web Sites that are hosting Father Altier’s Homilies.

I don’t know of any sites that have all of them (perhaps some readers do), but I can point you toward a site that has many of them.

If you use The Wayback Machine at Internet Archive, you’ll find that it has many homilies archived from 2001-2005.

HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS THE 2005 ARCHIVE.

HERE’S THE GENERAL ARCHIVE FOR ALL YEARS.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, if you’re looking for good online homilies, I’d recommend those of online scalawag, Fr. Stephanos Pedrano.

Ist Das Nicht Ein Kinderbibel?

KinderbibelJa! Das ist ein Kinderbibel!

O, du schoene!

O, du schoene!

O, du schoene!

Kin-der-bi-bel!

Okay, so what’s a Kinderbibel? Well, if you think of what the German roots of the word "Kindergarten" mean and what the word "bibel" sounds like in English, you should have a pretty good clue:

It’s a Children’s Bible.

Aid To The Church In Need has produced a children’s bible called God Speaks To His Children that is now online in 20 (!) languages.

ENGLISH IS ONE OF THEM.

Now, by "children’s Bible," they don’t really mean a children’s Bible–a version of Scripture translated or annotated for kids. They mean a book of famous Bible stories with the text taken from the Bible and paraphrased for kids. But that’s not reason that the project isn’t worthy.

If y’all have or know folks who have young kids,

CHECK IT OUT.

OTHER LANGUAGES HERE. (Click on your part of the world map to see languages from your area come up.)