Month: June 2005

SCIENTISTS: Link Between Bonding And Babies!

Scientists are beginning to discover a link between killing fertility and killing sexual desire. Next to be studied: Is there a link between regular watering and the growth of plants?

"Taking the Pill for as little as six months could destroy a woman’s sex drive for ever, say scientists.

"The oral contraceptive dramatically reduces the levels of a hormone responsible for desire and simply stopping taking it fails to reverse the effect, it is feared.

"A survey produced such dramatic results that lead researcher Dr. Irwin Goldstein advised any woman on the Pill who has sexual problems to stop taking it and try another method of birth control.

"’There is a possibility it is imprinting a woman for the rest of her life,’ he said."

GET THE STORY.

(Nod to Zippy Catholic for the link.)

Hmmm. I wonder if scientists will eventually offer an apology to the Church for the secular world’s scorn of the Church’s age-old teaching on artificial contraception…. After all, fair’s fair. John Paul II apologized for the Church’s handling of the Galileo affair.

Remind me when I can let out that gulp of air I’m holding.

Singing Like A Canary

Tariq_azizWord is that Saddam Hussein’s evil foreign minister Tariq Aziz has been singing "like a canary."

GET THE STORY.

This, of course, only raises the question: How do canaries sing?

The answer is more interesting than you might suppose. Turns out that male canaries (the kind that are noted for their song) have a very definite grammar to what they do.

EXCERPTS:

There’s a sort of universal grammar for canary songs, and canaries follow it strictly. First, songs consist of specific syllables, similar to the phonemes in human language. Canaries know 30 to 40 of these elementary units.


Second, when constructing a song, canaries repeat a syllable for one second before jumping quickly to a different note.


"It’s as though you have 26 letters of the alphabet and it’s as if the bird goes CCCCC, HHHHH, QQQQQ. They use 60 to 70 percent of their syllables per song," Tim Gardner of MIT told LiveScience.

Or, to put it another way, it’s as if male canaries go "So So So So So! Fa Fa Fa Fa Fa! Do Do Do Do Do! Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi!"

LISTEN TO A CANARY DO THIS (.wav file).

Turns out also that this is genetically hard-wired into canaries:

[A] canary born deaf, or raised alone in a soundproof box, will grow up to sing a normal adult song. Also, canary chicks beg for food with added gusto when a song specific to their species is played, even if they’ve never heard it before.

Canary_1Now, normally male canaries learn their songs from their dads, but they can learn them from other males or even things that aren’t canaries. Just for fun, scientists raised canaries with computer-generated artifical songs.

The result? Young male canaries tried to imitate the artificial songs.

LIKE ON THIS HERE PAGE.

They also played sounds for them that sounded like they came from video games, and once again the canaries imitated them.

LIKE ON THIS HERE OTHER PAGE.

But then something happened: The young male canaries hit puberty. And sounding like an X-Box or the canary equivalent of Hal 9000 just wasn’t sexy enough for the young female canaries, and so the guys switched back to traditional canary song style right quick!

Actually, the story gives the impression they did that even before encountering females, with just the onset of marriageable age converting these young synthpop males into traditionalist canary folksingers:

The second surprise was that when the canaries reached adulthood, when they would woo females with their songs, the innate cues kicked in and they began singing traditional songs.


"As they entered adulthood, they entered a process of rearranging. They used computer syllables, but sang them with traditional canary syntax, repeating each one for one second," Gardner said.


The canaries may have sung with mixed strategies early on, but once they hit 6 to 8 months of age, the emphasis on traditional song structure drastically increased. In two cases, where the researchers induced adulthood by injecting the canary with testosterone, and setting the mood for mating by altering the length of day, the canaries changed their tune in as few as five days.

But, like many who have made the transition from rock to country, the canaries still liked pulling out their old records once in a while:

Even though they predominantly sang the traditional songs, every once and a while they would bust out with a computer inspired tune.

GET THE OTHER STORY.

Supremely Speculative

Southern Appeal has some delightful speculation on who may be Pres. Bush’s picks for the next additions to the Supremes. Here’s the first two possibilities:

Who? Judge Wapner

Famous from? The People’s Court

Pros? Excellent legal reasoning in his decision on The Angry Landlord v. The Deadbeat Renter
Cons? His 6th Amendment jurisprudence as demonstrated in Fluffy v. Spot while he was judge on Animal Planet’s Animal Court. Plus he’s really, really old.

Who? Judge Judy

Famous from? Her TV show
Pros? She and Scalia would get along famously. Has a tough, no nonsense personality.
Cons? She probably wouldn’t accept since it would be a pay cut, plus Supreme Court hearings aren’t televised.

GET THE WHOLE LIST.

For It Stopped Short…

Unlike Grandfather’s clock, which stopped short never to run again when the old man died, it appears that London’s Big Ben will continue running after a brief rest.

"Big Ben, the landmark London clock renowned for its accuracy and chimes, stopped ticking for 90 minutes, an engineer said Saturday.

"Officials do not know why the 147-year-old clock on the banks of the River Thames stopped at 10:07 p.m. Friday. It resumed keeping time, but stalled again at 10:20 p.m. and remained still for about 90 minutes before starting up again, a spokeswoman for the House of Commons said on condition of anonymity, citing government policy.

"There has been speculation a recent spell of hot weather may have been to blame. Temperatures in London reached 90 Saturday, and forecasters called it England’s hottest day in May since 1953."

GET THE STORY.

By the way, if the musical allusion interests you, GET THE LYRICS. My grandparents occasionally sang this song for me when I was a child and the idea of a clock stopping to mark someone’s death — time standing still in mourning — always fascinated me.

Divorce, Remarriage, & Confession

A reader writes:

Can my wife or myself go to confession?

Our story is this, both are cradle Catholics. I left the Church when I was seventeen-eighteen for Evangelical Protestantism and return to the Catholic church about one year ago, thanks be to God.  Married for the first time in my twenties, then divorced ten years later. I have two children from that marriage. I was married in a Protestant church. My wife was also married ten years then divorced but my wife was married in a Catholic church, no children from that marriage. This is our second marriage. We were married in a Lutheran church four years ago. We both have yet to start the paper work towards an annulment.

First, let me assure of you of God’s love for you and your wife. No matter what has led to your current situation, it remains true that God loves the both of you and sent his Son to die for all of us–y’all included–so that we could go to heaven.

Also, no matter what has led up to the present situation, it can be rectified. What needs to be done to rectify it is something that depends on the facts of the situation, but God always make possible a way for us to get right with him. This is as true of the two of you as it is everyone else.

With that in mind, let’s look at the situation at hand, and I’ll offer what help I can.

First, regarding your prior marriage, it is difficult to tell what the Church would judge its status to be. There is a signficant likelihood that the Church would presume (until the contrary is proven) that your first marriage is valid. Whether the Church would presume this depends on a number of factors that would be rather complex to go into here (e.g., whether in becoming an Evangelical you defected from the Catholic Church by a formal act, what year your first marriage occurred in). Assume for the moment, though, that the Church would presume your first marriage valid.

Before looking at your wife’s first marriage, I should also say a couple of things about the children that came from your first marriage:

First, the fact that children came from this marriage does not affect its validity. Marriages are either valid at the time they are contracted or they are not. If children arrive later this does not reach back in time and cause a marriage to become valid.

Second, even if your first marriage was invalid, this does not make your children illegitimate. Legitimacy is a category of human law used for determining things like inheritance rights, and under Church law the children of any putatively valid marriage are considered legitimate. For practical purposes, this means that if either your or your spouse entered the marriage in good faith–even if it was invalid–then the children are legitimate. You should not worry yourself on this point. (Also, even if they weren’t legitimate, that would only tell us something about their status under human law. It says nothing about how God views them. God loves them just as much as he does you or your wife or the pope.)

Regarding your current wife’s first marriage, it sounds as if the Church will regard it as valid until the contrary is proven.

It thus looks as if the Church may presume that your first marriage was valid and that it probably would presume that your current wife’s first marriage was valid. This means that the Church must assume that the two of you were not free to marry each other when you attempted to contract marriage four years ago.

If, however, the two of you were not free to marry each other because one or both of you were bound to previous spouses then your case falls into the situation Jesus warned about:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,  commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her  husband and marries another, she commits adultery [Mark 10:11-12].

The adultery in this case refers to the sexual relations that are assumed to be occurring between two persons living as husband and wife.

If two people are having adulterous relations then they are not able to go to confession for that reason until the situation is repaired.

This can occur a number of ways.

One way is to apply for annulments and, if necessary, having your current marriage convalidated ("blessed"). At that point you would be regarded as married to each other and thus the relations you have would not be adulterous, meaning that you could go to confession and participate in the normal sacramental life of the Church.

Another way to repair the situation is to cease having the relations that put one in danger of violating Jesus’ command. In other words, to live as brother and sister until such time as one’s marital situation has been properly addressed. In that case there would be no barrier to one going to confession and participating in the sacramental life of the Church.

The reader continues:

I understand the importance of marriage and family but would like an explanation why divorce is treated as almost an unforgivable sin. Seems that murderers who repent can ask for forgiveness but not the divorced.

I am sorry for a failed marriage and divorce. But what is the status of our soul if we cannot go to confession?

First, regarding divorce as an "unforgivable sin." I understand why it may seem this way at the moment, but this is not the best way to look at the situation. The problem really is not the divorces. The Church recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why one may need to seek a civil divorce. In those cases a person does not sin in divorce. Even apart from those circumstances–which is to say, even when a divorce was sinful–divorce is as forgivable as any other sin in confession.

The thing that prevents one from going to confession is thus not the divorce, it having ongoing sexual relations that fall afoul of Jesus’ prohibition on remarriage following divorce. Adulterous relations are themselves as forgivable as any other sin in confession, but one must repent of them as one must repent of any other mortal sin that one wishes to be forgiven of. As long as they are ongoing, one has not repented of them, and so one could not be absolved of them in confession.

It is not the divorces in the past that pose a problem for going to confession, it is the sexual relations being had in the present between parties who were not free to marry each other.

Regarding the state of your souls in the present situation, this is something that ultimately only God can say. He alone has knowledge needed. No human being does, and so the Church does not presume to pass judgment on the state of your souls.

What it can do, and must do, as part of its pastoral responsibility, though, is to be frank with you about how your situation appears to square–or fail to square–with God’s law and to warn you of the need to rectify matters if there appears to be one. This is what the Church is doing by pointing to Christ’s teachings on marriage and the seriousness of engaging in what, at least from the facts at hand, appear to be adulterous relations.

The Church wants to do everything possible to help the two of you address the situation, which is why it makes available the annulment process to examine your first marriages to see if they were valid or not. It is why, assuming the two of you are free to marry, it makes available the possibility of having your present union convalidated ("blessed"). And it is why, even before such eventualities, the Church offers sacramental absolution in confession if you choose to live as brother and sister until your marital situation can be rectified.

The Church is thus doing its best to both hold out the message of God’s grace while also holding fast to his teachings regarding marriage.

More can be said about all this, but let me add two points that I hope will help.

First, I strongly recommend that you get a copy of Ed Peters’ book

ANNULMENTS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: STRAIGHT ANSWERS TO TOUGH QUESTIONS.

It’s the best book on the subject, bar none, and I’m sure it could help you get a better handle on the situation.

Second, because folks always wonder about what would happen if their lives were suddenly in jeopardy. In this situation there would be three things to do: (1) Resolve to do whatever is necessary to rectify your situation and live as God wants should you survive (i.e., repent), (2) implore God’s mercy and make an act of perfect contrition (i.e., turn from one’s sins based on love of God–a consideration of God’s infinite goodness being sufficient), and (3) go to confession if there is time for this before the end.

If one repents of one’s sins and makes an act of perfect contrition, one is reconciled with God even before one is able to go to confession. If there is time for a priest to be summoned and one can go to confession, the sacrament completes the work already done in one’s heart through repentance and perfect contrition.

Having said all that, let me once again reassure you of God’s love and the Church’s love. It is wonderful that you have already responded to God’s grace to the extent that you have and have resumed life as a Catholic. God will help bring you the rest of the way that needs to be gone.  I’ve tried to be straight with you about the situation, and I hope the answers help. Please do not hesitate to write back if I can be of service.

Divorce, Remarriage, & Confession

A reader writes:

Can my wife or myself go to confession?
Our story is this, both are cradle Catholics. I left the Church when I was seventeen-eighteen for Evangelical Protestantism and return to the Catholic church about one year ago, thanks be to God.  Married for the first time in my twenties, then divorced ten years later. I have two children from that marriage. I was married in a Protestant church. My wife was also married ten years then divorced but my wife was married in a Catholic church, no children from that marriage. This is our second marriage. We were married in a Lutheran church four years ago. We both have yet to start the paper work towards an annulment.

First, let me assure of you of God’s love for you and your wife. No matter what has led to your current situation, it remains true that God loves the both of you and sent his Son to die for all of us–y’all included–so that we could go to heaven.

Also, no matter what has led up to the present situation, it can be rectified. What needs to be done to rectify it is something that depends on the facts of the situation, but God always make possible a way for us to get right with him. This is as true of the two of you as it is everyone else.

With that in mind, let’s look at the situation at hand, and I’ll offer what help I can.

First, regarding your prior marriage, it is difficult to tell what the Church would judge its status to be. There is a signficant likelihood that the Church would presume (until the contrary is proven) that your first marriage is valid. Whether the Church would presume this depends on a number of factors that would be rather complex to go into here (e.g., whether in becoming an Evangelical you defected from the Catholic Church by a formal act, what year your first marriage occurred in). Assume for the moment, though, that the Church would presume your first marriage valid.

Before looking at your wife’s first marriage, I should also say a couple of things about the children that came from your first marriage:

First, the fact that children came from this marriage does not affect its validity. Marriages are either valid at the time they are contracted or they are not. If children arrive later this does not reach back in time and cause a marriage to become valid.

Second, even if your first marriage was invalid, this does not make your children illegitimate. Legitimacy is a category of human law used for determining things like inheritance rights, and under Church law the children of any putatively valid marriage are considered legitimate. For practical purposes, this means that if either your or your spouse entered the marriage in good faith–even if it was invalid–then the children are legitimate. You should not worry yourself on this point. (Also, even if they weren’t legitimate, that would only tell us something about their status under human law. It says nothing about how God views them. God loves them just as much as he does you or your wife or the pope.)

Regarding your current wife’s first marriage, it sounds as if the Church will regard it as valid until the contrary is proven.

It thus looks as if the Church may presume that your first marriage was valid and that it probably would presume that your current wife’s first marriage was valid. This means that the Church must assume that the two of you were not free to marry each other when you attempted to contract marriage four years ago.

If, however, the two of you were not free to marry each other because one or both of you were bound to previous spouses then your case falls into the situation Jesus warned about:

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another,  commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her  husband and marries another, she commits adultery [Mark 10:11-12].

The adultery in this case refers to the sexual relations that are assumed to be occurring between two persons living as husband and wife.

If two people are having adulterous relations then they are not able to go to confession for that reason until the situation is repaired.

This can occur a number of ways.

One way is to apply for annulments and, if necessary, having your current marriage convalidated ("blessed"). At that point you would be regarded as married to each other and thus the relations you have would not be adulterous, meaning that you could go to confession and participate in the normal sacramental life of the Church.

Another way to repair the situation is to cease having the relations that put one in danger of violating Jesus’ command. In other words, to live as brother and sister until such time as one’s marital situation has been properly addressed. In that case there would be no barrier to one going to confession and participating in the sacramental life of the Church.

The reader continues:

I understand the importance of marriage and family but would like an explanation why divorce is treated as almost an unforgivable sin. Seems that murderers who repent can ask for forgiveness but not the divorced.

I am sorry for a failed marriage and divorce. But what is the status of our soul if we cannot go to confession?

First, regarding divorce as an "unforgivable sin." I understand why it may seem this way at the moment, but this is not the best way to look at the situation. The problem really is not the divorces. The Church recognizes that there are legitimate reasons why one may need to seek a civil divorce. In those cases a person does not sin in divorce. Even apart from those circumstances–which is to say, even when a divorce was sinful–divorce is as forgivable as any other sin in confession.

The thing that prevents one from going to confession is thus not the divorce, it having ongoing sexual relations that fall afoul of Jesus’ prohibition on remarriage following divorce. Adulterous relations are themselves as forgivable as any other sin in confession, but one must repent of them as one must repent of any other mortal sin that one wishes to be forgiven of. As long as they are ongoing, one has not repented of them, and so one could not be absolved of them in confession.

It is not the divorces in the past that pose a problem for going to confession, it is the sexual relations being had in the present between parties who were not free to marry each other.

Regarding the state of your souls in the present situation, this is something that ultimately only God can say. He alone has knowledge needed. No human being does, and so the Church does not presume to pass judgment on the state of your souls.

What it can do, and must do, as part of its pastoral responsibility, though, is to be frank with you about how your situation appears to square–or fail to square–with God’s law and to warn you of the need to rectify matters if there appears to be one. This is what the Church is doing by pointing to Christ’s teachings on marriage and the seriousness of engaging in what, at least from the facts at hand, appear to be adulterous relations.

The Church wants to do everything possible to help the two of you address the situation, which is why it makes available the annulment process to examine your first marriages to see if they were valid or not. It is why, assuming the two of you are free to marry, it makes available the possibility of having your present union convalidated ("blessed"). And it is why, even before such eventualities, the Church offers sacramental absolution in confession if you choose to live as brother and sister until your marital situation can be rectified.

The Church is thus doing its best to both hold out the message of God’s grace while also holding fast to his teachings regarding marriage.

More can be said about all this, but let me add two points that I hope will help.

First, I strongly recommend that you get a copy of Ed Peters’ book

ANNULMENTS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: STRAIGHT ANSWERS TO TOUGH QUESTIONS.

It’s the best book on the subject, bar none, and I’m sure it could help you get a better handle on the situation.

Second, because folks always wonder about what would happen if their lives were suddenly in jeopardy. In this situation there would be three things to do: (1) Resolve to do whatever is necessary to rectify your situation and live as God wants should you survive (i.e., repent), (2) implore God’s mercy and make an act of perfect contrition (i.e., turn from one’s sins based on love of God–a consideration of God’s infinite goodness being sufficient), and (3) go to confession if there is time for this before the end.

If one repents of one’s sins and makes an act of perfect contrition, one is reconciled with God even before one is able to go to confession. If there is time for a priest to be summoned and one can go to confession, the sacrament completes the work already done in one’s heart through repentance and perfect contrition.

Having said all that, let me once again reassure you of God’s love and the Church’s love. It is wonderful that you have already responded to God’s grace to the extent that you have and have resumed life as a Catholic. God will help bring you the rest of the way that needs to be gone.  I’ve tried to be straight with you about the situation, and I hope the answers help. Please do not hesitate to write back if I can be of service.

Saying The Old Divine Office

A reader writes:

Is it licit to use the pre-vatican ii divine office? I cannot see why the use of the old divine office as a private devotion would be contrary to church, though I am sure that it would not count as the official prayer of the church.

My preference would be to use the new Liturgia Horarum issued by the Vatican, but the cost is prohibitive–each of the 4 volumes is 85 dollars!–and it does not have an English translation. The English Liturgy of the Hours is quite expensive too but the principal reason I’d prefer to use the angelus press edition is that I’d like to pray the hours in Latin.

To sum up, my question is: Is it licit to use the angelus press officium divinum as a private devotion?

I am unaware of any law that would prohibit the saying of the old form of the divine office as a personal form of devotion. The content of the older form of the office was certainly in conformity with the Catholic faith, and the Church permits personal forms of devotion that are in conformity with the Catholic faith as long as they have not been specifically reprobated. I am unaware of anything that would reprobate this as a personal devotion, and so I see no reason why you cannot do so.

That being said, the older form of the divine office is not the same as the current form and, as a result–unless there is a provision out there allowing this–my understanding is that saying it according to the old form would not count as a participation in the Church’s liturgical prayer. If you want to do that, you need to say the prayer in the form that the Church presently prays.

Marriage To Anti-Catholic Redux

In regard to a previous post, a reader writes:

Ever since I got your response to my question, I was greatly troubled.  Can you clarify a point for me?  In the beginning of your answer, you said it would NOT be sinful to marry if the 4 conditions in canon law were met by the Catholic party.  However, later on in your post, you said it would besinful to marry if the non-Catholic party did not also meet those 4 conditions.  Could you clear this up for me?
(I’m determining if i have to break up with my one true love (my only chance of getting married, probably!), so please help me with this.)

Thanks for writing back. I know this is a difficult time for you as making the kind of decision you are facing is very hard emotionally.

The conditions affect your potential spouse in different ways. In particular, the three exclusionary reasons do.

1) The first exclusionary reason involves you making a firm commitment to removing all danger of your own defection from the faith *and* doing everything in your power to see that the children are raised Catholic.

The non-Catholic party is not required to make these commitments himself (he is not, as used to be the case, required to promise to raise the children Catholic, nor to become Catholic himself). But since the question was "Is it sinful to marry this gentleman?" it seems that his foreseen response to these commitments on your part is something that affects the moral character of your act.

If, for example, you reasonably foresee (or if you should reasonably foresee) that he will attempt to undermine your Catholic faith (either overtly or subtly) then are you really removing all dangers to your lapsing from the faith? It seems, instead, like you would be committing yourself to live in an environment in which your faith will be under attack (overtly or subtly) for decades and by the person with whom you are supposed to be most intimate. That sounds more like deliberately exposing oneself to the danger of defecting from the faith, which is sinful.

Similarly, there is the commitment on your part to do all that you can to see that all the children are raised Catholic. If you’re marrying an anti-Catholic, it is going to make this very hard to do. You’re asking for inter-spousal conflict by embarking on this course. If you really intend to do all in your power to raise all the kids Catholic and he has a reciprocal commitment to see that they’re raised in his faith, BLAMMO! Arguments galore.

The religious education of children is also, by natural law, a responsibility of their parents–including you–and for you to knowingly and voluntarily commit to raising your children in an anti-Catholic environment raises real questions about your handling of this responsibility. One can easily argue that sin is likely to be involved if one voluntarily commits to raising one’s children in an anti-Catholic environment.

2) The second condition is simply that the non-Catholic party has to be informed, before the marriage, of your commitments in such a way that he truly understands what you are committed to doing. This is customarily done by those involved in marriage preparation, though morally speaking you would be expected to play your part by impressing on your potential spouse the fact that you are firm in these commitments and will remain so.

3) Then there is the fact that the non-Catholic party is not to exclude the purposes or essential properties of marriage as the Church understands them.

This affects your proposed spouse directly. If he excludes the purposes or essential properties of marriage then it may be sinful to enter the union or the union itself may be invalid.

This question tends to impact Protestants on two fronts: the indissolubility of marriage and its openness to life.

Protestants typically do not hold that marriage is indissoluble. As a result, they typically believe that it is possible for one to divorce after a valid, consummated marriage between Christians and still be able to marry someone else while the first spouse lives. This is itself problematic, but does not automatically invalidate the marriage unless the property of indissolubility is excluded by an act which determines the will. (For example, if your proposed spouse were to say to himself, "I’m not getting married unless I have the right to divorce her and marry someone else if it doesn’t work out.")

When it comes to openness to life, Protestants (these days) typically do not recognize the immorality of using contraception, and the great majority use it. This is objectively sinful. While the Church acknowledges that it is possible for a Catholic spouse to have conjugal relations with a contracepting spouse under certain conditions, whether it is possible to without sin voluntarily enter a union in which one knows the other party will be contracepting is another question entirely.

Simiarly, the proposed spouse may pressure you to use contraception or may insist on using means of contraception that destroy the unitive aspect of the act (e.g., condoms). In the former case, it puts you in the proximate occasion of sin and in the latter case it causes the act itself to become sinful.

There are thus a host of different ways in which entering into marriage with an anti-Catholic Protestant could be sinful.

The reader also asks:

Would it still
be a sin to marry a Protestant, even though the Bishop allows it?

Bishops have to make the best decision they can based on the situation, and they often have less information about the situation than do the parties themselves. For this reason, and for other reasons, a bishop’s decision does not remove the responsibility of the parties themselves in determining whether they should get married.

It may well be that a bishop grants permission for a union in which one or both of the parties is sinning. Often this is done in hopes of avoiding a worse situation (e.g., the Catholic party leaving the faith immediately). A decision from the bishop thus does not mean that the parties are not sinning by marrying each other.

As hard as it is, you therefore have to make your own determination of whether it would be sinful to marry this gentleman, even if it were possible to obtain permission from the bishop. You have to look at what you know about the gentleman, what he would be likely to do or fail to do in marriage, compare it to the criteria that the Church has proposed, and make the best determination you can.

As you do this, it is certainly reasonable to consult those who may help you better discern your moral obligations. (Of course, you need to make sure that those whose counsel you seek are orthodox and not just telling you what you want to hear.)

For my part, I do not see how it would be possible to recommend that you marry an anti-Catholic. It would be one thing if he said, "I’m not Catholic, but I admire and respect the Catholic Church and think it does good in the world." It is another thing if he says (as you report he does), "I think that the Catholic Church is anti-Christ." As long as that is his view, I cannot recommend marriage to him.

I also think that you are likely underestimating your chances of finding a good Catholic man. I’ve already mentioned the possibility of using services like AveMariaSingles.Com to meet faithful Catholic men. As you mention in an e-mail I don’t quote, you’re in your twenties. You still have lots of time. And, as the saying goes, "There are lots of fish in the sea."

Often people underestimate their chances of finding someone. I’ve been guilty of this myself. Most people have at one time or another. I’d hate for you to make a life-affecting mistake just because you sold short your chances of finding a good Catholic guy.

20

Snoring The Tiber

The story sounds like a tall tale to me — how can a person over the age of reason, and one suffering from senile dementia to boot, be received into the Church without his knowledge or consent? — but this unique conversion story that is purported to be true did make me laugh:

"James died at an advanced age, and was given a full Roman Catholic funeral with the bells and smells. Joseph was deeply upset over the loss of his dear brother and senile dementia, which had already set in, got progressively worse. Joseph often got confused about things, and at some point, possibly after witnessing all the Catholic ceremonial, became convinced he was a Catholic too.

"’Of course I’m a Catholic … my brother was a Catholic and we’re twins … how could I not be a Catholic?’ was his response to anyone who said he was a Protestant. Now, Joseph’s grown-up children were, of course, pleased to hear their father now considered himself a Catholic. The problem was — he hadn’t yet been properly received into the Catholic Church, and wouldn’t even listen when his children suggested he be received — ‘I’ve always been a Catholic,’ he would protest. His health was going rapidly downhill too, and he insisted he must be given a Catholic funeral.

"What was one to do? They had a talk with the local RC priest and they had an idea."

GET THE TALE.

Tales such as this, especially those originating several generations ago and thus unverifiable, make the rounds of Catholic circles. You’d be surprised how many I hear from inquirers who want to know if I can explain the tales’ illogical points (e.g., the reception into the Church of a sleeping man). All one can do is to point out the principles (e.g., informed knowledge and consent is ordinarily necessary for adult reception) and advise the person to enjoy the story as a Catholic tall tale.

Nod to Dappled Things for the link. I especially liked Fr. Tucker’s own tale: "It reminded me of what one of our deacons tells non-Catholic best men at wedding rehearsals: ‘When I sprinkle the rings with holy water, make sure not to get any on you, otherwise you automatically become a Catholic.’ Then he makes sure to get the horrified Protestant wet during the wedding ceremony.")