Who Wants To Be A Married Man?

Given current demographics, we can predict that coming soon to a Chinese audience will be a Made In China version of the game show Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? But the prize on the Chinese version of the show will not be a million dollars but a woman eligible for marriage:

"China will have more than 23 million men unable to find wives by 2020 because so many more boys are being born than girls, according to a study.

"The widespread practice of aborting female foetuses [i.e., fetuses] is being blamed for creating a generation of bachelors who will pose increasing social problems, it says.

"These men are known as ‘bare branches’ because they will never bear fruit. History suggests that they will give rise to higher crime rates and political instability. Their number might encourage China to become more authoritarian or seek an outlet for their energies through war."

GET THE STORY. (Use BugMeNot.com if you get nabbed by the Evil Registration Requirement.)

Of course, Americans don’t usually discriminate on the basis of the sex of the child. In America, unborn babies have an equal opportunity to be aborted. So, in America, we may one day have a game show titled Who Wants To Live?

And modern man thinks the ancient Greeks and Romans who abandoned unwanted babies to the vagaries of the elements were barbarians.

Convalidation Query

A reader writes:

My parents were married in the Catholic Church in the 1960s. My father was a baptised Catholic and my mother was a non-Catholic. They remember the parish priest having to obtain a dispensation for their marriage.

A few years ago, my mother became a Catholic. As she was preparing for reception into the Church, research showed that she had not been baptized in the Church of England (as we had always assumed) but ‘dedicated’ in the Salvation Army. Accordingly, she was baptized at the Easter Vigil.

My question relates to their marriage. I have heard that a different kind of dispensation is needed for a Catholic to marry an unbaptized person than to marry a baptized non-Catholic. We don’t know what kind of dispensation the priest obtained in the 1960s.

My question is this: Was their marriage valid? Is it now? If not, what steps would need to be taken? (My father, who currently has some “issues” with the Church would be absolutely furious if asked to go through a convalidation ceremony).

You are correct that a different kind of dispensation is needed. When a Catholic marries a non-Catholic baptized person then a "mixed marriage" dispensation is needed. When a Catholic marries a non-baptized party, however, a "disparity of cult" dispensation is needed.

That being said, there is a good likelihood that the latter dispensation was granted when your parents married back in the sixties. In many dioceses even today it is standard practice to grant a disparity of cult dispensation at the same time as granting a mixed marriage dispensation–precisely in order to take care of situations like this one.

My impression is that this was all the more common back then, when there was a more cautious attitude taken with regard to the validity of individual Protestant baptisms (i.e., there was an acknowledgement that Protestant baptisms were valid in principle but a greater caution about whether the baptism had been validly performed in any particular case).

There is thus a good chance that the diocese issued both dispensations at the time your parents married.

The way to find out is to contact the diocese in which they were married and ask them to look it up. They (or the parish) should have the record.

If it turns out that they did not get both dispensations then the matter could be handled by convalidation or, hypothetically, by a procedure known as radical sanation ("healing from the root"), which would not involve a renewal of consent by your father.

One should not get ahead of oneself, though. The first step for your mom would be to contact the diocese and find out what dispensations were granted.

It's Not All About You

One of my favorite secular commentators is Judith Martin, also known as Miss Manners. Martin often has a wildly hilarious, yet absolutely commonsense take on the details of everyday life. As a Catholic apologist, easily the bulk of the questions I get are on marriage, annulment, and weddings, so this article on planning weddings made me howl with laughter and nod with agreement:

"Have you considered doing something unusual and individualistic at your wedding — not personalizing it?

[…]

"But none of these advantages [mentioned in the column] is the reason Miss Manners urges bridal couples not to think of their weddings as opportunities to showcase themselves. The real reason is that despite what you think, and despite what you have been urged to think by the wedding industry, your wedding is not ‘about you.’

"Your courtship is about you, and your marriage will be about you. And unless you drag all your wedding guests off to an exotic destination, your wedding trip will be about you.

"But a wedding is about your public entrance into the civic and often religious rituals of the society. Its emotional strength comes from long continuity — knowing that you are repeating the steps of those who preceded you and those who will follow.

"It is a shame to trade that rich and momentous step for Madison and Brad’s Day to Show Off."

GET THE STORY. (If bothered by the Evil Registration Requirement, use BugMeNot.com.)

A Catholic might add a bit more to this, such as pointing out, as Fulton Sheen did in his book Three To Get Married, God’s role in the production, but Martin’s basic analysis is definitely spot-on.

It’s Not All About You

One of my favorite secular commentators is Judith Martin, also known as Miss Manners. Martin often has a wildly hilarious, yet absolutely commonsense take on the details of everyday life. As a Catholic apologist, easily the bulk of the questions I get are on marriage, annulment, and weddings, so this article on planning weddings made me howl with laughter and nod with agreement:

"Have you considered doing something unusual and individualistic at your wedding — not personalizing it?

[…]

"But none of these advantages [mentioned in the column] is the reason Miss Manners urges bridal couples not to think of their weddings as opportunities to showcase themselves. The real reason is that despite what you think, and despite what you have been urged to think by the wedding industry, your wedding is not ‘about you.’

"Your courtship is about you, and your marriage will be about you. And unless you drag all your wedding guests off to an exotic destination, your wedding trip will be about you.

"But a wedding is about your public entrance into the civic and often religious rituals of the society. Its emotional strength comes from long continuity — knowing that you are repeating the steps of those who preceded you and those who will follow.

"It is a shame to trade that rich and momentous step for Madison and Brad’s Day to Show Off."

GET THE STORY. (If bothered by the Evil Registration Requirement, use BugMeNot.com.)

A Catholic might add a bit more to this, such as pointing out, as Fulton Sheen did in his book Three To Get Married, God’s role in the production, but Martin’s basic analysis is definitely spot-on.

Amazing Dinosaur Invention: The Bone-Lung!

It appears that dinosaurs (or some dinosaurs) may have had air sacs in their bones, allowing them to circulate the air they breathed into their bones and then back into their lungs again, giving them an extra-efficient breathing system and allowing them to sustain the hot-blooded metabolism that many scientists now think they had.

Turns out, while dinos may have invented this system of utilizing air, they aren’t the only creatures that are known to use it.

Another, very common kind of critter also uses it . . . birds.

GET THE STORY.

British Teachers Want To Ban The "F" Word

Unfortunately, the "F" word is question isn’t the all too common one. That word will likely remain all too common.

No, it seems that many UK teachers are as nutty–excuse me–as barmy as many US teachers.

The "F" word that they want to ban from the classroom is "Fail."

That word could be too traumatic for the wee ones, so instead, the teachers making the proposal wish to speak of students having "deferred success."

GET THE STORY.

It’ll be interesting if this passes and they start to be really rigorous in shielding the children from the "F" word.

It’d mean teaching them that the Nazis had deferred success in their takeover of Europe.

Considering the current state of the European Union, that might not be inaccurate.

British Teachers Want To Ban The “F” Word

Unfortunately, the "F" word is question isn’t the all too common one. That word will likely remain all too common.

No, it seems that many UK teachers are as nutty–excuse me–as barmy as many US teachers.

The "F" word that they want to ban from the classroom is "Fail."

That word could be too traumatic for the wee ones, so instead, the teachers making the proposal wish to speak of students having "deferred success."

GET THE STORY.

It’ll be interesting if this passes and they start to be really rigorous in shielding the children from the "F" word.

It’d mean teaching them that the Nazis had deferred success in their takeover of Europe.

Considering the current state of the European Union, that might not be inaccurate.

Where No Justice Has Gone Before?

Combining the themes of the first two posts today (i.e., the Supreme Court and Star Trek), it’s worth noting that blogger Alan K. Henderson writes:

Kathryn Jean Lopez has a question she wants posed to John Roberts (link via Glenn):

"I’d like to know if Star Trek had an influence on John Roberts and, if so, what that influence was."

Here are some responses I don’t want to hear:

  • "It is a good day to die."
  • "Strength
    is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We
    will add your distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to
    service ours."
  • "My position on Roe? How much latinum is it worth to you?"
  • "Please state the nature of the legal emergency."
  • "From hell’s heart, I stab at thee. For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
  • "Setting dissent on stun."
  • "Don’t push your luck, pinkskin!"
  • "Engaging cloaking device." [dodging a question]
  • "Red alert! Raise shields!" [more dodging]
  • "Beam me out of here!" [yet more dodging]
  • "Really, Mr. Senator, you emotions will become your undoing."

Okay, maybe I do want to hear that last one [SOURCE].

Feel free to add your own inappropriate Star Trek answers in the combox.