All the more reason we need to vote pro-family this election.
Today’s vote is by no means the end of a constitutional amendment (which is really what is needed in this case). If the Senate does not address matters successfully there is also recourse to the state legislatures to get the matter addressed.
It’s likely to be a long, hard slog either way, though.
All the more reason we need to vote pro-family this election.
Today’s vote is by no means the end of a constitutional amendment (which is really what is needed in this case). If the Senate does not address matters successfully there is also recourse to the state legislatures to get the matter addressed.
It’s likely to be a long, hard slog either way, though.
Did a radio interview on the local NPR station (KPBS) yesterday. I had gotten word Friday that the local affiliate was seeking a Catholic guest for a show Monday morning on the role of religious leaders in politics and was told that they would call me to set up the interview.
They never did.
Nevertheless, Monday morning they called, expecting me to do the interview momentarily. It was a sign of what was to come that they were so disorganized that they didn’t realize that they hadn’t talked to me before.
I sat through a long interview with another guest, from a liberal church (“The Church of Today”) who spoke enthusiastically about “promoting change” and “certain people” not “having their voices heard” (the people in question, she indicated upon further questioning, seemed to be those who disagreed with the policies of the Bush administration). Her segment went on for so long that the producer came on the line to tell me that they had “extended her segment” and please don’t hang up.
When my interview began, the hostess asked me a couple of perfuctory questions about whether religious leaders should encourage their congregations to do anything particular in the political arena (e.g., should priests tell congregants to vote pro-life).
In keeping with radio’s soundbite format and the need for turn-taking, I answered these questions briefly, expecting the hostess to ask follow-up questions in order to flesh out the viewpoint I was presenting.
Instead, she started taking phone calls.
I responded to the first caller (a Jewish woman who, to tell the truth, was sufficiently incoherent that I couldn’t tell what she was saying, except that she was clearly opposed to religious leaders doing more than telling people to turn out to vote).
Then the hostess took three more callers in a row, without asking me to comment on any of them.
I thought they had moved on, ended my interview without telling me, and was considering hanging up. But by now enough time had passed that a caller had gotten through who had heard my remarks and was responding to me. The hostess noted that I was “still on the line” (she was expecting me to take the hint and hang up, perhaps?) and turned to me for comment.
This provided me with what the hostess had not: a chance to elaborate on my initial answer in more detail. So I did, and finally felt some satisfaction that the Catholic viewpoint was being explained to the audience (rather than blocked by the hostess’s moving on abruptly). I was now able to talk (still briefly) about how the Catholic Church recognizes the need to teach people of the need to vote in a way that protects fundamental human rights.
We took another caller, to whom I also got to respond, and the interview ended.
Though I felt by the end of the interview that I had finally been able to sketch a framework that made the Catholic view intelligible to the audience, I was still unhappy with the way the “interview” had been conducted and told the show’s producer so when she came on the line after my interview (the first time I think I’ve ever done that, even when very dissatisfied with an interviewer’s conduct, though I’ve never been left hanging on the phone for three consecutive callers before, not knowing if the interview is over, either). Her excuse for its poor quality being that they were trying to do too many things at once and couldn’t “please everybody.”
Afterwards, a friend quipped: “A Southern California National Public Radio station handling a conservative guest in a biased manner? Really?”
What I found most fascinating about the process, though, was the callers. It wasn’t just that the callers disagreed with me. I can understand people disagreeing on the issues (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) and trying to articulate an alternative viewpoint. It wasn’t even that the callers were inarticulate. My job as an apologist makes me a professional articulater, so I don’t hold callers to radio programs to a high standard of articulation. It was that the callers were simply incoherent–and people of every walk of life should be professional coherers.
Their statements were so disjointed, it was impossible to figure out what they were trying to get across. I heard a lot of emotion from them. There was anguish and indignation and sarcasm in their voices, but I couldn’t piece together coherent arguments. The best I could do was try to listen to the themes (e.g., religion, politics, sex) they seemed to be hitting and then respond to what I supposed an articulate person who disagreed with me might say about these themes.
Unfortunately, since I barely had any air time, I didn’t get to respond much at all.
Living in Southern California, I occasionally am made aware that many people simply live on a different moral planet than I do.
It’s never a fun experience.
Yesterday there was a story headlined The statement [of the U.S. bishops] is very much in harmony with the general principles “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.
This was hailed as a sign that the bishops’ and Ratzinger were in harmony on this issue, though there are manifest differences between the two documents.
What some may have overlooked was that Ratzinger stated that the U.S. document was in harmony with “the general principles” of “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” suggesting that–although the fundamental spirit of the two documents are in harmony (e.g., they both are pro-life, they both seek to promote a pro-life ethic in the political sphere, etc.) there are nevertheless specific points of difference between them. Ratzinger’s letter also contained this statement:
It is hoped that this dialogue [with the CDF] can continue as the [U.S. bishops’] Task Force carries on its important work.
And Cardinal McCarrick added:
I am grateful for his support of our statement and I look forward to continuing dialogue between our task force and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
The existence of a “dialogue” between two parties seems to indicate that they do not yet perceive themselves to be in full agreement on the matter which is the subject of dialogue. While this dialogue seems to be being conducted in a most gentlemanly, diplomatic manner, the two parties nonetheless recognize that a dialogue is taking place.
Yesterday there was a story headlined The statement [of the U.S. bishops] is very much in harmony with the general principles “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.
This was hailed as a sign that the bishops’ and Ratzinger were in harmony on this issue, though there are manifest differences between the two documents.
What some may have overlooked was that Ratzinger stated that the U.S. document was in harmony with “the general principles” of “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” suggesting that–although the fundamental spirit of the two documents are in harmony (e.g., they both are pro-life, they both seek to promote a pro-life ethic in the political sphere, etc.) there are nevertheless specific points of difference between them. Ratzinger’s letter also contained this statement:
It is hoped that this dialogue [with the CDF] can continue as the [U.S. bishops’] Task Force carries on its important work.
And Cardinal McCarrick added:
I am grateful for his support of our statement and I look forward to continuing dialogue between our task force and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
The existence of a “dialogue” between two parties seems to indicate that they do not yet perceive themselves to be in full agreement on the matter which is the subject of dialogue. While this dialogue seems to be being conducted in a most gentlemanly, diplomatic manner, the two parties nonetheless recognize that a dialogue is taking place.
Regarding the entry on what names are allowed, a reader writes:
Speaking of naming kids “God,” I’m reminded that Grace Slick did just that with hers–but with a lower-case “g” because she didn’t want to be pretentious….
Yeah, I was thinking about that when I wrote the post, but couldn’t remember if it was Grace Slick or another artist. She also later changed the name to something more normal.
Still, naming your kid “god” is something you’d expect from a Rock diva (DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! Killer Latin pun in immediate vicinity!)
Now here’s a howdeedoo! You probably could get away with naming your kid “Diva.”
Regarding the entry on what names are allowed, a reader writes:
Speaking of naming kids “God,” I’m reminded that Grace Slick did just that with hers–but with a lower-case “g” because she didn’t want to be pretentious….
Yeah, I was thinking about that when I wrote the post, but couldn’t remember if it was Grace Slick or another artist. She also later changed the name to something more normal.
Still, naming your kid “god” is something you’d expect from a Rock diva (DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER! Killer Latin pun in immediate vicinity!)
Now here’s a howdeedoo! You probably could get away with naming your kid “Diva.”
. . . would still have stinky diapers. 😛
‘Kay, yesterday at Mass they had three babies baptized, and it reminded me that a while back someone wrote and asked about whether it is required to give saint names to babies. (Sorry for the delay in answering.)
As the reader recognized, there would be problems with having a strict, saint-name-only policy. In particular, it would make it impossible to get new names into the system, and that would be a special problem in newly evangelized lands, where the saint names would all be foreign.
So what’s the scoop?
Well, here’s what the 1917 Code of Canon Law had to say about the matter:
Canon 761
Pastors should take care that a Christian name is given to those whom they baptize; but if they are not able to bring this about, they will add to the name given by the parents the name of some Saint and record both names in the book of baptisms.
Pretty sneaky, eh? If the parents refuse to slap a saint name on the kid, the priest was to do it in spite of them, and perhaps behind their backs to keep them from being alienated from the Church.
Now note that, strictly speaking, the requirement wasn’t that the kid be given a saint name. It was that he be given “a Christian name.” This was understood to include not only the names of saints but also other pious names, such as the virtues (Faith, Hope, Charity, Modesty, Chastity, Prudence). The great majority of the time, though, having “a Christian name” meant having a saint name.
If, however, the pastor couldn’t get the parents to agree to “a Christian name,” he was to slap a saint name on the kid in spite of the parents’ wishes. You could see why parents would get honked off at this practice.
And so it’s no surprise that the law don’t say that no mo. Here’s what the 1983 Code of Canon Law says:
Canon 855
Parents, sponsors, and the pastor are to take care that a name foreign to Christian sensibility is not given.
Now the shoe is on the other foot! The pastor doesn’t have the obligation (or authority) to name a child in spite of the parents. He and the parents, with the sponsors, have the joint obligation not to pick a name “foreign to Christian sensibility.” It doesn’t have to be a Christian name, it just can’t be contrary to Christian sensibility.
If the text had said that it couldn’t be foreign to Christian tradition then it would have to be a name that has some kind of resonance in Christian history, but since the text said that it can’t be foreign to Christian sensibility the law opens the door to things that have not previously been found in Christian tradition.
Further, what parents name their children is usually something they feel strongly about, and pastors (at least those informed about the law) will generally be reluctant to challenge parents as long as the proposed name at least arguably doesn’t violate it.
This gives pretty wide latitude. About the only names you couldn’t give your kid would be things that would be clearly offensive (e.g., “God,” “Satan”) or perhaps deliberately bizarre (e.g., “Moon Unit,” “Motor Head”).
Even in these areas one must tread with some care, because different cultures (and people from those cultures) will consider different things offensive. For example, the popular Spanish name “Jesus” is not offensive (so you can name your child “Jesus”, but not “God”). You might not be able to name your kid “Satan,” but you could name him “Judas” (after Judas Maccabeus or the apostle Judas mentioned in John 14:22 and specifically distinguished from Judas Iscariot; this Judas not-Iscariot may be be Simon the Zealot under another name).
There’s even biblical precedent for including the name of a pagan god in Christian tradition, for one of St. Paul’s evangelist associates was named “Apollos.” In families of Scandinavian origin, even the name “Thor” might be argued to have been received into Christian tradition; there have been a lot of Christians named that in Scandinavia, such as the explorer Thor Heyerdahl (though if the parents were neo-pagans the name clearly would not be permissible, but then the usually wouldn’t being presenting the child for Christian baptism).
A lot of contemporary names that are made-up just to sound pretty also probably could pass muster under this canon, especially if they are pretty–beauty being in the eye of the parental beholder. Only in the most extreme cases would many pastors be inclined to challenge parents on the grounds that the name they made up to give their child is awful-sounding, though Slartibartfast might get challenged, at least on grounds of imprudence if not offensiveness.
A real test would be whether ESPN McCall could get baptized with that name. It’d be harder to argue that the name EWTN McCall would be contrary to Christian sensibilities, especially if the parents had a moving testimonial about how the network saved them from a life of sin and converted them to Christ. 😉
I hope everybody caught the premier of season 8 of Stargate SG-1 last Friday. After a break of several months, it was good to see the series pick up the threads it left hanging and begin weaving them into new braids.
Some of those braids almost ended up on actor Christopher Judge’s head!
It turns out that Judge, who plays stoic extraterrestrial teammember Teal’c, got tired after seven seasons of shaving his head every day and begged the producers to let him grow hair in the new season, which will probably be the last (sniff).
This is not the first time Teal’c has experimented with being hirsute–or at least minimally so. A number of seasons ago he came back through the gate (in a season premier) sporting a blond “soul patch” under his lower lip (in the picture). It was cool looking, but it didn’t last, and soon he was again as bald below his lip as he was above.
Now he’s growing hair up topside (no picture available)–as is made clear from the new opening credits of the show. Originally Judge tried a more dramatic look than the way he currently looks. In between seasons, he grew enough hair to braid cornrows, but the studio didn’t like the result, and so he shaved his hair back to the point that he now has basically a low-cut buzz.
The new hair–unlike the soul patch–also ain’t blond, which is a little disappointing. A black extraterrestrial* with blond hair has a nice, extraterrestrial-ly feel to it–appropriate for a sci-fi show–but keeping hair that short that blond would have required frequent bleachings, and Chris Judge probably would have found those just as unappealing as daily shavings.
So it seems that the character Teal’c’s hair is naturally black and, when he had the soul patch, he bleached it. (Either that or Teal’c, like some terran men, has a beard that is a different color than his hair–which would be cool.)
As with any actor whi dramatically changes his appearance during a series, Judge may not be able to keep his new hair if fans of the series don’t like it, so here’s wishing good luck to him in keeping it after all these years of having to shave his head daily! Let’s hope it’s as successful as . . . Riker’s beard.
————————————
(* I can’t refer to Teal’c as an “African-American extraterrestrial” since–as an extraterrestrial–he is neither African nor American, though that didn’t stop TV Guide from once referring to Star Trek Voyager‘s Tuvok as an “African-American Vulcan” in a fit of political correctness.)
I hope everybody caught the premier of season 8 of Stargate SG-1 last Friday. After a break of several months, it was good to see the series pick up the threads it left hanging and begin weaving them into new braids.
Some of those braids almost ended up on actor Christopher Judge’s head!
It turns out that Judge, who plays stoic extraterrestrial teammember Teal’c, got tired after seven seasons of shaving his head every day and begged the producers to let him grow hair in the new season, which will probably be the last (sniff).
This is not the first time Teal’c has experimented with being hirsute–or at least minimally so. A number of seasons ago he came back through the gate (in a season premier) sporting a blond “soul patch” under his lower lip (in the picture). It was cool looking, but it didn’t last, and soon he was again as bald below his lip as he was above.
Now he’s growing hair up topside (no picture available)–as is made clear from the new opening credits of the show. Originally Judge tried a more dramatic look than the way he currently looks. In between seasons, he grew enough hair to braid cornrows, but the studio didn’t like the result, and so he shaved his hair back to the point that he now has basically a low-cut buzz.
The new hair–unlike the soul patch–also ain’t blond, which is a little disappointing. A black extraterrestrial* with blond hair has a nice, extraterrestrial-ly feel to it–appropriate for a sci-fi show–but keeping hair that short that blond would have required frequent bleachings, and Chris Judge probably would have found those just as unappealing as daily shavings.
So it seems that the character Teal’c’s hair is naturally black and, when he had the soul patch, he bleached it. (Either that or Teal’c, like some terran men, has a beard that is a different color than his hair–which would be cool.)
As with any actor whi dramatically changes his appearance during a series, Judge may not be able to keep his new hair if fans of the series don’t like it, so here’s wishing good luck to him in keeping it after all these years of having to shave his head daily! Let’s hope it’s as successful as . . . Riker’s beard.
————————————
(* I can’t refer to Teal’c as an “African-American extraterrestrial” since–as an extraterrestrial–he is neither African nor American, though that didn’t stop TV Guide from once referring to Star Trek Voyager‘s Tuvok as an “African-American Vulcan” in a fit of political correctness.)