Pope rails against rise of un-Christian names....

[phoenixrrt62]

Our name has a lifetime effect on us: are we from the world, for the world, by the world, or we are from Christ, for Christ and by Christ who we are.

On the good old time the first name was called Christian name.

Well…personally, I’d agree-about the effect your name has on you, not the religious part, but I was a bit perplexed as to why the pope would be having to issue a statement about it…

 

[phoenixrrt62]

I think the bigger question is, why do you care?

Well, you have a point. I really*** shouldn’t*** care…

 

[phoenixrrt62]

phoenixrrt62;7447205:

I saw comments on this

posted on an atheist forum.
Question.
Doesn’t your leader have bigger problems to deal with? Am I missing something here? Why should he care what people name their kids? He might want to care more about how those kids in the care of the RCC are being treated, hum?/quote]

From the NSPCC, nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/statistics/child_sexual_abuse_statistics_wda48742.html

So less then 1% of all sexual abuse on children was done by Religious leaders, that includes Protestant Ministers, Catholic Clergy, Imams, Rabbis etc etc etc

Children in the Church, are very well looked after compared to by the family and friends, i can pull up the statistics on the family if you want.

I love it when people bring up problems they know nothing about.

The Holy Father is concerned with everyday life, especially when it concerns the declining of our Christian heritage, let alone i still find calling children after commodities, is practically abuse, as it opens them up to all kinds of bullying, if you don’t believe me, go into any Secondary/High School today, and children with names like “pixie” etc will get insanely bullied.

The point is…the church elders COVERED IT UP-moved priests to area AFTER area, and only YEARS later, the gravity of what was done to these kids came to light.

And, being a victim of abuse, I have a inkling of what that’s like.

Perhaps that’s why it’s a sore spot with me.

Is it wrong to feel that way? I don’t know. Perhaps.

I’d agree about the silly names…but I was just wondering why the pope had to make a statement about it…I get it now. And yeah, I read that initially and thought…um…aren’t there more pressing issues…but…yeah, it was a inane comment on my part…

 

[DCNBILL]

Yeah! We should get back to traditional Christian names like:

Hippolytus
Anacletus
Sixtus
Evaristus
Telesphorus
Anicetus
Urban
Pontain
Callistus
Eleutherius
Anterus
Miltiades
Ciricius
Liberius
Hilarius
Gelasius
Simplicius
Hormisdas
Agapetus
Silverius
Sabinian
Formosus

etc.

This is interesting. The men that I know with these names (or version thereof) are outstanding Catholic professors of the faith.

 

[Joe_5859]

Well…personally, I’d agree-about the effect your name has on you, not the religious part, but I was a bit perplexed as to why the pope would be having to issue a statement about it…

The pope did not issue a statement about it. He was giving a homily. And he was misquoted. And the misquote was extrapolated to assert something far removed from what the pope was actually talking about.

The original article quotes only this from what the pope said:

During Mass at the Sistine Chapel, he said: “Every baptised child acquires the character of the son of God, beginning with their Christian name, an unmistakable sign that the Holy Spirit causes man to be born anew in the womb of the Church.” He added that a name was an “indelible seal” that set children off on a lifelong “journey of religious faith”.

That’s it. There’s nothing in these comments that even hints at the Pope saying anything whatsoever about un-Christian names. Then the article goes on to talk about celebrity baby names for some unknown reason.

To further call into question the Telegraph’s journalistic integrity, if you look at the full text of the homily from the Zenit website, the word “name” does not appear at all. It’s talking about the “indelible seal” a child receives from Baptism, not because of their name.

Actually, upon closer inspection, it seems the Telegrapgh is conflating the Pope’s mid-day Angelus message (from which they take the first quote) and the homily he gave at Mass that day (from which they take the second quote…I’m still not sure where the “journey of religious faith” quote comes from). During the Angelus message, Zenit translates the Pope as saying: “It is not by chance, in fact, that every baptized person acquires the character of son from the name Christian, indisputable sign that the Holy Spirit brings man to be born “again” from the womb of the Church.”

If we are being generous, we might assume that the Telegraph mistranslated or misunderstood what the Pope was saying here. Again, he is talking about the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism, not about Christian names. A look at the broader context makes this quite obvious.

In any case, even if the Telegraph accurately reported the Pope’s words (which they did not), there is nothing in the words they quoted which could lead us to conclude what the headline asserts. It’s yet another case of not letting the facts get in the way of a catchy headline.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Personally, I think the Pope makes a good point. Why saddle your child with a weird-sounding name for his entire life? Look what they do to politicians with those kinds of names. That said, the weirdness of some names seems to be an American thing. But that may be because feast day celebrations are not as popular as they are elsewhere. I used to get a card on my saint’s day when I lived in London. Haven’t seen Hallmark make this too popular in the U.S.

Ah…if they only knew the marketing they were missing out on…

 

[ConstantineTG]

He might want to care more about how those kids in the care of the RCC are being treated, hum?

You make it sound like a great majority of children are abused in the Church. Its only a very small minority of children that are abused. In fact, there are more children abused in schools by teachers than by Catholic priest. I don’t see you complaining about the educational system.

 

[Digitonomy]

Why should you care about what he cares about?

tm30:

I think the bigger question is, why do you care?

It seems like a valid question, from a curious forum member, in the proper forum - why shouldn’t she be curious or ask about it? It’s charitable to assume that someone who has made the effort to post a question here has good reason to do so, even if it is simply idle curiosity.

 

[Dale_M]

In fact, I was just SpiritDaily.com, and I found a link from the Montreal Gazette using the same word, ‘rail’. The MSM, in my opinion, is clueless…sheesh…

The Daily Telegraph is an odd bird. They employ columnists who write on religious matters who are Catholic and quite orthodox. And yet they also produce headlines and sloppy reporting such as the one we are discussing.

Interestingly, the Spirit Daily link goes to a Canadian newspaper which reproduced the Daily Telegraph article and headline. However, the editors must have changed their mind because they later used a different headline.
Look to Bible, not Hollywood: pope

Other news sources also used less derogatory headlines:

Pope begs Christian parents to avoid offbeat names

Pope Urges Parents to Stop Giving Children Non-Christian Names

 

[onthenarrowpath]

If I may, I’d like to say something. That FoxNews article said the pope commented about a threat to family life by using non-Christian names.

First, is that actually what the pope said?

Second, if so, I don’t understand how a child’s name could be a threat to family life. It’s not as if a child named “Brooke” or “Chantel” or “Ryder” or “Kendall” or insert unique non-Christian name here] is going to tear a family apart or be more inclined to engage in immoral activities that destroy the cohesiveness of the family unit. Surely adultery, drug use, sexual promiscuity, divorce and abusive parents are much more of a threat than a child’s name.

 

[RobbyS]

Wasn’t long ago that John and Mary were the most popular names here in America.

 

[Tietjen]

It’s charitable to assume that someone who has made the effort to post a question here has good reason to do so, even if it is simply idle curiosity.

I do assume that there is a reason why the OP posted the question here. Though what I assume that reason to be and what you assume that reason to be apparently don’t match. God bless.

 

[baylee]

As others have said, the point is moot because the Pope did no such thing. Look at the VIS excerpts from the homily, or read through the Pope’s homily for January 9, 2011, on the Vatican website (once the English translation is posted, probably within a week). I can’t find anything that resembles “railing” against un-Christian names.

Though, if he did say anything, it’s probably no more than has already been said in the Catechism: CCC 2156-2159.

In any case, even if the headline was accurate, the atheist’s argument is a total red herring. It’s a weak appeal to emotionalism whenever someone argues that thing X is insignificant simply because thing Y is more important. People do have the capability of caring about more than one thing at a time, and even working on more than one thing at a time.

I could care less if the Pope had actually railed against “unChristian” names. Have you seen some of the names out there? LOL I think there should be a rule against names with too many “y”'s in them.

However, he did not do such a thing and the OP’s attack on the Pope and the sexual abuse scandal is just par for the course. I’m surprised anyone even bothers to answer those questions seriously.

 

[Skeptic92]

The point is…the church elders COVERED IT UP-moved priests to area AFTER area, and only YEARS later, the gravity of what was done to these kids came to light.

And, being a victim of abuse, I have a inkling of what that’s like.

Perhaps that’s why it’s a sore spot with me.

Is it wrong to feel that way? I don’t know. Perhaps.

I’d agree about the silly names…but I was just wondering why the pope had to make a statement about it…I get it now. And yeah, I read that initially and thought…um…aren’t there more pressing issues…but…yeah, it was a inane comment on my part…

up untill the 80’s or so, no psychologist knew that ephebophilia/paedophilia was an uncurable mental illness, so therapy was offered to those that committed the offence and once they were deemed “cured” they were moved to a new parish (or in the case of teachers, school) where they could have a new start.

By the time it came out to be an incurable mental illness, the statute of limitation on canonical and criminal precedings had long gone by, with cases that have not long “came out” to the public, from around 30 years ago, what can the Church actually do, when the criminal courts have no power to charge for the offense and neither do the canonical courts (however Priests are normally now dismissed if an accusation comes out, so they can investigate).

I pray for your healing after the abuse you suffered, but we must remember the context of the times in which the abuse happend, simply noone knew it was an incurable disease.

May God Bless you

 

[Joe_5859]

If I may, I’d like to say something. That FoxNews article said the pope commented about a threat to family life by using non-Christian names.

First, is that actually what the pope said?

I have seen no evidence that the pope said anything whatsoever about using non-Christian names.

Second, if so, I don’t understand how a child’s name could be a threat to family life. It’s not as if a child named “Brooke” or “Chantel” or “Ryder” or “Kendall” or insert unique non-Christian name here] is going to tear a family apart or be more inclined to engage in immoral activities that destroy the cohesiveness of the family unit. Surely adultery, drug use, sexual promiscuity, divorce and abusive parents are much more of a threat than a child’s name.

Yes and no. It’s not as though a person’s name short-circuits their free will, but there is power in a name. Just look at the respect and reverence Judeo-Christianity has historically given to the name of the Lord. So I don’t think it’s of no consequence whatsoever. It would be an interesting psychological study. I’m sure there have been studies done on the impact a person’s name has, but I’d have to do some research to find them.

 

[onthenarrowpath]

Thank you, Joe.

I guess I need to stop paying attention to what the secular media claims the pope has said or not said, because it really confused and upset me last night when I read that.

 

[Esperanto99]

The Telegraph brings up “Sienna” as a trendy name, but this would actually be a good Catholic name, preferably spelled “Siena,” as in:

St. Catherine of Siena
St. Bernardine of Siena
Siena College

 

[mark_a]

I saw comments on this posted on an atheist forum.
Question.
Doesn’t your leader have bigger problems to deal with? Am I missing something here? Why should he care what people name their kids? He might want to care more about how those kids in the care of the RCC are being treated, hum?

Maybe the pope heard about the same baby girl that I heard about a few years ago named Placenta.

 

[jmcrae]

If I may, I’d like to say something. That FoxNews article said the pope commented about a threat to family life by using non-Christian names.

First, is that actually what the pope said?

Second, if so, I don’t understand how a child’s name could be a threat to family life. It’s not as if a child named “Brooke” or “Chantel” or “Ryder” or “Kendall” or insert unique non-Christian name here] is going to tear a family apart or be more inclined to engage in immoral activities that destroy the cohesiveness of the family unit. Surely adultery, drug use, sexual promiscuity, divorce and abusive parents are much more of a threat than a child’s name.

If he said anything like that, he may be referring to an old custom in which families identified themselves not only by their last names, but also by the first names of the children. Simply by knowing what first names Mrs. Smith gave to her first four children, you would know immediately which branch of the Smith family they were from - for example, if Mr. Smith is the first-born son in his own family, then his first child takes the first name of the paternal grandparent of the same sex. The second child takes the first name of the maternal grandparent of the same sex. The third child takes the middle name of the paternal grandparent of the same sex, and the fourth child takes the second name of the maternal grandparent of the same sex. The first boy takes his mother’s maiden name for his second name.

If Mr. Smith is a second-born son, then the pattern of names he gives his children is different, so that they don’t have the same names as their cousins.

This creates strong ties among the family members, and makes it easy for everyone to know exactly how they are related to everyone else.

 

[Hastrman]

Second, if so, I don’t understand how a child’s name could be a threat to family life. It’s not as if a child named “Brooke” or “Chantel” or “Ryder” or “Kendall” or insert unique non-Christian name here] is going to tear a family apart or be more inclined to engage in immoral activities that destroy the cohesiveness of the family unit. Surely adultery, drug use, sexual promiscuity, divorce and abusive parents are much more of a threat than a child’s name.

You don’t think naming a kid “Ryder” might have moral implications?

Maybe I just have a dirty mind…

But it’s obvious, really—naming your children made-up things is deliberately distancing yourself from your culture. Naming your children after saints, and telling them so, makes it impossible to address them without reminding them of holiness.

Most countries in East Asia actually have an approved list of elements you can use in names—a couple in Japan was turned down when they tried to register their kid as “Devil” (Akuma).