By Paul Kokoski
For centuries the practice of naming one’s child after a saint was almost second nature. Typically, Catholics named their child after the saint on whose day he was born. Over the past few decades, however, the invasion of secularism and moral relativism has worked to undermine the family and religious faith threatening, in turn, this and other such Christian traditions. Swept away by the lack of stable cultural references and by the rapid transformation of society we see more and more Catholic parents naming their children whatever seems to suit their fancy.
Sir Bob Geldof, for example, has daughters named “Pixie” and “Peaches”. Victoria and David Beckham called their first son “Brooklyn”, after the district of New York. In 2008, a couple in Italy sought to name their son “Friday” after Robinson Crusoe’s manservant. Italy’s highest court rightly denied this request saying it was “ridiculous” and would expose the child to mockery from his classmates. Naming children after celebrities, perfumes, bicycles and countries, as is often the case today, puts limits on children’s potential. Children are not merchandise or commodities.
Recent records show that the name “Mary” – which in every year from 1910-1965 was either the first or the second most popular girls’ name – is no longer even in the top 100. The names of the foster-father of Jesus and of the four evangelists were also firmly entrenched in the top ten each year during that period. The name Joseph is now 16th, Matthew is 13th, John is 26th, Luke is 48th, and Mark is 154th.
The name given to a child is the name that child will be referred to for the rest of his life. He will hear that name perhaps millions of times. It cannot help but have a profound impact on the child’s development and self-identity. If a child is given a neologism or a name that is common to both boys and girls he or she is likely to have a lifetime of misaddresses envelopes, unnecessary hassles, and other tiresome or embarrassing gender-confused situations. Parents who name their child after a soap opera star, professional athlete, rock star, or reality show personality, will not only be manifesting a regrettable superficiality, but will also be linking their child to someone who almost certainly will be irrelevant when they become adults.
Sacred Scripture tells us that God took names very seriously. He changed the names of Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel and Simon to Peter. He commanded Zechariah to name his son John, and Joseph to name Mary’’s Son Jesus; “You shall call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins.” To give someone a name is a sacred act, It is a participation in God’s creative plan. Such a solemn responsibility should be carried out with prayer and joyful seriousness rather than done capriciously and in careless ignorance of the consequences.
Pope Benedict XVI recently said that in baptism, the Christian “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”. This “indelible spiritual seal” raises the baptized person to the supernatural order and sets him off on a lifelong “journey of religious faith “. After baptism the child must be educated in the faith, instructed in accordance with Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church so that the seed of faith received in baptism will grow within him and that he may attain full Christian maturity.
Naming a child after a Christian saint or Biblical hero is a concrete reminder for the child and everyone else that God is calling that child, like his or her Christian namesake, to holiness and heaven where themysterious and unique character of each person marked with God’s name will eventually shine forth in splendor.
The patron saint provides a model of charity and the assurance of his prayer. For Catholics, naming their children after saints is an acknowledgment that they truly believe in the communion of saints. Thus, when we choose a Christian name for our child, we should have a particular saint in mind. Is Margaret named after Saint Margaret of Scotland or Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque? Is Francis named after Saint Francis of Assisi or St. Francis Xavier?
As our children grow, we should cultivate their devotion to their patron saint by teaching them about the life of that saint and helping them to learn prayers to that saint. As Christians, we never walk through this life alone, but in communion with all the saints. And that reality should be reflected in the names we give to our children.
Categories: Americas
The Withering plant of Christianity
Among other things the article shows that Christianity is losing its grip on the hearts and minds of people, at least in the West. There are several causes for it. The foremost being that it has not received any fresh water of revelation for centuries since Islam and old stories are crumbling under the effect of time.
The plant of Christianity has not been watered by the Divine Gardener and is withering away, in front of everyone eyes, if the eyes are not blind and can see.
But, the principle that Paul Kokoski describes is indeed true and the Muslim families should name their children, Muhammad, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Bilal, Hussain, Hasan, Fatimah, Abbas, Abdul Aziz, Salahuddin, the Prophets named in the Holy Quran and other Quranic names and last and not the least Ahmad. And indeed they are! Muhammad has ranked as the top most name even in UK:
Mohammed retakes top spot in English baby names.
Christianity is thriving in Africa and Asia. It is only in the hedonistic West that Christianity is dying. But this is true for all religions including Islam.
Christ is the final revelation God has given to man. God previously sent many prophets to man but man did not listen. So he sent his only Son as a final offering.At the name of Christ all knees shall bend!
Dear Paul if you think about it, God the Father did not have a literal son, as He did not have a consort. Please read an article:
Maria: Pope Benedict XVI on the Mother of God
If you think that God did have a consort, then at least ponder over the fact that He was God, even before He had a son. What Christianity preaches is no less than complete irrationality. It is time that they stop doing that in this century of internet and global village, where the Christians cannot silence all the alleged heretics by force. At least not in learned parts of the world.
Peace! May God guide all of us to the Truth.
Dear Zia H. Shah,
The Holy Trinity is mystery revealed by Christ when he told his disciples to go and baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To try and explain this mystery – or any other mystery for that matter – in purely physical terms is self defeating. This is what Muslims try to do.
Certainly Muslims believe that God is all powerful. Hence they must believe that God can do anything – even that which seems impossible to mere human logic. God obviously transcends this logic.
When you speak in terms of the Father having a “consort” you are limiting God to that of a mere human being. You are trying to explain the unexplainable Mystery in mere human terms according to mere human logic. Yo uare trying to corner God and say ‘Look there he is, I can see him”. But God is everywhere. Hence you have made God merely a man. By your own logic then you should have no problem accepting Christ as God .
God the Father does not a have a consort in the physical sense. Nor did Mary have a consort when she conceived Jesus. It was the working of the Holy Spirit – not human sex.
Surely if you cannot fathom this truth then you have reduced God to a human being possessing mere human strength. If on the other hand, you believe God is all powerful the there is nothing preventing you from believing in the most Holy Trinity.
Muslims say they believe that Jesus was a prophet yet they contradict themselves by claiming Jesus was nothing but a liar when he told his disciples to baptise all men in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So is Jesus a prophet or a liar. Make up your mind?
Dear Paul Kokoski
Jesus does not need to be God or a liar. If you read the Bible with an open mind putting aside your Christian indoctrination and providing for the fact that a few verses have been forged by the Church, Jesus, may peace be on him, walks out of the pages of the Bible, both the Old and the New Testament as a beloved prophet of God.
Interestingly, you did not answer the questions that I raised in my comment. Perhaps, you did not have anything logical to say about does God has a consort and how can God the Father and literal son of God, be literal father and son and yet both be co-eternal. Obviously 2 + 2 does not make 3 or a Trinity, simple mathematics.
I call the Christian dogma irrational and you chose the word mystery. Both mean the same except that one is mildly irreverent. Let us take a leading Christian apologists as judge between us. The scholar I have in mind is Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
He confessed, the quagmire between Christianity and rationality, in no uncertain terms:
Paul please take a pause to consider the implications of this confession of Kierkgaard. Christians should indulge only in inward and private faith and possibly indoctrinate their children, but, never enter a logical or a rational dialogue, as they have nothing to offer.
Read more: http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/01/religion/a-turning-point-for-china-islam-or-christianity#ixzz26UaJaTh8
Dear Zia H. Shah,
Jesus’ command to his disciples to go and baptize all men in the name of the Most Holy Trinity was not forged by the Catholic Church. It is you who has the closed mind and who has been indoctrinated. You are selectively choosing to believe the parts of the bible that suit your own ideology while ignoring the other parts.
I certainly addressed your false statement about God having a consort. I can repeat over and over again that God can do anything. But you choose to limit God and judge Him by your own human standards. 2+2 is no answer to God who transcends such primitive logic.
As I have explained before – but you choose to ignore it – faith and reason are not incompatible. Kierkegaard does not speak for the Catholic Church. And only the Catholic Church is the one true representative of Christianity. All other Christian denominations are false in so far as they have severed themselves from Catholic belief over the years.
Your repeated attempts to pin down God by human reason alone means you have rejected faith – not only the Catholic faith but your own Muslim faith which also believes in a transcendent God.
My dear Paul, you say God can do anything, but, obviously you do not mean that He can lie or cheat and you do not mean that once He exists, He can create someone else, who is equally eternal. God cannot do what is morally reprehensible or logically impossible. For example, even if he liked Trinity, He cannot create a triangle with 5 sides, as that is called a pentagon!
Why do we need to give up rationality and common sense completely, so that Jesus can be God, while he could be an honorable Prophet of God?
Paul the word Trinity does not appear in the New Testament. So, I am not sure, what you mean, when you say Jesus advised anything about the Holy Trinity! Let the readers judge, who has been indoctrinated and adding to scriptures.
The concept of Trinity has no legs to stand on
There is no such thing as ‘orthodox’ or ‘catholic’ Church, the word catholic means universal and orthodox also means sound or correct. The Church has been radically changing and evolving over time. Study the history of Catholic Church, there were popes who openly had mistresses and children. Study what was the price of paradise in the time of early crusades and what was the price in the time of Martin Luther. There are numerous contradictions that can be cited between the Ecumenical councils. Pope Damasus I either was not invited or declined to attend, the second Ecumenical Council, so this council is sometimes called the “unecumenical” council. However, it was affirmed as ecumenical at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Study the history of Limbo, what happens to unbaptized children, how it is in Limbo. Catholic Church made major changes under the pressure of Protestant Reformation, so, obviously it is not catholic after or before.
Another easy example for me to remember is that Original sin has been blown out of arena of rationality by biology and specifically genetics and evolution and the Church now has been down playing it and finding means to push it under the rug. Unfortunately, Catholic church is run like a corporation and until it has money to run, it will keep on insisting on demonstrably rejected ideas. It is indeed catholic, sound and correct financially. Until there are people donating money to the Church, we will be having these debates, but, the numbers of donors is fast dwindling in Europe, at least. You can read a collection of articles on the issue or evolution:
Darwinian Evolution: Islam or Christianity?
You had the first word in this post and I will have the last and we will meet in another post God willing. May God the Father be our guide to the Truth and both you and me should pray to Him and worship Him like Jesus, may peace be on him did.
I have not rejected the Transcendent God of Judaism, Unitarian Christianity or Islam. Transcendent means beyond time, space and matter. There is no irrationality about that belief. It is only when, we try to merge a Transcendent Being to a physical, material being, like Jesus of Nazareth through the womb of Mother Mary, that irrationality breaks loose and chaos reigns supreme: Two natures of Jesus: another Christian mystery!