Wassup dawg!
After giving it some thought, I decided I would offer this to our cultured readers. What degree of casualness do you think is excessive when discussing public figures? I’m not talking about celebrity trade names like Madonna, Oprah, or Dr. Drew. I’m talking about real people who happen to hold positions of importance. Sometimes I half wonder when I’m looking at various blogs at what point I’m going to see the headline, “Mr. B. say no to womYn priests.” Perhaps I’m being anachronistic. “Johnny and Barry are running for president” has a nails on the chalkboard like quality to me. If I had my way – rest assured I don’t – I would require writers to include the appropriate honorific and last name when mentioning candidates, at least the first time in referencing them. For example: Senators McCain and Obama, President Bush. On the religious end, it used to be Father [last name] unless one was a religious and then it was Father [religious name].
Your refined opinions please.
Comments are closed.
There’s been an erosion of formality in the last 40 years or so, and I think it has harmed our society in some ways. I think it was Robert Frost who said “Good fences make good neighbors.”
It’s also cultural. I’m more comfortable with Irish-Australian style informality than French-German formal rigidity.
I think that, in serious public and academic discourse, ones proper title and name ought to be used (e.g. President Bush, Sen. Obama, etc.). Of course, in satire and comedy, it’s anybody’s game. I particularly enjoy the combination of formality and familiarity that happens during P.M.’s questions in the U.K. Parliament (a.k.a. the most entertaining hour on C-SPAN :-) ).
The British press (e.g., The Economist) uses “Mr.” when talking about virtually anyone – sometimes with somewhat humorous effect: “Mr. Amin is alleged to have committed cannibalism…”
Oh yes, it is always fun to hear the term “right honorable gentleman” mouthed with such utter disdain!
I’ll turn to the words of Edmund Burke:
“There should be a system of manners in every nation which a well-formed mind would be disposed to relish. To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.”
There comes a point when the truth is dishonored by good manners.
Politics in this country passed that point long ago. Both Obama and McCain are scoundrels and truth is dishonored when we pretend that they are respectable people.
We are commanded not to bear false witness.
Politics in this country passed that point long ago. Both Obama and McCain are scoundrels and truth is dishonored when we pretend that they are respectable people.
We are commanded not to bear false witness.
You just did.
I think it was Robert Frost who said “Good fences make good neighbors.”
Yes, but he meant it ironically,
Jesus tells us to be careful with titles: “do not be called rabbi . . . do not be called master,” (Mt 23). Jesus clarifies his intention: “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”
As a high school teacher, I’ve struggled with the use of titles. It has always felt wrong to me that student’s are addressed by their first name while teachers are addressed by their last. I take the approach of addressing my students by their last name.
Mike – I stand corrected
We should note that Jesus does not forbid us to call anyone ‘rabbi’ or ‘master’, but to simply avoid being addressed as rabbi or master. A double-standard?
I think what Jesus was getting at is not to be proud of titles – don’t define yourself by your title, as the pharisees did.
The fact that such a stunted and demented and self-mutilated entity as Bush could be called “president” evacuates the title of all meaning. Perhaps in order to preserve the common worth and dignity of that title, and other such titles as “man,” “Mr.,” “leader,” etc., I choose to call Bush “Bush”, although that strikes me as too kind. I use the name only for purposes of communicative clarity.
The same applies to McCain.
[Good bye!]
Nate,
While appreciating your point, I think that current norms regarding titles can and do lead us to disregard the power and reach of certain individuals. It makes more impact to say “President Bush authorizes the use of torture” than to say “George [or, for that matter, just 'Bush'] authorizes the use of torture” or “Senators Clinton and Obama are running for the Democratic Party’s nomination” than “Hillary and Barack are running for the Democratic Party’s nomination”
Perhaps part of this is also reinforced by linguistics? English did away with the formal/informal “you” distinction hundreds of years ago (interestingly, it kept the more formal “you” and jettisoned the more informal “thou”), where Spanish has tu and usted, German zie and du, etc.
“Good fences make good neighbors” is something Frost’s neighbor says in one of his poems, and that he mocks. In my opinion, the neighbor has the better of the argument.
Also, I took the road less traveled on, and it didn’t make any difference. So there.
G. Alkon,
When Jesus announced his condemnation on the scribes and pharisees he did so using their titles (Matt 23); and when asked to settle a legal dispute between a man and his brother, he refused, but still addressed the subject as “friend.”
In the present instance I think the first example is more applicable. Concerning the scribes and pharisees our Lord certainly respects the office (“the chair of Moses”) if not the people holding it. He shows that it is possible to show ones disagreement with an officeholder without showing contempt for the office. And if what St Paul says in Romans is true: “there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God” (Rom 13:1), then the callousness which you exhibit (and which I’ve been guilty of regarding politicians) probably should be avoided. It is not necessary to disrespect the office to show ones disapproval of the office holder.
Sorry, the carmelcutthroat post came from me (dim bulb).
I agree with blackadder; the point of the poem is that fences do not make good neighbors.
This one of my pet peeves. I have not noticed it with Senator McCain but the media has this way of refering to Senators Clinton and Obama as Hillary and Barack. I believe Sen. Clinton actually embraced this in her campaign (Vote for Hillary! Donate to Hillary!). I just can’t stand it.
For me, it’s contextual.
I agree with Michael Iafrate
maybe this is my fault, but I usually say “Balthasar” than “Fr. Balthasar.”
Chase, I agree. Jesus and the Apostles tell us to respect everyone – even the Emperor. But at the same time, they tell us to be humble, and to avoid using titles as a means of demanding respect.
There’s an easy way to use a title while telling the truth:
President George W. Bush is a war criminal who deserves to have the title ‘President’ taken from him forever.
Mike,
Any person who demands that a person who survies an abortion be killed is a scoundrel.
Any person who suggests that the lives of thousands of innocents be killed to advance medical reasearch is a scoundrel.
To call advocates of these types of policies good and upright people does violence to the truth.
I second Michael I. and Apolonio. I often say Benedict XVI instead of Pope Benedict XVI or John Paul II instead of preceding it with the proper title… same with people like “DeLubac” or “Dulles” instead of Cardinal Dulles. because it is too long! But I do see MZ’s point and I think some people do cross the line of being disrespectful.
I don’t use the title “President Bush” anymore though. I used to but not anymore.
President George W. Bush is a war criminal who deserves to have the title ‘President’ taken from him forever.
On the contrary, we must never forget that the american people voted in that disgrace and they did it TWICE. I will often use the title with him to rub it in people’s faces: this is the “president” you picked.
I have on occasion purposefully NOT used the title “Father” for arrogant priests who expected it from me. I do tend to call priests “Father” in general, though, even if they are close friends.
Michael I. Come on man, what are you trying to do, bring Father down a notch? Do you put Holy Father in quotation marks?
As I said, I have on occasion purposefully NOT used the title “Father” for arrogant priests who expected it from me. I do tend to call priests “Father” in general, though, even if they are close friends.
Thus, yes, at times I do want to bring Father “down a notch.” But generally I use the title “Father.”
I don’t recall ever putting the title “Holy Father” in quotes.