I always felt different and in a way inferior to my classmates, who at least had a middle name. Towards the completion of 8th grade, our teacher had everyone tell exactly how each one of us wanted his name to appear on the diploma. I noticed that every single one of my classmates was giving their full name which included a middle name. I couldn’t stand it! When my turn came, I gave myself middle name – Marie!

Martha Marie….Yeah, I lied. :-)

I have no Greek (or Hebrew), but as I understand it, the Latin suggests that these are names? or are they properly titles?

So, as long as it is significant and meaningful it’s acceptable. Well, who is going to determine that Saint Alphonsus’ baptismal name cited above was not meaningful at least to someone? Not least of all, his parents must have thought it was. I don’t think he felt cheapened by a long name or suffered any kind of identity crisis. Long baptismal names are significant to the parents who bestow them. In time the child will learn the significance, too.

Names of Our Lady have been multiplied as Clara expressed. We have an example in the Litany of Loreto and prayers such as the Hail Holy Queen. And then there is Our Lady of Fatima, Knock, Lourdes, Guadalupe etc. and various devotions and pictures such as Our Mother of Perpetual Help. Adding names here is definitely appropriate and yet they are given not just because they are merited but because of devotion to our Blessed Mother.

In general a devout Catholic does not address or refer to Our Lady by her simple given name, Mary, unless some other name follows. But Protestants like to keep it short and will not call her by any of those names piled on by Catholics. Mary is sufficient for them, not even Saint Mary is granted. Saint Mary is usually how a nominal Catholic refers to her. But those who have a devotion to her love to pile on the names.

Long names tend to enhance rather than cheapen. The Spanish know how to do it. Maria Teresa Garcia Ramirez de Arroyo sounds quite royal, doesn’t it? Why can’t every child ennobled at baptism receive a long list of “royal” saints names? On the other hand, shortening names usually cheapens: Margaret becomes Peggy, Dorothy becomes Dot, Augustine is shortened to Gus, Peter becomes Pete, Anthony becomes Tony. When Jeanne Baptiste deKertanguy came to the United States it wasn’t a week before Protestant custom changed it to John B. Guy.

I would say that name piling is a Catholic phenomenon and those having long names tend to be Catholic. American Protestants are lucky if they get three or four paltry syllables to their name but even names like Jed Jones, Uriah Brown, and Sam Houston can be made Catholic sounding by adding a middle name of a New Testament saint. Compare American names like Will Rogers, Abe Lincoln, and Joseph Smith to names like Salvatore Francis Rocco De Majestre and Patrick Michael Seamus Finbar O’Rourke and tell me which are more Catholic.

I think that this argument entails a fallacy. There are plenty of wholesome Catholic practices that are not observable within the Early Church. I think that some legends portray very early Christians venerating religious statues. Statues are not generally used in the Christian East, where icons prevail. Yet the veneration of religious statues is still “more ‘Catholic’” than the Protestant exclusion of them. Catholic cultures often do pile up names, often with the explicit notion of honoring this or that patron saint.

Using the logic that Our Lord and Our Lady had only one name (plus a patronymic), one could just as easily conclude that giving children saints’ names isn’t necessarily “more Catholic.” In the Early Church, there were very few Christian saints to provide saints’ names, and I am not aware of pagan converts taking Old Testament names. So people with explicitly pagan names like Apollonia (Apollo’s girl) and Demetrius (Demeter’s guy) were baptized with their pagan names. Now their pagan names, derived from the names of pagan gods, are saints’ names. If these Catholic saints got to keep their explicitly pagan names, why is it “more Catholic” to give children saints’ names at their baptism? Because in such particulars the notion of “more Catholic” or less actually varies. In the 300s, it was “more Catholic” to keep one’s pagan name upon conversion. Now, it is “more Catholic” to give children saints’ names.

I’m not saying that it actually is more Catholic to pile up names. I am saying that the fact that Our Lord and Our Lady did not have multiple names is not much of a rebuttal to the claim.

Perhaps to some extent you stood out precisely by not having a middle name.

“However, I already conceded that middle names are sometimes acceptable. So I suggest that this is just one more possible qualifying reason.”

I counter: the middle name is *always* acceptable. There is *no* need for a qualifying reason.

But it does seem good to a large number of your fellow Americans. The custom of a parent calling a child out by employing the middle name is fairly prevalent. That is the way things are, and it seems liberal to try to prescribe an opposing custom. This is the convention, it is not immoral, so there is no problem.

“My mother has five children with no middle names, and never has trouble communicating when she “means business.””

It’s about what works and is accepted, not about what is strictly necessary. Let’s not fall into reductionism and social engineering. No, the middle name is not *necessary* for grabbing attention. However, it most certainly does serve to grab attention when this is necessary. It is not immoral and does have the weight of custom and convention. And that’s good enough . . . for the conservative temperaement, at least.

“at any rate, if the name is intended to have primarily alarming associations, I propose that at least it should not be a saint’s name. No saint deserves to be anyone’s “you’re in trouble now” name.”

Ah, but the child is being held to account. The particular name chosen is not chosen so as to be alarming. Rather, the reading of the full name is what is alarming, as we usually do not use it. Or, if you wish, the disobedient child should be reminded of all the saints he’s named after and whose virtues he should be imitating, but has in this instance obviously failed to imitated.

As for your argument about the full name “meaning business”, I’m familiar with it, but it just doesn’t seem very good to me. My mother has five children with no middle names, and never has trouble communicating when she “means business.” But at any rate, if the name is intended to have primarily alarming associations, I propose that at least it should not be a saint’s name. No saint deserves to be anyone’s “you’re in trouble now” name.

Yes, actually, it is. Or, to look at it another way, it is unpleasant in a prudent way, for a good reason. When my mother yells at me, she addresses me the same way the state would if I were indicted for a crime — all three names. Not John Public, not John Q. Public, but John QUINCY Public! It really does grab your attention — she means business. Most of us have a formal name for formal/extraordinary occasions. It is like that secret name that exists in certain cultures, the name that is be known only to certain other people, or which you yourself are forbidden to speak. It’s a question of formal/indignant/attention-grabbing identification, not of plain old practical identification.

Plus, there are far too many people with given names like John and surnames like Smith and Miller. In a village where there was only one smith and one miller, these surnames made sense. Nowadays, they are so common as to be, well, insignificant for the purposes of identification once you get rid of distinguishing middle names and middle initials. Imagine facing a phone book with 20 Ryan Millers and no distinguishing middle initials. So if we’re to ditch middle names, I propose we also ban the most vulgar (i.e. common) surnames: Smith, Miller, Johnson, Jones, etc.

But naming reforms sound so prescriptivist, modernistic, and liberal. Why don’t we institute spelling reforms while we’re at it? I thought that conservatives went with convention. In this country, the middle name is prevalent and serves a function. We obviously find it significant, or else we wouldn’t use it. Extra middle names are not prevalent, and probably will not become so, so prescriptions against it are probably superfluous.

I try.