|
Post by Ranger on Nov 19, 2014 10:44:42 GMT
The Discalced Carmelites are generally present amongst the priests hearing Confessions and talking to people on the night, the facilitate the event and announce it at their Masses in the run-up to them, although the initiative itself is run by laypeople. They've held similar events in other cities, I believe Cork, Galway and Waterford, not sure how they've gone down there.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 19, 2014 12:17:47 GMT
I think Night Fever was a wonderful initiative, and not only because it was named after my favourite song of all time. I also think the initiative in Derry (was it Derry or somewhere else) whereby lots of free copies of one of the Gospels were given out was a wonderful initiative.
I remember, back when I was an agnostic, picking up a cartoony little pamphlet made by Evangelicals (I presume) which contrasted the hedonistic side of Christmas with its real meaning and was basically making the point that our hearts are restless till they rest in God. It was extremely simple, even childish, but I remember it had a fairly strong effect on me at the time-- it didn't convert me, or even nearly convert me, but I was very impressed by the knowledge that someone was making it their business to do this.
This is why I think a stand or a kiosk would be worthwhile, as a visible symbol that Catholics ARE an evangelizing force in Ireland. George Bernard Shaw wrote that what really flatters a person is the fact that you think them worth flattering. And so much of modern advertising is less about persuading than it is about keeping the brand name in the public mind. I have to admit I'm always pleased to see even non-Catholic Christians street evangelizing because it is a symbol that Christianity is still a vital force, that it is going on the offensive. (Heck, I admit I even like to see the Hare Krishnas doing their thing....) Whether such stands directly lead to conversions is not so important-- most of the conversion stories I've read emphasize what a gradual and cumulative process a conversion is.
Ranger, I heard a similar exchange between a visitor to the Islamic stand and one of the Muslims manning it. The visitor was shouting, as a parting shot before he left,: "You have no more idea whether there's a God than she does!". (A lady who was standing nearby.) The Muslim called after him: "Maybe you should marry your sister!", or sometimes equally silly. (I'm guessing the Muslim was arguing that we can have no morality without God and had used that as an example.)
I personally think that just having a Catholic stand where a roster of volunteers were taking turns to read the Gospels out loud from beginning to end would be a good initiative. People would listen without feeling in danger of being browbeaten, and I can imagine that just hearing a phrase like: "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul?" might have a powerful impact on somebody strolling through the city centre, thinking about other things. There could also be Catholic pamphlets and other volunteers to answer questions.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 19, 2014 21:29:56 GMT
Another example of what we might have in mind would be the longstanding Catholic Evidence Guild presence at Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park - I visited it once about 15 years ago and saw a Dominican in his habit speaking from the CEG soapbox. (There were quite a few Muslim speakers, though that may have been partly because Shia Muslims were holding a procession nearby to commemorate Imam Hussein.) There is an apologetics event at St Kevin's on 22 November from 4.30-6 pm on Sunday 22nd November, sponsored by Evangelium Ireland, if anyone would like to attend. Can't make it myself.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 20, 2014 9:37:41 GMT
I know the habit doesn't make the monk; but I think the sight of religious habits a key element in evangelisation.
|
|
luke
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by luke on Nov 25, 2014 16:00:10 GMT
If it's any consolation, here in Tuam in the last number of months we've twice had young Catholics out in the middle of the square in Tuam singing and praying around a large golden (or gold looking in any event) cross, while also actively engaging with people and seeking to evangelize them.
I'm also part of a group of young(-ish *cough*) Catholics that meets once a month. We start with Evening Prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours, then follows a presentation or two on an aspect of Catholic culture (defined broadly) which then forms the basis for a directed discussion. We then have a meal, give a mission update and then some informal chat at the end before the final blessing. There is a floating group of around 30 now and we generally get around 15 people at each event. We meet in each others homes and take turns cooking. The bulk of the group are in their 20s with a few of us in our later 30s early 40s.
What frustrates me about this is that we say "We need to be a missionary church" but then, being missionary often seems to boil down to being good people and setting a good example in our everyday lives. We hear talk about how Christianity is "caught" rather than "taught", and endless repetition of that thing St. Francis never said. (I know you all know what I mean and I can't bear even to type it.) That's all very well but it's evidently not working. We quite obviously need to confront secularism intellectually, culturally and socially-- I don't mean in an obnoxious and antagonistic way, but confidently. Today in Dublin city centre, as on most Saturdays, I passed an Atheist stand, a Humanist stand, an Islamic stand, and a group of rapping African-American Evangelicals. No Catholic stand. Ever. When I've made this criticism before, I've been told that there are Legion of Mary legionaries doing person-to-person street evangelisation and I've been pointedly invited to join them. I do value such person-to-person evangelisation but it's not as visible or CONFIDENT as a kiosk or stand. (Also, I don't think I'd be good at that myself. I try to make my own contribution in my own way.) And of course, I mean this as a general indictment of the way Catholics seem reluctant to shout their message from the roof-tops. I know I'm preaching to the converted here as everybody who contributes here is active in some kind of evangelization, whether through the written word (such as the Brandsma Review) or in some other way. I just find myself pondering what else could be done. Sometimes I wonder if a semi-social, semi-discussion group would be a good idea....an incubator for ideas and arguments. Recently I've met a couple of Irish Catholics who are writing novels and I really think this is important. I would also like to hear more about Hibernicus's "culture first" strategy--actually I was thinking about this only a few hours ago. I really think that is the way to go, although of course I'm not sure exactly how he envisages it.
|
|
luke
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by luke on Nov 25, 2014 16:10:27 GMT
Here is the text of Archbishop Neary's homely. The Gospel was Luke 16:1-8.
Homily of Archbishop Neary at Mass for the Association of Papal Orders in Ireland
You will have heard the backhanded tribute to astuteness: ‘He would mind mice at the crossroads in the dark”. The compliment intrigues by its very Irish mingling of admiration with mild contempt. In the hands of a greater storyteller we have just met a character who would have no trouble managing any number of mice. The dishonest steward in today’s Gospel parable is, to say the least, a quick study. The prospect of imminent ruin would shake most people. Not so this deft, shady, calculating man who does not waste time either in begging or mourning. He has known for years how he would handle just such a crisis and, more to the point, he knows his master. Quick thinking and a series of rapid, possibly unscrupulous deals conspire to win him friends and, against all odds, the admiration of his previously exasperated employer. Obedient mice and a very well-managed crossroads! Looking at the present state of the Church in Ireland, we are certainly at a crossroads, one of many in a long and meandering history. The rest may not be quite so easy to manage. I think it is safe to say that the Catholic Church is no longer the nation at prayer, insofar as that was ever entirely the case. On the very edge of Europe, we are hearing the last vestiges of Christendom in their death-rattle. Not Christianity, I emphasise, but Christendom. That shared set of assumptions about life and its purpose, reflected in use of language, in culture and in the law, is quickly moving towards its end. As remarked with unflinching astringency over thirty years ago by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Christendom, that communal understanding and experience of Christian culture and polity, is gone, never to return. We must, as Church, specifically as Church in Ireland, consider carefully what this means for us. That discernment, which has already begun, will in itself be difficult because the need for careful deliberation is matched by the urgency of the situation. Like our friend the steward we have received our walking papers. Unlike him we have not always known what we would do. You are among the most committed people we have in the Church, so let me be blunt. Our priests tell me of measurably declining congregations and a steady, if still quite gentle, dropping in contributions. They see few teenagers in their churches. They feel, intuitively, that the temporary lapsing noticeable here from about the seventies is changing. They fear that those falling away in recent years will not return. I can see the same with my own eyes in our Cathedral parish. Even the outright hostility we had been experiencing from sections of the media, the political establishment and some of the public has curiously abated. This, if I am right, is not because the depth of our piety and the brilliance of our arguments have made them think again. This is because the whole society, like an Irish village of fifty years ago, knows and is tacitly acknowledging something that hardly needs to be said. That a great struggle, social, political, intellectual and profoundly cultural, has been fought. And that we have lost. It is not primarily a question of scandals. Disgraceful as they were they only added force to the inevitable shrugging aside of values which had come to be seen as inhibiting and obsolete. Holding Ireland back from the fire, as it were, from its place at the secular hearth, from the warmth of belonging in the new consensus. Now, notwithstanding the occasional row, we may expect the good-natured forbearance accorded to an elderly, opinionated and rather irritable relative. We are not as serious a threat and will soon be even less so. As long as we continue to draw corporate breath modern Ireland may be quite content to have us around. Perhaps more than content. In the face of the innumerable problems posed by a culture which is practically founded on rapid change, modern society is as uncertainly situated as we are at the crossroads and is minding its mice no better. It may well need all the stewards it can find, whatever their curricula vitae. Quo vadis, Domine? Where does God want us now? I wish I could add to the process of discernment with a few bold and definite answers. It is not so simple. The Church of the future, as Ratzinger originally predicted, will be much smaller. Even getting to that, which would be something, will, as he also predicted, prove a complex and exhausting process. Take, for instance, the much-discussed issue of handing over schools. Which schools? Where? By what process of consultation and decision-making? What if, as has already happened, parents, even non-churchgoing parents, do not wish a change of ethos? And churches? Will some have to be closed? Which? Where? According to what criteria? Do we close remote, ill-attended country churches and retreat to the towns or do we take a stand and favour already marginalised communities? These are not small matters and there are more where those came from. This will take time, patience, skill, and solomonic judgement. It may have to be achieved with limited amounts of all those. It was therefore with something approaching incredulity that many people heard the call to battle that is Evangelii Gaudium, the recent apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis. A pleased incredulity, to be sure, perhaps even delighted but anyone could be forgiven for a certain level of nerves. We could hardly now present more than a respectable challenge at club level and are being told to prepare for Croke Park! The Pope has no illusions about the state of the Church in many parts of the world and especially in Europe. In spite of this he has effectively said that the opportunities present in the situation should be irresistible for anyone of faith. Just as we seemed destined for the ghetto of history, and that for a lengthy stay, he has called for a Church which ‘goes forth’, for a Church which as a spiritual home keeps its doors permanently open. Here, I believe, is exactly what Our Lord intended in his parable. A manifestly honest steward with the same reflexes and instinct, not for self-preservation, but for his master’s best interests, for God’s people, for the renewal of the Church worldwide. And this must be done even as we rationalise our situation and, so to speak, ‘downsize’. We must retreat, yes, but primarily from a position of leverage, of power and influence, and join the ones whose opinions nobody wants and whose voice is usually ignored. Ratzinger, ever the prophetic voice, always balanced his brutally honest prediction of decline with that of an eventual new springtime for the Church. Francis appears to have brought the weather with him. This will be a new chapter in our stewardship. It will, to say the least, be labour-intensive. If we are to manage this enormous transition to a smaller but more dynamically evangelical Church we will need people. Not primarily money or structures, however important these may be. But people. People like you, talented, like you and, like you, committed to the performance of Newman’s ‘some definite service’. Trained people who know what they are about. Honest stewards who are fast on their feet. Francis has said as much elsewhere and has called for available resources to be made serve evangelisation. The road ahead is obscure and not only, as I have said, for the Church. To use the language of the mediaeval map-makers, ‘here there be dragons’. There must, therefore, be knights in armour too. We need, more than anything else now, trained and committed personnel on the ground. Priests, of course, but also full and part time lay evangelists. We need, above all, more people working in youth ministry, both professionals and volunteers. You catch the faith from others who have proven themselves credible witnesses. Just now I cannot possibly hope to understand the full range of what we will need but I know we need these and we need them urgently if we are to answer Pope Francis’ call and take up this stupendous challenge. True, it is dark and we find ourselves at a rather bewildering crossroads. But minding mice must not be left to the cunning and the cynical. The shrewdness and resilience so prized by the worst, will, in the hands of the very best, achieve great things for God and the most vulnerable of his people.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 20, 2014 19:52:19 GMT
Fr Zuhlsdorf discusses an English priest's article complaining of parishioners who do nothing to encourage vocations to the priesthood and then blame the existing priests when churches are closed/parishes are merged/Mass schedules can't be maintained. Interesting discussion in the combox - note the commenter who says that his diocese seems to use the book GOODBYE GOOD MEN (about how orthodox vocations are deliberately discouraged) as an operating manual! wdtprs.com/blog/2014/12/tough-love-about-the-priest-shortage/#comments
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 7, 2015 21:20:41 GMT
Joseph Shaw criticises Fr Longenecker's claim that in some dioceses in Britain vocations to the priesthood are actively discouraged/suppressed in order to promote favoured liberal changes (which has been noted on this thread beforeO. He maintains that this view implies the bishops are engaged in a grand conspiracy to this end, and points out that from his experience the bishops are (a) generally well-meaning (b) too clueless to conspire their way out of a paper bag. (I exaggerate slightly, but this seems close to his intention). HE suggests that the real source of the GOODBYE GOOD MEN idea of deliberate vocation suppression is "neo-conservative" desire to avoid recognising what a failure large elements of the post-Vatican II reforms have been. www.lmschairman.org/2015/01/fr-longenecker-on-duplicitous-bishops.htmlAny thoughts? I can think of two problems with Dr Shaw's analysis, right off the bat: (1) I read Fr Longenecker as saying that the vocation suppressors are not necessarily the bishops themselves (as Dr Shaw thinks) but elements in the diocesan bureaucracy who operate with very little reference to the bishop and are pretty much irremovable by him. (Not that the mindset is unknown among bishops; in Dr Shaw's combox some posters give examples of named US ultra-liberal bishops, now retired/gone, who positively prided themselves on the lack of priestly vocations in the diocese and never missed an opportunity to appoint laity, preferably women of suitable views, to posts traditionally held by clerics.) (2) The vocation-suppression theory is not as Dr Shaw posits confined to "neo-conservatives". I got the impression at the time that a lot of trads liked GOODBYE GOOD MEN as well, since it could be read as supporting the view that reform can only come by a radical break with the current situation.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Jan 10, 2015 13:22:02 GMT
Just to raise a point on vocations that occurs to me. We often hear the argument that orthodox and traditionalist parishes, seminaries, orders etc. have a much larger number of vocations than those that are known to be liberal. I agree that both orthodoxy and good liturgy are necessary for any kind of renewal in the Church. However, just to play devil's advocate here on a point that I think might be important, is it the case that A) Orthodox parishes/seminaries/orders attract more vocations because those who live in their catchment areas are more likely to be attracted to the faith in the first place and have a deep conversion experience and thus hear the call to serve? or B) Is it the case that there is a minority of people spread about any given geographical area who become faithful Catholics in spite of the terrible liturgy and teaching in their own parish/diocese and become practicing Catholics for other reasons (say from personal contact with good Catholics, personal exploration of the faith, an experience with an outside group like an Ecclesiastical Movement, etc.) who then seek out parishes/seminaries/orders with good liturgy and orthodox teaching, which given that they are few in number comparatively speaking experience a boom in vocations which wouldn't occur if there were a large number of such institutions and orders? or C) Some sort of mix?
In a way, it's a bit of a which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg question, and my own personal sympathies (biases?) do lie with option A, but I think that it's important to know which is the case to get a more realistic assessment of the situation in front of us. I think that for somebody in my position, option A is more attractive, in that it presents a kind of 'build it and they will come' approach to evangelisation, which seems a bit more easily figured out than if option B is the case, but if this view is false then it is not helpful. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Jan 10, 2015 13:26:41 GMT
Regarding Hibernicus' last two questions, by the way, I have heard from certain people here in the Dublin Archdiocese that there are some members of the archdiocesan bureaucracy definitely have the attitude that less priests means more chance of having a 'Church of the laity,' and from the testimonies of seminarians in Maynooth in recent years (didn't one of them post of his experiences on this board some time ago? Shane linked to it on his blog, which was how I came here in the first place) I think that it's a safe bet that the Goodbye Good Men attitude is firmly entrenched in some quarters here. I have heard that post-Apostolic Visitation though that Maynooth has improved slightly, although nowhere near enough. I would agree that sometimes it's not the bishops, but the bureaucracies beneath them that cause these problems.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 11, 2015 0:30:15 GMT
The "Church of the laity" view is quite openly maintained by some of the ACP activists, but that is not the same thing as engaging in an active vocation-suppression conspiracy. It might be added that the same effect might be created without the existence of an actual conspiracy. If seminaries/diocesan bureaucracies are being run by people who think - for example - that traditional devotions reflect psychological disturbances, or that "high" views of the priestly role reflect an arrogant "clericalist" mentality which implies unfitness for the priesthood (and both of these views contain a certain amount of truth; there are "clericalist" snobs and narcissists, some traditional devotions do attract unbalanced people, which is not the same thing as saying that everyone attracted to them is unbalanced) those authorities might reject genuine vocations from people of "traditionalist" formation, even if these are the only vocation candidates coming forward, while sincerely believing that they were simply applying objective criteria for discernment.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 19, 2015 22:50:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 20, 2015 8:48:43 GMT
I have no sympathy for that particular blogger; she seems to be an American conservative with a touch of Anglophilia who never developed any great feeling for this country beyond what she wanted to believe about it. Her interlocutor, nice and well-intentioned as she may have been, never questioned the type of thing that drove the country in past ages (and let me be straight, the Ireland of the past is something I admire greatly, but not so greatly as not to see her many flaws. These didn't begin with independence, or the birth of Irish republicanism, or the penal laws, or the Reformation, or the Norman Invasion, or Brian Boru, or the Vikings - no element of the world is ever perfect). Yes, we had plenty of priests, nuns and brothers in the past. But this was a product of reaction to the Famine tinged with Victorian values and Catholic rigourism (always popular) which co-opted a certain amount of Jansenism, though at the same time embracing the devotional revolution. Now I don't doubt that this age produced saints - St Charles of Mount Argus is already canonised (I know he was Dutch, but very much a fixture in the Irish Church) and Venerable Matt Talbot and John Sullivan have their causes advancing, as have the three Servants of God within the Legion of Mary and Father Edward Flanagan who was a product of this Church. But the age also produced its sinners and a great many of them. Yes the old Ireland is dead, but one could have said Old Ireland died when Jacobitism gave way to republicanism, or when the Irish language ceased to be the vernacular of the majority of the people, or when the upper class either fled the country or converted to Protestantism. The only difference between now and then is that now I am less confident of an ability to regenerate. But this does not mean it is impossible.
I'm not sure if you could say Voltaire won; I'm not even sure what Voltaire wanted (would Erasmus have wanted the Reformation). I think like many other races, the Irish have succumbed to the seven capital sins.
But back to "Supertradmum" (she may not intend to be arrogant, but that's how the moniker sounds to me). Knowing her attitudes, she would probably call Matt Talbot (worker, trade union member, participant in the Lockout and supporter of strikers in poor circumstances) a communist. And I hope to God she would see no fault with Frank Duff's correspondence to Archbishop McQuaid on the matter of Rev Prof Denis Fahey and Maria Duce.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2015 21:09:25 GMT
Indeed; the big problem with Supertradmum's view is the assumption that the Irish were not materialist until a few decades ago. I do think there is a fairly significant difference, but at the same time the widespread fear in the C19 and C20 that we could easily lose the Faith, and the persistent observation (by faithful Catholics as well as unbelievers) that in many respects there was a serious gap between theory and practice, and that our self-image was an unhealthy mix of exaggerated idealism and private cynicism, each being reinforced by the awareness of the other's existence, suggests that the roots of our problems go way, way back. Actually, I think the achievements and spiritual strength of the C19 Irish Church have been underrated to some extent (partly because that church to such an extent looked back towards the achievements of the past; the fact that the Causes of the major C19 religious founders were not introduced till the C20 because the major focus had been on the Causes of the Reformation-era martyrs is an indication of this). I suspect she chose Voltaire because of his association with ridicule, cynicism and satire. A better of example of our current state might be Wolfe Tone's prediction that in the Ireland he wanted "the emancipated Irishman might be free to go to Mass, to say the Rosary, and to sprinkle his mistress with holy water, but would no longer pay attention to the rusty and exploded thunderbolts of the Vatican". That sounds uncomfortably contemporary.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 17, 2015 19:05:01 GMT
Fr Ray Blake picks up on continuing good news about Irish Dominican vocations. This is a relief - I was afraid that there might be a falling-off after Fr Gerard Dunne was promoted from vocations director to Prior at St Mary's in Cork. marymagdalen.blogspot.ie/2015/07/a-good-news-story.html
|
|