The Association of Catholics in Ireland will be
Starting a National Conversation
Saturday the 11th October 2014
Registration 10.30 a.m.
Regency Hotel, Dublin
‘The Church, the Family and Society in the 21st Century’
Featuring:
Mark Patrick Hederman OSB
Abbot of Glenstal Abbey
Dr. Siobhan Garrigan
Loyola Chair of Catholic Theology (Trinity College)
Can we recreate some of the energy and conversation that accompanied previous events in the Regency?
Click below to view a short video of the ACP 2012 Regency Hotel event – ‘Towards an Assembly of the Irish Catholic Church’
I would like to see a section headed,”prayer requests” on all Diocesean Websites,whereby people could post their petitions/intentions/prayers etc. and I’d like those same petitions/intentions/prayers to be viewed by someone who would,free of charge, pray for those prayer requests.Also I would like to see some of the prayer requests posted up on the Website for the viewers to see (perhaps after being moderated by the moderater) and also allow the viewer to pray for these prayer requests.This I feel is important ,as ,Our Lady wishes us to “PRAY,PRAY,PRAY.” I have experienced such “prayer request” sections on many websites of Religious Congregrations/Abbeys and found them very helpful.If people can see that others are praying for them and their intentions ,then they will feel much better,and be more inclined ,I believe ,to express their worries/prob;ems/anxieties and to seek answers or help.Some people are not so good,they believe, at praying, and if they knew that someone else was praying for them and their intentions ,they would really appreciate this.This “Appreciation” I believe, would ,encourage greater FAITH ,and greater Faith would result in greater LOVE,which would result in greater CHARITY and greater HOPE.And this would,I believe result in a better society ,where ,PEACE, would rule peoples hearts .When PEACE, rules peoples hearts,then ANGER,GREED,SELFISHNESS,GOSSIP, and all SIN, is conquered.When SIN is conquered ,one can repent.And when we repent,we can forgive.And when we FORGIVE ,we can ACCEPT FORGIVENESS. And when we ACCEPT FORGIVENESS we can be at PEACE.Then we can begin to ACCEPT JESUS in OURSELVES and everyone we meet,friends,strangers,enemies,ALL SONS AND DAUGHTERS,BROTHERS AND SISTERS .So when we have accepted JESUS in EVERYONE,WE can only be happy.
Pat, how about your suggesting this to all dioceses, presumably through clicking on Contact at the top of each Diocesan website page, and making this suggestion? Just an idea.
Teresa
This much needed “conversation”will be the first of many in Ireland in the next few years. A Synod in Limerick is good news- perhaps other dioceses will follow. Diarmuid Martin is quoted from Rome ” the current language of the church appeared one of telling people what to do and a one way conversation “-“What was needed is a new language for this dialogue between the teaching of the church and the lived experience of Christian spouses”.
Yes, John – the long dammed-up conversation needs to flow freely now. How many loyal Catholics out there have been taught to understand loyalty in terms of ‘thinking with the bishop’ and to be mortally afraid even of what the Holy Spirit might suggest to their prayerful heads? The ‘language’ that Archbishop Martin calls for cannot be developed unilaterally by clergy – and they need to understand that. Marriage and parenting bring their own wisdom, and this needs real freedom for utterance now.
Last week’s ‘Irish Catholic’ speculated on its front page about the possibility of a national Church assembly. There is absolutely no reason why the website of the Irish Bishops couldn’t become as dialogical as this one is either. FDR comes to mind: ‘all we have to fear is fear itself’.
Hello! I live in Inishowen in Donegal where conversation about church matters consists in arranging a funeral, baptism or wedding. Our parish has recently started a course for baptism – which is great.
I would particularly like to discuss liturgy – to get across the idea that our mass is a joint celebration which can be enriched by contributions in prayers and music by all our people. I’d like to look at the sacrament of reconciliation which has been lost to our tradition and totally ignored by our clergy. Providing a forum for this is difficult as there is no acceptance of people having any input into church matters and I fear there is little interest. The priest is still the focus for everything. The idea of listening to and discerning what God’s people are saying is unknown. I guess few in our parish have ever heard of the current synod in Rome. Faustina and Divine Mercy – yes; the rosary in October – yes. Isn’t the ingrained problem within Irish catholicsm the idea that church is devotional pure and simple? Liturgy, discussion, understanding, women’s role are not concepts we associate with our church up here. We’re tribal catholics who will shortly run out of priests to arrange things for us. So what?
Tom Finnigan
Hi Tom. I agree, it has been difficult for laity to find a forum for discussion of church matters within the official church structures. So welcome to the ACI’s modest effort to help fill that gap until those structures can provide that space. Thank you for your contribution. You are also right to point to the low level of interest in such discussion. The reasons for that are are often put down to self-centered individualism, materialism and lack of spirituality. I wouldn’t be so quick to jump to that conclusion. I suspect the reasons are many and varied. A lack of identification with the church’s medieval power structures and perceived priorities, combined with a sense of powerless to influence change, is I think a big factor in it all.
I’ve just returned from the Regency on the evening of October 11. A huge thank you to everyone who put so much effort into providing us with a stimulating, affirming and thought-provoking day today. Please know how much the likes of me values all the work that you do so generously and selflessly. Mile buiochas.
Isn’t it ironic that the ACI’s forum has been unavailable for months now while it simultaneously wants to start a national conversation? Perhaps attend to some local house-keeping before engaging nationally?
L.
Katie,
Before posting your comment, did you fail to notice the guidelines? May I bring the third one to your attention: “Do not engage in personal attacks. Tackle subjects, not people. Personal insults will not be tolerated.”. It seems to me that there is nothing in you post that is not an ad hominem attack. Shame on you, and shame on the Admins for failing to delete such vitriol. For the record, I was one of the most active contributors to the Forum before its sad demise. The aim of my contributions have always been to increase the level of engagemnt among Forum contributors. So while my postings have always been positive, some have been deliberatively provocative to encourage debate. Even if they had not been, rule 1 ought to have stayed your hand over the click button: “Respect the rights of others to hold views contrary to your own”. Again, shame on you Katie for plumbing such unchristian depths and bringing the ACI into disrepute. And who is Barra? Laurel
I took Katie’s reference to Laurel as a ‘troll’ as deliberate humorous overstatement, and am surprised to see it characterised as ‘vitriol’.
Given the facility provided here for response to all contributions the forum was always surplus to requirements and was also cumbersome to access. It never acquired critical momentum in any case.
Laurel is possibly unaware of the limited human resources that go into maintaining this website. We are always looking for new material – and his own thoughts on the current debate on ‘church and family’ would be very welcome. We reformers are far too few to be scrapping anyway, and negativity will get us nowhere. Could you try a little positive encouragement, Laurel, maybe, next time?
I hope that Katie takes the opportunity to corroborate your interpretation of “troll” Sean. Personally, I know of no positive connotation for “troll”; it is universally and unambiguously recognised as a term of abuse. I agree with you that “negativity will get us nowhere” and invite Katie to withdraw her comments. If this is not a safe place to make comments free from the possibility of ad hominem attacks, why would anybody visit, let alone contribute? Laurel.
According to Wikipedia: “Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial.” From this I gather that the definition of ‘troll’ is not in fact definitively fixed or generally agreed.
I took Katie to mean simply that Laurel’s comments tend towards negativity and criticism rather than encouragement, and that this is not conducive to forward movement, given our limited resources.
The original comment that gave rise to this exchange has been judged in breach of commenting guidelines and has been deleted. We apologise to Laurel for this moderation error, and hope this matter can now be called closed.
Sean O’Conaill
Who am I to disagree with Wikipedia? However, you define the act of trolling as opposed to the person of the troll. Don’t you see Sean that this was the same problem that prompted my original comment? It’s the difference between tackling the issue as opposed to the man (the troll). Katie’s attack was ad hominem because it attacked the man/troll as opposed to the post. Also, you seemed to imply a pattern of behaviour in my posts (ie multiple posts veering towards the negative) as opposed to this single post. Finally, I notice that you have not joined me in advising Katie to withdraw her inflammatory remarks which suggests that you somehow condone them. I hope that I am wrong in this. Laurel.
Who am I to disagree with Wikipedia? However, you define the act of trolling as opposed to the person of the troll. Don’t you see Sean that this was the same problem that prompted my original comment? It’s the difference between tackling the issue as opposed to the man (the troll). Katie’s attack was ad hominem because it attacked the man/troll as opposed to the post. Also, you seemed to imply a pattern of behaviour in my posts (ie multiple posts veering towards the negative) as opposed to this single post. Where is this suposed pattern? Finally, I notice that you have not joined me in advising Katie to withdraw her inflammatory remarks which suggests that you somehow condone them. I hope that I am wrong in this. Laurel.
On reflection it’s clear that a response to this comment was in breach of the guidelines for commenting and should not have been approved. Our apologies to Laurel for this mistake.
An inspiring ,challenging, enjoyable and affirming day. The speakers spoke from their hearts and gave us plenty of food for thought and thinking outside the box. Pity this is not the new normal for our church of the 21st century. Thanks to all who planned and organised the day for those of us who only had to respond and come. Moira Mac Manus
Laurel, Sean O’Conaill is so right about the forum – it was so lacking in focus compared to the new approach. We now have the equivalent of a forum, with the comments focused in on that particular subject, a much more satisfactory situation. And if you want to start a discussion on a particular issue, then the hard working group who voluntarily give of their precious time to keep this website updated would no doubt be willing to give space to whatever article on Church reform and/or renewal you submit. And hopefully, when a full report on last Saturday’s thought provoking day in the Regency is uploaded on the site, you will be reassured that the ACI is up to scratch on its housekeeping. Keep faith.
Nice to see a bit of passion on the ACI website at last, but hopefully we’ll see a truce on this one soon.
A truce is easily arranged. A withdrawal of Katie’s remarks, either by herself, preferably, or by the Admin otherwise, would suffice. If members cannot rely on rules 2 and 3, then this new version of the late-lamented Forum might as well fold too. Laurel