bradams wrote:I am astonished that anyone could play John Lennon's "Imagine" as part of the liturgy as happens in some more liberal parishes.

Well I've never witnessed "Imagine" (isn't one of the lines in that song "imagine there's no religion"?) during a Mass celebration, but I know what you're talking about. It seems the Church's idea of revitalization isn't really about revitalizing the significance of the Liturgy for its parishioners, which is where I think the problem lies.

I was in Church a few weeks ago and a woman was going up to the altar to receive Communion. She stops when she notices what I imagine was a friend she hadn't seen in a while. She greets the friend with a kiss and hug, chatting a bit. Well the woman was one of the last in line, so after the few who were trailing behind her to receive Communion were finished, the priest stood and waited

[quote="irishrosem"]

I was in Church a few weeks ago and a woman was going up to the altar to receive Communion. She stops when she notices what I imagine was a friend she hadn't seen in a while. She greets the friend with a kiss and hug, chatting a bit. Well the woman was one of the last in line, so after the few who were trailing behind her to receive Communion were finished, the priest stood and waited

Niall001 wrote:Do you have any idea how many scripts Disney turn down!

On the flip side, the Church has had 2000 years to hone the craft of oratory, and to establish institutions and traditions that can teach that craft to its clergy. So if priests are routinely churning out treacle and doggerel, isn't that indicative of a failed institution?

Niall wrote:Do you have any idea how many scripts Disney turn down! Priests are human. Many of them aren't that great when it comes to speaking.

Well I did note that not everyone is a Barrie or a Baum, nor do I expect them to be. But these are well-educated men, and as Mad notes, they work for an organization that's had some centuries to develop a more solid tradition of sermonizing. As I said, I definitely get the feeling that there's just not a lot of attention paid to many of the homilies that I'm hearing. I'd be surprised most get more than an hour or so of attention. But I'd argue that the homily is probably one of the most important jobs for a priest to attend to in a week

[quote]Well I did note that not everyone is a Barrie or a Baum, nor do I expect them to be. But these are well-educated men, and as Mad notes, they work for an organization that's had some centuries to develop a more solid tradition of sermonizing. As I said, I definitely get the feeling that there's just not a lot of attention paid to many of the homilies that I'm hearing. I'd be surprised most get more than an hour or so of attention. But I'd argue that the homily is probably one of the most important jobs for a priest to attend to in a week

Niall wrote:They'll hear a sermon about turning the other cheek, then drive down the road intent on getting some driver back for some minor infraction.

And my point really is, if the sermon were different, if it were better, would that happen? Oratory, at its best, should speak to exactly this point. Words have the ability to lift us up, to make us see a different way. But it seems to me, though we see similar flaws in the Church and the way the congregation interacts with the Church, we think the responsiblity lies in different places.

Don't get me wrong, I'm unhappy with the way many priests fail to prepare for sermons, I just can't really see a solution. It's easy to say that they should write better sermons, but I have no idea what such sermons would look like. Everybody wants something different. I see this in my own family when we go to mass together. Some of the family will be happy with the kind of fluff that really doesn't satisfy me, while when I might find a sermon pretty interesting, other members would complain about the priest giving a sermon that's too long or abstract.

I imagine it was a little easier in the past when you could be sure that all of the congregation had a pretty similar background. Heck thirty years ago, pretty much everybody in my home parish would have been relatively poor Irish farmers, with the odd teacher, doctor or solicitor. They all had the same background, the same interests and hobbies and the same experiences. Now, that's all changed. I haven't got the slightest idea how I'd write a sermon that would even hold the interest of everybody.

That's one of the reasons I figure that parishes need to put a greater emphasis on organising parish events - something that creates a true sense of community and which gives the people some sort of common experience. Given the decline in vocations, priests often already have a pretty full schedule (declines in mass attendance may be common, but funerals, weddings and christenings are as popular as ever), so I figure it's really up to the parishioners to make the effort. Otherwise, the self reinforcing cycle of decline and apathy will continue to reinforce itself.

Niall wrote:I imagine it was a little easier in the past when you could be sure that all of the congregation had a pretty similar background.

You know, I haven't given this enough consideration. I recognize it's something that you have hit on before in this thread. And Mad had once made a related point that the Church's sometimes lowly sermons might be the product of the decline in the level of discourse across the board. I had, originally, dismissed Mad's and your arguments as pandering to the lowest common denominator. But particularly with the bit of history you've raised here, I think both arguments might shed light on why sermons are suffering. I mean just look at my country's presidential race. You can't always expect the level of discourse to be elevated; people do not always welcome, or even accept that. To turn around and say the Church should rise above that is probably unrealistic. I still think a reinvigoration of the Liturgy of the Mass could go a long way in making the Mass itself more consequential, and therefore better attended. But, these days, I think that about a lot of institutions.

Also, I was a bit rushed when I posted the last time so forgot to mention your point about Jehovah's Witnesses. I've often thought the same. Which is part of what I was speaking about before with Catholicism's gray area. The Church seems to be hanging about in very dangerous gray area and should probably work at defining itself, particularly to younger congregants. Non-Orthodox Judaism has somewhat defined itself as a quasi-secular, at least secular-friendly, religion here in the U.S. (That is really simplified, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at.) Many Christian sects have, to a certain degree, defined themselves through whatever fundamentalist dogma they adhere to. But it seems that Catholicism is caught in between those poles. And, most damagingly I think, they're caught in that gray still clutching some very traditional ideology.