You don't need to have other people's problems for them: Implicit emotional support works better

They may not realise it, but sometimes it seems like many Irish people cannot help but (try to) solve other people's problems - and can't understand why other people aren't grateful:

• I shiver because I remember something horrible that I heard on the news - they run to turn the heating up.
• I say we're not going on holiday this Christmas 'cos we had to go to a funeral - they spend an hour on the internet researching holiday options (most of which I've looked at and rejected already), and start angling to find out who died so they can get a Mass card (ahh, thanks, but the father-in-law didn't actually believe in God).
• I comment that I'm thinking about looking for a new job, they tell me about all the unemployed people they know and why I should be happy to stay where I am. Or I say I'm unemployed, and they tell me about their uncle who's looking for a girl for his reception desk (yup, but I'm a qualified accountant).

Here's a bit of reading that 'd like to share around. It's a bit jargony, and all about work. But basically it's saying that other people will find it more helpful if you tone things down, and assume that they can assume their own problems. Good advice, IMHO.  You cannot do other people's praying or worrying for them.

Religious practice and the trend to specialisation

An interesting thought here, from Catholic Sensibility

"The forces of the culture are arrayed more seriously against Catholics of any age engaging in deeper catechesis. We live in an age of specialization. A college physics major is knowledgeable and competent within her or his discipline. But likely knows little about economics. And an economics major may have a dusing of calculus, but cares nothing for the deep math and concepts masters by a physicist.
Likewise, even committed Catholic college students: why should they learn more about their faith when they have "specialists" to assist them. When confronted with a moral dilemma, why not go to a priest, either live or online? Why make a difficult choice when they can engage an expert to tell them the right thing to do?"

I can see where he's coming from. And potentially this takes us back to times when ordinary people didn't "do" religious stuff at all - they just blindly followed the leader (no matter how good/bad he was).

But today even the specialist builder, hairdresser, teacher or astro-physicist can be expected to have a modest amount of competence in cookery, for instance. At a minimum we expect them to feed themselves - and to be able to use food appropriately on social settings and rituals. Lots of parenting-time is invested in this sort of teaching.

What happens in later life is really up to the individuals interests. Some will indeed turn into food-professionals - the people you consult when you need a fancy meal cooked, or a crowd catered for.

But many won't take their basic knowledge any further until something goes wrong. Even then, dieticians don't expect everyone to become food-science specialists. They aim for clients to to learn enough to be able to make good choices to address their particular situation, and carry them out unassisted.

Spiritual food vs physical food - sounds like a good comparison.

No one expects all eaters to become expert nutritionists.   So I'm not sure why anyone should expect all prayers to become theologians.

Rituals - the good and bad. Can they be ugly too?

An interesting comment, from a local church newsletter, about rituals:

"Not that rituals always work. They go wrong when they become too empty or too full. In both cases they lose their connection with everyday life.
Empty ritual is when we end up just going through the motions: the gift-giving, carol singing, or whatever doesn't connect with how we really feel.
Overblown ritual is the opposite: the ritual becomes so important it becomes an escape from the life that surrounds it.
But at their best, rituals gather up the scattered meanings of our lives and return them to us with fresh clarity and purpose."

Of course, what's empty to one participant may well be meaningful and connected to the next person. Part of being human is that we sometimes do go through the motions, sometime for our own sake, sometimes for other peoples. The woman whose husband died in late December may well "do" Christmas the following year - but only for the sake of her children and the friends who cannot bear the thought of her not doing so. Likely enough the ritual will be empty for her then. But the joy will come back - eventually, most probably in a few years - if she can manage to stay in the habit of "doing Christmas".

And I'm not so sure that empty and overblown are opposites: ritual at its worst becomes both of these at the same time.

Interesting concepts, though, and helpful in terms of focussing on why we do what we do.

Ideals, not rules of membership

Alleluia - finally an Irish bishop saying something sensible:

"...the central tenets of Catholicism were not established as rules of memberships but as "ideals". "These are all ideals that we must try to live up to. If you do not meet all these ideals, it does not mean that you cannot take your place at the table the Lord has prepared for you. The Church is a refuge for the weak, not a home for the perfect."

Ref:   http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2013/01/tenets-of-catholicism-are-ideals-not-rules-says-irish-bishop/

And before anyone starts asking what counts as a central tenet that's just an ideal vs a basic tenet of faith that is required due to being infallibly proclaimed - remember that faith is a journey. Almost no one is going to believe with the same depth for their who life. The whole point of being a community of sinful believers is to support each other on the journey, not to exclude based on weakness.