http://www.audiosancto.com

Start with August 5 (Angels and Demons:The Publican and the Pharisee)

About pre-written homilies, to answer the concerns of Athanasius, perhaps the best thing would be to emphasize that a read homily can still be chosen by the individual priest. That is, instead of downloading something from the internet, as Athanasius’ priest apparently does, seminaries could encourage priests to choose a passage or homily that they think particularly appropriate (if they don’t want to write something.) Then you’ll still hopefully get some feeling in the reading of it, as well as some attention to the spiritual state of the congregation (that is, he could choose something that he thinks they especially need to hear.)

You’re right, of course, Katrina, that we don’t go to Mass primarily for the homily. (If we did, quite frankly, I wouldn’t go to Mass all that often.) Still, as long as you have a homily, I’m sure we can all agree that it’s better to have a good one!

My thinking on this has partly been influenced by my experience teaching undergraduates at Cornell. Cornell students are, one would assume, not in the lowest bracket in the country in terms of intelligence, and yet a good many of them are quite unable to put together a basic argument. A lot can’t even offer a coherent reconstruction of arguments that have already been fully explained to them. Priests aren’t exactly making arguments all the time, but a lot of the same skills would apply. Just being able to organize your thoughts and present them so that they make sense is a skill, and not everybody has it. Brad C reminds us that priests have a charism for teaching… but it seems to me that a priest who selects an already-written homily and reads it is still teaching. He’s just doing it in the most effective way available to him, given his natural limitations.

One Novus Ordo priest I knew (and argued with regularly in my Confirmation classes) serialized a book of St. Josemaria Escriva’s writings in the weekly bulletin. That worked well.

Arius had excellent rhetoric and was very charismatic (as in people found his personality attractive) as were most of his fellow heresiarchs…

That said, I agree completely that the pulpit is not the place for “Happy Meal” type homilies and that the people should be given sound, substantial and applicable teaching from the pulpit…which is always more enjoyable if the priest is an excellent and interesting preacher. I like your idea about priests reading sermons.

The thing is, even non talented priests could write effective homilies, they just need some training in basic grammar and research which they don’t get from public schools to the end of seminary. They could pull out the catechism, write a 4 minute summation of a given sacrament and preach a series on the sacraments. When that is done on justification, or he could read short portion from Dom Gueranger for special feasts.

Pre-written sermons can be good, or bad depending on the priest. Out here there is an SSPX priest who says a reverent Mass, but when he preaches, it is the lamest most boring thing ever, and it is a sermon on his computer for every sunday of the year which he just prints out before Mass and reads like a robot. Looking around, I noticed that everyone else looks up at the ceiling and fights the inclination to sleep when he preaches. It is very sad. It’s like what St. Francis de Sales said about spiritual directors, if they had few good homilists 100 years ago, what is it now!?!?

God be with you and the Doctor.

Being turned down for the job of White House spokesman might actually be a compliment to one’s rhetorical skills and articulateness . . .

I’m not really concerned to make homilies more sophisticated and mellifluous, though it certainly isn’t bad to have some homilies like that. What I want above all is to have homilies that make sense, have some point to them, and fit the liturgical season. I am always loathe to be a naturalist, and I deny nothing that you say about the charism of priests, but I can only offer the following empirical observation: a lot of the homilies I hear, including those given in traditional parishes, are pretty terrible. In some cases the priests just seem ill-prepared, and in others they do seem to be trying, but the result is a confused, incoherent tirade that is surely of no use to anyone.

In the homily I heard last Sunday, for example, the priest talked for several minutes about the fact that the Apostles returned to Jerusalem after the Ascension in order to wait for the day of Pentecost. He dedicated most of his (rather lengthy) homily to dispelling the incorrect notion that the Apostles had returned to Jerusalem out of fear, and not out of obedience. He mentioned the passage in which the Apostles hide in the upper room “for fear of the Jews,” and reminded us that this scene took place before, and not after, the Ascension; it was thus not representative of the attitude of the Apostles after Christ has charged them to go into the world and baptize all the nations. Okay… but the error he was dispelling is not an intepretational one. It’s a simple matter of reading comprehension, and nobody who had actually read the passage all the way through should have been confused. Even if the issue did somehow need to be cleared up, surely it didn’t need to be reiterated over and over for several minutes?!

Another example that springs to mind was from this last Easter, when I heard a traditional priest give a rambling homily about how a lot of people think it’s okay to believe just anything, but we Catholics know better etc. etc. and those I’m-okay-you’re-okay people may get a nasty surprise after they die because, you know, salvation may not be as easy as some people think. Okay, well, that sentiment may not be entirely worthless, though it was delivered in such a rambling way that I doubt it was very profitable to anyone. But more importantly, this was EASTER SUNDAY! Is there any less appropriate day for giving a fire and brimstone, don’t-think-it’s-a-free-ride homily? Easter, of all the days of the year, is supposed to be a day of hope and joy! And actually, this particular priest is one I’ve known in the past to give some fairly good homilies. I assume that he was just unusually busy that week with all the Easter services so he didn’t have time to work on anything. Also he may have been cranky (he certainly seemed cranky) what with having stayed up so late the night before (we got out of Easter vigil after 2 in the morning.) All perfectly understandable, but it’s a terrible shame not to give the faithful some inspiration on Easter morning, so this seems to me like the sort of occasion in which a priest might just pick something to read. Maybe something from the Cure of Ars?

There are so many lovely sermons written by Fathers of the Church and saints. I wonder that less gifted priests so infrequently turn there for guidance; as you said, they might read them word for word, or at least make use of large portions of the texts.

“The second problem is a deficiency of intelligence or talent. Some priests simply aren’t smart enough or eloquent enough to write anything very good.”

This criticism is naturalistic and ignores the priest’s supernatural teaching charism, which is conferred in the Sacrament of Orders. Here is what Lumen Gentium #28 says about priests:

“By the power of the sacrament of Orders, in the image of Christ the eternal high Priest, they are consecrated to preach the Gospel and shepherd be faithful and to celebrate divine worship, so that they are true priests of the New Testament. Partakers of the function of Christ the sole Mediator,on their level of ministry, they announce the divine word to all . . . Finally, they labor in word and doctrine,believing what they have read and meditated upon in the law of God, teaching what they have believed, and putting in practice in their own lives what they have taught.”

So although they do not have the fullness of Orders as the Bishops do, they are still given a teaching charism. Surely the homily would be the ideal time to use this grace. Since grace builds on nature, it is certainly true that a priest who received a poor seminary formation or who was inarticulate might not be able to use it effectively. Still, I think it is wrong to say that some priests have a gift for public speaking and some don’t and that those who don’t should use a canned homily. They all receive the gift for teaching the Word of God in the Sacrament of Orders.

Priests can preach effectively even with different levels of natural talent. For instance, the sermons of St. Chrysostom are more eloquent than the sermons of the Cure of Ars. If you wanted to compare the raw intellectual ability of the two men, there is no doubt that St. Chrysostom is superior. But while the Cure of Ars uses plain, simple language he preaches the Gospel Truth. They are effective and exhibit the grace of God. I don’t know if they are “informative and inspiring” as you say, and I don’t think he is “rhetorically-gifted” in the way that Chrysostom and Augustine are. But God uses whatever natural abilities are found in his priest to manifest His grace.

We don’t listen to homilies to be entertained, but to hear the Truth. That’s why I’m also hesitant to say that Protestants are better at preaching. I was raised Protestant and there is no doubt that the sermon is the most important part of the service (they don’t have the Real Presence after all!). They are well-trained and rhetorically gifted speakers, but (especially in the mainline churches) they don’t preach the Gospel truth. Everyone is entertained, but they are not given the nourishment their souls need. There’s nothing wrong with a Catholic priest giving a 7-minute homily that simply explains the content of the Gospel reading. It’s not Cicero, but it is effective.

If you’re fortunate, you have a priest or deacon who is intelligent, thinking, magisterially correct and gifted at public speaking, then they can do the “harder” topics (abortion, contraception, sin and redemption).

If you haven’t noticed the Holy Father does both. His homilies discuss the basics of the readings, how they apply to the teachings of the Church, our lives, and relates those teachings to our lives and the world. His basic formats are deceptively simple, BUT, his homilies are no simple Happy meal…his are a nice thick juicy steak, simple on the surface, but tasty and satisfying through out.