Loading ...
This last Sunday, the Doctor and I were pleased to assist at Mass in Front Royal, Virginia, near Christendom College. (We would have checked in advance to see whether Raindear or any of her kin were in the area, but we did not make the decision to stop in Front Royal until late Saturday night.) We were impressed with the size of the congregation at the indult Mass, and with the large number of young children in attendance. We were a bit disappointed, however, to find that it was only a Low Mass (which seemed like a shame this early in the liturgical year; normally sung Masses continue at least until after Pentecost.) I had planned to receive Communion that day, which I had not been able to do in some weeks. Lacking transportation to any better parish, I had been forced to fill my Mass requirement for the previous few weeks at the thoroughly heretical local Novus parish, and I never receive the Blessed Sacrament there. But in the end I abstained from the Angelic Bread on this day also, because I was so overcome with exhaustion during the Mass that I found myself fighting hard just to stay awake. This is not usual for me, and I’m sure it was mostly the result of several days’ worth of packing and carrying and driving. But matters were not helped by the fact that the homily was one of the longest and dullest I’ve heard in quite some time.
I don’t make a habit of attending Protestant services these days, but in my pre-Catholic years, when I was still sampling a variety of churches, I was of the opinion the Protestants were decidedly superior to the Catholics when it came to preaching. To be sure, you run a serious risk of hearing heresy when you attend heretical churches, but at least in some branches of Protestants, preaching is something they really learn how to do. If you’re a reverend, you’re expected to spend considerable time working on your sermon each week. You research it, polish it, practice it if necessary, and make sure that your congregation walks out the doors having learned something. In some of these churches, the effort really shows. I remember one church in South Bend, the Christian Reform Church, in which the minister, Pastor Vander Zee, managed to attract several members of Notre Dame’s philosophy department with his excellent, well-researched, thought-provoking sermons. I loved to hear him speak. For a short space I tried attending his church on Sunday mornings and then, in the evening, going to Mass in my dormitory. But it was hard not to sneer with contempt when Pastor Vander Zee’s riveting sermon was followed up by some priest’s condescending, “God understands when you have a bad hair day. He knows how hard it can be to get along with your roommate.” Oh, please. Most of the time it was obvious that we were hearing some haphazard scribblings from the twenty minutes before Mass. I soon stopped going to that Mass, because it was just about the least uplifting part of my whole week.
Now that I am a Catholic, I am a bit more circumspect about this. I realize now that Catholic priests actually have some good reasons for giving a lower priority to their preaching. Taken in the context of the entire service, a homily really isn’t equivalent to a sermon. A sermon is often the central part of a Protestant service, whereas the homily clearly isn’t the most significant part of the Mass. Furthermore, a parish priest is a teacher only secondarily. His more important function is to minister to his congregation by bringing them the Sacraments; it’s more important that he hear confessions and give Last Rites than that he keep his parishioners spellbound every week with an erudite homily replete with well-turned phrases. Over time I myself became less and less interested in preaching, when I realized that I could learn a lot more through reading. Why hang on the words of some random local priest or minister when a brisk stroll to the library could put me in touch with history’s most brilliant theological minds? That’s more or less how I see things today. If I hear a good homily at Mass, that’s a nice bonus, but it’s really not expected or required.
Still, it is a shame. A lot of people won’t read theology on their own, so homilies are one of their main venues for learning about the Faith. Other time constraints often mandate that homilies remain short, but even six or seven minutes with a captive Catholic audience should be seen as a great opportunity. Seven minutes a week means six and a half hours a year of instruction. That’s enough time to explain a lot of things, if priests would take it upon themselves to make good use of their homilies. I should add, too, that this is one area in which traditional and Novus parishes alike seem to be hurting. An FSSP parish offers the advantage, at least, of not trumpeting heresy from the pulpit. But in terms of the quality of preaching, I haven’t found traditional parishes to be notably superior to Novus ones. There are some exceptions, but in general, I think I’ve sat through as many painful homilies in traditional Masses as I have in Novus ones.
I think there are really two problems. The first is that priests are too busy. There aren’t enough of them and they have too many things to do, so they just don’t have time to write great homilies every week. 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. And really, there’s no shame in that. Not every priest needs to be a scholar or an orator; different pastors can bring many different gifts to their parishes. It’s neither necessary nor possible to insist that only the brightest young men be accepted into the priesthood… but the fact is that it takes above-average intelligence to prepare an informative and inspiring message every week. Not everyone can have that. So what can be done about the situation? What would be the best solution for overworked or non-rhetorically-gifted pastors who just aren’t able to write good homilies on their own?
My first suggestion would be: just read something. Surely there are books of great homilies from Catholic saints and doctors of the Church? I almost never hear a priest read an old homily verbatim, but for some it would undoubtedly be a big step up. I see nothing wrong with simply standing up and saying, “This homily was given by St. John Chrysostom to his congregation in 394. Here I go.” And then you read it.
Of course, the downside to that method is that, eventually, people will start to hear the same classic homilies over and over. With two thousand years’ worth of history to draw on, there ought to be enough to stay fresh, but since most people aren’t in a position to research and translate new things all the time, you’re bound to get a lot of repetition. Also, if everyone used this suggested method, we would never hear any commentary specifically directed at issues of particular relevance to our own time or even our own parish. So the best solution might be a middle road. Priests who are severely rhetorically challenged could simply read things every week. Others might read things some of the time, and write their own homilies in other weeks when they have more time or more ideas. Every priest, I think, ought to try to read something specific to the liturgical season or the specific scripture passage before writing or selecting a weekly homily. This practice would enhance his own spiritual life, and would put him in the proper frame of mind for enlightening his congregation. Some priests very obviously do a little private research before preparing their weekly homilies. Others very obviously don’t. The congregation knows.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
For the average priests (I mean 2/3s of priests) if they just stuck to a homily about the readings for the day, that would make it much easier for them and us for that matter. They’d be able to actually make sense and teach, and we’d be able to listen and understand. The problem is that many of them try to do a “happy meal” Homily on “Jesus is my buddy and your buddy too!” or “I’m okay and so are you” that’s when they get themselves screwed up. First the topics are moronic, so there isn’t much to write except fluff, and, second, if they are preaching challenged, they don’t have the charisma to get people to listen to them.
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.
I agree with just about everything you said except this:
“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.
Wow, Clara. This post completely reflects my own opinion of the typical homily. Often - and I know this is wrong - I spend the entire homily fighting irritation with the atrocious neglect of proper grammar and organization. It especially irks me when the preacher makes broad, sweeping (and often ignorant or misguided) statements. For example: “We’re all better than St. Peter. He denied the Lord. No one’s a bigger sinner than Peter.”
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.
Brad C, I didn’t mean to say that every sermon needs to be a masterpiece of rhetoric and reason; when I hear a homily that offers a solid explanation of some point in Catholic doctrine, I consider that to be a good homily whether or not I personally learn from it. What you describe, a 7-minue homily that “simply explains the content of the Gospel reading”, is wonderful. Would that I heard such things more often! Fr. Carl Gismondi of the FSSP, who brought me into the Church, is an example of someone who is not overwhelmed with rhetorical gifts — he’s not stupid by any means, but I don’t think the White House is begging him to be their next spokesman — but who focused his homilies on some important part of Catholic teaching that he thought his congregation needed to understand. His homilies were clear and simple and normally included some quotes or stories from doctors and saints. Sometimes I learned from hearing him, and sometimes I didn’t, but either way I thought he was using the time effectively to increase the people’s understanding of the faith. That is great.
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?
“I don’t think the White House is begging him to be their next spokesman”
Being turned down for the job of White House spokesman might actually be a compliment to one’s rhetorical skills and articulateness . . .
Another problem, is that there is a culture of anti-erudition when it comes to homilies. For example we have a Nigerian priest at a local Novus Ordo, and he preaches brilliant homilies, tying in the readings of the day. I never get to hear him any more because the apostasy of the rest of the “service” around him which he has no control over as a visiting associate. Now on several occasions, he told us how the other priests chide him for being too scriptural in his homilies. They say he should just make people feel good. They are also envious of him because before he could be ordained he had to be proficient in Greek and Latin, and pass a Hebrew course and he was a seminary rector. Why he came over here is beyond me, but in any event, this is quite common. When I was in seminary (but before I left and got married) I had a homiletics class where they warned us sternly “Never preach on doctrine, it bores people. Don’t catechize, if they want to learn it they will read it in a book. Simply preach something inspiring and non-divisive.”
The rest of the class was simply learning psychobabble and identifying non-divisive events in the world to talk about and make people feel good. Bishop’s say the same thing when priests get into pastoral councils. And we wonder why the people are so poorly catechized!
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.
What’s in the water in Nigeria? At an otherwise abominable local parish, the visiting African priest actually preached about the Immaculate Conception on December 8th. I was not expecting it.
When I was at the University of Rochester, a visiting African priest studying at Cornell gave the U of Rochester Newman Community a homily on Hell!
I understand what your saying…but I think everyone should be careful to remember that we attend Mass for the Holy Sacrifice, not the sophistocation of the homily.
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.
Tan publishes St. Alphonsus’ sermons for the year, probably with an eye toward what Clara recommends. Some of his stuff would make your hair stand on end.
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.
Thanks to everyone for their comments. Athanasius’ comment was sad, though not really surprising. “Just make the people feel good…” but of course they don’t even really do that most of the time.
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.
Fortunately the priests of the FSSP in Kansas City, KS over the past ten years have been uniformly excellent at giving sermons. The sermon this past week by Fr. Phil Wolfe was typically very informative, highly motivating, and doctrinally hardhitting (no compromises). He actually told some of the younger members of the community that he knew they were thinking of leaving the Church when they left home, and he was very firm in explaining why they would lose their treasure of truth if they did so.
It’s been a while, I know, but if you want some good homilies, try this:
http://www.audiosancto.com
Start with August 5 (Angels and Demons:The Publican and the Pharisee)
Also listed to the ones on St. Augustine Marie in February 2007, and tab all the way back to January 14 2003 (follow the good shepherd) or October 12 2003 (we know not the day nor the hour)