To preach or not to preach? Lay homiletics
An earlier post on Bishop Murphy’s pastoral letter ending services with the distribution of communion (to better highlight the connection between the mass offered by a priest and the eucharist, among other things) spun into an interesting discussion of homilies and lay preaching. Or not.
Apropos, CNS has a story out of St. Paul in which the recently retired Archbishop Harry Flynn announces the end of a fairly wide and longstanding practice of allowing lay people to give homilies at mass. Some 29 parishes have been employing the practice for 25 years, and in a letter last January Flynn gave the date of his retirement–May 2–as the date by which those parishes should begin developing alternate plans. Without getting into the always-neuralgic issue of hierarchical politics, I think it is safe to say–without intending undue criticism–that Flynn’s action was a nod to his replacement, Archbishop John Nienstadt, who has a more conservative take on church practices.
Flynn said he had not been aware of how many parishes were using the practice. “There has to be that kind of training and theological background that even a person with a master’s degree in theology would not have,” he said. “The church does not want people just standing up there and giving opinions or even things they’ve read in books.”
The move has caused a good deal of anger, understandably. And the matter does not seem clear cut. In 2005 the Swiss bishops, who for various cultural, historical and practical reasons–very few priests–are often on the leading edge of reforms–received permission from the Vatican to use as preachers the very kind of lay experts that Flynn said could not preach. The general secretary of the Swiss bishops’ conference, Agnell Rickenmann, said that the two declarations were partly a response to the shortage of priests in Switzerland, but also reflected the Swiss Church’s “independence.” According to the Tablet, he said: ”In Switzerland we have a 30-year tradition of theologically trained lay people active in the Church.”
A year earlier, Father Edward McNamara, ZENIT’s liturgy maven, also addressed this question in a 2004 column that cites the relevant bans against lay preaching as set forth in Redemptionis Sacramentum. The document includes a number of proscriptions, including this:
No. 65 continues: “It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §§1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.”
McNamara’s column was answering a question from a Minnesota parishioner, and McNamara concluded that what may have been possible before was no longer licit. The CNS story seems to mark the culmination of this “experiment.” At least here.
What to make of it all?
The GIRM seems to give preference not only to an ordained person, but to the celebrant.
The Homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate. (GIRM 66)
If you allow non-ordained preaching you will get people like Francis talking about birds and the moon and sun and lepers!
And to Muslims too!
God bless the Swiss. They were able to get their Eucharistic Prayer texts approved too, before the door was shut to new compositions. I think this shows what an episcopal conference is able to do when it is firmly anchored in local Church realities and is not always looking over its shoulder. Similarly, the Canadians get permissions that Americans are always convinced they “cannot get.” I’d like to add a mention of the long history of lay preaching outside of Mass. Lay persons certainly have these gifts. Why are we so afraid to use them? The Church could encourage the practice of lay preaching quite legitimately, even within the very narrow constrictions of Redemptionis Sacramentum, but that doesn’t seem to be on the bishops’ agenda.
Archbishop Flynn’s comments leave much to be desired.
If he wanted to end the practice, all he needed to do was to quote Redemptionis Sacramentum when it came out four years ago and be done with it.
Instead he pussyfoots around (according to the CNS piece) by saying he didn’t know how widespread the practice was. RS abrogates canon law and deep sixes the practice; there’s not a canonical threshhold of when lay preachers begin to appear on the ecclesiastical radar, is there? More than ten? More than three? Anybody?
Most unimpressive was his dismissive commentary about the quality of lay homilies. (If he was unaware of the extent of them, how can we believe he has any sense of their content?) Ditto his own “feelings” of “deprivation” and “disruption.” Maybe he’s housecleaning for the new archbishop, but this piece makes Flynn look very weak from any perspective.
Tread #4 post BXVI’s visit about an Episcopal action.
Another screw tightening?
Does this help folks with no resident priest?
Once more we have rules and regs (man made) GIRM, canons, vs. pastoral needs and practices with no substantiation of significant harm or even research.
Much of the notable episcopla action thus far strikes me as the mode of the awful middle managers i doalt with at work – think about what you think will please the boss, forget about how to get the job done by the folk on the line.
This isn’t about conservative vs. liberal, or tightening the screws, it is about stopping a specifically illicit practice.
Where this happens it isn’t a even case of “theologically trained lay people” preaching a real homily. More often it is some environmentalist, or youth minister, or political action group person giving an inspirational or or informational speech. Usually that has nothing to do with the readings or the liturgical event or anything else in the mass. There are many avenues to give such talks without imposing on the mass.
Look at it this way – the parishes that do this have no more right to do it than they have to change the order of the mass, or to choose not to provide the sacraments. It doesn’t even matter if a majority of the parishioners agree. When they do this, they are imposing their standards in favor of the Church’s licit requirements. If that is what you want, join a Congregationalist church.
Regarding St. Francis: Francis was forced to submit to being ordained a Deacon so he could continue to be the head of his own Order and preach in churches. His dream of a Fraternity in which lay and ordained would live together as equals was not allowed by the pope.
I have been told that when the Capuchins elect a new Minister General they always submit first the name of a non-ordained Brother, knowing that it will be rejected. It is a nice way of reminding Rome that Francs began and built up his Order as a non-ordained person.
One advantage to priests’ preaching is their intimate knowledge of their peoples’ spiritual needs, based on the hours they spend hearing confessions.
Was Francis of Assisi illicit? And “those theologically trained priests” have given the worst homilies and more irrelevant than any lay person can do. Lay people, on average, have brought competence and relevance back into the homily. Peers will always insist on preparation and competence.
The Swiss have it right. Challenge Rome and they will bow every time. Unless there is an equally compelling tug at the other end like the Spanish King objecting to Henry VIII’s divorce.
The gospel supersedes everything else. Even canon law and the Curia.
In days of yore, when there were a lot more priests who ithink heard a lot more confessions -man ywere mediocre preachers. In today’s world of amalgamated parishes or parishes without pries, how much would Fr. Visitor know?
Of course, if your view of how everything should run is “by the book”, you wil think this is fine.
From my experience, that’s a poor way to run an organization.
Francis was never illicit. The punishment for heresy at his time was death, so he took no chances. Even before he began to preach on street corners or in open fields, he went to Rome to receive the permission of the pope. Fortunately, just the previous night the pope had dreamed of a little man in beggar’s clothes holding up a topping church. So Francis’ simple rule, To live the Gospel in poverty and chastity, was approved on the spot.
It was after he returned to Assisi that he began to preach and attracted others to his Order. When he accepted ordained person as members of his Order, he was forced to take orders as a Deacon, since a non-ordained person can never be in authority over the ordained. Then he was allowed to preach in churches, but he first started his Order without doing that.
So not allowing the non-ordained to preach in churches has a long history, at least 800 years.
I would hope there would be no argument about a layperson’s ability to give an inspiring, even life-changing, sermon. I’ve heard many lay-given homilies, and some of them have been outstanding.
Not surprising, either, that a person who has had the privilege of sharing her/his faith with the parish at Sunday Mass for 10+ years would be crushed and/or angry to learn that the privilege has been withdrawn. I hope that they can discern alternative ways of sharing their gifts with God’s people. (Missions? Retreats? Wake services?)
If that opening anecdote in the CNS story was intended to provoke me, it succeeded. A person, vested quasi-clerically, given a quasi-liturgical blessing to play a liturgical role to which she is not assigned? Maybe I’m being oversensitive, but I find that disturbing.
I don’t doubt that her gifts are substantial, but must the integrity of the liturgy be compromised in order for her to make use of them?
FWIW – I am the last to argue against lay preaching. In fact, I think we need much, much more of it.
But not during the homily. It’s not a layperson’s job. Let the person who has been assigned the role perform it.
And let all people whose charism is proclaiming the Good News, find appropriate venues to give of their gifts. The entire world waits with bated breath to hear what they have to say.
This has nothing to do with whether this priest or that priest gives “good” homilies. And it has nothing to do with whether a lay person can be a good preacher – there are terrific lay preachers. But they can’t give homilies. That is one of the things that is so confounding about this. There is nothing that these parishes want to do that they can’t do outside the mass. They have no right to fashion the mass to their personal tastes.
OK – let’s say my parish thinks women should only be allowed to attend mass wearing a veil. Should we be allowed to turn away a Catholic woman because she doesn’t conform to the “local rules”? But if I go to a parish in the twin cities I must sit through a half-hour slide show by Beth Ann Dinglebush-Murphy while she describes her adventures last summer with the Amazon tribes before I can receive the eucharist.
As Catholics, we all have a right, a right, to have the liturgy and the sacraments provided in accordance with licit norms – period. No bishop, priest, or parish community has the authority to abridge that right for even a single of the faithful. If 99% of the parish mebership thinks playing inspirational and informational movies on a Jumbotron in the middle of mass is peachy keen (a regular practice at one of the offending parishes) they have imposed on the one percent who want a licit liturgy. In fact, they are imposing on all Catholics everywhere.
Bob,
I don’t know what organizations you have experience with. But in my experience the ones that make the book up as they go along are far worse. No one is saying that there can be no variation or flexibility – there is plenty.
What say we consecrate Ginger Snaps and Diet Coke? Wouldn’t that be more interesting?
During the homily of a wedding Mass I attended last year, the priest was attempting to address the subject of the one-flesh union when, to everyone’s surprise, he produced two hula hoops and invited the couple to stand in them.
Did he then give the hula hoops to the ringbearers?
Some clarifications are needed. There is the “eucharistic homily” which is an essential part of the Mass, and should be given by the celebrant acting in the person of Christ the head of the Church. The class “clergy” was probably created in order to perform that function, so it is inappropriate for laypeople to do it only because that is what clergy are. Lay preaching at either a mass or a communion service is inappropriate imo.
Valid lay preaching has to do with non eucharistic settings. The example earlier was celebrating the Liturgy of the Hours in a diocesan high school. What are the implications of having a non-ordained person doing that? Will it be compared to the Sunday or other Eucharistic preaching, creating division? Should laypeople need training or certiification?
And just so we are clear, I have heard plenty of bad homilies from the ordained, so hearing bad homilies from laypeople does not mean the practice should be eliminated.
It’s really nice to know that we layfolk have a right to hear from an ordained presider no matter how incompetent, either theologically–and I have heard a few–or in in the art of speaking, or even in the English language. Heaven protects the faithful from the competent, it seems.
If I am not mistaken, the Swiss have some independence among theit bishops because there is some independence in how they are named. It is not the usual selection by the congregation of bishops, but a traditional process including the government.
In the time of St Francis, there were a number of groups of “poor men” who went around preaching. Most of them were heretical. Among the more orthodox, preaching was largely done only by bishops or abbots. St Dominic starting an order of preachers, with preaching done by priests, was radical. These two saints faced a lot of questions about their preaching and whether it should be allowed.
<>
Hi, Jim McK,
I believe that, if a layperson has embraced public preaching as a ministry or apostolate, particularly if s/he is perceived to be preaching in the name of the church, then that person should at the least be strongly encouraged to go through preaching formation.
I don’t know if there is such a thing as a certification program for preaching. I believe clergy are considered “certified” to preach by the fact of their ordination. I don’t doubt that there are preaching training programs that will issue a student a certificate upon successful completion of the program. I’ve never heard of a diocese certifying lay preachers, but the universe of things I’ve never heard of would be quite extensive. :-). Maybe others in the forum here will know more about it.
“It’s really nice to know that we layfolk have a right to hear from an ordained presider no matter how incompetent, either theologically–and I have heard a few–or in in the art of speaking, or even in the English language. Heaven protects the faithful from the competent, it seems.”
Well, Joseph, I’m told that, in the pre-VII days, there were parishes where the men would walk out of church at the time of the sermon, smoke cigarettes and chat on the church steps, and return in time for the offertory. I know of no current General Instructions or canons that prohibit such survival mechanisms on the part of the faithful!
I have sympathy with what Sean Hannaway is saying, and it seems to me it would be difficult to complain if someone in authority flatly said, “The homily is part of the mass, and as a part of the mass, the presiding priest is to give the homily. Period.” The problem for me is that the reasons offered all have good arguments against them.
And then there’s this . . .
Is there any way to tell if the power of the Holy Spirit is there or not there?
Is preaching formation always a good thing?
I’ve sat through homilies that I thought were articulate, full of illustrations, energetically delivered–that left me completely cold. But the preacher would have done very well in homiletics class.
The theology of the Lord’s Supper, which the Eucharist is, is not that difficult if we resist the temptation to quote Canon Law or any other authority which only legitimates some bad theology. Not to mention, wacky rubrics. This is a banquet in which the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is celebrated by God’s people. There we offer God all that we are, in total love and for one another.
The clerics have taken an egalitarian celebration and turned it into a regal pageantry. Incompetents can rule there but the people suffer. Sometimes this is good for order but it is terrible for growth. Clearly in the churches of Paul women were allowed to preach. With later interpolations women were not even allowed to talk in church. They had to go home to ask their husbands what happened.
Service is always over privilege and title. The church of Jesus is not monarchical.
Hi, Kathy, maybe it’s not always a good thing, but I think that, for most people who preach, it’s a good thing.
By the same token, one could ask, are composition and theory classes always a good thing for a composer? I’d think the analogy holds pretty well. At least, if you’re going to break the rules or violate the canons, you can do so knowing what they are :-)
Jim
I hate protracted semantic arguments, but ,,,
By the book means to me the rigidity of following the rukes/regs/policies of the moment as if graven in stone.
Organizations who have wrorkers who do that tend to die from lack of movement.
Ginger snaps and cokes at Mass is a straw man in this discusion, like either my way or anything gos.
The issue is the value or non value of lay preaching and whether it should only be a perogative of those in orders.
The argument that by the grace of orders leads automatically to better preaching has already colapsed here.
As has ben pointed out, clearly there is a differnce between clergy and laity in regard to the usual functions performed -hence individuals are designated through Orders to perform those functions.
Still we know, in an emergency for example, anyone can baptize.
I keep coming back to the notion of the good of the community, for as I understand it, a priest is ordained for the service of the community.
If there is no priest, how is the god of the comm bourished by the word? Or multiple parishes with one priest?
Are the current circumscriptions of canonical law and rubric the best way of dealing with the needs of the people? Or do we mock anyone who suggests maybe there are other and better ways?
From what I have heard in my life, I’d rather do without a homily than have to listen to some of the inanely incompetent attempts from way too many ordained folk. It appears that, once again, in the land of the blind the one-eyed MAN will remain king.
To quote, yet again, from everyone’s favorite convert priest:
“The problem of clericalism is composed of several problems. It is the problem of a caste that arrogates to itself undue authority, that makes unwarranted claims to wisdom, even to having a monopoly on understanding the mind of God. The consequence is the great weakening of the Church by denigrating or excluding the many gifts of the Spirit present in the people who are the Church. The problem of clericalism arises when “the church” acts in indifference, or even contempt, toward the people who are the Church.” Richard J. Neuhaus, June 1989.
The way things are going, Masses will be fewer and fewer because of a lack of The Hallowed Ordained. That must mean, therefore, that the Lowly Laity will be allowed to speak at will. Maybe the Holy Spirit IS moving faster that we thought (s)he would!
“I keep coming back to the notion of the good of the community, for as I understand it, a priest is ordained for the service of the community.
If there is no priest, how is the god of the comm bourished by the word? Or multiple parishes with one priest?
Are the current circumscriptions of canonical law and rubric the best way of dealing with the needs of the people? Or do we mock anyone who suggests maybe there are other and better ways?”
Hi, Bob,
Just speaking for myself … great questions, and I don’t know the answers.
Jim P.,
My question is, who is writing the compositional canons? And what are they wanting the Church to be?
No no no no no. Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with competence or talent, or a special preaching grace or anything of the kind. It is not clericalism either.
As a priest friend of mine likes to remind us – the mass isn’t about you. It isn’t about the priest either. It’s about worship, it’s about the Eucharist, and it has nothing to do with whether I am enjoying myself or “getting something out” of the mass. If you get nothing out of a mass with a lousy homilist – that’s your problem.
Yeah, yeah, Lord’s day, keep it holy, but could we put a little more pizazz into it?
Bob,
It is not a straw man, but a hyperbole based on precisely the same principle.
Explain to me why the norms for the host are more authoritative than the norm for the homily in a principled way. All I can see is that more people agree with variation in the homily, or that more people are ignoring the norm for the homily. That can’t be the answer.
Todd Flowerday has put his finger on an interesting point. Namely, how does Bishop Flynn know lay preachers are doing a bad job, if he hasn’t heard them? I think that among those in clerical authority, on any issue whatsoever in the church, there is resistence to listening to anyone outside the caste, period. Not every individual is like this, but it is part of the clerical culture. We saw it in the abuse crisis, we see it in finance, we see it in parish life, we see it all over the place. To affirm lay preaching, clergy (bishops and priests and deacons) would have to acknowledge that they might profitably listen to someone else, even when they are speaking about faith and the Gospel, the very heart of the business we are about as church. The idea is very threatening. In the final analysis, the resistence to lay preaching isn’t about competence, as I see it. And it’s not about lawfulness, either. It’s about who listens to whom. Were the lay preachers active in that diocese for 20+ years consulted before this edict was handed down? Did anybody talk to the parishioners who know them? To the pastors who, obviously, support the practice?
In a recent article, Robert Egan of Gonzaga University noted that the early church did not have an ordained ministry — priesthood — for well over a century (or more). There was no special ministry set aside for the “presider” at the eucharistic assembly.
History, of course, demonstrates the gradual development and adoption of a Christian “priesthood” that likely would be very much surprising to the earliest Christians. If I recall, preaching was just one of several “gifts” recognized by our ancestral Christians, and it certainly was not necessarily restricted to the role of a presider.
I see clericalism rearing its ugly in some quarters of the church.
Re St. Francis: The 13th century accounts of his life make it clear that he was a truly great preacher. What helped make him great was that he avoided the dry, clerical style of preaching of his day and instead spoke with the passion of the political orators he probably saw as a boy growing up in politically divided Assisi. He wowed the papal court.
Francis went to Pope Innocent III seeking approval for his fledgling movement because his brothers were routinely persecuted, even by bishops, and needed protection. They resembled, in many ways, lay movements that were considered heretical. (One of the things that got these movements into trouble was that they preached without papal approval.) It was Innocent’s idea to send Francis and his brothers out for the tonsure, clericalizing them. At that point, Francis wasn’t looking to become the prelate of a great order (and when his movement did eventually grow, he resigned as minister general).
I think that despite his haircut, Francis essentially remained a layman at heart. He was not formally trained to preach and was suspicious of theological formation. He once wrote a letter to the future St. Anthony saying it was okay to teach the brothers theology, so long as you “do not extinguish the Spirit of prayer and devotion” during this study. Francis had a great memory for Scripture and a natural ability to explain it, probably because he lived the gospel so literally.
Francis, while ever respectful of the clergy, tried hard to reform the church through his example. It’s a good model for lay people today.
Obsessing about Canon Law is the last thing we need as our Church careers into liturgical fossilization. Much more in line with the needs of the Church is the proposal of the Dutch Dominicans on allowing laity to celebrate the Eucharist in the absence of clergy. This raises all sorts of theological problems, of course. See the discussions of Paul Surlis in The Furrow (March, 2007) and The Japan Mission Journal (Summer, 2007).
Here is an excerpt from Surlis: “The objection that these practices infringe not only church law but orthodox doctrine is a weightier one. The Dominicans could have finessed their position recognizing the “ontological” dimension of liturgy and then going on to claim that it is founded in the “relational.” The idea that ordination confers a new ontological status on the priest who is thereby exclusively empowered to celebrate the Eucharist is a development in the second millennium of the Church’s history and is unknown in the first millennium. Today theologians stress relational ontology, meaning that ordination confers on the priest a new location and function in the community rather than a superior, exclusive status with higher power attached. The Second Vatican Council stresses that the Eucharist is offered by the whole community present with the priest as presider, not exclusively by the priest.
This accords with the view prevailing in the first millennium that the person called by the community received from the Holy Spirit, via the community, all the powers necessary for leadership, and that the call designated the minister for service. After the time of Constantine superior status began to be assigned to ministry and clericalization had already begun. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, in order to counteract a growing trend to separate the priest from an absolutely necessary connection to a specific community, forbade absolute ordination, requiring instead a call by a community, its people and leaders, as necessary for someone to become pastor and leader. Chalcedon ruled: “no one can be ordained priest or deacon in an absolute manner… unless a local community is clearly assigned to him.” Today ordination is on the verge of being absolute, that is without assignment to a particular congregation, and with this departure from Chalcedon has come the tendency to see ordination as conferring special, exclusive power on the priest and achieving a change in his personal being that elevates him to a higher ontological status.
It may be that the irregular situations arising in the Church today betoken not only a crisis in church order, but also a movement toward a development of doctrine. That such a development should be marked by conflict is no surprise to those who recall the bitter struggle occasioned by the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies. The central role of the laity in that struggle, at a time of weak episcopal leadership, is referred to in Newman’s seminal book, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine. Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church has extensive discussion of the role of believers in securing authentic Church teaching, declaring at one point: “The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the Holy One (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20 and 27) cannot err in matters of belief” (Lumen Gentium chapter 2, # 12). The Constitution lays considerable stress on the necessity of consulting the whole people of God in establishing church teaching in matters of belief and practice. If indeed the laity are stepping forward and claiming their right to be a eucharistic community in despite of Church law and theology, this may be a movement that cannot be dealt with by summary condemnation and that may force a fundamental rethinking of the nature of ministry.
Even if the theological objections of Fr Legrand cannot be overcome, it would appear that the need of the faithful to have recourse to such drastic measures is the result of an abnormal situation in the Church. In accordance with the mandate of Jesus at the Last Supper: “Do this in memory of me,” the Church has always considered weekly celebration of the Eucharist as His gift and absolutely essential for the spiritual nourishment of the Christian community. The governing pastoral principle has been: salus animarum suprema lex (the salvation of souls is the supreme law). The disobedience of the laity is a response, perhaps a prophetic response, to the disobedience of the hierarchy to this principle.”
I can’t decide whether or not Fr. O’Leary’s introduction of the Dutch Dominicans into the conversation is an example of what the British “taking the piss.” On the supposition that he is serious, I guess that if one does not think ordination is requisite for presiding at the Eucharist, this somewhat deflates the argument that the close link between the table of the Word and the table of the Eucharist would make the preaching of the unordained at the Eucharist at the very least inconveniens.
But to keep the focus on the issue of preaching: I must say that it seems a bit inconsistent to base the argument against lay-preaching at the Eucharist on the link between Word and Eucharist and then to allow deacons to preach. If deacons are allowed to preach at the Eucharist, then it would seem that the really relevant distinction is not between priest and non-priest, but between cleric and non-cleric, with the rationale beign something like “clerics preach to the Church; the laity preach to the world.” But if this were the case, then non-clerics ought not ever preach in church, even outside a Eucharistic setting. And as far as I know, this is not the Church’s current discipline.
So I guess this goes in with those other issues on which I’m willing to obey the Church’s law , but don’t find the arguments offered so far in support of that law very convincing.
<>
Hi, Kathy,
Well, there is a field of homiletics in which one could spend one’s life, teaching, writing, researching and other such pursuits.
I believe, though, that preaching is analogous to music in the church, in the sense that it flourishes without a surfeit of rules and micromanagement.
FWIW – for American preaching, a guiding document issued by a committee of the US bishops conference called Fulfilled In Your Hearing has been quite influential – I believe it’s a standard text in homiletics courses. If anyone is interested, it’s accessible here:
http://www.usccb.org/plm/fiyh.pdf
Also FWIW – some theorists have been evaluating certain elements of the program of “new homiletics”, as advanced by Fulfilled In Your Hearing. There are opinions abroad (seemingly minority opinions for now) that the homily needn’t always be tethered to the Word; that there are times when catechetical need outweighs the breaking open of Scripture; and so homilists should feel free to spend homily time talking about Terri Schiavo, or embryonic stem cell research, or withholding communion from pro-choice politicians, or whatever the sizzling topic du jour happens to be.
“Francis, while ever respectful of the clergy, tried hard to reform the church through his example. It’s a good model for lay people today.”
Amen!
FWIW …
One of the benefits of getting older is that, as the years move forward, one’s memory reaches farther back in time.
When David began this thread, it stirred a vague memory that this is not the first time that the Minneapolis Archdiocese and Archbishop Flynn have been involved in a clash over lay preaching.
Witness this NCR article from 1998:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-20229340.html
Here is CTA’s take on it:
http://www.cta-usa.org/news9-98/minnesota.html
(Rev. Mr.) F. C.,
While I agree that the argument isn’t compelling, it does seem to me that an argument from fittingness could be made from the Gospels. Before key Eucharistic moments–the feedings of the multitudes, the Last Supper, and the road to Emmaus–the Lord taught, then broke the bread. He did both himself, in almost a single process of self-revelation.
Fr. O’Leary is an excellent argument for lay homilies.
But seriously, as for Deacons preaching – considering that the permanent diaconate in its present form is a very late development in Catholic eccesiology and sacramental theology, I suppose it is only fair to give the theology a bit of time to catch up.
I would think that the diaconal responsibility to preach is more closely related to their roles in presiding at weddings and funerals.
A final point – most here seem to have forgotten that for much of church history, not all priests were allowed to preach. One had to be licensed, and there was such a thing as the priest simplex – the priest who could not preach or hear confessions.
It has never been a simple – you’re ordained therefore you’ve got the power to preach – relationship. Up until recent decades, that is.
Interesting that the Dutch Church came up as someone sent me an article today on the “ecuymenical Mass” to a packed Church there -far more radical than what we’re talking about here and somewhat remarkable given the decline of Mass attendance on the Continent.
There is deep division here though about the role of priest as presider for the community as opposed to the necessary other who really makes liturgy happen. There is further division about the sacralization of canon law and rubrics and what is essential or not.(Kind of funny that no one mentions the work of the Spirit as the sine qua non.) A third division is the role of the Bishop and how he acts in being the principla liturgist of the area he’s named for – as mentioned, is he basically concerned with pleasing His superiors or serving his people. )Related to that is the issue of clericalism that also divides.
I think David could have titled this thread in parallel to one below,”No Priests? No Sermons?”
The article my friend sent me talked about the Church here being more “vibrant” (whatever that buzz word means.) BXVI seemed to have a lot more hope for our Church here during his visit.
But these cotinuimg divides will also continue to assure more drift.
I guess I find it hard to beleive that that’s the work of the Spirit operating.
Many thanks again for all the informative comments and an excellent discussion. Much to chew over here, but a couple of subsequent thoughts come to mind, in no particular order.
1) Some of the comments that veer to one extreme or another are useful in staking out the boundaries of the debate. A few, like Sean Hannaway’s, seem to veer toward the idea that the eucharist is almost a devotion, a contemplative type of worship in which the homily, even if it is good, is of minimal importance. That is one argument. Arguing anything beyond that is often seen as “exploiting” the mass for profane ends. But the reality is that the mass is the primary expression of Catholicism today, and the primary entry point (well, except for Graham Greene) for most people. Hence, the mass, and most notably, the homily as come to be seen as a tool of evangelization. So if that tool doesn’t work, what’s to be done?
2) Following on that, making the distinction between preaching in church and preaching outside church could be fine in the abstract, but we’re not in the Middle Ages any longer. The only Catholic preaching that takes place is at Mass. Preaching outside of church is done by Protestants, stree-corner evangelists, televangelists, and the like. Catholics don’t do that, so the debate is a moot point. Or we have to start a major cultural shift to get lay preachers to compete with evangelicals. The best example of course is/was Fulton Sheen. But again, he had the training and authorioty of a bishop. Evangelicals and Protestants learn good preaching by preaching in church. They also gain the kind of sacred respect that seems (I believe) necessary to preaching in the agora. In Catholicism, the ordained preach, and that’s it.
3) Not to historically condition everything, but as many pointed out, the homily as a far more variegated history in the church than the eucharist. Oftentimes it was simply a rote exposition on the Gospel passage of the day. Since the renaissance and esp the reformation (I believe, but I should be corrected) preaching–at the homily–became much more about convincing and convicting listeners. It became more about performance (in a good way), probably to compete with Luther and his progeny. It is still supposed to be that way, and of necessity must be, since we are in a fragmented world, religiously. We must convince because we cannot command, as Paul VI said. That seems to put a different onus on the preacher, and on the homily. It’s not “just” a sacrament like confecting the Eucharist.
4) My final point (I hope) emerging from that is that while many want to restrict the homily to the ordained by embedding the homily firmly into the eucharist, it is clear that the homily, while it has sacramental and eucharistic qualities, is not the eucharist. Even Cardinal Ratzinger said it was okay for appropriate lay people to preach once in a while. Would he ever say that about the eucharist? “Oh, it’s okay if lay people or deacons celebrate mass, as long as it doesn’t become the custom.” So lay people and deacons can legitimately give homilies. They can never celebrate the liturgy of the eucharist. That is a gap wide enough to drive a lot of pastoral application through, it seems to me.
But again, thanks for all that has gone before here.
David,
Although I don’t disagree with the point that the importance of the homily is frequently overstated, I don’t think that equates with my thinking that the mass is only devotional.
I would also vociferously disagree that lay people can give homilies. That is explicitly contrary to canon law and ilicit. No one is saying lay people can’t preach – as you say then Cardinal Ratzinger said. They just can’t give homilies. A homily is a specific kind of preaching done within the context of the mass. Again, that is what is frustrating to me about this. There are so many ways and so many opportunities to take advantage of the talents of lay people without hijacking the mass.
I invite everyone to look at the web site for Joan or Arc parish in Minneapolis. I am sure many here know that parish’s practices are a large reason this became an issue. If you look at what their guest speakers are doing, you have to conclude that they don’t even have homilies some weeks. The talks have may have nothing to do with the scriptural readings or anything else in the mass. For all you can tell, who speaks on what Sunday may simply be a function of availability. They try and make connections, but they seem pretty clearly to be post hoc rationalizations. No one is saying they aren’t interesting, entertaining, informative, and even inspirational – they just aren’t homilies.
David, I respectfully disagree that Catholic laity don’t preach outside of Mass. Perhaps you are not plugged in enough to what’s going on in the wider life of the US Catholic Church. Laity preach retreats and missions all over the place. The thriving Catholics apologetics movement is not only rooted in straight talks, but witnessing – in the Protestant preaching tradition – as well.
Elaine, you make a good point (no respect needed). But I still see those events as largely (though not wholly) intramural sorts of things, for Catholics or those who are interested. I think that the Catholic Church, beyond the witness of social justice and the lives of many good people, does not have a very high profile in the public square in terms of lay preaching. As you say, I may not be aware of thw wider picture, however. I also wonder about the disconnect when people are inspired and fed at retreats and the like, then go to mass and find nothing like that.
“David, I respectfully disagree that Catholic laity don’t preach outside of Mass. … Laity preach retreats and missions all over the place.”
Absolutely. Also at prayer services (and communion services) in hospitals, rehab facilities, nursing homes, prisons, shelters … there is a LOT of lay Catholic preaching going on.
“But I still see those events as largely (though not wholly) intramural sorts of things, for Catholics or those who are interested.”
Perhaps that’s true, David, but that really gets more to the problem of evangelization, rather than preaching per se. Istm that Catholics are becoming more comfortable sharing their faith with one another, but as you say, perhaps mostly intramurally.
If some folks are concerned about lay folks “hijacking the mass,” we should remember that the liturgy is first and foremost the action of the assembly, and the presider is just one of the persons present. The earliest “masses” did not have “priests,” i.e., those who offer sacrifice or, as Egan noted, stand between the people and their god/God.
“I want mercy, not sacrifice,” said Jesus to his Jewish disciples, all of whom were familiar with the Jewish priests and totally unfamiliar with any idea of a Catholic/Christian “priesthood.”
Needs of community come first. If it hinders, then canon law be damned!
I invite everyone to look at the web site for Joan or Arc parish in Minneapolis.
Actually, a number of years ago they stopped having lay homilies during Mass (I believe under pressure from the Archdiocese), and now have “Guest Speakers” before Mass begins, apparently with a short homily by the priest after the Gospel.
This does not seem to have eliminated all the difficulties, as is indicated by these comments from the pastor regarding a recent controversy over one of the guest speakers:
Almost weekly we offer speakers before mass, but to be honest, so close to mass it’s hard to separate; although some people do choose to skip the speaker and come just for mass. The speaker gives a 12—20 minute address without questions after and, in the past, the right to sell books or push his/her movement. Sometimes the homilist responds directly to the speaker, or as should happen, replies to the scripture of the day. The pulpit from which he speaks is recognized as a holy place where the presence of God in the scriptures is presented.
The question is: should a public person who stands diametrically opposed to a Church teaching on a central Dogma of the Church, be given pulpit space, even if the present message is not opposed to but actually supports, Church teaching?. Not an easy, “Sure!” if the pulpit and the mass are sacred space.
An e-mail suggested the Archbishop was a bully for preventing Dr. Miles from speaking. Maybe he was doing his job.
I apologize for misstating when the SJA speaker talk. I was basing this on a video I saw a couple of years back, and when I went to the web site I thought the speakers were more of the same. Nonetheless, it shows what the problem is. They have moved the speakers out of the mass proper, but they are the same types they had within the mass.
Frankly, as Catholics, I would think we would be worried about what seems to me a very Protestant “mega-church” type trend. Even some of the comments like – they didn’t do this in the first century – could have come from Rev Hagee condemning the Whore of Babylon.
The liturgy is first and foremost the action of the assembly, and the presider is just one of the persons present.
By whose authority is this said? And, is s/he infallible?
Liturgists kill me.
Anyways, I think it’s possible to see the lay preaching movement in a positive light, insofar as it can be placed in the perennial ecclesial tension between order and charism. In my read of Church history, this tension is meant to be a creative opportunity for us to work things out for the glory of God and the preaching of the Gospel.
Interestingly enough, though, for the last 40 years of ecclesial history, the players who ordinarily occupy the “order” polarity, that is, the bishops, have not been particularly miffed by lay claims to any charisms, particularly those having to do with knowledge and eloquence–the very charisms that Paul said “puff up.” From where I sit, we are in a highly disorderly situation. There is no oversight of teaching. Almost none at all. So restraining the charisms in this small way seems likely to lead, if anything, to reform.
Seems to me that forgotten is what happens at Mass: the calling down of Almighty God into the bread and wine. A holy priest can do it; a drunken priest can do it. My reaction to the business about abort-politicians receiving Holy Communion is that they do not believe in the physical presence of God.
Surely the purpose of the sermon / homily is to explicate the Epistle and the Gospel of the day.
Having heard one priest [too big for his boots, as my ma would say] say on the Feast of St. John Baptist “I don’t like John the Baptist”. To save myself from having unkind thoughts ["who died and made you God?"] I took to bringing the Catechism to read while the priest was going on and on and on…
The liturgy is first and foremost the action of the assembly, and the presider is just one of the persons present.
“God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.” 1 Cor 12:19-22
“in the liturgy the whole public worship is performed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and His members.
“From this it follows that every liturgical celebration, because it is an action of Christ the priest and of His Body which is the Church, is a sacred action surpassing all others; no other action of the Church can equal its efficacy by the same title and to the same degree.”SC 7
“The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated as a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, in order that through all those works which are those of the Christian man they may offer spiritual sacrifices and proclaim the power of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light. Therefore all the disciples of Christ, persevering in prayer and praising God, should present themselves as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God…
“Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ.” LG 10
Jim McK,
I do not think these quotations support your conclusions. Instead, they seem to argue for a division of roles. All are necessary–but all have different roles.
Kathy,
I don’t see the difference between your understanding: “they seem to argue for a division of roles. All are necessary–but all have different roles.”
and my “conclusions”, which are actually part of a statement from Joseph: “the presider is just one of the persons present.”
imo, these possibly infallible sources support what Joseph said, and so respond to your question. I really do not know what your objection is to his claims, so I was hoping you would elucidate in response to these sources. I don’t always get what I want.
Ah the Royal Priesthood of all the Faithful. Certainly understandable how all the monarchs ignored it for 1700 years. After forty years they are back to their old tricks. But the liturgy of the Word is back, the Prayer of the Faithful is standard, the people sing and respond more than ever. A lot of good here that some discontents want to kick out.
Slightly off topic: on the general theme of truthfulness and freedom in the Church, what do you think of the way the Australian bishops have ganged up on the outspoken retired Sydney bishop? http://www.catholica.com.au/breakingnews/017_bn_160508.php
Some resources for a little self-education on Lay Preaching:
http://www.partnersinpreaching.org/LayPreaching07.pdf
http://www.partnersinpreaching.org/preachingneed.pdf
http://www.partnersinpreaching.org/laycanonlaw.pdf
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/112301/112301a.htm
Jim McK,
Joseph said that the presider is “just” one of the faithful. That’s not precisely true. If one of the faithful goes outside for a cigarette during the homily and falls asleep in the car listening to the Packers play the Bills, the Mass still happens. We’re all the less for missing him, but the Mass still happens.
Whereas if Father keels over, we have to bring in another priest.
Hi, Kathy and Jim McK, I’m not certain I’m following the thread of your discussion, but it might be worth pointing out that the church does enviison a “division of labor” when celebrating the liturgy. The principle seems to be set out in the General Instruction paragraph 91:
“91. The Eucharistic celebration is an action of Christ and the Church, namely, the holy people united and ordered under the Bishop. It therefore pertains to the whole Body of the Church, manifests it, and has its effect upon it. It also affects the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their different orders, offices, and actual participation.75 In this way, the Christian people, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,” expresses its cohesion and its hierarchical ordering.76 All, therefore, whether they are ordained ministers or lay Christian faithful, in fulfilling their office or their duty should carry out solely but completely that which pertains to them.77″
That last sentence is the core of the principle.
One more comment: that phrase in the first sentence, “united and ordered”, perhaps captures the tension in this matter. Emphasizing unity without order causes a blurring of legitimate roles. Emphasizing order without unity leads to clericalism.
We’re united, but in a “hierarchical ordering”. Hierarchical is tough for Americans to swallow, perhaps.
Just my opinions.
Footnote to Joseph O’Leary:
Cardinal Mahony has banned Auxiliary Bishop Robinson from speaking in his diocess and urged him to cancel his tour.
Bishop Robinson opines that the sex abuse crisis is rooted in misuse of power which is at the heart of his argumen tand why he has broken with his fellow bishops there.
He apparently will speak at Temple in Philadelphia next week.
Cardinal Mahony is not held in highest esteem in victim support camps also.
I think this is worth a thread of its own.
Clearly another step in don’t criticize thge party line from within – not sure how this fits i nwith BXVI’s plea to listen and unify.
Still, I guess “ordering” means by the book to some.
A ;ast footnote and an ecumenical one: in this neck of the wood, our Protestant neighbors are delighted with storytellers supplementing their preachers on the values in the texts. Are there any Catholic “strory tellers” and. if so, are they valued?
“The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.”” 1 Cor 12:22
Kathy, this quote, of those I posted, is the one most likely to be “infallible”. You do not seem to use it in your formulation.
We cannot say “We do not need you” to the cigarette smoking man any more than we can say it to the priest. But it may be that in taking a break, CSM is fulfilling his ministry, his place in the hierarchy, while the priest fulfills his role in a more public way, leading the ritual.
I am not inclined to argue this issue. You asked “who said?” and I answered because I did not see the point of your objection. Thank you for explaining it to me. I will stick with my original position, that we cannot say “we do not need you” to either the priest or the CSM, until you come up with a better explanation of St Paul.
LA might be out for Bp. Robinson, but he will be elsewhere in California:
Tuesday, June 10
7:00 pm – 10:00 pm
Atkins Pavilion of the UCSD Faculty Club
San Diego, California
Friday, June 13
7:00 pm
San Francisco, CA
VOTF San Francisco
Handerly Dining Room
Lone Mountain Campus
University of San Francisco
Jim McK,
I didn’t tell the guy to go take a nap! Of course we need him and hopefully he’ll go to the next Mass, after coffee.
I take St. Paul to be correcting people who were taking their gifts too seriously because they thought they were better.
My final footnote on this discussion:
Buried in this thread is another and possibly useful duscussion on why the early Church is so important to some as opposed to say the post Constantian settlement developments.
While certainly closer to the time of Christ and living memory passed on, i would guess some of us see that as “purer”.
Kathy,
“I take St. Paul to be correcting people who were taking their gifts too seriously because they thought they were better.”
Funny, this is how I often feel about those who make comments like this: “Liturgists kill me.”
Who’s the Master and Who’s the servant? The question for me STILL remains after 32 and change years of journeying…WHO is the Church?
I am praying for you.
Yours Truly,
St. Paul
(Son of a Liturgist – trying to cope with the backlash against his parents that did their best to teach my siblings and me the Faith)
Thanks, Oonefrom Tobit, for your prayers.
A blogger identifying himself as “Deacon Mike” on a traditionalist Catholic site asserted that “the people were given the choice of crucifying the Son of God or a common criminal. The majority, the same people who had hailed Jesus just a few days earlier, chose to release Barabas.”
If this erroneous diaconal statement represents the kind of thorough preparation for ordination offered by the bishops, God forbid!
Give me an educated and informed lay homilist anytime.