An Italian bishop has articulated what many Catholics in South Africa are thinking: that homilies — the pre-eminent form of preaching, according to Canon Law — are not consistently of a good standard.
Bishop Mariano Crociata, the secretary-general of the Italian bishops’ conference, has said that many congregations’ minds are not sufficiently nourished by the quality of the homilies they hear at Sunday Mass. “Too often, sermons are just boring mush, unappetising fare, and certainly not too nourishing,” the bishop said, urging priests to pay greater attention to their sermons.
The problem seems to extend across the world. It’s also not a new problem, but emphasised more widely in an age when the faithful today are less willing to tolerate mediocre preaching and more open to voicing their criticism of clergy.
Canon law states that “the people of God are first united through the word of the living God, and are fully entitled to seek this word from their priests. For this reason sacred ministers are to consider the office of preaching as of great importance, since proclaiming the Gospel of God to all is among their principal duties” (762).
Expectations are high, perhaps raised by the forceful and articulate (and sometimes patently manipulative) style of evangelical preachers on television. Congregants expect homilies to be rich in content and accomplished in presentation. For some priests that is not a problem. To such priests, preaching comes easy. They may have the personable charisma, the skill to speak even off the cuff, and the ability to mould ideas into a gripping narrative.
Many other priests lack these talents. With hard work, they manage to present good and even engaging homilies. And, truth be told, there are some priests whose competence resides in other fields of the priestly ministry.
Parishioners who are dissatisfied with the quality of preaching in their parish will do well to consider whether the problem resides with the homilist’s personal attributes or with his application. And even if the priest (or deacon) appears to be unprepared, his critics may consider whether other areas of his ministry have legitimately taken priority over the drafting of a homily.
It is an exceedingly difficult task to compose a substantive homily or sermon every week, never mind practising its presentation. The thought of having to maintain a consistently high quality can be intimidating to many homilists. It can be an arduous task.
At the same time, the weekly homily is absolutely pivotal in preaching the Good News. Bluntly put, a boring or poorly constructed or delivered homily can do greater harm than good.
In recent months, correspondents to the Letters to the Editor have identified poor preaching as one reason why young Catholics especially are leaving the Church, proposing that better homilies might help stem the faith drain.
Canon law insists that only priests and deacons are permitted to deliver a homily (though lay preaching can be permissible under certain circumstances), but makes no prescription about the process by which homilies are constructed. It states no objection, for example, to lay people advising and even assisting the homilist in drafting a homily. There is no reason why priests or deacons should not solicit the advice from suitable parishioners — especially when such parishioners can complement the experiences of the homilist with their own. Surely a collaborative, advisory process could result in better homilies and ease the priest’s burden.
In the meantime, parishioners must be charitable towards a priest delivering an unsatisfactory homily, just as the priest should keep in mind those whose attention he seeks to command every Sunday.
I’ve often wondered and am still in the dark regarding sermons/ homilies. How are these graded? For instance, my daughter and I came out of church (we discuss the sermon of the day in the car driving home every sunday and the children contribute to this discussion) and I said, I’m not sure what it is that Father was talking about today. Her reply was instant – “but mummy, I thought Father gave the best sermon by far, today!” So if I’d had to grade that sermon, I know what I’d have said about it. Nowadays, I just try to get the best that I can from every sermon preached -great, mediocre or really lousy.
I agree with you Gunter Simmermacher. It would be an excellent Idea for those who deliver the homily to consult with others to lighten the work load of having to prepare something every week. One does not expect ‘fireworks’ all the time from a homily, but sometimes I sit in church wondering if the the person preaching actually believes what he is saying…or will that person remember his own sermon if you questioned him on it after Mass. Sometimes he seems so ‘absent’ from his own homily.
For me the mark of a good sermon is when I am able to use it during the week to become a better person. Mostly my hubby and I dicuss the sermon after mass in the car on our way home(good or bad or inbetween sermons), almost like a ‘faith sharing’ after Mass. The priest where we currently go is excellent, he really gives one food for thought, as well as practial ways of how we can become better christians in our everyday life. I still remember his sermon of last week and this week, so it was an excellent sermon. We have only just joined his parish.
We left our previous parish because we were always coming’dissapointed’ out of church. The reason was because many of that Priests sermons dealt with the ‘hierachy of the church’ and ‘how catholics were in previous years’ and many times about the external things that make us Catholic. Every week after week we endured it, trying to find the ‘deeper’ meaning, but always coming up short…and seldom something to ‘chew on’ for the rest of the week. It was after enduring that for a year that we decided to do some ‘parish hopping’ in search of someone who preached well.
I understand that priests also go through spriritual dryness and so sometimes one endures this period with him, but why not ask for help if this is the case. As you’ve suggested(that they consult), if he is a little depressed, or in a spiritual abyss or just to busy administratively, don’t be afraid to consult others. Some laity really are talented and could help, if only he would not be afraid to consult, it takes a humble priest to admitt that he is in a dry place, or that he has simply been to busy. He may be afraid of ‘over exposure’, yet Spiritual dryness and even being very busy is such a human factor. It would also help the parish to see the human side of the priest…and get away from that ‘yes Father, no Father, 3 bags full father’ relationship that still exists in some parishes.
Jesus’ mandate was to ‘bring good news to the poor’. There are many challenges for us in those half a dozen words. Concentrating on the: bring good news, we could easily say – judging from what Jesus did mostly – that a considerable portion of that ‘bringing’ was to heal the sick and physically challenged.
When we have asked our pastors why it is that priests (alter Christi) do not heal people today based on the belief that it is not God’s will for us to be anything but ‘whole’ (body, mind and spirit), we are given the chapter and verse about charisms in St. Paul’s letters. This ‘healing’ ministry is allowed and encouraged by the Church in all believers and followers of Christ.
If charisms are the answer given for the important healing ministry, then it must also be true of the ‘preaching and teaching’ part. Some priests simply do not have the charism – despite a personable charisma – to do justice to the ‘good standard homily’.
As Günther points out: with some priests their competence lies in other ministries. My conclusion is that it is the system that is really at fault. There is one part of Christ’s (and therefore the Church’s) ministry that is open to all gifted with the healing charism but another part that is codified differently.
Poor priests, so many demands and so few gifted – relative to congregations!
I agree with YMO Erasmus as it has been my experience with priests choosing their own personal topics in the mistaken attempt to rally unwilling majority to the responsibilities of the parish, instead of a homily to nourish us for the coming week.
I’ve reached the conclusion that sermons mean different things to different people. I really believe that it all depends on where the individual is at and his/her particular spriritual needs at that point. A hundred people might hear the exact same homily and you could get a hundred different interpretations of it.
Here I go again. The second reading for this morning, I think, says it all. If the holy Spirit chooses to endow a priest with preaching ability, he will have that. There are many priests who are gifted listeners, great in the confessional, wonderful healers of the spiritually wounded and still others who manage to get their parishioners all working together (very rare indeed) to make sure their parishes run smoothly.
Try giving a truly meaningful message to 500+ people : wiggling toddlers, grinning kindergarteners, smart mouthed youth, teenagers with affectations, parents feeding Cheerios to whiney babies, work weary fathers, stressed out mothers, high school to Ph.D educated pew sitters …
and best done in 15 minutes.
The Homily has come to be more important than the Eucharist; than com-munion with parisioners, with the rush out of the parking lot
The Homily is a miracle only Jesus could perform
Parishioners
are individuals
each with his own expectation
and unless people are in small groups
none of the expectations can be met.
Jesus spoke to a large crowd whose individual members had no personal
expectations,
but were all delighted to hear the Good News.
Good News to us has become ho hum.