Why preaching has improved in Catholic churches
Homilies are much improved (CNS)
The Lectionary is bearing fruit at last
It is good news that the Vatican dicastery which has charge of liturgical matters has turned its attention to the matter of preaching. One can read about the launch of the newHomiletic Directory here and one can find the text of the entire directory here. I have had a quick read of it, and shall read it again: it makes sensible and cogent suggestions to guide preachers. If preachers put these directives into practice, then the standard of preaching in Catholic Churches will only improve.
It used to be said that Catholics could not sing, and that Catholic priests could not preach. I will not comment on the first, but on the second, it has to be said that preaching has improved of late. There are several reasons for this.
First of all, after forty years or so, the arrival of the Lectionary is at last bearing fruit. This has taken time, but that is no surprise. The three year cycle of readings for Sundays and the two year cycle for weekdays have penetrated our consciousness to such an extent that we are now much more aware of what year we are in – the year of Matthew, Mark or Luke – and we are much more aware of the differences in approach between these three gospels and the gospel of John.
Moreover the new lectionary has brought back the Old Testament to a more fitting position. The readings in the Missal of Saint John XXIII were pared down to a rare degree, and this had the unfortunate effect of impoverishing the preaching. Indeed the preaching sometimes had nothing to do with the Mass or the readings; and most people thought of “the gospel” as opposed to the Four Gospels. But nowadays we are in a better position. We understand the Scriptures better than we did, and we understand their context better than we did. Every reading is an extract, but now, one hopes (and this is certainly the hope of the new Directory) when the reading is read, the fact that it comes from a particular context helps us to understand its setting and importance in the history of salvation.
The other thing that has helped is that the preacher may well be more aware of his audience than was once the case. Back in the day, people were in Church, and kept coming to Church; nowadays they have to be kept in the Church through a concerted pastoral effort by the clergy and collaborators. I do not mean for a moment that they have to be encouraged to come to Church through entertaining sermons, as Archbishop Roche mentions. God forbid! I cannot imagine anything worse, and I speak from experience, having sat though many a cringeworthy effort. What I mean is that the homilist has to link the “now” of Jesus with the “now” of his congregation. In the immortal words of the poet, “It dates from the day of his going in Galilee.” The sermon takes the congregation to Galilee and shows them that Galilee is actual. The Holy Scriptures are not some historical text: they are forever up to date. The Gospels are good news, ever new.
Pope Benedict described the Church as “an expert in humanity” and it is at this point I diverge from the tenor of the Directory. Now it is true that the priest or deacon must know something about Holy Scripture; but the homily ought not, to my mind, be top-heavy with exegetical content. Rather it should be full of human wisdom, aimed at the lived situation of the hearers. This is the real challenge facing preachers – to get onto the wavelength of their congregations. The average congregation will not have heard of the Donatist controversy, but they will be worried about other things, many of which find resonance in the Scriptures. The homilist is attempting to make a bridge between their questions and the answers the Scriptures give. The preacher needs to ensure good teaching; but good teaching is no good without good learning too. The Church may have all the answers; but it needs to discover and recognise the questions people are asking themselves.
38 comments:
Well, I don't know if I can say preaching has improved due to the new lectionary.
Preaching should come from the appropriate sources, Scriptual, Doctrinal, Liturgical.
I'm of the opinion that the new lectionary is a bit too much to handle, less is more often times.
Me, despite my fondness for traditional Catholicism, actually likes the new Lectionary with its OT-NT pairings. Not to mention if you read it everyday, especially WEEKDAYS, you get quite a few hardcore zingers from Christ.
As for preaching, I disagree. The lectionary to me bears no change on preaching. Especially in the Novus ordo, priests constantly don't reflect on the scripture passages or at best, loosely relate it to other topics. The homilies are often "look at me" moments and "fuzzy jesus" time, with some jokes thrown in. Sorry but the improvement on preaching lies with the priests. As for catering to their audiences, the catering if anything to me is often about keeping sensitive Sally and Sebastien in the pews so they don't leave Mass forever and take their few dollars with them. There are some priests, more younger ones, improving overall from the JPII and B16 ordination classes for Novus Ordo preaching. Not all hope is lost
However I will say we laity aren't scott free from blame either. If we are always Rad Trad and always expect the Novus Ordo to be terrible in preaching we will miss even the smallest "gem of the day" a priest can offer us. There's always one in a homily, most of the time.
"The three year cycle of readings for Sundays and the two year cycle for weekdays have penetrated our consciousness to such an extent that we are now much more aware of what year we are in – the year of Matthew, Mark or Luke"
I suspect it might be a real eye-opener for the author of this piece to ask the next 100 pew-sitters he encounters whether they know "what year we are in" now, or whether they can cite the content of any OT reading they recall this year, or anything they recall from a recent responsorial psalm.
The only way anyone learns the Bible is by picking up a copy and reading it. The sermon cannot function as Bible study. The most a sermon can do is direct the attention of the faithful to some element of the liturgical rite during which it is preached.
Balderdash.
The entire notion was born, like the rest of the Novus Ordo, to make the Mass more acceptable to Protestants.
The ancient cycle of readings, as Dr. Kwasniewski so eloquently says here, became "bone of one's bone, flesh of one's flesh." I urge you to read his post.
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/11/is-reading-more-scripture-at-mass.html#.VN0lXC6_bqg
Dear Father:
The link to the new homiletic directory doesn't take us to anything. I wonder if you can double-check it?
Many thanks!
How would Father know? Does he frequent other priest's' masses, or does he listen to his own and consider them awesome?
I certainly haven't noticed any improvement other than some old lame preachers retiring and thereby bringing the average up.
Total rubbish. I have noticed an improvement in preaching with the new generation of Priests. It has nothing to do with the lectionary, since I have heard great sermons from priests in both the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo. It has much more to do with an emphasis on preaching that is going on in the seminary. Our Diocese has gotten several new priests in the past few years, and they are all give good meaty sermons. I think it has more to do with actually preaching on the truths of the Readings as opposed to being nice and making the congregation comfortable, or pushing the latest social justice nonsense. Those who preach on the eucharist, the truths of the readings, and are grounded in sound CATHOLIC teaching are way better than the latter.
CPT TOM, you need to brush up on your "sound CATHOLIC teaching". Social justice is not "nonsense".
Have you ever heard about loving your neighbor as you love yourself? That is social justice....
The 3-yr Sunday lectionary is based on two false premises. Firstly, that people have a three-year attention span. Secondly, that the Mass is a bible study class.
Look at Lent I this year. If the Graduale Propers are sung we at least have Ps 90 which runs like a fil rouge through the older liturgy. Yet the Gospel (Mark) mentions the temptation of OLJC only in passing and gives no details.
Given the excision of many of the Scriptual references in the Mass Ordinary, we are hardly better off with the Novus Ordo. There are indeed things about it which are admirable, although a liturgy fabricated in the 1960s has to be exceptionally good to stand comparison with a rite (the Roman Rite) which evolved over a millennium and a half.
The uncomfortable fact is that it is not that good, and the way it is commonly celebrated (or more usually, performed) serves to make the comparison yet more odious.
Anonymous,
As I read him, CPT Tom did not denigrate social justice itself, but the "latest social justice nonsense", with which church and state are both replete nowadays, often to the exclusion of real social justice in the Christian sense.
Henry, as read it, almost everybody here "denigrates social justice" to some degree.
It may be denied, but it's pretty apparent.
What sort of social justice activities are you involved in, Anonymous?
John - No one supposes that people have a three year attention span and no one assumes that mass is a Bible study class.
In the old lectionary only about 225 of the gospels and 11% of the Epistles were heard at mass. Far worse, only 0.8% of the Old testament was heard, excluding the Psalms.
The stated purpose for expanding the lectionary: "The treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly so that a richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way the more significant part of the Sacred Scriptures will be read to the people over a fixed number of years."
Fr MJK
I think we are all aware of the rationale behind the new lectionary but as in so many things what is fine in theory doesn't always work in practice. The Sunday OT reading is seldom contextualized and Henry is surely right when he says that most people quickly forget it (assuming they understood it in the first place).
Also you exaggerate the neglect of the OT in the older lectionary. Throughout Lent the 'epistle' in the weekday Mass takes the form of an OT lesson and on Ember Saturday there are two lessons from Deuteronomy, one from 2 Machabees and one from Ecclesiasticus.
Justice is justice. The "justice" spoken of in Scripture, particularly the NT, is theological justice...the justice brought about by Christ's righteousness whereby evil is placed under His feet and the saved, made righteous by His Sacrifice, are justified. The highly individualistic ethic preached by Christ calls upon His elect to live just lives in their encounters with others, to tell them of Christ's righteous justice before it is too late, and to glorify Him by their words and deeds, which includes service to others and fair treatment.
It is an "eschatological" justice which looks for the coming of the Kingdom when true justice will be established in a supra-historical and eternal order.
The concept of "social justice" is a human, rationalistic idea which, in our day, is largely cheap political ideology used as a tool for social engineering and collectivist schemes which are not Biblical or theological. It is a shame that Catholic theologians, who should know better (yeah, the Pope, too), have swallowed so much of it.
Gene - Social Justice is not, as you assert, based on cheap political ideology. Nor is it an un-Biblical collectivist scheme.
“The Church’s social teaching finds its source in Sacred Scripture, beginning with the Book of Genesis and especially in the Gospel and the writings of the Apostles. From the beginning, it was part of the Church’s teaching…[It was] developed by the teaching of the Popes on the modern “social question,” beginning with the Encyclical Rerum Novarum.” (St. Pope John Paul II, On Human Work, 3)
Neither is the justice spoken of in Sacred Scripture merely an "eschatological" justice.
"Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’" (Matthew 25)
None of these acts of justice are eschatologically oriented. They are oriented specifically to the real, concrete human experience on this side of the tombstone. We cannot wait for the coming of the kingdom to bring justice; rather, we are commanded to work for justice here and now.
Gene, as usual, hits the nail firmly on the head. Justice, like truth, is not a relativist concept. Go back to the French Revolution and you find classically educated and intelligent men espousing the idea of 'revolutionary justice' which reduces the concept to the collective will of the mob. The nineteenth century was a welcome rational interlude but in the twentieth this perversion of justice was writ large in Bolshevism and Nazism.
The 21st century concept of 'social justice' is no different, and is made yet more sinister by the fact that its proponents insist that it is wholly benign and those who might question it are ipso facto wicked.
Not wicked, simply wrong.
"The Church’s social teaching finds its source in Sacred Scripture"
Straw man? Inasmuch as every faithful Catholics accepts wholeheartedly our obligations to biblical justice and charity.
Whereas the typical diocesan "social justice" office in this country is too often merely an instrument of political action--sometimes verging on secular multiculturalism or even supporting abortion directly or indirectly--rather than true Christian charity.
Unlike, thankfully, the Justice and Peace office in my own diocese, whose director is a faithfully believing Catholic (and former Marine colonel), and whose mission statement says
"The Justice and Peace Office’s mission is to foster peace, justice, and the building up of a culture of life through an accurate and properly nuanced portrayal of the rich treasury of the church’s social teaching, which is born of “the encounter of the Gospel message and of its demands summarized in the Supreme Commandment with the problems emanating from the life of society” (Libertatis Conscientia, No. 72)."
Kavanaugh, those teachings of Jesus' in Matthew are specifically some of the most eschatological elements in the NT. The quote from JP II does not use the term "social justice." Again, you are poorly educated and deliberately obtuse.
Fr K, 'simply wrong' will not do. It's not a black-and-white issue and those who are wary when absolute concepts like freedom and justice are qualified in this way have a point.
A slave owner might claim that his slaves have freedom from unemployment - indeed this was an argument used by the rulers of the former Soviet bloc who claimed that their subjects had freedoms which their Western counterparts lacked. They also argued that their 'social justice' was a higher ideal than the bourgeois concept of justice, and used this to justify injustice.
Father Kavanaugh
Social justice (if one defines it as espoused and defined in Mathew 25) has in our modern world (thanks to the overwelming interposition and influence of government) become devoid of any personal investment. So it is no longer true charity emanating from the impetus of Christ-like mercy. Since monies that fund these social programs are automatically deducted from one's paycheck in the form of taxes, the social obligation to aid the needy for most has become no different than paying the light or water bill, with the exception of " I was in prison and you visited me". Now, it is to be acknowledged that individual charity unfortunately will not meet what is necessary to adequately address the problems of those in need. Is it to much to ask or expect however that there can be more subsidiarity, good stewardship,accountability and better resource allocation in addressing the problems of those in need? And a greater allowance for Christian charitable endeavors with no government string attached?
Gene:
Please take a look at the papal documents listed in the following link (even a quick scan will suffice). It is just not possible seriously to maintain that Popes since the end of the nineteenth century (very much including Pope St. John Paul II) have not been very concerned with matters of justice in this world (including economic justice), whatever term you want to use to describe it:
https://educationforjustice.org/catholic-social-teaching/encyclicals-and-documents
The correct move here is the one the Popes make – distinguishing Catholic social teaching from ideologies of the Left and the Right and everything in-between. That means, too, that Catholics cannot be beholden to a particular political ideology or political party but we have to form our political conscience in light of the entirety of Catholic teaching not just the bits to which we might incline more easily for whatever reason. Thus, I bet you that each one of us is challenged by some part of Catholic teaching and what that challenge is varies from person to person.
But if I don’t get to pick and choose, cafeteria style, you don’t either by unduly emphasizing eschatology in matters of justice.
P.S. The previous post was addressed especially to Gene. I am unsure if the name made it through the cyber-gauntlet.
Gene - Matthew 25 is a parable of judgment. Those standing before the Lord are being judged on what they did or did not do in this life, on this side of the tombstone. Those who do not act with justice toward those in need are condemned to hell.
Also, St. Pope John Paul II spoke of the Church's "social teaching." That includes the Church's teaching on social justice.
John - It is simply wrong to assert that social justice is not biblically based and that social justice has not been part of the Church's teaching ab initio. See the quote from St. Pope John Paul II in that regard.
Henry - I know many, many individuals who work in free clinics, food and clothing pantries, soup kitchens, etc. They are very much engaged in living out the Church's teaching as individuals.
The parish in which I serve is a tithing parish - we give 10% of our regular income to local charities and the good folks of this parish regularly volunteer there time in the organizations we support.
I'm afraid we're talking at cross purposes here, different people using the term "social charity" with different meanings.
Some are referring to "social justice" in the biblical sense of practicing Christian charity, which surely is wholehearted supported by every sincere Catholic.
Others are referring to "social justice" in the secular political sense, which in present practice sometimes has little to do with Christian charity. Cf. 1 Corinthians 13:3 from today's EF Epistle for Quinquagesima Sunday:
"And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh :
" I know many, many individuals who work in free clinics, food and clothing pantries, soup kitchens, etc. They are very much engaged in living out the Church's teaching as individuals."
Yes. Every parish has these kind of ministries and those who are involved with them. I didn't intend to omit their contribution and I commend them for their contributions.In my previous comment, I was referring to most social programs and aid to the needy today which are funded and administered by the impersonal leviathan of government which imposes secular requirements on these which in some cases run counter to Christian beliefs. It also should be noted that social justice and charity are not synonymous terms to everybody.
Henry - Good point. Here's a definition of Social Justice: "The virtue that inclines one to co-operate with others in order to help make the institutions of society better serve the common good. While the obligation of social justice falls upon the individual, that person cannot fulfill the obligation alone, but must work in concert with others, through organized bodies, as a member of a group whose purpose is to identify the needs of society, and, by the use of appropriate means, to meet these needs locally, regionally, nationally, and even globally. Implicit in the virtue of social justice is an awareness that the world has entered on a new phase of social existence, with potential for great good or great harm vested in those who control the media and the structures of modern society. Christians, therefore, are expected to respond to the new obligations created by the extraordinary means of promoting the common good not only of small groups but literally of all humanity."
(From Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary)
Social Justice is accomplished by individuals, most often operating cooperatively.
Institutions can be a neighborhood aid organization or a State Department of Family and Children Services or a national program such as Social Security.
The "new phase" of social existence was recognized by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum. "That the spirit "of revolutionary change" (there's the "rerum novarum"), which has long been disturbing the nations of the world, should have passed beyond the sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the cognate sphere of practical economics is not surprising." (RN 1)
The changes in the structures of society - families, neighborhoods, villages, corporations, cities, nations - are obvious, I hope.
Our actions directed to promoting social justice are, by definition, aimed at promoting the common good.
Yes, in the first draft of my comment I had included the phrase “including an appropriate role for the state” in what the papal documents recognized but then thought I should save it for follow-up. Father Kavanaugh makes the point very well. And Henry mentions the important principle of subsidiarity in striking the necessary balance among different levels and centers of responsive action.
Kavanaugh, The entire Gospel of Matthew is about the coming of the Kingdom, the apocalyptic coming of the Kingdom, and not about social justice in this world. Sorry, you are simply wrong.
"One of Matthew's chief characteristics is its emphasis upon apocalyptic eschatology, which is heightened and underscored repeatedly. Most of Matthew's parables are given this strongly apocalyptic-eschatological emphasis, and the climax is the great panorama of the Last Judgement in 25:31-46."
Now, read this with your humanistic "social justice in mind, "The evils of the present…religious insincerity and hypocrisy, greed, false teaching, a human tradition which obscured the divine commands and substituted the minutiae of petty legal rulings for the basic requirements of 'justice, mercy, and faith' these features of the religion of Jesus' day are leading directly to the Day of Judgement. No OT prophet, no Jewish apocalypticist, no Qumran or Essene sectary, no Stoic, no Cynic on the street ever castigated the evils of the time in more searching, more inescapable invective." (The Origins of the Gospel of Matthew. M. Black.) (G. Kilpatrick. The Origins of the Gospel According to Matthew.)
I dont think we can limit Christ's admonitions merely to the eschatological realm, here. We have an obligation, here and now, to care for the least among us. In fact, the measure of our care in this regard influences our personal judgment. (As a matter of fact, in the Eastern Church, today is Judgment Sunday, where we hear about our duty toward our fellow man in terms of the separation of the sheep and the goats from the Gospel of St. Matthew).
So, as in most things, there is this balance. We have this duty in the present life to care for the poor, the sick, the suffering, the captives among us. But, we cannot hope, through our mere human efforts, to obtain a utopia on earth. Still, we have the obligation to care for people, both the body and the soul, and to prepare for the resurrection of all things in Christ.
There is both an immediate practical and an eschatological element at play here. This is Christian social justice--to love one another as Christ has loved us, and thereby to love Christ.
As a practical matter, please pray for my state of Alabama as it seeks to execute a man on this coming Thursday. Although he is not one of my clients, his case will impact many of my clients who are condemned to die and who are similarly situated, as well as friends of this man whose death date is February 19th.
Marc, the argument was over the eschatological/apocalyptic nature of the Gospel of Matthew, which is a given among pretty much all NT scholars and theologians. That fact does not negate in any way our obligation to obey and serve in this world. It does, however, give the lie to social justice/humanitarian collectivist schemes and to those who would try to make a horizontal "Christian ethic" out of Christ's teachings and to priests like Kavanaugh who will not even confess his belief in the Real Presence and Resurrection when asked directly by another blogger. People like this, mired in unbelief, have no place for eschatology in their thinking. It has to be now, in this world…in history... or never. Some hope, that.
Gen - You make things up as you go along in order to make your own self-serving eisegesis look good.
Cite one place where I have proposed or espoused a "social justice/humanitarian collectivist scheme." You can't do it because I have never done so.
You assert that Jesus preached a "highly individualistic ethic," yet the Church teaches an ethic based on the Common Good, not the individual good. This is not an individual ethics but a communal ethic.
You assert that the notion of social justice is, "largely cheap political ideology used as a tool for social engineering and collectivist schemes which are not Biblical or theological." Yet the Church teaches that social justice is both biblical and theological.
Even in the face of authoritative papal teaching which directly contradicts your assertions you will not acknowledge that your views do not reflect the Church's teaching.
As Jesus was both in time and beyond time, the work of redemption is both this worldly and other worldly. As with all false teaching, you take a truth and run it to the extreme.
I think I understand your point, Gene. It seems to me that the tendency to turn Christianity into a mere system of morality and legalistic judgment has caused this horizontal "be good to people" ethic. That reductionist idea results in basically a legal code of rules not to break and positive obligations toward each other. In turn, then, one is left ultimately with the idea of simply "being good." This is another instance of rationalism in religion leading to atheistic systems. It is a short jump from a Christian morality of "being good" to communism, wherein one is "good" through the governmental institution as a replacement for individual love and relationship with others.
Since Christianity is not mere morality, but a life of love and relationship--with God and each other--there is no tension between these concepts, that is when the faith is taught and believed correctly.
So, you are right to say that it is a lack of faith (or perhaps erroneous faith) that leads to a misunderstood "social justice" with ends in the present life only, i.e. comfort both physical and moral.
Marc, 2/15 @ 9:17
We are praying now...
mikey, Marc understands what I meant. You just refuse to get it…and my comment was regarding "people like this" not you in particular. Again, it is commonly understood NT theology that Jesus taught a highly individualistic ethic. Books have been written about it. The Church is an ecclesia of like minded people all trying to follow Jesus' highly individualistic ethic together. If it is a "communal ethic" there is no need for individual Confession…a general confession a la protestantism would do just fine.
Marc, you asked for prayer and I'm praying. The more that join in the better.
Different aspects of "social justice" and what it does or does not mean have been brought up here, but you bring up an important one and that is prayer. I would also add fasting and alms-giving.
Therese of Lisieux never worked in a clinic, food and clothing pantry or soup kitchen. Until her passing from this life, she never left the monastery. Yet did she not do what God desired of her? She and other contemplatives in her time and ours surely have done and continue to do much good for the Church and the world. Those of faith and of the Faith understand such things.
As it says in Corinthians 12:
There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. To each individual the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit.
Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety.
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it
Post a Comment