What makes a good homily good and a bad homily bad?

I saw this question posed around the traps recently.

When my kids were little, I always liked a homily that wasn’t too long but led to discussion in the car on the way home. A good anecdote can prick the kids ears.

1 Like

I agree that what can pick the ear and attention in a homily is desirable.

It’s my biggest problem : I often don’t listen at homilies… :smiling_face: :no_mouth:

Some african priests have a better approach. In my opinion. As they are not used to microphone and a different culture, they are usually speak more loudly, go in the nave, walk, made gesture, ask the mass attendees.

What can work for me is homilies in tradtionalist masses, as we had a time to focus ourselves before (liturgy) and the priest go up, or catch the intention.

If we want something for the children, then the priest should adress the children who are sitting close to the altar and adapt his speak.

What is good for adults are not always adapt for the children. I would be fine with some hard topics spoken to the altar, but not really in front of my children (thanskfully, they do other things that to listen).

We have also our work to do. To read the Gospel alone, or with children, before mass allows oursleves to focus more. (What I should do, but don’t often do).

But all these shape methods is pointless if the homily is heterodox or doubtful. What determine a bad or good homily is the content.

1 Like

One priest at a very well-attended Mass, either African or South Asian, I don’t recall which, had a heavy accent and knew it, so he had a sheet printed with the theological terms he was going to be using, along with short definitions, so everyone would know what he was talking about, and had the ushers to pass them out right before the homily.

It worked beautifully.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.