Advice to homilists: Please get to the point in six or eight minutes

[FAB]

I think that telling people what the sins are and their gravity will resolve their lack of faith formation and development and will cause them to re-think whether they should go to confession, make a firm purpose to amend their ways, then go to the communion rail.

I think that somehow they do not really believe that they are sinners, or at least not grave sinners on many issues - for example, missing Sunday Mass.

Psss! Psss! If you are a real Catholic then you know that you must go to confession if you miss Sunday Mass before you can go to the Holy Eucharist, else you are committing another grave sin. Pass it on! But not too loudly because I don’t want to offend those who are not as strong in faith as we are and drive them from church attendance, being as it is so weak as it is. What? You’ve never heard it from the pulpit. Well, trust me, I know what I’m saying as a lay person and, I’m so better formed in my faith than you are. I’m sure if you talked to a deacon or priest, he would tell you the same thing and back me up. They have so much to do, that they don’t have time to tell you all the sins that are heaven-stoppers from the pulpit. The important point that they stress is that you should receive the Holy Eucharist often.

Hell and brimstone doesn’t get the result it once did, if it ever did. Certainly it wasn’t the way Jesus thought.

 

[OriginalJS]

I have sat through a lot of bad homilies. I think the homilists have not been taught elements of effective public speaking including getting immediately to the point (not wasting precious minutes). Having only one major point. Discussing the point. Reviewing the point made. And closing while listeners are still interested. A well-prepared presentation can interest most people for about twenty minutes. After that their thoughts start to ramble elsewhere because their attention span has run out. If the homilist hasn’t made his point in twenty minutes, he isn’t going to make it no matter how long he stands and rambles.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I have sat through a lot of bad homilies. I think the homilists have not been taught elements of effective public speaking including getting immediately to the point (not wasting precious minutes). Having only one major point. Discussing the point. Reviewing the point made. And closing while listeners are still interested. A well-prepared presentation can interest most people for about twenty minutes. After that their thoughts start to ramble elsewhere because their attention span has run out. If the homilist hasn’t made his point in twenty minutes, he isn’t going to make it no matter how long he stands and rambles.

You’re being too kind. Actually, if a homilist hasn’t made his point in 5 or 6 minutes, he isn’t going to. That said, I’d argue that it’s a little more subtle than just getting to, hammering, and reviewing “the point.” People need to be drawn in, the Scripture needs to be unpacked / explained in a way that is relatable to the individuals, and then some kind of application and personal challenge or call to conversion based on the message. A good homily has movement in it, not just the repetition of a static “point.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

it’s a little more subtle than just getting to, hammering, and reviewing “the point.” People need to be drawn in, the Scripture needs to be unpacked / explained in a way that is relatable to the individuals, and then some kind of application and personal challenge or call to conversion based on the message. A good homily has movement in it, not just the repetition of a static “point.”

And sometimes that movement does take more than 5, 6, or 8 minutes – even in a skilled & concise orator. That’s why these arbitrary numbers are meaningless to me. Too many people conscious of their watches, i.m.o., not immersed patiently in the present moment. Mass is not a race. It’s supposed to be the one moment in our week (if we have only one such moment that week) to slow down, forget about clocks, watches, cell phones, and hypercritical attitudes, and to receive humbly, patiently, instead of passing judgment on priests who give their entire lives to service of us, laypeople.

Apparently I’m the only lucky forum member out of thousands. The vast majority of homilies have something to offer me – whether it’s what I “planned” to hear that day, want to hear that day, whether it meets with some high-and-mighty arbitrary time-frame of mine, or whether the real lesson I need to learn is to be tolerant of the humanity of others.

Hmmm.

 

[wynnejj]

Hell and brimstone doesn’t get the result it once did, if it ever did. Certainly it wasn’t the way Jesus thought.

How would you or I know? Hell & brimstone aren’t generally used in today’s sermons, and church attendance & vocations have been in steady decline. Hmmm!. You say Jesus did not threaten with hell & brimstone. Really? Just search the NT for the word Gehenna or the word Millstone. Have you ever read any of the sermons of Saint John Vianney? Hell & brimstone figure quite prominently and, he is considered the patron saint of priests - so maybe it worked at one time. And, talk about relevance to the real world of his contemporary society. Saint John Vianney’s sermons were often about how to protect young persons from the ways of the world, especially in matters of purity & chastity.

Of course, that was then but this is now…
lifesitenews.com/news/preach-on-uncomfortable-subjects-pope-tells-priests

The pope’s address came less than a week after the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops had called on priests to tackle issues like contraception, sterilization, and IVF in their homilies – topics which are often ignored due to their controversial nature. In a publication released March 4th, the bishops urged priests to “foster an understanding of Church teachings on life and chastity” through “homilies, and through bulletin inserts and announcements citing good articles on these teachings.”

 

[FAB]

How would you or I know? Hell & brimstone aren’t generally used in today’s sermons, and church attendance & vocations have been in steady decline. Hmmm!. You say Jesus did not threaten with hell & brimstone. Really? Just search the NT for the word Gehenna or the word Millstone. Have you ever read any of the sermons of Saint John Vianney? Hell & brimstone figure quite prominently and, he is considered the patron saint of priests - so maybe it worked at one time. And, talk about relevance to the real world of his contemporary society. Saint John Vianney’s sermons were often about how to protect young persons from the ways of the world, especially in matters of purity & chastity.

Of course, that was then but this is now…
lifesitenews.com/news/preach-on-uncomfortable-subjects-pope-tells-priests

Like I said, not the result it once did.

 

[wynnejj]

I think that I’ve said as much that I can say about the need for relevant “uncomfortable subjects”.

For your information…
‘Preach on uncomfortable subjects’ pope tells priests by Patrick B. Craine
lifesitenews.com/news/preach-on-uncomfortable-subjects-pope-tells-priests

References this speech …
MEETING WITH THE PARISH PRIESTS OF THE ROME DIOCESE
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110310_parroci-roma_en.html

And this USCCB article…
Finding Truth and Peace this Lent By Susan E. Wills on March 4, 2011
old.usccb.org/prolife/publicat/lifeissues/030411.shtml

From the pope’s speech, I draw your attention to the following statements …

“I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public” (Acts 20:20).

After a few more sentences St Paul returns to this point and says: “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God” (v. 27). This is important; the Apostle did not preach an “à la carte” Christianity to suit his own inclinations, he did not preach a Gospel to suit his own favourite theological ideas; he did not shrink from the commitment to proclaiming the whole of God’s will, even an inconvenient will and even topics of which he was personally not so enamoured.

It is our mission to proclaim the whole of God’s will, in its totality and ultimate simplicity. But it is important that we teach and preach — as St Paul says here — and really propose the will of God in its entirety. And I think that if the contemporary world is curious to know everything, even we ourselves must be more curious to know God’s: what could be more interesting, more important, more essential for us than knowing God’s wishes, knowing God’s will and God’s face?

This inner curiosity should also be our own curiosity to know God’s will better, more fully. We must therefore respond and reawaken this curiosity in others: truly to know the whole will of God, in order to become thoroughly acquainted with God’s will, hence to know how we can and should live and to recognize what is the path of our life.

“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the Church of the Lord which he obtained with his own Blood” (v. 28).

I start with the words “take heed”. A few days ago I gave the Catechesis on St Peter Canisius, an apostle of Germany at the time of the Reformation and a word of this Saint has stayed in my mind, a word that for him was a cry of anguish in his time of history. He said: “You see, Peter is asleep, Judas is awake”. This is something that gives us food for thought: the sleepiness of the good. Pope Pius xi said: “it is not the negative forces that are the great problem of our time, but rather the somnolence of the good”.

 

[wynnejj]

If we were to treat them as tax collectors and gentiles as Christ did, we would site down with them at a meal, pray for them, heal them, forgive them there sins and tell them to sin no more.
This sounds like what was preached. Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Jesus suggested that incorrigibles should be treated as Jews commonly treated tax collectors and Gentiles.

The Pope Stresses the Need for Fraternal Correction in Christian Life…
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-stresses-need-for-fraternal-correction-in-christian-life/

Here is the pope’s address…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20110904_en.html

The CNS article does not mention the “tax collector and gentile” ultimate treatment, but the pope does.

And what if my brother does not listen to me? In today’s Gospel Jesus points to a gradual approach: first, speak to him again with two or three others, the better to help him realize what he has done; if, in spite of this, he still refuses to listen, it is necessary to tell the community; and if he refuses to listen even to the community, he must be made to perceive that he has cut himself off by separating himself from the communion of the Church.

 

[Brendan]

Hell and brimstone doesn’t get the result it once did, if it ever did. Certainly it wasn’t the way Jesus thought.

That’s true, Christ just insulted them instead…

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean

MT 23:27

There is a lot to be said for being Christlike

 

[FAB]

Jesus suggested that incorrigibles should be treated as Jews commonly treated tax collectors and Gentiles.

The Pope Stresses the Need for Fraternal Correction in Christian Life…
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-stresses-need-for-fraternal-correction-in-christian-life/

Here is the pope’s address…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20110904_en.html

The CNS article does not mention the “tax collector and gentile” ultimate treatment, but the pope does.

The person who refuses to change cuts himself off from the communion of the Church. He says nothing about treating them harshly. As a matter of fact, if we follow the example of both JPII and Benedict with there dealings say with SSPX, who have cut themselves off, the door has never completing been closed on them and efforts continue to bring them back into the fold.

 

[FAB]

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean

That’s true, Christ just insulted them instead…

MT 23:27

There is a lot to be said for being Christlike

Certainly a warning to change one’s way. Certainly one can find those in there community who want to hear contraception condemned as well as other immoral acts, but yet they inside are as unclean as the pharisees to which Jesus Spoke.
But to those who came to Him, Jesus offered forgiveness, not condemnation. Those who come to church are looking for that same compassion.

 

[wynnejj]

The person who refuses to change cuts himself off from the communion of the Church. He says nothing about treating them harshly. As a matter of fact, if we follow the example of both JPII and Benedict with there dealings say with SSPX, who have cut themselves off, the door has never completing been closed on them and efforts continue to bring them back into the fold.

Adhering to the instruction that he must be made to perceive that he has cut himself off by separating himself from the communion of the Church, would you suggest that this directive would be best served by letting the person know that presenting himself at the communion rail for the Holy Eucharist would be sacrilegious?

 

[FAB]

Adhering to the instruction that he must be made to perceive that he has cut himself off by separating himself from the communion of the Church, would you suggest that this directive would be best served by letting the person know that presenting himself at the communion rail for the Holy Eucharist would be sacrilegious?

The state of someone’s soul when they come for communion is a matter between that persons conscience and the Lord. Since recieving communion is a spiritual healing, we can let the Lord to His work in the person.
You seem to want the homilist to bring up these subjects, the question is how often? every week? every month? once a year?
There is also the knowlege that the people in the pews already know the teachings of the Church,and a homilist address such issues as the readings indicate.

 

[wynnejj]

The state of someone’s soul when they come for communion is a matter between that persons conscience and the Lord. Since recieving communion is a spiritual healing, we can let the Lord to His work in the person.
You seem to want the homilist to bring up these subjects, the question is how often? every week? every month? once a year?
There is also the knowlege that the people in the pews already know the teachings of the Church,and a homilist address such issues as the readings indicate.

There is the crux of my problem with modern day homilies. The message is one should receive the Holy Eucharist whether or not one has been engaging in serial serious sin without fraternal correction and without the concept that they are receiving the Holy Eucharist sacrilegiously. This assumption of knowledge of the severity of the sins that are commonplace without the issue coming from the pulpit at the very venue where the sacrilege takes place is simply proclaiming a half truth about the scriptural readings.

In my circle of friends, a father whose marriage was annulled is having trouble with her daughter who wants to move in with her boyfriend - and has now done so. When visiting her father, she reluctantly goes to Sunday Mass with him and receives the Holy Eucharist. I’m not sure that she has been fraternally corrected about receiving the Holy Eucharist in error, but the message from the pulpit is to receive it for spiritual healing regardless. That is how the message comes off repeatedly. The daughter considers the father to be old school whereas the new religion which does not confront secular values is more amenable to be so forgiving as to be infirm in their belief systems. The orthodox beliefs are derided as being “Oh. You have to realize he/she are re-e-a-all Catholics”, as one niece referred to their grandfather and grandmother. As if there is not one true reading of what is right & wrong.

So the approach to the Holy Eucharist should be kind of like voting… you must vote and vote often without a correct sense of principled proportionate reasoning recognizing that there are some non-negotiables? Is that the new Catholic audacity of hope & change?

 

[Brendan]

Certainly a warning to change one’s way. Certainly one can find those in there community who want to hear contraception condemned as well as other immoral acts, but yet they inside are as unclean as the pharisees to which Jesus Spoke.
But to those who came to Him, Jesus offered forgiveness, not condemnation. Those who come to church are looking for that same compassion.

There might be some who would seek to see contraception preached against while having an active desire to not to seek to reform their own lives…but I am unaware of any such person.

The ones I am aware of who seek to have sin preached against in the parishes also desire to reform their own lives, in accordance with Church teaching.

That is part of the call to have sin preached against.

The condemnation that Christ had for the Pharissees applies to all who think they are sinless, as the Pharisees did. That was their hypocrosy.

So for a person who come to Church thinking that when they perform acts that the Church has condemnded, that they somehow remain sinless; they are they hypocrites that Jesus called 'whitewashed tombs".

Those in the pews that recognize their sin, as taught by the Church, and come to Christ asking for forgiveness and begging for Mercy, are more like the woman with the alabaster jar. They see their sins for what they are, an offense against God, and beg for Mercy.

The very act of seeking compassion, as you mentioned, by definition, means they recognize a fault, error or failing that the one seeking compassion recognizes.

As Pope Benedict noted, modern society has lost it’s sense of sin. They cannot ask for compassion, as they recognize no fault in what they do. The task of the Church, then is to restore the sense of sin so that the people might seek compassion and ask for forgiveness and mercy.

That is what Christ preached and that is what He desires most.

 

[FAB]

There is the crux of my problem with modern day homilies. The message is one should receive the Holy Eucharist whether or not one has been engaging in serial serious sin without fraternal correction and without the concept that they are receiving the Holy Eucharist sacrilegiously. This assumption of knowledge of the severity of the sins that are commonplace without the issue coming from the pulpit at the very venue where the sacrilege takes place is simply proclaiming a half truth about the scriptural readings.
?

Your augument is not with the Homilist, it is with Church teaching. The homilist can only direct people to have a properly developed conscience, in the end it is as I said between them and God.

 

[FAB]

As Pope Benedict noted, modern society has lost it’s sense of sin. They cannot ask for compassion, as they recognize no fault in what they do. The task of the Church, then is to restore the sense of sin so that the people might seek compassion and ask for forgiveness and mercy.

That is what Christ preached and that is what He desires most.

This is the responsibilty of all thoae who are members of the body of Christ, not just the homilist. I have preached on sin and sinful acts. I was met with cold silence. The first step to ommonis the sinner is person to person.
Before making complaints against the homilist, one should ask are they doing their part.

 

[wynnejj]

My advice to homilists: Please get to the point of authentic Church teaching in its entirety - the Do’s and the Don’ts - and take as much time as you need.

I’m done. Thanks for the chat.

 

[Brendan]

This is the responsibilty of all thoae who are members of the body of Christ, not just the homilist.

I agree wholeheartily. It IS a responsibility of the entire Body of Christ.

My point was more along the lines of an expectation of our clergy to set an example. Since it is the responsibility of the whole Body of Christ to increase the awareness of sin, the clergy should be examples of this Spriitual Work of Mercy for all to see.

In that way, those who are NOT doing their part in making know the malicious effects of sin on our brothers, and on society as a whole, can learn from their example.

I presume we can all agree that the clergy can, and should, be role models in this, as in all good things.

I have preached on sin and sinful acts. I was met with cold silence

That can be expected. Many walked away from Christ when He preached against sin, but Christ continued to do so.

 

[Sheeniac]

You seem to want the homilist to bring up these subjects, the question is how often? every week? every month? once a year?

Well, a little more frequently than never would be a good start. I am but a wretched sinner, and have heard very little about my sins. But I know several Catholics who commit the same sins and either do not think they are sins, or think they can pray and Jesus will forgive them. Yes, these are people who went to Catholic schools as well.

I think we need a mixture of carrots and sticks.