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

[irishpatrick]

We had another very long homily on Sat. evening.

Our Pastor really should be a professor in the Seminary. He’s a brilliant man, it’s obvious he’s a true scholar, and he knows a lot about a lot of stuff.

But he likes to hear himself talk, he’s not very well organized, and he truly believes that a 60 min. Mass is just not enough time for us to spend with the Lord. So he lectures us for 30-45 minutes. I always feel that I should be taking notes. He’s brilliant, though, and an entertaining speaker, but it’s just that the homily overshadows the rest of the Mass, and gets everyone restless and bored, and impatient for him to stop.



With many others on this thread, I feel that the Mass should be more about Jesus, less about the priest himself, or even his homily. We are there to hear the Gospel proclaimed and partake of the Eucharist, not to be adoring fans of the priest/professor.

What really galls me is that some fools in the vigil Mass will start applauding after his homily!!!



I really, really, detest that and I think if he didn’t secretly love it, he’d say something like, “Please don’t applaud in church, it’s not appropriate.”

Well said–I agree completely.

It is not about personalities, or great speakers–it is about the Lord.

 

[wynnejj]

A little black & tan terrier came up with a great way to shorten the sermon.

dog-stories.org.uk/stories/dogstory1-sermon.html

What a great sermon “watch” dog!

 

[wynnejj]

So to summarize…

What I keep hearing is that the Sunday pulpit is not the forum for professing the faith on the most relevant issues of our modern society because the homily should be short & sweet and focused on the scriptural readings. The argument suggests that the scriptural readings during the course of the whole year never lend themselves to these relevant issues of our modern society, therefore these controversial issues cannot be used as material for homilies. Or, that the subjects are too complicated or inappropriate for general audiences.

So the kids get to learn all kinds of nonsense from the entertainment industry, the internet, or the school’s themselves with regards the brave new world of the sexual revolution. Assuming parental controls are in place, they still are exposed to other kids who are exposed to the nonsense. Nevertheless, the subjects are off limits for the Sunday pulpit.

So these subjects cannot be expressed in clear, yet careful language appropriate to children of all ages, that get across the concept that indifferent attitudes towards grave matters are sacrilegious when one receives Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.

That a very saintly priest should be concerned about the length & content of his sermons so as not to draw persons to himself, despite the fact that the message is the right message whether or not people are drawn to him.

One point of agreement, adoration of the Real Presence is an essential key element towards an increase of faith. One caution is that frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist with an indifferent attitude to God’s Will may be hazardous to your spiritual health.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

What I keep hearing is that the Sunday pulpit is not the forum for professing the faith on the most relevant issues of our modern society because the homily should be short & sweet and focused on the scriptural readings. The argument suggests that the scriptural readings during the course of the whole year never lend themselves to these relevant issues of our modern society, therefore these controversial issues cannot be used as material for homilies. Or, that the subjects are too complicated or inappropriate for general audiences.

I know plenty of people who wouldn’t want their elementary school children hearing a talk on birth control, homosexuality, fornication, etc.

So the kids get to learn all kinds of nonsense from the entertainment industry, the internet, or the school’s themselves with regards the brave new world of the sexual revolution.

They should be learning it from their parents first and foremost. Secondarily all these topics should be addressed at age appropriate religious education classes.

If someone is going to ignore their parents and not care what is taught in CCD, I find it hard to believe a 10 minute or less homily is going to swing their views.

Assuming parental controls are in place, they still are exposed to other kids who are exposed to the nonsense. Nevertheless, the subjects are off limits for the Sunday pulpit.

Not necessarily completely off limits but discretion needs to be used. However, just because something isn’t talking about in a 10 minute Sunday homily doesn’t mean it can’t be addressed in another parish forum. Adult education classes and forums are excellent arenas for such topics.

 

[Sarabande]

My focus is not about criticizing homily subjects for not pushing a Pro-Life candidate.

My focus is the avoidance of subjects *** in principle *** because they are controversial.

Most notably the subject of contraception & cohabitation.

I have never heard a homily on the subject.

It is true that these subjects are rarely talked about during homilies, but I have actually heard them as well as other seemingly “taboo” subjects focused on during a few homilies in different parishes where I was either a parishioner, a visitor or a freelance musician. The priest was usually able to tie it in with the readings of the day, though. There was one priest at my previous parish who did this at least a handful of times throughout the years he was there. He actually gave very good homilies and almost always concise and to the point. Sometimes, when he brought up these subjects, it seemed like it could be harsh for some, but I think it was good for him to do this. We had a lot of students and young adults in that parish as it was a city parish and many college students and young professionals attended there, so perhaps he felt it was right to be frank about it.

I do remember once a few years back I was attending mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York with my husband (then boyfriend). The priest giving the homily was really getting into the sin of fornication. We thought it was great. Well, apparently, some people didn’t and got up and left during the homily. One older couple who looked like they were in their 40s sitting directly in front of me looked at each other like they were disgusted and left. I guess that is the chance a priest is taking when they broach subjects like that during the homily.

At our wedding, the priest, who was a close friend of ours, did go into a bit about the rate of divorce, rate of divorce of cohabitating couples during the homily. He was one of these priests who could get away with doing that kind of thing without getting people really upset with him because he was sincere, down-to-earth and jolly, yet was able to get his point across. Young adults really loved him and he worked well with them. We all loved him. It actually was a beautiful homily. At a wedding I recently cantored, the priest also spoke about divorce and cohabitation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

every homilist is simply a human being, no matter how smart, holy or clever. Therefore, the absolute pinnacle of the faith is Jesus, not a person, it is the Revealed Word and His Given Body (Communion) that are truly Divine, not the opinion of a person who often speaks of his own interpretation of Scripture readings.

Never once have I heard preaching described by any official of the Church as “opinion.” And as said before, a priest’s charism to preach has nothing to do with smartness, cleverness, or even sanctity, but rather with the charism to preach which is part & parcel of Holy Orders. You have this artificial war going on in your brain, it seems, by which you believe that word and Eucharist are inversely proportional in value: those who listen respectfully to the priest as in persona Christi must not be comprehending or accepting Jesus as “the pinnacle of faith.”

the focus must always be on Jesus and not on a “superbly” created homily. I hear incredibly few homilies expounding upon the true miracle of the Eucharist and of its potental for complete transformation in our lives.

Again, show me where, on this thread, anyone has said that the focus [of Mass] should be on a superbly created homily, because otherwise you are merely creating straw men, which you have done from the beginning here. And what evidence do we have that your anecdotes are similar proof? Unless every Catholic who has ever dared to express appreciation for a homily has told you that they attend Mass to hear a celebrity priest, and that they believe that the focus of the Mass is the homily, we have only your assumptions about how you would have access to other people’s private motives known to God alone.

Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” To my knowledge, I cannot recall Jesus ever saying anything as strong about reading and studying Scripture,

John 8:31-32:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

though St. Jerome once said : “…ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Yet, Catholics hear more Scripture during Mass, than any other Church.

No matter how much you back-pedal now, you cannot resolve this contradiction; you admit to St. Jerome’s words, but you continually undermine the role of our priests in preaching (not just reading) scripture, and especially (naturally) the Gospel. He’s “a mere man” when preacing the Gospel, but suddenly, during that same Mass, he becomes in persona Christi when consecrating bread and wine. Rather you have set scripture artificially against the Eucharist, as if they are at war with each other.

Many times I have heard Catholics say things like, “Oh, I want to go to Parish-A because the homilies are sooo good there.” It makes it a personality contest, and it takes Catholics away from what the Mass really is.

This is what’s called an anecdote. It is not projectible to the Catholic population at large. And even if “many times” you’ve heard Catholics say that, I hardly think they also said, or implied, that Eucharist means nothing, or means less.

Quite often, likely more often than not, the serious family discussion is based on one person’s interpretation of Divine realities. Keep that in mind.

Again with the anecdotes. Not recently have I heard any presiding priest offer either an insight, let alone an interpretation (of the meaning of the text) that was not authentically Catholic, approved by the Magisterium.

Today, imo, too many parishes want to be like Protestant Churches. Most Protestant Churches have one major thing: the Bible (and not even the full Bible)–they do not have confession, or Holy Orders, or the Eucharist, or the annointing of the sick, or Communion with the Saints, or a Pope, or a history that goes back to Christ, or the full Bible, etc…and on-and-on.

Protestant Churches by having long homilies. They do that because they hear from fallen away Catholics that they received “so much more” in their Protestant Church of choice. Yet, that just speaks of the poor catechesis of those Catholics.

Also, when the TLM Mass is said, the Priests know that the Catholics in attedance are there for the long haul–while most Catholics simply do not want hear long homilies, nor is it all needed. The truth is, homilies cannot fill gaps in formation. that has to be done outside Mass.

Another illogical connection: the supposition that a TLM Mass = short homily; a NO Mass = long homily; TLM Mass-goers “are there for the long haul”: other Mass-goers apparently have something else in mind; Catholics who are able to walk and chew gum at the same time (drink deeply of a homily and reverently of the Body & Blood of Our Lord) are maybe faux Catholics? Maybe they’re Protestants in disguise? (concluding from your words quoted above). Possibly people on this thread are in a position to judge the holiness, the catechesis, the personal motivation, the spirituality of each and every Catholic who merely appreciates a well-crafted homily that speaks to the theme of the feast and the theme of the scripture readings? Surprise! Homilies at my traditional parish which includes NO, OF, and EF Masses (all) have homilies of about the same length – about 20 minutes, no matter who is saying the Mass. Sometimes even 25 minutes. I have never once heard anyone complain about their length.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Grace does not flow to us from a homily (whether it is good or bad), yet a lot of Grace flows to us when we receive the Lord in Communion. …A twenty minute daily Mass contains every bit as much Grace as does a 90 minute Sunday Mass.

Since when, according to the Magisterium, can grace be constricted or restricted based on human assumptions of where the Holy Spirit will and will not work? Show me in the Catechism, first of all, where some artificial construct is put up as to “how much” or how little grace can be predicted to be received through a homily, through the reception of Eucharist, through the thoughtful action of a neighbor or even the prayer of a stranger. Grace (sacramental or actual) is not automatic. It is not mechanical. Sacramental grace is potentially powerful grace, but depends on the disposition of the recipient for the range of its effectiveness. This is classic Catholic sacramental theology. The grace is available to us; whether we are mindfully receptive to it and utilize it is another thing. There is absolutely no objective markers that Catholics who loathe homilies and prefer an exclusive focus on Eucharist are receiving any “more” grace than those who who prefer a well-integrated Mass, with well-preached Word and reverent consecration integrated together.

And by the way, Grace is not “contained” at Mass as if in a measuring cup. Grace is not measurable or confined; but more importantly, grace is a dynamic. God doesn’t “pour” grace into us statically while we passively submit. Grace is multi-present at Mass, as in our work environments and our personal lives, for us to open ourselves to and be inwardly and outwardly responsive to.

It should be a matter of, “how much of our heart our we going to give to Jesus during Mass,” not “how much will Jesus give me, or how much will a homily feed me or make me feel wonderful about myself.”

What evidence are you prepared to present that those who are receptive to an excellent homily are interested in “feeling wonderful about themselves?” What gives you the right to presume such things about people’s inner motives?

The homily is simply a speech.

From the USCCB document, Fulfilled In Your Hearing

The liturgical gathering is not primarily an educational assembly. Rather the homily is preached in order that a community of believers who have gathered to celebrate the liturgy may do so more deeply and more fully – more faithfully -and thus be formed for Christian witness in the world.

The Homily and The Liturgy of the Eucharist (from the same document)

A homily is not a talk given on the occasion of a liturgical celebration. It is “a part of the liturgy itself.” (CCC) In the Eucharistic celebration the homily points to the presence of God in people’s lives and then leads a congregation into the Eucharist, providing, as it were, the motive for celebrating the Eucharist in this time and place.

This is precisely what I have said myself, several times on this thread.

Continuing with the Bishops’ document:

The integral relation of the homily to the liturgy of the Eucharist which follows the liturgy of the word has implications for the way in which the homily is composed and delivered in the first place, the homily should flow qutie naturally out of the readings and into the liturgical action that follows. To set the homily apart by beginning or ending it with a sign of the cross, or by delivering it in a style that is totally different from the style used in the rest of the liturgy, might only reinforce the impression that the homily is simply a talk, given on the occasion of a liturgical gathering, one that could just as well be given at another time and in another context.

I fear it is too often the case when Catholics (today) will listen to the readings, and then they will sit back and think, “okay, now let’s hear an awesome speech from the Priest, something that can really get me charged-up and interested.” It makes the readings secondary. In that case the Priest’s speech becomes more important than God’s Word!

What evidence do you have that this is occurring, other than your “fear”? Why is it that you are so reluctant to be generous with your assumptions of what your Catholic brothers and sisters are (a) motivated to be, and (b) capable of being? Those of us who respect and revere good preaching regard the scriptures as being enriched by that preaching, not subordinated by that preaching.

Honestly, I do wonder sometimes why so many Catholics (including incredibly devout and faithful Catholics like there are here) do not appear to give our Lord the attention He deserves.

[bolded to show the part that I take as an indirect insult.]

 

[Elizabeth502]

If Jesus walked into a local Catholic Church, every person would honor, revere and worship Him as our God and Savior–but there He is in the Tabernacle and then later during the Consecration, and you would think (the way people act) that Communion was nothing.

You’ve been to all the parishes on the globe? Here’s what I see, and my experience is just as valid as yours: The same people who act bored and tuned-out during homilies of any length and any level of care are the same people who act casual when receiving Communion. And the people who have attentive body language and silence during the homily are the same people who receive Communion reverently. Hmmm. Funny how my experience is diametrically opposed to yours.

**==> We must also be very careful not to let people fall into a cult of personality with Priests who give flowing and booming homilies that sound impressive and come across as oh-so scholarly and correct. This has happened more than it should. **

It hasn’t happened in any of my local parishes. You know nothing about parishes you have not attended, but you presume to make voluminous assumptions based on the narrow experiences of a single human being, yourself.

It’s pretty clear to me that the entire thrust of irishpatrick’s opinions is colored by the following experience:
irishpatrick;8260407:

I once was part of a men’s non-denom

Bible study. There were several hundred men, and I had attended for about four years. Over time I began to see how under the surface the study was strongly anti-Catholic, and I knew I could not stay. One day, after visiting the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament in a nearby Catholic Church, I asked the Lord to help me make the correct decision about the Bible study. I then went to the study, but all study participants were in class, so I went to the non-denom worship space, and waited for a lecture there. I was alone in that room, which had space enough for about 1,000 people with theater-like seating. Suddenly, my heart felt crushed, and I mean really crushed to a point of near tears (and that takes a lot for me). I looked all over that room and I realized that I was indeed “alone.” The Lord was not there, there was no Tabernacle, no Blessed Sacrament, nothing but an empty room filled with comfortable chairs.

Just minutes earlier I had asked the Lord for help while I knelt before Him in the Blessed Sacrament and at that exact moment I felt an overwhelming sadness for our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, because I realized how much they were missing! I realized that no amount of Bible study, or so-called Christian fellowship, could ever replace being with, and receiving, our Risen Lord!

*Based on this ^ * personal experience…
“Therefore” Catholic homilies have little value.
“Therefore” Catholic homilies are unnecessary, but especially if they are > 10 minutes.
“Therefore” Catholics who appreciate, benefit from, beautiful, insightful homilies (regardless of length), and bring that appreciation consciously to their receipt of Eucharist, are Catholics whose reverence for the Eucharist is suspect, whose theological understanding is inferior, and possibly whose spirituality anyone on this forum is in any position to judge!
“Therefore” Catholics who can even tolerate well-prepared, focused, illuminating homilies which happen to be longer than 10 minutes, are Catholics whose priorities can be objectively said to be in error.

Sorry, but this entire thread has lost any authenticity to me. What is suspect, i.m.o., is not the understanding of those who dare to appreciate a homily with any effort to it, but the basis of reasoning of many on this thread. (Short = good; Long = bad; Short = holy; Long = dissenting, political agenda, non-authentic/non-Catholic Scripture interpretation, “cult of personality,” non-theological, non-Eucharist focused. )

ALL OF IT is unsubstianted, and is indicative of some major, major stereotypes going on.

 

[irishpatrick]

Never once have I heard preaching described by any official of the Church as “opinion.” And as said before, a priest’s charism to preach has nothing to do with smartness, cleverness, or even sanctity, but rather with the charism to preach which is part & parcel of Holy Orders. You have this artificial war going on in your brain, it seems, by which you believe that word and Eucharist are inversely proportional in value: those who listen respectfully to the priest as in persona Christi must not be comprehending or accepting Jesus as “the pinnacle of faith.”

Again, show me where, on this thread, anyone has said that the focus [of Mass] should be on a superbly created homily, because otherwise you are merely creating straw men, which you have done from the beginning here. And what evidence do we have that your anecdotes are similar proof? Unless every Catholic who has ever dared to express appreciation for a homily has told you that they attend Mass to hear a celebrity priest, and that they believe that the focus of the Mass is the homily, we have only your assumptions about how you would have access to other people’s private motives known to God alone.

John 8:31-32:

No matter how much you back-pedal now, you cannot resolve this contradiction; you admit to St. Jerome’s words, but you continually undermine the role of our priests in preaching (not just reading) scripture, and especially (naturally) the Gospel. He’s “a mere man” when preacing the Gospel, but suddenly, during that same Mass, he becomes in persona Christi when consecrating bread and wine. Rather you have set scripture artificially against the Eucharist, as if they are at war with each other.

This is what’s called an anecdote. It is not projectible to the Catholic population at large. And even if “many times” you’ve heard Catholics say that, I hardly think they also said, or implied, that Eucharist means nothing, or means less.

Again with the anecdotes. Not recently have I heard any presiding priest offer either an insight, let alone an interpretation (of the meaning of the text) that was not authentically Catholic, approved by the Magisterium.

Another illogical connection: the supposition that a TLM Mass = short homily; a NO Mass = long homily; TLM Mass-goers “are there for the long haul”: other Mass-goers apparently have something else in mind; Catholics who are able to walk and chew gum at the same time (drink deeply of a homily and reverently of the Body & Blood of Our Lord) are maybe faux Catholics? Maybe they’re Protestants in disguise? (concluding from your words quoted above). Possibly people on this thread are in a position to judge the holiness, the catechesis, the personal motivation, the spirituality of each and every Catholic who merely appreciates a well-crafted homily that speaks to the theme of the feast and the theme of the scripture readings? Surprise! Homilies at my traditional parish which includes NO, OF, and EF Masses (all) have homilies of about the same length – about 20 minutes, no matter who is saying the Mass. Sometimes even 25 minutes. I have never once heard anyone complain about their length.

I meant no insult and I apologize if it seemed I did. May the Lord bless you in your journey and thank you for the chat.

 

[irishpatrick]

You’ve been to all the parishes on the globe? Here’s what I see, and my experience is just as valid as yours: The same people who act bored and tuned-out during homilies of any length and any level of care are the same people who act casual when receiving Communion. And the people who have attentive body language and silence during the homily are the same people who receive Communion reverently. Hmmm. Funny how my experience is diametrically opposed to yours.

It hasn’t happened in any of my local parishes. You know nothing about parishes you have not attended, but you presume to make voluminous assumptions based on the narrow experiences of a single human being, yourself.

It’s pretty clear to me that the entire thrust of irishpatrick’s opinions is colored by the following experience:

*Based on this ^ * personal experience…
“Therefore” Catholic homilies have little value.
“Therefore” Catholic homilies are unnecessary, but especially if they are > 10 minutes.
“Therefore” Catholics who appreciate, benefit from, beautiful, insightful homilies (regardless of length), and bring that appreciation consciously to their receipt of Eucharist, are Catholics whose reverence for the Eucharist is suspect, whose theological understanding is inferior, and possibly whose spirituality anyone on this forum is in any position to judge!
“Therefore” Catholics who can even tolerate well-prepared, focused, illuminating homilies which happen to be longer than 10 minutes, are Catholics whose priorities can be objectively said to be in error.

Sorry, but this entire thread has lost any authenticity to me. What is suspect, i.m.o., is not the understanding of those who dare to appreciate a homily with any effort to it, but the basis of reasoning of many on this thread. (Short = good; Long = bad; Short = holy; Long = dissenting, political agenda, non-authentic/non-Catholic Scripture interpretation, “cult of personality,” non-theological, non-Eucharist focused. )

ALL OF IT is unsubstianted, and is indicative of some major, major stereotypes going on.

I meant no insult and I apologize if it seemed I did. May the Lord bless you in your journey and thank you for the chat.

 

[irishpatrick]

Since when, according to the Magisterium, can grace be constricted or restricted based on human assumptions of where the Holy Spirit will and will not work? Show me in the Catechism, first of all, where some artificial construct is put up as to “how much” or how little grace can be predicted to be received through a homily, through the reception of Eucharist, through the thoughtful action of a neighbor or even the prayer of a stranger. Grace (sacramental or actual) is not automatic. It is not mechanical. Sacramental grace is potentially powerful grace, but depends on the disposition of the recipient for the range of its effectiveness. This is classic Catholic sacramental theology. The grace is available to us; whether we are mindfully receptive to it and utilize it is another thing. There is absolutely no objective markers that Catholics who loathe homilies and prefer an exclusive focus on Eucharist are receiving any “more” grace than those who who prefer a well-integrated Mass, with well-preached Word and reverent consecration integrated together.

And by the way, Grace is not “contained” at Mass as if in a measuring cup. Grace is not measurable or confined; but more importantly, grace is a dynamic. God doesn’t “pour” grace into us statically while we passively submit. Grace is multi-present at Mass, as in our work environments and our personal lives, for us to open ourselves to and be inwardly and outwardly responsive to.

What evidence are you prepared to present that those who are receptive to an excellent homily are interested in “feeling wonderful about themselves?” What gives you the right to presume such things about people’s inner motives?

From the USCCB document, Fulfilled In Your Hearing

This is precisely what I have said myself, several times on this thread.

Continuing with the Bishops’ document:

What evidence do you have that this is occurring, other than your “fear”? Why is it that you are so reluctant to be generous with your assumptions of what your Catholic brothers and sisters are (a) motivated to be, and (b) capable of being? Those of us who respect and revere good preaching regard the scriptures as being enriched by that preaching, not subordinated by that preaching.

[bolded to show the part that I take as an indirect insult.]

I meant no insult and I apologize if it seemed I did. May the Lord bless you in your journey and thank you for the chat.

 

[irishpatrick]

To all,

I am leaving this thread. Thank you for the chat.

 

[wynnejj]

It is true that these subjects are rarely talked about during homilies, but I have actually heard them as well as other seemingly “taboo” subjects focused on during a few homilies in different parishes where I was either a parishioner, a visitor or a freelance musician. The priest was usually able to tie it in with the readings of the day, though. There was one priest at my previous parish who did this at least a handful of times throughout the years he was there. He actually gave very good homilies and almost always concise and to the point. Sometimes, when he brought up these subjects, it seemed like it could be harsh for some, but I think it was good for him to do this. We had a lot of students and young adults in that parish as it was a city parish and many college students and young professionals attended there, so perhaps he felt it was right to be frank about it.

I do remember once a few years back I was attending mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York with my husband (then boyfriend). The priest giving the homily was really getting into the sin of fornication. We thought it was great. Well, apparently, some people didn’t and got up and left during the homily. One older couple who looked like they were in their 40s sitting directly in front of me looked at each other like they were disgusted and left. I guess that is the chance a priest is taking when they broach subjects like that during the homily.

At our wedding, the priest, who was a close friend of ours, did go into a bit about the rate of divorce, rate of divorce of cohabitating couples during the homily. He was one of these priests who could get away with doing that kind of thing without getting people really upset with him because he was sincere, down-to-earth and jolly, yet was able to get his point across. Young adults really loved him and he worked well with them. We all loved him. It actually was a beautiful homily. At a wedding I recently cantored, the priest also spoke about divorce and cohabitation.

There has been much on this thread about reverence for the Holy Eucharist. You noted that some people left. Parishes, whose finances hit hard times, are always understandably worried that those who outwardly leave that day are just the tip of the iceberg of those who stay this once but will not return. However, this is the price required to make straight the path to the Lord in the Holy Eucharist.

People will leave and maybe in the state of their faith formation for what they consider proper reasons, but the truth will prove itself out somewhere in their life. Then, if they are upright, they will return to the fold knowing that they were blind and now they see.

It is good that you are seeing these brave priests covering these subjects. Someday, when the sexual revolution has lost its hold on nations and we are off fighting other contemporary devils, we will find that on the right day for such a homily as these previously “taboo” subjects, no one will be able to find a Mass anywhere where this is not covered properly.

 

[FAB]

My focus is not about criticizing homily subjects for not pushing a Pro-Life candidate.

My focus is the avoidance of subjects *** in principle *** because they are controversial.

Most notably the subject of contraception & cohabitation.

I have never heard a homily on the subject.

I did hear a homily about a couple seeking marriage being denied in their own parish due to cohabitation, but being married in our parish.

There have to be scriptural readings that lend itself during the course of the liturgical year that lend itself to this all important subject in our sexually revolting society.

There are certainly certain readings that can lend themselves on the subject of marriage. I personally don’t shy away from speaking about the importance of a sacramental marriage.
The church though does not deny a couple marriage for cohabitation. We are happy that they are seeking to make things right with the Lord.
Many deacons and priest are reluctant to speak on such issues because of the flack they get and the letters often written to their ordinary.
My pastor a few years back gave a very good homily on condemning abortion. He heard negatively from people for several weeks. This might not excuse the reason for not speaking out on moral issues, but it does help to understand why.

 

[wynnejj]

There are certainly certain readings that can lend themselves on the subject of marriage. I personally don’t shy away from speaking about the importance of a sacramental marriage.
The church though does not deny a couple marriage for cohabitation. We are happy that they are seeking to make things right with the Lord.
Many deacons and priest are reluctant to speak on such issues because of the flack they get and the letters often written to their ordinary.
My pastor a few years back gave a very good homily on condemning abortion. He heard negatively from people for several weeks. This might not excuse the reason for not speaking out on moral issues, but it does help to understand why.

Humanae Vitae is prophetic in its analysis of the effects of widespread contraception. It is rocking the faith & morals of the world. Yet, this cancer is largely untreated. A stitch in time could have saved nine. At least within the Church.

I understand the reason for marrying couples who cohabit, although I don’t understand why it isn’t relegated to a small, private ceremony. One priest told me that some couples cohabit until they can afford a big wedding ceremony. Backwards logic, when one could have a private, little cost marriage, then renew your wedding vows with a big ceremony later when there is something to truly celebrate. But that’s a topic for another thread.

When parishes do not speak out on the definition of the only valid form of sexual behavior between a husband & wife with mutual consent & open to children without ABC, all other forms being a grave matter where one should not present themselves to the communion rail, then they are not doing their duty as parish priests. Confrontation & controversy is always unpleasant, but if one belongs to a church that says it represents the whole truth without apology, one is set up from the get-go for persecution for any minor infraction.

Like me, some of us leave the communion rail for a long time simply because it appears that the Church is no different than a mother considering abortion, that they are dealing with the “unwanted” (controversy) by terminating their moral responsibility. That they are abrogating their role as Mother. Does a parish priest have the right to choose their topics of morality? Should they wait until they can financially afford to approach such topics? Who needs that kind of Mother?

 

[FAB]

Humanae Vitae is prophetic in its analysis of the effects of widespread contraception. It is rocking the faith & morals of the world. Yet, this cancer is largely untreated. A stitch in time could have saved nine. At least within the Church.

I understand the reason for marrying couples who cohabit, although I don’t understand why it isn’t relegated to a small, private ceremony. One priest told me that some couples cohabit until they can afford a big wedding ceremony. Backwards logic, when one could have a private, little cost marriage, then renew your wedding vows with a big ceremony later when there is something to truly celebrate. But that’s a topic for another thread.

When parishes do not speak out on the definition of the only valid form of sexual behavior between a husband & wife with mutual consent & open to children without ABC, all other forms being a grave matter where one should not present themselves to the communion rail, then they are not doing their duty as parish priests. Confrontation & controversy is always unpleasant, but if one belongs to a church that says it represents the whole truth without apology, one is set up from the get-go for persecution for any minor infraction.

Like me, some of us leave the communion rail for a long time simply because it appears that the Church is no different than a mother considering abortion, that they are dealing with the “unwanted” (controversy) by terminating their moral responsibility. That they are abrogating their role as Mother. Does a parish priest have the right to choose their topics of morality? Should they wait until they can financially afford to approach such topics? Who needs that kind of Mother?

The Church is fighting a secular world which increasing gives the message of anything goes. It preaches for the sacticty of marriage and is one of the strongest voices against abortion. What we do is also to weigh our message and try to meet people pastorally.
I can preach against abortion, and do, with the realaztion that over 40% the number may be higher, support in some way a woman’s right to choose. A few moments of a homily has some effect, but the Church that your are discouraged from are the congregations. Untill Caholics in large numbers and voices stop passing the buck to the clergy and take their rightfull place and live up to and promote moral behavior in everything they do, there is not much hope for improving the situation.
What I preach to a congregation, I hope already knows the message, I instruct them to spread that message. It has nithing to do with money. But hitting people over the head all the time is not a good approach pastorally.
I watch NBC this morning promote two shows. One is about a couple living together and how wonderful it is, the perfect relationship, the other is about a married couple with a baby showing the difficulties of being parents. Look at the message that is giving. If we want morality to change, we do have to insist upon it in our popular culture. Don’t watch shows that denegrate marrage and let the producers know why as well as the advertizers. Make your voice heard and just don’t blame the preacher who is doing his job.

 

[wynnejj]

The Church is fighting a secular world which increasing gives the message of anything goes. It preaches for the sacticty of marriage and is one of the strongest voices against abortion. What we do is also to weigh our message and try to meet people pastorally.
I can preach against abortion, and do, with the realaztion that over 40% the number may be higher, support in some way a woman’s right to choose. A few moments of a homily has some effect, but the Church that your are discouraged from are the congregations. Untill Caholics in large numbers and voices stop passing the buck to the clergy and take their rightfull place and live up to and promote moral behavior in everything they do, there is not much hope for improving the situation.
What I preach to a congregation, I hope already knows the message, I instruct them to spread that message. It has nithing to do with money. But hitting people over the head all the time is not a good approach pastorally.
I watch NBC this morning promote two shows. One is about a couple living together and how wonderful it is, the perfect relationship, the other is about a married couple with a baby showing the difficulties of being parents. Look at the message that is giving. If we want morality to change, we do have to insist upon it in our popular culture. Don’t watch shows that denegrate marrage and let the producers know why as well as the advertizers. Make your voice heard and just don’t blame the preacher who is doing his job.

Will you please spend more time defending the defenseless, instead of trying to defend the indefensible! Everywhere that I attended Sunday Mass, contraception & abortion was not mentioned for years & years. I sat for years & years after Roe v Wade attending Sunday Mass and never heard the word abortion mentioned or knew what it even meant. The silence was most noticeable, and still is, in the lack of prayer petitions for an end to abortion. I have yet to hear a Sunday sermon on contraception. Do you know that I began to truly believe that the abortion issue was not being pursued by bishops & priests because they knew over-population was a real issue and, that they were unsure about the answer? Please, please, please, don’t defend the indefensible. The moral leadership gave the laity what they wanted, not what they needed.

 

[FAB]

Will you please spend more time defending the defenseless, instead of trying to defend the indefensible! Everywhere that I attended Sunday Mass, contraception & abortion was not mentioned for years & years. I sat for years & years after Roe v Wade attending Sunday Mass and never heard the word abortion mentioned or knew what it even meant. The silence was most noticeable, and still is, in the lack of prayer petitions for an end to abortion. I have yet to hear a Sunday sermon on contraception. Do you know that I began to truly believe that the abortion issue was not being pursued by bishops & priests because they knew over-population was a real issue and, that they were unsure about the answer? Please, please, please, don’t defend the indefensible. The moral leadership gave the laity what they wanted, not what they needed.

Perhaps you need to go to UISCCB and pull up all the articles ans statements from our bishops against abortion. The leadership of the Church has NOT and is NOT silent on the subject. Your accusation about overpopulation is plain crazy when it comes to our bishops and preist. Your entire comment holds absolutly no water and is completely false. Our bishops and preist and deacons are on the front line against abortion and are under attack from the secular world because of our stance. Please, please, look for the truth, not some fantasy world which has been created.

 

[Sarabande]

Perhaps you need to go to UISCCB and pull up all the articles ans statements from our bishops against abortion. The leadership of the Church has NOT and is NOT silent on the subject. Your accusation about overpopulation is plain crazy when it comes to our bishops and preist. Your entire comment holds absolutly no water and is completely false. Our bishops and preist and deacons are on the front line against abortion and are under attack from the secular world because of our stance. Please, please, look for the truth, not some fantasy world which has been created.

I would agree with this. Abortion, at least in my area, is not a taboo subject with priests. They will speak out against it in their homilies. Not every week, but I’ve heard it often enough. And parishes are often very vocal about it with groups, signs on the front of the churches etc.

 

[wynnejj]

Would anyone say that that parish priests under the direction of their bishops had given the proper emphasis to killing of unwanted children from the Sunday pulpit from 1973 on, if in fact what we were talking about were mothers who were legally killing their born children in the same numbers? If your kids went to school and suddenly their playmate was not there? If your kids came home and suddenly a brother or sister were missing?

The difference is that with abortion, the real presence is hidden.

Yes, there has been more emphasis in these latter years. That was not always the case when measured against other social justice issues, given more of an equal priority.

I’ll say no more on the abortion subject because it is incendiary - to me personally as you can gauge by the heat of my arguments - and, I don’t want to foray any further onto the un-charitable side.

My apologies to FAB and others who take exception to my remarks. One might say that my sermons should be shorter & sweeter.