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

[ASONGAYI_VENARD]

The altar of Sacrifice and the altar of the word are inseparable. The Word who speaks to us from the altar of the word is the Word who became flesh, who gives Himself to us as the One Sacrifice, One Victim, One Priests, One Altar - Jesus Christ who IS the Eucharist. Just as one cannot be Catholic enough to neglect the importance of the Eucharist, one cannot be Catholic enough to neglect the value of the altar of the word.

Why will I spend two hours on a meeting involving some financial gains and be so impatient with listening to Jesus in the homily for twenty minutes? Why am I not bothered with a one and a half hour lecture on isotopes, balance of payment, Hitler and the Jews, terrorism, etc but I cannot spare twenty five minutes communicating with Jesus in a homily? I sit before a psychiatrist and a counsellor and tell my story for ten to fifteen minutes. They speak to me for fifteen minutes and I find nothing wrong with the sum up time. But when I listen to a homily, the dialogue with Jesus above ten minutes is boring nonsense. Yes, a dialogue because I listen to Him and the words provoke immediate searches and responses in me - that is why when I rise and say “I believe”, it is not babbling; I know what I am professing, what I believe in that I just heard.

In this world of restlessness, of attempts to do and get all, to miss nothing out, for my welfare, I am bound everyday to ask myself the question: Is it a matter of time, content or priority? The answer comes when I have ten patients in their pains before me in the hospital crying to be attended to almost simultaneously, when though I am tired one movie lures me to sleep while another keeps me awake, and when I am faced with accepting a friend for a visit at the same time I had set for Eucharistic adoration.

May the Virgin Mary teach us to ponder over many things in our heart

 

[OriginalJS]

I have heard so many homilies that fail to follow basic principles of public speaking that suggest you (1) tell them what you are going to tell them (2) tell them what you have to say and (3) tell them what you told them. Last Sunday I listened to a lengthy homily a priest read from typewritten pages. It was great in substance, but the delivery was terrible. Most in attendance were just waiting for it to be over. I believe a lot of priests would benefit from a college freshman speech class.

 

[David_Castlen]

Advice to homilists: Please get to the point in six or eight minutes
by Peter Finney, Jr. … Catholic News Service

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103239.htm

"The Pew Foundation looked at why young adults are leaving the church, and the first reason the study gave was poor preaching,"

This article suggests that the crux of the issue of poor preaching causing youth to leave the church is a matter of style over substance.

Whereas the point of “keep it simple & short” is a good principle, there is a more critical factor:
Keep it relevant to our society with practical advice about applying principles with respect to both God’s Vision & God’s Boundaries.

My opinion, the Sunday sermons that I hear do not tend toward the most relevant issues of our day that are destroying society by destroying families. While the sermons are good about describing the Do’s, they neglect to describe the Don’ts.

God bless you but I think you are completely wrong. People leave church because of their lack of interest in what they are not sure of: Jesus Christ the ultimate lover. They have not accepted His church. We are not Catholics to be entertained but to get closer to Christ. I used to hear (when I was a Baptist), “I am leaving this church because I am not getting fed.” What !!! we are to worship. If we are not getting our feeling satisfied, so what!!! Peter Kreeft repeats an old chineese proverb in his book Catholic Christianity: Fact, Feelings and Faith were on a tight rope. As long as Faith kept her eyes on Facts all was well, but when Faith took her eyes off Facts then Faith and Feelings feel. I am sick of tierd of hearing ways to make our churchs entertainment centers. In fact, I think our main problem along with relativism is we are trying to be like the world.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The altar of Sacrifice and the altar of the word are inseparable. The Word who speaks to us from the altar of the word is the Word who became flesh, who gives Himself to us as the One Sacrifice, One Victim, One Priests, One Altar - Jesus Christ who IS the Eucharist. Just as one cannot be Catholic enough to neglect the importance of the Eucharist, one cannot be Catholic enough to neglect the value of the altar of the word.

Why will I spend two hours on a meeting involving some financial gains and be so impatient with listening to Jesus in the homily for twenty minutes? Why am I not bothered with a one and a half hour lecture on isotopes, balance of payment, Hitler and the Jews, terrorism, etc but I cannot spare twenty five minutes communicating with Jesus in a homily? I sit before a psychiatrist and a counsellor and tell my story for ten to fifteen minutes. They speak to me for fifteen minutes and I find nothing wrong with the sum up time. But when I listen to a homily, the dialogue with Jesus above ten minutes is boring nonsense. Yes, a dialogue because I listen to Him and the words provoke immediate searches and responses in me - that is why when I rise and say “I believe”, it is not babbling; I know what I am professing, what I believe in that I just heard.

May the Virgin Mary teach us to ponder over many things in our heart

God Bless You for reframing and exemplifying what I’ve been trying to say for many pages.
You truly get it.

 

[wynnejj]

God bless you but I think you are completely wrong. People leave church because of their lack of interest in what they are not sure of: Jesus Christ the ultimate lover. They have not accepted His church. We are not Catholics to be entertained but to get closer to Christ. I used to hear (when I was a Baptist), “I am leaving this church because I am not getting fed.” What !!! we are to worship. If we are not getting our feeling satisfied, so what!!! Peter Kreeft repeats an old chineese proverb in his book Catholic Christianity: Fact, Feelings and Faith were on a tight rope. As long as Faith kept her eyes on Facts all was well, but when Faith took her eyes off Facts then Faith and Feelings feel. I am sick of tierd of hearing ways to make our churchs entertainment centers. In fact, I think our main problem along with relativism is we are trying to be like the world.

What is Jesus Christ, the ultimate lover? It seems that the reason God is hidden to our senses, is so that we can concentrate and decide whether we love God in concept. It is that chaste period before marriage where two get to know each other before they commit to everlasting love. What is Jesus character? My view is that Sunday sermons today emphasize Jesus in his positive aspects of love of charity in giving, forgiving, use of the tongue, and tolerance of the sinner. The moral values are in concert with secular values in general. The missing dimension of Jesus character in Sunday sermons is intolerance of sin. When sermons do not address the forces in our society that tolerate sinner & sin, with a message of tolerate sinner but do not tolerate sin, then they do not proclaim the fullness of the Gospel message. Today we live in a world of sexual anarchy and the oppression of religious freedom. Those forces must be countered in Sunday sermons.

My view is that Facts are missing from Sunday sermons and, therefore Faith & Feelings being celebrated potentially worship a false representation of Jesus due to missing Facts. For a Catholic, where the Real Presence of Jesus is the focal point of the sacrifice of the Mass, how can young persons have the true faith touch their hearts if the hidden Jesus that they worship is the misrepresentation of Jesus of “unconditional love” without the aspect that says “If you love me, keep my commandments.”.

 

[wynnejj]

The altar of Sacrifice and the altar of the word are inseparable. The Word who speaks to us from the altar of the word is the Word who became flesh, who gives Himself to us as the One Sacrifice, One Victim, One Priests, One Altar - Jesus Christ who IS the Eucharist. Just as one cannot be Catholic enough to neglect the importance of the Eucharist, one cannot be Catholic enough to neglect the value of the altar of the word.

Why will I spend two hours on a meeting involving some financial gains and be so impatient with listening to Jesus in the homily for twenty minutes? Why am I not bothered with a one and a half hour lecture on isotopes, balance of payment, Hitler and the Jews, terrorism, etc but I cannot spare twenty five minutes communicating with Jesus in a homily? I sit before a psychiatrist and a counsellor and tell my story for ten to fifteen minutes. They speak to me for fifteen minutes and I find nothing wrong with the sum up time. But when I listen to a homily, the dialogue with Jesus above ten minutes is boring nonsense. Yes, a dialogue because I listen to Him and the words provoke immediate searches and responses in me - that is why when I rise and say “I believe”, it is not babbling; I know what I am professing, what I believe in that I just heard.

In this world of restlessness, of attempts to do and get all, to miss nothing out, for my welfare, I am bound everyday to ask myself the question: Is it a matter of time, content or priority? The answer comes when I have ten patients in their pains before me in the hospital crying to be attended to almost simultaneously, when though I am tired one movie lures me to sleep while another keeps me awake, and when I am faced with accepting a friend for a visit at the same time I had set for Eucharistic adoration.

May the Virgin Mary teach us to ponder over many things in our heart

Good post. The length of homily should be as simple & long as is necessary to get across the substance of the message.

 

[irishpatrick]

Good post. The length of homily should be as simple & long as is necessary to get across the substance of the message.

What if it takes an hour? Two?

 

[wynnejj]

I have heard so many homilies that fail to follow basic principles of public speaking that suggest you (1) tell them what you are going to tell them (2) tell them what you have to say and (3) tell them what you told them. Last Sunday I listened to a lengthy homily a priest read from typewritten pages. It was great in substance, but the delivery was terrible. Most in attendance were just waiting for it to be over. I believe a lot of priests would benefit from a college freshman speech class.

Yes. Oratory skill is definitely a factor in “poor preaching”. The article is very good in its resolve to push for better presentation of homilies. No one can disagree there. Whether longer or shorter homilies are relevant to “poor preaching” is highly questionable. Whether a long homily distracts from the realization of the Real Presence of Jesus in the sacrifice of the Mass, I totally disagree with. We go to Sunday Mass week after week. If one is distracted from the central point of the Mass, it is because one doesn’t care about the central point. Or, doesn’t believe so chooses not to think about it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Whether longer or shorter homilies are relevant to “poor preaching” is highly questionable. Whether a long homily distracts from the realization of the Real Presence of Jesus in the sacrifice of the Mass, I totally disagree with.

As do I!

Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. He, His presence, His reality, is infinite. It is not “diminished” by a 10-minute, a 25-minute, or a 50-minute homily. If people “associate” homilies and/or biblical readings with Protestantism, that is a personal, subjective association of theirs that has nothing to do with Catholic theology. Nothing.

Or if their appreciation of, reverence for, engagement with the Eucharist, is the fruit of some mental math by which they must assure themselves that “less” time is spent on Liturgy of the Word than Liturgy of the Eucharist, then again either their theological understanding is lacking, or they have some personal prejudice against all priests, who are graced with the charism of preaching through Holy Orders, and encouraged to develop and refine that charism by practice & prayer.

Many priests become better with preaching over time. And when they don’t, God still expects me, and you, and every Catholic, to listen. He expects us to come to Mass as open, receptive, humble hearers of His Word, not as mentally or emotionally resistant or resentful, – skeptical of the ‘personality’ or the ‘ego’ of the priest, which seems to me to violate charity.


As I mentioned before, I have learned to stop imposing my own vain, internal “demands” on the presider of the liturgy. Whether he’s bumbling, whether he’s a clumsy preacher, a verbose preacher, unpleasant to listen to, whether I have some personal animus against him for rational or irrational reasons – God has placed him there in my life, and made every Mass an opportunity for me to meet God throughout the Mass, not confined to the second half of the Mass, as if I know better than the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which has declared the Mass to be an integrated unit.

Many years ago, in a local and very popular parish, one of the priests there was a serious mental case. I mean borderline psychotic (according to mental health professionals who were members of the parish). Even the pastor was flummoxed about how to handle the situation. The priest in question had many run-ins with parishioners, who became frightened of him, yet until he was transferred to a non-ministerial position, he was naturally allowed to say Mass, including Sundays with homilies. For a long time I avoided every Mass he said, as did many others. Then one day I happened to attend a Mass at which he presided. He came & sat next to me during one of the readings. (I forget the reason he needed to; I was in the front pew.) I took that as a sign from God that I needed to see this man as my brother and as someone who had something to offer me, despite his many personal challenges & obstructions to his ministry.

 

[fritz43]

When the priest is at the pulpit delivering the homily, he is acting “in-persona” of Christ. He is delivering spiritual communications to people in the congregation, even though they may not be conscious of the things that directly apply to their current situations. The information usually gets processed in the subconscious and the person may “connect the dots” or have an “ah-ha” moment concerning things in their lives. In a homily, there are usually a number of points vs. “a point” and all don’t connect with our situation because they affect others in the congregation. I frequently relate points in the homily to my life and the situations i have to deal with: this spiritual communication is always on-target and leads me in doing God’s will. A not of caution: scripture tells us to test the information we receive against Church teaching and Christian behavior to avoid being mislead by Satan.

NOTE: One must think critically about what the PEW survey says as well as others!
The PEW pole about Christians leaving the church or believing something or other is very misleading. First of all, they don’t make any distinction between the people who say they are Christians (wear the label) and people who live the Faith (real deal). If they were to survey the real Christians, they would obtain a different result.

 

[wynnejj]

As I mentioned before, I have learned to stop imposing my own vain, internal “demands” on the presider of the liturgy.

This is a very important point. For years, I had my internal demands on the presider of the liturgy. Regardless of whether those internal demands are ever, ever met, their satisfaction have no bearing on the reality of the sacrifice of the Mass. So if people leave the Church, as I virtually did by going to Church but stopped reception of the sacraments for a long period, it is a real problem for the individuals that are experiencing a stumbling block to their faith. The confusion is a real problem.

I have allergies. I have been told that allergies are psychosomatic. It’s all in your head. As one doctor said, it doesn’t matter whether or not it is in your head … some people die from allergies.

 

[David_Castlen]

When the priest is at the pulpit delivering the homily, he is acting “in-persona” of Christ. He is delivering spiritual communications to people in the congregation, even though they may not be conscious of the things that directly apply to their current situations. The information usually gets processed in the subconscious and the person may “connect the dots” or have an “ah-ha” moment concerning things in their lives. In a homily, there are usually a number of points vs. “a point” and all don’t connect with our situation because they affect others in the congregation. I frequently relate points in the homily to my life and the situations i have to deal with: this spiritual communication is always on-target and leads me in doing God’s will. A not of caution: scripture tells us to test the information we receive against Church teaching and Christian behavior to avoid being mislead by Satan.

NOTE: One must think critically about what the PEW survey says as well as others!
The PEW pole about Christians leaving the church or believing something or other is very misleading. First of all, they don’t make any distinction between the people who say they are Christians (wear the label) and people who live the Faith (real deal). If they were to survey the real Christians, they would obtain a different result.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

:clapping:

Completely agree. There should be a lot more focus on abortion, from the pulpit and consistently.

 

[eafan]

wow! 6-8 minutes?! Try a typical non-Catholic charismatic service sometime. In some of those churches I used to go to I was happy if the preaching didn’t last an hour!

Yes, it is important to be relevant.


God Bless,

E.A. Fan

 

[FAB]

:clapping:

Completely agree. There should be a lot more focus on abortion, from the pulpit and consistently.

There are many ills in the world and not doubt abortion is one of the greatest. Yet it cannot be our only focus. To rid the world of abortion, we must have a true respect for life as John Paul II stated, from natural conception to natural death. This has to include to respect of life in all it’s stages and developments. All need food, home, medical care, work and all that involves the human needs.
Homilies can reflect on the rights of the unborn, the also need to reflect on Christ message as to the rights of all.

 

[wynnejj]

This Sunday’s scriptural readings were about how one reproves another in error. Talk to him privately, then bring one or two others for an intervention, then enlist church authorities. If all fails, treat him like you would a tax collector - that is, shun him. The homily that I heard this week illustrates the pattern that I see in the church to emphasize the Do’s but avoid discussion of the Don’ts. Our homilist talked about talking to him privately seeking common ground, surrounding the person in friendship, drawing the person to church functions. The emphasis was on a person who didn’t understand. It used phrases “being in communion” with fellow sinners. And, it left it right there.

This approach never reaches the point of when you employ the tax collector treatment. That is, the impression is that we never invoke the rules of the house and we always tolerate any public conduct, no matter what. All are welcome and, never does the house become a den of thieves. It was a sermon about tolerance.

Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions. - G.K.Chesterton

I think that young people leave the church because the sermons reflect an attitude of tolerance for sexual anarchy so pervasive in our society. We rarely speak against the various form of sexual anarchy that is anathema to the church’s teaching.

Our preaching style missing substance makes us a church “being in communion” with fellow sinners without convictions.

 

[FAB]

This Sunday’s scriptural readings were about how one reproves another in error. Talk to him privately, then bring one or two others for an intervention, then enlist church authorities. If all fails, treat him like you would a tax collector - that is, shun him. The homily that I heard this week illustrates the pattern that I see in the church to emphasize the Do’s but avoid discussion of the Don’ts. Our homilist talked about talking to him privately seeking common ground, surrounding the person in friendship, drawing the person to church functions. The emphasis was on a person who didn’t understand. It used phrases “being in communion” with fellow sinners. And, it left it right there.

This approach never reaches the point of when you employ the tax collector treatment. That is, the impression is that we never invoke the rules of the house and we always tolerate any public conduct, no matter what. All are welcome and, never does the house become a den of thieves. It was a sermon about tolerance.

Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions. - G.K.Chesterton

I think that young people leave the church because the sermons reflect an attitude of tolerance for sexual anarchy so pervasive in our society. We rarely speak against the sexual anarchy that is anathema to the church’s teaching.

Our preaching style missing substance makes us a church “being in communion” with fellow sinners without convictions.

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.

 

[wynnejj]

Hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we expounded upon how we hate the sin from the Sunday pulpit?

I’ve never heard a homily cover the subject of contraception. I guess we don’t really hate that sin if our public profession of faith never suggests that we hate that sin. If there is a known high percentage of contraception use in the Catholic Church and, we never profess that one should not present themselves at the altar rail if one is wilfully engaging in that action, then one can assume that we are hypocrites and vipers to young persons - are we not?

There are a litany of various forms of sexual anarchy that are pervasive in our society that are rarely even mentioned tangentially from the Sunday pulpit in my experience in all the various local churches that I’ve attended. Obviously our public profession of faith suggests that we are unsure about our hatred of the sin, or whether we really acknowledge it as a grave matter.

We act as a Catholic community without convictions.

My understanding is that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner only if the sinner hates the sin. We must preach that we as sinners must learn to hate the sin. Where better than from the Sunday pulpit?

 

[FAB]

Wouldn’t it be nice if we expounded upon how we hate the sin from the Sunday pulpit?

I’ve never heard a homily cover the subject of contraception. I guess we don’t really hate that sin if our public profession of faith never suggests that we hate that sin. If there is a known high percentage of contraception use in the Catholic Church and, we never profess that one should not present themselves at the altar rail if one is wilfully engaging in that action, then one can assume that we are hypocrites and vipers to young persons - are we not?

There are a litany of various forms of sexual anarchy that are pervasive in our society that are rarely even mentioned tangentially from the Sunday pulpit in my experience in all the various local churches that I’ve attended. Obviously our public profession of faith suggests that we are unsure about our hatred of the sin, or whether we really acknowledge it as a grave matter.

We act as a Catholic community without convictions.

My understanding is that God hates the sin, but loves the sinner only if the sinner hates the sin. We must preach that we as sinners must learn to hate the sin. Where better than from the Sunday pulpit?

Do you have the stones in your hand? You seem very ready to condemn waht you see as the sin of others. I will not augue that the faith full have may sins, including the use of contraception. The Church also teaches that each one of us is to act upon our conscience. I realize that often it is not fully or properly developed. It is doubtful that any married couple does not know the teaching on contrception. Natural family planning is taught in marriage prep.
You seem to thing that telling people how they are sinners will somehow cause them to stop. That somehow they do not already know they are sinners.
As an example, this coming week the Gospel is on forgiveness. I could preach that it is sinfull not to forgive, I suppose they might say, Oh I need to go forgive so and so. but instead I will preach on the need to forgive, how by not forving our own soul is harmed and how to seek forgivenss from God. The message is still the same, the difference is that the second way I hope my congrigation will look into their own conscience to make a change in their lives.

 

[wynnejj]

You seem to thing that telling people how they are sinners will somehow cause them to stop. That somehow they do not already know they are sinners.

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.