Homilies too weak?

  • Thread starter Thread starter observing
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Flannery O’Connor asked a friend who converted to the Catholic Faith how he became interested. He said he would attend Mass leading up to his conversion and the sermons were so horrible that he knew there must be something else there to make the people come…lol.

There are plenty of priests that are great homilists. If you happen to not be blessed with one you can find many online…

Fr. John Lankeit…check out his September 2 homily on the current crisis in the Church…


You can also find many at Sensus Fidelium…

 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
40.png
11101:
According to a Pew Poll done on why Catholics attend Mass, Catholics by and large don’t think the quality of the preaching matters, so the preachers do not really prepare.
Click to expand...
Wait – that’s one heck of a conclusion! It isn’t based on the data, even! Taking the existing data, Pew is making a claim about priests’ motives?!? That doesn’t follow directly from the data!
Click to expand...
I don’t think that the Pew Poll makes any such claim. Here’s an article about the most recent Pew Poll about Americans attending church (of all Christian faiths). Note: according to this latest Pew Poll, only about 36% of Catholics rated the value of the sermons as very important (compared to 71% of the Protestants). But I can understand the logic of that. For most Protestant services, there’s nothing more important than the sermon.

During the Catholic Mass on the other hand, encountering our Lord Jesus in Holy Communion will always be far more important reason to attend Mass for most Catholics than listening to the priest’s (or deacon’s) homily, regardless how eloquent of a speaker he might be.

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/A...ericans-go-or-dont-go-to-church-services.aspx
 
PeterT said:
I don’t think that the Pew Poll makes any such claim. Here’s an article about the most recent Pew Poll about Americans attending church (of all Christian faiths). Note: according to this latest Pew Poll, only about 36% of Catholics rated the value of the sermons as very important (compared to 71% of the Protestants). But I can understand the logic of that. For most Protestant services, there’s nothing more important than the sermon.
Click to expand...
I think that’s always a weakness of these formats that encourage ratings or comparisons. The Eucharist is clearly the most important part for any properly catechized Catholic. And that’s going to push the rating of the sermon down, as compared to protestants, because people tend to not want to rate everything as very important.
 
11101 said:
Sorry I should be clear.

I am saying, quality of preaching is a low priority for Catholics according to the polls.

So, if congregants don’t care, my guess is that priests don’t care because congregants don’t care.

Of course, that is speculation. But lack of preparation is painfully obvious when it is so.
Click to expand...
How you ever talked to priests about homilies in general?

Yes, while the majority of Catholics don’t find the homilies the most important part of the Mass, enough Catholics do place importance on the homily so much so that it’s probably the second most thing that parishioners make their displeasure known to the priests about in regards to the Mass (the music being played being the most common complaint).

So most priests I’ve known do put time and effort in preparing a homily. But as I stated earlier in this thread, not all priests are gifted homilist, so we ought to be charitable and not so critical about priests that don’t meet our expectations of what a good homilist should be.
 
He didn’t mention it… it is incessant. In his spare time If he’s importing new statues into the parish or searching out obscure devotions and inserting them in to the mass… doing his best to turn my children in to atheists
 
Likewise my friend…

We have a great core of parishioners working on the lopsidedness of the Pastor… the deanery is helping. All good things
 
Of course not… no covert ops. Just good Catholics following Church protocol.

Let me ask this hypothetical though… A group of traditionalist leaning Catholics approach priest to add extraordinary form to the mass schedule. Priest does not. Parishioners immediately to deanery, vicar for clergy and Bishop. With letter writing, withholding of tithe and campaigning with other parishioners… is that ‘evil’ as you say? Or is evil only brought about by those who don’t share your liturgical sensibilities?
 
Last edited:
That’s quite the leap of judgment based on what you know of the situation.
 
I think my point was clear. You however are assume the worst possible intent… when it is in fact otherwise.

Seems like you have a problem with parishioners expressing their views to their priest and those who the priest reports to.
 
Last edited:
godisgood77 said:
My experience is quite different than yours… my priests constantly talk about sin and hell… not to mention the Pope’s many, many comments about evil, the devil and sin. I would argue that we should spend more time taking about what TO do and a little less time talking about what NOT to do.
Click to expand...
Both should be talked about (what to do and what NOT to do). It’s unfortunate when a priest focuses mostly on one and neglects the other. A balanced approach is best. Some Sundays, fire and brimstone, other Sundays homilies of love and hope.
 
Fully agree … my point exactly thanks Peter.
 
Last edited:
PeterT said:
Both should be talked about (what to do and what NOT to do). It’s unfortunate when a priest focuses mostly on one and neglects the other. A balanced approach is best. Some Sundays, fire and brimstone, other Sundays homilies of love and hope.
Click to expand...
I’m somewhat bewildered here. Some are saying that the homilies are always about sin and hell and sometimes love and hope. As I understand it, homilies should be reflective, a teaching period of15 minutes or so of all 3 readings (4, if you include the Psalm), there connection to each other and how they apply to today.
If a priest is making the homily his time to soap box about his own agenda of hell and sin or love and hope week after week, he is not doing his job.
 
rondirect said:
40.png
PeterT:
Both should be talked about (what to do and what NOT to do). It’s unfortunate when a priest focuses mostly on one and neglects the other. A balanced approach is best. Some Sundays, fire and brimstone, other Sundays homilies of love and hope.
Click to expand...
I’m somewhat bewildered here. Some are saying that the homilies are always about sin and hell and sometimes love and hope. As I understand it, homilies should be reflective, a teaching period of15 minutes or so of all 3 readings (4, if you include the Psalm), there connection to each other and how they apply to today.
If a priest is making the homily his time to soap box about his own agenda of hell and sin or love and hope week after week, he is not doing his job.
Click to expand...
You’re correct, the homilies should be be reflective, a teaching period of 15 minutes or so of all 3 readings, so when the readings are about the love of God and the hope of salvation, the priest should expound on that and how it applies to today’s world.

And when the readings are about sin , sinful people and the risk of eternal damnation, the priest’s homily should expound on that and how it applies to today’s world.
 
rondirect said:
As I understand it, homilies should be reflective, a teaching period of15 minutes or so of all 3 readings (4, if you include the Psalm), there connection to each other and how they apply to today.
Click to expand...
Actually it is very seldom a good idea to try and cover all three readings and the Psalm.

Most Catholics are surprised to learn that the First Reading (usually from the OT), is thematically linked to the Gospel reading. The Second Reading (from the NT) is just a continuous reading through the various Epistles of the NT. It rarely has anything to do with the other readings, and when it does, it is just a coincidence.

When you see a preacher (priest or deacon) trying to link them all together there is usually one of two things going on:
  1. They are relatively new to the ministry (trying to do too much in too short a time)
  2. They are relying heavily on a homily service publication
I have attended Mass at two different parishes the same weekend and heard the priest give the same synopsis of all the readings straight from the homily service. While these publications are meant to help the homilist prepare; by simply regurgitating what it is them – almost verbatim – is really just giving the homily that some theologian wrote.

I personally never use them, because the author does not know my parish, or what is going on here.

Better to focus on the Gospel, the words of Christ our True God, and bring forth that message. Perhaps show how the OT reading illustrates the same teaching hundreds of years prior to Jesus.

God bless you all for caring so much about the Word of God,
Deacon Christopher
 
Diaconia said:
40.png
rondirect:
As I understand it, homilies should be reflective, a teaching period of15 minutes or so of all 3 readings (4, if you include the Psalm), there connection to each other and how they apply to today.
Click to expand...
Most Catholics are surprised to learn that the First Reading (usually from the OT), is thematically linked to the Gospel reading. The Second Reading (from the NT) is just a continuous reading through the various Epistles of the NT. It rarely has anything to do with the other readings, and when it does, it is just a coincidence.
Click to expand...
I’ve tried to explain this to some of my Catholic friends who believe all three readings are linked. I’ve attended Bible studies where’ the leader wants us to find the common thread in all three readings. I try to explain to them what you just wrote, but they’re very skeptical about it, thinking that all three readings must be linked somehow.
 
Well, you are exactly correct. When the Lectionary was most recently revised the Gospel accounts were set out by the synoptic authors, with John providing readings for Christmas and Easter seasons, as well as supplementing some of Year B (Mark), as it is shorter.

Then the OT readings were selected that link to those Gospels. The same with the Psalms.

The NT readings are just continuous readings from the Pauline epistles (primarily) with others from the shorter epistles.

On a Solemnity that is an obligatory day the NT reading is also thematically linked to the feast. For example, the Immaculate Conception or All Saints Day.

Among clergy when a preacher tries to force all three into a homily when the second reading has nothing to do with the others we say, “he’s trying to force a camel through the needle’s eye.”

God bless your attentiveness to hearing the Logos at Mass,
Deacon Christopher
 
Last edited:
So. do you agree, though? I mean, out of morbid curiosity, do you notice something lacking in Catholic homilies? Like, exactly what they are reputed to be? In your personal experience
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top