That’s your opinion. Not all priests would agree. I’ve seen some skilled homilists do precisely what you think is a bad idea – and do it well!
Some are good, some are average, some are bad. Some are one-trick ponies and some preach social justice, and some preach hagiographies, and some preach Scripture. In a half-century of hearing homilies, I’ve heard some of each. What my experience tells me is that I cannot validly extrapolate and think that any individual’s experience is characteristic for the entire Church. (Even my experience.
)Clearly, then, he doesn’t know what he’s doing and is trying to force camels through needles.
Thank you Deacon. What you say is so true for some, but we have 2 wonderful priests that accomplish the task I mention each week (if they are scheduled) beautifully and do not fall into 1 or 2. I know that they are not using a service publication. We have priests that do, and it is very noticeable, especially when they use notes on paper in front of them. They just know their stuff and deliver without notes.
So… let me ask you: what is it that your priest does that’s most important at Mass?
Perhaps. So, let me ask you: have you spoken to anyone who’s been ordained in the past 10 years or so, and asked him what kind of preparation in homiletics he experienced while in seminary? Is it possible that the dynamic you’re describing is a dynamic of a time gone by?
I think what we need to hear, is teaching on the readings of the day; that’s what the homily is supposed to be about.
God’s Word in 1 Cor 2:4 gives us the principle for effective preaching when St Paul writes , “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power .”
It’s not what I’m trying to say. I am trying to say that not all priests are fantastic homilists, and that’s OK – they have other talents that God has given them, and they use them in service to their ministry. But, whether or not your priest is a great homilist (or a great counselor, or a kind and smiling presence, or a great teacher), what he is, first and foremost, is the man through whom the sacraments are experienced at your parish.
I disagree. Not every person has that particular talent. All, of course, can improve their skills in one way or another. However, not all can reach all levels of proficiency. (Moreover, among those for whom this is not one of their greater talents, not all will have the motivation to improve a skill at which they have less ability – and that’s not unreasonable.)
Seminary formation fifty years ago was not what it is today.
By its very nature, it works. Just slowly.
Sometimes, those problems are with us, as we impose ourselves and our expectations on “the older generation.”
We do have to do a lot of continuing education. It takes different forms–sometimes it involves preaching, sometimes cross-cultural ministry, sometimes spirituality or any number of other related topics. My diocese provides a continuing education stipend as part of our compensation, which I’m using currently to pay tuition toward a graduate degree. There are lots of programs offered throughout the year for continuing ed. The topics are varied, of course, and when it comes to the individual and how he uses his own continuing ed money, it varies as well–some people go to conferences, others buy books and journal subscriptions. With the large number of things that a priest needs to at least be moderately knowledgeable of, perhaps we could be given a pass if preaching isn’t something we have laser focus on. Some do need to work on preaching–it is not a gift that some people possess in great measure. But as they tell us in seminary, as a diocesan priest, you don’t get to specialize.
What kind of changes, though? I’m thinking that you’re making an “apples and oranges” argument here.
As Fr George mentioned, that’s already part of the equation in many dioceses.
That’s not what I said. I’m saying that asking the clergy to conform to your personal set of expectations is not necessarily realistic or reasonable.