Laity delivering homily - what to do

[aspirant]

the Lay Witness Protocol may be alright

As fair warning: bypassing steps in the Church’s established procedures will definitely not help one’s case.

 

[John_Lilburne]

In terms of process, these extracts from the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum may be helpful:

“[181.] Whenever the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments receives at least a plausible notice of a delict or an abuse concerning the Most Holy Eucharist, it informs the Ordinary so that he may investigate the matter. When the matter turns out to be serious, the Ordinary should send to the same Dicastery as quickly as possible a copy of the acts of the inquiry that has been undertaken, and where necessary, the penalty imposed.”

“[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.”

The full document is at vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html .

 

[Elizabeth502]

You can try reasoning (charitably) with the pastor, or with the bishop, but my attempts have been unfruitful.

…and other people’s attempts, in similar situations, have been equally unfruitful.

Why does anyone believe – poster or bishop – that a pastor who would go so far as to violate directly the regulations on this which any educated priest well knows – is someone who can be “approached,” “reasoned with,” or otherwise receptive to the idea of changing his ways when a layperson goes through these formalities?

I would think the more efficient and proper thing to do would be for parishioners to inform the bishop’s office of the place and time these violations have occurred, and invite a representative of the bishop to attend for himself, without fanfare or confrontation, but with some frequency, to verify whether the report is accurate, is an exaggeration, is justified, etc. (When these violations occur, they are invariably frequent, and even on a schedule.) Then it is up to the clerical authorities to approach the pastor, once those authorities have clear evidence that even one violation has occurred.

I’m not going to argue with those who have more information than I do on the required procedures. But I think such required procedures are unenlightened, to say the least. It puts the parishioner in the vulnerable position of directly confronting someone in a significantly greater position of power, but to whom simultaneously that parishioner is dependent on, for spiritual services, for liturgical needs, etc. I have not met a single priest, even the least prideful of them, who does not feel threatened or at least uncomfortable when a parishioner challenges them on some issue like this. I don’t care how much “charity” is extended. Priests don’t like it. Period. And I can’t say I blame them. (Not for appointing lay preachers! But for having parishioners “correct” them.)

 

[Marysann]

We have family in the diocese of Rochester and in the past few years have visited fairly often. I am sure that the Vatican has received sacks of mail about the many illicit liturgical practices there. I am afraid that the only thing left to do is to wait for the retirement of the current bishop, always keeping him in your prayers. You could also attend the TLM or do what we do when visiting, attend Holy Mass at the Carmelite Monastery. It is going to be a long, hard journey for this diocese to turn around. In my experience many Catholics (at least in our family, unfortunately) here are well intentioned but completely ignorant of the teachings and practices of the Church. Heaven help the next bishop who will be tasked to clean up this mess.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m not going to argue with those who have more information than I do on the required procedures. But I think such required procedures are unenlightened, to say the least. It puts the parishioner in the vulnerable position of directly confronting someone in a significantly greater position of power, but to whom simultaneously that parishioner is dependent on, for spiritual services, for liturgical needs, etc. I have not met a single priest, even the least prideful of them, who does not feel threatened or at least uncomfortable when a parishioner challenges them on some issue like this. I don’t care how much “charity” is extended. Priests don’t like it. Period. And I can’t say I blame them. (Not for appointing lay preachers! But for having parishioners “correct” them.)

Not to argue with you () but simply offer an alternative perspective.

I agree that it isn’t an easy thing to approach your pastor. I agree that priests (and anyone for that matter) generally don’t appreciate being “corrected” by others, particularly when it is in their area of expertise.

However, consider how much worse the priest might feel if he gets called out by the bishop out of the blue without ever knowing that any of his parishioners had a problem with what he was doing. Or if he was aware that some people had a problem, he can probably already guess who it is that reported him. Only now, he gets to imagine the worst because someone didn’t even want to say anything to his face. The person then has lost the chance to diffuse the situation by approaching the priest without rancor.

 

[aspirant]

In terms of process, these extracts from the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum may be helpful

They are very helpful for people who don’t skip any of the procedural steps.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Oh, by the way, the laity given this “reflection” are always women, and almost always a very liberal interpretation of the gospel reading. We hear much about social justice, being inclusive, accepting others where they are, but rarely about the horrors of abortion, the sacraments, sin, the need for repentence, etc.

So if it was a man giving “conservative” interpretations of the gospel reading regarding abortion, the sacraments, sin, and the need for repentance then you’d be fine with it?

 

[aspirant]

I have not met a single priest, even the least prideful of them, who does not feel threatened or at least uncomfortable when a parishioner challenges them on some issue like this.

On the other hand, I’ve heard many success stories about informed people gently and charitably approaching their priests with concerns like these.

However, consider how much worse the priest might feel if he gets called out by the bishop out of the blue without ever knowing that any of his parishioners had a problem with what he was doing. Or if he was aware that some people had a problem, he can probably already guess who it is that reported him. Only now, he gets to imagine the worst because someone didn’t even want to say anything to his face. The person then has lost the chance to diffuse the situation by approaching the priest without rancor.

I completely agree.

Few are the circumstances where it might be acceptable to bypass the priest. Our first step should be one-on-one with a person who’s done wrong: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.”

 

[Tom_in_WNY]

So if it was a man giving “conservative” interpretations of the gospel reading regarding abortion, the sacraments, sin, and the need for repentance then you’d be fine with it?

No, I would not be ok with it. The priest and deacons have years of theological training and are the appropriate teachers of the faithful at the celebration of the mass. My point that I was making is that not only are these lay persons delivering the homily, they are frequently promoting a theology that is not in line with mainstream Catholic teaching, and represent a opportunity for error in the teaching of the faithful.

Let me give an example from a different profession. If you go to the doctor’s office for consultation, you would not be happy if the doctor appointed someone with no formal medical training to give a ten minute “reflection” on the diagnosis. The faithful deserve to be taught but those ordained to do so.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Or if he was aware that some people had a problem, he can probably already guess who it is that reported him.

The point I’m making is that he needn’t guess at all if the parishioner approaches him, and then (later) either that or a different parishioner approaches the bishop’s office due to lack of resolution. The parishioner has no protection in that case, no anonymity. In many cases I have seen anything from discomfort & tension to serious breaks between a priest and one or more parishioners out of such an “approaching,” which is unresolved at that level and becomes escalated to a higher level. (Don’t worry; I wasn’t one doing any reporting.)

In the most serious case I know intimately of (because close friends were among the parties & at the time I attended the parish), the priest essentially inaugurated a vendetta at anyone who questioned him, making life oppressive, thoroughly, for anyone in the parish. In that unrelenting atmosphere, a few of the parishioners – having already appraoched the priest directly – did approach the religious superiors of the priest, and I believe the local bishop. Naturally that turned the priest even more angrily against those members of the parish whom he considered “enemies.”

I don’t see how such scenarios can be considered constructive outcomes.

 

[cfm56dash7]

Sorry to weigh in on a topic that is two years old but we have this happen in our parish, though thankfully, it is infrequent. In the time there, I’ve heard homilies by seminarians and by Sister Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named. Sister is the more ‘regular’ homilist. There is not even the fig-leaf of having the priest say a few words and then turn it over to Sister. After the Gospel, the priest either retires to the celebrants chair or to a spot in one of the front rows of the sanctuary; with the congregation.
As I was looking around the web for information on this topic, I came across the Catholic Answers forum responses citing Redemptionis Sacramentum. I also came across this excerpt from Preach magazine, written by Elissa Rinere, CP. The link to the pdf of this article is [here](http://www.partners(name removed by moderator)reaching.org/LayPreaching07.pdf).
In the course of the article, she describes the effects of Redemptionis Sacramentum as being ‘chilling.’ While I don’t agree with her conclusion, she does make a point that I hope that others might comment upon.
At the risk of quoting too much, she states:
Redemptionis sacramentum
directs all “instruction or witness”
provided by laity be placed outside
Mass entirely. If, for a serious reason, the
preaching is within the Mass, it is placed
after the post-Communion prayer (74).
Canon 766 is cited in the instruction, but
incorrectly. Where the canon states “Lay
people may preach in church or oratories
. . .”, the instruction cites the canon as
saying “Lay people may preach outside
Mass in churches or oratories . . . (161).”
Canon 766 does not contain the words
“outside Mass.” Lastly, where the 1997
instruction deferred to episcopal conferences
for the determination of circumstances
within which lay preaching is
permitted, this document narrows the
field to a scarcity of priests or the needs
of a specific community (161). Because
an instruction cannot—or at least should
not—overrule existing legislation, the
USCCB norm on lay preaching remains
in place.
Can someone limn the argument she presents where an ‘instruction cannot … overrule existing legislation?’