"Lay preaching"

[OnlyAmbrose]

Last Sunday at the parish I go to, after the Gospel was read, the priest said a few brief words and introduced a layperson to speak for the rest of the time normally allotted for a Homily. This is a fairly common practice at this parish. I was under the impression that this violates GIRM 66 and Canon Law 767. I sent an email to the pastor to this effect, and got this reply:

Canons 766 and 767 are an important context. You will notice here that the priest will indeed read the gospel and speak a few words related to the scriptural theme. This constitutes the homily. The lay preacher elaborates on that homily. [the parish] and other Catholic Communities have for a number of years had the practice of lay preaching. The pastoral reasons for the practice may vary slightly from one community to another…some more urgent in terms of the lack of priests or deacons, some times the cultural/linguistic circumstances favor a lay preacher, other circumstances may involve special groups of people that a lay person on occasion may better witness the gracious Word in the assembly’s midst. It is my understanding from a number of Bishops that the practice is useful and good (at times perhaps necessary) for this lay witness within the Eucharistic assembly provided that the priest/deacon proclaim the gospel and deliver a brief homily, which may then be elaborated upon. The pastor remains responsible for whom is called upon for this ministry, however occasional. That responsibility includes listening to all the voices of the assembly ( some very appreciative; others less so). Again, thank you for your note. Our practice here (and elsewhere) is not, to brush up my very modest Latin,…“contra ecclesiam” (against the church) but is “cum ecclesia” (with the church).

Is he correct? I’m pretty sure that saying that two sentences before introducing a lay person doesn’t constitute a “homily” (if it does that’s heck of a loophole), and I can’t imagine bishops condoning this kind of thing.

Should I take it up with my bishop or leave it at this?

 

[FrDavid96]

This is what the Church has to say in Redemptionis Sacramentum

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself, “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the Eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Right, but this priest’s argument is that by saying two words after the Gospel he has completed the homily, and may therefore introduce a layperson to preach for the rest of the time. I don’t want to argue with a priest, but this claim just sounds ridiculous!

 

[puzzleannie]

we had lay persons giving presentations for a specific purpose last weekend. the priests gave short homilies at the usual time, and the guests spoke after communion, from the microphone near the choir usually used for announcements.

 

[benedictgal]

The priest in question should re-read Redemptionis Sacramentum, as well as the document the 1997 document issued by the Congregation for Clergy,On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest, which notes, in part, that:

The Homily

§ 1. The homily, being an eminent form of preaching, qua per anni liturgici cursum ex textu sacro fidei mysteria et normae vitae christianae exponuntia,(68) also forms part of the liturgy.

The homily, therefore, during the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, must be reserved to the sacred minister, Priest or Deacon(69) to the exclusion of the non-ordained faithful, even if these should have responsibilities as “pastoral assistants” or catechists in whatever type of community or group. This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm(70) since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.

For the same reason, the practice, on some occasions, of entrusting the preaching of the homily to seminarians or theology students who are not clerics(71) is not permitted. Indeed, the homily should not be regarded as a training for some future ministry.

All previous norms which may have admitted the non-ordained faithful to preaching the homily during the Holy Eucharist are to be considered abrogated by canon 767, § 1.(72)

§ 2. A form of instruction designed to promote a greater understanding of the liturgy, including personal testimonies, or the celebration of eucharistic liturgies on special occasions (e.g. day of the Seminary, day of the sick etc.) is lawful, of in harmony with liturgical norms, should such be considered objectively opportune as a means of explicating the regular homily preached by the celebrant priest. Nonetheless, these testimonies or explanations may not be such so as to assume a character which could be confused with the homily.

§ 3. As an expositional aide and providing it does not delegate the duty of preaching to others, the celebrant minister may make prudent use of “dialogue” in the homily, in accord with the liturgical norms.(73)

This document is the foundation on which the section in Redemptionis Sacramentum is based. With all due respect, merely saying a handful of words after the proclamation of the Gospel does not constitute a homily. If the priest persists in this kind of activity, then you would have recourse to your bishop.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Alright, thanks for confirming my suspicions, I sent a respectful email to my bishop so we’ll see what he says

As a side question: For those of you who have tried to contact your bishop before, how successful have you been? I live in a rather densely populated diocese, so I’m worried that my email might be overlooked.

 

[benedictgal]

Alright, thanks for confirming my suspicions, I sent a respectful email to my bishop so we’ll see what he says

As a side question: For those of you who have tried to contact your bishop before, how successful have you been? I live in a rather densely populated diocese, so I’m worried that my email might be overlooked.

Actually, I would send the bishop a hard-copy letter, certified, return receipt requested. Include in your packet a hard-copy of the response that the priest gave you. Cite the documentation that was provided to you in this thread. I would keep all copies of the documentation, including the information and receipt from the post office. In the event that he does not answer or tries to defend the practices of the priest in question, I would send a letter to the new Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

You may reach him at:

His Eminence Antonio Cardinal Canizares Llovera
Prefect, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Palazzo delle Congregazioni
Piazza Pio XII, 10
00120 CITTÀ DEL VATICANO

Include the copies of the letters (and emails) as well as the response from the priest in your correspondence to the Prefect. Send it two-day air, if possible, and return receipt requested. It will take you about three weeks to get the orange card back. A few days later, you will get a letter of acknowledgement from the CDWDS.

Remember that, as a Catholic, you have the right, guaranteed by Redemptionis Sacramentum, to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated in the form and matter prescribed by the Church.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I think this extract from the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum is more relevant:
“[74.] If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a Church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily, [footnote 156: Cf. Congregation For the Clergy et al., Instruction, Ecclesiae de mysterio, Practical Provisions, art. 3 §2: AAS 89 (1997) p. 865.] nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.”

The priest cannot claim to be complying with this. His arguments about a short homily are irrelevant. The lay person should not be giving a talk at this time in the Mass.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

What possesses priests to go out of their way to go against the clear teaching of the Church, which they must be aware of?

 

[passus]

What possesses priests to go out of their way to go against the clear teaching of the Church, which they must be aware of?

Superbia.

 

[japhy]

What possesses priests to go out of their way to go against the clear teaching of the Church, which they must be aware of?

We don’t know your priest is aware of Redemptionis Sacramentum. Assume first that he is ignorant rather than arrogant.

 

[EasterJoy]

Right, but this priest’s argument is that by saying two words after the Gospel he has completed the homily, and may therefore introduce a layperson to preach for the rest of the time. I don’t want to argue with a priest, but this claim just sounds ridiculous!

There are parishes where any announcements or testimonials not made after the readings start and before Holy Communion commences are not going to be heard by a significant number of the target audience, even those who are still physically present. Sad, but true.

Clergy who have explained this to me have told me that as long as a) the content of the person’s remarks are clearly NOT a homily–that is, they have nothing to do with the Scriptural passages for the Liturgy of the Word–and b) they are substantially shorter than the homily itself–which is a duty of the clergy, not a privledge–then a layperson might be allowed to briefly make important remarks immediately after the homily if necessary.

In parishes that do not suffer a mass exodus or mass obliviousness after Holy Communion, however, such remarks are best made at a time more clearly removed from the time reserved for the homily. The Church doesn’t allow anyone to take over the duty of the homily, which is reserved for the clergy. It should be as clear as possible that the layperson is not giving half of the homily, regardless of when the remarks are made. The laity do not preach the homily, but we have all the rest of the day outside of Mass to preach. If God calls us to preach the Gospel with words, there are plenty of opportunities.

My impression is that this is the thinking of the bishop, too. There are parishes that seem to be allowing the laity to preach, all the same, but I have to say “seem”, for I have not witnessed this myself for several years. I know of at least one parish in the archdiocese where the pastor pointedly put an end to the practice of allowing laity to preach, even though he did not agree with it. Obedience is not dead.