K
kill051
Guest
Hmmm…this might work the first couple of times. After a while, though, and after she ‘becomes unwell’ during the homily for several consecutive Masses, I think people are going to make the connection.
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I’d say, so what if they do? Sitting in the church looking visibly upset at homily time is also going to be a big clue to the onlookers.
I’m more concerned with the person’s well-being than what anyone thinks. I wouldn’t want somebody leaving the Catholic church over homilies, and it’s a bad path to start down when you begin to associate the Mass with a lot of stress rather than with Jesus’ love.
I’m more concerned with the person’s well-being than what anyone thinks. I wouldn’t want somebody leaving the Catholic church over homilies, and it’s a bad path to start down when you begin to associate the Mass with a lot of stress rather than with Jesus’ love.
S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
You can tune out the homilies with something else.
C
ChuckB
Guest
Unless he is preaching directly against Church teaching, why not listen if for no other reason that to get a different perspective? You don’t have to agree, but there is nothing wrong with listening to another’s point of view. If you absolutely cannot bring yourself to listen to an opinion that you don’t agree with, just tune him out. Most homilies/sermons aren’t that long.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I remember reading a bit about that debate when the National Lottery was first introduced in the nineties. One argument went something like this: The UK already has bookmakers, betting shops, casinos, football pools, bingo parlors, and so on, where everyone is free to gamble away their hard-earned wages. But these ventures are all in the private sector. The only objection to the National Lottery was that it was going to be a government-owned business, and this makes it a hypocritical objection. I found this argument quite persuasive at the time, and I still do.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I would say it is a valid concern. From the Catechism.
In this issue, for example, presenting cautionary considerations out of love of neighbor would be appropriate.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
What I meant to say was: Have you communicated to him how much his political opinions in his homilies upset you?
L
Londoner
Guest
Certainly there is something in that argument. I’m not entirely sure what I think of the National Lottery myself. One could argue that since the poor (among others) are going to gamble anyway they should at least be allowed to gamble in a way that is relatively safe and where the profits go to good causes rather than lining the pockets of private enterprise. You could say that gambling should be illegal, but experience tells us that that would probably make things worse.
The point, really, is that clergy preach on all sorts of topics, and it can be hard to discern where the line is crossed between politics and moral teaching. Probably the most controversial sermon I’ve ever heard (based on reaction from the congregation) was also by an Anglican priest. The occasion was Remembrance Sunday and his theme was ‘Have we kept faith?’ His argument was that those who gave their lives for king and country had fought and died for a very different country to the one we live in today. In particular, anybody who fought with the British armed forces up until, say, Korea was fighting not just for Britain but for the British Empire. In losing the empire have we lost a sense of our responsibility to be a force for good around the world? Many people thought that he was advocating colonialism, although I don’t think that he was. Is that preaching politics? Again, I’d say that reminding us that our commitment doesn’t end with military victory, but is an ongoing obligation to seek to do good around the world, is a sound and Christian message.
Did you see the BBC TV series Broken? I thought it was quite realistic to imagine that the priest would preach against fixed odds betting terminals.
The point, really, is that clergy preach on all sorts of topics, and it can be hard to discern where the line is crossed between politics and moral teaching. Probably the most controversial sermon I’ve ever heard (based on reaction from the congregation) was also by an Anglican priest. The occasion was Remembrance Sunday and his theme was ‘Have we kept faith?’ His argument was that those who gave their lives for king and country had fought and died for a very different country to the one we live in today. In particular, anybody who fought with the British armed forces up until, say, Korea was fighting not just for Britain but for the British Empire. In losing the empire have we lost a sense of our responsibility to be a force for good around the world? Many people thought that he was advocating colonialism, although I don’t think that he was. Is that preaching politics? Again, I’d say that reminding us that our commitment doesn’t end with military victory, but is an ongoing obligation to seek to do good around the world, is a sound and Christian message.
Did you see the BBC TV series Broken? I thought it was quite realistic to imagine that the priest would preach against fixed odds betting terminals.
T
thistle
Guest
Then what is the problem? He can express any views he wants provided they don’t contradict Church teachings!
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
No.
J
JulianN
Guest
Oh yeah. It was charming.
K
kill051
Guest
I tend to agree; however, clergymen of all stripes must be very careful in the USA when addressing political issues. There is a fine line between expressing an opinion and actual campaigning, in the sense of taking one side or the other on an issue in an unequivocally political manner. This carries the immediate danger of revocation of the tax-exempt status for the church in question, which for many parishes would be disastrous.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Remember Fr. Coughlin? Let me quote from Wikipedia:
“Coughlin began to use his radio program to issue antisemitic commentary. In the late 1930s, he supported some of the fascist policies of Adolf Hitler and of Benito Mussolini and of Emperor Hirohito of Japan. The broadcasts have been called “a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture.” His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, with his slogan being “Social Justice,” initially in support of, and later opposing, the New Deal. Many American bishops as well as the Vatican wanted him silenced. After the outbreak of World War II in Europe in 1939, the Roosevelt administration finally forced the cancellation of his radio program and forbade the dissemination through the mail of his newspaper, Social Justice.”
It’s worth noting that he remained pastor of his parish until 1966, when he retired. One wonders what his sermons were like from 1939-1966!
“Coughlin began to use his radio program to issue antisemitic commentary. In the late 1930s, he supported some of the fascist policies of Adolf Hitler and of Benito Mussolini and of Emperor Hirohito of Japan. The broadcasts have been called “a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture.” His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, with his slogan being “Social Justice,” initially in support of, and later opposing, the New Deal. Many American bishops as well as the Vatican wanted him silenced. After the outbreak of World War II in Europe in 1939, the Roosevelt administration finally forced the cancellation of his radio program and forbade the dissemination through the mail of his newspaper, Social Justice.”
It’s worth noting that he remained pastor of his parish until 1966, when he retired. One wonders what his sermons were like from 1939-1966!
L
LittleFlower
Guest
From Daniel Mannix - Wikipedia — the former Archbishop of Melbourne
This topic is quite interesting overall in my opinion, especially historically. It would seem that Mannix actually campaigned, but unsure if he did it from the pulpit or whether it was at other gatherings.
Further information can be found here, and it includes some of his speech excerpts (This is a PDF and it auto-downloads): https://anzacportal.dva.gov.au/file/1140/download?token=2L77LGpuIn 1914 Australia entered World War I on the side of the United Kingdom and when Mannix denounced the war as “just a sordid trade war”, he was widely denounced as a traitor.[4] When the Australian Labor Party government of Billy Hughestried to introduce conscription for the war, Mannix campaigned against it and it was defeated. He spoke out more frequently about the 1917 referendum, which was also defeated. This campaign included a speech before a huge crowd of perhaps 100,000 at the Richmond Racecourse, which was provided by John Wren.[2] The extent to which Mannix influenced the outcome of the vote has been deray:t2:bated widely.
This topic is quite interesting overall in my opinion, especially historically. It would seem that Mannix actually campaigned, but unsure if he did it from the pulpit or whether it was at other gatherings.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Cindy, this might be a good time to consider the role of the homily in the Catholic mass. One way to do that is in contrast with the sermon in a Protestant church service. I am also a cradle Catholic (and also 70). But my wife, who was brought up Protestant, tells me that when she was a child her Finnish Apostolic Lutheran Chuch in Detroit would have a half-hour sermon in English. Then she had to go to the Finnish service and hear the whole thing again in Finnish. The sermon was that important. But then they only had communion once a month. The sermon was the main reason to go to church.
That stands to reason since they didn’t believe communion was actually receiving the body of Christ, but was merely symbolic. What communion lost in importance was gained by the sermon.
Thank God that we do have the real presence of Christ in our Catholic mass. That is our main reason for going to church. The Liturgy of the Word prepares us in our faith, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist is where we actually receive Christ. Note: This happens regardless of the personal failings of the priest who is officiating. The homily is just a subordinate part of the Litury of the Word.
Now it is helpful when a priest can inspire true love of God through his homilies, but if that does not happen for whatever reason, the real spiritual benefit of attending mass is as strong as ever because of the Eucharist. Actually, for me personally, it is more important that I connect with others in that faith community than that I connect with the priest. There is more overall stability in the laity than there is in which priest happens to be officiating that day. It is the people sitting next to me in the pews that makes me feel most welcome - much more so than the priest. I find that to be true not only in my home parish, but also when I am travelling on vacation and attend a church in which I don’t know anybody. I still get more of a connection from those strangers sitting around me, and maybe from the ministers of music, than I do from the priest of those churches.
This is not to diminish the discomfort you might feel in listening to a disagreeable homily. But I hope you can put that discomfort in context and focus on the other riches that are available - the Eucharist and the whole faith community in which you find yourself.
Last edited:
D
DeniseNY
Guest
Ok, so do you hold opinions that contradict Church doctrine and perhaps you don’t like being reminded of that? I’m just speculating because you have not provided specific examples.
C
christofirst
Guest
Is it not also true that, for the most part, the homily should be based on the readings of the day from the Liturgy of the Word, and not necessarily on current events. I suppose a clever priest with a personal agenda can always find some way to link the readings with whatever he’d rather preach about.
blackforest
Well-known member
What if he said something “liberal?” Is the “TRUTH” always conservative? Before Republicans pounce on that question with a hearty yes, we should realize that the Church straddles both liberal and conservative lines on issues. And I do take those labels with a grain of Morton salt.
blackforest
Well-known member
I actually find it helpful when concepts from the Gospel can be applied to struggles we face today as individuals, families, communities, and citizens. While I agree that we don’t want church podiums turning into talk radio studios, making connections for parishioners between readings and present-day issues doesn’t automatically constitute “an agenda.”
C
christofirst
Guest
Yes, I agree with you. I was thinking of a hypothetical situation where a priest might always steer the homily into politics, which in real life I do not believe happens very often, and certainly not in my experience.
There was talk after our recent U.S. election of repealing the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits certain kinds of political endorsements from the pulpit. Some people thought it was an awesome idea, but not me, for the very reason you mentioned above. We might be tickled pink when our current pastor endorses our favorite conservative candidate, but what if our new pastor has a more progressive outlook? Or vice versa? Better, I say, to keep things the way they are here in the U.S.
There was talk after our recent U.S. election of repealing the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits certain kinds of political endorsements from the pulpit. Some people thought it was an awesome idea, but not me, for the very reason you mentioned above. We might be tickled pink when our current pastor endorses our favorite conservative candidate, but what if our new pastor has a more progressive outlook? Or vice versa? Better, I say, to keep things the way they are here in the U.S.
- Status