TESTIMONIES & COMMENTS


 
A)  CONTENT ANALYSIS OF HOMILIES
What was said, how long, what content categories, what was missing

1) From Ohio: Robert Russo “A Day of Labor, A Day of Rest"
The Gospel reading for Sunday, September 2nd, 2012, was from the Gospel of Mark (Mk 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23), wherein Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their clinging to antiquated ritual purity laws, the homily was mainly dedicated to the fruits of our labor—a most fitting tribute on Labor Day weekend. After a brief story of the pastor’s youth, where at the age of ten he had to work on his family’s farm for the entire summer, he then launched into a very effective look at the three glories of work. The first part of the homily, lasting about two minutes, could only be considered an exhortation, reminding us to view work not as labor but as a sacrifice given to God. I estimate that the exhortation took up twenty-six percent of the homily.

The main portion of the homily concerned the three glories of work, of which the first is meant to transform the world. Here, the pastor wisely used the two creation accounts from Genesis, commenting that “God makes us in His image as a worker, as a creator, as one who does something.” In this regard, we are called to be co-creators with God, bringing forth order where once there was chaos. The second glory of work is that work brings about reconciliation and healing. Adam and Eve’s fall from grace was used as an example from the second creation account to show that their disobedience turned their “work” (they were originally to cultivate and care for the Garden of Eden) into toil as a punishment; however, we are to view this punishment as a remedy that encounters sin. Here, the pastor equated our work as participating in something greater, as in a noble act or a healing balm for our own selfishness. The third and final glory of work considers that our labor is not an end in itself. Our work leads to rest, in the same fashion of the God who worked and then rested on the seventh day. This new Sabbath is rightfully meant as a time of worship, love, family, and leisure. The pastor ended the homily with the thought that in the “world to come, our glory will be a life of rest and union with God and neighbor for all eternity.” I considered the last portion of the homily, lasting about six minutes, to be comments of a Biblical nature, estimating that these comments took up seventy-four percent of the homily.

Although this homily was extremely refreshing and effective, I have witnessed many homilies which left me shaking my head in wonder. I am reminded of a particular homily regarding birth control, where the pastor spoke in relation to the gestation period of elephants. Not only was his biological assessment of the species incorrect, but there were very few people in the pews who got his meaning. To this end, I am totally shocked regarding some of the examples that Pierre describes on his web page. This is especially in regards to the ways that some people speak to children.

In hindsight, I would like to see more homilies that relate to breaking and pertinent issues arising out of the Vatican. For example, I would like to see priests focus not on Canon Law, per se, but upon clarifying issues of Moral Theology. Why is birth control, and artificial means of fertilization wrong? Why has the Catholic Church changed its position on Capital Punishment, and what are the correct teachings regarding Catholic social justice issues? We may all be theologians, but the average person in the pews is not educated to our extent. I have heard many misconceptions in the back of Church that really made me wonder if we all belonged to the same religion, tradition and Magisterium. My final thoughts are concerning the exercise itself. Although I enjoyed breaking down this homily immensely, I wonder what the results would have been at a Mass that was not celebrated around a major holiday. Would the homily have been more tied to the reading of the Gospel? In my experience, the pastors in my area do an excellent job of relating events of two-thousand years ago but not to post-modern times.
Robert P. Russo, Lourdes University            
Robert.Russo@mymail.lourdes.edu

2) From New York: Anneris Goris

I attended a neighboring church last Sunday September 2. Here is a summary of the homily about the gospel reading of the day, about the disciples not washing their hands before meals. The homily lasted about 6 minutes. It consisted of three parts.

1. A tendency of human nature is to judge others based on what they do or not do. We often use culture/traditions to arrive at conclusions about people's behavior. Culture can separate people, creating insurmountable divides because attention is often paid to the differences and not to the similarities. Lets concentrate on what can bring us together, not what can set us apart.
This part lasted over 2 minutes. It is a philosophical reflection of human nature, as in the wisdom literature of the bible, and it ends with an exhortation.

2. Judgments are often made without the understanding or knowing the reasons for particular actions. This can happen, for example, when we fail to understand the actions of immigrants due to the lack of cultural competency, compassion, and love. Judging others is irresponsible, and indicates the incapacity of the person to objectively examine and articulate evidence/information prior to making decisions. Lets work to know and understand our neighbors.
This section lasted 2 minutes. Like the previous one, it is an exhortation not to be judgmental.

3. The disciples seemed to have challenged traditions by not washing before eating, but they followed Jesus and practiced what He taught. Jesus summons us to suspend all judgement/prior notions, and to set aside culture/tradition and look at what comes from the "heart," for those are the things which can taint, pollute, and desecrate. He wants us to honor Him with actions that come from inside, and not by what culture/tradition dictates. Lets follow Jesus with our hearts.
This section lasted 2 minutes. It is clearly an exhortation.

In summary, this homily was mainly a moral exhortation which lasted about 6 minutes. It did not explain the gospel reading, it has nothing to say on the other two readings of the day by which he missed important opportunities to connect with the call to put in practice the Word and not just listen passively and how to become one with the Lord. Not-washing-before-eating, was as used as an opportunity to moralize. Is this what the gospel is about?

Moreover, it says that “The disciples seemed to have challenged traditions by not washing before eating, but they followed Jesus and practiced what He taught.” So Jesus taught his disciples to challenge tradition and not wash their hands? Quoting the text of the gospel would have been more useful than making generalizations about it.
Anneris Goris, La Esperanza Center, New York            
ctresperanza@aol.com

3) From Melbourne, Australia: Paul McMahon
Since arriving back in Australia after nearly 15 years in the Chicago area, I have visited quite a few Catholic and non Catholic Christian churches in Melbourne as myself and my family search for a new spiritual home. I realized how spoiled I was at Holy Family Catholic Community in Inverness, IL. I also realize that because this is one of the flagship parishes of the Chicago Archdiocese, the better priests (in regards to homils at least) are sacramental ministers and presiders there. HF is one of the few places I have attended where a priest will be clapped or given a standing ovation after a homily. The audience and faithful leave no doubt as to whether the presider has connected to them and delivered an inspiring message.

It was a privilege to witness some of the best homilies week in and week out. Clergy such as Fr. Pat Bennan (previous pastor), Fr. JP Cafiero, Fr. Corey Brost CSV, Fr. Terry Keehan (current pastor), Fr. George Kane, Fr. Richard Fragomeni are but a few that come to mind who have inspired the congregations of HF over the past decade. HF has only one pastor for the 6 weekend masses, so visiting presiders are regular occurances and many pastors enjoy coming to preach at HF because of the direct audience feedback.

Homilies are also specifically tailored for the youth and their families at the Sunday evening liturgy. The physical layout of the church lends itself to intimacy between speaker and audience, as the preacher can walk off the sanctuary and connect very closely to the crowd. The "Madonna" microphones as I call them (over the ear pieces) allow the speaker to walk and preach without need of a microphone. With a large screen and camera operating at many masses, the preacher can also appear on the large screen while delivering the homily which adds to the connection between speaker and audience. After all, isn't the idea of engagement a huge priority for a speaker? At least in this humble opinion, I believe it should be. The congregation is regularly challenged by the speaker’s words and the gospel of the day. Controversial topics are tackled often. Priests are also sadly reported by "diocesan spies" who wait for a priest to slip on dogma and doctrine and they run straight to the Cardinal's office instead of facing the presider in person. Preaching in fear is not a healthy model if the church is to be challenged on issues regarding sexuality, celibacy, contraception, the role of women in the church, teachings on AIDS etc.

My Australian experience of the past six months has not been promising. Last week I visited a church in a neighboring suburb for my niece's first communion. The priest did not extend a welcome to any visitors attending for the first time. I was embarrassed by the poor quality of the homily and it felt very awkward being embarrassed by my religious affiliation for the first time in memory. Here were a bunch of children receiving their first communion and their families and it was a ripe time to evangelize those who don't attend church regularly. The sacramental times of weddings, funerals, first communions, confirmations etc. are such a great time to inspire those who are visiting or who do not attend church regularly. The priest of the day did not relate the gospel to the children AT ALL. No take-home snippets, no mention of Jesus in the 20 minute rambling. No plan. No points really at all. He meandered, got lost in mid sentence and made Clint Eastwood's recent speaking efforts look like a coherant masterpiece.

Studies show that both the homily and the music are two major elements of the mass that inspire and feed the faithful. Since arriving back in Australia I have not heard one hymn that I did not sing in my childhood 40 years ago. I feel a 10 years old when attending mass back in my home country. My three young children zone out. Families do not attend in any number. The church in Australia and mass attendances are dying and it is not hard to see why. I fear for my faith and its practice. The homilies are terrible. Perhaps the audience should hand clap or boo to give some direct feedback. The empty seats are actually all the feedback that is needed.
Paul McMahon, paul.mcmahon@live.com            

4) A comment about Holy Family and Paul McMahon’ post by Mary Whiteside
As a member of Holy Family Parish in Inverness, IL, I have to agree with everything Paul said. The homilies given by our priests have been incredibly powerful in my life. They have taken the Gospel readings and related them to my life, to my own issues. When Fr. Pat Brennan was Pastor, I heard over and over again from people, "I felt like he was talking just to me...like he knew exactly what was happening in my life." Not only have our priests been able to connect with people on that very personal level, but they have also challenged us to change the way we live. This is, I think, one of the key differences in a quality homily. We have been asked to step up and opportunities to do so have been readily available at this parish. Outreach, social justice, community building... over 100 ministries serving the people of our community. There have also been moments where our priests have shared their own doubts, their own faith struggles. This is what makes us know we are all human and we all share a common need to seek out our faith and go after it, even in the face of doubt or troubles. We have a cross that hangs in our sanctuary called "The Cross of New Life." Many of our homilies have centered around the message of this cross...that life, death, and resurrection are ongoing and very real in our individual struggles. The cross is acrylic and has Jesus reaching out of the cross. It's a very powerful piece of art. I have seen priests use it in funeral homilies as a symbol of Christ reaching out to bring a loved one home, and in weddings as an invitation for Christ to be part of the marriage. Just a beautiful work of art that has become so meaningful in our faith journey. Our faith is put into action and it feels right. It feels like Jesus is with us.

However, like Paul, I have experienced dreadful homilies while visiting other churches. I was recently at my godson's Confirmation Mass at a different church and the Bishop spent most of his homily condemning our current administration for their policies and their "greed." He then told them that they had the choice to be "criminals" like our politicians and he even said, "You may even decide to become chainsaw murderers..." I almost fainted. Everyone I sat with just looked around at each other with mouths hanging open... Did he just say "chain saw murderers???" Yes, he did...to a bunch of teenagers who are just beginning to own their faith... I kept waiting for the part where he would say..."OR YOU COULD BE GREAT...You could change the world...You could live in a way that allows others to see Christ..." But he never went there. Never said a single positive thing. Just bashing the President of the United States and then letting kids know that they could be a negative influence on the world. I wanted to grab my godson and drag him out of that church. It was pathetic and disturbing. It felt like Jesus had left the building.

Homilies have the power to change people's hearts, to help them understand the message of Christ and live it every day. I am so thankful to be in a church where positive, life changing messages are shared.
Mary Whiteside, Church of Holy Family            
mary.whiteside@att.net

5) From Clare McGrath-Merkle
This was a short homily that focused on the Gospel. The homilist began with saying the focus of the sermon was on making decisions, some of which affect our whole life. He related that this Gospel was the conclusion of the Bread of Life discourse. He then reviewed the gospel readings from previous weeks. He said that many could not swallow Jesus' teaching on the Bread of Life, especially as there was a Jewish proscription at the time not to touch or eat blood. He concluded: The point of the Gospel is that we have to make a fundamental choice to follow Jesus or some other prevailing wisdom of our culture, trying to find happiness in self-interest or success, for example. We believe only Jesus satisfies. Today we decided to gather together to worship God and taste the promise of eternal life. As we gather, let us pray that our decision to be here will strengthen and renew our conviction and loyalty that is the way to eternal life. In summary, it was a short homily, not even a 10 minutes long, with most of the time explaining the Gospel bookended by a few sentences about making decisions and choosing.
Clare McGrath-Merkle cmm4@verizon.net            

6) From Brooklyn: A Sermon, not a Homily
The 7:15 Sunday morning liturgies at my Brooklyn parish seem to be pre-arranged. Always, in the first set of four rows of pews directly in front of the main altar there are just about a dozen attendees, and all of them towards the back. These are the old fashioned Catholics, seeking, like that humble publican, the appropriate rear of the church. In all, about 100 were there on August 26 fulfilling, as used to be said, their Sunday obligation. The celebrant was new and nameless, a quick replacement for vacationing parish priests, of which during the year there are four. He walked slowly, slightly limping to his right side, looking old and weary, as though weighed down by the multitude of sins he had heard and forgiven in confessions throughout more than a half century of ministry. The lector, a retired nun who also limped, but to her left, did not take the available option of skipping the beginning of the reading from Ephesians that told women to be subservient to their husbands. No problem for the celebrant. His homily ignored both the OT and the Epistle readings.

His voice was not old. It was well-paced and pleasantly baritone. His sole scriptural mention was Jn 6:60-9, and it took him a full six minutes to get to it. He began with last week’s news about the man who killed a former fellow employee right outside the Empire State Building. He asked, “Why didn’t God do something about this murder?” He answered himself, that God had - with his commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill. He characterized this as a “direct statement with no qualification” but he did not detour to capital punishment or pacifism or the consistent ethic of life. Rather, he skipped the day’s readings and took the long road back to Genesis observing that the history of humankind showed that mankind did not listen to God‘s commands, going all the way back to Cain and Abel.

He returned to his question, Why did God allow the murder outside the Empire State Building? The answer, he urged, was that God had given us free will. And that when our ambitions go sour and we are thwarted, we want to blame God and others, anybody but ourselves. So our emotions turn murderous. He now, finally, reached the gospel reading and the story about how many of his followers left Jesus when he told them the hard words that his very body and his very blood were their salvation. He then contrasted the leaving of the many with Peter’s response when Jesus turned inquisitively towards him, “To whom shall we go”.

The homilist then bounced Peter’s words pew-ward, asking What do we do when our lives seem small and failed and our ambitions lopped off? When we are tempted to follow “the many” recorded in John’s gospel. Do we blame others? God? Or do we accept the hard words of God’s freedom with the stout reply of Peter, “To whom else could we go“? Continuing, he added that, like the very frail and often failing Peter, on our day of judgment we can say to God, “I wasn’t perfect, I did my best to do your will and not to quit or leave“.

Whenever I took my gaze away from the pulpit and looked from side to side, I saw everyone was listening. This is not the usual reaction at the 7:15 Sunday mass. When I left the church I passed behind an elderly couple, the man was saying “that wasn’t a bad sermon”. Homilies are heard by the young, sermons by the older. I think today’s was a sermon that the homilist had given hundreds of times, that the parishioners had heard more than hundreds of times, as they had, in their own words and ways, given the same sermon to themselves in their darkest and frailest moments: Countering lingering guilt with deeper hope; quieting regrets with a quavering faith. It was not a homily for the young, for the still-ambitious, for the self-confident. But the young with their lives still unfolding were not - are not - at the Sunday 7:15 mass in this Brooklyn parish.
Jim Kelly, Fordham University            
jkjrkelly@gmail.com

B)  HOMILY EVALUATIONS
in terms of the Messenger, the Message, and Mystagogy

1) From Florida: Elsie Miranda
I am reviewing the homily of September 2, 2012, 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time. I use a sale from 1 to 10, with 10 as Excellent; 5 as Average; 1 as Poor.

The Messenger: overall score of 6
· Appearance: score of 10. At first glance priest was very well groomed (excessive hair spray), casual shoes; young, full regalia. He carried himself like an “authority” not necessarily as a “pastor”. Welcoming seemed sincere.
· Articulation: score of 5. Priest’s English was perfect but he proclaimed the Gospel very quickly. Pronunciation was good, but he “read” it—he did not “proclaim” the Gospel. He the “read” the homily and spoke of “The Lord” almost to the point of redundancy. Homily was a minutes long and the meaning was lost in the quick delivery—it just seemed like words strung together about “The Lord”…
· Authenticity: score of 3. Priest seemed like a very pleasant and genuine human being but not someone that inspired the community. He was very prescriptive in his homily and never he left room for a more humble or human connection to the text, to Jesus, to one another (I had no desire to shake his hand and say hello after mass). He spoke with greater authenticity during the announcements than during the Liturgy. He is young and apparently enthusiastic but rather paternalistic. He is probably good with children.

Message: overall score of 2
· Proclamation: 3 Readings and prayers by the priest were read rather hurriedly but the tone and inflection were good. The Gospel was not the subject of the preaching even though it provided a wonderful opportunity to speak of authenticity, virtue and the true source of all that defiles us. Instead homily was focused on Deuteronomy text. Moses and the commandments of “THE LORD”— emphasis on obedience to the Lord and his decrees. This message, while read, the priest spoke with pause and intention.
· Faithful to texts: score of 2. Focus of homily was mostly on the first reading. There was an over emphasis on “The Lord guiding us” and on the order of the Divine will. “In the end of our days we will all be judged by the choices that we have made and whether or not they were ordered according to the Holy and divine will of The Lord.” There was no mention of the 2nd reading or of the Gospel in the homily, so I would have to say that fidelity to the text was not adequate.
· Relevant to community: score of 1. The community that gathered for this mass were college aged, middle aged adults and some older adults. The message of the homily promoted a very linear model of power and authority and did not encourage any reconciliation or engagement with others at the level of our authentic self. The mention of Jesus was in reference to his obedience to the commandments of The Lord and how this obedience is key to a fulfilled life. At many levels I found the homily condescending and frustrating because I really wanted to hear a reflection / interjection even of the Gospel. My While I am not a member of this particular community I sensed that people where there to fulfill a Sunday obligation. The celebrant did not connect his homily to the overall reality of our local or global church, to history, or the present moment. The focus was on the individual and his or her obedience to the “divine will of The Lord”. The parking lot emptied out in 15 minutes.

Mystagogy: overall score of 1
· Engagement with community: score of 1. Unless you were a young man discerning a vocation to the priesthood (which was actually articulated), this homily was for someone else. At no point did I feel the connection to the larger Christian narrative or to the community or to the priest as presider. I felt like a stranger in my Church.
· Sacramental pondering: score of 1. Giving this homilist the benefit of the doubt one might be able to deduce from the homily that Jesus’s fidelity to the divine will of God enabled him to teach humanity a new way that involved loving God above all else, and our neighbor as ourselves (which would have been a good segway to the Gospel), but that never happened.
· Challenge / Lesson; “take away”: score of 1. “we are humans, ordered to partake in the divine will of the Lord. In the end, what will remain are our choices… we must ask ourselves, to what extent have our choices been ordered by the holy, divine will of God?”
My comments.
I believe that the art of preaching rests on the ability of the preacher to string together the wisdom and insights found in the Word and have them bear on the lives of the gathered. In many respects, it is like what a mother or father bird does for its fledgling. The mature bird eats the seed and the worm, breaks it down and then from beak to beak feeds the young. A good preacher has been entrusted with the task of nurturing and challenging the gathered in much the same way. The Word is to be broken down and offered up once again to provide sustenance and endurance. The gospel stories serve as entrees that can sweep across the vast horizons of time, space and memory to come alive anew with every encounter. This weeks Gospel had the capacity to do just that, to nurture and challenge across the generations. All who were gathered were willing recipients of some morsel of wisdom that would inform, challenge and comfort our hurried and often fragmented lives. As Jesus said, it is from within that comes what defiles. As such, it is the words, thoughts, sentiments that we carry in our hearts that inform our action. This is the source of what binds or liberates, what tears down or builds up life and community.

"Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:

This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me... “
Unfortunately this preacher, did just that— he held up as doctrines, human precepts. After Eucharist, I reflected on all that was not said in the homily— and in the silent reverberation of my own incredulous heart is asked myself, “O Lord, how do we make our way back to you?” Perhaps it is in these very exercises, that we, who have been asked to evaluate a homily, offer up a critique for the sake of the liberation of the Word, and the accountability of the preacher. May it be, for the sake of all who come to be nurtured, challenged and sustained as People of God.
Elsie Miranda, DMin., Barry University            
emiranda@mail.barry.edu

2)Fron Ontorio, Canada: Richard Shields
The readings of this Sunday were Joshua 24: 1,2, 15-17; Ephesians 5: 21-32; John 6: 60-69

1. The messenger:
Our celebrant was an Indian priest doing studies in the USA. He was there to raise funds for his Order’s work in his home land. He smiled and looked at the community, but it was not easy to understand what he was saying. His sermon was prepared; there were no gaps or searching for what to say. To his credit he did not use the sermon time for a spiel aimed at raising money for the missions (which he mentioned only in passing at the conclusion). In his homily this young priest came across as a teacher giving instructions to her class. His tone was flat; rarely raising or lowering his voice. He had a message, which he stuck to, which reflected nothing of the life of the group he was addressing. He recited an instruction; was it one the community needed? (Do homilists ask: What knowledge and experience do the members of the community bring to this assembly? Before preparing their homily?) He was not the community leader (pastor). He had no connection to the parish; but neither did he exhibit any sign of being connected to the message. Nevertheless, it seems fair to expect that the one who presides at worship would be able to lead the community at prayer, in some way to take charge of the liturgy, and fulfill his role as leader of this Eucharistic celebration? Instead, there occurred what often happens on Sundays (thus I am not suggesting it is a cultural thing): the priest proceeds to read more prayers than the congregation has to read.
In a word the messenger came across as: priest a functionary.

2. Message: The message could be summed up in a single line: The bible is true; what it says is true; and you must have faith in that. If you don’t have faith and think the bible is not true, then you will find out after you die that you were wrong. The drama of choice and commitment, rich and probing in Joshua, was ignored. The difficulty of believing, as in John’s account, was reduced to an issue of gratitude: after Jesus had given the people so much (loaves and fishes), they turned their backs on him and did not believe. The homilist made no connections between the Scriptures and the life of the Church (parish), the act of the community (Eucharist), or why he was there (alms for India). It was just an admonition to believe (and a poor one). He characterized faith as choice for God’s truth, lived out by rejecting what your friends tell you and doing what God wants. His images and illustrations were appropriate for children--what Fowler (1981) described as “Mythic-literal.”
To fully grasp the message of this homily, we might look at Eisner’s (1979) notion of curriculum as explicit, implicit, and null and ask what is the implicit and null message in this homily? By the way he addressed the congregation, he strongly communicated the message that the church (clergy) teaches and the laity are to comply. Further, the uncoupling the explicit message from the activity within which it is given shapes the implicit message that the homily is a kind of catechism for the people. Mass provides a set of spiritual “goods”, necessary (according to the Church) to maintain one’s Catholic religious life. The model seems to be a business one (which sociologists have noted, speaking of competition for market share among religions in the USA) Priests are the vendors or suppliers; laity are the buyers and consumers.
What about the null message? What is left out? How often the Scriptures as a whole are effectively absent from the homily. In today’s sermon, there was a passing reference to John used as a “proof text” for a moral principle, vague and unspecified. The words, much less the substance of, “Joshua” or “Ephesians” or “Paul” were never mentioned. The null message could be taken as: (a) the Bible is not really a powerful, sacramental experience of God in the world; (b) the Eucharist is a ritual unto itself with little connection with the story of salvation that is un-going in the world.

3. Mystagogy:
Where does the homily fit into the act of worship of this community gathered for Eucharist today? How does the homily join the Liturgy of the Word with the Liturgy of the Lord’s Supper? Or is the homily an add-on that actually breaks the continuity?
To understand what happened this Sunday it may be helpful to go back to the opening prayer. What was it about? Why were we praying it? The celebrant conveyed no sense that there was something here that was worth imploring God for. He read it. There was no sense that what was being prayed for was of any importance to the community gathered or to the Scripture we were about to listen to.
The celebration took place as a sequence of parts. One could be going down a list of how to celebrate Mass: now we say Lord have mercy, then we say a prayer, then we have to sit and read..., etc.
During the homily there was respectful quiet. In this over middle aged congregation the early Mass (9 AM) was about half filled. I reckon there were 200 persons there, including four or five families with children under 18. I am not in a position to interpret what the quiet meant; but there was no heads nodding in agreement with the message (like in Yes! or Amen!).
[By the way, this is the “folk Mass” and the folk leading the congregation in folk songs must have once been the kids who loved folk music when it was first popular in Church in the 60s and 70s.]

The homily that I experienced was unsatisfactory on every level. I give the homilist some credit for being relaxed and looking at the people while he talked; but the connections that have to be made in the person of the homilist were weak. This weak connection was evident in the overall quality of the liturgy, which the guest priest con-celebrated with the pastor. I wonder whether the “book” (Roman Missal/Order of worship) too often functions as a procrustean bed, assuming a primary role that leaves the celebrant and homilist in a secondary position.

It doesn’t have to be this way, the book controlling the performance. But what approach might substantively alter the celebrant/homilist’s sense of presence and occasion (kairos) creating a more intimate, mystagogical atmosphere or space for the celebration—an atmosphere that would situate the actions and words of both priest and congregation within the action of God’s self-communication, which we believe is occurring in the Sacraments?

What would I consider a good messenger, message and mystagogy?

Even in the case of inanimate objects which are capable of making sound, such as a flute or harp, if their notes all sound alike, who can tell what tune is being played? Unless the bugle-note is clear who will be called to arms? So, in your case, unless you make intelligible sounds with your “tongue” how can anyone know what you are talking about? You might just as well be addressing an empty room! (I Cor. 14: 7-8) A homily in which the Word of God becomes cliché dilutes Scripture’s original dynamis and exousia. What is then preached becomes innocuous. When words cover all situations and enlighten none, the Good News—even, for example, when invoked in sermons calling call for heroic witness against abortion—is rendered harmless, separated from the historical reality of Jesus and the parish, and generalized into moral principles and rules for religious observance.

I would not attempt to say what I think the homilist should have said. But I wonder: perhaps preachers too often presume that they know what the biblical writers meant to tell us, what God wants us to hear. Perhaps they also presume to know what the average Sunday church-goer needs to hear. A truly effective homily/homilist would have to begin with a rejection of these mind sets. I believe that before the Word of God can become alive in the homilist’s voice, it must be alive in his life. Homilists who spend time with the readings for Sunday (all three), who “receive” them and experience the mission that they communicate will not cherry pick portions of the readings for their “message;” instead, their message will at the service of the readings.

However, it is not enough to be familiar with Scripture; the homilist must become familiar with his parish and its people. The call and mission of the Gospels is not “in general,” but is addressed to a particular people, in a particular community, in a particular culture at this particular time. Understanding Scripture requires attentiveness to the Bible; but to the audience, too. In discerning what the Sunday readings are saying, the homilist should be rooted in “the joy and hope, the grief and anguish” of the parish and the lives of its people and their world.

In his statements on “The Year of priests,” Pope Benedict recognized that falling into ritual routines was more than a possibility, but a reality in the Church. Reclaiming the homily is part of a larger revitalization of the Church. It is not a question of improving the rut, but of getting out of it.
Richard Shields, the University of St. Michael’s College            
richshields@sympatico.ca

3) From Massachusetts: Marc Tumeinski
On August 26th, I went to Mass at a neighboring parish, so this was my first time hearing this particular priest-homilist. He was low-key, with a devout demeanor, slow and reverential movements, and excellent diction. His tone was contemplative, as of someone being led, and guiding others, into divine mystery. The message for this particular homily was to remain united in faith as a parish, to pledge to follow Jesus together as a Christian community. The priest repeated this core message throughout his homily as well as in his ‘homily notes’ in that week’s bulletin. He began by setting his homily in the context of his homilies from the past several weeks. He then gave a quick recap of the Old Testament reading and of the Gospel reading, followed by his brief commentary on each reading. The priest did not refer specifically to the psalm or New Testament letter read at that Mass.

The homily was a bit on the short side and ended quickly, perhaps even a bit abruptly. I was expecting a bit more, though his message was clear and Christ-centered. Commenting on the psalm and NT letter could perhaps have deepened his central theme. A few illustrations of concrete steps to take would also have fit in well.

What makes for a good homily, in my experience? I appreciate when homilists bring in all the day’s readings in a holistic way, showing the unity and coherency of Scripture. Though I felt the homily I heard that Sunday was a bit short, homilies should be kept in balance, in terms of time, with the readings and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

One of the keys to a good homilist is an ongoing relationship with a congregation. This is a two-way street, requiring commitment from priest and from parish. That is simply good pedagogy. Floating from parish to parish as a Christian, whatever reasons someone might have for doing so, does not set a good stage for a relationship with the priest as teacher of the Word. It takes time, dedication and effort from priest and parishioners to develop a solid relationship that can sustain good homilies.
Marc Tumeinski Anna Maria College, College and Seminary            
mtumeinski@annamaria.edu

4) From Rochester, NY: Ella Johnson

Messenger: The priest at my parish loves his community, and is well-loved by them. Despite being in a very large parish (several thousand), he knows many people’s names and does many parish-wide community building programs (social suppers, Advent carolling and liturgies, etc.), which help create a familial feel to the parish. He is entertaining, comfortable in front of people, and somewhat charismatic. These three characteristics, along with being a person of moral integrity are highly important.

Message: The homily I heard this Sunday in our parish, on the Gospel Mark 7:31-37, “Be opened!” The priest began by speaking about his 10 year-long ministry to the deaf community in the US and Canada. He personalized the message this way, and spoke about how he learned from those differently-abled, and also faced their unjust discrimination. I found this to be a terrific personal connection to the Gospel, although a few more precise connections to the Gospel, rather than talking about himself, may have been helpful. At one point, he actually signed “I love you” to the congregation (illustrating my above point about the messenger) “a way to drive the point of his homily home” we could hear visually. He continued to sign the prayers throughout the Mass, while praying them audibly. I thought this was a creative touch. The homily was over 30 minutes long, which seemed far too long for the children at the Mass. And this Mass, in particular, is the “Children’s Mass.”

In my view, homilies do well when they connect all three readings, offer one or two main take away points from the synthesis and integration of the three. They are excellent if they are also entertaining or sustain a wide variety of people, and most important provide a challenge or some food for contemplation.

Mystagogy: As I see it, consistency between the messenger and message is the strongest mark of mystagogy. People are attracted to integrity, and turned off by hypocrisy. I suppose this homily worked fairly well; however the length of the homily was an issue. The priest also rushed through the Liturgy of the Eucharist, seemingly because his homily was so long. This was another strike against mystagogy. Mystagogy is deepened and heightened by a prayerful, contemplative kind of praying throughout the entire Liturgy. The rest of this Mass seemed too rush to foster such a state. Mystagogy excels when the presence of God is drawn attention to: in the Eucharist, Scriptures, laity, and the priest.
Ella Johnson, ella.johnson@utoronto.ca            
St. Bernard's School of Theology and Ministry

5) A comment to Ella from Linda Maloney
Interesting thread that, unhappily, I'm too swamped to follow closely. I am a practicing preacher (and presider) and a graduate of the late lamented College of Preachers at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. I almost never preach longer than ten minutes.

I just wanted to clarify something: Ella expressed a wish that the homily tie together all three readings. That would be -- except in Advent and Lent and on major feasts -- a very artificial exercise, because the second (New Testament) reading is designed to be a kind of lectio continua -- that is, it proceeds more or less sequentially through the non-Gospel literature of the NT, without reference to the other two readings. So a cross-reference is not intended and really should not be attempted.

In the RC lectionary the OT reading and the Gospel are still thematically linked (not always happily). So it is possible to preach on the theme they (are meant to) have in common, but one should be cautious not to reinforce stereotypes, outdated theological ideas, or -- perhaps worst of all -- anti-Judaism and prejudices against women.

In churches like mine (the Episcopal Church) that use the Revised Common Lectionary, there are long stretches in which the OT reading as well as the NT reading is lectio continua and therefore unrelated to the Gospel. One therefore has three choices of preaching text -- or rather four, if you count the Psalm. A good resource like Feasting on the Word (Abingdon) takes advantage of this and offers plenty of material on each reading independently.

I find I most often preach on the Gospel -- or I have in the past, but since I lost pretty much my entire sermon file in a computer crash, I have the opportunity (?!) to start over, and perhaps I'll explore other avenues in future. I am "retired" and supplying in different parishes as needed, so I have plenty of room to experiment -- if I disappoint on a given Sunday, at least they're not stuck with me week after week and don't have to invite me back! (To date, I should say, I have generally been received with enthusiasm; however, I'm now working partly in Canada, where congregations are a good deal more reserved, so it's hard to know . . . .)

But one of my most "famous" (best-remembered) sermons was on the OT reading, 2 Kings 4:10. I took for my text "a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp." Can you imagine it?
Linda Maloney, LMMALONEY@csbsju.edu            

6) From Florida: Martin Madar
The Messenger
The homilist has mastered his craft. He was prepared and had a natural presence. He was confident and seemed to enjoy himself. He stepped down from the sanctuary and the entire time he was moving back and forth, but not excessively. He started with a short story with which he grabbed our attention, then he elaborated to the Gospel reading, and concluded with a passage from 1 Corinthians 13. It was fairly well done.

The Message
There was a message. It had to do with legalism and how it can corrupt the practice of religion. The message was well articulated, supported with one or two examples. Concluding with the passage about love from 1 Corinthians 13 felt to be smooth and natural.

Mystagogy
The homily contained the element of mystagogy. It was present: (1) in the care with which the homilist approached the congregation; (2) in the examples with which he illustrated the problem of legalism; and (3) in the conclusion of the homily with one of the most profound passages in the Bible.

Good messenger, message, and mystagogy
Good messenger is prepared and engaging. He makes a connection between the readings and what he perceives is an issue for his audience. He does not primarily exegete the text(s) but shows how they address us today. He is familiar with the basics of public speaking. He addresses both the mind and the heart.

Good message engages a listener in his or her life situation. It empowers the life of faith. It inspires and challenges. It has a potential to make a difference. There is wisdom in it for life.

Mystagogy illustrates the fundamentals of Christianity in terms of the incarnational and communal dynamics. It addresses both the mind and the heart. It shows how salvation is not just about the future, but also about the here-and-now.
Martin Madar, Barry University, Miami Shores            
MMadar@mail.barry.edu


           Go to: Ten Lay Homilies