|
1) From Ohio: Robert Russo
“A Day of Labor, A Day of Rest" 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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
3) From Melbourne, Australia: Paul McMahon 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.
4) A comment about Holy Family and Paul McMahon’ post by Mary Whiteside 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.
5) From Clare McGrath-Merkle
6) From Brooklyn: A Sermon, not a Homily 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.
B) HOMILY EVALUATIONS 1) From Florida: Elsie Miranda
The Messenger: overall score of 6
Message: overall score of 2
Mystagogy: overall score of 1 "Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 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
1. The messenger:
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.”
3. Mystagogy: 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.
3) From Massachusetts: Marc Tumeinski 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. 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.
5) A comment to Ella from Linda Maloney 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?
6) From Florida: Martin Madar
The Message
Mystagogy
Good messenger, message, and mystagogy 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.
|