"Noting “concern” about “the state of preaching in the Church in Australia,” a draft motion proposes requesting a dispensation from the Vatican that would allow laypeople to preach homilies during Mass — a form of preaching limited by canon law to priests or deacons."
"At the same time, the framework affirms the need to better educate the faithful to serve as missionary witnesses to the truth of Church teaching on a range of pastorally sensitive issues."
My experience with lay homily preaching back in the '80s before it was quashed suggests that these two items are contradictory. Much of the lay preaching, that which wasn't emotional dribble, was at odds with clear Church teaching; that was frequently why they wanted to preach, though sometimes they had no idea what the Church teaches. Then again, the clerical preaching in that parish sometimes went that way.
Being relentlessly pragmatic, I think it would be fine for a parish to start its own Toastmasters chapter (noting first that most people would rather die than deliver a speech in public) and to train people in how to preach on street corners without accidentally doing a heresy, and, once this infrastructure is in place, to then recommend that anyone who thinks "this homily was terrible and I could preach a better one" or more generally "why do priests get to have all the fun? i should be allowed to tell people the good news" should follow their heart and dedicate some time to witnessing publicly to the faith in the world outside of the walls of the church building. It seems to me that this would be a sufficient outlet for the natural (or more likely supernatural) desire to get up and deliver a sermon. If someone turns out to be so good at it that there is demand within the parish to hear them indoors while seated on hard wooden benches, simply schedule time for a lecture circuit, but I think it is more likely that everyone would quickly realize either "I do not, really, want to preach, nor to listen to speeches as bad as I am hearing in this Toastmasters chapter" or "I need to preach far more often and to far different people than to a small trapped Sunday congregation who already more-or-less know Jesus."
I'd like to note that hearing a fist-pumping banger of a homily is not why we're at Mass. I'd say the homily is no higher than the 6th, maybe 5th most valuable thing about Mass. I'm not there to hear a snappy new exegesis based on Popular Media Catholic Author's latest book, or the 3rd in a series of 6 homilies gearing me up for the retreat speaker scheduled next month. I'm there to offer sacrifice, pray with my brothers and sisters in Christ, hear and sing the Word, and to participate in spiritual work with the saints.
And dare I say it, the idea that hearing a sermon is the highlight of the Sunday service is a protestant one. One that I was happy to leave behind, thankyouverymuch.
On the one hand I agree with you. The sermon isn't the central element of the Mass. You can have a great Mass without one at all. At the same time
"So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?”
I wonder if many Catholics haven't gotten so used to bad preaching that we simply resign ourselves to never hoping for, much less expecting, anything better?
That’s actually a genius idea. That will also really weed out the loudmouths from those with an actual charism. Loudmouths want a captive ‘safe’ audience who will drink bad coffee after mass and say ‘interesting homily Bob/Jan!”. Evangelists want to tell people about Jesus.
I’ve heard some heretical doozeys come out of priest’s mouths… but I don’t see how getting lay people are going to be any better… I’ll happily sit though a mediocre homily from a priest but I DO NOT want to hear what Jan from the parish council thinks of Ephesians 5 in mass.
I can maybe see Fr inviting someone to give a testimony as part of the homily occasionally as it’s relevant thematically, but I sure as hell don’t want that institutionalised.
But also, seriously there’s a thing called the internet. If you desperately need to spout your opinion, get a TikTok. You don’t have a right to a captive audience every Sunday just because you did a short theology course one summer 30 years ago.
That’s a good point. Sometimes, I will supplement my local Sunday homily (which is usually just a simple re-stating of the Gospel in slightly different terms) with a different, more deep-diving one online after Mass.
What does this say about the priests and deacons of Australia? They are so horrible at preaching that lay people must be brought in? What a slap in the face by the bishops to these men.
Granted some of us clerics are not gifted preachers and good preaching is essential.
But isn't the answer to have better formation in homletics? Isn't this the responsibility of bishops.and seminary formators?
Still some clerics might not be gifted preachers and some laity might do better, but do we just assume that laity can do better? Where and how will lay folk be formed for preaching?
Lay preaching is not the answer. Maybe it works among various protestant groups but Catholics are not protestants.
Not all Australian Priests are terrible homilists. The younger they are (generally) the better they are thanks to improved seminary training. The younger foreign priests are also pretty good too. One Korean priest who otherwise had a perfect grasp of grammar and vocabulary but a very thick accent had the humility to print out his homily for parishioners to follow along with.
Some of the worst homilies I’ve heard have come from older missionary orders and priests who are retired for a good reason. Many of them are good men. They’ve spent decades in the poorest most remote parts of Australia and then come to fill in Mass in a inner suburban parish and… well… there’s a reason they’re retired.
I agree , there are great preachers. But when bishops want lay preachers, “because of the state of preaching in Australia” that is an insult to their clergy. When I was in seminary we had lay homletics teachers. Most spoke and taught their own agendas (radical feminism, “the spirit of VCII” and anti Church ideas). The best Homeric Prof was a protestant.
In general they were accountable to no one on the seminary administration.
I know how popular the 3rd rite of Reconciliation is when it was 'tolerated' until a few years ago. People do want to come to the Sacrament, but it is too daunting for many. If it pleases the Holy Spirit, I would really love to see it allowed maybe once a year. I know it would mean many of us could invite lost sheep into the doors of the Church.
I’m sympathetic to this argument as well. Not all trauma from the confessional is sexual necessarily and a lot of weird things can happen to kids and to teenagers that can seriously wound them. There was also an argument that the third rite was a ‘better cultural fit’ for aboriginal populations, especially remote communities where basic necessities are few and far between and priests even fewer. The problem was back in the day and they stopped offering regular confession instead and just did third rite forcing everyone into this one ‘special circumstances’ rite and denying them the private confessional.
Certainly the analogy is there, implying that 3rd form penance is for emergencies and always must be followed by actual confession, just as a baptism by desire means not that a water baptism is unnecessary but that it is scheduled.
Baptism of desire is something like "I was scheduled to get baptized but instead I got hit by a bus on the way there and died". The confession equivalent is something like "this plane is about to crash and a priest absolved us all on the way down" and if you survive the crash you should actually go to confession in the ordinary way (after all, the person who was hit by the bus needs to get baptized in the ordinary way if they survived the bus.)
I’m not arguing with that necessarily. But does that confession of sins have to be strictly verbal? There are plenty infirmities that render people mute but with sufficient moral and intellectual capacity to be capable of sinning.
Or, there’s simply NO time to hear individual confessions because, say your hiding in a basement in Suburban Kiev with 30 other women and children and you can hear Russian soldiers busting open houses looking for civilians and their in the house above you?
I understand the importance of that verbal individual private confession and I don’t think the Third rite should be used flippantly or because it looks ‘more efficient’ for priests who have zero sense of how awesome the full sacrament is, but the church allows it in her wisdom and careful discernment is needed about when to use it.
The exceptions always exist but that is not a reason why we would use 3rd form penance just because people are embarrassed to admit what they did. Trusting the priest is a very important part of reconciliation since sin is a breach of trust. If a person does not trust their pastor with their confession, they should find some priest they do trust. 3rd form penance involves no trust or submission.
I can't say I'm speaking for the Plenary Councils motives, but I know from experience how well attended the 3rd Rite was when it used be offered before Easter. I'm surmising that it's seen as something good in people who do desire the Sacrament of Recon. and it meets people 'where they are at'. We all on here have no problem with Reconciliation as something we've always done or as part of the profound conversion experience, but there are so many Catholics on the peripheries, who not just from embarrassment for their sins, but the unique kind of vulnerability required as you say, trust issues are really daunted. In that way the 3rd Rite might prove to be an invitation to go deeper into faith.
Perhaps it won't be permitted by the Church but I think raising the suggestion shines a light on the desire for the Sacrament and how we can use that in bringing people home.
It is cheap grace. Forgiveness that costs nothing. Of course people attended. "Stand here and be forgiven of all your sins. Never admit it. Never trust. Just stand there." It was all a lie, and we know that it was a lie because it didn't work. If it worked we would have a heap of saints recieving absolution twice a day. Instead we have people who don't even believe in sin.
Penance is not magic. It is a sacrament. It doesn't work without form and matter and the matter is Confession. You didn't see people forgiven of their sins. You saw people lied to who went home unchanged.
Those of us who fell away and returned could probably do some introspection into "why did it take me so long to actually walk into a confessional: root cause, and other confounding factors" and there are going to be a variety of answers; the root cause is probably not easily resolved, but some of the confounding factors will be small and silly things that the enemy tacks on to prolong the struggle through ignorance (can you ask a priest to hear your confession right now instead of during that one hour on Saturdays? can you go to a different parish altogether for confession? is there, perhaps, a website masstimes.org that lists confession times at every parish in your entire city? amazing, who knew)
I am happy to start scheduling two Sunday services. One will have sappy music and sappy preaching and people will eat bread and drink grape juice and all sins will be forgiven by crumpling up a list of sins and throwing them into the trash. The second will be a Mass where we will sing the entire 2000 year repertoire and I will preach the faith and we will eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood having confessed our sins individually to a priest. People can attend either service they wish. Also, the first service will be held at the local mainline Protestant church.
That's where we're heading right? Unfortunately the option of just being left alone to practice the faith is being increasingly restricted. It's the modern way or no way at all. A local perish in my area recently wanted to put altar rails into a new chapel that was being constructed. Nope said his Excellency - we don't want to encourage any trads out there.
This stuff used to make me mad, but I'm increasingly left with a deep sense of sadness. The reality is this will lead to a loss of faith. It will lead to a further watering down that won't speak to the longing of the soul for union with the Lord. I'm grateful that I've found a little corner of the Church that my family can quietly worship in along with many other young families. But I know in my heart it's only a matter of time before we're labeled as rigid and divisive regardless of how low we try to keep our heads.
The people who want the protestant service are there at all because they are the children of Catholics and they have a sentimental attachment to the Church. Their children will either want real faith or nothing. We are about 40 years from all that generation dying out. Then the only Catholics left will want Catholicism. The question is how much damage can that generation do to the Church in 40 years. Less if we become saints.
It used to be that there were "true believers" in the Spirit of Vatican II. These are mostly gone, but the result of those days are a generation who no longer believes but continues to attend and is trying to wrench control. These are mostly in the 50-80 age group now. I say 40 years because that will be the end. Their children have no interest in the Church or they have found the truth.
Alongside this is the problem of corruption. The hierarchy and other people who have a financial interest. They are trying to control the assets.
Meanwhile if you become a saint, that will be part of what saves the Church. Don't let frustration with the goats make you forget your mission.
Some of them are priests, some are ed-religious and current religious and some are lay people. Most came of age in the 1970s or we’re deeply formed in that era. A large number were deeply shaped by the charismatic renewal and lay movements that had they’ve hey day in the 1970s. A lot of them carry some serious hurts from the mid-century church. They all bought the paracouncil narrative of ‘all the things are changing’.
And they are still hoping it will if they work for it, get the ‘right people’ in power and get the ‘right pope’.
A lot of the lay people are ‘professional Catholics’ they sit on hosptial boards, education and university boards or in high level diocesean jobs. They’ve become a kind of Aristocracy and show their hand in the enthusiasm for lay people taking over anything on offer, because, don’t you know, they’re professionals.
It’s a big ol’ mess here, but there are plenty of people who aren’t f the same mind and who are working just as hard to speak for some of the most marginalised Catholics, young families with kids. You know they’re there because they actually WANT to be there and they want what the actual Church has to offer. They want Jesus.
I don't think it's quite that simple. It's true that the children of Catholics who don't take their faith seriously and go to bland irreverent liturgies are much more likely to leave the faith. But it's not an either or thing where people end up in one of two camps. The biggest concern I have is that in 40 years many of those who want Catholicism won't even know what it is. Even symbols are of anything traditional (like altar rails) are being increasingly prohibited lest the sheep get exposed to anything that could be understood as rigid (more commonly understood as traditional).
What in the world could go wrong???
"Noting “concern” about “the state of preaching in the Church in Australia,” a draft motion proposes requesting a dispensation from the Vatican that would allow laypeople to preach homilies during Mass — a form of preaching limited by canon law to priests or deacons."
"At the same time, the framework affirms the need to better educate the faithful to serve as missionary witnesses to the truth of Church teaching on a range of pastorally sensitive issues."
My experience with lay homily preaching back in the '80s before it was quashed suggests that these two items are contradictory. Much of the lay preaching, that which wasn't emotional dribble, was at odds with clear Church teaching; that was frequently why they wanted to preach, though sometimes they had no idea what the Church teaches. Then again, the clerical preaching in that parish sometimes went that way.
Being relentlessly pragmatic, I think it would be fine for a parish to start its own Toastmasters chapter (noting first that most people would rather die than deliver a speech in public) and to train people in how to preach on street corners without accidentally doing a heresy, and, once this infrastructure is in place, to then recommend that anyone who thinks "this homily was terrible and I could preach a better one" or more generally "why do priests get to have all the fun? i should be allowed to tell people the good news" should follow their heart and dedicate some time to witnessing publicly to the faith in the world outside of the walls of the church building. It seems to me that this would be a sufficient outlet for the natural (or more likely supernatural) desire to get up and deliver a sermon. If someone turns out to be so good at it that there is demand within the parish to hear them indoors while seated on hard wooden benches, simply schedule time for a lecture circuit, but I think it is more likely that everyone would quickly realize either "I do not, really, want to preach, nor to listen to speeches as bad as I am hearing in this Toastmasters chapter" or "I need to preach far more often and to far different people than to a small trapped Sunday congregation who already more-or-less know Jesus."
I'd like to note that hearing a fist-pumping banger of a homily is not why we're at Mass. I'd say the homily is no higher than the 6th, maybe 5th most valuable thing about Mass. I'm not there to hear a snappy new exegesis based on Popular Media Catholic Author's latest book, or the 3rd in a series of 6 homilies gearing me up for the retreat speaker scheduled next month. I'm there to offer sacrifice, pray with my brothers and sisters in Christ, hear and sing the Word, and to participate in spiritual work with the saints.
And dare I say it, the idea that hearing a sermon is the highlight of the Sunday service is a protestant one. One that I was happy to leave behind, thankyouverymuch.
On the one hand I agree with you. The sermon isn't the central element of the Mass. You can have a great Mass without one at all. At the same time
"So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?”
I wonder if many Catholics haven't gotten so used to bad preaching that we simply resign ourselves to never hoping for, much less expecting, anything better?
That’s actually a genius idea. That will also really weed out the loudmouths from those with an actual charism. Loudmouths want a captive ‘safe’ audience who will drink bad coffee after mass and say ‘interesting homily Bob/Jan!”. Evangelists want to tell people about Jesus.
I’ve heard some heretical doozeys come out of priest’s mouths… but I don’t see how getting lay people are going to be any better… I’ll happily sit though a mediocre homily from a priest but I DO NOT want to hear what Jan from the parish council thinks of Ephesians 5 in mass.
I can maybe see Fr inviting someone to give a testimony as part of the homily occasionally as it’s relevant thematically, but I sure as hell don’t want that institutionalised.
But also, seriously there’s a thing called the internet. If you desperately need to spout your opinion, get a TikTok. You don’t have a right to a captive audience every Sunday just because you did a short theology course one summer 30 years ago.
That’s a good point. Sometimes, I will supplement my local Sunday homily (which is usually just a simple re-stating of the Gospel in slightly different terms) with a different, more deep-diving one online after Mass.
What does this say about the priests and deacons of Australia? They are so horrible at preaching that lay people must be brought in? What a slap in the face by the bishops to these men.
Granted some of us clerics are not gifted preachers and good preaching is essential.
But isn't the answer to have better formation in homletics? Isn't this the responsibility of bishops.and seminary formators?
Still some clerics might not be gifted preachers and some laity might do better, but do we just assume that laity can do better? Where and how will lay folk be formed for preaching?
Lay preaching is not the answer. Maybe it works among various protestant groups but Catholics are not protestants.
Not all Australian Priests are terrible homilists. The younger they are (generally) the better they are thanks to improved seminary training. The younger foreign priests are also pretty good too. One Korean priest who otherwise had a perfect grasp of grammar and vocabulary but a very thick accent had the humility to print out his homily for parishioners to follow along with.
Some of the worst homilies I’ve heard have come from older missionary orders and priests who are retired for a good reason. Many of them are good men. They’ve spent decades in the poorest most remote parts of Australia and then come to fill in Mass in a inner suburban parish and… well… there’s a reason they’re retired.
I agree , there are great preachers. But when bishops want lay preachers, “because of the state of preaching in Australia” that is an insult to their clergy. When I was in seminary we had lay homletics teachers. Most spoke and taught their own agendas (radical feminism, “the spirit of VCII” and anti Church ideas). The best Homeric Prof was a protestant.
In general they were accountable to no one on the seminary administration.
Hard pass
I know how popular the 3rd rite of Reconciliation is when it was 'tolerated' until a few years ago. People do want to come to the Sacrament, but it is too daunting for many. If it pleases the Holy Spirit, I would really love to see it allowed maybe once a year. I know it would mean many of us could invite lost sheep into the doors of the Church.
I’m sympathetic to this argument as well. Not all trauma from the confessional is sexual necessarily and a lot of weird things can happen to kids and to teenagers that can seriously wound them. There was also an argument that the third rite was a ‘better cultural fit’ for aboriginal populations, especially remote communities where basic necessities are few and far between and priests even fewer. The problem was back in the day and they stopped offering regular confession instead and just did third rite forcing everyone into this one ‘special circumstances’ rite and denying them the private confessional.
Confessed sins are the matter of the sacrament and the absolution prayer is the form. Absolution without confession is like baptism without water.
Would it be right to say that the 3rd Rite of Reconciliation would have the same efficacy as the baptism of Desire?
Certainly the analogy is there, implying that 3rd form penance is for emergencies and always must be followed by actual confession, just as a baptism by desire means not that a water baptism is unnecessary but that it is scheduled.
Baptism of desire is something like "I was scheduled to get baptized but instead I got hit by a bus on the way there and died". The confession equivalent is something like "this plane is about to crash and a priest absolved us all on the way down" and if you survive the crash you should actually go to confession in the ordinary way (after all, the person who was hit by the bus needs to get baptized in the ordinary way if they survived the bus.)
I’m not arguing with that necessarily. But does that confession of sins have to be strictly verbal? There are plenty infirmities that render people mute but with sufficient moral and intellectual capacity to be capable of sinning.
Or, there’s simply NO time to hear individual confessions because, say your hiding in a basement in Suburban Kiev with 30 other women and children and you can hear Russian soldiers busting open houses looking for civilians and their in the house above you?
I understand the importance of that verbal individual private confession and I don’t think the Third rite should be used flippantly or because it looks ‘more efficient’ for priests who have zero sense of how awesome the full sacrament is, but the church allows it in her wisdom and careful discernment is needed about when to use it.
The exceptions always exist but that is not a reason why we would use 3rd form penance just because people are embarrassed to admit what they did. Trusting the priest is a very important part of reconciliation since sin is a breach of trust. If a person does not trust their pastor with their confession, they should find some priest they do trust. 3rd form penance involves no trust or submission.
I can't say I'm speaking for the Plenary Councils motives, but I know from experience how well attended the 3rd Rite was when it used be offered before Easter. I'm surmising that it's seen as something good in people who do desire the Sacrament of Recon. and it meets people 'where they are at'. We all on here have no problem with Reconciliation as something we've always done or as part of the profound conversion experience, but there are so many Catholics on the peripheries, who not just from embarrassment for their sins, but the unique kind of vulnerability required as you say, trust issues are really daunted. In that way the 3rd Rite might prove to be an invitation to go deeper into faith.
Perhaps it won't be permitted by the Church but I think raising the suggestion shines a light on the desire for the Sacrament and how we can use that in bringing people home.
It is cheap grace. Forgiveness that costs nothing. Of course people attended. "Stand here and be forgiven of all your sins. Never admit it. Never trust. Just stand there." It was all a lie, and we know that it was a lie because it didn't work. If it worked we would have a heap of saints recieving absolution twice a day. Instead we have people who don't even believe in sin.
Penance is not magic. It is a sacrament. It doesn't work without form and matter and the matter is Confession. You didn't see people forgiven of their sins. You saw people lied to who went home unchanged.
Those of us who fell away and returned could probably do some introspection into "why did it take me so long to actually walk into a confessional: root cause, and other confounding factors" and there are going to be a variety of answers; the root cause is probably not easily resolved, but some of the confounding factors will be small and silly things that the enemy tacks on to prolong the struggle through ignorance (can you ask a priest to hear your confession right now instead of during that one hour on Saturdays? can you go to a different parish altogether for confession? is there, perhaps, a website masstimes.org that lists confession times at every parish in your entire city? amazing, who knew)
I am happy to start scheduling two Sunday services. One will have sappy music and sappy preaching and people will eat bread and drink grape juice and all sins will be forgiven by crumpling up a list of sins and throwing them into the trash. The second will be a Mass where we will sing the entire 2000 year repertoire and I will preach the faith and we will eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood having confessed our sins individually to a priest. People can attend either service they wish. Also, the first service will be held at the local mainline Protestant church.
That's where we're heading right? Unfortunately the option of just being left alone to practice the faith is being increasingly restricted. It's the modern way or no way at all. A local perish in my area recently wanted to put altar rails into a new chapel that was being constructed. Nope said his Excellency - we don't want to encourage any trads out there.
This stuff used to make me mad, but I'm increasingly left with a deep sense of sadness. The reality is this will lead to a loss of faith. It will lead to a further watering down that won't speak to the longing of the soul for union with the Lord. I'm grateful that I've found a little corner of the Church that my family can quietly worship in along with many other young families. But I know in my heart it's only a matter of time before we're labeled as rigid and divisive regardless of how low we try to keep our heads.
The people who want the protestant service are there at all because they are the children of Catholics and they have a sentimental attachment to the Church. Their children will either want real faith or nothing. We are about 40 years from all that generation dying out. Then the only Catholics left will want Catholicism. The question is how much damage can that generation do to the Church in 40 years. Less if we become saints.
It used to be that there were "true believers" in the Spirit of Vatican II. These are mostly gone, but the result of those days are a generation who no longer believes but continues to attend and is trying to wrench control. These are mostly in the 50-80 age group now. I say 40 years because that will be the end. Their children have no interest in the Church or they have found the truth.
Alongside this is the problem of corruption. The hierarchy and other people who have a financial interest. They are trying to control the assets.
Meanwhile if you become a saint, that will be part of what saves the Church. Don't let frustration with the goats make you forget your mission.
Some of them are priests, some are ed-religious and current religious and some are lay people. Most came of age in the 1970s or we’re deeply formed in that era. A large number were deeply shaped by the charismatic renewal and lay movements that had they’ve hey day in the 1970s. A lot of them carry some serious hurts from the mid-century church. They all bought the paracouncil narrative of ‘all the things are changing’.
And they are still hoping it will if they work for it, get the ‘right people’ in power and get the ‘right pope’.
A lot of the lay people are ‘professional Catholics’ they sit on hosptial boards, education and university boards or in high level diocesean jobs. They’ve become a kind of Aristocracy and show their hand in the enthusiasm for lay people taking over anything on offer, because, don’t you know, they’re professionals.
It’s a big ol’ mess here, but there are plenty of people who aren’t f the same mind and who are working just as hard to speak for some of the most marginalised Catholics, young families with kids. You know they’re there because they actually WANT to be there and they want what the actual Church has to offer. They want Jesus.
I don't think it's quite that simple. It's true that the children of Catholics who don't take their faith seriously and go to bland irreverent liturgies are much more likely to leave the faith. But it's not an either or thing where people end up in one of two camps. The biggest concern I have is that in 40 years many of those who want Catholicism won't even know what it is. Even symbols are of anything traditional (like altar rails) are being increasingly prohibited lest the sheep get exposed to anything that could be understood as rigid (more commonly understood as traditional).