Why Catholics can't preach - and prefer not to listen

Oriens journal ^ | Summer 2004 | Editorial

[AskStPhilomena]

It is said that the Devil hates preachers even more than he hates exorcists. A preacher, after all, ministers to multitudes, driving away error and encouraging conversion of heart by the exposition of Catholic doctrine. Common opinion suggests that today’s homiletic standards should give the Evil One little cause for concern. Everyone, or so it seems, has a pulpit horror story of banality, heresy or simple incoherence, even from traditional priests. Having accounted for exaggerations, clerical bad hair days and the posturings of the professional sermon critics among us, it does seem that much, perhaps most, preaching, is substandard.

It’s harder to establish the reasons for this lack of eloquence. Laying the blame on a lack of proximate preparation seems the most popular course - Father is too busy or lazy to prepare properly. Many priests don’t seem to read much more than the daily newspapers, and become preachers of The Weekend Australian rather than the Gospel. The television and the internet have established themselves as the sacerdotal diversions of choice. It’s not that the means of social communication, as the Vatican coyly dubs them, are unimportant, just that as a promoter of homiletic skills they are intrinsically limited. Gone are the days of the presbytery library brimming not just with texts of the Fathers, theology and lives of the saints but also with classics of literature in several languages.

Loud, long and severe

The Curé of Ars as a young priest is said to have slaved over the preparation of his sermons, writing them out in full on the sacristy bench and going to the high altar to pray when he needed inspiration. Having completed them he would commit them to memory. His sources were limited to the standard manuals of the time and his sermons reflect his chief preoccupations - the evils of dancing, drinking and impurity. You have to wonder whether the laity who complain about the irrelevance and tedium of contemporary preaching would deal well with the words of a saint like St John Vianney. His extensive denunciations of all kinds of vice and every spiritual malaise would drain the blood from any face. Nothing he said was for the sake of consolation but rather for destroying the calm of those content with laxity and sin. It was noted that his listeners didn’t even have the luxury of sleeping through his often very loud sermons.

He was not thought of as a good or learned preacher. Both long winded (his average was about an hour and forty minutes) and severe (he was accused of having a Jansenist temperament), he often forgot his place, resuming, if at all, after a long pause. One of his brother priests absentmindedly mislaid the text of about twenty of the saint’s homilies because he didn’t think them very interesting or important. It was only when he began to preach ex tempore, abandoning his youthful rigorism, that the Curé’s words hit home. As a toothless old man mumbling in the pulpit about the love of God he would reduce the whole church to tears of penitence - his sermon was his life. Anything that involves the action of the Holy Spirit is a lot more complicated than any of us imagine.

We can compare the preaching of this saint to that of another holy man, Henry Cardinal Newman, his contemporary. He coaxed and cajoled his listeners, pointing to the beauty of the Church and its teaching, secure in the conviction that the Truth, once announced, attracted the mind. His was a soul that rested peacefully in that Truth, inviting others into its tranquil harbour. You couldn’t imagine Newman shouting at a congregation in the way that Vianney did, yet both were holy, both influenced the people of their time, neither had truck with error or vice.

Congregation hostile

Much has changed in the course of two centuries and those who lament that their clergy don’t preach like Henry Newman or John Vianney should bear in mind that, by and large, a modern congregation won’t sit still for more than twenty minutes or consent to listen to anything more challenging or complicated than a joke about the football. St John would be viewed as an arrogant bore gratuitously insulting his respectable parish, Bd Henry as an uncaring elitist preaching “over the heads” of simple folk. You can be more or less certain that both would be reported to the diocesan authorities or their religious superiors as troublemakers and “unpastoral”. A.N.Wilson wrote a novel which begins with a dense Jesuit who didn’t know how to preach. He coped with the challenge by reading other people’s sermons. As long as he chose the words of those who pandered to the current fashions he was considered a celebrity preacher, given honour and advancement. His fall occurred when, running short of time, he selected a book at random on the way to the pulpit - a collection of Cardinal Newman’s homilies. Unfortunately for him it contained an oblique reference to the glories of High Mass in Latin. His career as a preacher ended ignominously.

Low regard

Humbert of Romans, a medieval theorist of preaching, suggests that the Holy Spirit inspires the preacher in direct proportion to the devotion of the people. It is worth considering that bad preaching is not just a clerical problem, but a function of the low regard in which this ministry is held by everyone in the Church, despite protestations to the contrary. In the same way that the merest glimpse of even a completely cold thurible provokes Pavlovian coughing fits, the accession of the priest to the pulpit often reduces the congregation to a state of evident catatonia before he says a single word. A culturally ingrained habit of thought, of both clergy and laity, considers the preaching of the Church not so much an action of Christ the Teacher but an address whose principle function is to deliver the congregation from boredom. The recent tendency to employ nonclerical preachers at the liturgy - their proper functions lie elsewhere - has not helped this perception.

The French chronicler of manners, Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, records the custom of one famous old canon who would periodically pause during his longer instructions to consume a pickled walnut, while he allowed the congregation leave briefly to clear their throats and nasal passages. He also records an ecclesiastical difference of opinion over the propriety of allowing ladies to have their servants bring them cups of hot chocolate during extended preaching. However quaint these historical portraits they reveal a period in which preaching was taken seriously. It was an event of Divine Mercy at which you might to find edification, grace or conversion of heart.

In an age when the preacher competes not just with the cabarets and soirees of Ars but with increasingly expert and technologically advanced electronic media and cinema proper training of the clergy in sacred eloquence is only part of the solution. We have to have good listeners as well as good preachers.

[AskStPhilomena]

Perhaps the best Preacher of all, is the traditional Latin Mass - even if you don't understand a word of Latin.

[RMrattlesnake]

I used to be a Catholic. Born into a catholic home raised catholic, but there was one problem I read my bible and found that what the catholic did was not according to the teaching of the bible. So I had to leave. I tried many Protestants as well and found they followed after the traditions of man as well. The modern evagelicelss we OK but they to follow men was. I finally found a independent fundamentalist Church. So there is no better preaching than those who preach out of the bible. You see give me that old time gospel and deep water baptism.

[enuu]

This is a completely false misunderstanding we hear all the time from Protestants. All Catholic doctrine is based on the Word of God, including Trinity, Transubstantiation, Homage to Mary, Papal Authority, etc. Scholarly texts are available if anyone ever seriously cared to know, but it's so much easier to accept simplistic answers. Since there are about 200 Protestant sects in the USA, each able to give their own interpretation, and many more cults that are not even Christian (such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witness) that all claim to be based on the Bible, it seems to me spurious and just plain silly to say you don't believe in a religion because it's not based on the Bible. They all are, but what interpretation? At least with the Catholic Faith, the story has been pretty straight and consistent for 2000 years and anyone cannot just come along and change in on a whim, like your local "Bountiful Life Christian Assembly" or whatever they call themselves.

[The Truth will set you Free]

Amen, Brother.

All one needs to do, is seriously read into the history of the Church. I read my eyeballs off, even more than my college studies and the truth is all there. In fact the Catholic Church is the only Church that follows every word of Jesus to the T, and there is still so much more to learn. Jesus said his Church would be "the light of the world"(Matt 5:14), and that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it"(Matt 16:18). The Catholic Church is Christ's Church and it will prevail.

God Bless, Truth

[Arthur McGowan]

I challenge you to read just one book by Scott Hahn, and then come back and say that the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church do not have a solid foundation in both the Old and New Testaments.

[HarleyD]

"At least with the Catholic Faith, the story has been pretty straight and consistent for 2000 years..."

This also is a completely false misunderstanding we hear all the time from Catholics.

[Arguss]

"In fact the Catholic Church is the only Church that follows every word of Jesus to the T"

Another Amen Brother.

I always shake my head in disbelief when someone tells me that whatever kind of Church they belong to follows the Bible and only the Bible, and all the Bible.

Then they spout some passage or another to prove their point, completely disregarding other passages and in fact whole chapters that mitigate the point they are trying to make.

Granted, it*s not always easy to reconcile one passage with another, But the Church (there is only one Church) does it. Opposed to so-called evangelical congregations who decide what they want to believe, then go to the Bible to prove it in selected passages.

I*ll bet they don*t dwell a lot on John 6 where Jesus tells us that we must eat His Body, for it is food indeed - and that those who didn*t believe, turned away from Him.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

There is alot of Catholic doctrine that is right, IMO, there is alot wrong tho.

If someone gave you a cup of coffe with just one drop of poison in it would you drink it? It's mostly coffee??

Becky

[fishtank]

former RCC dittos

[conservonator]

This also is a completely false misunderstanding we hear all the time from Catholics.

Demonstrate.

[Maximilian]

This person doesn't know what the heck they are talking about. Neither their description of St. John Vianney nor John Newman are accurate. The author seems to nothing about the history of preaching in the Catholic Church. This article should not have been posted -- in fact it should not have been written by someone who knows so little on the subject.

[HarleyD]

I knew someone would ask that question. That's why I posted:

The Papacy and Islam

So who's right-Urban II (who called Muslims infidels) or John Paul?

[conservonator]

Who says both aren't? Perspective, context and style: all things that may give the impression of incompatibility but none of them affect the basic truth which is that Islam is not a saving religion. John Paul's recognition that most if not all religions have an albeit dim, spark of truth found with in them does not mean He thinks Islam is on par with the Catholic faith. . Islam’s spark of truth is that there is one God. Whether Allah and the God of Abraham are one in the same is not important to the fact that monotheism is closer to truth than atheism.

One thing I do find interesting is the change in attitude that many Protestants have had since 9/11, regarding Urban II in particular and the Crusades in general. Once one of the “evidences” of the evil nature of the Church, they are now being recognized as a valiant struggle against the tide of Islam.

[Sensei Ern]

While I agree, much of what is presented as preaching is verbal flatulence, it is not a forgotten art. Many preachers today still inspire the wayward to walk with God.

Lester Roloof is one of my favorite preachers. Although he was a country bumpkin, he still inspired sinners to be converted, and God was glorified. He died in 1983.

For thorough study of the Word of God, I enjoy J.Vernon McGee, another bumpkin.

For apologetics, I enjoy Ravi Zaccarias.

Others talk fondly of their teachers. Sean Hannity speaks often of the inspiration his priest provides. I am sure Mel Gibson has a good pastor as evidenced by Mel's spiritual growth over the past decade.

Your comments concerning the monk who plagiarized others is analogous with several ministers today. Many do not study the Word of God, but rather study the word of another guy's study of the Word of God.

When I preach, I study an hour per minute preached. I do not plan it that way; it just works out that way.

Preach not because you have to say something, but because you have something to say.

However, that is not to take away from studying what others say about the Word of God. The consistency of the message and avoidance of heresy is because we are trained by those more experienced.

Sensei Ern

[HarleyD]

"Who says both aren't? Perspective, context and style: all things that may give the impression of incompatibility but none of them affect the basic truth which is that Islam is not a saving religion."

Right now I arguing with another Catholic that the Muslims don't have the Holy Spirit. YIKES!!! You can double speak this all you want but the fact remain that the positions are incompatible.

"...they [Protestants] are now being recognized as a valiant struggle against the tide of Islam."

I suppose its better than declaring Muslims OK in God's sight. Personally, I would rather see them come to a saving knowledge.

You've asked me to demonstrate an inconsistency and I have. If you wish to ignore the evidence it won't be the first time I've experienced this from my Catholic friends.

[conservonator]

You have not demonstrated inconsistency in anything of consequence, unless you your equate consistency of method with consistence of cause. The main "inconsistency" you have demonstrated is your unwillingness to admit that the Churches teaching on the need of mohamidiams to convert to the one true Faith remains unchanged.

[conservonator]

You have not demonstrated inconsistency in anything of consequence, unless you your equate consistency of method with consistence of cause. The main "inconsistency" you have demonstrated is your unwillingness to admit that the Churches teaching on the need of mohamidiams to convert to the one true Faith remains unchanged.

[HarleyD]

From the Pope: “The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's plan, whose faith Muslims eagerly link to their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devotedly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting.”

From you, "The main "inconsistency" you have demonstrated is your unwillingness to admit that the Churches teaching on the need of mohamidiams to convert to the one true Faith remains unchanged."

I'm not the one who is saying the Muslims don't need to convert. Perhaps John Paul need better speech writers.

[conservonator]

I'm sorry, could you point to the part where the pope states that Muslims "don't need to convert". I can't seem to find it. All I see is a man pointing out some of the similarities between Islam and Christianity and making a tacit appeal for Muslims to take the next steep into the fullness of faith.

Maybe I need to get my handy dandy Calvinist anti-papal reading glasses out...

[HarleyD]

Pope said: This is a truth which Christians inherited from the children of Israel and which they share with Muslims: it is faith in the one God

Do they have faith in "one God" or is this another inconsistency?

It would be helpful to go over to the Papal & Islam thread as this is becoming redundant.