I read someplace (here?) today that there was a suggestion from the Synod that the clergy devote their homilies over the next four years to a cycle of explanations of Catholic doctrine and practice. It's certainly much needed!
Sadly, in many cases, if the clergy had to give these explanations, they'd be learning about the subject for the first time themselves. I don't know what it is they do in seminary now, but they certainly don't seem to learn much about Church doctrine or history while they're at it.
Still, when I recall how abruptly the VatII changes were introduced (even against the will of a large part of the people and clergy), I don't see why the Vatican is now powerless to simply lay down the law, demand a change in practice, and then start teaching on the basis of that change. It could be a sort of jump-start to the whole cycle of teaching.
"Sadly, in many cases, if the clergy had to give these explanations, they'd be learning about the subject for the first time themselves. I don't know what it is they do in seminary now, but they certainly don't seem to learn much about Church doctrine or history while they're at it."
Better now than later, or never. But with the state of liturgical fluency, such homilies would need to be scrutinized heavily.
It is irksome (to say the least) to ponder the possibility that this non-degreed college dropout possesses greater fluency in liturgical music praxis and Gregorian chant interpretation than the average parish priest, or the average degreed organist or choir director.