Among the reasons for leaving the Church given by respondents to the Trenton Diocese sponsored Empty Pews survey I talked about last time was the poor quality of preaching, and that priests didn't seem available to them. In a real way they felt like sheep without shepherds.
The standard response that most priests give for the poor quality of preaching, especially when compared to Protestant ministers, is that the sermon is not the central part of the Mass as it is in most Protestant services. We have the Blessed Sacrament, the reasoning goes, so that even if the homily is wretched you still get the grace of the Sacrament which trumps everything else.
True enough, but we forget something important; people come to know the Good News through the proclamation of the Word and the "Breaking of the Bread of the Word of God" that is offered in the homily. A good preacher, prepared and open to the Spirit can stir people to action, lead to conversion, and encourage the weak in spirit. I've known people who entered into RCIA programs after hearing a sermon that moved them and I finally responded to my vocational call, after years of dragging my feet on the matter, after hearing a sermon. A sermon, by the way, that had nothing directly to do with the priesthood or vocation. That's the power of the Spirit working through the preacher, well prepared.
So, as for the charge that the quality of preaching in our pulpits is lacking, I have to say guilty as charged. I know some exceptional preachers, of course, and while the homily isn't central to our worship, it shouldn't be undervalued either. The fruits of good preaching are greater than most of us know.
There were also complaints about the topics covered in homilies; too conservative, too much about abortion and contraception. This I have to laugh at a bit, because before this whole HHS Mandate brouhaha I'm pretty sure the average parishioner would be hard pressed to say when the last time they heard about contraception in a homily was, if ever. The average priest is simply scared to bring it up in the pulpit, or in the confessional, for that matter, or else they openly dissent from the teaching and ignore it. As for abortion, if I preach on it, I'm accused by some of talking about it too much, if I go awhile without mentioning it, then others say I'm being wishy washy. And I can go down the line of any number of doctrinal issues and say the same thing. You can't please everyone, and you're a fool to try. Yes, know your audience, their needs, their life situation, the questions of their heart, but to pander so as to either not offend or to ingratiate yourself with the congregation is a mistake. Preach where the Spirit leads, always in the light of Scripture and Tradition (an authentic movement of the Spirit wouldn't lead you anywhere else), and let the chips fall where they may.
The other observation made was that priests don't seem available as spiritual guides; in answer to a question they give a rule, but don't really take the time to explain why. Again, a valid complaint. Part of it could be with the priest himself; maybe he is arrogant, aloof or just plain socially backward. I make no excuses there. Some times it's a matter of him simply having a bad day and he sees you as now the eleventh complaint he's had to deal with this morning (again, not an excuse for being rude), or you caught him rushing between appointments and legitimately doesn't have the time. At the same time people need to use a little common sense. Trying to engage a priest while he's on line for the opening procession of Mass is not a good move. Trying to get into a debate over the merits of cremation as the priest is rushing between the sacristy and the hearse for the trip to the cemetery; also a questionable tactic (I actually had that happen). No one should wonder why the priest gave them the brushoff (hopefully gently) in those situations.
If the priest tells you he doesn't have the time to speak right then, believe him, because the odds are he probably doesn't. In that case push for an appointment, and if he's uncooperative on that one, then it's on him. But if he does make the appointment, show up. There's nothing more frustrating than waiting for a person who made it sound like everything depended on this conversation and then doesn't show. And, again, if the priest is either a no show, or constantly cancels, then shame on him.
The problem of poor preaching and clerical "aloofness" can only really be solved in the long term on the level of initial formation. There needs to be better affective "training" to go along with the intellectual preparation the men receive. The screening process needs to take into account the people skills of our candidates, as well. I think there's also the issue of the priest shortage that we have to take into account. Parishes don't have a pastor with two or three assistance anymore. The work is more and the laborers fewer. The administrative demands collide with the pastoral work and it just becomes more difficult to meet the needs of the people while completing the paperwork and financial management of the institutions in our care. There are still only 24 hours in a day, and many tasks to do, and while there is no excuse for being rude, somethings are going to fall through the cracks as long as we don't have enough priests.
Another point I want to get to is about the study itself. I found it to be, at least from what I read in the America Magazine article, a bit skewed toward the "progressive" side. I know that the authors will probably say that they were being objective and scientific, but as I pointed out the last time the demographics of the study seemed to favor a particular outcome, and agenda. More on this in the last installment on this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment