Skip the Daily Homily

Now that we have a canon lawyer as pope, I would ask him to look at Canon 767.3, which states: 

It is strongly recommended that if there is a sufficient congregation, a homily is to be given even at Masses celebrated during the week especially during the time of Advent and Lent or on the occasion of some feast day or sorrowful event.

As well-intentioned as this may be, and however fruitful it at times may be, I wish it would be changed. 

The code seems to favor the daily homily by the phrase “strongly recommended,” given extra emphasis “especially during the time of Advent and Lent or on the occasion of some feast day or sorrowful event.” These are balanced somewhat by the problematic “if there is a sufficient congregation.” (Would you like to be counted as a member of an “insufficient congregation”?) 

If I had the pope’s ear, I would have him change “strongly recommended” to simply “permissible.” While this wouldn’t deter a priest from giving a homily at daily Mass, it would allow him a clear conscience to omit doing so. And I think it would be good if many did. 

Allowing a priest to omit a homily would be good first for the sake of the priest. Imagine a stand-up comedian having to come up with fresh material every night. That, in a way, is the position of the priest—not that he is a stand-up comedian but that he feels obligated to come up with something every day. He hopes to touch the hearts of at least some of those in the pews. 

He must also be careful that he doesn’t cross the doctrinal or pastoral line. If the reading is straightforward (e.g., “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers…”), he struggles for a “fresh take.” If the reading is obscure or problematic (e.g., “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle…”), some research and threshing out is required. These are no small demands on a man who already has many demands on his time. 

A priest faced with these demands often falls into one of two traps: One, he “wings it” (or “goes with the Spirit”), with the result that the homily can be rambling and either rather milquetoast or inadvertently crosses a line. Two, (and this may be worse), he goes for the striking effect, which can become (in my opinion) melodramatic. As a teacher, I know the perils of trying to be “relevant” on a daily basis. 

This is exacerbated by the new lectionary, with two readings and a psalm for each day. Many priests feel the need to tie these all together, which would be difficult for even the most erudite biblical scholar and gifted orator. He often ends up with a (lengthy) patchwork quilt that can leave you wondering just what the point was. If he wants to tie in the saint of the day, you can be in for a long ride. 

We—and the priest—must also face the fact that not all priests are gifted homilists; nor should we expect them to be. That is not the nature of the Catholic priesthood, as distinguished from Protestant clergy. A priest, by definition, is one who offers a sacrifice—not necessarily one who preaches. A man is called to the priesthood to administer the sacraments, and, while this may shock some, homiletics is not a sacrament. While some orders (e.g., the Dominicans) are distinguished by being called to preach in addition to offering the sacrifice of the Mass, homiletics is not the raison d’être of the priesthood. 

I do know priests who give good daily homilies, but they are few. I think most priests would feel relieved at not having to face a crowd at 6:30 or 7 a.m. each morning with something special. Time spent preparing a daily homily could be given to preparing the required homily for Sunday and would also allow them to give their full attention to what is their purpose: to offer the sacrifice of the Mass. 

Also, while it may be indelicate to point out, many who attend daily Mass are in a “time crunch.” They have to get to work or back home to the kids, even on Saturdays. They’re worried about traffic and car pools. Most priests are aware of this, but some aren’t. One priest would raise my ire when he often began his Saturday homily with, “Well, it’s Saturday and you’ve nowhere to go, so let’s delve into this.” Even priests that are aware of this may still feel compelled to give a good homily, and, with an eye on the clock, rush the rest of the Mass to ensure people get out on time.  

Also, I don’t know if it’s a good idea to put a man with a microphone in front of a crowd for 10 minutes each day. Requiring him to say something special every day may lead him to think he has something special to say every day. That is perilous for any person.

But shouldn’t the laity be given something? Well, perhaps. But think about it: people who attend daily Mass are, it would seem, already serious about their faith. Most, if casual observance is to be trusted, already have some “worship aid” (e.g., a Magnificat) which gives them a reflection on the readings. It also might be good for the laity to “actively engage” with the liturgy by doing a little more of the grunt work on their own reflecting on Scripture. True, they may find some unorthodox takes on the Scriptures, but, again, daily Mass goers are usually serious about their faith, and my guess is they wouldn’t be going to questionable sources. 

It would also allow the laity to focus their attention on what the Mass is really about: the Eucharistic sacrifice. We know there is a problem in this area, and one reason for it is that too many Catholics think the Mass is about the preaching. Many leave the Church based on the comparison of the Protestant preacher and the Catholic priest because the distinction between the two has been blurred by the emphasis on preaching. 

While it is a wonderful and blessed thing to hear a good homily, we have to remember that the Mass is not a “Bible study.” For Catholics, the central act of the worship service is not the “lesson” as it is termed and acted out in many Protestant churches; the central act is the Sacrifice. And while there are occasions for an explanation of the Scriptures, daily Mass is not, I would submit, usually one of them. 

As the saying goes, “God’s language is silence; the rest is translation.” Two or three minutes of stillness and silence after the Gospel would be a good thing. We don’t have enough of those two necessities in our lives, and Mass would be a good place to start. It would allow everyone to readjust their sights for the event that is about to take place. Omitting the homily would allow for more time for thanksgiving after Communion, especially for the aforementioned “time crunched” Mass attendees. Afterall, we go to Mass not for what is there but for who is there. Allow us time to enjoy His company. 

We’ve entered into a sort of “Big Gulp” approach to Scripture and Scripture talk at Mass. Of course we should all have more knowledge of Scripture, but we are a literate age with many ways of satisfying our thirst. While some may say in favor of the daily homily that “something is better than nothing,” that isn’t the dilemma. You can get Scripture study outside of Mass. What you can’t get outside of Mass is the Eucharist. You go to a concert to hear the music not an explanation of the music and a biography of the composer. 

St. Francis de Sales once said, “The more you say, the less people remember.” That is good advice for all of us (including people who write for online publications).