It is vital that the homilist relate his message
unambiguously to
the everyday challenges faced by his people.

A “homily” for homilists
By Joseph H. Foegen

If the intended message “doesn’t come through,” both homilist’s effort and listeners’ time are essentially wasted. “Pew customers” are sorely tempted to doze. Sooner or later, already-declining Mass attendance could get even worse. Following these suggestions could improve a trying situation.

One way a homilist can be more effective is to remove “mystery.” Given religion’s very nature, enough of that is present already, without adding to it, however unintentionally! Make sure main points are driven home clearly. Absolutely no doubt should exist in any listener’s mind. “What was he talking about?” should never have to be asked.

Not trying to make too many points will also increase effectiveness. Doing so only confuses; attention spans of many adults are no greater than those of children. Gambling that they are, is unwise. If too many ideas are presented, recalling any is less likely. The whole effort will be unproductive.

A time-honored format can help here; tell the audience what you intend to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them. Paraphrasing the formula might go this way: “The main idea I’d like to get across today is ______.” Elaborate upon that clearly stated theme. When finished, re-state the key idea again. Then stop. Hopefully, listeners will think about, and then discuss it with friends. All will benefit.

In addition to removing “mystery” by stating the main idea clearly and simply, make the message relevant in practical ways. A homily at the average Sunday Mass is no place for arcane theological exposition. That might satisfy the priest’s Ego, but such is not the main purpose. While those in the pews are ideally not of the world, they are certainly in it every day. “Good advice” should recognize that fact.1

As a not-important digression, “practical” should apply only to the homily’s message, not to the liturgy generally. Many think that movement toward the mundane has progressed too far already. “The characteristic of solemnity, by which I mean the sense of seriousness, weightiness and significance, is notably underrepresented in American Catholic liturgy today. In its place has emerged a pervasive folksiness and casualness, a self-conscious sense of practicality and immediate relevance.”2

Another author has put it this way: “It becomes difficult to see the underlying truth (the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary performed in an unbloody manner) when the truth has been covered with a spirit of good-fellowship, the soothing voice of the presider and liturgical music which only succeeds in making us all feel good about ourselves . . . When the Catholic liturgy takes so much from the Protestants, many parishioners begin to ask themselves, ‘What is the difference?’, and begin attending the Episcopalian church because it is ten minutes closer and the preaching is better.”3

But to return from the digression, it is vital that the homilist relate his message unambiguously to the everyday challenges faced by his people. They “come to the well” not only to adore their Creator and to be edified, but also to be helped by practical advice about how to live daily lives better. Unruly kids, “difficult” subordinates and bosses, “road rage,” and paying the bills are the stuff of today’s existence more than shepherding problems in Galilee, however instructive the latter example can be in principle. The speaker must “come down to earth” with his words, while still making their basic direction as obvious as possible.

In addition to making messages clear and practical, most homilists would do well to hone their deliveries. Neither Good News nor good advice will be absorbed as desired if words are not delivered properly. One way to improve on what is too often experienced today is to speak more loudly. People forget that speaking before a large group is different from conversing at arm’s length with only one. Results are far from best if this goes unrecognized.

Not only increasing volume, but also reducing speed of delivery would help. Ordinary speech “slides over” words, runs them together and tends to be “sloppy” overall. Effective lectoring and homiletics require more deliberate presentations. Enunciation must be precise. Even if seeming stilted and artificial to the speaker, it aids immensely those trying to understand.

Speaking more loudly and more slowly should be complemented by a conscious effort to project the voice. Too many presenters “lean on their notes” excessively. Instead of having eye contact with the audience, they “put their nose in the book,” looking downward at written material instead of outward. It is not surprising that their speech goes in the same direction, making words more difficult to hear and comprehend. Lack of experience, or less-excusable poor preparation, is usually a major cause. Though often self-conscious, and even unconscious, whenever it occurs, presentations suffer.

Using the best microphone available can help also, assuming the presence of any amplification system at all. Some homilists like to leave the lectern and speak to people in the pews more directly, using a clip-on device. While well-intended, less formal and “more personal,” this tactic can also be less effective; the one on the lectern is usually of higher quality. Even having a good system though, does not reduce the need to speak more loudly and slowly, and to look at the audience.

All of this “good advice” applies to “amateur” lectors and professional clergy/homilists alike. Concerning the former, additional training in public speaking is often needed badly. It appears to some listeners that this is too often minimal, that in effect, “anybody who wants to,” can “do the readings.” To the extent that the suggestions made here are taken seriously, and worked at conscientiously, both the main purpose of going to Mass and hearing the readings would be better served.

Concerning the clergy, while it is unreasonable to expect every priest to be as good at preaching the Gospel as was Bishop Fulton Sheen, one wonders why today’s seminaries and the collectively long experience of the clergy fail to produce more homilists who at least approach his inspiring articulateness!4 Reading Scripture, and interpreting it clearly, in ways practically relevant to listeners, is not easy. But as a most-noble calling, it is worthy of maximum effort!

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents February 2001

Back to Catholic Information Center Main Periodical Page