According to the minutes of a recent parish council meeting at St. Thomas More, Father Joseph Hart (Vicar General of the DOR), was asked why he stands near the layperson who is speaking at Mass during the time reserved for the homily. Father Hart replied that he stood there because the layperson is speaking only in the role of someone who is having a dialogue with the presiding priest. He further stated that his standing there is designed to prevent the congregation from perceiving that the layperson has been delegated the role of homilist.
Father Hart’s response raises a number of questions. First of all, is it a DOR requirement that the presiding priest stand near the apparent lay homilist during this time of sharing? I have been to many Masses where I have witnessed “lay preaching”, and I have yet to see the priest standing close by during this “dialogue”.
Father Hart cites the 1997 Vatican document, On Certain Questions Regarding the collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of the Priest (hereafter, “OCQ”), in support of the DOR’s use of laypeople during the homily. Father Hart states that this document allows the presiding priest to utilize a layperson during the homily as long as it is part of a “dialogue”. This is what OCQ says in regard to “dialogue” homilies:
ยง 3. As an expositional aide and providing it does not delegate the duty of preaching to others, the celebrant minister may make prudent use of “dialogue” in the homily, in accord with the liturgical norms.(73)
This is the footnote (73) that is referenced:
(73) Cf. Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, Directory for Masses with childrenPueros Baptizatos (1 Nov. 1973), n. 48: AAS 66 (1974), p. 44.
Thus, the only reference in the document cited by Father Hart for dialogue homilies is a section that specifically refers to Masses with children. The reason for this is that dialogue homilies are fairly common occurrences at Masses for children. For example, St. Thomas the Apostle typically has a children’s Mass every Christmas Eve. The Mass features a homily specifically for the children who gather around the priest. There is a conversation or “dialogue” between the priest and the children at this Mass.
OCQ goes on to say:
For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm(70) (regarding lay homilists) since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying.
Archbishop Chaput has this to say about “lay” preaching:
The homily is the privileged time for the priest or deacon, guided by the Holy Spirit, to be an instrument helping God’s word to penetrate hearts. For their part, having been attentive to God’s word in the readings, members of the assembly now act by listening. Understood in this light, a “dialogue” homily is not suitable. A period of silence serves well after the homily to allow the homilist’s words to open us to the Holy Spirit, who will draw us deeper into the paschal mystery as it unfolds before us…A priest or deacon always gives the homily during Mass. No other person should assume this role, even if he or she is an excellent speaker, a religious, seminarian, deacon candidate, or a member of the laity…The Church – as a matter of universal law, not local preference – has set apart her ordained ministers in a particular way for the preaching of the word. Not only have they received a formal training and commission, they’ve also received the gift of the Holy Spirit in a special way to communicate the word of God to the assembly.
Archbishop Chaput refers to a period of silence after the homily. His inference is that a dialogue homily refers to an interaction between the priest and the congregation. This matches the understanding of dialogue homily that was raised in a question to EWTN theologian Colin Donovan:
A dialogic homily is one in which the homilist engages the congregation, not a single person, as part of his pedagogical method. The congregation is not a co-homilist, but a responder. This is most typically used with children. It is lawful.
Colin Donovan, in the same posting, had this to say about lay preaching:
The situation (lay homilist) you describe is both a liturgical abuse and a patently silly attempt to get around the fact that the homilist at Mass must be a cleric, someone who sacramentally, by Orders, speaks in the name of Christ and the Church. It also lacks honesty and courage. At least the true dissident has the courage of his convictions and does not resort to legalistic strategems, wanting to be seen as within the law, while in actuality being disobedient.
In summary, the Church specifically forbids the practice of having a lay person deliver the homily during Mass. In Rochester, we are told that we don’t have lay homilists, we merely have a layperson engaging in dialogue with the presiding priest. However, it seems very clear that the word “dialogue”, in the context of OCQ, refers to a conversation between the ordained homilist (bishop, priest, or deacon) and the congregation. Nowhere does this document infer that the homily can be a “dialogue” between the clergyman and one particular layperson.
So, what is a poor confused layperson in the DOR to think? Is there a misunderstanding of Canon Law and liturgical directives by our clerical leaders? Is it a question of interpretation of these laws? If the DOR’s interpretation is correct, are Archbishop Chaput and others confused?
Unfortunately, if the DOR’s interpretation is erroneous, then the faithful are left to suffer and the Faith is damaged. Perhaps its time for Rome to step in and clarify. Confusion is not an option.