Originally Posted by
Bruce
First of all, I have no idea what "modern rules" of sermons he's talking about.
I regularly preach that if we were back in the days of Christ, we would both be the ones cheering on Jesus when He entered Jerusalem and the ones crying "Crucify Him!". The bad news is that we are just a homicidal (and deicidal) as the people of Jesus' time. The good news is that God knows this and is willing to forgive us if we will only reach out to Him. It's a regular topic of mine.
I don't think I've ever heard a "God loves you just the way you are" homily. Apart from the really awful homilies that say nothing, most of them point out flaws in our way of living and call us to repentance.
Oh, and the "why do we use 'we' instead of 'you'" objection, the answer is simple: Because I'm in the same boat as my congregation. In fact, I often use my own failings as examples in my homilies. Why on earth would I consider myself above my own advice? The days of being considered holy simply by dint of ordination are well and truly over... at least I hope they are. I'm struggling along the path to Christ just like everyone else in the pews. This isn't "softening" or "dumbing down" the Gospel. It's just recognizing reality. I don't see how using "you" helps get the message across.
The one thing I do take care to do (or not do) in my homilies: If I take a poke at "one side" of the political divide, I take a poke at the "other side", too. I make fun of pro-Trump people (as an example for my American friends) then I'm careful to also make fun of the liberal Left. My goal is that everyone should walk out of the church thinking, "He's right. I could do better." If anyone walks out feeling self-satisfied, as in "I'm OK... it's that other guy who has a problem," then I've failed. Some of the worst homilies I've heard in my life garnered great praise from the congregation because the homilist played to them and gave what amounted to a political speech about how "other people" were not living the Gospel. Thanks be to God, those homilies have been few and far between.
I will say one thing in defense of the article: I think that the fire-and-brimstone, shape-up-or-be-damned homilies were much more common in the past, because the Church had what was in effect a captive audience of committed Catholics. Now many (most?) of the people in the congregation would be just as happy out shopping or watching sports instead of coming to Mass. If I insult them from the ambo, they'll leave and not come back. This doesn't mean that I soft-pedal the Gospel, but it does mean that I present it in a different way. Instead of hollering, "You're all going to hell!" from the ambo, I calmly demonstrate how none of us is living our Faith well, and how we should all be doing better. Generally, people appreciate the message and, I hope, try to improve their lives as a result.
I'll give you an example: I have a brother deacon who worked very hard in his community to bring people back to Mass. He built bridges and strove to build community, and he was successful. The church gradually started filling more and more with people who wanted to be there. He made a special effort to get people to come at Christmas, a very special celebration. The priest who came to say Mass at Christmas looked at the church and said, "There are so many of you here. Where are you the rest of the year?" and gave a homily on how it was a sin not to come to Mass every Sunday. Most of those new people whom my brother deacon convinced to come to Christmas Mass left and never came back. My point is that a homilist must know his congregation and know their needs. Those people needed to be told that they were welcome in the church community, not that they were headed for hell by not coming the rest of the year. That may have worked in a small town 200 years ago when people had nowhere else to go, but it doesn't fly today, especially when people have just decided to give Mass a try again.
St. Peter's sermon worked because he knew his audience... or, if you will, the Holy Spirit knew the audience. He said what he needed to say to provoke a change of heart. The only thing that blasting the congregation with fire and brimstone does is to make the regular attendees feel smug and self-satisfied. Again, "He's not talking to me; he's talking to those other people who need to shape up," and, as I said, that is one of my definitions of a bad sermon.