The recent decision of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), in conjunction with the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, rejected the request of the German Bishops’ Conference to permit qualified laymen and women to preach the homily during Mass. The decision has generated considerable discussion throughout the Church. Some welcomed the decision as a reaffirmation of Catholic tradition, while others expressed disappointment, arguing that the Church had missed an opportunity to respond to contemporary pastoral needs and to recognize the gifts of qualified lay preachers.
These concerns deserve to be taken seriously. The Church is richly blessed with laymen and women who possess exceptional theological formation, pastoral experience, and a deep love for Sacred Scripture. As professors, catechists, evangelists, retreat leaders, and missionaries, they make an indispensable contribution to the Church’s mission. The Second Vatican Council itself emphasized the unique vocation of the laity, teaching that through Baptism and Confirmation they share in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and kingly mission (Lumen Gentium, 31–38).
Nor should the pastoral circumstances that prompted the German request be overlooked. Priest shortages, clustered parishes, and the increasing theological formation of the laity naturally raise the question of why gifted lay Catholics may not preach the homily during Mass. These are legitimate questions that deserve careful theological reflection rather than ideological debate. Yet it is precisely here that the recent Vatican response invites us to ask a different question.
What is the homily?
The issue, the Dicastery explained, is not simply one of pastoral expediency or theological competence. Rather, the reservation of the homily to bishops, priests, and deacons “is not merely a disciplinary norm but derives from the nature of the liturgy itself.” That brief statement shifts the entire discussion. It suggests that the question is not primarily Who is capable of preaching? But, What is the homily? That distinction is decisive.
Much of the contemporary discussion assumes that the homily is essentially a sermon, a biblical reflection, or an opportunity for religious instruction. If that is all it is, then it seems reasonable to ask why a qualified lay theologian, biblical scholar, or experienced catechist should not preach it. Indeed, in many settings outside the Eucharistic liturgy, the Church actively encourages such preaching and teaching. Laymen and women lead Bible studies, speak at retreats and conferences, teach in seminaries and universities, direct evangelization programs, and offer spiritual conferences that enrich the lives of the faithful. None of this is questioned by the Church. On the contrary, it is welcomed.
The question, therefore, is not whether lay people may proclaim Christ. They most certainly do, and the Church urges them to do so with ever greater zeal. The question is whether the homily during the Eucharistic celebration belongs to the same category of ministry. In this, the Church has consistently answered that it does not.
The sources of the Church’s authority
Why? The answer reaches far beyond canon law. It touches the very nature of the Church and the source of her authority. Modern culture tends to understand authority as the power to make decisions, revise policies, or adapt institutions to changing circumstances. The more freedom an institution possesses to redefine itself, the more authority it is thought to possess. We naturally bring this assumption into ecclesial discussions. Consequently, debates about liturgical practice often become debates about what the Church has the authority to change. But Catholic theology understands authority very differently.
The Church possesses genuine authority precisely because she has first received something that does not belong to her. Her authority is ministerial before it is juridical, receptive before it is legislative. She does not create the Gospel; she proclaims it. She does not invent the sacraments; she celebrates them. She does not construct the liturgy according to the preferences of any age; she faithfully hands on what she herself has received from Christ through the apostles.
St. Paul expresses this principle with remarkable simplicity: “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you” (1 Cor 11:23). Those words introduce the Apostle’s account of the institution of the Eucharist, but they also reveal a fundamental pattern that runs throughout the life of the Church. The Church lives by receiving and handing on. Tradition is not the preservation of nostalgia but the faithful transmission of a gift that originates not in the Church herself but in Christ.
This understanding permeates the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), begins not with liturgical regulations but with Christ Himself. The Council teaches that “Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations” (SC 7). It continues by declaring that the liturgy is “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows” (SC 10).
The liturgy, therefore, is not first our action directed toward God. It is Christ’s action into which the Church is graciously drawn.
The nature of the liturgy
This insight became one of the defining themes of Joseph Ratzinger’s liturgical theology. Throughout The Spirit of the Liturgy, he insists that authentic worship is never something we invent or manufacture. The liturgy is received before it is celebrated. It is a participation in Christ’s own worship of the Father, entrusted to the Church as a sacred inheritance rather than as raw material for continual revision. The Church certainly possesses authority over the liturgy, but hers is the authority of a faithful steward, not of an owner free to redesign what belongs to another.
That distinction lies at the heart of the recent Vatican clarification. The Church’s response to the German bishops is not simply an appeal to an existing rule. It is an appeal to the nature of the liturgy itself. Before asking whether a practice should change, we must first ask what the liturgy is and who acts within it. Only then can we understand why the homily has always occupied a unique place within the Eucharistic celebration.
If the recent Vatican clarification invites us to reconsider the nature of the liturgy, it also compels us to ask a more fundamental question: Who is the principal actor in the liturgy? The answer to that question determines everything else, including the place of the homily within the Eucharistic celebration.
The Second Vatican Council provides the essential starting point. In one of the most important passages of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Council Fathers teach that “Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations” (SC 7). The Council then unfolds the many ways in which that presence is realized. Christ is present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, in the sacraments, in the praying assembly, and significantly, “it is He Himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures are read in the Church.” This final affirmation is often overlooked, yet it is indispensable for understanding the Church’s theology of preaching.
The liturgical proclamation of Sacred Scripture is not merely the public reading of an ancient text. Nor is it simply the recollection of what Christ once said. The Council insists that Christ Himself continues to address His people whenever the Scriptures are proclaimed within the Church’s liturgy. The assembly does not merely hear about Christ; it hears Christ Himself.
The liturgy is thus not primarily a classroom, nor is it first an occasion for religious instruction. It is the privileged place where the risen Christ continues His saving work through visible signs, sacramental actions, and the proclamation of His Word. Everything that occurs within the liturgy must therefore be understood within that sacramental horizon. This is precisely where the homily finds its proper place.
The unity of the liturgy
In many conversations surrounding this issue, the primary argument has been that qualified laymen and women often possess theological education equal to, or even exceeding, that of some ordained ministers. From one perspective, this observation is undoubtedly true. Indeed, the Church’s recent clarification does not deny any of this. Rather, it teaches that theological competence is not the decisive criterion.
This distinction becomes clearer when we consider other dimensions of the liturgy. The Eucharistic Prayer is not reserved for the priest because no one else possesses the intellectual ability to recite its words. Nor is absolution in the Sacrament of Penance reserved to priests because others lack wisdom or compassion. These ministries belong to the ordained because they are sacramental actions entrusted to those configured to Christ through Holy Orders. The issue is not one of personal aptitude but of sacramental representation. The same logic illuminates the homily.
Within the Eucharistic celebration, the homily is not an isolated act of instruction. It stands within a seamless liturgical movement that begins with the proclamation of the Word and culminates in the Eucharistic sacrifice. The same Christ who speaks in the Scriptures now prepares His people to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. The homily therefore serves as a bridge between the table of the Word and the table of the Eucharist. It unfolds the mystery that the assembly has heard so that the faithful may enter more deeply into the mystery they are about to celebrate.
Joseph Ratzinger repeatedly returned to this organic unity. In The Spirit of the Liturgy, he argues that the liturgy cannot be reduced to a series of discrete functions performed by different individuals according to practical considerations. Rather, the liturgy is one living act whose unity derives from Christ Himself. Because Christ is the principal celebrant of every liturgy, each element receives its meaning from the whole. Worship is therefore not assembled from interchangeable parts; it is an organic participation in Christ’s own priestly self-offering to the Father.
Seen from this perspective, the homily belongs to the sacramental economy not because preaching is restricted, but because the liturgy itself possesses an integrity that the Church has received rather than created. As Ratzinger often emphasized, the Church does not manufacture the liturgy. She enters into it. Her authority consists precisely in preserving the integrity of what has been entrusted to her.
The key distinction
The recent response of the Dicastery points in precisely this direction when it explains that the homily “constitutes an exercise of the munus docendi” entrusted through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Here, the Church is not claiming that only the ordained can teach. Rather, the Church distinguishes between the broad ministry of teaching exercised by all the baptized according to their vocation and the sacramental ministry of preaching exercised within the Eucharistic liturgy by those ordained for that purpose. This distinction becomes clearer when Holy Orders is understood not primarily as the conferral of ecclesiastical functions but as sacramental configuration to Christ.
This is why the Church reserves the homily not only to bishops and priests but also to deacons. If the issue were simply one of presiding at the Eucharist, the deacon would not preach the homily, since he does not celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice. Yet from the earliest centuries, the deacon has been intimately associated with the proclamation of the Gospel. The Second Vatican Council teaches that deacons are ordained “not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service” (Lumen Gentium, 29). Among the ministries entrusted to them are proclaiming the Gospel, preaching, assisting at the altar, and serving the People of God. These responsibilities are not isolated functions. Together they manifest Christ the Servant, who came proclaiming the Kingdom and giving His life for the salvation of the world.
This is why the recent controversy surrounding the homily ultimately concerns much more than who may preach. It touches the Church’s understanding of herself. Is the Church free to alter the sacramental structure of the liturgy whenever pastoral circumstances seem to warrant change? Or is she first the steward of mysteries that she herself has received?
The Church’s answer has been remarkably consistent. The authority entrusted to Peter and to the apostles is real, but it is always ministerial. It serves Revelation rather than standing above it. It safeguards the sacraments rather than recreating them. As the Second Vatican Council teaches in Dei Verbum (DV), the Magisterium “is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on” (DV 10).
That principle applies not only to doctrine but also to the Church’s sacramental life. The liturgy is the privileged expression of the apostolic faith, and the Church’s first responsibility is to preserve its integrity.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Everyone has the opportunity to preach the Gospel in fulfilling their mandate to evangelize the world. It’s just that very few laity in the Church actively evangelize. That said, preaching at Mass is reserved for clergy. Let’s stop the mad rush to act like protestants.
Were protestant enough receiving the Eucharist in hand and allowing the distribution of the Eucharist by laymen “Eucharistic ministers
“The preservation of nostalgia”: how charmingly condescending.
We suffering from nostalgia are in good company. The opinion of God is not taken too seriously anymore.
Please look at the statement again in context, because you may have misunderstood Deacon Cerrato’s intent:
“The Church lives by receiving and handing on. Tradition is not the preservation of nostalgia but the faithful transmission of a gift that originates not in the Church herself but in Christ.”
He said that tradition is NOT “the preservation of nostalgia.” He is not criticizing Catholics who hold to tradition.
Amen!!
Thank you for a good and informative article that helps us to rejoice, also in memories of the goodness in and through so many in The Church – all the way to go back to our First Parents created in light & glory in Divine Will that was lost in The Fall – the ‘mysterious ‘ silence of Adam who then chooses to accuse The Father and the woman .
Our Lord , the New Adam in the role of making reparations to restore The Kingdom ; thank God our Church and persons in Fatherly roles recognize the times and the ways it is being restored . The questions raised by the German church also helping to clarify and reinforce the truths – even to an extent like Luisa whom our Lord and Mama comes to instruct often like unto a little child .
https://www.facebook.com/groups/717892388342988/posts/3569728643159334/
Good article. If the Vatican had granted the German bishops’ request to permit lay people to deliver the homily at Mass, they would likely ask for more radical changes to the Mass. Also, one has to why they requested this permission. Since Mass can only be celebrated by a priest (or bishop), he would already be there, so why would a lay person be needed to give the homily? The German bishops made their request in bad faith. I’m glad the Holy See rejected it.
They can do Bible study separately.
Why did they request the permission?
Because the key word is “qualified.” Meaning that possibly non-ordained deaconesses could become “qualified” by taking some courses, and then as “laymen” still displace the priest as if (invalidly) ordained to do so. Study Group #9 was probably on board.
The double half step.
Open the floodgates and you re gonna have issues. Our former priest had one of the school parents preach at the Christmas homilies about why our Catholic school deserved attention etc… nothing wrong with that but not appropriate after the Gospel meant to save souls. Also, many of the new sitters were visiting over the holidays and had nothing to do with our school. It’s better if you have several priests so we can hear rotations but let the qualified do their jobs. Those of you preaching don’t be afraid to make us squirm in our seats!
I went to a Mass last Fall that had a missionary priest. He celebrated the Mass. The homily was well over 20 minutes long and was an overview of his life in missionary work in Asia/Japan/China. Honestly, it was really interesting, and I would have loved to have heard more (with a slide show)…in a different setting. (And yes, there was a second collection for his religious order.)
.
He did not in any manner give a homily.
The missionary priest I remember in recent history was from Food for the Poor; he would describe the living conditions there, and then say to the effect, “If you want to find Jesus, that’s where He was.” He tied the commandment to take care of your neighbors into the homily. I’ve seen homilies more tied almost entirely to fund raising and then I’ve seen it mentioned just before the mass ends. If we have a second collection they mention it the week before. I remember when the CSA came around there was the statement, “This will replace all the second collections.”
Has there been any collection for the earthquake?
I still feel the homily should be primarily preaching to reduce sinning and increase repentance, and if we Catholics would tithe better the priests’ job of salvation would be much easier (vs money management.) They’re under tremendous pressure from many fronts, like keeping a school open, for instance.
I always enjoy when visiting priests give talks like that. We can take a great deal for granted living in the US. Even in the poorest states.
“ As the Second Vatican Council teaches in Dei Verbum (DV), the Magisterium ‘is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on’ (DV 10).”
This truth needs to be accepted by those wolves in sheep’s clothing in the hierarchy (like the promoters of Synod Report #9 and others) who are trying to seduce the sheep and normalize homosexuality (a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance)!
I am not going to argue whether laity should or should not be allowed to preach. Rather, I am going to make some observations about this article.
First, you say: “These are legitimate questions that deserve careful theological reflection rather than ideological debate.”
Or, we could modify this slightly and say: “these are legitimate questions that deserve careful ideological reflection rather than theological debate” and we might be closer to what is happening in this article.
The next thing I noticed in this piece is the use of the word “Church”. Ie., “lay people make an indispensable contribution to the Church’s mission….Laymen and women lead Bible studies, speak at retreats and conferences, teach in seminaries and universities, direct evangelization programs, and offer spiritual conferences that enrich the lives of the faithful. None of this is questioned by the Church. On the contrary, it is welcomed.” The question, therefore, is not whether lay people may proclaim Christ. They most certainly do, and the Church urges them to do so with ever greater zeal. The question is whether the homily during the Eucharistic celebration belongs to the same category of ministry. In this, the Church has consistently answered that it does not.”
“Category of ministry”. And where does this “category” originate? I can’t help but detect a hidden theological identification between the “Church” and clergy, as if the Church is clerical primarily. In other words, the non-cleric faithful are not primarily the Church. Of course, you are not going to admit that the faithful are not primarily the Church, but your writing reveals that you still operate out of this theological framework that the Church is primarily clerical, and by extension male. Which leads me to suspect that what follows is an “ideological reflection”, and not a theological debate at all.
You say: “Much of the contemporary discussion assumes that the homily is essentially a sermon, a biblical reflection, or an opportunity for religious instruction.”
Isn’t that how it has been understood for centuries? A sermon? A reflection on the readings? And hasn’t it been an opportunity for religious instruction? St. Augustine’s sermons were originally preached in the context of a Mass. Again, you are making stuff up.
You write: “Modern culture tends to understand authority as the power to make decisions, revise policies, or adapt institutions to changing circumstances. The more freedom an institution possesses to redefine itself, the more authority it is thought to possess. We naturally bring this assumption into ecclesial discussions. Consequently, debates about liturgical practice often become debates about what the Church has the authority to change. But Catholic theology understands authority very differently.”
Maybe on the level of “ideology”, but not in reality.
You write: “The Church possesses genuine authority precisely because she has first received something that does not belong to her. Her authority is ministerial before it is juridical, receptive before it is legislative. She does not create the Gospel; she proclaims it. She does not invent the sacraments; she celebrates them. She does not construct the liturgy according to the preferences of any age; she faithfully hands on what she herself has received from Christ through the apostles.”
You are laying the groundwork for a good straw man argument. The question is: what exactly does this mean in the concrete? The “Church” or community of believers have been making all sorts of changes to the liturgy throughout the centuries. The liturgy has evolved from very simple house churches, a community meal, to a highly ritualized structure. You make it sound as if the “Church” received some package (now ancient) that has been left unchanged throughout the centuries. The language of the liturgy has changed, the prayers have changed, the places of worship changed, ceremonial movement and processions were introduced, music changed, the role of the non-cleric faithful changed (becoming increasingly passive, but then becoming a bit more active centuries later), eventually rubrics were introduced that governed every gesture of the priest, altar rails were introduced, the orientation of the priest changed, etc. You say the Church lives by receiving and handing on, but what the Church hands on is also “interpreted”, that is, understood within a particular context that continually changes. Yes, tradition is the transmission of a gift that originates in Christ, but the Church is the body of Christ and what the Church hands on undergoes all sorts of modifications throughout the course of history. So things are a bit more complex than you are making them out to be. In short, the argument you are making does not in any way permit us to draw any conclusion regarding the question about whether a non-cleric should be allowed to preach a homily. Not even your citations from Benedict XVI lead to any obvious conclusion.
Is the Pope starting to push back on the Germans?
The last thing I want to hear at Mass is some man or woman, who think they are smarter than God, give the homily. This would eventually go in a direction that would not be good. As said, why the rush to be like protestants, frankly they have nothing to offer.
Yeah, I’d rather listen to an ordained cleric who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else in the Church give the homily.
What if he’s smarter than you?
Then I benefit from hearing that person. Whether he or she is laity is irrelevant. But when a young newly ordained cleric gets up and speaks to the congregation as though they are a bunch of grade 5 students, then we have a problem.
Wasn’t it St. John Vianney? He was hardly qualified, barely making it through basic elementary school, then struggling through seminary. Wasn’t it he who gave the most inspired sermons? Wasn’t it he who led such a holy and ascetical life that he brought many people into or back into the Church? Wasn’t it he who sat in the confessional all day, waiting for souls he could give to God who, through him, would heal?
A priest can give the most blessed inspired homilies. No ordinary man, no matter how well educated, has the charism of a good and virtuous priest. The sacrament of Holy Orders ordains and marks the priest’s soul in a certain God-willed direction. The priest follows that direction if he is a good and willing-to-God type man. His learning or lack will be overcome by the power of God’s Holy Spirit compensating for any and all deficits in the cooperating priest.
They used to write newspapers at the 5th grade level. Maybe that’s some of the same?
Any ordained cleric is smarter than me. Way more educated, too.
🙂
They should have more extensive training on what was meant by a parable, for instance, from their seminary time. I’d be glad to hear more fire and brimstone sermons though.
Protestants I’ve known had a great deal to offer. They may not have had the entirety of Christ’s teachings or every Sacrament but what they retained they often put to better use than some Catholics do.
But that doesn’t mean I want lay people preaching or messing about on the altar at Mass.
Then why do so many of them knock us when our back is turned?
“[I]ncreasing theological formation of the laity”.
Some of the laity maybe.
I suspect most of today’s laity (including pewsitters) cannot answer the old Baltimore Catechism’s question, “Why did God make me?”
The overwhelming majority of professed Catholics would not be able to verbalize longer than one minute on everything they know about the Catholic relgion.
If I hadn’t homeschooled my children I wouldn’t be able to answer that question either, Miss Cleo.
I learned the Baltimore Catechism right along with them.
This piece is perhaps a sad sign of the times: the issue is presented as though it’s something recent or for which we never really had a full explanation or discussion of until recently, until vatican ii, of course. Note that all the references are only from VII, which is now the standard pattern for just about everything. This is a confirmation that a de facto kind of rupture is everywhere, unwittingly adopted even by orthodox, “conservative” folks: VII is used as the primary, if not sole reference for everything. Referring to sources pre-VII might be considered out of date, possibly even “wrong,” and would not contain the “latest” information. The latter of course, is a modernist tendency once condemned- teaching that came before a certain time or event is seen as out of date, suspect, not the latest, newest that could be had, as though what was taught for most of the Church’s history is now passe prior to a certain time, in this case 1965. It’s also ironic, as 65 years later, one could argue that most of the content- which consisted of pastoral and practical guidelines- are now out of date. In fact a good amount of it was conditioned on ideas big at the time but that have now waned.
I’ve noted that as much as folks state that Vat II never proclaimed any dogma or doctrine, etc, no one ever quotes a document from Trent or Nicea–and there must be modern English translations of those documents.
The basics of the Nicene Creed were formulated at Nicea.
As if by osmosis, Magisterial conciliar teachings become second nature and through repeated practice, they imprint on an indelible Catholic soul.
The caution of Matthew 10:16 can guide us toward wisdom.
The ambiguity of some VCII documents lends itself to use and abuse. Is there any anathema mentioned in VCII documents? So far as I know, no.
Neophilia did not end with the death of the hippie culture. And the accurate definition of atheism involves holding to the belief that truth changes.
Pope Benedict knew the mutability of truth as the dictatorship of relativism. Since he first spoke of it some 20 years ago, the confused and suffering human side of the Church has clearly revealed its love affair with the concept. We have twisted, misconstrued, mutated, evolved and reproduced error at the speed of light. We have become grotesque.
But for Christ, we surely would be dead in every way.
” Qualified laymen”. Qualified HOW exactly? They read a lot of spiritual books? Few people get seminary training except those who become priests. I am frankly not interested in what the woman down the street thinks about anything religious, and dont feel they are qualified to give a homily. I feel like the lay people are pushing themselves where they are neither needed nor wanted. Is that the sin of pride? Let’s ask a qualified layman.
Get ready. It’s been like trying squeeze blood from a rock to get most ordained men to say anything negative about abortion. Now we’re going to get outright pro-aborts giving homilies.
That would be sick and sacrilegious.
At some point society should figure out they can t solve every problem by writing a check or performing intentional and unspeakable acts with a medical forceps.
Edward Baker: you might Google: “Every day is Newtown in America”. It’s the title I gave my homily on the topic of abortion.
God Blass you. Wonderful homily. Sadly, your effort stands out because there are few others who do the same.
Finally, a scholarly article on the topic of preaching the homily. I have taught homiletics over many years and try to articulate what Deacon Cerato so precisely put into perspective for a clear and unambiguous understanding. Thank you.
I don’t suffer at not being able to give a homily, but I suffering having to listen to the homilies of some priests. They should work under supervision like most professionals do. Where are their supervisors?