So I have been reading the blogs for a few months now. Admittedly, my motives in the beginning we purely from a "keep your friends close, but you enemies closer" perspective. In light of my studies, my embarking on the 19th Annotation retreat, personal experiences as a member of some of the most "liberal" parishes in the DOR and a growing maturity in my faith that perspective is not so clear anymore.
There are still many things that I do not understand.
And one of the things that I have some (OK, A LOT) of trouble with is the "it's not in the rubrics" or "canon law forbids this" stuff.
So, never being one to by shy-
I'm going to jump in with both feet!
Let's start with some questions about "lay preaching".
Now, yes, I know this is a "hot topic" sure to bring strong reaction, my prayer is though, is that this helps to bring about a stronger response! I am not trying to use the Canon to suit my own agenda, I am looking for answers.
Here you will find the Canon regarding preaching.
According to Canon 766~
Lay persons can be permitted to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems advantageous in particular cases, according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops and without prejudice to ⇒ can. 767, §1.
which states~
Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.
Canon 767 is the one I see cited most often in describing "lay preaching" as liturgical abuse.
And while I know pretty much nothing about Canon Law, I do know a little about civil law, and enough to know that the most important phrase in these two canons is "without prejudice".
My understanding of this, in this context is:
The homily is reserved to a priest or deacon,
but...
if need be, or better yet, if it seems advantageous, a lay person could preach a homily and it would not be a violation of Canon 767.
If you continue to read the whole section on preaching there are all sorts of very interesting things that could add a lot to this debate, but I think the most important ones are Canons 769 & 772.
As I said, I have no real knowledge of Canon Law, that is why I put this out there. I have not taken Canon Law yet, but will have to to complete my degree. I do not know any of the priests in the DOR who are Canon Lawyers well enough to bring this to them directly, so if there are any Canon Lawyers out there that can shed some light, that would be awesome!
Peace to All!!
Persis,
ReplyDeleteYou have approached this matter in a very humble way and I commend you for that. Your attitude offers a great example to all of us. The fact that you're actually looking at cannon law is a good thing. I'm sure you will get responses. I'll attempt one in due time, but I'm certainly not the most qualified, either. However, that's why the Internet is so great - it's easy to find experts.
-Ben
"Without prejudice" to me sounds as though one can not use Canon 766 to ignore or override Canon 767, which reserves the homily to sacred ministers (priests, deacons, bishops). In Canon 766, lay preaching is preaching outside of the homily.
ReplyDeleteThe translation I have of Canon 766, specifically the ending, is as follows: "and with due regard for can 767.1", which comes from the original Latin: "et salvo can 767.1." (Source: Code of Canon Law/Latin-English Edition, published by the Canon Law Society of America). I also checked with my Latin dictionary, and it translates "salvus" as "without violation of, without breaking." Thus, one can not just ignore Canon 767.
There is also further clarification from the Vatican in recent instructions:
-From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal: "66. The Homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate."
From Redemptionis Sacramentum:
"The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself, “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”."
"[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1.[145] This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom." (This means Bishop Clark's Norms for Lay Preaching from 2002 is abrogated by Canon 767.1 as of the year 2004, when R.S. was published).
and also:
"[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association."
There are several other citations I could provide, but these appear sufficiently convincing. Let me know if you have any questions or comments and I'll try my best to answer.
~Dr. K
Ben, thank you for your kind words. I had to laugh though; humility is something I have never been accused of!! :)
ReplyDeleteDr. K,
The definition I am using for “without prejudice” comes from the following website: www.businessdictionary.com. I also checked with a couple lawyer friends (civil law), who agreed that this was a good definition.
As far as the translation of the Canon, mine comes directly from the Vatican website, it is the “official” English translation, I would assume.
Regarding the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum-
Do these documents “trump” Canon Law? By that I mean, if the law is written one way, but another document seems to contradict it, which one is correct?
I guess that what §65 of RS seems to say lay preaching is prohibited (even by seminarians, which I find a little odd, how else are they supposed to learn, but that is another post I guess) but it is indeed very confusing.
So yes, you have given me some great information and food for thought, but I am still not completely convinced that lay preaching is an entirely bad thing. I will admit that in this diocese, one does not usually find lay preaching that is anything more that the laypersons own agenda, but that does not have to be the case. I have written a reflection on Luke 2:39-56 (The Visitation) that no man could have, only because a man does not have the experience of being a un-wed, pregnant teen-ager, and I think that sometimes a “real world perspective” on the Gospel, so long as it is done correctly, can be a good thing.
Peace!
more to say later, but for now:
ReplyDeleteI bet that is a great reflection and perhaps you could give it to your pastor and see what he says. AFAIK (which isn't much) he may be permitted to read part or all of it.
OR you could post it on your blog, for a potentially even larger audience :-)
ReplyDeleteCheck the authentic interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, "INTERPRETATIONES AUTHENTICAE", found on the Vatican Web site:
ReplyDelete"Can. 767, § 1 (cf. AAS, LXXIX, 1987,1249)
Patres Pontificiae Commissionis Codici Iuris Canonici Authhentice Interpretando proposito in plenario coetu die 26 maii 1987 dubio, quod sequitur, respondendum esse censuerunt ut infra:
D. « Utrum Episcopus dioecesanus dispensare valeat a praescripto can. 767, § 1, quo sacerdoti aut diacono homilia reservatur ».
R. Negative.
Summus Pontifex Ioannes Paulus II in Audientia die 20 iunii 1987 infrascripto impertita, de supradicta decisione certior factus, eam publicari iussit.
Rosalius Iosephus Card. Castillo Lara, Praeses
Iulianus Herranz, a Secretis"
The question posed in this dubium is whether diocesan bishops may dispense from Canon 767, which reserves the homily to an ordained minister of the Church. The official response was "negative" to the question.
The USCCB also made this point in its complimentary legislation for Canon 766:
"In providing for preaching by the lay faithful the diocesan bishop may never dispense from the norm which reserves the homily to the sacred ministers (c. 767§1; cfr. Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, 26 May 1987, in AAS 79 [1987], 1249). Preaching by the lay faithful may not take place within the Celebration of the Eucharist at the moment reserved for the homily."
The above should put to rest any loophole possibly created by Canon 766 saying "according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops".
-------------------------------
Persis: Do these documents “trump” Canon Law? "
The following from Redemptionis Sacramentum should address this. The instruction reminds all of liturgical law that already exists, and provides clarification for gray areas:
"It is not at all the intention here to prepare a compendium of the norms regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, but rather, to take up within this Instruction some elements of liturgical norms that have been previously expounded or laid down and even today remain in force in order to assure a deeper appreciation of the liturgical norms;[9] to establish certain norms by which those earlier ones are explained and complemented; and also to set forth for Bishops, as well as for Priests, Deacons and all the lay Christian faithful, how each should carry them out in accordance with his own responsibilities and the means at his disposal."
R.S. can not be ignored, as it provides clarification on existing norms.
~Dr. K
"I do not know any of the priests in the DOR who are Canon Lawyers well enough to bring this to them directly,"
ReplyDeleteFr. McKenna and Fr. Condon. But remember, as with regular lawyers, there are those who wish to skew the law and find loopholes to suit their own desires.
Peris,
ReplyDeleteYou are a brave soul.
This is a topic that will certainly generate discussion. As for my personal viewpoint, I have written a letter to the bishop signed by 50 parishioners from my church. In our specific case, we have lay preaching on a scheduled basis (every second Sunday of the month). Now, even with the most liberal (and I use that term in a non-political sense) interpretation of Canon Law and other documents, this practice seems to be an abuse of both the spirit and letter of the Law. I am not a lawyer, I am not an expert, but I can read and I think I have the intellectual ability to understand the basics. It seems like the diocese has to do some pretty serious verbal gymnastics to get around the documents as quoted by Dr. K.
And I am not necessarily in disagreement with what the lay preacher says (although sometimes I most definitely am). It is the principle. How do we expect the faithful to be obedient and humble and strive for Christian perfection when we have people who are clearly violating norms? Another problem I have with this practice is that it continues to further blur the line between the sacramental priesthood and the lay priesthood.
I look forward to other comments.
I ditto what nerina says. Also, there's a few comments (one of them mine) at tmac's blog:
ReplyDeletehttp://laydorcatholic.com/blog/?p=9694#comments
ps - I don't recommend tmac's blog. She mostly just constantly pokes at church teaching.