Skip to main content
Well-struck, sir. I think this grudging tone may ease a bit, but I certainly understand it. I didn't want to be Catholic. I liked being Reformed. I liked the idea of being a pastor. I loved preaching. Preaching is where faith and love meet people, and I like a lot of all three.

I should say Protestant preaching. I don't know who or what is training these priests and deacons, but something is wrong. I've heard really good homilies--a few. And thankfully, the fullness of faith reflected in the liturgy has kept me from dissecting every single one. But I do know one thing: your ability to move someone to do or believe something is directly proportionate to how much you yourself do and believe. That is, holiness is the engine of good preaching. And holiness comes by prayer and repentance. Or, if you happen to like a more Catholic turn of phrase, conversion. I'm not here to say that Catholic preaching should be like Protestant preaching, especially not in doctrinal content. But we know as Catholics that Holy Mother Church gives us all we could ever want in terms of opportunities for communion with God. Preach from that.

It seems to this opinionated wind-bag that a lot of time gets wasted by eager young men eager to share the doctrine of God travelling down side-streets that have nothing to do with the destination, as it were. Let me be frank: the thing I spent the least amount of time on was precise crafting of my actual words. I spent the most time in prayer and reading. You've got to get out of your own way. It's not about you. Easy to say, I know.

My first lesson in homiletics would go like this: "OK, gentlemen. Everyone in your audience is going to die within the hour. Half of them are in mortal sin right now. A quarter just come here out of habit, and the other quarter are faithful, but needing encouragement. You each have exactly 15 minutes to change the world. Now preach."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...