Ginny Pippin
RL 480
July 8, 2004
A Woman Homilist
KEY FACTS
- Female – Sophia Grace (Who could question a homilist with a name like
this?)
- Doctorate in Sacred Scriptures from a Catholic university
- Specialized in Gospel of John
- Pastor asked Dr. Grace to do a homily during Sunday Mass
- Gospel for the day – John 4
- She’s a good speaker and woman of faith
- Chancellor made a surprise visit to parish
- Fr. Goodhart introduced the woman as the homilist
- Monday, Bishop reprimanded Father for calling her a homilist
- Bishop ordered Father to make a public correction at all Masses and in
the bulletin that Sophia did not give a homily but a reflection
- Fr. Goodhart refuses and prints a compliment on a homily well delivered
and sends the Bishop a copy
- Bishop by certified letter suspends him from priestly duties and removes
him from parish
OTHER FACTS TO KNOW
- Difference between a reflection and homily other than who is giving it
- Was the pastor able to give a homily that Sunday
- Is there precedence for women giving homilies in that diocese
- Have women been giving homilies in the church for an extended period of
time in that church
- Was the homily thought provoking, spiritually enlightening, theologically
sound, biblically based, etc.
- Did the parishioners recognize that they were hearing a reflection not
homily
- Did the parishioners care about the difference
- Did they like what they heard
- Is there precedence for removal of a priest under these circumstances
- Has the pastor been providing responsible leadership for the parish
- Is this nothing more than semantics
- Is there scriptural basis prohibiting women from giving a homily
- Could this issue be argued as a semantic one. Preach, reflect, or deliver
a homily provides the same message; however, the canon reserves the word,
“homily” for reflections and preaching done by a priest during a Mass
PASTORAL ISSUES
- Effected are: Father, Dr. Grace, Women, Parishioners, Bishop, Chancellor
- Priest’s authority and office was undermined
- Priest lost his right to minister
- Priest was embarrassed and his reputation was jeopardized by Chancellor
- Dr. Grace’s service was not affirmed
- Dr. Grace’s talent will go unused in the parish
- Dr. Grace has been, in a sense, discriminated against
- Dr. Grace’s knowledge and expertise has been ignored
- Women as a whole suffered that day and in the future
- Parishioners have lost their pastor
- Parishioners have lost the vibrancy of the word given by a “specialist”
- Parishioners have been scandalized and their faith journey interrupted
- Bishop’s authority was ignored
- Role of the Chancellor could be redefined as a “fink”
CANONS
- 747 Jesus entrusted the deposit of faith to Church. With Holy Spirit,
Church must protect revealed truth, examine it, proclaim, and expound
it faithfully. Has duty to preach to all
- 204 Christian faithful called to exercise the mission which God has
entrusted
- 748 All bound to seek truth
- 211 All have duty and right so divine message reaches all people
- 225 Lay designated by God to work so divine message is made known
and accepted by all
- 228 Lay found suitable can be admitted to ecclesiastical offices.
Lay who excel in knowledge . . . are qualified to assist pastors
- 229 Lay bound to acquire knowledge so to take their part in apostolate.
If qualified they may receive a mandate to teach the sacred sciences
- 753 The faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of
mind to authentic magisterium of their bishops. Authoritative magisterium
when in harmony with whole Church
- 754 Faithful obliged to observe constitutions and decrees
- 759 Virtue of baptism, lay are witness of gospel and can be called
upon to cooperate with bishop and presbyters
- 761 Various means available are to be used to proclaim doctrine,
preach
- 767 Preaching as a ministerial priority not exclusive to priests
- 766 Lay permitted to preach if advantageous in particular case
- 767 Homily reserved to priest or deacon – liturgical regulations
permit
exceptions
- 768 Content of preaching in accordance with Church beliefs
- 769 Adapting message to the hearers
- 1370, 1378, 1383, 1390, 1394 Causes for suspension
LITERARY, RHETORIC, HISTORIC
Constitutive Canon(s) raised the lay homilist dilemma. Second Vatican Council
changed the past by setting forth that, “All participate in the ministry of
proclaiming God’s holy word.” “In other words, the one absolutely compelling
mandate is that the word of God be proclaimed. Who does it and how they carry
it out are secondary considerations. All are responsible to see that it is
done.” (Code of Canon Law, Title I, p.920) Some of the canons tried to restrict
participation by using terms like, lay can be called upon to cooperate
and by being very specific by setting clear distinguishing between presbyters,
bishops, and lay. Other canons were less concerned with the “who” of the
Church and dealt with the importance of the divine word by stressing how it
should be proclaimed. Words like, zealously, proclaim, embracing. The canons
above were seemed accepting of the lay role but under very specific circumstances
and restrictions.
MY POSITION – Cardinal
RESOLUTION
I would call the bishop into my office to find out if Father Goodhart had
shown any other reason for concern. If there were no incidences of misconduct,
inappropriate teachings, disregard for his duties as pastor, or canonical
reasons for his suspension, I would have to:
-
Explain to the Bishop the criteria for suspension
-
Determine if disciplinary action was needed against the
Bishop or was this a very unfortunate mistake on his part
-
I would also be concerned about the lack of good judgment,
tact, and prudence shown by this Bishop and see to it that his actions were
monitored closer for a period of time
-
The Chancellor would also need to be dealt with in the
same way as the Bishop
-
Arrange for Father’s reinstatement and initiate all the
damage control and apologies necessary, e.g., letters to parishioners, media,
Dr. Grace etc.
-
Clarify in my diocese(s) the circumstance under which
a woman might give a homily
-
Clarify terminology surrounding preaching and set some
guidelines
-
I nvite Dr. Grace to preach/give the homily at one of
my Masses (Dr. McGinn, wouldn’t this be great?)
GROUNDS FOR DECISION
The direction Vatican II has taken the church is that the divine word belongs
to all people, is to be embraced by all, and proclaimed by all. The laity
is obligated to learn about their faith to the extent of their abilities and
share their knowledge with others. The grounds for this decision are strongly
represented in Canon 228, Dr. Grace was suitably trained, educated and qualified
for ecclesiastic office. Preaching is not exclusive to priests (Canon 767),
and lay people are permitted to preach if it would be advantageous in a particular
case (Canon 766). Dr. Grace’s extensive knowledge in John’s gospel and her
Doctorate in Sacred Scripture certainly presented an advantage to the parishioners
to hear such a well-versed speaker. In addition, the content of her preaching
was in accordance with the Church’s beliefs (Canon 768). Although homilies
are normally given by priests, exceptions are made (Canon 767). And, in
this case, adapting the message to the hearers (Canon 769) was best done by
a lay person who specialized in John’s gospel rather than by a priest who
was less versed and would have more difficulty making it relevant. Father
was not wrong in asking Sophia to give the homily. More importantly for him
and the parish, he did nothing deserving suspension. (Canons1370, 1378, 1383,
1390, 1394)
ETHICAL, PASTORAL, THEOLOGICAL
A terrible disservice was done to Dr. Grace. Her abilities
and talents were devalued, and she was treated as less than a baptized Christian.
My actions would give her an authorized forum to deliver a homily and reinforce
her value to the Church. My actions are not against any dogma or theology of
the church. In fact, historically and traditionally, there are mentions in
the early Church of women as deacons and ministers. Pastorally, I have arranged
for the gospel to be proclaimed to laity in a way that will be most meaningful
to them. Further, by the end of this case and adding my solution, each party
suffered in some way. The Bishop and Chancellor were reprimanded, the priest
was suspended, the homilist was demeaned, and I, the Cardinal, lost way too
much time resolving a difficult issue that was petty and unnecessary. It would
be my hope, through my decision and attention to each person, to nurture each
back to wholeness and active, faithful, participation in the Church.