Who may preach?

[presbyter]

For your edification / entertainment / approval or disapproval - I invite you to peruse an extract from the early Dominican Humbert of the Romans. Please express any opinions politely!

2.5 The Person of the Preacher

The qualities requisite for a preacher in regard to his person are first of all, that he be of the male sex, for St. Paul “does not want women to be permitted to speak” (I Tim. 2:12). He gives four reasons for this: Firstly,a lack of intelligence, for in this woman is thought to be inferior to man; secondly, her natural state of dependency (the preacher should not occupy an inferior place); thirdly, the concupiscence which her very presence may arouse; fourthly, the remembrance of her first error, which led St. Bernard to say, “She spoke but once and threw the world into disorder.”

Next the preacher must not have an exterior deformity which is offensive to the sight, for as the Lord, in the old law, rejected as ministers those who were deformed, (15) so, too, the Church excludes them from solemn functions because of the derision they might engender and which would scandalize thepeople. (16)

The preacher must also have sufficient strength for long hours of study, for the expenditure of voice necessary in preaching, for the fatigues of travel, and to put up with the lack of even the necessities of life. For so the Apostles inured themselves to suffering that they might announce the holy word. (17) They must also be of a suitable age. The Redeemer, says St. Gregory,although in heaven He had the omnipotence of the Creator, and was the teacher of the Angels, yet He did not begin His mission of teaching until He was thirty years old. This He did in order to inspire the over eager with a healthy caution, showing them how He Who was sinless did not begin preaching the perfect life until He had reached the perfection of maturity.

The preacher must also be superior to others in his state of life, in literature, in religion, and in other things, unless he only preaches occasionally and that before the learned, in order to exercise his art. From this it follows that the layman, occupying the last place, has not the quality for preaching. “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings and that preacheth peace” (Isai. 52:7). That is to say that the preacher ought to have a certain pre-eminence. And finally, he must not be an object of men’s scorn, lest this scorn fall on his preaching. “He,”St. Gregory says, “whose life merits blame, must expect scorn for his word.”

15 Lev. 21:17 et seq.
16 Corpus iuris, Dist. IV. Si Evangelium 7, q. 1, Cum percussero
17 Ps. 91:3.

[monty]

The end of preaching!

[Southern Comfort]

SouthernComfort takes what might be considered to be a broader interpretation of the documents than is perhaps merited by their texts. It is clear from the texts that a member of the laity may indeed address the congregation, but not as a substitute for a homily within the Mass. Perhaps this is the prompt for Presbyter's question rather higher up the page.

The statement "Any previous norm...is abrogated" cannot be countermanded by citing exactly these previous norms as justification.

The Americans drafted some guidelines on lay preaching in 1988 ─ these would have required permission to be sought from the diocesan bishop ─ but Rome never approved the guidelines so the question is still moot.

The question is no longer moot as the US conference re-issued guidelines in 2001 which have received regognitio. These state quite clearly:

Preaching by the lay faithful may not take place within the Celebration of the Eucharist at the moment reserved for the homily.
So Southern Comfort is wrong to suggest

In other words, a lay person can speak to the people, preach, give a reflection, call it what you like, just so long as you don't call it a homily.

The lay faithful may not address the congregation proceeding the Gospel merely by titling that address a reflection.

The argument in favour of custom is somewhat weak when Rome is specifically prohibiting a practice, customary or otherwise. Would SouthernComfort similarly argue that the statement on the use of the Name of God is null and void because Dan Schutte's "You are near" has been sung for greater than 3 decades? Would he argue that the Pentecost Octave shold have remained by force of custom, even after the new calendar sadly abolished it?

Perhaps debate should be continued in an independent thread. It is distanced from the original topic and an ursine intervention is therefore possible.

First of all, one of the underpinning principles of Canon Law is that where there is a doubt in law, the interpretation most favourable to the 'user' is presumed. It's therefore perfectly in order to take a broad interpretation where the matter is not clear, as here.

Secondly, I draw festivaltrumpet's attention to the chapter entitled "Lay preaching at liturgy" in the book More Disputed Questions in the Liturgy by John M. Huels, pub. Liturgy Training Publications. This is the world's leading liturgical canonist, who not only goes into the question of what the canons actually say in some depth but also unpacks the values underlying them. He also cites documents we have not mentioned so far in this thread, such as the 1988 Directory on Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest (which talks about the lay leader giving "an explanation of the readings" after the scriptures have been proclaimed), and the 1984 Book of Blessings (which refers to "a brief instruction" and "an exhortation").

At no time does Huels say that if a lay person preaches then this must be in addition to the homily, as festival trumpet seems to be suggesting; and you can be sure that he would have said so if this were the case. Indeed, he specifically addresses the question "Is it lawful for a lay person to preach at the eucharist or at another liturgy when a priest or deacon is presiding?" His "answer is a qualified yes", though he would see this as something exceptional. However, he then goes on to unpack all the exceptional circumstances in which this might happen, and in this context brings in the Canadian Bishops' provisions which I cited earlier in this thread.

As far as what to call whatever it is that a lay person does is concerned, once again Huels does not agree with festivaltrumpet's criticism of my statement. Referring to lay preaching in general, he says "such preaching would not be the homily and must be called something else, such as an exhortation, an instruction, a reflection on the readings or the like".

presbyter will be pleased to hear that Huels does underline that whoever preaches must be qualified and competent, and indeed notes in this context that permanent deacons are rather less qualified to preach than lay people who have undertaken theological and other studies.

Finally, thanks to festivaltrumpet for drawing my attention to the US 2001 guidelines, which I had not previously noticed. It is noteworthy that, in a country with a burgeoning non-Anglo population, they have not incorporated what I think is one of the most interesting Canadian provisions ─ i.e. that lay people can preach when there is no priest or deacon who can converse in the language of the people, a situation which often obtains in mission countries (in Africa, it is the catechist who will often preach) and is starting to happen regularly in dioceses in England due to large numbers of immigrant workers with little or no English.