Rich Leonardi gives us a fascinating quote from legendary newspaperman H.L. Mencken, who while an atheist understood what kind of worship God would want if indeed He existed. In fact, Mencken praised the Traditional Roman liturgy and dismissed any innovations which smacked of Protestantism. In many ways it’s like Hollywood’s depiction of Catholic liturgical life: They may not believe any of it, but they know what it should look like. A few selections from the whole quote, which is worth reading, so go to Rich’s site and read it:
A solemn high mass is a thousand times as impressive, to a man with any genuine religious sense in him, as the most powerful sermon ever roared under the big top by Presbyterian auctioneer of God. In the face of such overwhelming beauty it is not necessary to belabor the faithful with logic; they are better convinced by letting them alone.
Preaching is not an essential part of the Latin ceremonial. It was very little employed in the early church, and I am convinced that good effects would flow from abandoning it today, or, at all events, reducing it to a few sentences, more or less formal. In the United States the Latin brethren have been seduced by the example of the Protestants, who commonly transform an act of worship into a puerile intellectual exercise; instead of approaching God in fear and wonder these Protestants settle back in their pews, cross their legs, and listen to an ignoramus try to prove that he is a better theologian than the Pope.
Isn’t that one true today? Mencken saw this long before Vatican II in 1923, but we’ve seen the fruit of this. Sometimes I do wonder whether the homily is overvalued. That isn’t to say there aren’t many fine homilists out there, but that they are vastly outnumbered by the mediocre and bad and that too many Catholics I think put too much weight on the quality of the homily. How many times have I heard Catholics say they don’t go to Mass any more because they “don’t get anything out of it,” meaning the homily does not entertain or stimulate. But they receive the Eucharist which is infinitely more to get out of the Mass than even the greatest homily.
Let the reverend fathers go back to Bach. If they keep on spoiling poetry and spouting ideas, the day will come when some extra-bombastic deacon will astound humanity and insult God by proposing to translate the liturgy into American, that all the faithful may be convinced by it.
Alas, that day has already come.
” the Protestants, who commonly transform an act of worship into a puerile intellectual exercise; instead of approaching God in fear and wonder these Protestants settle back in their pews, cross their legs, and listen to an ignoramus try to prove that he is a better theologian than the Pope.
Isn’t that one true today? “
Careful, my brother.
Protestant worship cannot equal the power of the Mass. OK, fine. I don’t know that you are right, but the position is clear, and defensible.
The average Protestant SERMON cannot equal the average Roman Catholic HOMILY? Because the Protestant pastors are ignoramuses?
Dom, you are embarrassing yourself. Stick to what you know (the beauty of the Mass, the Roman Catholic liturgy). Leave us poor Protestants to our own devices.
If I were inclined to compare the quality AND the orthodoxy of common Protestant preaching. even that of ignoramuses, with the quality AND the orthodoxy of the average Roman Catholic homily in the Northeastern United States, my team would win, hands down.
You are comparing apples and oranges, and that at the behest of an atheist who hated us both.
C’mon!
Jim, relax. By selectively quoting you misrepresent what Mencken was saying and my response. What I am saying is true is that so many priests “commonly transform an act of worship into a puerile intellectual exercise.” In many Catholic churches, the people “settle back in their pews, cross their legs, and listen to an ignoramus try to prove that he is a better theologian than the Pope.”
This was the point of my whole post, not anything Mencken had to say about Protestants.
That said, there is plenty to criticize in Evangelical and mainline Protestant worship, especially in the mega-church and “un-church” forms.
Be careful not to confuse the homily with the Word of God. It is not. It is the priest’s interpretation and can be as far off and wrong as any human endeavor can be. (In contrast it can be very good.)
Also, don’t hyperbole too the extreme. Just a couple of days ago I was calling for better homilies from priests and deacons. But Mencken’s quote brings up a related point that too much weight is given to the quality of the homily compared to the importance given to the rest of the Mass.
The Mass is not “Father’s time to shine” or to entertain the crowd or what have you.
Ability at preaching the Word is a gift, which, it would appear, is not restricted to the ordained clergy.
It would also appear that, whatever other gifts are conferred by Holy Orders, that preaching the Word is inconsistently among them.
I think turning the altar around is the only way we can begin the reform of the reform or the return to the beauty that was apparent in the old rite. I also think it will give the priests incentive to focus on Christ rather than on jokes and stories that hardly have anything to do with what Christ is teaching us.
On the other hand, writing a homily is not the easiest task to perform. We have to examine the Scripture readings for the Mass, take into account the liturgical proper of the day, the liturgical season, the concerns of the faithful who will be attending, make sense of it all, do some research, write it, make it work for the human ear, then give it, and we do this everyday. Granted, the daily homily never should be more than 5 minutes. I have given my share of bad homilies and I have given some very good homilies. But in the context of the Mass, the homily is the most human and fallible part. Back when I was a layman, I have attended some Masses when the priest gave a boring homily, yet they celebrated the Sacred Mystery with great reverence and love which made going to Mass easier.
Sorry I’m late to comment on this. I understand your praise for Mencken is qualified. However, don’t forget the snobbery in his statement later in that essay, “the same bishop, bawling against Darwin half an hour later, is seen to be simply an elderly Irishman with a bald head, the son of a respectable police sergeant in South Bend, Ind.” Would Mencken praise a bishop who spoke out against Marx or Margaret Sanger?