by Fr. Edward Foley<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n Francis\u2019 apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium <\/em>(The Joy of the Gospel) has been widely discussed, analyzed, and alternately embraced or refuted since it first appeared in November of 2013. Even the secular press has given serious attention to this extensive and wide ranging exhortation, especially because of its blunt attention to hot button monetary issues such as trick-down economic theories and the dark side of globalization. Some have employed the document to denounce the Pope as a deluded Marxist (thank you, Rush Limbaugh),[i] others have more graciously considered him a holy simpleton whose dystopian view of the world is out of touch with reality,[ii] while the so called \u201cleft\u201d has applauded his unvarnished Vatican II vision of the Church in the world.<\/p>\n The specific request for this contribution to the Pray Tell<\/em> blog is to examine what Francis says about liturgical preaching in Evangelii Gaudium <\/em>(hereafter EG<\/em>). <\/em>The specificity of that invitation could ostensibly absolve us from wandering into issues of social justice, confronting the challenges of contemporary cultures, or pursuing the political. The explicit material on the homily is well circumscribed in EG <\/em>(nos. 135-144) with another fifteen sections (nos. 145-150) on homiletic preparation. Those twenty-five sections have a wealth of material on liturgical preaching, and could easily generate the prescribed word-count for fulfilling this writing assignment.<\/p>\n Limiting any discussion of the homily to a few of the 288 sections of this exhortation, however, seems both problematic and \u2014 even more \u2014 contradictory. Divorcing the explicitly homiletic sections of EG <\/em>from the surrounding material on being a missional church, the crisis of communal commitment, and the social dimensions of evangelization metaphorically cuts the legs out from underneath the homiletic exercise and reduces it to some hermetically sealed ritual enterprise: one too often \u201cobsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines\u201d (EG, <\/em>no. 35). Furthermore, the pope is insistent that evangelization is a contextual event.[iii] Placing his discussion of the homily at the geographic heart of EG <\/em>not only suggests that the homily is a most honored form of evangelization, but one that must be in dialogue with the wider evangelizing context. For us to ignore that broader context is tantamount to suggesting that homilists can ignore the broader context of their own preaching \u2014 something that unfortunately happens much too often.<\/p>\n Taking the rich framework of EG <\/em>seriously in pondering the homiletic enterprise does not mean we can explore all of it in the depth that it deserves. That will take years. At the same time, it seems possible and more manageable to consider significant threads or flows within the document that position us to be attentive to its key trajectories and yet say something concise about homilizing that respects the spirit of EG<\/em>. To that end we will begin by considering one key theological current in the exhortation, i.e., its quite positive theological anthropology. Next we will consider the strong ethical perspective of the document and the importance of the \u201cvirtues\u201d of mercy and joy, so prominent in this writing. In a penultimate move, we will clarify the \u201caudiences\u201d of evangelization according to Pope Francis. Throughout this essay we will attempt to shape the analysis so that the significance of these elements for preaching and homilizing become clear. In a final brief section, we will attempt to draw some of these strands together to provide broader implications for the homiletic enterprise according to EG<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Theological Anthropology<\/strong><\/p>\n Reminiscent of a theologian such as Karl Rahner (d. 1984), Francis seems to embrace a quite positive theological anthropology as a primary dialogue partner in this exhortation. Even early works of Rahner have him asserting that one can only do theology by engaging in anthropology.[iv] In a parallel way, EG <\/em>consistently emphasizes the nature, significance and even primacy of humanity (no. 55) for evangelization. While much of the reflection on the human condition here has strong ethical overtones \u2014 something we will consider more specifically below \u2014 Francis\u2019 consideration of humanity reveals more than just a concern about ethics. Rather it stresses that the evangelizer, and by extension the homilist, must understand and even embrace the gift of humanity if they are to be effective in this mission. This requires a theology that is in dialogue with human experience (no. 133).<\/p>\n One could construe from this exhortation that humanity is the very beginning point for evangelization, and thus for preaching as well. In some ways, I find this beginning point consonant with that of another Holiness: the Dalai Lama. In a recent publication about shaping a world ethic, the Dalai Lama believes that any global ethic must forgo religion as a starting point and, instead, focus on our common humanity: for that is one of the very few things the six billion plus inhabitants of this planet have in common.[v] In a similar vein, speaking of interreligious dialogue, Francis notes that such a dialogue is first of all \u201ca conversation about human existence\u201d (no. 250). Furthermore, in treating the topic of \u201cinformal preaching,\u201d the Pope notes that the first step in that venture is personal dialogue. This means listening to the joys, hopes, concerns and needs of the others.[vi] \u201cOnly afterward is it possible to bring up God\u2019s word\u201d (no. 128). When considering the homily itself, it is important for the preacher not only to contemplate the word but also \u201ccontemplate his people\u201d (no 154). This requires keeping \u201can ear to the people\u201d and developing the ability to link the \u201cmessage of a biblical text to a human situation, to an experience which cries out for the light of God\u2019s word\u201d (no. 154). Preacher\u2019s need to adapt their language to that of the people and even share in their lives (no. 158) if the preaching and evangelizing are to be effective and authentic. Moreover, the persistent and pervasive use of \u201cheart\u201d language \u2014 which in some form or another appears over 100 times in this document \u2014 suggest that the anthropological turn is a fundamental commitment in this evangelizing mission to that most human of sensitivities: empathy, which an honored colleague once defined as \u201cmy heart in your chest!\u201d<\/p>\n The reason for this attentive and even reverent view of humanity is because each human being is \u201cGod\u2019s handiwork, his creation. God created each person in his image, and he or she reflects something of God\u2019s Glory\u201d (no. 274). The \u201cstranger\u201d or \u201cother\u201d is an encounter with \u201csacred ground\u201d (no 169). Every human being \u2014 each of whom Francis calls our brothers and sisters \u2014 are the very \u201cprolongation of the incarnation for each of us\u201d (no. 179). Thus, Francis concludes that \u201cevery person is immensely holy and deserves our love\u201d (no 274).<\/p>\n Unlike Rahner\u2019s theological anthropology, however, which was often critiqued as being somewhat individualistic,[vii] the theological anthropology underlying EG <\/em>should be considered more socio-centric than ego-centric. While there is great attention to the value of the individual in this document, there is \u2014 even more \u2014 a broad and overriding concern for communities. Such is especially obvious in the titles for chapters two and four, concerning \u201cthe crisis of communal commitment\u201d and \u201cthe social dimension of evangelization\u201d respectively. More specifically, Francis argues that \u201cat the very heart of the Gospel is life in community and engagement with others\u201d (no. 177). This communal frame provides the very context for preaching, as the homily itself is a dialogue between God and \u201chis people\u201d (no. 137). Thus the homilist needs to know \u201cthe heart of his community\u201d (no. 137) and not simply that of some individuals in that community. Evangelization and that specific form of evangelization we call the homily are fundamentally ecclesial acts, and the sure sign of the \u201cauthenticity\u201d of the homiletic or any other \u201ccharism is its ecclesial character\u201d (no. 130).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Ethical Turn<\/strong><\/p>\n As I have publicly acknowledged on more than one occasion,[viii] as a longtime student of liturgy who accumulated well over 70 graduate credit hours in various aspects of the field, I only remember one course \u2014 a reconciliation course taught by Nathan Mitchell \u2014 in which ethics was a reoccurring theme. While pioneers of the 20th<\/sup> century liturgical movement in the U.S. such as Virgil Michel OSB were promoting the connection between liturgy and social justice since the 1930\u2019s, this contribution was clearly (in the language of Keith Pecklers) an \u201cunread vision\u201d that virtually never surfaced in my almost two decades of formal liturgical education.[ix] Even though the literature on the connection between liturgy and ethics is growing (both among liturgists and ethicists), ethics is yet a topic that is seldom broached in the formal teaching of liturgics or preaching in seminaries and Roman Catholic graduate programs across the U.S.<\/p>\n Thus, it is both refreshing and inspiring to find Francis\u2019 treatment of preaching in general \u2014 and the liturgical act of the homily in particular \u2014 embedded in a document with such a compelling ethical vision. Wed to the vision of theological anthropology we noted above, the foundation for the ethics in EG <\/em>is the \u201cinfinite dignity\u201d (no. 178) that God has bestowed upon all women and men, created in the very image of God. That dignity is rooted in the \u201cboundless and unfailing love\u201d (no. 3) that God lavishes upon every human being. This gift of \u201clove\u201d \u2014 a word that in various forms appears over 150 times in this document \u2014 is the content and practice of the ethical vision put forward in EG. <\/em>It is not simply respect or honor, tolerance or patience that we are to practice in the evangelizing mission. Rather, it is to be \u201cworks of love directed to one\u2019s neighbours\u201d which Francis considers \u201cthe most perfect external manifestation of the interior grace of the Spirit\u201d (no. 37).[x]<\/p>\n This love of neighbour has a decidedly liberative and justice trajectory in EG<\/em>, spurred on by a \u201czeal for living the Gospel of fraternity and justice!\u201d (no. 179). Especially pointed are the concerns expressed for the \u201cvulnerable\u201d (no. 209), the \u201chomeless, addicted, refugees, indigenous peoples, the elderly \u2026. [and] migrants\u201d (no. 210), \u201cwomen who endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence\u201d (no 212) and the \u201cUnborn\u201d (no. 213). While there is a specific and appropriate lament \u201cat the lot of those who are victims of various kinds of human trafficking\u201d (no. 211), there is an even broader and overarching concern about human beings who \u201care themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded\u201d (no. 53).<\/p>\n While few of these ethical reflections make explicit connections to the homiletic enterprise, the implications are legion. We will further echo some of these in the final section of this essay, yet one seems particularly important to note here, i.e., the homily as a potentially oppressive, even abuse act. As emerging ritual theories have stressed, especially the work of Catherine Bell, ritual by its very nature is an exercise of power.[xi] Some preachers wield that power with gentleness and respect, but others do not. Francis\u2019 comment that the \u201cconfessional must not be a torture chamber\u201d (no. 44) has homiletic analogues. Preaching in the vision of EG <\/em>is not to be a \u201cburden\u201d on the people of God, but an encounter with beauty: \u201cthe church evangelizes and is herself evangelized through the beauty of the Liturgy\u201d (no 24). \u201cIn the homily, truth goes hand in hand with beauty and goodness\u201d (no. 142).<\/p>\n The beauty that Francis espouses is well served by his heartfelt emphasis on mercy throughout this exhortation. The language of mercy appears dozens of times in EG, <\/em>initially as an approach to those who have \u201cfallen away\u201d from the community of faith (no. 24)but more compellingly as the \u201cgreatest of all the virtues\u201d (no. 37) for the Christian life, and thus critical for the mission we call evangelization. It is a virtue that is overlooked \u201cwhen we speak more about law than about grace, more about the Church than about Christ, more about the Pope than about God\u2019s word\u201d (no. 38). Just as the confessional is to be \u201can encounter with the Lord\u2019s mercy which spurs us on to do our best\u201d (no. 44), one could imagine the pulpit as a kind of \u201cmercy seat,\u201d[xii] where we encounter God\u2019s own Spirit, \u201ctransforming us and enabling us to respond to his love by our lives\u201d (no. 112).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n With Joy<\/strong><\/p>\n It is not often that one reads a papal document such as EG<\/em> that is brimming with such a spirit of delight, even exuberance. On the other hand, what else might you expect of such an exhortation so clearly focused on Gaudium! <\/em>Not only does the language of \u201cjoy\u201d permeate this document \u2014 the word in various forms appearing over 100 times through the exhortation \u2014 but what could be considered a spirituality of Christian gladness is foundational for this evangelizing vision. The Church has traditionally understood joy to be one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, a perfection \u201cthat the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory.\u201d[xiii] Francis seems to further suggest that this is a spirit that evangelizers must embrace and nurture.<\/p>\n The source of this joy is the gospel itself (no. 1). It is the promise of salvation, foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures (no. 4), and fulfilled in the redeeming cross of Christ (no. 5). The gift of joy for Christians is rooted in the dynamics of \u201cencounter\u201d \u2014 an encounter with the love of God in Jesus Christ (nos. 7-8). This joy is not a gift that is only or essentially imparted through the Church or its liturgy, but is experienced \u201cdaily, amid the little things of life\u201d (no. 4). This parallels what Rahner calls the \u201cliturgy of the world,\u201d in which the paschal mystery is experienced in the mysticism of daily living.[xiv] For the evangelizer, nurturing such joyfulness requires a \u201cdeuteronomic\u201d memory, a kind of living anamnesis of Christ\u2019s dying and rising, which is the deep well of \u201cgrateful remembrance\u201d from which \u201cthe joy of evangelizing always rises\u201d (no. 13).<\/p>\n Unfortunately, many today no longer experience \u201cthe quiet joy of [God\u2019s] love\u201d (no. 2). This is prone to happen we are caught up in our own interests that can lead into a downward spiral of resentfulness, anger and listlessness (no. 2). Christians are not immune to this spiral, and in vivid language Francis admits that some Christians pursue lives that \u201cseem like Lent without Easter\u201d (no. 6). A lack of joy is also predicated of the Church and its ministers, as implied in Francis\u2019 memorable lines that \u201can evangelizer must never look like someone who has just come back from a funeral\u201d (no. 10), nor contribute to transforming \u201cChristians into mummies in a museum\u201d (no. 83). The reality is that sometimes we do. More explicitly, he notes that pastoral workers are often prone to a kind of \u201cdefeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists [and] \u2018sourpusses\u2019\u201d (no. 85). In a memorial passage specifically related to catechesis, the pope notes \u201cRather than experts in dire predictions, dour judges bent on rooting out every threat and deviation, we should appear as joyful messengers of challenging proposals, guardians of the goodness and beauty which shine forth in a life of fidelity to the Gospel\u201d (no. 167). With particular reference to the homily, Francis notes that it must be positive, offering hope for the future, and cannot leave us \u201ctrapped in negativity\u201d (no. 159).<\/p>\n There seems to be an intrinsic relationship between the underlying theological anthropology of this exhortation and its parallel stress on joy. The image of humanity in this text is very much that of a people embrace by Eternal love. Individuals and communities, in turn, are empowered and emboldened by that love and sent in mission to announce it to others. This process is not the imposing of \u201cnew obligations\u201d (no. 15), but a liberating gift and an invitation into the \u201cbeauty of the gospel\u201d (no. 195), the \u201cbeauty of the saving love of God\u201d (no. 36). Evangelizers are graced individuals bearing gifts to people who at their core are not only good but \u201cimmensely holy\u201d (no. 274). The evangelizing exchange between evangelizers and hearers is itself to be a thing of beauty, and consequently not only requires joy but itself must be a source of true joy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Whose listening?<\/strong><\/p>\n In some ways a papal exhortation such as EG<\/em> could be considered an \u201cin-house\u201d communiqu\u00e9, designed to inform and inspire Roman Catholic leadership, particularly those charged with the task of evangelization. To that end, there are multiple passages in this document that are directed toward church leadership. The official title of EG <\/em>clearly notesthat it is directed to \u201cbishops, clergy, consecrated persons and the lay faithful.\u201d Besides generously quoting from conferences of bishops from around the world,[xv] Francis affirms the leadership role of bishops in the evangelizing mission (e.g., nos. 30 & 31). More broadly, in a rich gesture of collegiality, he notes that it is \u201cnot advisable for the Pope to take the place of local Bishops in the discernment of every issue which arises in their territory\u201d in service of a needed and \u201csound \u2018decentralization\u2019\u201d (no. 16). There is also support of the other ordained ministers, i.e., priests and deacons.<\/p>\n At the same time \u2014 especially regarding priests \u2014 there is no dearth of critique of ecclesial leadership that too often waits \u201cpassively and calmly \u2026 in our church buildings,\u201d exercising a \u201cministry of mere conservation\u201d (no. 15). While not the norm, the Pope also recognizes \u201cthe occasionally unwelcoming atmosphere of some of our parishes\u201d (no. 63). In a spirit of \u201cdecentralization\u201d the Pope urges evangelizers to \u201ctake on the smell of the sheep\u201d (no. 24) and even get \u201cbruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets\u201d (no. 49). This centrifugal instinct is matched with a strong vision of collegiality, as Francis readily acknowledges \u201cthat many women share pastoral responsibilities with priests\u201d (no. 103); specific to the homiletic act he affirms the value of priests, deacons and the laity working together \u201cto discover resources which can make preaching more attractive\u201d (no. 159). The theological basis of such collaboration, according to Francis, is that the dignity of the ministerial priesthood \u201cderives from baptism, which is accessible to all\u201d (no. 104). Bishops are reminded that \u201ca woman, Mary, is more important than\u201d they are (no. 104), and that ministerial priesthood is not about more dignity or holiness, but \u201cone means employed by Jesus for the service of his people (no. 104).<\/p>\n The implications for preaching in light of these assertions are multiple. One is the metaphorical displacement of the pulpit and homiletic act as an event from on high hovering over the people, and the replanting of that pulpit and the homiletic event in the midst of the assembly. An explicit strategy for this shift is the abandonment by the homilist of \u201chis own language that he thinks everyone naturally understands\u201d and, instead, taking up the language of the people (no. 158). The more daunting political-theological move is recognizing that it is not the preacher but God and the people who are at the heart of the proclamation of the word (no. 137). While important, the preacher is not the \u201csubject\u201d of the preaching but the \u201cmediator\u201d or \u201cintermediary\u201d (no. 143) who serves the dialogue between God and God\u2019s people.<\/p>\n What I have characterized as a \u201ccentrifugal\u201d vision, not only of evangelization but also of liturgical preaching, picks up momentum when the reader of EG <\/em>perceives the many audiences outside of the Roman Catholic church who seem to be invited to \u201coverhear\u201d this apparently internal conversation. In narrative theory there is a distinction between the explicit and the \u201cimplied\u201d hearer. For example, Roman Catholic Eucharistic prayers are directed toward God the Father, who according to literary analysis is the explicit addressee in those prayers. Yet, such prayers are translated into the vernacular and proclaimed aloud because the Eucharistic assembly is understood to be an implied \u201chearer\u201d and even \u201cenactor\u201d of those texts. In a similar vein, one could argue credibly that Jews are an important and implicit audience for this document (nos. 247-49). The same is true for the \u201cfollowers of Islam\u201d (nos. 252-53). There are also gestures to \u201cnon-Christians \u2026 faithful to their own consciences\u201d (no. 254) and even an admittal of \u201cthe respect due to the agnostic or non-believing minority\u201d (nos. 255). Finally there is a quite gracious outreach to believers \u201cwho do not consider themselves part of any religious tradition\u201d whom the Pope considers \u201cprecious allies\u201d in multiple social endeavors (no. 257).<\/p>\n These particular groups positioned around religion outside the Roman Catholic Church are not the only \u2014 what we might characterizes as \u2014 \u201cover-hearers<\/em> of the word\u201d in this document. Recall the Pope\u2019s concern for the poor, the marginalized, and the unemployed noted above. More generally, Francis understands that evangelization is to and for the world as stressed in his direct concern \u201cfor the soundness of civil institutions \u2026. [and] for the building of a better world\u201d (no. 183). Evangelization, as a \u201cpath of dialogue\u201d in pursuit of \u201cthe common good\u201d is a \u201cdialogue with states, [a] dialogue with society \u2026 [a] dialogue with cultures and the sciences\u201d (no. 238). In a word, it is a definition of evangelization in general and the homily in particular as an act of public theology.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Weaving threads for preaching <\/strong><\/p>\n Now that we have identified some key threads in EG <\/em>that provide a wider context for preaching and homilizing, it is time for us to extract from these a few broader methodological learnings, performative presumptions and practical implications for the homiletic task and those who undertake it. In this modest conclusion I would like to suggest a quartet of such overarching learnings, presumptions and implications.<\/p>\n Pope Francis is clear that preaching is not just an exercise of office but an ecclesial mission (no. 15). He is amazingly brave and somewhat encyclopedic about what preaching and the homily is and is not to be , i.e., it is not: dull (no. 11), doctrinal (no. 35), confined (no. 49), abstract (nos. 142 & 157), ugly (cf. nos. 36 and 142), obsessive (no. 49), out of contact with the local context (nos. 29, 45 &143), heartless (no. 139), essentially entertaining (no. 138), judgmental (no. 172), tortured (cf. no. 44), bureaucratic and inhospitable (no. 63), pessimistic (cf. no. 85), ostentatious (no. 95), rigid (no. 45), avuncular (cf. no. 139), self-centered (cf. no. 158), monologic (no. 137), long (no. 138), heartless (no 138), disconnected from God\u2019s Word (no. 146), inauthentic (no. 150), negative (no. 159), oppressive (nos. 187ff), and disengaged from society (nos. 238ff).<\/p>\n On the other hand, while Francis does provide a somewhat practical process for homily preparation, he does not explicate a theological frame for homily preparation and delivery. His emphasis on missiology is well taken, but as I have learned from my colleagues: missiology does not have a single methodology. Nor does contextual theology,[xvi] despite Francis\u2019 clear emphasis on preaching as a contextual act. Acknowledging my own biases in this endeavor, I believe EG <\/em>allows one to fruitfully consider the homiletic event and its preparation as framed by EG <\/em>as an act of practical theology<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Practical theology, as it has emerged at the end of the twentieth century, is a style of doing theology (with multiple methods) that takes both theory and practice seriously. In many forms of practical theology priority is given to human experience \u2014 especially shared human experience \u2014 that needs to be put in dialogue with the tenets of one\u2019s religion and the realities of the wider cultural context.[xvii] Francis\u2019 emphasis on our shared humanity, the importance of human experience, and particularly the need for preachers to keep their ear to the people (no. 154) is analogous to the practical theologians \u201cempirical\u201d task[xviii] of attending to some slice of shared experience. This means, to use Francis\u2019 language, that the homily must have the aroma of the sheep (no. 24) and reflect a honed engagement with \u201cthe streets\u201d (no. 49). I have often suggested that if a preacher is truly attentive to the context of his people, he should be able to give six months of his homilies to a sociologist, from which the sociologists should be able to construct a credible overview of the demographics, economic, and social profile of that community.<\/p>\n There are many other analogues between Francis\u2019 view of preaching and practical theology. These include the need to put people\u2019s experience in dialogue with the Word of God (no. 166): what practical theology would consider a critical correlation between experience and religious tradition. Francis also views evangelizing in general \u2014 and thus the homily by implication \u2014 as contributing to the liberation of people (e.g., nos. 24 & 178), a quite strong theme throughout much of contemporary practical theology.[xix] There is also the explicit concern to stress the \u201cideal of a life of wisdom\u201d (no. 168) and \u201cpractical wisdom\u201d (no. 254). Practical wisdom or phronesis <\/em>is a defining tenet of practical theology as it reemerged in the 20th<\/sup> century, especially as explicated in the writings of Don Browning, whom many consider the contemporary father of practical theology.[xx] Finally, practical theology is a theology for<\/em> and in<\/em> action,[xxi] not some speculative or theoretical musing. Similarly, the homily itself is theology in action, as is the whole of the liturgy \u2014 our enacted theologia prima<\/em>.<\/p>\n In terms of defining the preacher, EG <\/em>offers the important practical redefinition of the preacher as mediator<\/strong> rather than as the instigator or guardian of the word. Often preachers imagine themselves as the \u201csubject\u201d of the preaching event, and the assembly as the \u201cobject\u201d of that event. On the other hand, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy <\/em>notes that all liturgy is an action of Christ: head and members (no. 7). Since the homily is not simply \u201cin\u201d the liturgy but is itself a liturgical event and integral to Sunday Eucharist, it follows that the homily is also an action of Christ: head and members.<\/p>\n Francis\u2019s words well reflects this inversion, and EG <\/em>disables homilists from holding evangelical court over some captive audience. Recalling his many exhortations to keep clergy focused on service and not on any high honor they think their ordination bestows, Francis defines the preacher as a mediator (no. 143). He invokes the language of John Paul II that the liturgical proclamation of the word is \u201ca dialogue between God and his people\u201d (no. 137; cf. no. 140).[xxii] As a catalyst for this dialogue, the preacher is expected to be in touch with the language, concerns and contexts of the people and not simply be caught up in his own little world. Rather he has been on the street with the baptized and in their homes, not barricaded in church or rectory and thus immune to picking up the smell of the sheep. It is only in such a way that this mediator can \u201cproperly accompany [not lead!] the poor on their path to liberation\u201d (no. 199).<\/p>\n Francis\u2019 image of the homily, as noted above, also emphasis preaching and the liturgy as exercises in beauty<\/strong>. In the incredibly diverse US context, the nature of the beautiful is highly contested. Is it defined by the elite who throng to the Kennedy Center in Washington DC and Symphony Hall in Chicago, or is it what garners the broadest hip-hop audience as charted by billboard.com? There was a highly controversial document on the liturgy issued by a small think-tank entitled the \u201cSnowbird Statement on Catholic Liturgical Music\u201d (1995).[xxiii] That statement rightly insistently argued for the importance of \u201cbeauty\u201d in liturgical music, yet its circuitous discussions of beauty were markedly non-contextual, universalist, and arguable anchored in western musical conservatory definitions of beauty that took Bach, Beethoven and Brahms as the universal litmus tests of the beautiful. On the other hand, it seemed to overlook and implicitly reject any standard of \u201cbeauty\u201d enacted by the masses. In that vein, I am always reminded of the poignant reflection by mentor Nathan Mitchell, who suggested that \u201cSecretly we believe that God loves the poor, but hates their music; surely God loves Mozart more than Randy Travis.\u201d[xxiv]<\/p>\n Francis writings seem to embrace what could be considered a Marian aesthetic<\/strong>, or beauty as refracted through the anawim hymn Mary voices in Luke 1:45-66. In his exploration of theological aesthetics, Alejandro Garc\u00eda-Rivera argues that a true aesthetic \u2014 even a liturgical aesthetic \u2014 must embrace the lowly. This lifting up the lowly, according to Garc\u00eda-Rivera, takes place \u201cin the biblical heart\u201d where good and evil must be discerned.[xxv] Francis\u2019 continued emphasis heart, but one that is tuned to the poor and marginalized, seems to cry out for a very particular aesthetic: one not defined by some music conservatory or philosopher, but in the heart of Mary the very \u201cMother of Evangelization\u201d (no. 284).<\/p>\n Finally I believe that Francis\u2019 vision of the homily and preaching in general is well served by the framework of public theology<\/strong>. The brilliant Lutheran theologian Martin Marty is often cited as the term\u2019s progenitor. Already in 1974 he was speaking about \u201cpublic theologians.\u201d[xxvi] Later, Marty turned to the writings of the US statesman Benjamin Franklin (d. 1790) who in 1749 anonymously penned a pamphlet in which he argued for the necessary of \u201cpublic religion\u201d in education and its usefulness to society.\u201d[xxvii] Marty borrowed and adapted Franklin\u2019s term, suggesting that it was more helpful in the current discussion to speak about public church than civil religion.[xxviii] Marty defines \u201cthe public church\u201d as \u201ca family of apostolic churches with Jesus Christ at the center … that are especially sensitive to the res publica<\/em>, the public order that surrounds and includes people of faith.\u201d[xxix] According to Marty, this public church engages in \u201cpublic theology\u201d which he defines as an effort \u201cto interpret the life of a people in the light of a transcendent reference.\u201d[xxx] Thus, for Marty, the public church is not so much concerned with \u201c\u2019saving faith<\/em>,\u2019 which refers to the ways in which a person is finally grounded in or reconciled to God … [but] focuses on \u2018ordering faith<\/em>,\u2019 which helps constitute civil, social and political life from a theological point of view.\u201d<\/p>\n While Francis does not use the language of public theology, his own language about preaching and evangelizing sounds very much like Marty, i.e., disallowing one to claim \u201cthat religion \u2026 exists only to prepare souls for heaven\u201d (no. 182). Rather, religion \u2014 and the preaching and homilizing that marks the Roman Catholic religion \u2014 needs to be concerned about \u201cthe soundness of civil institutions \u2026 [and] events affecting society\u201d (no. 183). Evangelizing, and by definition homilizing, needs to show concern for the \u201cbuilding of a better world\u201d (no. 182). Francis wants \u2014 actually seems to demand \u2014 a \u201cdialogue with society\u201d (no. 238). One could interpret all of his language about dialogue with Jews, Muslims, people from other religious traditions, the \u201cnones\u201d[xxxi] and even agnostics as predicated upon a believe that evangelizing in all of its forms has something significant to say to the billions of human beings outside the Roman Catholic Church or even Christianity. This vision shatters the myopia of homilists who believe their primary job is speak about church law, focus on the church and quote the pope (cf. no. 38). Rather preaching, and even the homily, is to be a centrifugal act that resounds \u2014 like God\u2019s word itself \u2014 through the whole of creation. Yet, that centrifugal act is not an exercise in correcting or \u201cfinger wagging,\u201d but must proclaim the hope, mercy and joy that permeate this document.<\/p>\n There are undoubtedly other threads and weavings around preaching and the homiletic enterprise that one could discern from this amazing exhortation. I have only touched upon a few from my own perspective as a dominant culture cleric and academic, who self-identifies as a practical theologian. My hope is these musings send you back to this life-giving document, so that your own context can unearth others and that you are your communities are enriched in the process.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Edward Foley is the Duns Scotus Professor of Spirituality and Professor of Liturgy and Music at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. A member of the Province of St. Joseph of the Capuchin Order since 1966 he was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1975. He holds multiple graduate degrees in music, ministry and theology including the Ph.D. in Theology (1987) from the University of Notre Dame.<\/em><\/p>\n An award winning author, he currently has 21 published books to his credit; his most recent work is <\/em>A Commentary on the Order of Mass: A New English Translation, for which he serves as general editor, published in October 2011 by the Liturgical Press.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Foley has also authored over 300 chapters in books, scholarly and pastoral articles, and reviews. His current research projects include an exploration of interfaith theological reflection for which he received a Lilly Faculty Fellowship for the academic year 2012-13; his forthcoming book on this topic is entitled <\/em>Reflective Believing.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [i] Rush Limbaugh, \u201cIt\u2019s Sad how wrong Pope Francis is,\u201d The Rush Limbaugh Show <\/em>(27 November 2013), online at www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2013\/11\/27\/it_s_sad_how_wrong_pope_francis_is_unless_it_s_a_deliberate_mistranslation_by_leftists<\/a><\/p>\n [ii] Marian Tupy, \u201cIs the Pope Right about the World?\u201d, Atlantic Monthly <\/em>(December, 2013), online at http:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/international\/archive\/2013\/12\/is-the-pope-right-about-the-world\/282276\/<\/a><\/p>\n [iii] The language of \u201ccontext\u201d occurs 15 times in the document. Notable is the Pope\u2019s emphasis that evangelization \u201cconstantly seeks to communicate more effectively the truth of the Gospel in a specific context<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (no. 45, emphasis added).<\/p>\n [iv] See, for example, his \u201cDignity and Freedom of Man,\u201d originally presented in 1952 and included in Theological Investigations II<\/em>, trans. Karl-H. Kruger (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1963), 235-63, specifically p. 241.<\/p>\n [v] Dalai Lama, Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World <\/em>(Boston-New York: Houghton Mifflin Hartcourt, 2011). In particular, see Part I:2 \u201cOur Common Humanity\u201d, pp. 21-29.<\/p>\n [vi] Notice the strong resonance in these words with the opening lines of Gaudium et Spes. <\/em><\/p>\n [vii] See, for example, Johannes Metz, Faith in History and Society: Toward a Practical Fundamental theology<\/em>, trans. David Smith (New York: Crossroad, 1980), esp. pp. 161-68.<\/p>\n [viii] See, for example, my \u201cPractical Liturgics: a \u2018fusionary\u2019 tale, Proceedings of the North American Academy of Liturgy <\/em>(2013) 25-33.<\/p>\n [ix] Keith Pecklers does a masterful job of \u201cuncovering\u201d this buried treasure in his The Unread Vision: The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America: 1926-1955 <\/em>(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), especially \u201cThe Liturgical Movement and Social Justice,\u201d pp. 81-149.<\/p>\n [x] No. 161 is an especially rich discussion of the \u201clove of neighbour.\u201d<\/p>\n [xi] Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice<\/em> (New York \u2014 Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), esp. chapter 9, \u201cThe Power of Ritualization,\u201d pp. 197-223.<\/p>\n [xii] The mercy seat was the lid of the ark of the covenant, which resided in the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Solomon. The presence of God hovered over the mercy seat, and when the blood of atonement on Yom Kippur was sprinkled on that place, God\u2019s mercy was dispensed to the Jews. See Heb. 9:3-5 for the early Christian community\u2019s appropriation of this metaphor.<\/p>\n [xiii] Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/em>, no. 1832. The complete list of the fruits of the spirit are: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self control and chastity (cf. CCC, no. 1832).<\/p>\n [xiv] For an introduction to Rahner\u2019s distinction between the liturgy of the church and the liturgy of the world, see Michael Skelley, The Liturgy of the World: Karl Rahner\u2019s Theology of Worship <\/em>(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1991), especially chapter 4, pp. 85-105.<\/p>\n [xv] Especially the Latin American and Caribbean bishops in notes 4, 17, 21, 63, 84, 98, 103, 106, 147, 165; also the 2012 synod of bishops in no. 14; African bishops in no. 62; bishops of Asia in nos. 62 and 110; bishops of the US in no. 64 and 180; French bishops in no. 66; bishops of Oceania in no. 118; bishops of Brazil in no. 191; Bishops of the Philippines in no. 215; bishops of the Congo in no. 230; and the bishops of India in no. 250.<\/p>\n [xvi] See Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology<\/em>, rev. ed. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,<\/p>\n 2005).<\/p>\n [xvii] See, for example, the highly influential Method in Ministry<\/em> by James and Evelyn Whitehead, rev., ed. (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995).<\/p>\n [xviii] The best introduction to the empirical task of practical theology continues to be Johannes van der Van, Practical Theology: An Empirical Approach <\/em>(Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993).<\/p>\n [xix] See the wonderful summary by Nancy Ramsay, \u201cEmancipatory Theory and Method,\u201d in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology<\/em>, ed. Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2012), pp. 183-192.<\/p>\n [xx] See his magisterial A Fundamental Practical Theology: Descriptive and Strategic Proposals <\/em>(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), especially chp. 2 on \u201cExploring Practical Wisdom and Understanding,\u201d pp. 34-54.<\/p>\n [xxi] See Elizabeth Conde-Frazier, \u201cParticipatory Action Research, in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology<\/em>, ed. Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2012), pp. 234-43.<\/p>\n [xxii] In this vein, I previously redefined the homily as \u201ca ritual conversation between God and the liturgical assembly which announces God’s reign through the mediation of a preacher, who offers a credible and imaginative interpretation drawing on the whole of the liturgical bible in the context of a particular liturgy and community.\u201d See my “The Homily beyond Scripture,” Worship<\/em> 73:4 (1999) 351-58.<\/p>\n [xxiii] The text of the document was published in Pastoral Music <\/em>20:3 (February-March 1996) 13-19 and is available on-line at http:\/\/www.canticanova.com\/articles\/liturgy\/art9o1.htm<\/a> (accessed 21.vii.14).<\/p>\n [xxiv]Nathan Mitchell, “Amen Corner,” Worship <\/em>70:3 (1996) 258.<\/p>\n [xxv] Alejandro Garc\u00eda-Rivera, The Community of the Beautiful <\/em>(Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1999), p. 181.<\/p>\n [xxvi] Martin Marty, \u201cTwo Kinds of Civil Religion,\u201d in American Civil Religion<\/em>, ed. Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 155.<\/p>\n [xxvii] See his Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania<\/em> (1749), on line at http:\/\/www.ushistory.org\/franklin\/biography\/app03.htm<\/a> (21.vii.14).<\/p>\n