The Homiletic Movement Prior to Vatican II

Antiphon 12.3 (2008): 297-307

The Homiletic Movement
Prior to Vatican II
Michael Monshau, op

One of the most understated accomplishments of the twentieth
century liturgical renewal culminating in the reforms of Vatican II
has been the renewal of liturgical preaching. Despite the fact that
the council fathers had expressed widely diverse reasons for ensur-
ing the regular delivery of preaching at liturgy, conciliar mandates
for homiletic preaching at Mass and, ultimately, in all of the rites
were implemented easily. Few passions were stirred over the topic
of preaching during or after the council; most seemed to agree that
legislating for liturgical preaching was a good idea and that more of
it would be an even better idea. Subsequent to the promulgation of
conciliar legislation supporting that position, the rest of the Church
complied. Preaching became more dependably present at Mass on
Sundays and holy days of obligation, and it began to feature with
increasing regularity at daily Masses as well as at other liturgies.
Moreover, priests began giving greater attention to their preaching
duties. Although these developments were given little, if any, press
coverage, they were certainly significant for the Church.
     Consider this description of preaching that appeared in a 1947
issue of the respected journal, Homiletic and Pastoral Review: “Preaching
the Word of God holds an honored place in the liturgy of the Church,
not as a part of it, but as a supplement to it.” The statement was
published just sixteen years before Sacrosanctum concilium declared in
article 52 that “the homily ... is to be highly esteemed as part of the
liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the
assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should
not be omitted except for a serious reason.” The journey from the
former expression to the latter was not a simple one. This paper will
chart the development of what can be called the twentieth century
“homiletic movement” that paved the way for the renewed emphasis
that Vatican II placed upon liturgical preaching.

     D. V. Harrahan, “Must We Have Sermons?” Homiletic and Pastoral
Review 47 (1947) 333.

298                                         Michael monshau, op

A Movement?
Of course, in the proper sense of the term, it can be charged that
the homiletic movement was not a “movement” at all. Prior to
1950, Rome had established no preaching commission. There was
no Catholic homiletic organization with membership lists, dues, and
annual conventions to support such a movement. Nonetheless, the
twentieth century witnessed numerous noteworthy developments
within the field of homiletics, and the combination of these various
developments can indeed be described as something of a homiletic
movement.
     In a concrete way, Josef Jungmann, the Jesuit theologian at
Innsbruck, whose work inspired a renewal in biblical, liturgical and
catechetical studies, also raised the homiletic discussion to a new and
enduring level with the publication in 1936 of Die Frohbotschaft und
unsere Glaubensverkündigung (hereafter identified by its English title,
The Good News and its Proclamation). By this work, Jungmann initi-
ated new discussions in all of the disciplines named above, including
homiletics. His theory was that the listless Christian life that he felt
was generally observable among Christians was the product of poor
preaching, as well as the result of unclear distinctions between the
appropriate roles of catechizing, theologizing, and preaching. The
Jesuit professor from Innsbruck noted that preaching had lost its
sense of purpose. He observed that many preachers seemed to have
developed an understanding of their homiletic task as one of making
theology accessible on the popular level; such an approach not only
rendered preaching disastrous, but it was a misappropriation of the
Church’s catechetical duty as well. Jungmann figured prominently in
the activities of the so-called kerygmatic movement, which itself was a
segment of the broader and highly influential catechetical movement
of the time. His work sent a charge through the theological community
that ultimately provided Vatican II with twenty-five years of mature
theological reflection on the issue of preaching.
International Initiatives
Just prior to the council, throughout the world various homiletic
initiatives were at work in close proximity to, or in association with,
men who were destined to attend Vatican II as participants. These
initiatives, most of which functioned in relative obscurity, comprised
various far-flung ingredients of what in retrospect we may call the
homiletic movement of that day. Samples of these activities are de-
scribed below.

the homiletic movement prior to vatican ii                                      299

     In Italy, at the time of Vatican II, preparation for preaching was
considered the job rather of communications specialists than of
theologians. Stress was placed upon the delivery of the sermon rather
than on its content, although some concern was expressed over the
latter. Domenico Grasso notes that preaching concerns were covered
in periodicals treating the ministry of the Word. The monthly Minis-
terium Verbi, noted Grasso in 1968, “... was founded forty-one years
ago.... Its purpose is to provide priests who have the care of souls
with schemas for preaching that can inspire their preaching in the
customary Sunday homily and in the various feasts of the liturgical
year.” Furthermore,

    In 1956, The Dominican friars in Naples established Temi di
    predicazione. The review is the work of outstanding theologians and
    scholars and proposes to present the various themes of Christian
    preaching, both dogmatic and moral, in their biblical and patristic
    sources as well as in the Acta of the magisterium of the Church; its
    purpose is to aid preachers to perceive their real content and the
    significance they hold in Catholic teaching and in the Christian life ...
    (I)ssues contain genuine contributions for a theology of preaching.

     Also in Italy during this period, pastoral centers sometimes con-
ducted conventions with homiletic themes. This occurred for the first
time in 1956 at Milan’s Centro di Orientamento Pastorale. Religious
orders in the country also designed preaching structures and spon-
sored preaching institutes for their own membership. The Franciscan
initiative was in place by the 1950s.
     In France, the homiletic renewal developed in two stages. The
second stage has unfolded since 1961, in harmony with the liturgi-
cal renewal. The first stage, however, and that which is perhaps more
remarkable, began after World War II, and extended until Vatican II
in conjunction with the catechetical renewal. François Coudreau notes
that in this period, “Sermon books were gradually abandoned and the
preacher sought the way of the message that enlightens, challenges,
invites and leads.” Tools of the preaching renewal in France included
books, publications, congresses, institutes, and the like. By way of
example, prior to the publication of Sacrosanctum concilium, books
      Domenico Grasso, “Preaching in Italy,” The Renewal of Preaching:
Theory and Practice, ed. Karl Rahner, Concilium: Theology in an Age of Renewal
33 (New York: Paulist, 1968), 121-122.
      Grasso, 122.
      Grasso, 123.
      Grasso, 123.
      François Coudreau, “Preaching in France,” Concilium 33, 126.

300                                               Michael monshau, op

which were produced on preaching included Jules Gritti’s Prêcher aux
hommes de notre temps (1960), and Parole efficace: pour une théologie de
la prédication (1962), the French translation of Otto Semmelroth’s
German volume. French periodicals which covered topics of interest
to preachers, either specifically or in a general sense, included Prêtres
diocésains, published since 1948; Paroisse et Mission, started in 1956;
Prêtres aujourd’hui, since 1958; and Catéchèse, which originated in
1960.
     As in many other countries throughout the world before Vatican
II, the Spanish Church had produced “obligatory sermon plans” for
Sunday preaching. In this system, Church authorities, usually the
local ordinary, disseminated a list of topics which were to be preached
throughout a particular year. Such a listing might indicate that in a
given year, for example, the priest was to preach (perhaps “teach”
is the more appropriate term) about the Ten Commandments, or
the seven sacraments, or Church law. Such topics were assigned for
the preaching event at Sunday liturgy irrespective of the readings
assigned for that day’s liturgy. In point of fact, it was not necessary
for the priest to read that day’s scriptural texts to his congregation
in the vernacular; the proclamation of the texts in Latin was all that
was required.
     Given Germany’s proleptic involvement in liturgical renewal, it is
no surprise that this country’s pre-Vatican II homiletic activity was also
extensive. Quite early on, preaching periodicals emerged of the variety
which outlined sample sermons. Although these fell out of favor as
the liturgical renewal took hold, such early efforts exhibited genuine
German interest in preaching. From as early as 1955, the preaching
conventions begun at Castle Rothenfels attracted good numbers.
In 1957, German homiletics professors met, and in a position paper
entitled “Sermon Training Today,” proposed three directive articles:

      l. We eventually must work out a theology of God’s Word, and
      this must include a theology of preaching. 2. A comprehensive
      homiletics program cannot be taught as a sideline, or without
      thorough preparation and training. 3. Preparing for the preaching
      office is a full-time project. However, it is never too early to begin
      learning and using the rudiments of preaching - rhetoric, extempore
      speech, etc.10

      Coudreau, 126-131.
     Luis Maldonado, “Preaching in Spain,” Concilium 33, 119.
      Michael Frickel, “Updating Preaching Courses in the German-
Speaking World,” Concilium 33, 132-135.
   10   Frickel, 133.

the homiletic movement prior to vatican ii                            301

     Of great significance was the formation at the aforementioned
1957 meeting of the Workshop of Catholic Homiletics Teachers in
Germany (AKHD), a professional organization which sponsored
homiletics conventions, published a newsletter, and made notices
of published material in the profession available to its members and
other interested parties. Prior to the publication of Sacrosanctum con-
cilium, AKHD’s conventions addressed these themes: “Preaching and
Theology” (1958); “Preaching and the Audience” (1960); “Preaching
and Speech” (1962).11
     In Holland, a Committee for Popular Missions had supervised
those parish preaching renewals known as parish missions that had
been extremely popular before the council, but this organization went
out of existence in the 1960s. The Franciscans published a review
entitled De Gewijde Rede (literally: Sacred Speaking) to assist priests in
their preaching duties.12
     In Poland, in 1936, the National Council legislated for preach-
ing on every Sunday and feast day throughout the country. Such
preaching was designed to teach the catechism and, as such, was not
homiletic. From 1945 to 1959 (except for the years from 1951 to
1957), the quarterly, Ambona Wspólczesna, devoted to Polish preaching,
was published.13 Manuals for teachers of homiletics were published
in 1957 (Kaznodziejstwo, zagadnienia wybrane, by M. Rzeszewski) and
in 1958 (Wyklad zasad wymowy koscielnej, by Z. Pilch). In 1958, the
Polish Theological Congress initiated annual meetings for homiletics
professors, and those events addressed the theological and scientific
as well as the performatory dimensions of the discipline. Publica-
tions supporting the development of homiletics in the Polish Church
also played an important part. Since 1862, Biblioteka Kaznodziejska,
a monthly homiletic review, has been published out of Poznan. In
1960, a chair of homiletics was established at the Catholic University
of Lublin.
     In the English-speaking world, homiletics achieved a new and
more significant status when, in 1935, The Homiletic and Pastoral Review
(HPR) began publication. Homiletic concerns, as well as other matters
pertinent to the life and ministry of the parish priest, were addressed
in this fine publication. This Jesuit-sponsored project continues in the
present to treat homiletic and other issues of concern to priests. In
1961, the Catholic Centre of Saint Paul University, Ottawa, Canada,

   11   Frickel, 132-135.
   12   Herman Borgert “The Sermon in Holland,” Concilium 33, 136-
138.
   13   Józef Majka, “Preaching in Poland,” Concilium 33, 139-142.

302                                           Michael monshau, op

commenced with publication of The Homiletic Service, which addresses
the various needs of Catholic preachers.14
The Parish Mission
Another pre-conciliar preaching phenomenon was the parish mission.
Preaching renewals of several days’ length, and conducted by visit-
ing clergy of religious orders whose full-time assignment frequently
was to preach parish missions, were extremely popular in Catholic
parishes, more so before Vatican II, although they continue to this
day, sometimes with extraordinary success. In Ireland, such preach-
ing events were regarded as “command performances” by the entire
parish. In the United States, preachers of the parish missions gauged
their homiletic successes by the numbers presenting themselves for the
sacrament of penance in the confessional. Success rates determined
according to this measure are legendary.15
Media
Catholic preaching attempted to keep pace with parallel secular ini-
tiatives from the outset, as the mass media emerged in the twentieth
century. Perhaps the best-known and most successful example of this
in the pre-conciliar portion of the era was Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
(1895-1979), who conducted a popular radio show known as The
Catholic Hour, and who later presented a similar program on televi-
sion, reached countless people, and provided the Church with its first
lesson on the potential effectiveness of the media for evangelization.
This is so even though, strictly speaking, Sheen’s broadcasts were not
“preaching” events. Another prominent priest in the media, Father
Charles Coughlin, known as the “radio priest,” served as the pastor
of the Shrine of the Little Flower, Royal Oak, Michigan, from which
venue he broadcasted his messages. Like Sheen, Coughlin revealed
the effectiveness of the media during this period, but his efforts were
even less homiletic than Sheen’s.

    14 Daniel Morrisey, “Catholic Preaching in the United States, England
and the English-Speaking World,” Concilium 33, 151-154.
    15 The collective memory of those friars of the Dominican Province
of Saint Albert the Great, Chicago IL, who preached parish missions in
this period, suggests that the pastors who engaged their services recognized
a mission as successful, as did the friars themselves, if the lines for the
confessionals were lengthy.

the homiletic movement prior to vatican ii                            303

The Catholic Homiletic Society
In the late 1950s, The Catholic Homiletic Society (CHS) was founded
to promote on-going homiletic research, to assist preachers in their
quest for homiletic growth and to provide scholarly support for those
engaged in homiletic education.
At Vatican II
Whereas it could be difficult to demonstrate to what degree the council
fathers employed the fruits of the homiletic movement in any specific
way in their deliberations at Vatican II, these initiatives were so wide-
spread in the Catholic world of the first half of the twentieth century
that some credit must certainly be given to the homiletic renewal.
As pastors and Church administrators, Vatican II’s capitulars would
have been aware of the homiletic initiatives in their own churches;
indeed, in many instances, they caused these initiatives to exist. They
would have been aware, to widely varying degrees, of the homiletic
developments outside of the Catholic Church as well.
    The council fathers benefited from the reflections of those theo-
logians of the liturgical movement who were able to draw conclusions
about the integral and necessary role of the homily at liturgy. To the
degree that it had been influenced by the liturgical movement, Catholic
preaching prior to Vatican II tended to emphasize the sanctoral cycle
and the dynamics of the liturgy. It was not uncommon that even the
best of Catholic preaching addressed the feast of the day rather than the
texts of the Scripture readings (although, quite typically, the readings
assigned for any feast were those that narrated the event or unfolded
the mystery around which that day’s celebration revolved).
    How can one describe with any specificity the homiletic move-
ment’s contribution to the council? It is a different kind of contribu-
tion than those produced by initiatives like the biblical movement or
the liturgical movement, because rather than providing information,
as the other movements did, the homiletic movement served more to
pose questions and open discussions that are still in progress.
    Extant literature from the period verifies that, prior to the council,
homileticians busied themselves at congresses, in journals, and over
tables with such as questions as: What is preaching? What is the rela-
tionship of the sermon to the liturgy? What are the aims of preaching?
What is biblical preaching? What is the difference between a sermon
and a homily? Is a preaching-event necessary at every liturgical gath-
ering? What is its purpose? Is there a sacramental structure to the
proclamation of the Word at worship? These questions were carried
over from the agendas of the pre-conciliar homileticians to the council
fathers. The questions emerge time and again in conciliar discussions

304                                          Michael monshau, op

relative to the homily at worship. In many instances, these questions
continue to incite theological and pastoral discussions today.
     These questions were engaged officially by the council fathers in
their discussions. In his doctoral dissertation on homiletics, Domini-
can Father John Burke noted the various episcopal reactions when
the subject of the nature and role of the homily was discussed at the
council. Burke observed that “There were a total of thirty-four Fathers
of the Council speaking to the immediate subject of the homily. Of
this number, twenty-six wanted it made of greater obligation. Their
reasons for urging its prescription ... varied.”16 Burke reported some
of those variations on the theme. He reported that Cardinal Francis
Spellman of New York regarded the Mass homily as necessary for
enabling the intelligent and vital involvement of the laity. Archbishop
Angelo Innocent Fernandes of New Delhi understood the role of
preaching as introductory to liturgical reform. Cardinal Ermenegildo
Florit of Florence held that the Gospel homily provides a necessary
preparation for participation in the Eucharist. Bishop Cascon of the
Canary Islands looked to the council to increase the role of the homily
at Mass for theological reasons, because he held that the homily was
the principal means of effecting the ministry of the Word. Cardinal
William Godfrey, archbishop of Westminster, England regarded the
homily as dispensable, and wished it to be decreed optional, especially
when churches found it necessary to move large crowds of the faith-
ful in and out of the church building on Sunday mornings in order
to make room for the next Mass group! Bishops Eduard Nécsey of
Czechoslovakia, Franciszek Jop of Opole, Poland and Placido Maria
Cambiaghi of Crema, Italy, Constantino Gómez Villa of Caroni,
Venezuela, Charles Partelli of Montevideo, all expressed concern
over the catechetical dimension of liturgical preaching. Bishop Gre-
gorio Modrego y Casus of Barcelona was in favor of promoting the
catechetical dimension of the homily but asked that the catechetical
themes emerge from the liturgical texts.17
     Jungmann describes his own assessment of how this discussion
unfolded in assembly at the council itself. Concerning the assembly’s
treatment of article 52 of Sacrosanctum concilium, he wrote:

      The proposal of the schema ... was taken up in the assembly of
      the Council by more than 30 speakers, all of whom spoke of it

   16 John Burke, “The Development of the Theology of the Liturgical
Sermon in the Formation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the
Second Vatican Council” (PhD dissertation, The Catholic University of
America, 1968) 181.
   17 Burke, “Development,” 181-187.

the homiletic movement prior to vatican ii                                           305

    approvingly. Almost all wanted a stronger emphasis on its being
    made obligatory; only a few were for a weakening of this clause.
    Some desired free scope for the consecutive treatment of catechism
    segments customary in some countries or generally for the non-
    homiletic sermon. . . . Without conceding such a far-reaching
    weakening of the idea and yet in order to take into account
    the concern which lay behind it, the Commission proposed a
    paraphrasing of the homily as a guide: it should not be required to be
    a mere exegesis of the scriptural section of the liturgy but, connected
    freely with the text of one of the lessons or even of another detail of
    the word or rite of the liturgy itself, it should rather offer instruction
    for the religious and moral life of the faithful - less systematically,
    to be sure, but not on that account incompletely. During the two
    festival seasons of the Church’s year it would be devoted more to the
    facts of salvation and their consequences, but outside these circles it
    would be all the more open for all the questions of the moral order
    of life. In all cases it should in some way, as mystagogical sermon,
    lead the faithful inwardly into the service, be in harmony with it
    and facilitate its inner celebration, rather than stand independently
    beside it. It should emanate from the consciousness that although
    it is freely created by the liturgist, it is liturgy itself. . . . The article
    was accepted in this form by 2236 votes as against 15.18

Even after the promulgation of Sacrosanctum concilium, Pope Paul VI
continued to stress the multiple responsibilities of liturgical worship,
among which the role of the liturgical homily is implicitly understood.
On 29 October 1964, speaking to the periti of the Consilium, that
group entrusted with the promulgation of the council’s liturgical
reform, he insisted:

    Your outlook on the liturgical reform, to be adequate and rightly
    focused, requires attentiveness to another, equally important
    standard. You have to take into account the effectiveness of the
    sacred rites to teach. As you know, the conciliar Fathers, when they
    established the norms for promoting the liturgy, had before them
    the pastoral objective of a more intense liturgical participation on
    the part of the faithful, who would thereby learn more fully at the
    heavenly sources of truth and grace how better and more abundantly
    to derive sustenance for Christian living. As the Constitution on the
    Liturgy wisely counsels, although the liturgy consists chiefly in the
    worship of God’s majesty, it also contains much instruction for the
    faithful. God in the liturgy is speaking to his own people; Christ

   18     Josef Andreas Jungmann, “The Most Sacred Mystery of the
Eucharist,” Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. 1, ed. Herbert
Vorgrimler (New York: Herder and Herder, 1967) 38.

306                                               Michael monshau, op

      continues there to proclaim his Gospel. Yours, therefore, should be
      a special care that liturgical worship really turns out to be a school
      for the Christian people. Liturgy should be a schooling in devotion
      that teaches the faithful to cultivate an intimate exchange with God;
      a schooling in truth in which visible symbols lead the spirit to the
      understanding and love of things invisible; a schooling in Christian
      charity whereby everyone more and more experiences the unity of
      the Church through the bonds of familial communion.19

Even the smallest of samplings from the council documents themselves
reveal the plurality of definitions of the homily that existed among the
membership of the council. Sacrosanctum concilium notes in article 33
that all aspects of the liturgy are intended for the glorification of God
but also that these same elements have catechetical value. Article 35
notes the proclamatory character of the Word. Article 51 assigns to
the Liturgy of the Word the task of increasing biblical literacy among
the faithful. Article 52 acknowledges the liturgical integrity of preach-
ing, but roots that integrity in its catechetical value when it explains:
“By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding
principles of Christian life are expounded from the sacred text during
the course of the liturgical year.” To be certain, these multiple percep-
tions of the liturgical homily are not mutually exclusive; rather, they
suggest the presence of a desirable understanding of the multi-valence
which the preaching event actually possesses. Nonetheless, emerging
as they do from council capitulars in this rather non-focused form,
these articulations also exhibit a certain lack of precision in the official
understanding of the nature and role of the homily at liturgy.
     Accordingly, the homiletic movement’s pre-conciliar questions
about the nature, role, and aims of preaching were not answered
definitively by the council fathers. In some cases, as has been ob-
served, their homiletic legislation shows a continuing ambiguity over
these issues, for example, is the homily legislated for today because
it is proclamatory and essential to sacramental action or because it
is catechetically valuable? In the more than four decades since the
conclusion of Vatican II, these questions have continued to demand
attention, and today a much more advanced clarity exists, although
not a conclusive one, about the Church’s understanding of the role
of the homily at worship. Progress continues as the Church makes
her way toward articulating an ever more precise theology of proc-
lamation.

    19 International Commission on English in the Liturgy, Documents on
the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts (Collegeville MN:
Liturgical Press, 1982) 551.

the homiletic movement prior to vatican ii                           307

In Retrospect
In retrospect, it appears that the most accurate way of describing the
effect of the homiletic movement on the renewal of liturgical preach-
ing at Vatican II is two-fold. First, the work of the homileticians had
raised the question of preaching so consistently before the council,
and the discussions about liturgical homiletics were so interwoven
into discussions about liturgy, patrology, biblical studies, catechetics,
and ecumenism, that the council fathers were unavoidably confronted
with the necessity of giving pride of place to the homily in their leg-
islation, even if they did not always agree on the exact nature of the
homily for which they were legislating.
     Secondly, since it seems that the council fathers were neither pre-
cise nor always in agreement about what they understood the nature
of liturgical preaching to be, the very fact of their uncertainty gave
rise to further discussion. The inconclusive conciliar treatment of the
homily left the Church with the unusually open-ended opportunity
and responsibility for continuing the homiletic dialogue into the
post-conciliar era. In its lack of precision on the homiletic issue, the
council directed the Church not so much to live with its decisions as
to continue the processes of defining and clarifying through dialogue
and the study of the Scriptures, the Fathers and liturgical history.
Through its influence upon the council capitulars prior to the council
itself, and by means of its implicit mandate to continue to study the
questions of the definition and purpose of the liturgical homily, the
homiletic movement’s contribution to the shift in thinking toward
the role of the liturgical homily was truly significant then, just as it
remains current today.

Fr Michael Monshau, op, phd is Professor of Homiletics, The University of
St Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum), Rome.