St. Thomas' Warning Against "Frivolity" in Preaching

NOTE: If you appreciate such articles, please consider becoming a patron here or giving a direct donation here.

Introduction

One of the great blessings of the internet is the primary source access that we enjoy. In previous times, even having access to the Summa of St. Thomas was a luxury. Now, we are even able to have access to his various obscure opuscula with ease. Yet, many have not adapted to this wealth of information, continuing to restrict their reading to various different secondary sources or anthologies. This restriction comes with a great price. It causes many to miss out on the pure and simple doctrine of the Angelic Doctor, preferring to make him in our own image and likeness, interested in our debates and disputes. Rather than being shaped by him, we shape him. 

One of these “hidden gems” that I have come across recently is his Responsio ad Lectorem Bisuntinum de 6 Articulis where he makes some illuminating comments on the nature of preaching, a prophetic call to return to what is solidly and certainly presented to us in the Divine Revelation rather than what is uncertain and speculative. 

The Star of the Magi

The first question that is asked St. Thomas in this work is about the star that the Magi followed. Some preachers in the Medieval Church had preached that about the shape of the cross to the people drawing forth certain conclusions. Some said it was in the shape of a man, others of a cross, and others of a crucifix. They claimed the authority of St. John Chrysostom to do this. 

St. Thomas responded to this inquiry over preaching this by clarifying that St. John did not mean to state this certainly, but simply “relat[ed] what was said by others.” (6Articulis.AA13.5) He goes on to state a principle about such speculations, writing that “because it cannot be said for certain, I do not think one should preach about it.” (ibid.) He writes that “it does not seem fitting that a preacher of the truth turn to unknown fables.” (ibid.)

St. Thomas believes that Sacred Scripture and the authoritative witness of Catholic Doctors should be what guides the sermons of preachers, not tangential and uncertain reflections about scriptural passages. 

Yet, what are we to do when such ideas are already stuck in the minds of the faithful? Are priests to “preach against” these speculations? St. Thomas shows here his characteristic moderation that opposes the inopportune zeal of certain preachers (especially those of a modern bent) who may be encouraged by such words to zealously oppose the simplicity of the multitude. It is only to be opposed in cases where such stories scandalize the faithful, “I do not deem it necessary to be recanted unless, by chance, scandal has broken out among the people.” (ibid.) Yet, even in this case, preachers shouldn’t “oppose” the speculation, but explain that this is simply a speculation and not authoritative, “there is no need to revoke it as erroneous as much as to explain that it ought not be proposed definitively.” (ibid.)

The Hands of the Child Jesus

In the first case, we have an instance of mere speculation, whereas in the second case we have an instance of a possibly misleading expression, i.e., “the little hands of the child Jesus created the stars.” (6Articulis.A4.2) 

In the case of such an expression, it is properly false since “he little hands are the hands of his humanity, to which it does not pertain to create the stars,” (6Articulis.A4.3) yet it can be taken in a true sense since the same Christ who had little hands was the same Christ who created the universe.

In the case of such an expression, we must be careful to not universally condemn them since the Church has, in some cases, allowed them, such as the phrase “the hands that molded us have been pierced with nails.” Yet, it is better, in preaching, to use phrases that are not apt to lead to misunderstanding among the simple. If such a phrase has been used and has lead to misunderstanding among the people, “it is necessary for the sensible explanation to be related because the souls of the simple, insofar as it is possible, ought not to be troubled.” (ibid.) 

A contemporary example of this may be the various different misunderstandings surrounding the Divine Mercy devotion. 

The Sorrows of Mary

This one is will, perhaps, be the most controversial since Marian devotion is, perhaps, the area where the greatest number of transgressions of the first and second kind are made. This is the question of “whether, from what Simeon said to the blessed Virgin…was accomplished seven times each day with a vehement pain until the resurrection of the Lord.” (6Articulis.A5.2)

St. Thomas’ response should be quoted in its entirety, “it should be readily responded that since it is not supported by the strength of any authority, I do not judge a frivolity of this sort to be proclaimed when there are so many certainly true things that are suitable for preaching.” (6Articulis.A5.3)

Conclusion

How many times have we heard similar things preached from the pulpit or given by spiritual writers? Speculative matters can be treated in their proper place, but, it is clear, that such speculations should be restricted to their proper place. Historically, the Bollandists were hotly criticized for scientifically considering the accuracy of the many pious legends that had arisen in the popular mind concerning certain saints. Can it be seriously objected that they did any more than do what St. Thomas called for, i.e., to remove “frivolity” and to present “true things” concerning the saints? As Alfonso de Castro said “nor for the sake of devotion or of contemplation is it permitted to contrive a lie…God does not need our lies.” (Against all Heresies, Christ: Tenth Heresy)

Yet, St. Thomas’ most penetrating critique of such preaching is where he points out that “there are so many certainly true things that are suitable for preaching.” Why love novelty when those certain things presented in scripture and tradition provide us with so much fruit for preaching and contemplation? This can be seen clearly in Mariology. The most fruitful Marian devotions are the Little Office and the Rosary. Both devotions simply point us to those evident mysteries presented by scripture and tradition, yet are they not profound enough to sustain a lifetime of prayer?