Steven Greydanus<\/a> is the movie critic for Crux and the National Catholic Register<\/em>, and he\u2019s also a newly-ordained deacon. (Woohoo! PARTY AT STEVE\u2019S HOUSE) But he noted, \u201cFWIW, I have now preached two homilies and have not used any movie references or analogies. No one believes I will keep this up.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s actually kind of important to me that I *not* use movie references in my homilies, or at least try to avoid them as much as possible,\u201d he continued. He noted that this was a limited<\/a> restriction, and one that\u2019s pretty specific to him<\/a>: He doesn\u2019t want his homily to become about him<\/em>, his aesthetics and opinions. (On this note I love the thing one of Nadia Bolz-Weber\u2019s parishioners told her<\/a>: \u201cWe were taught in seminary not to talk too much about ourselves in our sermons because it\u2019s not about you. But you talk about yourself all the the time in your sermons, and it\u2019s not about you.\u201d)<\/p>\n But let me note a couple troubling features of pop-cultural homily references.<\/p>\n They assume a lot about the common vocabulary of your church. No matter how mainstream a movie is, somebody in your church will have never heard of it: Somebody won\u2019t know that \u201cthe dark side of the Force\u201d is a movie reference, somebody won\u2019t know what \u201can offer you can\u2019t refuse\u201d is. When the references are less hackneyed than that, the chances that your audience just doesn\u2019t know what you\u2019re talking about are even greater.<\/p>\n There are a million ways you can indicate, in your homily, who you envision as the \u201cwe\u201d of your church\u2013who is the normative member of your audience\u2013and pop culture references can be one way of drawing that circle a lot more narrowly than it needs to be drawn. It\u2019s obviously not as bad as the homilies about how \u201cwe\u201d need to \u201chelp\u201d \u201cthe homeless\u201d at a church that actual homeless people attend (I\u2019ve heard that more than once) but there is an underlying assumption that the parish shares more common experiences and culture than it really does.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a thing I\u2019ve done now and then at the pregnancy center, where I\u2019ll say, \u201cI really like this line from that movie, \u2018Vanilla Sky.\u2019 It\u2019s something like, \u2018Don\u2019t you know that when you sleep with someone your body makes a promise, whether you<\/em> do or not?'\u201d That way I get the advantage of a lovely and thought-provoking image, which we can discuss on its own merits, whether or not the client has seen the film. (I haven\u2019t.) So that\u2019s another possible approach: If you knew that nobody in your church had seen this movie, read this book, or heard this song, and you also knew they weren\u2019t gonna go out and spend their paycheck on it, would you still want to use the example? Could you set it up fast enough to be worth it? (DEAR ALL PRIESTS, END YOUR HOMILIES QUICKER.) What are you using this example for without<\/em> the feeling of connection (or alienation) forged by reference<\/a>?<\/p>\n Pop culture is a common vocabulary that keeps us within contemporary American culture, the thing we\u2019re already surrounded by. So many people need the history of the Faith: the vocations we\u2019ve forgotten<\/a>, the beauty we\u2019ve neglected. People come to church, in part, for beauty and hope they are not already<\/em> finding in the outside world. If you want to relate to people by using references that are relevant to their culture, that\u2019s sometimes the right way to go\u2013but at least as much time imo should be spent showing people what they won\u2019t<\/em> find in normal, mainstream American life.<\/p>\n So like, I talk about \u201cLava<\/a>\u201d a lot because lots of people have seen it, and they get how its storyline relates to my message, and my impression from audiences is that it is kind of a relief that I\u2019m talking about something they already know and can assess for themselves instead of OH GOD SHE\u2019S TALKING ABOUT KNIGHTS AGAIN. But part of the point of that example is to get people to ask, What are other ways of love we don\u2019t see reflected in pop culture? What would it look like if the lonely volcano could show his love through friendship, service, community, or church? And to make that possibility feel real, instead of vague and abstract, you need to tell people about the real times it really happens in Scripture and in Christian history.<\/p>\n I think priests often ask themselves, \u201cHow can I make this idea\/moment in Scripture vivid to people, how can I awake their imaginations to it, by showing them how it\u2019s like something they already understand\u2013but goes beyond what they already know in ways a, b, c?\u201d But you can also ask, \u201cHow does this idea or moment in Scripture challenge us to imagine things our own time and place ignores?\u201d Or, \u201cHow can I awaken people\u2019s hearts to the huge diversity of weird ways the Holy Spirit has blown through people\u2019s lives?\u201d<\/p>\n Pop culture also replicates the heresies of our time, which are the hardest ones for us to see: \u201cGod helps those who help themselves,\u201d for example. All the subtle forms of misogyny and the prosperity gospel.<\/p>\n Art movies don\u2019t have this exact problem; then again, if you talk about art movies, it\u2019s easy to come across as talking about your opinion<\/em> of art movies. Plus you have to explain them more, which makes your homily longer. Different subcultures have different tastes in homily length but I will suggest pretty strongly that longer homilies promote priestly showboating and spread the scourge of opinions<\/a>.<\/p>\n Obviously if you overthink this stuff it\u2019ll drive you batty. It\u2019s okay to talk about Flannery O\u2019Connor (AGAIN) (THERE<\/a> ARE OTHER<\/a> CATHOLIC WRITERS<\/a>) if you really like her and think she\u2019s got something to say about the readings. The fact that you\u2019re also often sending a signal about in-group membership (Flannery O\u2019Connor yes, \u201cThese hoes ain\u2019t loyal!<\/a>\u201d no\u2013that article is hilarious btw BUT ALSO an illustration of what I\u2019m talking about from a different subcultural perspective\u2026) is something to consider, not a reason to self-censor.<\/p>\n Okay I think I\u2019ve now capslocked sufficiently. Half this post can probably be replaced by a clip from The Avengers<\/em>\u2026<\/p>\n