Category: Liturgy

The following is reported by journalist Sandro Magister to be the complete text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s recent memorandum that was confidentally circulated among U. S. bishops. Note the portions I have highlighted. The bracketed ellipses in #2 and the bracketed nota bene at the end are Ratzinger’s, not mine.

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Joseph Ratzinger

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

The Holy See is curculating a preparatory document (known as a lineamenta) for next year’s synod of bishops, which will be focusing on the liturgy. The document contains, among other things, a list of questions that the Holy See wants answered regarding the liturgy.

Though the document is issued to bishops and is principally for bishops, it also states:

This Lineamenta is intended to encourage episcopal conferences, the Eastern Churches sui iuris, the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia and the Union of Superiors General to invite the participation of all in the Church so that they can enter into discussion and take a pastoral inventory. In this way, the responses of these entities to the questions in the Lineamenta might be indicative and complete, thereby ensuring a fruitful synod.

Since it says that it is encouring the bishops to invite the participation “of all in the Church,” one presumably could send one’s answers to the questions to one’s bishop or to the bishops’ conferences for forwarding to Rome. Or one could forward them to the Synod of Bishops offices oneself, presumably.

The questions indicate the Rome is continuing its focus on improving the quality of liturgy and eliminating liturgical abuses. Among the questions are these:

4. The Shadows in the Celebration of the Eucharist: In the Encyclical Letter Ecclesia De Eucharistia (n. 10) the Holy Father mentions “shadows” in the celebration of the Eucharist. What are the negative aspects (abuses, misunderstandings) existing in Eucharistic worship? What elements or actions done in practice can obscure the profound sense of the Eucharistic mystery? What is the cause of such a disorienting situation for the faithful?

5. The Eucharistic Celebration and Liturgical Norms: In an attempt to be personal and avant-garde, do priests manifest any attitudes in their celebration of Mass which are explicitly or implicitly contrary to the liturgical norms established by the Catholic Church (cf. The General Instruction on the Roman Missal, Chapter IV; Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)? In your estimation, what are the underlying reasons for such behaviour? What elements or actions during the celebration of Holy Mass, and also in Eucharistic worship outside of Mass, according to their respective norms and dispositions, should receive attention so as to highlight the profound sense of this great Mystery of the faith hidden in the gift of the Eucharist?

6. The Sacrament of the Eucharist and The Sacrament of Penance: Conversion is necessary to participate fully in partaking of the Eucharist. What is the faithful’s understanding of the relationship between the Sacrament of Penance and the Sacrament of the Eucharist? Holy Mass is also the celebration of salvation from sin and death. For the return of sinners, above all on Sundays, what is provided so that the faithful can celebrate the Sacrament of Penance in time to participate in the Eucharist? Do Christian communities often display a casual approach to receiving Holy Communion or do they unjustifiably refrain from receiving it? What is being done to assist the faithful to discern if they have the proper dispositions to approach this great Sacrament?

8. Holy Mass and the Celebration of the Word: In parishes awaiting a priest, how widespread is the practice of celebrating the Liturgy of the Word with the distribution of the Eucharist, over which a lay person or Eucharistic minister often presides? What specific formation do those responsible receive? Are the faithful able to understand the difference between such celebrations and Holy Mass? Do they have an adequate knowledge of the distinction between an ordained and non-ordained minister?

9. The Eucharist and the Other Sacraments: To what measure and with what criteria are the other sacraments celebrated during Holy Mass? When the sacraments and sacramentals are celebrated during Holy Mass (Matrimony, Funerals, Baptisms, etc.) with non-practising Catholics, non-Catholics and unbelievers present, what steps are taken to avoid a casual attitude or even carelessness towards the Eucharist?

10. The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist: Have the faithful in your parishes preserved faith in the Lord’s Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist? Do they have a clear understanding of the gift of the Lord’s Real Presence? Do situations exist in Eucharistic Liturgies or the Worship of the Eucharist which might lead to a diminished regard for the Real Presence. If so, what might be the reasons?

11. Eucharistic Devotion: Does the Worship of the Most Blessed Sacrament have a due place in parish life and communities? What importance do pastors give to adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament? To Perpetual Adoration? To Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament? To personal prayer before the tabernacle? To processions on the Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ? To Eucharistic devotion in parish missions?

13. Dignity at Eucharistic Celebrations: Is attention given in your Churches to the liturgical environment for Eucharistic celebrations? What is the artistic-architectural setting in which the Eucharistic liturgy is celebrated both on solemn occasions and on weekdays? Do the surroundings give a clear indication that the Eucharistic banquet is truly a “sacred” banquet (Ecclesia De Eucharistia, 48)? How frequently and for what pastoral reasons is Mass celebrated outside of this place of worship?

14. The Eucharist and Inculturation: To what measure must attention be given to inculturation in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist so as to avoid a misunderstood creativity which leads to peculiar and strange practices. What criteria are followed in inculturation? In the Latin Church, are the norms proposed in the Instruction De Liturgia Romana et Inculturazione given adequate consideration? What is the experience of the Eastern Churches in the inculturation of the Eucharist?

16. The Eucharist, Ecumenism, Interreligious Dialogue and the Sects: Considering the ideas on the Eucharist held by our separated brothers and sisters in the West and the challenges of other religions and the sects, how is the mystery of the Most Blessed Sacrament preserved and presented in its entirety, so as not to cause confusion or misunderstanding among the faithful, particularly at ecumenical and interreligious meetings?

17. The Eucharist and Ecclesial “Intercommunion”: “The celebration of the Eucharist cannot be the starting-point for communion” (Ecclesia De Eucharistia, 35). How are the norms of intercommunion applied (cf. The Code of Canon Law, canon 844)? Are the faithful aware of the norm that a Catholic cannot receive the Eucharist in communities which do not have the Sacrament of Orders (cf. Ecclesia De Eucharistia, 46)?

Other questions, too are devoted to improving the quality of liturgical life.

For the full text of the lineamenta, see here.

For a news story on it, see here.

Brumley has a good piece on the recent displays of intestinal fortitude by bishops vis-a-vis pro-abort (and other pro-evil) politicians.

The same page (father down) also has an interesting interview with Bishop Bruskewitz on the national conference’s Review Board (dealing with the aftermath of the sex abuse scandal) and the problems that the bishop sees with it. He’s quite displomatic in how he phrases things, but if you read between the lines he’s severely slamming the way the board has been set up and run.

(Now if Brumley would just migrate to a board that has built-in permalinks so people could point directly to individual stories. . . . And if he would only post more regularly. His content is too good to be allowed not to exist.)

Also in regard to the staying or going question, another reader writes:

Initially, we aren’t told in this post just what makes the correspondent’s current parish “less than orthodox”. Is it because every mass isn’t in Latin (and we all know people who feel this way); or are there serious doctrinal and dogmatic inaccuracies and falacies being promulgated? Are we dealing with style or substance here? We can’t tell from the post as written.

Actually, there was more in the post than I printed. The lady in question included a number of examples, some of which I see she has also mentioned in the comments box of the original post.

I didn’t reproduce these comments when writing my entry because of space reasons and because it is my policy not to include data that could identify individuals or make them feel like they might be identifiable.

However, even if she had not included these examples in what she wrote, it would not have affected my answer. I learned a good while ago that you answer questions as they are posed to you, and if someone shows up and says “My parish has a problem with dissenters and I don’t feel that I can put my kids in its religious ed programs, should I stay at this parish or not?” then I’ll say the same thing I did say: If I concluded that I couldn’t put my kids in a parish’s religious ed programs then I would be disinclined to stay at the parish.

I would not be inclined to poke around to find out just how bad the problems at the parish may be. You have to trust people in what they are asking you. If you tried to second guess everything they tell you then getting a simple question answered would become a protracted discussion, and that would result in less rather than more service being performed.

As a parent of very young twin daughters I’ve been thinking about how to deal generally with the issue of people outside the home imparting opinions, beliefs, perspectives, etc. that are at odds with those we’ll be imparting. My instinct is that it’s better to equip children to deal with these issues and prepare them to hold to and defend what we’re teaching them, rather than insulating them and have an alternative view really rock them when they’re older but not prepared to respond.

I’m very sympathetic to the idea that children need to be exposed to challenges as part of the growing up process. The job of parents is not to shelter kids from every potential danger but to teach them how to deal with dangers (including dangers to their faith) so that they will know how to deal with them once they are adults. This means progressively allowing the child to encounter riskier situations as he grows in the ability to handle them, including awareness of other people’s religious opinions.

That being said, it does not do children a service to plant them in a parish from their early years where they are going to be exposed to rank dissent. Kids in such a situation need to be told that what they are hearing from their priests and CCD teachers is wrong, but this itself is a disservice since it schools them from an early age in ignoring and distrusting Church authorities. It is better to place them in an environment where the parish is supportive of their faith and let them encounter the world of Catholic dissent late in their development, after they have already assimilated an orthodox Catholic identity.

In fact, to the extent possible, dissident Catholics are the final religious group that children should be made aware of. It is less of a threat to a child’s faith to learn that there are people in a far off corner of the world who don’t believe in Jesus than that there are Catholics right in the leadership of their own parish who think it’s okay not to listen to the pope. The former is a reality that is unconnected with the child’s everday experience, but the latter is a much more confusing and direct challenge to their own assimilation of the faith.

And finally, we have to remember that it’s not as if this family is attending a “church” run out of the local gym ala some of the Calvary Chapel folks. They are members of a congregation under a duly appointed and aNNointed priest. There has to be some respect for that.

Yes, precisely, which is why one would want to foster children’s respect for the priesthood by not putting them in a parish where the parents have to constantly contradict what the priest says in front of the children.

In regard to the post on whether a family should switch parishes, a reader writes:

“A parish is a definite community of the Christian faithful established on a stable basis within a particular church…” (CCC).

This doesn’t say that one *can’t* choose a geographically distant parish, but it does point to proper motives. Stable. That means you can’t jump ship whenever you think you need to.

The Catechism is not a document of law, so it shouldn’t be quoted when one is making a legal point. It’s a teaching document and should be quoted when making a doctrinal point. In this case, the Catechism is quoting the Code of Canon Law, which is the relevant legal document, but the canon being quoted doesn’t make the point that you’re wanting to make. “Stable” refers to the constitution of the parish (i.e., it continues to exist over time rather than in an ad hoc fashion), not to the status of its members. If you moved to a new town and joined a parish for two months and then had to move again, the parish would remain stable even though you had only fleeting membership in it.

The weeds and the wheat will always be there. Soon there will be a good reason to leave the next parish. Classifying Catholics (in good standing) destroys the body; it’s like a marriage that starts off with the option to run whenever things get rough.

That doesn’t appear to be what’s happening here. The couple seems well acquainted with both parishes and does nothing to suggest that they are a fly-by-night couple who are never satisfied. It would be entirely speculative to suggest that.

The premise that classifying Catholics in good standing destroys the body is problematic in several respects:

First, Jesus gave us reason with which to make classifications and to identify potential problems. We’re fulfilling the mandate contained in his gift of reason when we use it in this manner.

Second, the Church itself acknowledges that there are differences between Catholics in good standing that can affect the most felicitous way for them to relate to each other (the existence of multiple “rites” or churches sui iuris in the Church being a striking example of this).

Third, we are not talking about Catholics here who are living fully in line with the teachings and practices of the Church. We are talking about people who are in some measure dissenters from Church teaching and practice, and even if they are “in good standing” in the sense of not having censures or expiatory penalties imposed on them by ecclesiastical authority, they are not “in good standing” in the sense of actively adhering to Catholic teaching and practice.

The comparison between joining a parish and getting married is also problematic. Marriage is a much more permanent union than parish membership (i.e., you don’t get a new spouse every time you move to a new neighborhood), but to stick with that analogy, it casts doubt on the idea of not making distinctions between Catholics in good standing. One would not tell a person that it harms the body of Christ to judge one potential spouse to be a more suitable marriage prospect than another, though both are Catholics in good standing. One could say the same thing about evaluating two prospective parishes.

While nobody can instruct someone what to do with their children, the “it’s for the children!” is the excuse of choice these days. I would argue that children are better served by strong parental leadership in the face of adversity, not cutting and running.

See my forthcoming post for more on the good of the children argument.

I can’t imagine what would happen if American Catholics faced actual persecution.

It’d probably cause the dissenters in parishes like the one in question to either better adhere to the Church or fall away from it entirely.

Wow, James, you are growing soft. And I thought you were from Texas :-).

Don’t mess with my Texas heritage unlessen yew be wantin’ a fight on yore hands. Here’s hopin’ the above answer wasn’t too “soft.” 🙂

A reader writes:

We moved and we found a great parish right away, but it was across town. So, we decided to go to a less-than-100% orthodox parish within a few miles of our house. I’ve noticed some disturbing things since I’ve been there and they make me think that we should consider switching parishes and I wanted to know what you would do in our position.

My husband feels like we should stick it out at this parish so we can help transform them in to an orthodox church, maybe try to start up a bible study or an apologetics class. He has met with the pastor and the DRE, both basically told him that people [here] were just more liberal than we are (which is true) and his ideas would not work at this parish (who knows). My DH does not want to give up, but I am worried that we are harming ourselves by attending this parish. At the very least I know can’t let my kids in the religious ed classes here. What do you think? Given that there are much more orthodox parishes in the city, should we bale on this one? Or should we try to be an instrument of change here? What would you do?

I can’t tell you what you should do, but fortunately you didn’t ask me this. You ask what I’d do. I’ll tell you, but first let me note that canon law imposes no obligation on individuals to register or attend the parish that they are geographically closest to.

I understand your husband’s desire to stick it out and change the parish. That’s a very noble, altruistic challenge to undertake (men–me included–are suckers for challenges like that). However, if I were in your situation, I wouldn’t shoulder the burden of this challenge.

The reason is the kids.

Regardless of what challenges you and your husband might be up to facing, your kids are another matter, and your primary obligation is to them rather than to others who might benefit from having a better parish. If you have determined that you can’t put your kids in the religious ed programs in the parish then for me that would be the deciding factor. The family should attend where the children will have the best chance of becoming well-formed Catholic adults with the fewest bumps along the way (like having parish officials and teachers who are trying to subvert the religious instruction their parents are giving them at home).

If your kids were grown, matters would be different. I might well say that if you two want to dig in, take arms against a sea of troubles, brave the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, and work to change the parish according to your ability (which is rather limited since it is the pastor who has ultimate authority within the parish), then go for it. But as long as you have kids who aren’t grown, I’d make sure their religious well-being is taken care of first.

At least that’s what I’d do in y’all’s position.

What y’all do is a matter for y’all to decide.

A reader writes:

Since converting and having a great respect for the Eucharist, I have always genuflected before receiving the Eucharist. The New General Instructions of the Roman Missal says the norm for receiving is to bow. Today I genuflected and was confronted by the priest (at a parish I was visiting). Our parish priest told us the norm was to bow but if we desired to genuflect it could not be denied us.

Was I wrong to genuflect and was I wrong to suggest to the priest that he was wrong — and that one could not “forbidden” from genuflecting?

The situation in the law is not as clear and explicit as one would want, and to disern Rome’s attitude to this question one must look at more than one document. First, here is what the American version of the GIRM says:

The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood [GIRM 160].

The way the law is written, in America one should make a bow of the head before receiving Communion and then receive standing. The way Americans read law, this would be interpreted to mean that you don’t do anything else, like make a genuflection before receiving.

However, things are more complicated than that. To see why, let’s look at a different passage from the GIRM:

In the dioceses of the United States of America, they should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

With a view to a uniformity in gestures and postures during one and the same celebration, the faithful should follow the directions which the deacon, lay minister, or priest gives according to whatever is indicated in the Missal [GIRM 43].

Here again we have a passage dealing with the posture of the faithful in America. The way Americans read law, it would be interpreted strictly. But that interpretation is misleading. The law has to be understood in the sense in which it is intended by Rome (which approved the law and whose interpretation of the law is definitive), and Romans do not read law the same way Americans do. Americans tend to take a much stricter interpretation of law that admits of no exceptions unless they are stated in the text itself. Vatican officials, however, often understand laws in a more permissive way that allows for unwritten exceptions.

The latter appears to be what is going on here. In the Roman Curia, and in Europe in general, they take a much more relaxed view of posture than we do. Frankly, curial officials don’t understand why Americans are such posture Nazis. In their view, the basic posture is spelled out in the law, but if some individuals choose to assume a different posture, it’s no big deal (as long as the person isn’t being disruptive of others, e.g., by doing backflips down the central aisle while going to Communion).

This is something that people with a sound formation in liturgical law have known for a long time, however it recently became possible to document it. In a response issued June 5, 2003, the CDW issued a response which stated:

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [and for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

This response deals specifically with the question of kneeling after receiving Communion, but it also states Rome’s general interpretation of the posture provisions of the GIRM for the laity, which is that the provisions are “to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly.”

This applies to GIRM 160’s statement regarding doing a bow as much as it applies to kneeling before, during, or after Communion. In fact, if the Holy See takes a non-rigid attitude toward kneeling before, during, or after Communion then it is a fortiori obvious that the same attitude is taken toward genuflecting, which is a much less dramatic thing to do posture-wise than kneeling.

The Holy See is getting tired of receiving complaints from America about priests and others denying people Communion, publicly humiliating them, or privately browbeating them for assuming traditional postures that express the faithful’s reverence for Christ in the Eucharist.

In fact, Rome has become concerned about lack of reverence for the Eucharist, and they’re going to have a problem with the laity being forbidden or browbeaten over assuming any traditional posture that they feel they need to assume to express their personal reverence for Christ in the Eucharist.

More could be said on this, but that’s the basic answer. If you want to go on genuflecting before you receive, Rome won’t have a problem with that. To decrease the chances that today’s situation will recur in the future, you might consider genuflecting just before you reach the head of the Communion line (i.e., when the person in front of you is receiving) and then make a bow when you are at the head.

Hope this helps!

A reader writes:

It’s quite clear that the priest or deacon is the only one that should give a homily. As I understand it, it’s allowable to have a lay person come up after the homily to give a talk about something. I would hope that such talks about whatever should be done at the end of mass with the announcements, but if someone absolutely must give a talk I believe it’s possible AFTER the homily. Is this right?

As indicated in Redemptionis Sacramentum, the Church really does’t want the laity speaking right after the homily–presumably because it would be too easy to confuse what they are doing with the homily and continue the blurring of the laity’s role in this area. The document states:

If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a Church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily, nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account [RS 74].

A correspondent writes:

Even after the Pope’s re-affirmation about only ordained deacons and priests giving the homily, our female RCIA director gave the homily again last week – in full view of the priest. So I finally found the Canon she says allows her to do this, and it is Canon 766 which apparently allows this in special circumstances – which in our church that would be, or say, Sunday for instance (she gives the homily at least once a month). So how about it, can Canon 766 be legitimately used here? My reading of it is that the lay faithful can preach, but it should not take the place of the homily.

No, canon 766 cannot be used in this way. Canon 766 reads:

Can. 766 Lay persons can be permitted to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or it seems advantageous in particular cases, according to the prescripts of the conference of bishops and without prejudice to can. 767, §1.

Notice the last bit of that “without prejudice to can. 767, §1.” This means that 766 is non-operative when it comes to the matter specified in can. 767 §1. So what does that passage say?

Can. 767 §1. Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year.

You are therefore correct. Can. 766 permits lay preaching in limited circumstances, but not lay preaching of the homily.

This is underscored by Redemptionis Sacramentum, which states:

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself, “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson. In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association.

[161.] As was already noted above, the homily on account of its importance and its nature is reserved to the Priest or Deacon during Mass. As regards other forms of preaching, if necessity demands it in particular circumstances, or if usefulness suggests it in special cases, lay members of Christ’s faithful may be allowed to preach in a church or in an oratory outside Mass in accordance with the norm of law. This may be done only on account of a scarcity of sacred ministers in certain places, in order to meet the need, and it may not be transformed from an exceptional measure into an ordinary practice, nor may it be understood as an authentic form of the advancement of the laity. All must remember besides that the faculty for giving such permission belongs to the local Ordinary, and this as regards individual instances; this permission is not the competence of anyone else, even if they are Priests or Deacons.

I’m taking my lunch hour now, so I have a few moments to write. Here are some notes on the new document on liturgical abuses:

1. The title of the document is Redemptionis Sacramentum (for once, the Vatican gives a document a title of manageable length!). It is online in English here and in Latin here (the English translation occasionally needs to be clarified by consulting the Latin original). You can also read Cardinal Arinze’s presentation of the document here.
2. The document is loooong, but it is easier to read than most Vatican documents. Most of it consists of short, numbered paragraphs that deal with particular liturgical abuses.
3. I’m going to begin immediately processing the document for a special report that Catholic Answers will publish. This special report will be prepared on an expedited basis and will be available very soon (I’ll let you know when). It will contain quotes from the document, along with supporting documentation from other sources, set in a framework that makes the whole thing easier to understand.
4. The document is good. It does not break a lot of new ground (that was not its purpose) but it reaffirms many prior points of liturgical law, clarifies some additional things, and in general reinforces traditional liturgical sensibilities.
5. Of particular note are the following:

• The document contains a system for classifying liturgical abuses according to their severity and gives numerous specific examples. This is a first. The Holy See has not to date created as detailed a system for ranking liturgical abuses as the one this document contains. The fact it gives so many specific examples is especially helpful since it counters the tendency of some to say, "Well, technically that’s not allowed by the rules, but I don’t think it’s that serious."
• The document is very aggressive regarding the local bishop’s responsibility to clean up liturgical abuses in their own dioceses. There is a section toward the end that is quite strong (for the Vatican) in saying that bishops must correct these abuses speedily and be willing to punish the malefactors if they don’t comply.
• The document ends with a section that basically invites the faithful to complain about liturgical abuses (in a polite, respectful way, of course).
• As if the previous two points wouldn’t sufficiently set the cat among the pigeons, the document also contains a passage that suggests that those who have been appointed as extraordinary ministers of the Holy Communion should refuse to serve in situations where their use is not warranted.
• In a similarly eye-opening vein, the document suggests that, in order to keep Sunday celebrations in the absence of a priest distinct from Mass, serious thought should be given to the question of whether Communion should even be offered at such celebrations. (Implication: It may be more advantageous to not have Communion services when a priest is unavailable in order to keep alive an authentic hunger for the Eucharist and for Mass in the people.)
• The document also deals with lots of the standard themes that the Vatican has been hammering for a while (e.g., no lay person is ever allowed to preach the homily at Mass or read the Gospel), but these acquire new teeth with with disciplinary elements the document contains.

One specific question I’ve already had from a reader:

I would love your commentary on section 112 dealing with when Latin can be used. Aren’t all celebrations of the Mass scheduled in the US by ecclesiastical authorities supposed to be doen in English? How does this help?

Here’s what section 112 states:

Mass is celebrated either in Latin or in another language, provided that liturgical texts are used which have been approved according to the norm of law. Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin.

Section 112 helps because it clarifies that priests are permitted to celebrate the Mass in Latin (meaning the current rite of Mass, not the prior, Tridentine rite, which is a separate question) except in particular circumstances. Those circumstances are where "the ecclesiastical authorities" (for practical purposes that means the local bishop in most circumstances) schedule a Mass in a particular language. For example, a bishop could say, "Fr. Jones, I want you to make sure that one of your Sunday Masses is in Spanish for the benefit of your Spanish-speaking congregants" or "I want you to schedule at least one Mass daily in English for your English-speaking congregants." But he could not say "Fr. Jones, I want you to schedule all your Masses in English to the exclusion of Latin." Thus, a parish can add a Latin Mass if it wants, and it doesn’t have to be reserved as a "private Mass" for the priest or any special group.

At least, that’s the way section 112 reads. We’ll have to see if the Holy See is willing to stick up for what it said. (If Cardinal Arinze has anything to say about it, it will. He has real backbone on liturgical matters.)