Word(s), Poetics and Pragmatics of Homiletics in a Time of Ecclesial Transition

Abstract

Benedict XVI, the “Pope of Word,” and Pope Francis, the “Pope of Gestures,” are stylistic contrasts who nonetheless share common ground, notably a poetic sense and a commitment to expressing truth. Benedict XVI’s homilies offered a practical demonstration of rhetorical principles, rich with ideas, metaphors, and sources—from the Bible and Church Fathers to contemporary authors. While Benedict offered theoretical insights, Pope Francis makes these principles explicit and concrete. Francis’s key contribution is emphasizing the addressee (the people), making attention to the receiver central to homiletic discourse. Both Popes advocate for a 21st-century preaching guide based on brevity, clarity, simplicity, cohesive discourse, frequent and poetic images, and a positive, propositional language. Their complementary emphases offer a unified vision for modern Catholic preaching.

We find some recent bibliography about homiletics in the current day (Tisdale 2001; Spang 2002; Jacobsen 2005; Rosini 2025). Casado shows that homiletics takes part in the Religious Public Speech (see Casado Velarde 2017a; 2017b, p. 82). Although we notice a big contrast between the Central European style of Benedict XVI and the Latin American one of Pope Francis—the “Pope of words” versus the “Pope of gestures”—these journalistic stereotypes will bring us more than one surprise as examples of Public Speech (see Webster 2012, p. 9; Blanco-Sarto 2018, pp. 87–105). Pope Ratzinger read texts dispassionately, almost in a disinterested way, letting the words speak for themselves. Pope Francis is much more direct and accompanies his speeches with gestures and the dialog with the audience—questions and answers—as if he were an itinerant preacher of the Gospel. In this way, he establishes an oral conversation with them.

However, in addition to these linguistic antipodes and the different types of discourse, we can also find some points in common, such as the poetic sense and the attempt to express the beauty of the truth. In these pages, we will analyze the statements of the different pontiffs on the homily in order to see the similarities and differences between the two homiletic discourses. We will see that they are very much in line with the claims of rhetoric, text grammar and discourse theory and pragmatics. Also, the principle of “critical distance” (Hosteler 2013, pp. 77–89; Jose 2023, pp. 40–43) gives us interesting ideas for the analysis (see Casado Velarde [1998] 2006, passim; Álvarez Benito et al. 2003, especially 64–74; López Alonso 2014, especially 101–38). In these lines, the homilies of both pontiffs are being evaluated according to a specific theoretical framework more than being compared primarily to each other1.

1. The Pope of the Word

The Second Vatican Council fundamentally reformed redefined the homily, providing the essential framework for modern papal preaching: (a) the Council emphasized that the homily is an integral part of the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II 1963, n. 52); (b) focus on the People of God to a greater emphasis on pastoral and rhetorical effectiveness; (c) the call for New Evangelization also in the homilies (see Rosini 2025, pp. 7–37). In these line “Benedict XVI is not only a great theologian, but he also has the ability–a gift not shared by all his colleagues–to convey the divine message clearly, that is, without obscuring it or complicating it unnecessarily with abstractions or scholarly digressions” (Gil 2022, p. 13). He has been called “the Pope of logos”, “the Pope of reason and the word” (Blanco-Sarto 2010, pp. 409–509, and bibliography there). However, he will be more of a practitioner than a theoretician of the homily, as we shall see. “The homilies of Benedict XVI: a model for the Church” (Magister 2009; see Gil 2022, pp. 13, 25).

Other anthologists maintain the same idea, perhaps in a somewhat self-serving way: “In the art of the homily,” says one of his editors, “Benedict XVI has undoubtedly been an extraordinary model” (Cervera 2015, p. 4). Reasoning gives substance and conviction to his homilies. “A preacher cannot predict–says Jose–in which circumstances and in which media his speech will be discussed and what will be the outcome of his speech” (Jose 2023, p. 271). And these homilies present a clear context: it is a discourse rooted in time, in this case in the liturgical year, which offers a memory of the principal Christian mysteries. For him, the liturgy constitutes a passion: the theologian Ratzinger himself evoked in the volume of his memoirs the childhood memories in which this first love was born:

The liturgical year set the rhythm of the time, and I felt it even as a child—indeed, precisely because I was a child—with great joy and gratitude. In the early mornings of Advent, the Rorate masses were celebrated with great solemnity in the darkened church, illuminated only by candlelight. The joyful expectation of Christmas gave a very special stamp to those melancholic days.

And it went on like that:

On Thursdays in Lent, a time of adoration called “from the Garden of Olives” was organized, with a serenity and a faith that always moved me deeply. Particularly impressive was the celebration of the resurrection on the evening of Holy Saturday […]. No sooner had the parish priest sung the verse announcing “Christ is risen!” than the curtains of the windows suddenly opened and a radiant light burst into the whole church: it was the most impressive representation of Christ’s resurrection that I have ever witnessed.

(Ratzinger 1997, p. 32)

Each liturgical year runs from Advent to Advent and constitutes a great sacramental retelling of the whole history of salvation: from Mass to Mass, the liturgy fulfills what it promises. “The protagonist of the narrative, Jesus,” Magister continued, “is not simply remembered, but is present and active”. The homilies are the key to understanding this whole mystery: who he is and what he is doing today, “according to the Scriptures”. This is what Pope Ratzinger, this extraordinary homiletician, did: they thus became a distinctive sign of his pontificate: “They are to a large extent,” Magister maintained, “in his own handwriting, he improvises them in parts, they are what comes most genuinely from his mind. The German Pope thus recommended the old practice of good parish priests, who began on Monday to prepare the homily for the following Sunday and thought it over and ‘ruminate’ on it throughout the week” (Magister 2009; Blanco-Sarto 2016, pp. 9–44; see Gil 2022, pp. 13–14).

A year and a month later, the journalist returned with the following headline: “Benedict XVI, man of the year. For his homilies”. He was becoming famous for his homilies that were at once dense and clear, warm, and endearing. “They are the axis of his ordinary magisterium, he added. They narrate God’s adventure in the history of the world. They lift the veil on ‘things above?’” (Magister 2010). They are luminous homilies that give us a glimpse into the unfathomable mystery of God. In the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini on the Word of God in the life of the Church (Benedict XVI 2010b), in paragraph 59, the German Pope had mentioned the care of the homily, since it constitutes the main—if not the only—act of communication of the Christian novelty heard by millions of Christians every Sunday in the world, who in turn are “bombarded” by information that is not Christian at all.

“The homily is a means of bringing the scriptural message to life in a way that helps the faithful to realize that God’s word is present and at work in their everyday lives”, says there (Nr 59; see Gouyaud 2020, pp. 274–77, 283–85). It should help the assembly understand the meaning of the celebration, inspire them to mission, and increase their faith. Consequently, preachers ought to take this task to heart. “Generic and abstract homilies–adds the Bavarian Pope—which obscure the directness of God’s word should be avoided,” as well as digressions which draw attention to the preacher rather than to God. And in a very practical way, he suggests a careful preparation is required for major homilies, while brief, helpful reflections are encouraged for daily celebrations (see convergences in Spang 2002, pp. 42–43; Álvarez Benito et al. 2003, pp. 65–66). Benedetti adds about Ratzinger’s stile: “Ratzinger systematically seeks simplicity of expression and uses simple, understandable words” (Benedetti 2012, p. 189), closer to didactic precision than poetic digression” (Benedetti 2012, p. 193; about the characteristics of the Ratzingerian discourse, see 13–28; the tone, 30–105; the vocabulary, 107–63; the rhetoric, 165–89; the parallelisms and antitheses, Gouyaud 2020, pp. 280–83; the symbols, Gouyaud 2020, pp. 278–80).

It is there, in the homily, that the suffering parishioners encounter God. Indeed, they are part of the liturgical action, indeed, they are themselves liturgy, of that “cosmic liturgy” which Ratzinger set as the “ultimate goal”, “when the world as a whole will become liturgy of God, worship, and then it will be safe and sound”. Celebration in this world puts us in direct connection with the heavenly liturgy, as illustrated by the glories painted on the ceilings of baroque churches. There is much of the preachers John Crysostome, Augustine, or Leo the Great… in Ratzinger’s vision of glimpsing heaven on earth, the eternal in the temporal (see Magister 2010; Gil 2022, p. 15; Gouyaud 2020, pp. 277–78). “The liturgical year is a great journey of faith”, he wrote in one of his short Sunday meditations constructed as little homilies on the Gospel of the day. An analyzer of his homilies calls him “the theologian/liturgist Pope”, for “Benedict XVI makes explicit this horizon of understanding: that the unique importance of the Christian liturgical event, centered on the Eucharist, derives from the ‘primacy of God’ and can only be understood from ‘the primacy of the theme of God’” (Navarro Lecanda 2009, pp. 7, 19, 51).

This primacy of God and the necessity of adoration structure the meaning of the Benedictine homilies. There is an image frequently used in Benedict XVI’s homilies: “One of the soldiers with a spear struck him in the side, and immediately blood and water flowed out of it” (Jn 19:34): the Eucharist and the Baptism, from which the Church springs out. Alongside the inspired and chosen words, the use of images is another of the hallmarks of Benedict XVI’s homilies. In Westminster Cathedral on 18 September 2010, he had everyone look up to the great Crucifix dominating the nave, to the Christ “crushed by suffering, subdued by pain”. An innocent died, and that death reconnected us to God and let us share in His very life (Benedict XVI 2010a).

From his blood, from the Eucharist, the Church draws life, and Pope Ratzinger added, quoting Pascal: “In the life of the Church, in her trials and tribulations, Christ continues in agony until the end of the world”. In Benedict XVI’s liturgical preaching, images—biblical or artistic—have a constant mystagogical function: to lead to the knowledge of the mystery. Throughout the liturgical year, adds a theologian, he sought “to speak of God and of this permanent coming to man, making his own the invitation addressed to the whole Church by the first antiphon of the first vespers of the first Sunday of Advent: ‘Proclaim to the peoples and say to them: Behold, God, our Savior, is coming’” (Navarro Lecanda 2009, p. 29).

In 2013, Paolo Sartor and Simona Borello carried out a linguistic analysis of the pontificate’s homilies, in which they saw logos, pathos and ethos: reason, heart and call to action, inseparably united. They thus situated the then Pope Emeritus’ preaching between a theology elaborated based on Scripture and the lectio divina preached from the pulpit or ambo: theology and praxis intimately united as well. Thus, Italian scholars pointed out how light is a symbol that appears in more than two hundred homilies; it is what the preacher seeks: to give light to the intelligence to move wills. In fact, he qualifies faith as lumen fidei, as it appears in the encyclical bequeathed later to his successor (Sartor and Borello 2013, pp. 623–47).

Logos, ethos, pathos, Aristotle recommended in his Rhetoric (15–17) (Aristotle 1994): in this interweaving is found the generative core that drives Benedict XVI’s homilies. Scripture and liturgy, Church Fathers and contemporary authors, but also ideas and images, concepts and metaphors, arguments and symbols feed these homilies. As an “authoritative mystagogue” he explains what happens in the liturgical celebration, putting it in direct relation to the rest of the faith. He uses contemporary images, such as the Eucharist seen as “nuclear fission” that transforms the Christian, or prayer understood as “the motor of the world”. Thus, after a careful analysis, the Italian linguists conclude with the following words: “he has worked in the Lord’s vineyard, with the simplicity of being aware of the need to proclaim the Gospel even today, and with the humility of letting the Holy Spirit guide his words and actions” (Sartor and Borello 2013, p. 647).

2. The Pope of Gestures

Pope Francis presents himself as a lively preacher in front of crowds of people, talking to them in a packed St. Peter’s Square. He is a “shepherd Pope”, “evangelical”, “radical” in going to the root of the Gospel (see Kasper 2014, p. 807). The key to his homilies is “his personal reading of the Gospel from a personal perspective” (Navarro Lecanda 2019, p. 10). Gestures accompany his words, giving them a liveliness and expressiveness suited to large spaces and large audiences, and there has also been talk of the “cognitive metaphors” so frequent in his preaching2, as well as the descriptions he gives in his oral interventions (Castañeda Lozano 2017, pp. 159–73; in this case, the writings with reference to ecology and the environment found in the texts and speeches of Pope Francis are analyzed). In every Mass, what Jesus announced in the synagogue of Nazareth after wrapping up the scroll of the prophet Isaiah takes place: “Today this scripture which you have heard is fulfilled” (Lk 4:21).

They are short but intense homilies, delivered every morning, after a long time of reflection and meditation, in the Chapel of Santa Marta. But at the same time, Pope Bergoglio offers reflections and advice to the preachers of homilies, so that in a certain sense he becomes a theoretician–practitioner of the sermons (see Ávila Barraza 2015). Thus, in a somewhat paradoxical way, the “Pope of gestures” is going to offer us an attentive “theoretician and pragmatist of homiletics”. In fact, in the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, he offers numerous comments, specifically in numbers 135–159, for the benefit of preachers (Pope Francis 2013; on preaching, the considerations of Spang 2002 can be collated; Gil 2022, p. 15). It is therefore Pope Francis who theorizes the most on the nature of preaching—a pragmatics of homiletics. In a way, he makes explicit the ideas and resources present in the homilies of his predecessor.

While Benedict XVI made some theoretical considerations about the homily, and in practice showed what its rhetorical and pragmatic consequences were, Pope Francis makes them explicit in a clear and concrete way. Thus, for example, Francis affirms, in line with his proposals, that “the homily is the touchstone for evaluating the closeness and the ability of a Pastor to meet his people” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 135). In other words, the receiver becomes the sovereign and the norm of all discourse (see Gil 2022, pp. 25–26). The homily is essentially the continuation of the conversation God has already begun with His sons. To do this well, the preacher needs to understand the community’s spiritual pulse: where their longing for God is strong and passionate, and where that once-loving divine-human conversation has been blocked, becoming unproductive (Pope Francis 2013, cf. n. 137).

And he adds with a certain theological depth: “The homily can truly be an intense and joyful experience of the Spirit, a comforting encounter with the Word, a constant source of renewal and growth” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 135). The words bring about an encounter with the very Word of God, and moreover, like Benedict, Francis recalls the importance of the liturgical context, since preaching is a discourse rooted in space and time (see Navarro Lecanda 2019, pp. 9–11; Ávila Barraza 2015, pp. 50–53, 59, who speaks specially about Evangelii Gaudium). Eschewing all excessive abstraction, it seeks to be incarnated in the concrete circumstances of the listeners, while at the same time anchored in the timeless reality of the Word. Here, too, eternity enters concrete time and space. To understand the type of discourse relevant to preaching, Pope Francis uses generic differentiation to explain the ethos of the preacher, considering the liturgical context mentioned above: While a homily must enliven and give context to the celebration, it shouldn’t try to compete with media entertainment. It is a genre all its own—a brief form of liturgical preaching; “hence it should be brief and avoid taking on the semblance of a speech or a lecture” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 138; on this topic see Ávila Barraza 2015, p. 51).

He then moves on to practical recommendations, which are based on the same common sense, and which refer to the structure of the discourse: “If the homily goes on too long, recommends, it will affect two characteristic elements of the liturgical celebration: its balance and its rhythm” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 138), it would excessively delay a rhythm which should be both agile and solemn, and it would create clear disproportions between what is important—which is carried out quickly—and the human words, which should be spoken quickly—and the human words, which are piled up and prolonged interminably. In fact, the stylistic model that the Argentine Pope chooses to describe the tone and climax of the preaching is the conversation of a mother with her child, as the Church is also the mother of her People, which is why he concludes with the following words (see López Alonso 2014, pp. 108–10; Ávila Barraza 2015, p. 52; Álvarez Benito et al. 2003, pp. 191–99). The heart of the community and its surrounding culture are a “wellspring” for Christian preaching, guiding the preacher in selecting the right message and the right delivery. This is because, like the comfort of hearing one’s mother tongue, “so too in the faith we like to be spoken to “in our “mother culture,” our native language (see 2 Macc 7:21, 27), and our heart is better disposed to listen. This language is a kind of music which inspires encouragement, strength and enthusiasm” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 139).

He also gives a good description of the pathos that must accompany the act of preaching: The conversation between God and humanity—Pope Francis goes on to explain—should be nurtured by the preacher’s personal qualities: being accessible, having a comforting tone, speaking with sincerity and without arrogance, and showing genuine joy. “Even if the homily at times may be somewhat tedious, if this maternal and ecclesial spirit is present, it will always bear fruit, just as the tedious counsels of a mother bear fruit, in due time, in the hearts of her children” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 140). Sincerity and proximity to the Word of God guarantee success, although the model of the best preacher will logically be Jesus Christ: “One cannot but admire the resources that the Lord used to dialog with his people”, to reveal his mystery to all and to attract ordinary people by his lofty teachings and demands. “The heart of it, to Pope Francis, is how Jesus viewed everyone with hope, looking beyond their failures. His preaching reflects this spirit of unwavering acceptance, declaring, “Fear not little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Lk 12:32). He was so overjoyed by the Holy Spirit that he praised God for revealing truths not to the arrogant, but to the humble: “I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes” (Lk 10:21). “The Lord truly enjoys talking with his people; the preacher should strive to communicate that same enjoyment to his listeners” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 141).

Also, based on anthropological assumptions, Pope Francis also speaks to us about the dialogical condition of all preaching, which is not always obvious. It is necessary to look into the eyes of those to whom we are speaking. The homily’s power lies in its direct, personal communication, which is almost sacramental in nature. This effect is lost when the preaching is reduced to a simple list of duties, a heavy doctrine lesson, or an overly technical biblical commentary: “Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom 10:17). “In the homily, truth goes hand in hand with beauty and goodness” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 142).

Wort und Antwort, word and answer, call and response govern every act of faith, so preaching must maintain this internal dynamism. But it is also necessary to remember the esthetic and poetic dimension of all effective discourse, including discourse on faith. The Church faces secularization almost exclusively with the Sunday homily.

In the homily, truth goes hand in hand with beauty and goodness, Pope Francis reminds us once again. It is not a matter of abstract truths or cold syllogisms, because it also communicates the beauty of the images that the Lord used to stimulate the practice of good.

(Pope Francis 2013, n. 142)

To which Ávila Barraza comments: “It is not a matter of imposing conceptions or prejudices that one has about reality; on the contrary, it is a matter of letting reality show itself and manifest itself as it is” (Ávila Barraza 2015, p. 52; see Spang 2002, pp. 45–47). Letting the truth speak and allowing it to manifest its own beauty. Theological ideas, forged through years of teaching and shepherding the People of God, are condensed, embodied, and materialized in words and images. It is a dialog in communion:

The difference between illuminating the place of synthesis and illuminating loose ideas is the same as the difference between boredom and ardor of the heart. The preacher has the very beautiful and difficult mission of bringing together hearts that love each other, the heart of the Lord and the hearts of his people.

(Pope Francis 2013, n. 143; see Spang 2002, p. 47; Gil 2022, pp. 15–16)

3. Pastoral Recommendations

The preacher needs to have an intimate understanding of the community’s inner life to discern two things: where their passion for God is burning bright, and where the loving conversation they once had with the divine has been blocked, making it unproductive (cf. n. 137; see Gil 2022, pp. 19–20) It is true that every Christian and all the People communicate directly with God. “Pope Francis—comments a scholar—emphasizes the need to look at reality”, “to consider the concrete needs of the listeners; to know the context, their concerns, their doubts” and above all, “the experience of God” (Ávila Barraza 2015, p. 59). During the homily, people are looking for the speaker to give voice to their own interior feelings. The goal isn’t a final answer, but for the preacher to serve as a catalyst, expressing shared sentiments so that each listener is then equipped to continue their personal dialog with God (Pope Francis 2013, cf. n. 143). We would thus have the two ordering axes of the discourse: the liturgical context in which it is delivered, and the concrete circumstances in which the listeners find themselves. The sermon thus becomes a suggestion for each Christian to enter into a very personal conversation with God. We are faced with a religious use of the active and performative functions of language.

Thus, continues the Borges-loving Pope, the word is fundamentally a go-between. Effective dialog requires not only the two people involved but also a convicted intermediary who accurately delivers the word, trusting fully in its essential truth: “what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor 4:5)” (cf. n. 143). Here he insists again on the eccentric and not self-referential character of language: Christocentric, one would say in theological language. To speak from the heart means that our passion must be tempered and guided by deep understanding. We need to be lit up by the entirety of God’s revelation and be fully aware of how that divine word has been carried by the Church and the faithful over time (Pope Francis 2013, cf. n. 144). It is a discourse, therefore, equally addressed to feeling as to understanding, to emotion and reason (see Gil 2022, pp. 20–21), to the sense and to the sensibility, to paraphrase Jane Austen, and that adds in a no less literary and poetic way: Our identity is secured by the Father’s first embrace in Baptism. This makes us long, as wayward yet loved children, for the final, glorious embrace of our Merciful Father in heaven. “Helping our people to feel that they live in the midst of these two embraces is the difficult but beautiful task of one who preaches the Gospel” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 144).

The preacher finds himself between the “baptismal embrace” which marked a beginning in the journey of faith, and the “definitive embrace of glory”. After this, we move on to praxis, that is to say, to the pragmatic dimension of religious discourse, in the section entitled “Preparing to preach” (Pope Francis 2013, nn. 145–159). First of all, he gives a warning about professionalism in the preparation of homilies, with a tone at times reminiscent of a prophetic admonition: “A preacher who does not prepare is not ‘spiritual’; he is dishonest and irresponsible with the gifts he has received” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 145), because he would be a false prophet.

After such an invective, he establishes a series of references in the epigraph entitled “Reverence for truth” (Pope Francis 2013, nn. 146–148), where Pope Francis asks preachers for a dedication to the sacred text that we could almost call philological, that is, with an etymological love of the Word (see Ávila Barraza 2015, p. 54). “This attitude of humble and awed veneration of the Word is expressed by stopping to study it with great care and with a holy fear of manipulating it. To be able to interpret a biblical text requires patience, abandoning all anxiety and giving it time, interest and gratuitous dedication”. He concludes in a practical and spiritual way at the same time: “Preparation for preaching requires love” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 146). After these lyrical allusions and appreciating the achievements of philology by means of the historical–critical method, he makes a small consideration: We know the techniques of literary analysis (like looking at repetition, structure, and character roles), but our purpose isn’t a detailed textual breakdown. Our main focus must be to extract the principal message that binds the text together and provides its core meaning (Pope Francis 2013, cf. n. 147; see Ávila Barraza 2015, pp. 52, 54).

To find this “central message” requires a reading of the text in its full context, guided by the principle of the unity of the whole revealed Word—Old and New Testaments—because “to understand adequately the meaning of the central message of a text, it is necessary to connect it with the teaching of the whole Bible, handed down by the Church” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 148). The “central message” is placed at the core, leaving aside all peripheral references. Thus, this more literal sense can be made compatible with the “personalisation of the Word”, because every interpretation is always personal and revelatory at the same time (see Pareyson [1971] 2014, pp. 81–123; Ávila Barraza 2015, pp. 55–56). Through the personal approach, we arrive at this universal and timeless truth. From an exercise of interpersonal attunement, we arrive at that difficult communication of truth. The Argentinian Pope offers us a new recommendation: Every day, and especially when preparing for Sunday, we must renew our fervor. We need to check ourselves to confirm that our own love for the word we preach is continually increasing. “The Sunday readings will resonate in all their brilliance in the hearts of the faithful if they have first done so in the heart of their pastor” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 149).

Finally, after rejecting moralistic and rigorist preaching, the Pope of mercy offers a new warning for the use of the preacher: If the preacher doesn’t personally experience the word’s power—letting it challenge, inspire, and spending time praying with it—they are nothing more than a false prophet or a spiritual fake (Pope Francis 2013, cf. n. 151). In this spiritual reading of revealed truth, Pope Francis also suggests the genre of lectio divina, which is defined as “reading God’s word in a moment of prayer and allowing it to enlighten and renew us” (n. 152; see the personal view of Ávila Barraza 2015, pp. 55–56). In other words, we enter into the realm of allegorical reading, in order to transmit also that nucleus, that center, the “central message”.

And from here he moves on to the possible reactions that the receiver may have: “When we make an effort to listen to the Lord, temptations usually arise”. One of them could be “feeling annoyed or overwhelmed and shutting down” or thinking that the text is saying it for others. “It can also happen that we look for excuses to water down the clear meaning of the text” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 153). At other times, we think—he suggests—that God asks too much of us. That is why the preacher must be sensitive to these possible reactions: he must have an “ear to the people”, to contemplate them. “He needs to be able to link the message of a biblical text to a human situation, to an experience which cries out for the light of God’s word” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 154; on this topic see Ávila Barraza 2015, p. 57).

4. Pragmatical Recommendations

Beyond mere empathy or attunement with the audience, it is a matter of connecting with their own personal and social circumstances, so that the message can be truly propositional. And he issues a new warning, not without a sense of humor: “Let us also keep in mind that we should never respond to questions that nobody asks. Nor is it fitting to talk about the latest news in order to awaken people’s interest” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 155). In line with the practical advice of pragmatics, he proposes a series of “pedagogical resources”, typical of the recommendations in use (see Gil 2022, pp. 21–22). The first of these will be

(a) brevity: “In the Bible, for example, we can find advice on how to prepare a homily so as to best to reach people: “Speak concisely, say much in few words” (Sir 32:8).” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 156). A good thing if it is brief. The example of Pope Francis’ daily homilies in the chapel of the Santa Marta residence could serve as a guideline (the same ideas appear in Spang 2002, pp. 44–45; Gil 2022, pp. 15–16).

(b) “One of the most important things is to learn how to use images in preaching, how to appeal to imagery, as Jesus himself did by means of parables. “Sometimes examples are used to clarify a certain point, but factual illustrations generally only appeal to logic, whereas images are powerful tools that help people truly understand and welcome the message. Ideas and examples, concepts and images, reasoning and metaphors appear in the discourses of the Nazarene. Images “help to appreciate and accept the message to be conveyed”. An attractive image makes the message feel “familiar, close, possible, connected with one’s own life”, it can lead to liking “a successful image can make people savor the message, awaken a desire and move the will towards the Gospel”. And finally, we come to the practical recipe: a powerful homily requires the brain (an idea), the heart (a sentiment), and the eye (an image) (Pope Francis 2013, cf. n. 157; see Ávila Barraza 2015, pp. 57–58).

He ends with two almost imperative recommendations: clear and positive language, quoting Paul VI (1975, n. 33), he therefore recommends that (c) preaching should be “simple, clear, direct, well-adapted”. Thus, all jargon should be avoided: “Simplicity has to do with the language we use. It must be one that people understand, lest we risk speaking to a void”. Often, preachers speak using expert language instead of the plain words that their audience uses and understands (Pope Francis 2013, n. 158; see Spang 2002, pp. 42–43; Gil 2022, pp. 14–15).

(d) Drawing on the common heritage of the speakers, on the same communicative code of the sender and receiver, will help to get it right: “If we wish to adapt to people’s language and to reach them with God’s word, we need to share in their lives and pay loving attention to them. Simplicity and clarity are two different things. Our language may be simple but our preaching is not very clear” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 158). Advice derived from common and pastoral sense, however, which we often forget (see Spang 2002, pp. 43–44).

Here he refers (e) to the cohesion and coherence of the language: it can become incomprehensible because of disorder, lack of logic, or “tries to deal with too many things at one time”, he says. Therefore, another necessary task is to see to it that “the homily has thematic unity, clear order and correlation between sentences”, so that the preacher can be easily followed and “easily and grasp his line of argument” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 158; see the interpretations of Casado Velarde [1998] 2006, pp. 17–18; Ávila Barraza 2015, p. 58; López Alonso 2014, pp. 272–82; Álvarez Benito et al. 2003, pp. 48–63, 186).

(f) Finally, he ends by alluding to positivity, which is intimately linked to a propositional message: “Positive preaching always offers hope, points to the future, does not leave us trapped in negativity. How good it is when priests, deacons and the laity gather periodically to discover resources which can make preaching more attractive!” (Pope Francis 2013, n. 159). The proposal must thus be formulated in a positive way: to propose is not to impose, nor to frighten or threaten. It must use a language that is both positive and propositive (on this topic, see the vision of Ávila Barraza 2015, pp. 58–59; Carvalho 2017).

5. Conclusions

Despite their apparent stylistic differences—their being “stylistic antipodes”—the text highlights key areas of common ground:

• Poetic sense: both Popes demonstrate an ability to use language evocatively, calling to emotions, transcending dry theological explanation to touch the hearts of the listeners.
• Expression of truth: fundamentally, both aim to articulate and communicate a profound religious truth through their preaching.

In Benedict XVI’s homilies, this convergence is evident in the seamless intertwining of the three classical rhetorical appeals:

• Logos (logic/reason): the intellectual structure and theological argument.
• Ethos (character/credibility): the moral authority and personal authenticity of the speaker.
• Pathos (emotion/feeling): the ability to move and connect with the listener’s affective and spiritual life.

His sermons are rich tapestries or mosaics, drawing sustenance from diverse sources: Scripture and liturgy, the wisdom of the Fathers of the Church and insights from contemporary authors, blending ideas and images, and utilizing both concepts and metaphors to build a comprehensive message. A crucial factor in the construction of the homily for each pontiff, suggesting their emphases are complementary:

• Benedict XVI: For him, the liturgical context is the defining factor. The homily is deeply rooted in the readings and structure of the specific Mass, ensuring the discourse flows naturally from the sacred celebration.
• Pope Francis: He adds the essential element of the people—the addressee or receiver—as a defining component of the homiletic discourse. His approach prioritizes attention to the concrete lives and needs of the listening congregation, ensuring the message is relevant and accessible.

While both Popes implicitly or explicitly share these ideas, the emphasis placed on either the liturgical setting or the specific audience provides a complementary balance to their preaching. As practical recommendations for preaching championed by the Argentinian pope in his magisterium. These guidelines serve as a direct aid for priests who regularly preach, ensuring the homily serves its spiritual purpose effectively:

• Brevity, clarity, and simplicity: avoiding excessive length, complexity, or academic jargon.
• Cohesion and coherence: ensuring the discourse is logically structured and flows seamlessly from point to point.
• Frequent use of images (including poetic ones): employing concrete language and vivid metaphors to make abstract truths memorable and relatable.
• Positive and propositional language: offering a message of hope, faith, and practical steps rather than focusing solely on prohibition or negativity.

In summary, the combined magisterium of Benedict XVI and Pope Francis provides a comprehensive model for homiletics: one emphasizing intellectual rigor and liturgical rooting, the other prioritizing communicative effectiveness and attention to the listener’s experience, ultimately benefiting the faithful who engage with the Sunday homilies.