Diocese of Rochester: Lay preaching during the homily

Bishop Clark of the diocese of Rochester, NY, has interpreted Ecclesiae de Mysterio as permitting a priest or deacon to involve a layman in the homily by entering a "dialogue". I propose that this interpretation is fallacious.

Here is a letter from Bishop Clark from 2005. In it, Bishop Clark says that his 2002 "Norms for Liturgical Preaching" does not allow "preaching by the lay faithful ... within the celebration of the Eucharist at the moment reserved for the homily"; at the same time, he admits that "another provision of the diocesan norms" allows use of "dialogue" whereby "the ordained preacher begins the homily and then invites an authorized preacher or preachers to develop part of the exposition".

Here (no longer linked) is a letter from Bishop Clark from 2009. In it, Bishop Clark says that a 2005 document from Francis Cardinal Arinze (then prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments [CDWDS]) addressed to the Neocatechumenal Way permits the "dialogue" method practiced in the Rochester diocese. Bishop Clark also speaks of priests "occasionally shar[ing] the ministry of preaching with lay preachers" (although anecdotal evidence suggests this is done far more frequently than "occasionally"). He also describes the practice of allowing a lay preacher to give "an exposition of the ordained minister's homily" as truly a "dialogue" since that term "refers to 'two speakers'" and is not exclusive to something "resembl[ing] a secular conversation."

Here is an article which includes the 2005 document from Cardinal Arinze (about halfway down). The salient part is this (emphasis mine):

3. The homily, because of its nature and importance, is reserved to the priest or deacon (cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 767 § 1). As for the occasional contribution of testimonies on the part of the lay faithful, the proper places and methods for these are indicated in the Interdicasterial Instruction Ecclesiae de Mysterio, which was approved “in specific form” by Pope John Paul II and published on August 15, 1997. In this document, sections 2 and 3 of article 3 read as follows:

§2 - “It is permitted to have a brief instruction that helps explain better the liturgy that is being celebrated, and even, in exceptional circumstances, a few testimonies, as long as these conform to the liturgical norms, are offered on the occasion of Eucharistic liturgies celebrated on particular days (for seminarians, the sick, etc.), and are thought truly helpful as an illustration of the regular homily delivered by the celebrating priest. These instructions and testimonies must not assume characteristics that might cause them to be confused with the homily.” §3 - “The possibility of ‘dialogue’ during the homily (cf. Directorium de Missis cum Pueris, no. 48) can be used occasionally and with prudence by the celebrating minister as a means of exposition, which does not transfer to others the duty of preaching.”

Careful attention must also be paid to the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 74.

Here is the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (also from the CDWDS) which is referenced in the 2005 document from Cardinal Arinze (but neglected in Bishop Clark's 2009 letter). Article 74 reads (emphasis mine):

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, {cf. Ecclesiae de Mysterio, Art. 3, Sect. 2} nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.

Redemptionis Sacramentum is referring to Article 3, Section 2 of Ecclesiae de Mysterio, which is quoted above, in the 2005 letter of Cardinal Arinze.

The real kicker to all of this is that Bishop Clark is falling back upon the permission for "dialogue" given in the document Directorium de Missis cum Pueris. What is this document? It's the 1973 Directory for Masses with Children (DMC). Article 48 reads as follows (emphasis mine):

The homily explaining the word of God should be given great prominence in all Masses with children. Sometimes the homily intended for children should become a dialogue with them, unless it is preferred that they should listen in silence.

The directory "is concerned with children who have not yet entered the period of preadolescence" (n. 6), and this norm specifically governs "Masses with children in which only some adults take part" (n. 7). Applying DMC 48 in any other situation — as Bishop Clark is apparently doing — is erroneous.

Anyone disagree? State your case!