There has been a good amount of recent discussion on NewGathering about watching mass via the media rather than attending in person.
I mentioned in a recent post that the pre-recorded Sunday masses at our parish website have generated 1,000 hits apiece, plus an unmeasured number who watch via the parish Facebook page. That isn't nearly as many people as the cumulative in-person attendance numbers we were drawing each weekend in the pre-Coronavirus days to our normal schedule of five masses, but it's still many more than I would have predicted.
This article in our local archdiocesan newspaper reports that the Sunday masses featuring Cardinal Cupich at Holy Name Cathedral have been generating 30,000 views on the Internet, in addition to an unknown number who crowd around (or at least sit around, like we do) the television set to watch it on broadcast television. The person who is acting as producer for these live streams and recordings tells the reporter that the livechat comments he receives during the live streams have opened his eyes that these broadcast masses are playing a "vital" spiritual role.
I've stated the opinion recently that the Catholic Church is behind the curve when it comes to utilizing social media. Perhaps we could add broadcast media to that list. Our archdiocese does have television and radio programming, but not many folks tune into it. It's widely conceded that Mother Angelica cleaned the bishops' clocks, ratings-wise, when she launched the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN) some 40 years ago.
Why would EWTN enjoy more success than the bishops will all their resources and influence? The success of EWTN may illustrate one or two challenges to the Catholic church when it comes to broadcast media and, probably, social media. I believe the professional media marketers would tell us that, when it comes to building ratings, the name of the game is (to use some execrable MBA talk) "STP". That acronym is marketing jargon which stands for "Segment / Target / Promote". The idea is that a television broadcaster, or anyone undertaking to deliver a media product (or any product of any type), will not appeal to all people in general. Instead, s/he must first categorize the population of potential watchers into segments (such as "Catholics over 50 / Catholics under 50 / Evangelicals over 50 / Evangelicals under 50" etc.). Then, the broadcaster must identify the specific segments that s/he wishes to target - such as "conservative white Catholics over 50". The programming s/he develops would be created to appeal to the segments s/he is targeting, with the understanding that other segments probably won't be interested in that programming - in fact, folks in the non-target audience may even actively loathe that programming. Finally, s/he must promote the programming to the target audience segments, so that they're aware of the broadcast product and will seek it out to consume it.
STP almost surely is a key to EWTN's success. Mother Angelica and her crew didn't intend that its programming would appeal to all people, or even to all Catholics. They selected a few particular subsets - particular segments - of the set "all Catholics", segments for whom EWTN's particular point of view was congenial, and targeted their broadcast programming to those segments. They figured out how to promote their content to those segments - and for a long time, it worked: EWTN was, for quite a while, an outsize influencer among conservative Catholics, and was able to leverage those segments to exercise some degree of influence even across the church as a whole. But for those of us who aren't really part of the demographic or psychographic segments which EWTN targets, their programming is uncompelling, and their influence a puzzle and an occasional frustration. I confess I haven't watched EWTN for many years; the last time I actually sat down to watch it for any length of time was when Pope John Paul II visited Denver for a World Youth Day. According to Google, that was in 1993. EWTN would say, That's okay, Jim - you're not the guy we're targeting.
This STP approach works for all sorts of enterprises, religious and otherwise, but I don't think it fits the Catholic Church very well. I continue to cling to the idea that the definition of the Catholic Church is "here comes everybody". The Catholic Church doesn't, or shouldn't, be in the business of segmenting and targeting. It is intended to be universal - it is intended for everyone.
Unfortunately, being for everyone doesn't work very well from a broadcast television point of view. Television shows that are intended for everyone strike us as pretty "vanilla", pretty boring. Undoubtedly, a big reason for that is that we've been well-trained by the professional broadcasters to expect to have our hot buttons pushed, our itches scratched, our rage stoked, our prejudices reinforced. That is not by accident; it is because those broadcasters are targeting us: they're calibrating their product to appeal to us.
Catholic mass isn't like that. It is not supposed to reinforce our divisions into subsets. In fact, it's supposed to do the opposite of that - it's supposed to unify. In addition, the production values aren't very slick. The folks on-camera aren't very telegenic, and may not even be very articulate. The music, which often is sung and played by amateurs, sounds amateurish on television. The message tends to engage our heads and spirits more so than our hearts. These are all things that make for - to be frank - bad TV.
Given all that, it's interesting that so many people apparently are tuning into mass now. It may be that one of the outcomes of the Coronavirus is that the Catholic church, very belatedly, is discovering the power of mass media and social media, and how to harness them to its advantage. We'll see how it plays out.
I doubt if anyone thinks televised or youtube Masses are the ideal situation. It's just that that is what is possible right now. It's a lot better than nothing. Especially with a lot of parishes live streaming or pre recording their own liturgies, it's a means of staying connected and seeing a few familiar faces. And joining in worship as best we can.
ReplyDeleteThere have been a couple of articles by Robert Mickens lately on the subject (on Jim McCrea's email thread). Mickens pushes my buttons a bit, he is pretty critical of the present efforts by the clergy to have video liturgies, and what he feels to be a faulty theology of the Eucharist. Of course one is not obliged to take part in televised Masses. He would say that's the problem, we're not taking part. But I beg to differ, we are, to the best of our abilities. Of course we should still be doing personal prayer or family devotions, but I don't see that as filling the gap.
There is a certain line of thought that the antidote to clericalism is to be anti-clerical. But priests are in the same limiting situation the rest of us are in right now, and most of them are trying the best they can to serve their congregations.
I agree with you that the STP approach isn't what the church is supposed to be about.
DeleteDeacon Jim, This post is pregnant with quintuplets, and at least two of them are crucial to the future of the Church. I have so many thoughts I'll probably be coming back to this all day. But I hope others join in so I can express some of the thoughts as responses.
ReplyDeleteTo start with, yesterday at Zoom we were talking about the parishioners we know but never see on Sunday because they go to "a different Mass." We have three priests and nine Masses on weekends. Lotssa parishes are not so lucky. BUT my point here is that the Masses really are different. Two in Spanish, one noisy and one not so much. One bilingual. One LifeTeen. One with only an entrance and closing hymn and no singing in between. We are offering not a "source and summit" but a smorgasbord. On top of which the main driver of everything that happens on Sunday is: Clear the parking lot in time for the next Mass.
What stay-at-home has done for us is given us one Mass for the Anglos and one for the Spanish. My crusading friend from Brooklyn says there should be only one for both. But that's for another day. It took a crisis to get us this much together. Can we stay together when we are free at last?
Tom, why does it bother you that there are different "styles" of mass - after all, the mass is the same, regardless of the type of music, the language, etc. It's the essence that should count, not the stylistic differences.
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent, in some parts of the US, these differences were routine from what I have read - some people went to the Polish church, some to the Irish, some to the Italian, etc. Now we have a lot of different people of a range of backgrounds (age, race, culture, ethnic heritage etc) who live in the same area, instead of little national/cultural/language ghettos as was the case in a lot of east coast/midwest cities for many years (not really true where I grew up in California, except for the Mexican/Anglo divide).
It seems that more people might come to church when they feel at home when they are there.
Anne, I wouldn't characterize my mood as bothered by living in the liturgical Balkans. Maybe bemused. It's very American to "have it YOUR way," even though we talk about the communion of saints. Pope Benedict wrote, "No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one dies alone." That's pretty standard teaching; we follow Jesus and honor his Father as a church, not as individual entrepreneurs. Our pastor keeps referring to "the faith family of Holy Name," but it's a family like mine with members scattered all over the place from Pennsylvania to Texas to California.
DeleteBut here is a datum. Our nine Masses draw around 2,500 people each normal weekend. That is a little more than the crowd at the single service of the megachurch down the block. Many of the members of that megachurch used to be part of our "faith family." They tell us they go to gather with 2,400 other souls for its "feeling of community." The megachurch's service runs over an hour and the side events, special cases and fellowship donuts make a morning of it -- something we can't do because of the Tyranny of the Parking Lot. In other words, they are set up to do what we say, in theory, we want to do.
If it were a case of "me and Jesus," I could find a Mass with my songs, my preaching and my non-use of incense and be perfectly happy praying to my god to get to my heaven, but where would Jesus fit into my cozy solipsism?
Not sure I'm getting this. I assume that your church building won't accommodate all the folk who attend 9 masses all at one service. Guessing that building a mega church sized building isn't in the cards either. Not sure that your lost parishioners are looking for what you think is essential anyway- not aware that many evangelical churches have the Eucharist and belief in transubstantiaton as the most important part of their services (all the mega churches I'm aware of are evangelical) so it would seem that they are going for style of some kind and not for RC teaching or liturgy. Not sure how being in a crowd of 2500 in a huge building creates community either. A friend who was a member of a mega church said it was all the non-worship activities that caused them to stay. Lots and lots and LOTS of small groups for every age and interest, along with the cafe serving lattes along with the pastries.
DeleteSo, exactly whose languages and traditions and music styles would you think would "work" in your post-pandemic ideal masses - still multiple masses- that would magically transform all of you into one big happy family?
Actually, Tom, it almost sounds like you are arguing for the rigidities of the pre- Vatican II Latin mass- the same language, music etc all over the world. That was what we little RC kids were taught back in the 50s - we could go anywhere and have exactly the same mass, whether in the Congo or in France or in Malaysia. So don't fret about it being a language not spoken anywhere in the world, you could still follow the rhythm of it even if you didn't understand the words.
DeleteWell, that is a couple of things to unpack, Anne.
DeleteFirst, you say, "A friend who was a member of a mega church said it was all the non-worship activities that caused them to stay. Lots and lots and LOTS of small groups for every age and interest, along with the cafe serving lattes along with the pastries." I should have emphasized that more clearly. Our "faith family" has everything (and more than) the megachurch does on Sunday, but it is all outside the context of Sunday morning. Omitting daily Mass, I am "on campus" three or four days a week usually doing what the megachurch would be doing in their more concentrated time frame. The people who were here and find community there, by and large, couldn't (or, less often, wouldn't) make time for that sort of thing on Tuesday morning Bible class and Al-Anon, Wednesday dawn (men's group), Thursday morning (food pantry), etc., etc.
One of our perceived problems is no adult religious instruction. Actually, it takes place at least, by my count, five times a week during the day and evening, but never on Sunday (except after LifeTeen, which is NOT adult).
Second, I am not arguing for the same Mass every place, nor every week. Post-Vat II, there are infinite possibilities, as I suggested somewhere. What I am arguing for -- no, that's wrong -- what I am dreaming of is the whole "faith family" at the same Mass on Sunday.
One of the neatest Masses I was ever at was with our combined youth groups in Kansas City, Mo. We had a rock band, consisting of some Catholic youth and some nons,
for the music. The nons were mostly also in the CCD classes, too. The Mass was done wholly by candlelight. The celebrant asked the keyboardist to hit and hold a mighty chord at the consecration. Unfortunately, he hadn't mentioned it to anyone else. So he elevated the Host, and this magnificant chord was hit, by a Lutheran as it happened, and one of the Catholic kids almost hauled off and slugged him. And a wonderful time was had by all.
But I wouldn't do that with a whole Sunday congregation.
Could we do it without building a new church? No. But if we did do it, a lot of people would go to another Catholic Church or the megachurch. So it could be done. But it won't be.
Most evangelicals do something on Wednesdays. Plus bible studies for several group types, men's breakfast groups, women's groups, teen groups etc meet at different times throughout the week. It's not all on Sunday.
DeleteI can't imagine spending every Sunday with 2400 people under the same roof and having to put up with whatever else (music?) someone thinks will bring all 2400 "together ". We are all different- I would prefer a return to house churches with no more than 10 or so. The only masses that have stayed in my own memory as most meaningful were small, intimate and minimalist. One from when I was 22 years old, at a beach/campground. The priest set up a picnic table, put some kind of minimal vestments on (maybe just a stole of sorts?), about 20 people in shorts and tees. I felt far more community with this random group of beach bums than I ever did in my parish. EXCEPT for a home mass celebrated for about a dozen of us who headed up various social justice ministries. I also used to stop in at the 5 pm daily mass celebrated at a small chapel in Georgetown (Jesuit). Never more than a dozen there in a beautiful chapel, the original Jesuit church in Georgetown, near the university. It is elegant in its pure simplicity, and the half-hour mass had the same elegant simplicity.
My choices would definitely not be preferred by you and the rest of the regulars here!
So a mass with no music for some, one with organ, one with guitars, in English or Spanish or with teens ushering and lectoring or whatever- and whatever else makes someone choose a particular mass - they may choose one that feels more like "community " for them if not for all.
Jesus would fit right in to your no-incense rock band mass just as he fits into my 10 person, no incense, no music, minimalist religious "decor" mass at Holy Trinity chapel in Georgetown. After all, God made us many nations, many cultures, with many languages, many kinds of music and art. As long as what is essential is preserved, why not enjoy the richness of the diversity?
God didn't make the world so that one size would fit all.
You still say that you dream of having your whole "faith family"'at one mass. So how is this to happen without a new building?
DeleteI guess you could just continue streaming on TV with everyone watching a mass with only one particular "style". Take it or leave it. Back to square one of your first comments.
Anne C., if you don't mind, I think you are being the rigid one. I've been to beach bum Masses. In fact, for one anniversary the parish hired a bunch of buses and went upoto St. Augustine to have one where the first Catholics landed. A lot of folks wanted no part of it, but it was a parish event. At sunrise over the ocean.
DeleteI've done home Masses, small group Masses for civil rights, with teenagers, for retreats, in gyms, parking lots and lunch rooms. But those are not events of he faith community I call home. Sure it is lovey to celebrate togetherness with the like-minded. But those are not the quotidian Masses that would be normal if the parish really were a community.
Tom, I just don't understand exactly what you are trying to say in your original comment.
Delete"...we were talking about the parishioners we know but never see on Sunday because they go to "a different Mass." We have three priests and nine Masses on weekends. ... my point..is that the Masses really are different. Two in Spanish, one noisy and one not so much. One bilingual. One LifeTeen. One with only an entrance and closing hymn and no singing in between. We are offering not a "source and summit" but a smorgasbord. ...
What stay-at-home has done.. is given us one Mass for the Anglos and one for the Spanish. ..... It took a crisis to get us this much together. Can we stay together when we are free at last?"
Sooo - you think a smorgasbord is not a good thing. You think that having one mass for Anglos and one for Spanish speakers is a step forward. Your friend wants only one mass period and I'm guessing it would be Anglo. You find unity (get us together) in your one TV mass. And wonder if you will be able to do this once life is more normal.
I simply am too dense to grasp what exactly you do want.
You also say: If it were a case of "me and Jesus," I could find a Mass with my songs, my preaching and my non-use of incense and be perfectly happy praying to my god to get to my heaven, but where would Jesus fit into my cozy solipsism?
That implies to me that you don't think Jesus fits into a smorgasbord. You could find your mass and others would have theirs - 9 masses allows for variety, but you think it bad to have "your" preferences. what I am dreaming of is the whole "faith family" at the same Mass on Sunday. So whose preferences would be followed at your one mass for all 2500 people? And without a big building, how are you doing to do it anyway?
You also say: And a wonderful time was had by all.
But I wouldn't do that with a whole Sunday congregation. So....was it a good thing to have it even though you wouldn't do it with a whole congregation? But you say that what you want is all 2500 to be at the same mass every Sunday.
Could we do it without building a new church? No. But if we did do it, a lot of people would go to another Catholic Church or the megachurch. So it could be done but it won't be
You have totally lost me Tom. I can't begin to figure out exactly what you want in real life that would give what you find good in the TV mass.
Anne, Are you asking for a blueprint? I am talking about a dream. I dream of a parish in which all come together on Sunday to worship together and take care of business, i.e, education, social justice planning, outreach, etc. This would either involve building new churches (as I conceded above) or having smaller parishes. Either presents almost insuperable obstacles at present. But talking about an ideal may produce ways around them.
DeleteIf the whole parish worshiped as one, there could be only one service, however it was done. That wouldn't preclude Masses for more specialized groups apart from the massing on Sunday.
Where we really seem to split is that you don't get much out of a Mass for everybody. That -- and I don't mean this nastily -- is your problem. You just aren't a communitarian type. But Jesus didn't die just so we can be moved spiritually at our convenience and to our taste. There are rewards in what Jim, above, called "here comes everybody," even if not ever single body shares our aesthetics.
Tom, my understanding of "here comes everybody" is that the church welcomes all the wide diversity of Catholics in the world – it not only welcomes, but celebrates the diversity. Old and young. Rich and poor. White and black and brown. PhD and high school dropout. English speaker and Spanish speaker and speakers of hundreds of other languages. City dweller and country dweller. Introverts who like small, quiet community worship and extraverts who want a huge crowd (and maybe fog machines and strobe lights too).
DeleteIMHO, there is a need to respect – to celebrate - the diversity of the individuals within the community. This is often the reason for multiple "styles" of liturgy - especially when the music is chosen. But you want everyone to share your dream, even if it doesn’t meet their spiritual needs. No offense intended, but your "dream" Sunday sounds a bit like a nightmare to someone like me. Your understanding of the attributes of community differ from mine.
I belonged to an RC parish of 4000 families (most didn’t show on Sunday). The mass we usually attended had more than 700 at one time. It did not feel like a community- unless you imagine something like the large groups that show up for a play in a theater with 700 seats and everyone laughs or applauds at the right moments. When we changed to a small EC parish it felt like a community. The two priests greeted everyone by name after mass and they knew most members well enough to ask about a parent who wasn’t well, or about the child away at college. People had real conversations with the priests and with one another, because they actually knew the others. You don’t get that with 2500 under roof at one time. You are a parish groupie. Everyone on staff knows your name because the parish is your second home.
to worship together and take care of business, i.e, education, social justice planning, outreach, etc.
I was involved at my RC parish. The priests knew my name. But they didn't know most of their congregation, the 2500 or so people (of 4000 registered families) there each Sunday. And they wouldn't know them even if the activities all took place on Sunday. If the 2500 were there at one time, most would still not get involved with Social Justice or Altar Society etc. I would not have become involved in the ministries I worked in for 30 years if the meetings were on Sunday. The priests left as soon as possible and did not attend the Sunday scheduled activities - not even coffee and doughnuts.
The thing I dislike most about our EC church is that almost everything- adult education, bible studies, outreach etc is scheduled on Sunday. I have been less involved there than in my RC parish – precisely because they schedule almost everything on Sunday.
For our family, Sunday was a day to go to church, maybe have a coffee and doughnut before leaving, but leaving. Sunday also meant having a break from the busy-ness and structure of the week. Go to the park and kick a ball around with the boys. Work in the garden and chat with the neighbors working in theirs. Take a nap to recover from the exhaustion of the over-scheduled week. A Sunday full of committee meetings or classes would mean that we wouldn’t have participated much. Spending all day Sunday for meetings at church sounds like just one more day of work.
But Jesus didn't die just so we can be moved spiritually at our convenience and to our taste
I seriously doubt that Jesus’ death was a command to adopt the megachurch model. He did say that wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he is there. He also admonished us to go into our rooms, close the door, and pray, words especially aimed at those who prefer to be seen praying – in large gatherings perhaps?
I believe that everyone is on a spiritual journey, and that everyone’s path is individual, even when part of a community. God does not demand that everyone be the same, nor that everyone worship at the same time or in the same way.
Anne, I do not doubt my "dream Sunday sounds a bit like a nightmare to someone like me." Yeah, it probably does.
DeleteYou say, "I believe that everyone is on a spiritual journey, and that everyone’s path is individual, even when part of a community." I don't think I believe that. If I were to name all the people who have pushed/pulled/my hand or whose hands I have helped along my spiritual blah blah blah, the computer couldn't hold all the names. All those names would be part of what "church" means to me. If I thought I was doing this alone, I'd quit.
I don't believe that "I built that" even in civil society where so many Americans overlook the importance of other people in their pathetic financial accomplishments, much less in religion.
To cite authority: "It is not supposed to reinforce our divisions into subsets. In fact, it's supposed to do the opposite of that - it's supposed to unify." That's Deacon Jim, above.
If I thought I was doing this alone, I'd quit.
DeleteWell, I would too. I haven't suggested that anyone do this alone. But, I also don't think that all of us need to pray with 2500 others every Sunday in order to not do it alone.
If I were to name all the people who have pushed/pulled/my hand or whose hands I have helped along my spiritual blah blah blah, the computer couldn't hold all the names
I can say the same. I have had some extraordinary guides from who supported me at critical times on the spiritual path I have walked as an individual, a path that is very different from yours. Your path is for you, just as mine is for me.
Deacon Jim has observed that EWTN's success was partly due to designing their broadcasts to resonate with a particular target market - a subset of Catholics. He also noted that while he doesn't like this targeting, it seems that designing programming that would suit everyone, no sub-sets, would be "vanilla", and not of much interest to anyone. Perhaps that would also be the case if a large parish with multiple masses, targeted in style (not substance)the parish's diverse groups, replaced the several masses with a single mass for all. It too would be "vanilla".
The essentials of the mass provide the unity - not the choice of hymns or instruments.
Your parish sounds very fortunate - 9 masses and 3 priests. A wealth of opportnities to show that there is unity in diversity by respecting - honoring - that diversity. Why ruin it with a 2500 person imitation of a mega-church?
Anne, Let's put/leave it this way: You like the Balkans; I prefer the European Union. I'd only add that more wars started in the Balkans than in the Union.
DeleteTom, how do I like the Balkans? What on earth are you trying to say with that comment?
DeleteIt is far more probable that your ideal Sunday would lead to far more parish wars than having 9 masses every Sunday. Most likely you would drive out at least part of your congregation, send them searching for a more hospitable parish. But perhaps you would attract some from another parish to your parish. A vanilla parish.
So you would be happy but those who are not would be forced to search out a new parish home.
I have watched the liturgy wars for years and wondered why Catholic parishes simply didn't accommodate those who had different musical preferences instead of pitting one group against another by decreeing that only one type of music etc would be at every mass? It's usually the music that people have strong feelings about. But holding hands and wishing people "peace" is also controversial and tends to go lock-step with music preferences.
Most Catholic parishes have multiple masses every Sunday. So why impose one group's views on everyone? You seem to think that singing St. Louis Jesuits instead of an old hymn accompanied by an organ somehow changes the mass - it is the mass that is the unifying aspect - not the music, or the absence of music.
I have read countless tales of some new young B16 priest waltzing into a parish in his cassock and deciding that what the parish does is not to his taste and upending everything. So if he is a traditionalist - fine, have one mass that reflects that. Have a Latin mass. One of the several masses on the weekend. But leave the others - the mass for the younger set, the mass for the boomers who still like the St. Louis Jesuits etc. The Spanish mass. In some parts of the country, have your fish fry. Other parts of the country might have pancake dinners. Or pizza night during fasting in Lent. Have special celebrations for Our Lady of Guadalupe, or for St. Anthony, or for whatever other saints are parish favorites.
Respect the diversity - better yet, celebrate the diversity. One of my daughters-in-law is of Viet Namese heritage. Her parents were boat people, among the lucky few who survived that treacherous journey. They are Catholic. They have some wonderful traditions that reflect their Viet Namese Catholic heritage. They attend a parish with mostly Viet Namese members. Is that wrong? Is that more wrong than the old east coast and midwest cities that still have masses in Italian or Polish?
Is that Balkanization that will lead to war?
Come on, Tom. Your way is not everyone's. Maybe open your heart to those who see differently.
The parish wars are due to a lack of empathy for those whose preferences differ from the person or persons in charge.
When I refer to an individual path, I'm saying that some people's spiritual path might take them to a megachurch with 2500 people under roof at the same time, with TV screens on the walls, and, maybe a cafe, like the Catholic church Timonium, MD. From what I can tell it's a sort of Catholic-Protestant mega-church hybrid.
https://www.churchnativity.com/
If that helps someone spiritually, I'm all for it. If it drives some people away, then maybe some other options should be available. Catholic parishes have this option - few Protestant churches do.
The spiritual path of another might lead them to the contemplative mass of a small chapel. The closest most RC parishes come to this on Sundays is the early morning mass, perhaps with a Cantor. Those who prefer contemplative masses to musical extravaganzas still have a mass environment that supports their individual spiritual journey.
But the boomer mass and the rock mass and the organ bringing down the rafters mass is the same mass. That is where the unity is found.
Okay - we'll call a truce. Just be careful about turning into one of the "church ladies" that Jean talks about.
DeleteTheir way is the only way.
I'll try to do the same.
About what the church of post-pandemic is going to look like, a couple of MDs were sounding off in this morning's paper. They are asking the archbishop not to re-instate a physical sign of peace, or Communion from the common cup. I see their point, but I was never really worried about the sign of peace very much. The common cup can be a little more concerning, but it is directly from Scripture. I think we would lose something, but we also don't want to get this thing rolling again. It's just that we have a hard time being a welcoming church. It's worse when we're all scared of each other
ReplyDeleteOh, if there were anything to their worries, we'd all be dead for years now.
DeleteFunny, it seems as if OCD is rational in this time of contagion. We are doing all the things they do and it's a hellish way to live. A time will come again when OCD is irrational. I can't help but believe that our usual physical interactions expose us to milder infections that build us up for the big ones. Could you imagine what this virus would do to a population that never even experienced a common cold? I will be sipping from the Cup when this is over.
DeleteI don't think it is OCD or irrational not to want to drink out of the same communion cup with dozens of other people.
DeleteI'm not forcing anyone to drink from the cup or castigating them. Everyone's health situation is different. I would never recommend it for someone immunocompromised. On the other hand, I don't want my option to partake to be taken away. I don't think I've ever gotten sick from it.
DeleteAs one who has OCD in his lineage and has had a bout himself, I consider drinking from the communion cup to be preventative therapy.
My sister and I were just laughing (over the phone, not in person) about how were all going to be so odd when this is over. And speaking personally, I was a little odd to begin with.
DeleteIf other people want a common chalice/cup, smooches at the Peace, and hand-holding at the Our Father fine by me. I'm not trying to wreck it for anyone else. Just makes my ass tired to hear people banging on about how no one can get sick in church because of God's Presence. Short step from there to the viper handling and pizen drinking.
Delete"The folks on-camera aren't very telegenic, and may not even be very articulate. The music, which often is sung and played by amateurs, sounds amateurish on television. The message tends to engage our heads and spirits more so than our hearts. These are all things that make for - to be frank - bad TV."
ReplyDeleteLike this doesn't happen at a "live" mass?
In real life we can be homely, inarticulate, and untalented. But on tv everyone has to be Dancing With The Stars.
DeleteI don't expect movie-star beauty at Mass, but the live "show" in my parish must bore the hell out of Christ himself.
DeleteI do like the mental picture of Jesus reading texts on his cell phone during our masses :-)
DeleteI'm sure Christ is always present at the eucharist. I'm not sure we can extrapolate from that that we always have his undivided attention in and approval for what all's going on.
Delete"Like this doesn't happen at a "live" mass?"
DeleteYeah, it does. I suppose it needn't be that way live, either. I'm told that at the Evangelical mega-churches, the pastors are all better-looking than ours, the musicians are all professionals, the lighting and sound are much more sophisticated. All of that is more in tune with the larger culture, where we're trained to be consumers of music and even of rhetoric.
The Catholic ideal is, We're not consuming, we're producing; we're not listening to the music, we're making the music. I would have to say that, by and large, the cultural consumer expectations have swamped that ideal in real life.
I've taken part in a couple of recordings of liturgies for our parish. Watching myself on videotape (or whatever it is now - a video file copied from a memory stick onto a server or the cloud) is good feedback for me. I can see a number of things already that can, and probably should, be adapted for the medium. Like: we need to talk with more pace and energy.
Producing what? It's not an idle, impertinent question.
Delete"Producing what? It's not an idle, impertinent question."
DeleteRight - we're getting to the heart of what it's about.
The folk etymology of the word "liturgy" as "the work of the people" points to the fact that we're not just passively consuming, but taking active part in something when we gather together. Taking part in some things, plural: offering praise and thanks to God; and who in turn is bringing about "the sanctification of the faithful", i.e. by taking part in ritual worship, we're cooperating in the transformation of ourselves, too.
That's the standard formula, and I think it's a pretty good one.
Yes, that's a pretty good answer. One of our supply priests used to talk about how we all "make the Mass happen." I wish this were emphasized a little more.
DeleteI wonder how much EWTN's reflected the fractures in Catholicism at the time Mother Angelica launched it, and how much it contributed to creating the gaping chasms of today. I've always had a sneaking respect for Mother A. as the nun who told the bishops to jump in the lake and got away with it. I haven't watched a whole show since Pope Francis's visit to the United States when Raymond Arroyo kept saying the pope wasn't saying anything new, and if he ever dared to try to say something new he would be in heresy and we'd simply have to get another pope.
ReplyDeleteBut Raymond and his partner in snark Laura Ingraham, doing business as the Church Triumphant, have pretty much turned Mother A's dream into Fox News with rosary beads.
That opening sentence should say "... how much EWTN's STP reflected..."
DeleteTo Jim's larger STP point, I think most mainline Protestant churches have succumbed to this. Anglicans, in order to maintain their rather loose unity, have made all of liturgical concessions and even dogmatic stretches in order to try to keep people in. Catholics also come in different "flavors"--JP2, Vat2, Latin Mass, guitar Mass, Hispanic, black, working class, liberal, conservativr, etc.--though clergy try to insist that there is only one flavor.
ReplyDeleteI think it's natural to want to find your Fellow Travellers in any larger group (something the unchurched have accepted and exploited). Catholics have not.
Jean, what you think of as "natural" I think of as "distinctly American." I could be wrong. {;-)
DeleteI think that when you have a diverse population, people look for their own. American society is very diverse. Ditto worldwide denominations and churches.
DeleteI agree that Americans tend to want to be Rugged Individualists, Lone Wolves, or whatever, and maybe that makes American Catholics even more fractured than in other places. We are terrible at communitarianism, and that's a pity.
Apologies for typos in original post. S/b "all SORTS of liturgical concessions," and "megachurches" not "unchurched." Don't type posts when you are being called for dinner and don't proofread.
DeleteHere's a Catholic megaparish, north of Chicago (modeled after Willow Creek) that used to work. Don't know if it still does:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/print/news/megaparish-more-boon-bane
Jim - the parish is still around. It's in my vicariate (i.e. geographical vicinity; it's a few miles away from me). I don't think it's more "mega" than the other parishes in the area. Mine has 3,000 registered families. The parish south of us has 4,500 families. The one north of us has 5,500 families.
DeleteFor these places to work, though, you need the right pastor and conditions:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/chicago-area-parishioners-protest-firing-gay-music-director
The relationship between liturgy and culture obviously is thick and complex. The notion that a single liturgical book would suffice for all times and cultures, implied in some of the old theology (ideology?) which Anne has cited, i.e. that the Latin mass is the same always and everywhere, has proven untenable. It was untenable as a historical claim (the Roman rite always has existed side by side with other rites) and it has proven untenable pastorally. It turns out that uniformity is not the same as unity. One of the great gifts of the 2nd Vatican Council was the Council's decision to make the Roman rite adaptable to different cultures, via vernacular languages, culturally-rooted music, and other adaptations.
ReplyDeleteBut this cultural adaptability, while necessary, lives in tension with the Christian ideal of unity. That ideal is described in Vatican II's Constitution one the Sacred Liturgy. In that ideal, the bishop, as shepherd of the flock, leads the diocese's liturgical prayer, with all of his priests and all the people (the permanent diaconate hadn't quite been hatched at that point in history) gathered around him (cf. SC 41). This would be a single celebration of mass for the entire diocese.
In the next paragraph, the Constitution acknowledges that this ideal is impossible this side of heaven, so "lesser groupings of the faithful" have been established, each led by a pastor who is the bishop's delegate. For most of our lives, and the lives of some generations before us, the "lesser grouping" has been the territorial parish.
But other types of grouping are possible, and we see some other possibilities today in the form of what I think of as "boutique faith communities", which are organized demographically or psychographically rather than geographically. In the Chicago Archdiocese, we have parishes that cater to young adults, to Latin Mass goers and to those who speak Vietnamese or Polish. Arguably, there is at least one that caters to LGBTQs.
From time to time some attempt is made to realize the single-mass-with-everyone-attending ideal from Vatican II. Papal masses that draw hundreds of thousands of worshippers probably are what come closest. Occasional attempts have been made in this diocese to have stadium masses led by the cardinal. I am not certain that sitting in the upper reaches of Soldier Field while the tiny figure of the archbishop is below on the field on a makeshift altar, with his voice booming over the stadium loudspeakers and his image projected on the JumboTrons - I'm not sure that is really much different of an experience than sitting in our family rooms tuned into Channel 7 and watching the cardinal on television. Except that, in the nether reaches of Soldier Field, one is offered communion. But we've come a very long way from the house churches which Anne has described.
When we were young, there were no superstars or megastars, only stars, and they appeared indoors in theaters that rarely ran over 3,500 seats and usually were considerably below the 3,000. One can still do this, to some extent, on Broadway. But not always, as the attempt to turn a theater into a stadium for "West Side Story" proved.
DeleteHowever, the people for whom "West Side Story" used big screens are used to going places where the star is seen on the Jumbotron because he or she is in another county, entered through common turnstile. And usually surrounded by singers smelling their armpits and erupting Roman candles. Think Superbowl halftime. My first experience of this sort of thing was Michael Jackson at the now-razed Orange Bowl, and I confidently predicted the fad wouldn't last. Wrongo. Bring on the Roman candles and the Jumbotron, and people are happy to pay a few hundred bucks. Even "Hamilton," if anybody is looking, is computerized to the max.
So, Jim, you may be "not sure that is really much different of an experience than sitting in our family rooms tuned into Channel 7 and watching the cardinal on television," but some people grew up thinking it's the only way a live show can be.