Participation game-changer

A few months ago, we installed two large video screens in our church.  The lyrics of every sung word are now projected on the screens.  As a result, people  participate better - it's really noticeable.

Before we brought in the screens, we had hymnals in the pews (we still do, but for Sunday mass, nobody need open a hymnal anymore).  I've been involved in music ministry in one capacity or another in this parish for 30+ years now, and I had a pretty good handle on the parish's level of musical participation: it was okay.  Occasionally rising to good (there are some songs that they really like to sing).  But rarely doing better than good, and not consistently doing better than okay.

It turns out that not asking people to pull out a thick, heavy book and leaf through it find the right page increases their ability to participate.

Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy proclaims, at no. 14, that "Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy."  That is both our right and duty, the Council continued, by reason of our baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work. [Emphases added by me]

When the Council promulgated those words, some six decades ago, the Catholic mass was different in many ways.  The ritual was largely the same as that codified by the Council of Trent in the 1500s.  The text in use at the time of the Council was significantly different than what is in use today; and the liturgical spirituality also was different then.  Although a spirit of liturgical reform, including greater sung participation, already was finding its way into the Catholic church in the years before the Council, the common understanding was that the mass "belonged to" the priest, assisted by the altar boys.  The people were there to watch and pray (although not necessarily the text of the missal), possibly hear a sermon, and receive communion.  The spoken words of the ritual were in Latin.  Many people passed the time of unintelligible (and frequently inaudible) ritual words by praying a rosary.  Paraliturgical devotions such as Benediction and Novenas were popular ways for people to engage in group participatory prayer, but this was outside of mass.

And so, in desiring a significant liturgical reform (both text and spirituality), the Council Fathers perceived that there was a massive education gap: the people didn't understand that they had an important, participatory role in celebrating mass, and so it was up to pastors to teach us what we should be doing.

And pastors tried.  I was a child during the early years of the liturgical reform.  I remember liturgical commentators (a role which has virtually disappeared now) telling us what to do during mass.  I attended a Catholic school in which the teachers (some were religious sisters, but their vocations already were waning in the 1970s) tried to teach us kids what to do during mass.  And then would lead us to weekly school masses where they kept an eagle eye on us to ensure we were participating as expected. 

The pedagogical thought at that time was: this is a new way of celebrating mass.  Neither the priest nor the people had to grapple up until then with popular participation.  But the Council told us to teach people to participate, and so the parishes tried.

Has this zeal for popular liturgical instruction, which I experienced in the immediate aftermath of the liturgical reform, continued in the ensuing decades?  In my observation, it hasn't.  I am sure the people's participatory role in liturgy is covered in our parish's children's faith formation and sacramental prep programs (although I suspect this formation isn't nearly as in-depth as the in-school formation I received in the 1960s and 70s).  But there isn't much instruction at all for anyone older than, say, 10th grade (which is when our formal faith formation ceases, with Confirmation).  

Every once in a while, there is discussion of using one of the Sunday masses as a "teaching mass", in which the priest pauses at the beginning of each "liturgical unit" to explain what is about to happen.  I have experienced a few of these here and there, and I have to say, they sound better in theory than they work in practice.  They are long and boring.  The fundamental drawback is, people aren't there to learn; they're there to worship.

But we must also consider another observation: liturgical instruction and formation are necessary but not sufficient to induce people to participate fully, consciously and actively.  More is needed.

What "more" is needed?  The church has been grappling with this question for decades.  In my opinion, it is the great question for the post-conciliar liturgical reform.  We've managed to get some fraction of the people (a third?  Half?) to actively sing, and a somewhat larger fraction to speak the spoken responses.  But we've been stuck there for many years.  

Attempting to solve the puzzle of getting people to participate fully, consciously and actively has led to all sorts of liturgical trial and error.  It has led many celebrants to adopt the presiding style of "Father Hank" (as satirized by Thomas Day in his book, "Why Catholic's Can't Sing"), with his cheery informality, jokiness and inability to remain in the sanctuary during mass.  As a sort of reaction to "Fr. Hank", we have witnessed the "reform of the reform" movement, the thesis of which is that the post-conciliar reform went astray in many ways by settling for mediocrity; the proposed remedy is a restoration of liturgical formality, 'hieratic' language, costly vestments and vessels, the undoing of post-conciliar church remodeling and reconfiguration, et al.  

Grappling with the question has led to the proliferation of many styles of music, from organ and cantor to formal choirs to "guitar groups" to praise bands and many other approaches besides.

These decades of trial and error are my decades.  I've done my share of grappling with the question: how to induce people to participate fully, consciously and actively.   I'm in favor of doing whatever works.  But in my view, the verdict is: nothing particularly works.  None of this experimentation with various styles and approaches has made a significant, positive difference.  (If any of them are done poorly, any or all of them can make a significantly negative difference).  

And so, in my view, the effectiveness of large screens which display the sung lyrics in improving the full, conscious and active participation of the people, is an important development.  It's the single biggest difference-maker I've seen in decades.  

A few observations as to why I think the screens work:

• As I mentioned above: people don't have to work as hard to sing.  They can simply glance up, and there are the words
• The physical posture of people lifting their heads to sing (rather than looking downward at a bulky hymnal in their hands) results in a better sound
• In our culture today, people are naturally drawn to screens.  They may be more likely to look at a screen than a book
• Our liturgy and music director made a wise decision in not putting everything on-screen.  We don't display the priest's texts (such as the Eucharistic Prayer).  We don't display the texts for the readings.  The only thing we do to invite participation is to display song lyrics, and the texts of certain prayers, such as the Creed.  We expect that people know how to recite the Our Father already.  We expect that they know, or can quickly learn, to respond, "Lord have mercy" or "Lord, hear our prayer" at the appropriate time.  Thus, we're not using the screens as the electronic equivalent of the missalette.  Those are available in the back of the church for people who want or need them, such as those who don't hear well, or young children learning the mass, or those for whom English is not a first/comfortable language

The screens are a difference maker.  More so than I had expected.