Malta’s cerulean skies are ubiquitously pierced by domes and spires, the clear signs of the presence of the Church. Secularisation has taken its toll and church buildings in several areas seem to be fighting for air, like a drowning man. On the other hand, the internet, though undoubtedly a more secularised space, is having more space for religion during coronavirus. People who are now following Mass on the internet say that they find the experience as spiritually uplifting.
On the other hand, Pope Francis already sounded the alarm bell. He does not seem to be over-thrilled.
When the Church said no
Truth be told Church documents were not always so fawning on the religious value of the media and their use for liturgical transmissions. In 1906, Pope Pius X prohibited seminarians from reading newspapers and magazines. In 1912 Pope Pius X absolutely forbade the showing of films in churches. In January 1927, the Holy Office declared that the pope is “absolutely against” the transmission of Mass on the radio and prohibited the filming of any liturgical celebrations. In 1958, the use of equipment mimicking the sound of bells was also deemed verboten.
The inclusion of television in the mediascape widened the debate. Karl Rahner, one of the most eminent theologians of the last century was dead against the transmission of Mass on television. As a student, I remember reading his position in the book The Christian Commitment. I was then shocked more than just surprised, but I concede that his arguments are not ones that should be rubbished.
He feared that television transmission risked relegating the Mass to a spectacle turning viewers – particularly non-believers – into voyeurs.
Television addresses an undefined public while the Mass addresses a congregation of believers. Rahner reminded his readers that in the fourth and fifth centuries of Christianity knowledge of the more intimate Christian doctrines and the celebration of the Eucharist was carefully kept from non-Christians even if preparing for baptism.
The benefits that sick people could receive from following Mass on television were not a strong enough argument for Rahner. Up until 1993, Johann Baptist Metz was reiterating Rahner’s arguments.
Thumbs up for television
The first television transmitted Masses were broadcast at Christmas 1948 in Paris and New York. Pope Pius XII blessed and enthusiastically welcomed these transmissions and later enshrined this approval in an encyclical letter. As they say, the rest is history.
Secularisation has taken its toll and church buildings in several areas seem to be fighting for air
The enthusiastic welcoming of such transmissions was in a particular phase of the Church’s relationship with the media. It was the time when all wanted to jump on the media bandwagon, some mistakenly looking at it as a new vehicle for salvation. But this enthusiasm was not such that the Church considered the viewing of Mass on television as a way of satisfying the Sunday precept. It was considered to be something spiritually helpful but not more.
More participation on the internet
Now we have the ‘invasion’ of masses on the internet. Is this different from the broadcast of Mass on television? And if yes, should one have a different appraisal of the ‘worth’ of participating in such a Mass?
I think there are important differences between the two. More participation is possible on the internet than on television. Viewers on the internet can, for example, upload their bidding prayers in real time, participate in a shared homily and contribute to a cause during the offertory.
The ideal internet Mass, preferably addressed to a definite community – e.g. a physical or non-territorial parish or to the members of a lay movement – could take different forms. The priest could be in a Church, the choir in a different place, readers at home or in particularly symbolic places linked to the message of the reading, and so on.
Then on one’s screen one sees all these places which become different but united prayerful environments. Such a Mass would be really using the full potential of the medium. It would give a new meaning to Christ’s saying that He is present whenever two or three are gathered in his name. This is a presence which transcends space.
Is this participation enough to do without the physical participation in Church?
I do not subscribe to the distinction that considers participation in Mass in a church as ‘real’ but considers participation of Mass on the internet as ‘not real’. Both the physical presence and the virtual presence are real. Catholic theology transcends the idea that only physical presences are real. The Eucharist is one such example.
Theologian Hans Bernhard Meyer who conceded that the participation in a televised Mass is a real participation though not a physical one should surely agree that participation in a Mass using the full potential of the internet medium would be an enhanced form of real participation.
All this gracefully accepted and agreed to, I still agree with Pope Francis that nothing beats the physical participation and that this form of participation is qualitatively better than the virtual participation.
Please read and meditate on the April 17 homily of Pope Francis at Santa Martha (https://zenit.org/articles/pope-pushes-for-access-to-sacraments-churches-with-faithful-full-text-of-morning-homily/)
I conclude by sharing a couple of snippets:
“For Christians, familiarity with the Lord is always communitarian,” Pope Francis said during the April 17 morning Mass in the chapel of his Santa Marta Residence. … “A familiarity without community, a familiarity without the bread, a familiarity without the Church, without the people, without the sacraments is dangerous.”
“You will get the Eucharist today. But the people who are connected with us (via the media) only get spiritual communion. And this is not the Church: this is the Church of a difficult situation, that the Lord allows, but the ideal of the Church is always with the people and with the sacraments. Always.”