Navigating Hyperspace: A Comparative Analysis of Priests’ Use of Facebook

By Resource Publications

Like a hurricane that exposes the underlying bedrock--and an occasional hidden treasure--by washing away the accumulated grains of sand, the pandemic blew away the accumulated certainties and securities of the globally connected, digitized society. Suddenly, nothing can be taken for granted: visiting ailing relatives, shopping--or going to church. The internet and, particularly, social networking sites have become the indispensable infrastructure holding our sociability together. The global companies of the digital economy profited handsomely. How about the users of their services?
This volume explores how priests inhabit the digital environment of social networking sites, specifically Facebook. The authors looked at how they present themselves, what they publish, and how people engage with this content. The context of the pandemic suggested that we should also examine how digital technology and social media are being used for purposes of priestly ministry. Our hope is that these analyses and considerations will help not just priests but every person at becoming proficient not only in things virtual but also in practicing virtue.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Resource Publications
• Release date: Dec 10, 2021
• ISBN: 9781666719376

Book preview

Chapter 1

A Virtual Mass?

Social Media during the Pandemic

Peter Lah

The restrictions imposed on our lives by the epidemic have forced us to seek new means and new methods for pastoral work and evangelization. Among other things, we rediscovered the internet, which until now has occupied a rather marginal place in our core activities of celebrating sacraments and proclaiming the Gospel. After the improvisations during the first wave of the epidemic in the Spring of 2020, Slovenian bishops in the Fall of 2020 issued an instruction effectively banning priests from broadcasting Holy Mass over the internet.¹ The ban was immediately rescinded amid public outcry that ensued, and priests were encouraged to regularly reflect about these activities and their effects on faith and community life. The present text offers a contribution to this on-going reflection on the proper use of the internet (and modern technologies in general) in our pastoral activities, particularly with regard to sacraments. It is the result of the author’s analysis of Facebook profiles of priests, and of a series of conversations with priests and lay people. We start by examining early experiences of the use of film, radio, and television in pastoral contexts. The second part deals with theoretical examination of the problem, i.e. the examination of sacraments from the theological and communications perspectives. In conclusion we propose some suggestions and good practices for the future.

How did we get here?

The experience of Christian faith during the first fifteen centuries of church’s history was tied to people’s homes and to some dedicated spaces, such as churches. For most of this time, proclaiming and explaining the word of God, teaching catechism and performing the rites were the responsibility and prerogative of priests. Increasingly, attending Mass came to mean observing the rite performed by the priest and his assistants, often in a language one did not understand. On rare occasions, participants could receive Holy Communion. We know that this state of affairs was not always ideal, especially in the case of rural priests who had neither education nor resources. The cost of acquiring a Bible manuscript was prohibitive, out of reach of all but the wealthiest people. Nevertheless, the combination of seeing and visiting sacred buildings, attending rituals, and hearing the catechesis eventually permeated the soil of popular culture and people’s values. In a sense, sacred texts and rituals were the (often invisible) foundation on which the edifice of Christian culture grew; these foundations defined both the form and content of everything from art to popular customs and laws.

Gutenberg’s invention brought the foundational texts upon which Christian civilization had been built within reach of an ever expanding circle of ordinary people. Fifty years after the printing of the first Bible, the German monk and theology professor Martin Luther demanded that every Christian should read the Scripture and reflect upon it. It was the beginning of an unprecedented revolution that in the course of a few decades brought about the Protestant reformation and the Catholic response to it. Access to the Scriptures was no longer the exclusive prerogative of the clergy and of the learned. We take it for granted today that a believer ought to read the Scriptures and study theology. Half a millennium ago, however, Luther’s demands were revolutionary and upsetting, as it undermined the authority of priests and bishops. If everyone has direct access to the Bible and interprets it, a priest’s epistemic authority can be challenged and he stops being the exclusive gateway to sacred texts.² No wonder then that around the same time when these processes were set in motion, we witnessed a development from a hierarchically structured Catholic community towards the congregationalist model of the church. The same thing has happened in the secular domain, in science and in politics: the king stopped being the absolute sovereign, his authority could be challenged. People had the means to inform themselves, to form opinions and debate them. Universities, scientific associations and parliaments were born.

New technologies can be disruptive, often ushering in profound and lasting change both in the church and in society. What we observed with regard to print can be said for radio and television as well. Broadcasting has eroded the monopoly that the state authority held over information—the radio signal is oblivious to political borders between sovereign jurisdictions. Telecommunications and modern media have created perfect conditions for globalization. They also made possible a special kind of mass politics, namely the populisms of the twentieth century. The church has adapted to these developments. In the mid-nineteenth century, the pope condemned democracy and banned Italian Catholics from participating in political elections.³ Only in 1919 was this instruction rescinded. Today, the Pope calls for respect for and preservation of the democratic order when populists and autocrats chip away at its foundations.

Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical Redemptoris missio,⁴ goes beyond the instrumental paradigm of the media, emphasizing their social and cultural dimension of which we have just spoken. A medium is more than just a powerful instrument that will take the message to the most remote corners of the earth. Media are creating a new culture. Radio transmits information and knowledge. Radio connects people. Television has been the driving force behind fashion and modern values. Where do faith and the church fit in all this?

Shortly after cinema (moving pictures) had been discovered, the U.S. Bishop Dickson filmed the Pope’s imparting of a blessing into the camera. He did it with the intention to export the Pope to America, to places where he could not personally visit—not least because, in the aftermath of the Italian occupation of Rome, he proclaimed himself a prisoner at the Vatican. The film made it possible for people to see the Pope in the act of blessing, an act that until that moment was only accessible to pilgrims attending a Papal audience in Rome. Did the spectators in America actually receive the Pope’s blessing, sitting as they were in theatres? Seeing a live recording after all has quite different effects on the viewer than seeing a painting or holy card of the Pope who gestures a blessing. Opinions on this matter are as divided today as they were one hundred and twenty years ago.

Modern media have brought the Pope (especially him, but with the passing of time bishops and priests as well) closer to people. His image reached the farthest corners of the Earth, entering people’s living rooms. A side effect was that of the Pope’s incursion into the territory of bishops and priests. Not only could people see him, he could also speak to them directly, thus ushering in the process of dis-intermediation and centralization in the hierarchical structure of the church. When access to the Pope is limited, the bishop exercises full authority in his diocese. Likewise, the pastor is the authority in his parish, the bishop and the Pope being out of reach of ordinary Christians. Once the Pope enters the scene, the bishop and the pastor retreat into the background.

Consider that, six hundred years ago, it was unthinkable for a lay Christian to challenge the pastor about some question of religion, or any other subject. That person would have been considered mad for doing it, for he had no access to knowledge (texts) which would allow him to educate himself and discuss the matter with the pastor. With the arrival of books, pastors ceased to be the only authority in town. One hundred years ago, it was unthinkable for a lay Christian to berate her pastor or bishop for being a bad Christian because he spoke differently than the Pope—a hundred years ago, no one could hear the Pope speak, in the comfort of their living rooms, and few had access to Pope’s writings. Encyclicals and other documents were for bishops who were the interpreters of Pope’s words. Nowadays, a Pope’s writings and speeches are within easy reach of anyone who has a mobile telephone. Armed with these texts, fervent Catholics use their preferred Pope or Cardinal as a weapon against some other Pope, bishop, or fellow Catholic.

Within this broader cultural context the question arose concerning the broadcasting of sacraments, in particular the Eucharist (Holy Mass). We have seen that Leo XIII was filmed while imparting a blessing in the direction of a camera. We can assume that people watching the film experienced his action rather immediately, that is: they felt blessed by the Pope. Several decades later the Vatican Radio was founded and before long a Holy Mass was on the regular programming schedule, as a service to those people who could not attend Mass in the church. Television broadcasts of Holy Masses and other rites and events followed. Pope John Paul II did not hesitate at making use of the very media that his oppressors used to manipulate the masses. The use of telephony posed the question whether the sacrament of reconciliation could be celebrated with the assistance of this technology. In this point, the church left no space for ambiguity: no confession by telephone! Physical presence is necessary for the validity of the sacrament.

The practice of broadcasting of eucharistic celebrations

In contrast, the church’s position on radio and television broadcasting of the Holy Mass has been more ambiguous. Opinions were divided from the very beginning. On the one hand, we find visionaries, enthusiastic about the possibilities that new technologies seemed to offer. On the other hand we find eminent theologians who reject the mere possibility of transmitting the sacrament at a distance. Consider two prominent voices who spoke about the argument in the decade preceding the Vatican II: Pope Pius XII and the German theologian Karl Rahner. In a speech following a broadcasting of a mass on French television, the Pope enthusiastically endorsed the practice. He saw it as an exercise in the publicness⁵ of the Catholic faith, a demonstration that the Church is alive and active:

The world has been told that religion was declining, and, thanks to this new marvel, the world will see the grandiose triumphs of the blessed Sacrament and of the Virgin Mary; it has been told that the papacy was dead or dying, and the world will see the crowds flow beyond the sides of the immense St. Peter’s Square in order to receive the papal blessing and to listen to his word; it has been said that the Church did not count anymore, and the world will see the Church, persecuted or glorious, but everywhere alive.⁶

Not all theologians shared this view. Karl Rahner forcefully argued against what he billed sacrilegious voyeurism and an exercise in shamelessness:

If Mass is one of those events which must not be displayed to any and everyone; if, on the other hand, televising an actual Mass involves an essential and not merely incidental showing of the Mass to everyone, then the following conclusion can be drawn: such a television transmission offends against the commandment that our most intimate personal acts, and that which is holy, are to be made accessible to another only in the measure to which he is able and willing to participate in them with a personal response; while he who is showing these acts and this holy thing must retain throughout free control over the whole showing of them.⁷

In the case of democratic, industrialized countries, where in the aftermath of World War II television experienced explosive growth, bishops responded in markedly different ways.⁸ The issue was most thoroughly examined by German bishops, for whom live broadcasting of the Mass was accepted as a tool for reaching out to those who could not come to their parish church. Thus the Mass takes place in a church, and technology allows the sick and otherwise impeded to be present in a limited yet significant way. From the very beginning, the German model was seen as extending the sacrament beyond the physical boundaries of the church building and into the homes of the sick. In fact, immediately after the service in the church, eucharistic ministers brought the Eucharist to those impeded. In effect, by watching a radio or television transmission of the Mass, the person prepared for the reception of the sacrament.

In contrast to Europe where the medium clearly was at the service of the liturgy, in the United States Holy Mass often was treated like other program offerings on television. This in some cases resulted in Masses being pre-recorded and broadcast at times set by the programming director of the television, guided more by operational requirements of the medium than by theological considerations. In a country where public service broadcasting was virtually non-existent, Christians were relegated to spaces deemed of lesser (commercial) value. Unlike other countries, where the content of the Mass was the sole responsibility of the church, in the United States the Mass often had to submit to the demands of producers—in terms of duration, in terms of the possibility of live broadcasting, and the like.

Equally instructive are the experiences in France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In France, under the leadership of the Dominican Father Raymond Pichard, the matter of religious broadcasting was studied thoroughly and comprehensively and with a long-term vision. They opted for a lineup of diverse programs that went beyond a mere transmission of the Sunday Mass. The Mass was preceded by a show dedicated to important issues for Christians and followed by brief reports about events from the life of the church. In the Netherlands, as a consequence of their particular model of public service broadcasting, churches and other civil society organizations were responsible for producing the content which was broadcast on state-owned networks free of charge. Churches enjoyed complete editorial freedom. The United Kingdom, by contrast, where the BBC had established itself as a powerful and influential public service broadcaster, took a different path. A live television broadcast of the liturgical service (e.g., a Mass) was an exception rather than the rule, mostly reserved for events of great public importance, such as a coronation or a wedding in the royal family. Regular Sunday shows were dedicated to experimentation during the early decades of television. Rather than broadcasting an event into people’s homes, producers attempted to create religious experience for audiences watching in their living rooms, assisting them at shaping a moment of prayer and encounter.

Right from the beginning of its existence, Italian public radio and television was transmitting Mass services live.⁹ After the second, commercial national television network had consolidated, it too started to broadcast Sunday Mass. In addition, there have been and still are small local initiatives. Despite considerable resources and possibilities, the Italian experience did not yield significant theological or pastoral insights. The transmissions take place in different dioceses, with an emphasis more on the spectacle than on depth. A similar argument could probably be made for Vatican Television, a production entity exclusively dedicated to papal services and events with the purpose of syndication.

Compared to the above mentioned countries, the television Mass in Slovenia has a short history. It began in the early 1990s with the democratization and independence of the country. Holy Mass is being broadcast on television from various parishes, whereas two radio stations have installed the equipment in a church from which regular services are being transmitted. These activities can be assessed from different, even opposing viewpoints. Broadcasting of church services on public radio and television endows the church with significant political and cultural prestige. Having access to these channels means that priests and bishops can address both their faithful and those with whom they would otherwise never come into contact. Last but not least we should not underestimate the mobilizing potential of hosting a live broadcast for the parishes involved. The efforts that go into preparing these transmissions can have a positive effect on the community while giving it visibility and prestige. From a purely religious point of view, however, the most important stakeholders continue to be the sick and those who otherwise cannot participate in a church service. Television and radio make it possible for them to participate in the worship of their wider community. They are the most important audience of Christian audiovisual channels that emerged after 1995, in which the devotional aspect is usually at the forefront.

This brief sketch of various experiences with the broadcasting of sacraments makes clear a need for an answer to the key question: what is sacrament? Can it be celebrated when participants are not physically present to each other, in time and space? Can it be recorded for later use?

Tele-sacrament? Virtual sacrament? A virtual supper?

The instrumental paradigm of understanding media is not particularly helpful for answering these questions. If we think of media in terms of their classical functions, for example (to inform, to entertain, to educate), where does the sacramental action fit? It is all of the above and, crucially, more than that. From the communicative, sociological, and psychological point of view, the sacramental action is essentially a communal ritual which can only be understood by participants who share the same culture. The eucharist is when people come together as community in order to celebrate and open themselves to receiving divine grace which is God Himself, and crucially for Catholic understanding, is present physically in bread and wine. Can people who are viewing a televised transmission of Holy Mass be part of such sacramental event?

In our search for answers we often resort to categories from other dimensions of life. We engage in e-commerce, e-government, in distant learning; we tele-conference, we regularly talk to friends and family who may live on the other side of the Earth. We enjoy live sports and observe important events as they happen, from the comfort of our living rooms. These experiences are real, not only at the individual-psychological level (we experience them as real and meaningful) but also in their real-world implications and consequences. When I buy something online, I usually receive the product and funds are withdrawn from my bank account. When I talk to my parents, our family bond is strengthened. Many a problem can be resolved via teleconferencing. How are sacraments different from all these activities?

In the words of the Second Vatican Council, we can affirm that the media are among the wonderful technological discoveries of modern times.¹⁰ Theorists talk about the medium as a prosthesis, a device that allows a person to do activities that she would not otherwise be able to do. We talk of para-social relationships between media personalities and their audience. These relationships exist only in the presence of media. The relationship between the fan and her favored band is a pure virtual relationship, as she has never met the stars in person. Nevertheless, this relationship has quite real consequences, from material (money that she spends buying artifacts and services through which she cultivates this relationship) to psychological and spiritual (the values and cultural patterns that she receives in these interactions and have influence on her behavior).

Most theologians agree that there can be no virtual sacrament. Sacramental events take place in space and time, the bodily (physical) element is their indispensable constitutive part. God breathes His Spirit upon live-less matter and infuses it with life. Our bodies and the offerings of wine and bread constitute this matter without which there can be no sacrament. The act of viewing Mass on television lacks this material aspect, a viewer’s participation at the sacrament is incomplete. The viewer may have a psychological experience of participating, he or she may even feel connected to other persons are viewing the same broadcast at the same time, but nevertheless they do this in the isolation of their homes. Most importantly, they cannot partake at the sacramental signs of bread and wine that are being shared by those attending the sacrament physically in space and time.

When we assess the status of a live, televised Mass, we need to take into account the different dimensions of the event/ action. In a strictly sacramental sense, the matter is clear. But Holy Mass is not only a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, it is also the last supper at which the community of Jesus’ disciples gathers at table. These gatherings also include other aspects of a person’s life in the community. The social, charitable and educational dimensions of life are inextricably intertwined and connected to the eucharistic gathering of the congregation. In other words: the celebration of the eucharist goes beyond the sacramental action in the narrow sense of the word. We cannot extend the sacrament to those viewing it on television; we can however use the broadcast in order to teach, inform, do works of charity (e.g. online money transfers, or accompany people who cannot physically come to church), and sustain and grow the sense of belonging to a community.

During the epidemic many priests and faithful alike found the internet a useful tool for continuing to practice their religion. In response to the enforcement of social (or