First, was the disappearance of Latin (which had become a de facto badge of identity for many Catholics), and the second was the fact that now the president of the Eucharistic assembly ‘faced the people.'

This was visually different, obvious, and - as is the way with that which we see with our own eyes - imagined to be self-explanatory.

‘He now faces us!' and ‘We can now see him and see what's happening!' were the comments at the time, and the whole church-building re-ordering programme was expressed in ‘turning round the altar so that the priest faces the people.'

For the ‘average person' not thinking about liturgy, theology, or the Vatican Council, this was what liturgical change was about: literally, a shifting of the furniture.

It is probably for this reason that those who are unhappy with the reforms of the Council imagine that if they can change back the furniture and make the language more Latinate as in the 2011 English-language missal, then they will have broken the symbolic heart of the renewal.

Is it about communication?

The new shape of the liturgical arena, the president facing the rest of the congregation, was presented at the time and is still most often presented today in terms of communication and the theory of communication.

The president could now be seen and heard, and this was perceived as a welcome development because it fostered understanding and comprehension (which it does).

This, in turn, was expected to lead to a deeper appreciation of the Eucharist (as it has to an extent that is not often acknowledged and in ways that were not expected).

However, this emphasis on being able to see the priest made him and his role in the liturgy central to the whole event - and this dynamic (one actor with an audience) is actually a hangover from the eucharistic spirituality that Vatican II set out to challenge.

Selling the reform short

But did those who implemented the reform in parishes sell it short?

Was it simply a matter of communications?

Perhaps it was something far more fundamental - indeed, was it such a fundamental aspect of the reform that neither they nor their congregations could take on board the rationale of the shift in one move?

Therefore, they ‘explained it' by simplification - and, in the process, traduced it?

This seems to be exactly what happened: in well-intentioned attempts to communicate ‘the changes' in the liturgy they opted to use ‘communication' as the rationale for the new physical arrangements, and once embarked on that road, then every arrangement had to explained in a similar fashion: it must be seen by all, all the time.

So why did Vatican II want the president facing others in the assembly and every building to have the ancient basilican arrangement?

The fundamental rationale of the reform was the renewed awareness of the early and patristic understanding of the assembly as gathered around the table of the Lord.

The Eucharist is many things, but in its fundamental form, it is a meal of eating and drinking, a banquet, a sacrum convivium, and its visible focus is the visible focus of a meal: a table.

We may interpret that table theologically as an altar - the table is ‘our altar' as distinct from the altar in the Jerusalem temple or the many altars found in ordinary homes in antiquity - but it is, in its own reality, first and last, a table.

The Lord gathers us at his table: there we discover his presence and bless the Father.

The table is at once in unity with our own tables - for a table is a reality of the ordinary world - and in union with the table of the heavenly banquet.

The table transcends the dichotomy, which is a false dichotomy for Christians, of the sacred and the profane: the domestic is the locus of the sacred.

This is a typical Greco-Roman altar found in Caesarea Philippi. Altars such as this one could be found in every building - including most homes - across the Roman world. Photo - Thomas O'Loughlin

A priestly people

The Lord has come to our table, we gather as a priestly people at his.

We can interpret the table in many ways, and interpreting it as ‘an altar' has been the most common, but our eucharistic thinking must start with what it is.

This use of the word ‘table' did, of course, produce allergic reactions to Catholics of an older generation: Protestants had the ‘holy table' or brought out a table for a ‘communion service'; we had ‘an altar' - and the physical object in a church-building was never referred to by any other name: it was an altar, and altars were for sacrifice!

But we still referred to ‘the mensa' in many of the rubrics; the shape never took on that of either an Old Testament nor a pagan altar; and it was expected that a vestigial four legs (just like the table I am writing upon) should appear as four columns or pilasters on the front of ‘the altar.'

There is only one problem with tables: you cannot just use them in any old way, they create their own space for us as dining animals!

How we humans behave

Let us imagine the smallest possible table gathering: two people meeting for a cup of coffee in a café.

Unless they are not focused on their own meeting - i.e. they want to watch a TV screen rather than talk to one another - they will take up positions opposite one another across the table.

The table creates a common space, a space for eating and talking and for sharing a common reality in a way that cannot take place when people sit side-by-side at a bar.

If you are alone, it is as easy to sit at a bar and eat, drink, read the paper or play with your phone as at a table (and you do not risk having a stranger sit opposite you); but if two people go to drink instant coffee or have a magnificent meal together, then they will face one another.

We watch each other eating, and around the table, we become a community - however transient - and not just two individuals.

This is also a space of deep communication between us as people: we can share our thoughts with our food, we can pick up all the richness of facial expression, tone, body language - and really communicate.

This is the communication we long for as human beings, not ‘the communications' of the media or of communications theory that is better described as information transfer.

The table is an intimate place - yet curiously, it is also a public space, a place of respect for one another (hence ‘table manners'), and a place where our humanity and our relations with other humans are enhanced.

The importance of the table is written as deep in our humanity as anything else: it is studied by behavioural scientists, anthropologists, and psychologists - but it suffices here to remind us of the references to tables in the Psalms (Ps 23:5; 79:19; or 123:3), the gospels (Mt 8:11; 9:10; 15:27; 26:7; 26:20 - and this is in just one gospel), and many early Christian stories.

The table is at the heart of our humanity and at the heart of our liturgy.

But what of a table with more than two people? The fundamental logic continues:

We arrange ourselves around the table and create roughly equal spaces between each other.

This continues until we have used up all the space around the table - and then, traditionally, we extend the table into the longer form we find at banquets, in refectories and messes, and even in domestic dining rooms where the table ‘pulls out' for those occasions when we have extra guests.

The Eucharist is our common table as Christians and our sacred table as guests of the Lord: it was to re-establish this fundamental table-logic that stood behind the changes of Vatican II.

The move in the president's direction was not that ‘he could face the people' in serried ranks of pews, nor be visible as a science teacher's bench must be visible to her class, nor as a lecturer on a podium - but so that if he stood at the Lord's table, everyone else could arrange themselves around that table as human beings do.

This seems impossible!

But is this not simply impossible?

How does one put hundreds of people at a packed Sunday Mass around a table?

People need to be in pews: which means that only the president can be at the table!

Well, first, the shift in the position of the table has been done in most buildings in a minimal way.

It was just ‘pulled out from the wall' rather than made the centre of space for the assembled banqueting community.

Second, in many places, it has been found possible to create a long table in an otherwise uncluttered space and arrange well over a hundred people to stand around it such that all could see they were gathered around the Lord's table.

And third, the Eucharist is a human-sized event - and a gathering of over a hundred should be considered very exceptional - as they were for most of Christian history.

However, it is important to note just how deeply set this reality of ‘being around the table' is within our tradition.

First of all, in the directions for gathering at meals that come from Jewish sources that are contemporaneous with the earliest Christian meals, we find that when the guests assembled, they had a cup of wine (‘the first cup'), and each said the blessing individually; then they went to the table, and there was another cup (‘the second cup') and now one person blessed for all.

The reason for the shift is explicitly spelt out: only when they were at the table were they a community, and so only then could one bless all.

Now think again about the Last Supper, the other meals of Jesus, the blessing of the cup in 1 Corinthians, or the ritual instructions for the community meals in the Didache.

Second, consider the words of the traditional Roman eucharistic prayer (Eucharistic Prayer I): Memento, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum et omnium circumstantium, … . A literal rendering (still too daring for translators!) supposes the arrangement of people that existed when the text was created: ‘Remember, O Lord, you male servants (famuli) and your female servants (famulae), indeed all who are standing around … '.

Could it be that the venerable Roman Canon assumes that the community, both men and women, are standing around the table of the Lord?

And third, we have from the patristic and early medieval periods directions for how the broken parts of the loaf are to be arranged on the paten, and these often assume that the arrangement around the paten's rim reflects the people around the table.

So, once again, table gathering is not a new ‘secular' or imported idea but a return to the depths of our own tradition.

A whole community gathered

If we start thinking about the new orientation not as ‘priest facing people' or ‘people looking at priest', but as the whole community gathered around an actual table we not only have a more authentic expression of the Eucharist, a deeper appreciation of the many prayer of the liturgy that suppose this physical arrangement, but we also how shallow has been our taking up of the reforms of Vatican II over the last half-century.

A fuller renewal, with a deeper appreciation of its inherent logic, is going to mean more shifting around in buildings a gradual exposure of the ideas so that people feel comfortable with them and see why we are abandoning the ‘theatre-and-stage' arrangements.

Moreover, and it will run into cultural problems in that many modern households do not eat together at a table at home and so lack a basic human experience upon which grace might build the community of the Lord's table.

A recent UK survey found that one in four households now have no dining table / kitchen table at which they take meals as a household - the human consequences for society are frightening!

Over the last few years there have been calls from some liturgists - including bishops and cardinals - for a return to the ‘ad orientem' position (i.e. president facing away from the assembly), while others, needing to reply to these calls, have tried to make out that the present arrangements are nigh on perfect!

But both the present arrangements of ‘the expert' being visible at his bench and pre-reformed notion of only one person at the table - in effect not facing the same way as the people, but turning his back on them and keeping them away from the table behind him and railings - are fundamentally flawed as being neither true to Christian tradition nor human nature.

If we think about how tables are part of our heritage, we might also appreciate why Pope Francis has insisted that there can be no question of going backwards as if the pre-Vatican rite and the current rite are simply ‘option.'

Sixty years ago, Sacrosanctum Concilium made a definite change upwards.

The theological bottom line is this: if the Logos has come to dwell among us (Jn 1:14), then every table of Christians is a place where one can rub up against him at one's elbow.

• Thomas O'Loughlin is a presbyter of the Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton and professor-emeritus of historical theology at the University of Nottingham (UK). His latest book is Discipleship and Society in the Early Churches.
• His latest book is "Shaping the Assembly: How Our Buildings form us in Worship".

The pope poked the Russian bear in the nose, gave a convoluted response to why women cannot be priests and even had a muddled response to a question on racism in the United States.

If I had been his press secretary, I would have been pulling my hair out during much of the interview.

I would have wanted to edit the text before it was published.

Some of his responses were noncontroversial and even inspiring — for example, on how he remains joyful and happy amid crises and troubles.

His analysis of how political polarisation is un-Christian was spot on.

He also acknowledged that it is a mistake for the church to have less transparency in dealing with abusive bishops than it has with abusive priests.

As a former editor of America, I was delighted that its outgoing and new editors got an exclusive interview with the pope and that they brought three lay colleagues, including two women, with them.

Their questions were professional, with some follow-ups that didn't allow the pope to dodge the questions.

Kudos to them.

On the Russia-Ukraine war, Gerard O'Connell, America's Vatican correspondent, asked the pope why he was unwilling "to directly criticise Russia for its aggression against Ukraine, preferring to speak more generally of the need for an end to war, an end to mercenary activity rather than Russian attacks, and to the traffic in arms."

The Vatican has traditionally tried to avoid taking sides in wars in the hope that it might become a mediator for peace.

Historically, this approach has rarely been successful.

Although in this war the Vatican has facilitated exchange of prisoner lists and even of a few prisoners, the Ukrainian and American governments have criticised the pope for not condemning Putin and Russia.

"When I speak about Ukraine, I speak of a people who are martyred," he said.

"If you have a martyred people, you have someone who martyrs them."

He went on to say that he did not specifically name Putin in his condemnations of the war because "it is not necessary; it is already known."

He might as well have said that Putin was a 21st century Nero.

He tried to avoid accusing Russian soldiers of war crimes but said that the cruellest troops were the Chechens and the Buryat, who are fighting for Russia.

These comments surely pleased Ukraine, the United States and its NATO partners, but they also gave heartburn to the Vatican Secretariat of State, which had to deal with Russian outrage.

America Executive Editor Kerry Weber, while acknowledging the pope's promotion of women in the Vatican, asked, "What would you say to a woman who is already serving in the life of the church, but who still feels called to be a priest?"

The good news is that the pope avoided talk of "complementarity" and did not refer to women as the strawberries on the cake.

He is learning.

But he did drag out the convoluted ecclesiology of the Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, which describes the Petrine and Marian aspects of the church.

In the pope's analysis, the Petrine is male and less important than the Marian or spousal, which is female.

Where laymen fit into this analysis is unclear.

If laymen are included under the Marian principle, then why can't women be included under the Petrine?

Von Balthasar's theology will convince no one who supports ordaining women.

Gloria Purvis, host of "The Gloria Purvis Podcast," asked about racism in the American church: "What would you say now to Black Catholics in the United States who experienced racism and at the same time experience a deafness within the church for calls for racial justice?"

The pope seemed unprepared for the question.

He responded with sympathy and pointed out that "the church has bishops of African American descent."

Purvis did not let the pope get away with this.

"Yes, but most of us go to parishes where the priests are not African American, and most of the other people are not African American, and they appear not to have sensitivity for our suffering. Many times they ignore our suffering. So how can we encourage Black Catholics to stay?"

The pope rambled for a bit but finally said what needed to be said.

Black Catholics "should resist and not walk away," he said.

"Racism is an intolerable sin against God. The church, the pastors and laypeople must continue fighting to eradicate it and for a more just world."

Weber asked about the American bishops, but the pope wisely avoided getting into a public spat with the conference.

However, he surprisingly threw the construct of bishops' conferences itself under the bus.

"Jesus did not create bishops' conferences," said the pope.

"Jesus created bishops, and each bishop is pastor of his people."

American progressives with short memories might applaud this putdown, but they should remember how Joseph Ratzinger, who became Benedict XVI, downplayed the theological role of episcopal conferences during the golden age of the U.S. conference when it was writing pastoral letters on peace and the economy.

The Vatican has always feared episcopal conferences because it is harder to deal with bishops as a group than individually.

The pope needs a better way to talk about bishops' conferences.

True, Jesus did not create them, but neither did he create lots of other things in the church, including ecumenical councils and the Vatican.

Everyone knows I love the pope, and I will defend him to my dying day.

The first interview he did as pope, also published in America, was a masterpiece in communication and evangelisation.

His recent interview comes across as a first draft in need of editing.

Perhaps it is the old editor in me that wants to make the text better.

But in editing, there is always the danger of smothering the voice of the author.

It is probably better to let Francis be Francis.

That does not mean that I will like everything he says or the way he says it, but I will continue to like him and be attentive to every word he says.

• Thomas Reese SJ is a senior analyst at Religion News Service, and a former columnist at National Catholic Reporter, and a former editor-in-chief of the weekly Catholic magazine America. First published in RNS. Republished with permission.

The Vatican paper, which had devolved into a receptacle of official papal speeches and documents issued during the pontificate of the now-sainted pope, at times published editorials that defended even the most indefensible policies and actions of the papacy and the Holy See.

Like Pravda it was the official organ of the church's own "central committee."

How ironic, then, that today L'Osservatore Romano stands defiantly as perhaps the Vatican's last and most trusted bulwark against the very propaganda and "spin" it was once accused of spreading.

Its credibility has only increased over the last three years, beginning in June 2015 when Pope Francis entrusted Msgr. Dario Viganò - a priest from Milan whose main claim to fame is being an expert on Italian cinema - with the arduous task of radically reforming and consolidating the Vatican's largely uncoordinated, multi-faceted and underfunded media sector.

People generally have a difficult time adjusting to change (especially when they are not consulted), so reformers are not often welcomed with a warm embrace.

But it is no stretch to say that the 55-year-old Viganò is probably one of the most unpopular officials in the entire Roman Curia, at least among the several hundred employees that fall directly under the Secretariat for Communications of which he is the prefect.

His wrecking ball tactics, and his failure to provide precise details on what the final configuration of this new multi-media conglomerate is supposed to look like, has alienated the journalists, editors and technical staff under his direction.

Employees of the former Vatican Radio - which Viganò unceremoniously shut down last year - and those who work at the other communications-related offices now incorporated into his Secretariat - including the print shop, press office, television and film production center, among others - speak of a "general malaise," "confusion" and "lack of clear direction" that the media reform has caused.

In his cash-strapped department, the Milanese prefect has eliminated a substantial number of employees by encouraging some to take early retirement and letting go of others who are not on permanent contract.

Furthermore, he no longer permits part-time employees (i.e. those who work less than the standard 36 hours per week) from claiming overtime pay.

He has also shuffled people from one office to another, moving some of them even a number of times in just a short period.

The employees in the communications department are among those in the Vatican most supportive of the overall thrust and vision of Pope Francis' pontificate.

But they remain deeply upset and confused that the pope has given the prefect carte blanche to pursue what seems to be a reform guided by a "make it up as you go" mentality.

After nearly three years most of the formerly independent offices in the media and communications sector are now firmly controlled by Msgr. Viganò's mega-dicastery.

L'Osservatore Romano is one of the exceptions - for now.

It's editor-in-chief and senior staff have mounted a quiet, but tenacious resistance to the prefect's plan (sanctioned by Pope Francis) to finally bring their nearly 160-year-old paper under the Secretariat's command, as well.

In the last several days L'Osservatore's resistance has further stiffened and the exasperation of other employees in the Vatican's communications sector has only increased.

This was occasioned by an incident that prompted secular and other Catholic media to roundly criticize Msgr. Viganò for manipulating a letter from Benedict XVI.

He did so in an effort to show that the former pope and longtime head of the Vatican's doctrinal office fully endorsed the theological credentials of Pope Francis, something critics of the Jesuit pope have called into question. Continue reading

• Robert Mickens is editor of La Croix International. He writes from Rome, Vatican City.

In both cases - a nuncio to the Dominican Republic and, most recently, an auxiliary bishop in a diocese in southern Peru - it needed police reports and journalists' questions to bring the charges and the Church's response to light.

This is an all too familiar pattern in Western countries where the denial of reality has left the Church to be seen covering up its faults and actually complicit in the crimes once proven. The fallout in a demoralized local Church is another unfortunate outcome.

In any other large organization, protocols and procedures would fall into place immediately to acknowledge such events and what the organization is doing in response. Apparently not so for the Vatican.

Head Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, told me in a recent interview that over the last six months his work has intensified for two reasons: In keeping up with a pope who scripts his own actions and talks openly, and the absence of any structure in the Vatican for receiving and then distributing authorized information.

Come something like the standing down of two bishops pending charges and court procedures, and with all the presumption of innocence in the world until conviction, the Vatican media office is paralyzed.

It shouldn't be. Every organization in the world has contingency media plans in times of transition and for unpredictable crisis situations. Not so the Vatican, or so it seems.

The challenge of handling hot-button Catholic issues will only intensify if the first six months of the new papacy are anything to go by.

The pope has already defused one of them - homosexuality - in a single line: "Who am I to judge?" and ended what is now three and a half decades of attacks by Vatican officials on homosexuality as an "intrinsic" evil which is about as bad as you can get in the Vatican lexicon of failures.

Next month, at a meeting of the group of eight cardinals who are to be a sort of kitchen cabinet, Pope Francis has put one of his burning desires and everyone else's hot-buttons front and center: the divorced and remarried in the Catholic Church.

Turned away - which they've done in their millions - divorced and remarried Catholics are punished for the failure of the biggest risk in their lives with ecclesial exclusion and an implicit lifelong negative judgment. Not good enough says Papa Bergoglio.

And there are more difficult issues to come. Women in the Church's ministry, the celibacy of the Latin Rite (Roman) clergy, reform and transparency in the operations of Vatican offices, the role of bishops, bishops' conferences and regional collections of bishops' conferences have all been flagged either by the pope or his new secretary of state, Archbishop Parolin.

All of these have been in the "too hard" basket for more than three decades. One of these with special significance in Asia is also expected to surface in the near future.

For over three decades, the issue of the uniqueness of Christ and Christian revelation in the context of religions whose origins predate Jesus himself has been the subject of censorship and prosecution by Vatican officials to the extent that theologians in Asia are afraid to even ask questions, let alone propose answers.

Those who have tried have been excommunicated (Tissa Balasuriya, later revoked) and condemned (Jacques Dupuis) for mentioning the subject.

Others who have wanted to enter the debate have, as they've told me, been cowed into silence for fear of the wrath of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and its extensive network of spies and reporters throughout the world who "dilate" (to use the technical term) or report miscreants to what was called for 500 years the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition.

Its style of operation has been mortally wounded in the first six months of this papacy and especially in the lengthy interview given by the pope that appeared in 12 languages late last Thursday and was published by UCAN on Friday.

The pope lamented the preoccupation with rules and compliance with minutiae, not to mention liturgical paraphernalia and overdressing by clerics, preferring to focus on what is central to Catholicism - the journey of faith, the Gospel and the Sacraments.

The outstanding issues for reform of the Church are well known and named above. I think we all need to strap ourselves in for a rough ride in the coming months and years. Meanwhile, let's hope that the Vatican's information service can be of more help than it has been in cases like those of the two disgraced bishops in the past six weeks.

• Michael Kelly SJ in ucanews.com
• Published with permission

Michael Kelly SJ is the executive director of the UCAnews

A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a hotel room in Perth working on my six-weekly (or so) column for NZ Catholic, the newspaper I worked at for five years until 2010. It was not long after my friend James Bergin had given a stellar performance on national television talking about the election of Pope Francis, and I'd also been observing the work of a group of young Catholics in Australia also being asked to comment on the conclave, the papal election, the choice of Pope Francis and so on.

And so I wrote this column:

Did anyone else catch James Bergin on Q&A a few weeks back, talking about the election of Pope Francis?

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, James Bergin is a good friend of mine and someone I work with on a regular basis on Church projects, so I am biased. But I thought he did an outstanding job when being interrogated by a woman who would now be considered one of New Zealand's leading interviewers.

Internationally, this phenomenon of young Catholic professionals speaking about the Church in the media is taking off. My first observation of this effort was during World Youth Day in Sydney, when a small group of young Catholics were part of the Sky News coverage of the event. Rather than having professional reporters trying to explain something they knew nothing about, young Catholics were part of the massive crowds, shared their experiences and, when necessary, explained what was happening during Mass or the Stations of the Cross. Continue reading

Sources

• Gavin Abraham in The Catholic Soapbox
• See also Pat McCarthy in CathNews NZ Pacific
• Image: Planet Blog

Gavin Abraham, a journalist for more than a dozen years, has spent most of the last six years working in Catholic media.

Until the 1990s, access to the general population through the media was controlled by the gatekeepers of newspapers, radio and television. Now this barrier has been bypassed by the new media — Internet-based, available to everyone, faster and cheaper than anything we had before.

Ironically, the Church, whose reason for existence involves communicating, doesn't seem to understand communications very well (at least in New Zealand). Even the annual World Communications Day messages seem to be pretty well ignored.

There is little point in complaining about what the media communicate about the Church when the Church itself is often inept at communicating its own message. This applies to both internal communications (to the Church membership) and external communications (to society as a whole).

As for the Church's relationship with the media, the only policy that works in the long run is one of constructive engagement. In a world in which most people get their information from the mass media, it simply isn't an option to stand aside.

This applies especially now to social media. Engaging in social media requires courage, because these media are uncontrollable and not the place for those stuck in an old-media mindset.

But, as a writer in the United States National Catholic Register pointed out a couple of years ago, "The problem right now is that the Church is largely not part of the conversation — because it chooses not to be. So whatever control it could have, it foregoes."

To quote Angela Salt, director of communications for Britain's Millennium Commission, "If the Church isn't in the media more — in soaps, dramas and documentaries — then, for many people, it doesn't exist. If it's not in your personal experience and not in the TV you watch, on the radio you listen to, or the papers you read, it's as though it's not there. That's why the Church should seek to be in the media — to remind people that it exists and that God is a good option for them."

Having an appealing and credible Christian character on Shortland Street — or a talented and credible Christian band on the pub circuit — might achieve more than an expensive advertising campaign aimed at young Kiwis.

In the field of communication — in this age of multi-media opportunities — the Church in New Zealand seems to have deliberately chosen retrenchment (as indicated by the vacuum left following the dismantling of Catholic Communications).

Perhaps this policy is based on financial considerations. Apart from the efforts of Caritas and the Nathaniel Centre, and the occasional bishops' statements, it is difficult to think of any sector of the institutional Catholic Church that currently brings Catholic teaching and practice into the public square.

As a result, our society misses out on much of the great contribution the Church could make to discussion and debate; and many of the positive contributions our parishes, dioceses and religious orders make to the community are unreported.

What should the Church be doing?

The need for a professional and well-organised communications operation is obvious. Some of the other Christian churches understand this so much better than we do.

I am not suggesting reinventing the old model of Catholic Communications, and certainly not a sort of fire-fighting operation focused mainly on reacting to external events and other people's agendas. What is needed, I believe, is more of a communications ministry that is proactive and has a long-term vision, incorporating evangelisation.

Ideally, it should operate both internally — helping Catholics to better understand what the Church teaches and how its teachings apply to the everyday lives of Kiwi Catholics — and externally — enhancing the knowledge, understanding and acceptance of the Christian message among the general population (it is the message that is important, not the "Church" in the institutional sense).

Such a communications ministry need not have a high public profile; in fact much of its mission could be achieved beneath the public radar.

Websites, social media such as Facebook and Twitter, media relations (including training for Church spokespeople) and collaboration with organisations such as the Catholic Enquiry Centre are just a few of the activities that could be undertaken.

Such a communications operation could succeed only if it were directed by people with hands-on experience in communications — e.g., journalism, information technology, broadcasting, public relations, advertising — who had sufficient freedom to act professionally. I believe it would be possible to find a nucleus of Catholics from these fields who have a vision for evangelisation and are also social media-savvy.

Of course, there are many Catholics — and I would include myself — who should never appear in front of a TV camera as a spokesperson for the Church, at least not without appropriate training. An inexperienced or untrained person can do a lot of harm to the public perception of the Church.

A realistic view

The idea of such a communications ministry being set up and managed under the New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference might be too great a stretch. If established on a diocesan basis, its effectiveness would necessarily be restricted.

However I wonder whether a proposal for such a ministry, with a precisely-drafted statement of purpose and a realistic business plan, might obtain private funding and a contractual relationship with the bishops' conference.

Assuming that evangelisation is considered to be a priority — as the Great Commission (Matthew: 28:19) indicates it should be — we should expect the Church in New Zealand to devote more personnel and much greater resources to this purpose than at present.

— Pat McCarthy was founding editor of NZ Catholic and now directs the pilgrimage website www.seetheholyland.net

The move, announced by Director General of Vatican Radio, Fr Federico Lombardi, SJ, is to happen on July 1.

Lombardi said newer developments in communications technology meant the traditional radio broadcasts were no longer needed.

"Webcasting and satellite transmissions, along with rebroadcasting by local, regional and national radio stations, guarantee the widest possible outreach to Vatican Radio's programming and services. Which is why Vatican Radio believes the time has come to reduce its reliance on traditional technologies, like short- and medium-wave broadcasts, and to develop its resources in new directions," said Lombardi.

According to Lombardi, these broadcasts account for about 50% of the Radio and Television Centre's transmission time, and while Short Wave transmissions will be further reduced over the next few years the Vatican has no intention to cut the service to the likes of the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

The reduction in these broadcasts will delight the people of Santa Maria di Galeria, the neighbourhood where broadcast facility is located. Residents have long complained that the high levels of electromagnetic emissions endanger their health.

In an apparently separate move, and at the direction of Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the daily news bulletin, VIS, (Vatican Information Service) will no longer be distributed. Staff are being reassigned to the Holy See Press Office or the staff of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications news portal.

The 60,000 subscribers to VIS will have their subscriptions transferred to receive bulletins from the Holy See Press Office.

Sources

• News.va
• News.va
• Image: Bilgrimage

Caution as well as control over content and where it's distributed are needed because while the field of communications "has great potential for good," it "also can be turned to the harm of the faithful," said U.S. Cardinal Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature.

Communicators should be guided and directed by pastors to make sure their content is free from doctrinal and theological error, and Catholics should avoid outlets that openly attack Christian morality, he added.

The cardinal was one of dozens of speakers at a biennial seminar for people who work in the field of media and communications for dioceses, religious institutions and other church organisations. Continue reading

Any event that gathers 1.5 - 2 million young people together to celebrate their faith is a huge success, and whether it be the intense heat, untimely rain and wind or the growth in faith, the atmosphere of the occasion will remain a life-long experience.

The complexity of modern Spain meant World Youth Day 2011 has not been all plain-sailing.

Violent protests, a gay and lesbian kiss-in, a high profile pro-condom lobby and World Youth Day website hackers threatened to take the shine away from the event.

Protests became violent

Violence repeatedly flared throughout the papal visit, as Spanish riot-police swung batons in clashes with anti-Church protesters.

Between 3000-5000 anti-pope protesters marched on the Spanish capital's central Sol Plaza to voice their concerns about the 50 million euro price tag of the four-day trip.

Pilgrims were put under pressure and at times were told to stay away from some of Madrid's popular areas.

"Pilgrims have been asked not to go to Sol for security reasons," Malaysian pilgrim Yap Thomas reported on Twitter.

"Sometimes we were very afraid ...but they did not attack me", Lilly Cozzoleno of Italy told CNS.

Protesters were in the main objecting to the cost of WYD, and chanted "God yes, Church no"; "Not with my taxes"; "We are not the pope's youth" and "I am a sinner, sinner, sinner".

Some protesters even taunted the faithful shouting: "Nazi, nazi."

Baton-wielding anti-riot police were used to disperse the protesters.

Not all one-sided, one protester against the papal visit, who would not give his name, bled from the nose. "I was in the demonstration with my father and one of the Catholics punched me in the face," he said.

The Vatican however rebuffed protesters' claims saying, "The event will not cost anything" for Spain.

"The burden will fall on the church, the pilgrims and private donors," it said.

Kiss-in foiled

On Thursday, more than 100 activists planned to join up along the street where the Pope travelled in his white, bulletproof Popemobile and stage a kiss-in.

Police foiled plans by gays and lesbians, blocking the protesters, forcing them to disperse.

In the end only two men managed to skirt security and kiss for the cameras just as the Pope passed by along the major Madrid artery of Calle Serrano.

Condom use promotion got creative

For the past few years an American-based organisation, Catholics for Choice, have run advertisements on billboards in Madrid subway stations and busses as part of their Condoms4Life programme.

This year the ads have been banned.

In a press release Catholics for Choice president, John O'Brien defended the ads. "As Catholics, we were supporting Pope Benedict's claim that condoms can save lives," he said.

It is unclear why liberal Spanish authorities blocked the ads, but it forced Catholics for Choice to adopt alternative creative strategies such as extensive social media campaigns, badges for pilgrims to wear and night-time projections onto the walls of buildings.

Despite being shut down, Catholics for Choice expressed delight at the success of their campaign.

"We were all over the media - local, national and international - and our projections were beamed around the world," they said in their last blog post on social media platform Tumblr.

Website hacked

Issues have also hampered communication from the World Youth Day's official website.

The website began experiencing problems on August 15 and organisers confirmed the issues were the result of computer hackers, and despite several successful attempts to prevent the site being hacked, the event's technicians were unable to prevent several "Denials of Service attacks" which temporarily, but repeatedly took the site down, hampering officials' communications efforts, particularly with the media.

WYD organisers released a statement saying, "Out of respect for the millions of people who are following us around the world and the 4,900 accredited communication professionals at WYD, we believe it is necessary to inform the public about this hacking attempt."

The organizers said they regret "any distress caused" and confirmed they are working to resolve the issue.

Benedict left Madrid after Mass on Sunday, but not before calling on some of the 30,000 volunteers to thank them for their work.

Sources

• CNA
• Twitter @yapthomas
• The Province
• American Catholic
• Mail Online
• Huffington Post
• France 24

And if the man who coined the phrase "the medium is the message" were alive today, there isn't much that would surprise him — not the Internet, or Google, or Twitter, or WikiLeaks, or even the phone-hacking scandal now transfixing much of the U.K.

In broad outline, if not in precise detail, he predicted all of these and more.

"Rereading him, I still get new insights," says Robert Logan, a former colleague of the Canadian media guru some now call The First Seer of Cyberspace. "The man was a total genius. If he came back today, on his 100th anniversary, he would say, 'Yeah, that's about what I expected - and people haven't learned a thing."

Possibly, they never will.

Or maybe the heightened popular interest and critical attention being accorded McLuhan during this, the centenary of his birth, may yet help us fumble toward a clearer understanding of the parlous digital world that he anticipated and whose name he coined — the global village.

"McLuhan's value today lies in applying his methods," says Mark Federman, former chief strategist at the McLuhan Centre in Culture and Technology at the University of Toronto. "It's cool that he predicted the future, but what we should do is learn from his methods."

Those methods aren't easy to summarize, much less emulate, and there is considerable disagreement among academics about the meaning of McLuhan's often cryptic or even oxymoronic pronouncements — "the future of the future is the present," for example, or "the effects come first; the causes, later" — but there is no doubt the man's stature and influence are firmly in the ascendant once again, after a long period of decline.

More than anything else, it's the frenetic expansion of the Internet in recent years that has renewed international fascination with the Canadian communications visionary.

Read more of "A century after his birth, Marshall McLuhan is 'still ahead of us'.

Source

• Image: Flickr