Www.praytellblog.com



Comments with mixed views:While there is no perfect solution, here are a few thoughts: Printed material does not (a) reboot spontaneously, (b) require extra equipment (and ministers!) to function, and/or (c) stop functioning during a brown-out or power interruption. In addition, printed materials do not require large blank walls with uninterrupted sightlines for monitors / projectors (which can significantly alter the architectural aesthetics of the room themselves). Printed materials can be adjusted easily to suit multiple people’s eyesight and to counteract glare / viewing angle issues. Most importantly, if a hymnal malfunctions, it does not interrupt the participation of the whole congregation, whereas with an electronic approach, this could pose a significant concern depending on your equipment, utility company, age of the building, etc. ? The significant downside to printed materials is waste / recycling, especially if materials are printed each week (and/or if different hand-outs are used for different Mass times / services). While hymnals may amortize the cost over a longer period, they do not eliminate this issue, so one has to plan ahead for that expense. However, one would have to plan ahead for equipment maintenance and replacement as well.Honestly, I keep looking at the word “participation” and thinking “Participation in what?” Singing? Following the Readings? Following the liturgical action? Reading announcements / the parish calendar? Does “participation” occur homogenously in all circumstances? Is it monolithic?As your said, part of this will depend on the history of the congregation, its demographics and its background. Part may depend on the building / architecture and whether or not it’s feasible to use projection. All this relates to the nature of the word “participation”. I don’t think it equates to the same thing in all situations–it’s almost a loaded term.Of course either approach is better than a parish I attended during a recent visit to Ireland where there were no hymn books, nor printed materials, nor projected words, which at the very least is a breach of hospitality, and unsurprisingly there was zero participation in the singing from the assembly.Our parish’s already high level of participation in singing and speaking the parts appropriate to them has grown even more since we started using projection. At Christmas and Easter, we project more of the people’s spoken parts, and numerous visitors and infrequent-attendance parishioners have expressed appreciation for this. ? Plusses include broader and louder participation, easier shifting of focus to encompass both the liturgical action and the projection, no noise from rustling papers, and lower negative environmental impact. ? Negatives include about three or four times a year there is a five-minute scramble before Mass when a tech expert needs to assist a panicky projectionist (but never any of the real or apocryphal horror stories described above), and occasional limited visibility for people in one section of the church if they choose to sit or kneel rather than stand during the Communion procession. ? Another down side: people who are used to the projections may constantly be looking at the screens, even when there is nothing on them, perhaps waiting for the next item to pop up like they are afraid of missing something. People are people. They become more of a crutch than paper. Rather than memorize the prayers and responses, the people just read them off the screen, which may increase participation, but does it increase prayerfulness? ? And finally, they compete with the architecture and decoration of the church. No matter how discreet they are sold as, or that you hear how nicely they will blend in, they don’t. They distract rather than enhance. We live in a world full of screens blasting everything from our work, to entertainment, to information, to ordering our food, to who’s at the front door. Can we get a break in church at least?A key part of participation is consistency and reliability. If your volunteers (or the technology or the environment etc.) are inconsistent or not reliable (or not available), then participation will be affected, no matter what the technology can provide.I didn’t vote, because I don’t really see either one as a key to what I would call participation in the liturgy. I think both tend to cause the user to focus on the thing used; i.e., the screen or the print, and not necessarily the liturgy. I believe you have to be open to understanding the liturgy to truly participate. I wish there were a simple answer, but there isn’t.Screens are all the rage here in Florida. Sometimes, I think we are trying to compete with the Evangelical Mega Church. We use them in my parish quite well. There is no advertising on them, just hymns, Scripture reference and any mass parts that are sung including dialogues. We use notes and words with everything sung. It’s a lot of work, but can be done effectively, especially in a building that was built with screens in mind. The downfall is using volunteers and scheduling them. Or a computer issue (very rare, but it happens). I never used them before I moved to Florida, but have grown to like them. I still think nothing beats a nice hardbound hymnal.Seems like we’re talking about a pretty wide range of ways screens might be used:1) Screens mainly used to replace hymn boards or printed aids that guide people to particular places in the hymnal2) Screens used to display lyrics to songs3) Screens used to display lyrics and music to songs4) Screens used to display all the people’s parts of the Mass, sung or spoken5) Screens that basically broadcast the entire Mass, showing shots of the altar, ambo, music group etc. (like Nativity here in Baltimore) For me, I have no objection at all to #1 and, in theory, I could easily live with #3 and #4 (not my aesthetic preference, but also not a ditch I’m willing to die in). I would strongly dislike #2, since I like having the music in front of me. I have experienced #5 on several occasions and find it profoundly alienating and would only frequent a church that did this if there were no other options for Sunday Eucharist.I remember back the the late 80s there were already doing #2 at the Paulist Center in Boston. I don’t know if this is still their practice.Young (though less young as the years go by…) person here. Not all print nor all projectors are created equally or employed effectively. I cannot stand the pew materials that are printed on cheap paper and thrown out every year. It suggests a temporary, disposable Mass, which is not great imagery. The parish I most frequently attend just tossed them one last time in favor of hard cover books that will have paid for themselves in two and a half years. I’m interested to see how the congregation responds. I’m used to a personal Sunday Missal and perfectly content marking my pages, but I realize that’s more work for a crowd that already mostly sits there passively most of the liturgy. ? Projectors can be done well; they can run announcements before and after the liturgy, which saves on paper and clutter in the long run, and they can accommodate folks who have difficulty reading small print. I’m not big on using projectors exclusively for hymn lyrics; some folks can and will sing the harmonies, and they can’t do that if they don’t have the music in front of them. Also, just as some folks can’t see small print, others can’t read projector screens that well. ? In sum, both of these are tools that can potentially have a proper use to the greater glory of God, but they can also be used poorly and alienate. If I had to pick one or the other, I’d prefer a well made tangible object over an impersonal, intangible screen any day. It relates closely to that real things vs fake things debate in liturgy–oil lamps that look like candles, etc.How about having the congregation know the song, sing it enough times that the don't need a 'printed aid' or projection... ? ~ Introducing something new, or something rarely sung every week really puts a damper on things - especially when the hymns are really bad hymns. Have you ever noticed that EVERYBODY sing the Ave Maria hymns - by heart without any worship aid? ? BTW, can you start calling those 'printed aids'/'worship aids' something that actually sounds sacred, like 'papyri'... When sister directs us to the 'worship aid' I feel like I'm being directed to go to the drug store to get something...Whatever your preference, please stop to consider the perspective of people who are less familiar with the order of service.Think it all depends on how it’s done, and how your community responds. I’m slightly old school in which I’m used to paper for worship aids, but obviously a projected worship aid would be better for the environment!It may depend on what you mean by participation. I'm inclined to think people will look and maybe act more outwardly participative with a screen (though my aesthetic tastes revolt!), but I think the printed aid may promote more personal intellectual and spiritual reflection. With the whole in one's hand, one is not spoon fed each moment, but can see the overall picture of how things are connected.A well-designed printed aid is better than a faint and blurry projection screen, and a well-designed, high-resolution screen presentation is better than a printed aid that’s hard to read. By well-designed I do NOT mean multiple “fun” fonts, more clip art, stock photos or images from Victorian holy cards.We used to do “song sheets” w/ only the printed lyrics for the songs used. The response was better than using the hymnals and trying to announce page or hymn numbers before singing. Participation is better with projector (which is built into rear wall so not an obstacle) and with no banging of books when hymn is finished much easier to transition into prayer. If doing song sheets you need to have some cheerful people handing them out to encourage active participation. If they sit on table, no one picks them up.So torn on this. Projection screens only really work when they were planned for when the space was created/re-created. Otherwise, they stick out like a sore thumb. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download