“Where the tabernacle ceases to be the center, the Holy Mass takes on the form of a druidic circle: the celebrant becomes – by structure – a ritual shaman rather than a minister of the Most Blessed Sacrament.”

Table of Contents

I. The Closed Room and the Burning Chapel

There is an instruction at the heart of how a Christian is taught to pray, and it is so simple that it has nearly stopped being heard. Go into your room, close the door, and speak to your Father in secret. The closed room. The shut door. The silence before the speaking. The instruction is not primarily about piety. It is a phenomenological prescription: it describes the conditions under which a soul can be present to what holds it in being. The closed room is not a location. It is a state of withdrawal from the noise that fills every other space, so that the question can form and the address can be made.

The Catholic Church has, for two thousand years, scaled this instruction up into architecture. The church building was the closed room made communal. Its doors closed behind the body that entered. Its silence held the assembly. Its center – the tabernacle, the lamp burning beside it – was the structural announcement that the Lord was there, in the strictest possible sense: the Real Presence reserved in the Host, not represented, not symbolized, not gestured toward, but there. The architecture was the catechesis. The body that crossed the threshold did not need to be told what kind of place it had entered, because the geometry told it. The eye found the tabernacle. The body knelt. The instruction to go into the room and close the door had been built, in stone, at the scale of a community.

And the burning chapel – the side chapel or the parish church with the lamp lit through the night, the door unlocked, the Sacrament reserved – was the temporal extension of the same architecture. The going was part of the prayer. To rise from one’s bed at midnight, to walk through dark streets, to push open a heavy door and kneel in a space empty of everyone except the One who was there: this was not an inconvenience that piety overcame. It was the structural form of the third moment of return. The prodigal son does not rise to go live, nor does he turn the sacred place into the backdrop for a selfie meant for his audience. The prodigal son arises and goes. The going is the turning. The crossing of the threshold is the contrition completed in the body. The midnight chapel was the temporal counterpart to the parable – the condition under which a soul that had come to itself in the dark hours, after the betrayal, after the bottle, after the realization that something had been lost, could perform the third moment in the same hour that the recognition struck. The geometry of the going was the geometry of the soul turning back.

The accessus – the Latin word for the soul’s drawing near to God, used by Aquinas and the whole scholastic tradition as the structural name for what devotion is – is not the same word as access. Accessus is what the body and soul together do when they approach. Access is what a service is when it is available. The new pastoral imagination has confused these, and the confusion is the diagnosis.

II. The Underlying Principle

Before the diagnosis can be developed, the principle that governs it should be named, because every claim that follows is a consequence of it. The principle is this: the simulation of an encounter suppresses the seeking of the actual encounter. Where a soul is offered a representation of what it needs, the representation can satiate the hunger that would have driven the soul toward the real thing. The hunger is not satisfied; it is preempted. The soul that has consumed the photograph of the meal believes, for a time, that it has eaten. The famine that would have brought it to the table has been displaced into a sense of fullness, and the table is not approached. This is the structural pattern that operates wherever simulation is offered in place of presence, and it operates on the Catholic faithful at the moment they reach for what the Church has, to a meaningful degree, taught them is now available without their having to come.

Everything that follows in this essay is the application of this single principle to specific aspects of contemporary Catholic life. The architectural displacement of the tabernacle. The body’s response to the rearranged building. The phone in the pew at Mass. The 24-hour Adoration stream. The rescheduling of Exposition. The members-only Catholic content. The closing of the chapels at night. Each is a particular form of the same disorder: simulation in place of presence, content in place of encounter, access in place of accessus. The polemic that follows is not against any one initiative or any one person. It is against the structure these initiatives share, which is the structure of preempted seeking.

Technology itself is not the disorder under examination. Digital media have extended communication, education, pastoral care, and evangelization in ways of real human value. Christian life has always employed mediation. The concern here is narrower: the moment when mediation is mistaken for equivalence, when representation substitutes for embodied approach, and when convenience preempts the seeking that certain encounters require.

III. The Displacement of the Tabernacle

In the Latin Rite over the last fifty years, particularly though not exclusively in North America and Western Europe, a wave of architectural reordering moved the tabernacle out of the central axial position it had occupied since the Counter-Reformation, in many cases relegating it to a side chapel, an annex, or a position visible only by deliberate searching. This was not a phenomenon of the Catholic world in its entirety – many parishes did not undertake it, many regions and rites preserved the central tabernacle, and many recent churches have reversed the trend – but it was widespread enough in the parishes that shape the experience of a great number of contemporary Catholics that its effects are now legible in the body of the faithful that worships in such churches. The reordering was often defended as a clarification of liturgical hierarchy, with the altar and ambo emphasized as the loci of the celebration. The Council that is often invoked as the warrant for this reordering does not, in its documents, require the displacement of the tabernacle. Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for the active participation of the faithful and for the noble simplicity of the rite; it does not call for the Real Presence to be moved out of the center of the building. The reordering was a pastoral and architectural movement that took place in the period after the Council; it was not mandated by the Council itself, and treating it as identical with the Council’s reforms confuses a contested implementation with the conciliar texts themselves.

The reordering, where it has occurred, is not a minor liturgical adjustment. It is an inversion of what the building was for. The older church communicated, by the simple fact of its geometry, that the Real Presence was the reason the architecture existed. Everything pointed toward the tabernacle. The body that entered was oriented, by the building itself, toward what the building enshrined. The new arrangement communicates something else. The assembly is the focus. The community gathered is what the building points to. The Lord is still present – in the side chapel, in the annex, somewhere – but the Lord is no longer the structural center. The vertical axis has weakened. Heaven above and tabernacle below, meeting in the worshipper who kneels between them, has been deemphasized in favor of the circle of the gathered, facing each other, with whoever is standing in front of them as the focus of their attention.

This is what is meant by the loss of the sacred at the level where the loss is hardest to reverse. Words can be replaced. Translations can be revised. Catechetical programs can be rewritten. But buildings are stubborn. A building shapes the body by its geometry, and the geometry teaches the body what kind of place this is. The body that enters a church where the tabernacle is at the center is more readily oriented, by the architecture itself, to recognize that this is a place where something is present that is not present elsewhere. The body that enters a church where the tabernacle has been displaced finds the architectural cue weakened or absent; the catechesis that the older building performed without words must now be performed by other means, and other means are slower, less reliable, and more easily ignored. Architecture does not determine behavior, and faithful Catholics pray well in every kind of building. But architecture shapes behavior, and over generations the shape becomes habitual. The reorganized building does not make prayer impossible. It makes a particular kind of prayer harder to fall into, because the body is no longer being trained, by the simple act of entering, in what kind of prayer this place is for.

This argument is not about preference for older buildings. A church built tomorrow with the tabernacle at the architectural center and the lamp burning beside it would serve the structural purpose equally; a thousand-year-old church reordered to displace the tabernacle would fail it. The age of the building is incidental. The geometry is what matters. The defense being mounted here is not nostalgia for a past style but the recognition that certain structural arrangements instantiate the geometry the body needs to enact contrition in three moments, and other arrangements do not. The arrangement is what is being defended, not the century.

IV. The Babelic Brick

And so the phone comes out of the pocket. The critique here is not of the device as instrument of communication, labor, or ordinary human coordination, but of the structure by which it becomes a substitute for encounter. The screen lights up in the pew. The notifications arrive in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer – a piece of babelic brick, small enough to hold in the palm, bright enough to reorient the eye away from the altar at exactly the moment the altar most demands the eye. The man in the soccer jersey thumbs his way through the notification while the priest elevates the Host. He is not malicious. He is not deliberately profaning anything. He is responding to the architecture more honestly than he knows. Where the building most clearly announces that this is a place where something is present that is not present elsewhere, the phone tends to stay in the pocket; where the building’s announcement has been weakened, the phone tends to come out. The disorder is not principally in his body. It is, to a substantial degree, in the building that has lost some of its capacity to teach his body what no homily can teach a body whose phone is in its hand.

The brick is babelic in two senses, and both belong to the diagnosis.

The first sense is the confusion of tongues. The Mass is, in its constitution, the gathering of a multitude into a single Now – the assembly drawn together into the hic et nunc of the Sacrifice, every soul present at the same altar at the same moment, the dispersion of Genesis reversed by the Eucharist as it was reversed at Pentecost. The phone shatters this. Every soul in the pew is on a different feed. Every screen is delivering a different stream of curated content, a different inflection of the algorithm, a different fragment of the noise that the algorithm has tuned to that particular soul. The unified attention of the assembly is dissolved into a thousand private dispersions. The body is at Mass. The mind is in a thousand other places, no two of them the same. Pentecost is reversed in the building Pentecost made possible. The dispersion of Babel reasserts itself at the moment of the Eucharist, in the device that the worshipper has brought with them and is unwilling to put down.

The second sense is the project of Babel itself. Let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven. The Tower of Babel was the original on-demand model. The aspiration was to make the heights available by force of human construction, to take heaven without asking, to climb to the sacred on the strength of engineering alone. God dispersed the builders not because the heights are forbidden to be sought, but because the heights are not available to be reached on those terms. The heights are available to be received as gift. The Babel project was the refusal of that condition. The phone becomes a babelic brick when configured as a substitute for encounter rather than an instrument of communication. Heaven on-demand. The Sacrament streaming. The Real Presence in the palm of the hand. The aspiration is identical to Babel’s; only the technology has improved. The brick is small because the engineering is better. The disorder is the same disorder.

V. The Streaming Sacrament

And the Church has not always resisted this. Substantial parts of the contemporary pastoral apparatus have embraced it. The 24-hour Adoration stream now offers the faithful continuous access to the Blessed Sacrament from anywhere in the world. The Holy Hour is available on demand. The Exposition that was once held on Thursday – anchored in the night of the Last Supper, when Christ asked his disciples to watch with him for one hour – has in many places been moved to Friday or Sunday or whatever day best suits attendance metrics and content scheduling. The reasons given are pastoral. The structure that has actually been imported is the structure of the platform.

A distinction is owed before the polemic proceeds, because the polemic is not against every use of streaming. The Church has always extended spiritual communion to those who cannot reach the chapel – the bedridden, the hospitalized, the cloistered religious whose enclosure prevents travel, the disabled faithful for whom physical access is genuinely impossible. For such souls, the streaming of Adoration is an extension of what the Church has done in pastoral practice for centuries: the bringing of the Sacrament, or the means of spiritual union with it, to those who structurally cannot come. This is not the disorder under analysis here. The disorder is the streaming that has become the default for those who could come – the soul that opens the app at midnight instead of walking to the chapel that used to be open at midnight, the parishioner who watches the homily online instead of attending the Mass that is offered three blocks away, the catechumen who is formed primarily by content rather than by participation. Streaming as extension for the impeded is one thing. Streaming as substitution for the able is the disorder.

Consider what the substituting use of the 24-hour Adoration stream actually accomplishes. The Sacrament is, by its constitution, an event that has a time and a place. Hoc est enim corpus meum is spoken at a specific Mass at a specific altar in a specific moment. The Real Presence in the reserved Host is the continuation of that specific event in that specific tabernacle, available to be approached by those who come to that specific place. The stream takes this event and converts it, in the experience of the able viewer, into a broadcast. The Real Presence is in the tabernacle in the parish where the camera is pointed; the Real Presence is not in the phone in the viewer’s hand. The able viewer who streams Adoration in place of going to Adoration has not been at Adoration. They have consumed a representation of Adoration, which by the principle named earlier in this essay tends to satiate the hunger that would have brought them to the chapel.

And the satiation is what makes the substitution structurally dangerous. A soul that knows it has not been to Adoration retains the hunger that might bring it to the chapel. A soul that has streamed Adoration and treats this as equivalent tends to lose that hunger. The chapel may not be visited tonight, because the soul already feels that it has visited. The streaming Sacrament, for those who could go and do not, tends to prevent the going that would have brought them. The Sacrament was never the obstacle. The going was the prayer. Remove the going for those who could make it, and a particular form of the prayer is removed with it.

The same disorder operates at the temporal scale when devotional practices are moved to suit attendance metrics. The example is Thursday Exposition, which in many parishes has been moved to Friday or Sunday for reasons of scheduling. Thursday Exposition is not universally binding in the way Sunday Mass is, and the Church has never declared a single day as the only day for Eucharistic adoration. But Thursday devotion is anchored in something specific: Holy Thursday, the night of the Last Supper, the night when Christ asked his disciples to watch with him for one hour. The day is part of the prayer. The soul keeping watch on Thursday night is keeping watch on the night of the Agony in the Garden, the night when the disciples slept. The Holy Hour exists to repair that original failure. Moving it to a more convenient day rewrites the repair into a scheduling problem. The structural point is not that Thursday is canonically required. The structural point is that liturgical time is not programming time, and when a parish moves a devotion because attendance is better on another day, it has applied the metric of the platform to the time of the Church. Whatever devotion is moved, the operative logic is the same: the treatment of liturgical time as programming time rather than prayerful form. The day was not incidental to the devotion; it helped constitute it.

And the gating of formation behind paid tiers is the final form of the disorder, because it touches the Great Commission at its most basic level. Freely you have received, freely give. Whosoever will, let him come. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations. The Gospel is, by its constitution, the most non-exclusive thing in existence. A distinction is owed here, because not all charging is the same thing. An apostolate that asks the faithful to share in the real costs of producing and distributing its work – server bandwidth, video production, translation, the salaries of those who serve the apostolate full-time – is doing what the Church has always done when it has accepted offerings to support the works of evangelization. This is not the disorder. The disorder is the gating, the structural decision to place the formation itself behind exclusive tiers, to offer one body of content for free and another, deeper or more intimate, only to subscribers, to treat the apostolate as a subscription business with premium and free strata. The marketing model imported when this gating is adopted is the model that contemporary platforms have refined to its most aggressive form: parasocial intimacy mimicked, exclusive access monetized, the simulation of relationship sold by subscription to subscribers who pay for the feeling of access to someone they will never actually meet. To apply this model to the Gospel is to import a structure that was designed to deliver simulation, and to use it to deliver what is supposed to be the actual encounter. The model cannot do what is being asked of it. The model was built for the photograph of the meal. Asking it to feed the hungry is asking it to do what it was constitutively designed not to do.

VI. What the Soul Loses

The losses are not abstract. The losses are specific, and they fall, in different ways, on three kinds of soul.

The soul that has come to itself in the middle of the night – the soul that has just done the first moment of the prodigal’s return, the silencing in which the noise has fallen and the recognition has struck – needs the burning chapel, where the burning chapel is available. It needs the door that is unlocked. It needs the lamp lit at the center of a building that announces, by its geometry, that the Lord is here. It needs the going that is the third moment, the arising and the walking and the kneeling that completes the contrition in the body. Without an accessible chapel, the soul that has come to itself has fewer means to act on what it now sees. It can stream Adoration. It can open an app. The stream and the app are real and can carry real grace, but they are not what the body and the soul together do when the body crosses a threshold and kneels before what is reserved on the other side. Grace operates by extraordinary means when the ordinary means are not available; this is Catholic teaching and the essay does not contest it. But the ordinary means are what should be available, and the closing of chapels at night has removed an ordinary means that was once everywhere available to souls who happened to come to themselves in the dark hours.

The soul at Mass in the auditorium church needs the body’s catechesis. It needs the building to teach the body what kind of place this is, because the building teaches faster and more reliably than the homily. When the building no longer teaches as clearly, the body fills the silence with what the body does elsewhere. The phone comes out. The notifications arrive. The man in the soccer jersey is not the failure of the Church. He is, more than he knows, the truthful witness that the building has lost some of its capacity to communicate what it is. He responds to what is there. The pastoral remedy is not principally to shame him for the phone. The pastoral remedy is to give him a building that teaches him, without instruction, that the phone does not belong here.

And the soul that has never seen the older arrangement, that has never knelt before a centrally-placed tabernacle with the lamp burning, that has grown up with the streaming Sacrament and the moved Exposition and the members-only content as the only Church it has ever known – this soul has the deepest loss, because it does not yet know that anything has been displaced. It has been given a simulation of the sacred from its first communion onward, and the simulation has worked in the sense that the soul feels it has met the Lord. The hunger that would have driven it to seek the meeting more deeply has been preempted by the photographs. When the famine comes – and the famine comes for every soul eventually – this soul will reach for what has always satisfied it, and what has always satisfied it will be the streaming, the app, the members-only content. The famine may pass, or seem to pass, with the satiation reasserted. The third moment may not be performed, because the soul has not been taught that the third moment is asked of it. The going may have been removed from the repertoire of what the soul knows to do. The prodigal may not arise, because no one ever showed the prodigal that there was anywhere to go.

VII. The Inversion in the Palm

Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands. The line is from Isaiah, and it names the geometry that the older arrangement made visible. The soul is held in God’s palm. The architecture of the church is the building of this image at communal scale: the worshipper enters and is held by what the building enshrines. The lamp at the tabernacle is the lit witness that the holding is real. The Real Presence is the holding made tangible. The soul does not produce this geometry. The soul receives it. The soul comes to the place where the holding happens and is held.

The phone in the pew is the visible form of the inverted geometry. The soul that holds the phone has placed in its own palm what the older image insisted the soul was held in. Heaven has been compressed into the brick. The Lord has been reduced to a feed. The accessus has been replaced by access. The praying soul has become a consuming user. The reorganized church is the architectural form of this inversion, where it has occurred. The streaming Sacrament substituted for the going is the liturgical form, where it is substituted for those who could come. The members-only content is the economic form, where the Gospel has been monetized. Each is the same disorder at a different scale: the soul that should have been in God’s palm placing God in the soul’s palm; the simulation of presence in place of the meeting with presence; the preemption of the hunger that would have brought the soul home.

The recovery, if there is to be one, will not come from better content. It will not come from improved engagement strategies. It will not come from optimizing the streaming experience, from refining the members-only tier, from making the Adoration feed more attractive to younger demographics. These are precisely the wrong direction. They are the continuation of the disorder by people who believe they are pastoring against it. The recovery, if it comes, will come from a much simpler and much harder set of acts. Put the tabernacle back at the center of the building, where the architecture has been reordered against it. Light the lamp. Open the chapel at night. Close the door behind the body that has crossed the threshold. Limit the streaming of the Sacrament to those it was originally intended to serve – the impeded, the bedridden, the unable. Stop selling the Gospel by subscription. Stop scheduling the liturgical week to maximize attendance. Restore the geometry that the body can read more easily, and trust that the body, given a building that announces what it is, will tend to respond as bodies have responded to such buildings across the long history of the Church.

VIII. To Keep the Sacred Sacred

There is one thing the Church can do that no platform can do, and the Church must remember this, because the platforms certainly will not remind it. The Church can keep the sacred sacred. The platforms will offer to do this on the Church’s behalf, will offer their reach and their algorithms and their engagement metrics, will promise to bring the Sacrament to souls who would not otherwise come to it. The promise carries a hidden structural cost. The platforms cannot bring souls to the Sacrament in the form the Sacrament is given. The platforms can bring representations of the Sacrament to souls, and the representations, when received by those who could have come and chose to stream instead, tend to prevent the going that would have brought them to the real thing. The Church that accepts the platforms’ offer without distinction has accepted the structure that is engineered to deliver simulation, and the structure operates on the able faithful whether or not the Church intends it to.

The sacred is sacred because it is set apart. Sanctus comes from the same root as sancire, to set a boundary, to mark off as untouchable. The sacred is what cannot be reduced to content without loss, what cannot be packaged into a member-tier offering without ceasing to be what it is. To keep the sacred sacred is, in real and concrete ways, to refuse certain offers the platforms make. To say no to the camera at the tabernacle, except for those who cannot come. To leave some chapel doors unlocked at night and some lamps burning and no broadcast going out. To celebrate Thursday Exposition on Thursday because the day is part of the prayer. To preach the Gospel for free, because the Gospel is given for free. None of this is heroic. All of it is simply what the Church has been when the Church has remembered what the Church is for.

And the soul, finally, has work of its own. The soul that is able to go has to put the phone down. The soul that is able to go has to put the phone down and walk to the chapel. It has to cross the threshold of the building that the Church, by grace, has had the courage to keep as a church. It has to kneel before the tabernacle that someone, by grace, has had the courage to leave at the center or restore to it. The soul has to be the one who arises and goes. The streaming will not do it for the soul who could come. The app will not do it. The members-only content will not do it. The going is part of the prayer where the going is possible. The going has been part of the prayer wherever it has been possible, in every generation the Church has lived. The babelic brick offers a simulation that, for those who could come, tends to displace the going rather than complete it. The Father is at home. The Father is, in some sense, already running. The robe and the ring and the calf are ready. But the road home, where the road is available, is the soul’s to walk. The road is not far. It is only one decision long. And the decision, where the going is possible, is to put down the brick, push open the door, and kneel in the silence where the lamp burns and the Sacrament is reserved and the Lord is who the Lord has always been.

References

  • The Holy Bible. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. 5th ed. Edited by Michael D. Coogan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
  • Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1981.
  • Augustine of Hippo. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
  • Guardini, Romano. The Spirit of the Liturgy. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1998.
  • Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI). The Spirit of the Liturgy. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000.
  • McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994.
  • Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books, 1964.
  • Han, Byung-Chul. The Disappearance of Rituals: A Topology of the Present. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020.
  • Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books, 1994.