It is not the "common cold" that some people write to me about.

Worldwide there have been over 250 million cases and just over 5 million deaths - this pandemic is unique and dangerous.

As of last week, in New Zealand there were a total of 7,775 cases of people who have or who have had Covid in New Zealand, there have been 32 deaths.

The Coronavirus has disrupted our lives, and we all have a responsibility to continue to keep safe and help keep others safe.

About a month ago, while on a flight from Slovakia to Italy Pope Francis spoke to reporters and said he did not know how to explain why some Cardinals are hesitant to "get the jab".

If you are wondering about the Cardinal who is writing this, yes, I have been vaccinated and so have all the New Zealand bishops.

The Pope said, "It is a bit strange because humanity has a history of friendship with vaccines...As children [we were vaccinated] for measles, polio - all the children were vaccinated and no one said anything".

Some believe that Catholics should be allowed to claim conscientious objection to the Covid-19 vaccines on religious grounds.

Pope Francis disagrees with this, and said the vaccines are "morally acceptable" and could be used "in good conscience".

For well over a year now we have been reminded that as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, we can use the pandemic's disruption to begin anew.

This is a chance for all of us to think differently and hopefully to think of others, and not just about what suits me or what I see as ‘my right'.

To begin anew is not something we can do on our own, to quote Pope Francis again: "The Holy Spirit bestows wisdom and good counsel. In these days, let us invoke his aid upon those charged with making complex and pressing decisions, that they may defend human life ... we need a vision rich in humanity; we cannot start up again by going back to our selfish pursuits without caring about those who are left behind".

We have heard so much about how infectious this virus is, maybe it will be good to think about how at the first Pentecost God ‘infected' the world with life.

What can we do to be positive and overcome the threat of death and disease that has ravaged the world for months now?

How can we help others and help ourselves?

Can we ‘infect' the world, our part of it, with life and hope?

To ‘infect' the world we can take these steps:

• Implore the Holy Spirit to pour into our hearts the life of God, who is love.
• Be willing to open their eyes and hearts and to change.
• Do for others that which we would hope for ourselves.
• Give encouragement to those who are afraid of being vaccinated
• Care for those who are alone and struggling with the changes in our world.

The way forward is not that difficult, if we need hope for tomorrow then we give hope today.

• John Dew is Cardinal Archbishop of Wellington, New Zealand.

We're experiencing this at Microsoft, and today we shared how we're evolving our own hybrid work strategy for our 160,000+ employees around the world.

We're all learning as we go, but we know two things for sure: flexible work is here to stay, and the talent landscape has fundamentally shifted.

Remote work has created new job opportunities for some, offered more family time, and provided options for whether or when to commute. But there are also challenges ahead.

Teams have become more siloed this year and digital exhaustion is a real and unsustainable threat.

With over 40 percent of the global workforce considering leaving their employer this year, a thoughtful approach to hybrid work will be critical for attracting and retaining diverse talent.

To help organizations through the transition, the 2021 Work Trend Index outlines findings from a study of more than 30,000 people in 31 countries and an analysis of trillions of productivity and labour signals across Microsoft 365 and LinkedIn.

It also includes perspectives from experts who have spent decades studying collaboration, social capital, and space design at work for decades.

Read on to explore how the year 2020 created lasting changes to the way we work, and the seven trends that will shape the future of a hybrid work world.

Flexible work is here to stay

Employees want the best of both worlds: over 70 percent of workers want flexible remote work options to continue, while over 65 percent are craving more in-person time with their teams.

To prepare, 66 per cent of business decision-makers are considering redesigning physical spaces to better accommodate hybrid work environments.

The data is clear: extreme flexibility and hybrid work will define the post-pandemic workplace.

It's equally important to note, however, that leaders may be too narrowly focused on where to invest.

Even after a year of working from home, 42 per cent of employees say they lack essential office supplies at home, and one in 10 don't have an adequate internet connection to do their job.

Yet, over 46 percent say their employer does not help them with remote work expenses.

Last year's move to remote work boosted feelings of inclusion for workers because everyone was in the same virtual room.

The move to hybrid will break that mold and it will be a new and important objective to ensure employees are given the flexibility to work when and where they want, as well as the tools they need to equally contribute from wherever they happen to be.

6 more trends

• Leaders are out of touch with employees and need a wake-up call
• High productivity is masking an exhausted workforce
• Gen Z is at risk and will need to be re-energised
• Shrinking networks are endangering innovation
• Authenticity will spur productivity and wellbeing
• Talent is everywhere in a hybrid world

Continue reading

But the COVID-19 pandemic has begun to disrupt the trajectory, scale and form of urbanisation.

Cities, by virtue of their size, have recorded more deaths than surrounding rural areas, though this may not be linked to density. In the USA, small cities and towns have been hit hard. And social and economic disruption appears worse in cities in the developing world.

The pandemic is refocusing planners' attention on the vulnerability of cities to natural hazards and other threats. Securing food, water and energy, sustaining health services and maintaining critical supply chains are seen as more important than ever. Planners are also concerned about rising social inequality.

The pandemic has fast-tracked some trends

In developed nations like Australia, more city dwellers are moving to the suburbs and beyond, believing they offer better security and quality of life.

Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 2020 show our capital cities experienced a net loss of 11,200 people from outward migration.

This is also happening in less developed countries, where rural-urban migration patterns have in some cases reversed.

It's too early, though, to tell if these shifts are permanent.

The impacts of COVID-19 have heightened de-growth and counter-urbanisation trends. Reduced public transport use (down by as much as 52% nationally in 2020) and lower demand for commercial space (occupancy rates fell to as low as 24% in some cities), are changing the look and feel of many central business districts. Business profits and government revenue have been reduced.

The opposite is occurring in some suburbs and towns. These areas are experiencing a squeeze on rental availability, rising property prices and more traffic congestion.

Some commentators are suggesting the future of cities will be radically different. So what does this mean for urban planning?

Cities require co-ordination to function properly

Cities are complex entities.

They require a high degree of co-ordination in providing services (such as water supply, waste management), housing and infrastructure (for example, energy generation and distribution). Regional planning often performs that role.

Regional planning was developed following the second world war to co-ordinate decision-making across jurisdictions within metropolitan areas.

To achieve desired city planning objectives, planners needed a way to better manage rapid population growth and the many interactions of landowners, property developers, businesses and local governments.

Regional plans developed by Australian states from the 1940s to 1970s, for example, sought to contain and focus urban growth pressures.

This was done by managing land use, designating urban growth corridors and boundaries, and protecting key resources (forests, water catchments, farmland) from incompatible development.

Most regional plans were based on a central core surrounded by suburbs, with radiating transport lines (railways and freeways) connecting the two.

The pandemic has fast-tracked some trends

In developed nations like Australia, more city dwellers are moving to the suburbs and beyond, believing they offer better security and quality of life.

Australian Bureau of Statistics data from 2020 show our capital cities experienced a net loss of 11,200 people from outward migration.

This is also happening in less developed countries, where rural-urban migration patterns have in some cases reversed.

It's too early, though, to tell if these shifts are permanent.

Beware quick fixes that ignore new trends

As countries recover from the pandemic's impacts, the temptation is to use quick fixes to stimulate economic activity — such as unlocking large areas of land for housing.

But planning urban areas to meet the needs of present and future generations requires strategic decision-making.

Will we need all those new houses or large infrastructure projects if our urban populations grow more slowly than expected?

The forces currently driving people away from cities and the impacts this is having on built environments and urban populations cannot be ignored. We need to ask if they are temporary, or if they signal a long-term change to our cities.

We also need to recognise that huge investments in urban infrastructure have been made since the 1950s. It is unlikely we will simply abandon our cities.

Even with larger numbers of people moving to suburbs and the countryside, we will still need to supply infrastructure such as new roads, powerlines, water pipes, sewers and waste management facilities. But regional planning must adapt to the "new normal", as the current approaches might no longer be fit for purpose.

What does the future hold?

Trends in working from home, online shopping, peer-to-peer transport such as Uber, distributed energy generation (from rooftop solar and other local sources), waste recycling (such as circular metabolism) and new models of finance and funding (such as modern monetary theory) are all affecting the complex systems needed to keep urban areas functioning.

Although vaccines may help life return to some level of normality in the coming years, many of the drivers of counter-urbanisation will continue. Some people will want to keep working from home.

Others will want more opportunities to interact with nature. Many will want to live in what planners are calling 20-minute neighbourhoods.

Changing supply chains may result in a rise in new types of local manufacturing. Hydrogen-based energy could make new modes of transport viable — such as smaller, on-demand buses for suburban public transport.

We may see the rise of more polycentric cities, like Los Angeles, where suburban centres of employment include local manufacturing.

Regional planning must adjust to these trends.

Some large-scale infrastructure projects might need to be rethought.

Transit systems will likely need to include autonomous vehicles. Large-scale greening of cities will be necessary to reduce higher temperatures accompanying climate change, if we are to prevent avoidable deaths among older populations.

We will probably also experience new ways of involving citizens in decision-making, such as co-design.

Regional planning has the capacity to stimulate innovation in housing provision, alternative forms of employment and co-ordinating new systems of transport and energy distribution.

But planners must catch up fast if they are to play a role in shaping the future of our cities.

• Jason Byrne undertakes research in partnership with the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority, Local Government Association of Tasmania and Tasmanian Climate Change Office. Jason has previously received research funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA), and sits on the PIA Tasmanian Divisional Committee
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission.

Despite major intestinal surgery last July and his upcoming 85th birthday in December, the Italo-Argentine pope — amazingly! — is showing absolutely no signs that he's slowing down or planning to close up shop anytime soon.

His recent four-day visit to Budapest, the capital of Hungary, and then to three cities in neighbouring Slovakia, did nothing to slacken his pace.

Although he looked tired at times during the first day of the September 12-15 trip to Central Europe (he rose around 3:30 in the morning that day), Francis seemed to gain energy as the journey unfolded.

And he resumed his busy schedule of meetings with individuals and groups the very next day after returning to the Vatican.

But the pope is well aware that he has moved into the final and most critical phase of his pontificate, which he has positioned to — among other things — radically transform the governing structures and decision-making mechanisms of the Roman Catholic Church.

"Some wanted me dead"

And he knows there are influential Catholics, and even men in the hierarchy, who would like to see this and other projects brought immediately to a halt.

When a Jesuit confrere in Slovakia asked how he was doing, Francis replied: "Still alive. Despite the fact that some wanted me dead."

It was a reference to his July operation.

"I know there were meetings among prelates who thought (the pope's health) was even more serious than was reported. They were preparing the conclave," the pope said.

Francis then went on to complain about clerics who make "nasty comments" about him and even a large Catholic television network (it seems he meant EWTN) that "badmouths (him) continuously without any qualms".

It is highly unusual for a pope to openly admit — and lament — that he is facing opposition.

Was Francis conceding that his power to rally the troops has been weakened? Or, rather, was he warning those who are being uncooperative and even adversarial that he has finally lost his patience?

Either way, it looks very much like he's decided to move into high gear, despite any efforts by opposing forces to derail this final phase of his pontificate.

Things to be done

One of the major projects during his time as pope has been to rewrite the apostolic constitution for the Rome Curia, the Church's central bureaucracy at the Vatican.

It is said that the document for the "reformed" Curia was completed several months ago and is currently undergoing final corrections, but we still have no idea when it will finally be published.

In all truth, Francis has been implementing reforms, bit-by-bit, all throughout his pontificate by combining or suppressing certain offices, changing a number of protocols and legislation, etc.

He claimed in an interview a couple of months ago that there will be no surprises when the new apostolic constitution is unveiled. But surprises, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. There will likely be things that some people will not like at all.

The bigger challenge will be selecting officials who can implement the reform and, more importantly, its guiding vision and ethos. Francis has to make numerous key personnel changes, especially to replace several cardinals in major Vatican posts who are already past the normal retirement age of 75.

The Jesuit pope has habitually by-passed the Roman Curia during much of his pontificate and has increasingly said and done things to "smoke out" those who are not in line with his policies.

He's provoked reactions in a way that has forced bishops and cardinals to show their true colours and reveal where they really stand on disputed issues.

And he's operated in unconventional ways — like ordering apostolic visitations of Curia offices — that keep those who work in the Vatican "guessing" or "off-balance".

It's not only possible, but also probable, that rumours of the pope's ill-health were spread by Francis himself!

As the first pope since Pius X (over a hundred years ago) who never studied or worked in Rome, Francis is an outsider. And he's had to move creatively and strategically to outmanoeuvre the Curia forces.

One of the keys to this has been his deliberate moves to de-mythologize the papacy, mainly by speaking and acting as if he were just any other bishop and by conducting many of his affairs in a non-institutional way.

Obviously, this has infuriated many in the Vatican and in the hierarchy.

Will he ever resign?

There is no question that Francis would like to see it become quite normal for the Bishop of Rome to have the option to freely resign his office, rather than maintaining papal resignations as something extraordinary that happen only once every four- or five-hundred years.

As a Jesuit, he knows better than any that normalizing resignation from a once considered a lifetime office can more easily gain traction when consecutive office holders step down.

The late Peter-Hans Kolvenbach was the Jesuits' first-ever Father General to resign voluntarily from his lifetime post. But it was not easy.

John Paul II refused to allow him to retire. Kolvenbach had to wait until after Benedict XVI was elected pope to finally be able to resign. He and Benedict agreed in 2006 that the Dutch Jesuit would step down two years later upon his 80th birthday.

Kolvenbach's successor, Adolfo Nicolás, resigned in 2016, also when he turned 80 years of age. And it is expected that the man who replaced him and is the current Father General will also resign one day, rather than remain in office for life.

It seems clear that Francis would like to see a similar situation happen with the papacy — in an ideal world. But things are far from ideal right now and much depends on the circumstances.

It is said that it would be unwise to have two retired popes who are still alive. But if Francis were to feel he is unable to fulfill his duties as pope, he probably would not hesitate to step down, even if Benedict were still alive.

However, if Benedict dies before he does, the current pope could decide to resign precisely in order to "normalize" papal resignations.

What about the opposition?

Some Italian reports, following up on Francis' comments to the Jesuits in Slovakia, say there are four or five cardinals and bishops — all members of the Roman Curia and mostly non-Italians — who have already begun strategizing for the next conclave.

Cardinal George Pell

One person to keep an eye on is Australian Cardinal George Pell, the man who backed Angelo Scola in the 2013 conclave that elected Francis.

Pell turned 80 in June and is ineligible to vote for the next pope, but he can do a lot of politicking for the forces inside the College of Cardinals who want to reverse (or severely alter) the direction in which Francis is steering the Barque of Peter.

Pell, the Vatican's former financial czar, returned to Australia in 2017 to be tried on historic sex abuse charges. He was convicted and jailed for just over a year, but then the sentence was reversed in April 2020.

At the time, the cardinal said he would go to Rome to clean out his apartment but planned on returning to Sydney for good. He arrived in the Eternal City exactly one year ago — in September 2020 — and he has never left.

And the only way he'll likely go back to Australia before the next conclave is in a box. Because he and others who are not fans of Francis want to be part of the conversation and politics leading up to the next papal election.

Cardinal Marc Ouellet

The strongest candidate in the anti-Francis camp still appears to be Cardinal Marc Ouellet, 77, who has been head of the powerful Congregation for Bishops the past 11 years. He's carefully downplayed and even hidden his more traditionalist views, which line up almost identically with those of Benedict XVI.

Surely, enough of the cardinal-electors will see through this, right? Don't be so sure. Many of them are from far-flung places. They are not theological heavy-hitters or very fluent in the language of Vatican politics.

Cardinal Péter Erdő

Another candidate of the anti-Francis bloc is Hungarian Cardinal Péter Erdő. He got his red hat in 2003 at the same consistory at which Pell, Scola and Ouellet also became cardinals.

The 69-year-old canon lawyer speaks Italian flawlessly and is also conversant in German, French and Spanish. He is a former two-term president of the Council of the Episcopal Conferences of Europe (CCEE), which consists of the heads of all national bishops' conferences on the Old Continent.

Erdő has carefully cultivated friendships and alliances in the College of Cardinals and is expected to be a major player at the next conclave, either as a candidate or kingmaker. He won praise for being a gracious host at the International Eucharistic Congress earlier this month in Budapest.

No fewer than 11 voting-age cardinals attended the all-expenses-paid weeklong congress. Even prelates who do not share all of the Hungarian cardinal's theological perspectives came away with a much more favorable impression of him.

Do the pope's allies have a strategy?

Francis has named 70 of the current 121 cardinal-electors. And he's sure to name more, perhaps as early as November, just to keep the slots filled over the next several months.

If there is a consistory in a couple of months from now, the pope will probably create only five to seven new cardinals. That will keep the number of electors hovering just over the 120 limit that Paul VI set. That is an arbitrary limit, actually, that the pope has absolute freedom to exceed at any moment.

John Paul II twice pushed the number to 135 and Benedict XVI once expanded it to 125.

Five of the current electors age out between now and next June, but three of them are cardinals that Francis named; the other two got their red hats from John Paul.

Six more reach the age of 80 between June 2022 and the end of that year. Only one of them was named by Francis, but four were created by Benedict.

Therefore, barring any deaths among the body of electors, the Jesuit pope's cardinals could, by the end of 2020, constitute well over the required 2/3 majority needed to choose his successor.

Will the next pope continue Francis' vision?

Fans of the current pope's style and course of action should thank God that Benedict XVI was elected in 2005.

Because it is very likely that if Jorge Mario Bergoglio from Argentina had been chosen at that conclave, he would have been a much different pope than the one he is today.

Without Benedict there is no Francis.

We cannot know for sure what kind of pontificate Bergoglio would have had as the immediate successor of John Paul II. But it probably would have looked somewhat different from the one we've been experiencing since 2013.

The current pope reportedly told a fellow cardinal after the 2005 conclave that he probably would have called himself John XXIV had the votes gone to him instead of Benedict.

But would he have been ready — would the Church have been ready — back then for the reforms and change of ethos he has championed as Pope Francis?

We do not know. And neither do we know if the man who succeeds him will carry the reforming spirit forward.

There are simply no guarantees.

Even if Francis stacks the College of Cardinals with supporters, there is no way he or anyone else can ensure that one of his men will get elected.

Think about this: John Paul's successor (Benedict) got his red hat from Paul VI. And Benedict's successor (Francis) got his from John Paul.

Take a good look at the 38 electors who got their red hats from Benedict and see if you'd be excited if any of them were to succeed Pope Francis.

• Robert Mickens is LCI Editor in Chief.
• First published in La-Croix International. Republished with permission.

The new, expanded two-year process to prepare for synods will begin in October and promises to flip the power structures in the church. When it comes to the voice of women in the church, though, it might not be enough.

The question of the role of women in church leadership remains one of the biggest ecclesial and social challenges in the Catholic Church.

Despite Pope Francis' appointment of women in leadership positions at the Vatican, women are not allowed to vote in synods — the summit of bishops at the Vatican — and cannot be ordained.

"The problem is that nowadays most people still have the mindset of the church as the hierarchy. No! It's not the reality of the church!" said Sr. Nathalie Becquart, who became the first female undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops when Pope Francis appointed her in 2021.

With the upcoming summit of bishops, "For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, and Mission," which will begin on Oct. 10 and end when bishops convene in Rome in October 2023, the focus will be on disrupting that historical hierarchy and establishing a new system, "where all the baptized are part of the mission of the church," Becquart said.

Synodality — or Francis' vision for how to approach synods — is a touchstone to understanding his plans to reform the Catholic Church, but its meaning and application have been left open to interpretation.

"It's not easy to explain what is synodality," Becquart told Religion News Service in the Synod offices, a stone's throw away from the Vatican, on Sept. 12. "You discover it through an experience."

To that end, images are Becquart's preferred medium to convey the meaning of synodality.

She pointed to several examples, from the biblical passage of the journey to Emmaus, where the resurrected Christ walked with two disciples, to the tent of the meeting in Exodus. Some, she said, have described synodality as "dancing together," while "listening to the music of the Holy Spirit."

The images attempt to convey a compelling decision-making model, where all Catholic faithful come together at the grassroots level to discuss, debate and dialogue on the direction of the church. What should emerge is a clearer understanding of the "sensus fidelium," or "sense of the faithful," an ephemeral concept meant to assign authority based on a universal consensus by believers.

The sensus fidelium, though, is still bound to the shepherding of the priests, bishops and even the pope, who are charged with keeping and preserving doctrine.

Decisions will be made differently, but this doesn't mean "getting rid of the hierarchal principles," Becquart said.

"Synodality is not a parliament" subjugated to majority and minority dynamics, she emphasized, but "through mutual listening we will find a consensus."

Ultimately, though, an exclusively male clergy will have the responsibility of representing their lay people's concerns and issues to the bishops' conference and eventually to the Vatican.

Becquart, who might be the only woman eligible to vote at the synod of bishops, said she believes women will feel like they are part of the synodal church's decision-making process through synodality.

But being part of the discussion may not be enough for a new generation of women who wish to have equal footing with men in the Catholic Church. With no promise of compelling male clergy to take into account the feelings of the faithful, especially women, synodality risks being nothing more than a well-intentioned conversation that can just as easily be dismissed.

"Will the talking ever end?" said Phyllis Zagano, a U.S. Catholic scholar who advocates for the promotion of women in the church, during a Sept. 10 webinar on synodality and women.

The effectiveness of synodality "will depend on the individual bishop," she added, pointing to the disparate responses to the synodal process in several dioceses, especially in the U.S.

"As Western culture increasingly accepts women in positions of authority, the church does not seem to do so," Zagano said.

Clericalism, the belief by clergy and faithful that those who are ordained have more authority, is "poised to derail the entire process if the voice of the people is not heard through official channels."

Of course, unofficial channels for women's voices to be heard have always existed in the church, through religious and lay movements and organizations, she added.

It's "part of people's DNA" today to expect women to be part of making decisions, said Ethna Regan, professor of theology and philosophy at Dublin City University, in an interview with RNS.

According to the theologian, the synod on synodality is an opportunity for the church "to really do something new in terms of consultation, and if they do not seize that moment, they have no faith in the Holy Spirit!"

"Either you believe the Holy Spirit is operative through the people of God and we can learn from each other, or you don't. It's as simple as that," she said.

• Claire Giangravé is an author at Religion News Service.

Christensen explains that successful companies are those that can meet not only their customers' current needs but anticipate their future ones too.

Disruptive innovators - disruptors - are more likely to displace established companies, even when they are small and have relatively fewer resources.

According to Christensen, a disruptor often begins by either attracting the dominant businesses' less-demanding customers or by creating an entirely new market.

Disruption creates both a new market and a new "value network".

"Innovation" describes the ways companies find to enhance their customer's experience, so the customer knows they are valued and cared for.

The customer experiences the value of belonging to the "family" of the company and the experiential value of belonging to the "community of customers" keeps them faithful and attracts others.

The business world speaks well of leaders who are "movers and shakers", disruptors because they achieve what others cannot - change.

In church circles, change leaders are often vilified because they challenge the established, sacred cows.

The application of disruptive-innovation to our current experience of liturgical practice helps us see why the fundamental presumption of liturgy as a communitarian event, where the ritual elements of a priest, people, Sunday, church, music, eucharistic prayer and communion that once made sense, no longer do.

The disruption to the concept of community has created innovative forms of worship; forms that no longer presume the use of all or most of the ritual elements of catholic worship.

Liturgical disruption: What it looks like

Let's consider what liturgical disruption is by looking at the world around us.

In the world of taxis, Uber is described as a disruptor, but this might not be entirely accurate. While Uber has challenged the taxi business it hasn't moved the concept of personal transport in a radically new direction.

When we look at the movie industry and Netflix, we see a different effect.

I first discovered Netflix while living in the United States when DVDs were delivered to our homes. I remember thinking why would I do this when I can walk to the local video shop?

Now, I watch streamed movies and news programmes in a variety of languages from across the world.

Initially, Netflix didn't disrupt the supply of movies - video shops continued to exist.

However, Netflix capitalised on the advent of the internet and disrupted the fundamental behaviours of movie watching people around the world.

The disruption of customer behaviours matched with innovations in customer services has seen the growth of the Netflix community (customer base) and the death of the local video shop's customer base.

The death of video shops and the morphing of cinema's into bars and cafes with movies attached, to survive, is indicative of the disruption-innovation needed to survive significant behavioural change.

Applying these considerations, I suggest that the proliferation of online masses is not the key disruptor - it is more Uber than Netflix.

Online masses predate COVID and the sheer volume of them now should not distract us. The volume is not the key disruptor because it has not brought a change in foundational behaviours.

The transference of the mass' performance-based ritual from the sanctuary to the screen did not disrupt already existing liturgical behaviours; priests did what they normally do - perform the rituals - and believers did what they normally do - watch the rituals being performed.

Thus, the ritual behaviours didn't change because the already dominant operative, behaviours were not disrupted.

The behavioural disruption came with the inability to recreate the physical presence of the community and physical participation in the shared eucharistic meal - even to the point where concelebrating presbyters uses separate chalices and individually consecrated host rather than sharing these elements.

If anything, the online mass has unwittingly contributed to the liturgical disruption of the physical liturgical community by taking the viewer from the pew to the couch.

The disruption-innovation of the liturgical community

Liturgical life during COVID offers three considerations of disruption-innovation:

First, habitual worshipping practices have been disrupted and behaviours that have been central to liturgical and parish life have radically changed.

With safety defining liturgical behaviours believers are more prepared to stay away from church gatherings, to pray at home, or even celebrate a "lay Eucharist" with family instead of going to Mass.

Second, online masses and worship groups have innovated choice; as a colleague suggested online ‘worship has become promiscuous.'

The dynamic of choice is not new - for example, in my experience people move between parish masses based on a variety of reasons such as a convenience, the liturgical style of the mass, or the music.

Now the choice includes legitimately worshipping at home.

While the church (corner video shop) is the place to find "spiritual communion" our attention is now turning to the innovation of the "domestic church" and home worship as the new locus of authentic liturgical prayer.

Third, and most importantly, the behaviours of the physical liturgical community have been radically disrupted and innovated. Community is a threat (disruption) as well as something we want (innovation).

While believers can search the web for a community, they can feel safe in, this is not always the case for physical community.

Profound disruption to liturgical behaviour has come through social and physical distancing, wearing masks, communion from behind a screen, prohibitions on singing, restricted numbers, and closed churches.

These have altered our behaviours and changed the way we experience the liturgical community; they have changed our shared understandings of the community itself.

When we stand in the car park, chatting after mass, we realise implicitly that our physical behaviours inside the church say; "worship and church community are dangerous and it's safer not to participate".

The foundational disruption to the physical community has changed our liturgical behaviours, and, therefore, our experience of prayer itself, which the phrase lex orandi, lex credendi summaries: we pray (orandi) what we believe (credendi).

Because we are a community who pray what we believe and who bring our belief to prayer, the disruption of prayer will have an impact on the belief.

When we pray online and reduce Mass to spiritual communion for the viewer the potential danger is to extenuate the clerical aspect of Mass and formalise visual participation as "sufficient" for belief.

When a family prays a "lay eucharist" at home they exclude the presbyterial ministry. In both instances, the disruption to the community has changed our behaviours and along with it our presumptions of authentic liturgical prayer and ministry.

The foundational disruption to the communitarian aspect of lex orandi/lex credendi will show itself in accommodations to "liturgical masks" and "liturgical distancing".

Such accommodations have the potential to move the physical celebration of liturgy from "we" to "I", thereby returning worship to a privatised, or self-isolated ritual action.

Thus, the most significant disruption to liturgy is the disruption of the physical community and the most important innovation to the liturgy are the new ways of being a liturgical community.

I suggest, the disruption-innovation to communal prayer (lex orandi), will likely impact not only the church's communitarian framework but also its presumptions of authentic ministry.

Liturgical innovation - future changes

The disruption-innovation of the COVID-liturgical period can only be sketched.

Liturgical history shows that naming disruptors is not easy because liturgy evolves over a longer timeframe and generally does not anticipate social and cultural shifts, it reflects them.

However, liturgy's formal struggles with adaptation and innovation are always related to changes in behaviours and theological contexts.

If we are to benefit from the disruption-innovation to the community we are creating, I suggest understanding this current change will require a more sophisticated concept of the church as people in God and worship as people in God at prayer.

It will require a higher level of ecclesial leadership and a much higher calibre of liturgical leadership and insight than we have seen recently from Vatican departments.

The disruption to the physical community is greater than online, virtual worship and the effects on who we worship with, who we are as Christian people and, ultimately where we belong, remain to be considered.

• Joe Grayland is a theologian and a priest of the Diocese of Palmerston North. His latest book is titled: Catholics. Prayer, Belief and Diversity in a Secular Context (Te Hepara Pai, 2020).
• Article first published in La Croix International. Republished with the author's permission.