DR MARGARET TURNHAM delves into the archives to examine some of the historical parallels with the way we are experiencing Mass during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic.

Live streaming of Mass and other devotions is rapidly becoming a part of many Catholics’ lives during the pandemic crisis. We seek out Facebook and YouTube to replace what we are missing whilst our churches are closed.

We talk excitedly about how all this new technology is helping us keep in touch with our spiritual side as we relax in our armchairs and watch Mass; or if being really engaged say the responses, make the sign of the cross, and pay attention to the homily in a way we probably wouldn’t always do if sitting on a hard pew, in a chilly church building.

The equipment used to bring these riches to us is mostly very simple, the smartphone or tablet belonging to the priest. With its camera eye turned towards the altar the miracle of the Eucharist is beamed into our homes through our phones, computers or tablets and we are content.

We do not even have to watch it as it happens; we can watch it later as a video at a time of our choosing to fit in with our locked down lives. It’s almost like the old days when Mass was on the hour every hour and people chose which Mass to attend on the basis of how the timing fitted into their lives on a particular day. Perhaps we still do that on occasion.

But is anything new or is it more a case of what goes round comes round again? Due to the historical circumstances of the Reformation, the Catholic Church in Great Britain has very few ancient churches and so has lost a big part of its heritage. But many medieval churches still have a seeing device variously called a squint, a leper-hole, or a hagioscope.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a small opening, cut through a chancel arch or wall to enable worshippers in an aisle or side chapel to obtain a view of the elevation of the host”. What it is important to note is that it was a hole in the wall, delivering not money but grace.

However, was it meant as an inclusive device allowing a person standing outside the church and previously unable to see inside, the possibility of doing so, or was it a means of excluding the observer placing them outside rather than inside the church. The answer to that lies in whom the squint was constructed for and why they were so important.

Why Were Squints So Important?

As Eucharistic doctrine developed in the Church it was inevitable that practice changed with it. By the start of the 13th century the focus on communion found in the early Church had disappeared and the movement of the altar away from the people had inexorably led to the liturgy becoming the sole responsibility of the clergy.

The laity instead became listeners and observers. They heard Mass and they saw Mass and only rarely participated by receiving communion usually to fulfil their Easter duties as laid down by Clause 21 of the IVth Lateran Council held in 1215.

This particular Council also reaffirmed the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which increased the importance of the sacrament and led to demands from Rome that everyone must see the consecrated host for seeing it had the same efficacy as receiving communion.

On the part of the laity they believed that observing the host would save them from death, hell and destruction. Changes in the ritual were demanded and the Great Elevation was introduced heralded by the ringing of bells to alert the kneeling congregation to lift their eyes and adore the host held high above the priest’s head immediately after the words of Institution had been repeated bringing about the miracle of transubstantiation – the high point of every Mass.

But this new action and response caused architectural problems. Rood screens, which separated the chancel from the nave, often blocked sightlines for the kneeling laity and eyeholes or squints would be drilled into the wood where possible to enable those at the front to still see. Larger squints would be created in the internal walls by removing a block of stone to enable those inside aisles or chapels to observe the elevation of the host.

But there were other types of squint, of more elaborate construction and research tells us that in the main they served to aid three different groups of people: the outcasts, the sinners and the recluses or anchorites and each had a slightly differently constructed squint.

The Outcasts

Perhaps this is the category that has most resonance for us currently for the history of humankind could be described as a history of viruses, germs and infections. Such things terrified people and continue to do so. Fear of contagion meant sufferers were ostracised and cast out of society.

During outbreaks of Bubonic Plague such as the Black Death in 1347 onwards and the Great Plague of 1665, crosses were placed on the doors of houses of the infected partly to warn people to keep away and partly because of superstitious belief that sin and disease went together.

Leprosy was particularly feared. Even in the Bible we read of lepers living in isolation outside their communities forbidden to enter society unless cured and it verified by the priests (Lev 13; Matt 8:1–4).

It was a disease closely connected with the idea of sin and several early Christian writers such as Tertullian (c240AD) interpreted it as a consequence of sin drawing upon the Bible for their reasoning.

By medieval times in Europe, people diagnosed with leprosy underwent an isolation ceremony, or funeral rite whereby they were symbolically buried becoming dead to the world before being taken to the local leprosy hospital.

That was kind – in England, King Edward 1 (1239-1307) buried the victims alive at the end of the ceremony, while Philip V of France (1293-1322) dispensed with the ceremony altogether and burned the victims alive.

It was not fear of medical contagion however, that led to such cruelty, but fear of the contagion of sin, for leprosy and sin were still closely woven together in the medieval mentality. It seems highly unlikely given the fear of lepers that squints were designed for leprosy sufferers and the term “leper-hole” is misleading.

However, leprosy was not the only disease that caused scarring or disability; the pox is a case in point. But in medieval life, anyone noticeably sick was shunned even by the Church although the construction of squints did allow these outcasts to attend Mass.

They were always constructed at a steep angle and gave the watcher a clear view of the high altar; the sick person could watch Mass and observe the Great Elevation, but they could not see the people inside the church and this was important as it avoided the sick from infecting the congregation.

For in the medieval mindset, as William of Conches (c1020-1145), a French natural philosopher explained, the ray or gaze of a person carried his properties and so a sick eye could infect the healthy if the observer met the gaze.

Therefore the squint prevented the sick person from looking at and thereby infecting the congregation. In this case the squint was both an inclusive and exclusive device, for it allowed the outcast access to grace and maybe healing, but it also excluded them placing them apart from the main body of the worshipping community.

The Sinners

In the medieval church, there was a difference between the popular concept of purgatory as a place that arose in the late 12th century and its actual definition which was first stated at the Second Council of Lyons held in 1274.

This defined purgatory as a state where some souls are purified after death and that such souls benefit from the prayers and pious duties the living do for them. The notion of purification quickly caught the public imagination and the revelations of horror that awaited one and passed on through visionaries such as St Bridget of Sweden ensured that many resources, both financial and penitential were diverted to try and ease purgatorial sufferings.

But as Eamon Duffy points out in chapter 10 of Stripping the Altars, penance for sins was more easily achieved in this life – a time of grace, rather than after death which was the time of justice. The vivid accounts of the state of purgatory were designed to move the individual to action in the here and now: by completing penances, trying to avoid venial sin and be generous in charity.

But it didn’t prevent the rich in particular from trying to buy their way out of purgatory. Henry VII who died in 1509 made a donation for 10,000 masses to be said after his death to ease his purgatorial passage; one wonders how many were left to be said when his son Henry VIII seized such assets for his treasury.

For those attending Mass, there was a new division; those whose sins were mortal and therefore excommunicated were completely cast out as before, those doing penance were temporarily shut out of the building but allowed to stand outside and observe through the squint.

The Anchorites

In the medieval world, those who chose to live a solitary life were greatly respected. Anchorites lived a solitary life in a cell attached to a church where they stayed living a life of prayer with the Eucharist as their focus.

Although solitaries, they were often searched out for their wisdom and counsel such as Julian of Norwich, perhaps the most famous English Anchorite. Hermits were also solitaries, but not fixed to a particular place and many wandered the country offering their prayers and counsel.

With the Eucharist as their focus, the anchorite would require a squint that allowed them to receive the Eucharist and have a good view of the Mass as it progressed, but at the same time remain unseen by the congregation. Many anchorite cells or reclosoriums were connected to the church in such a way that the squint was placed in the apse, which guaranteed a good view of the altar while leaving the anchorite unable to be seen by the congregation. The squint would also have allowed for food and other items to be handed in, and also for counselling or praying with the people who sought them out so was a slightly deeper and larger opening than the other forms of squint.

When the anchorite first entered their cell a form of funeral was held with psalms from the Office of the Dead sung, the doorway was sealed up and the Anchorite remained there for the rest of their life. So for the anchorite, the squint was life-sustaining: nourished spiritually by observing and receiving the Eucharist, and dispensing wisdom; nourished bodily by food and the reception of other physical requirements such as, for example, pens and paper if they chose to write down their thoughts.

So how do we feel in 2020 using our technological squints. Are we feeling outcast because of COVID-19 and lockdown? Are we penitents observing Mass from outside and maybe asking ourselves how much have we contributed to this crisis?

Maybe we have failed to completely fulfil the conditions of lockdown and unknowingly passed the virus on? Do we feel it is partly due to the frantic lifestyle we all seem to lead nowadays that is slowly poisoning our world?

Or do we, like the anchorites, see it as a chance to refocus our lives on the things that matter? However we feel, we cannot deny that our modern squints have shown us that they are a means of grace and give us a glimpse of the Holy, we otherwise would not have.

Major Sources

Eamon Duffy, Stripping the Altars (second edition 2005) accessed via Kindle 08.04.20
Sheridan Gilley and William Shiels, (eds) A History of Religion in Britain (Blackwell, 194)
K Petterson, Seeing and Sinners (diva-portal.org) accessed 07.04.20