Rome, Italy, Mar 27, 2017 / 12:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A veteran Vatican official praised EWTN foundress Mother Angelica as a pioneer of the New Evangelization, saying the way in which the Church speaks to the men and women of today wouldn’t be the same without her influence.
“I think Mother Angelica was a New Evangelizer ante litterum (before her time),” Monsignor Graham Bell told CNA.
An official of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization who has spent around three decades in Rome, Msgr. Bell said that while St. John Paul II coined the phrase some 30 years ago, Mother Angelica had been an active player “long before.”
“She just fits into that so well, because why do we have the New Evangelization? Not because the Gospel is new – the Gospel is ever-new, but it’s also unchanging, and the ‘new’ in the New Evangelization is essentially seeking to find new languages with which to communicate the Gospel to the men and women of our time.”
Mother Mary Angelica of the Annunciation founded EWTN in 1981, and it has since become the largest religious media network in the world. She died March 27, 2016 after a lengthy struggle with the aftereffects of a stroke. She was 92 years-old.
Mother Angelica, Msgr. Bell said, was able to talk about even difficult or sensitive topics in a meaningful way that always brought people “back to the center, which is Christ.”
Please see below CNA’s full interview with Msgr. Bell:
One of the reasons I wanted to speak to you about this is because of the frequent remarks you’ve made in the past about Mother Angelica and what she accomplished. Why is she such a striking and important person for you?
I came to Mother Angelica not through her television programs, but maybe at the beginning of the 2000s, there was a craze – maybe it was more popular then, I’m not sure, but there was a kind of podcast craze, and what EWTN did at that time is they would put out Mother Angelica live as a podcast, so I faithfully downloaded this every week. I didn’t know this nun before I started listening to the podcasts, and what immediately became clear is that there’s nothing original in Mother Angelica, she’s not trying to be original, all she’s trying to do is she’s taking the Word of God, she’s taking the teaching of the Church and she’s applying them to people’s lives. And the more I listened to this lady, the more I was reminded of Cardinal Newman’s motto: Cor ad cor loquitur, heart speaks to heart. And she has this phenomenal capability of speaking to your heart, and that comes across. Obviously I was listening to it as a podcast, I couldn’t see how people were reacting in the studio to what she was doing, but this great humanity came out. I think Newman got his motto from Saint Francis de Sales, and I think Francis de Sales said heart speaks to heart, whereas the tongue just hits the ear. You always had the impression with Mother Angelica that her heart was behind what she was saying. It struck people as true because she recognized it as true, and I think this is a phenomenal gift. It’s a gift every preacher should seek to have, but it’s also a gift that every Christian should seek to have. This phenomenal capacity to communicate and to communicate the unchanging truth of the Gospel in a way that’s relevant for men and women today, and that’s an art, it’s a grace.
Do you think this is a reason she’s been so attractive and appealing to so many people?
Yes, I do. Because language changes, and it changes now at a greater pace than it’s ever changed, and Mother Angelica in my opinion was able to bridge the gap. Sometimes the institutional Church isn’t good at speaking to people, but I think Mother Angelica, first of all with her many books, and then when she got the television and radio thing going, she was capable of bridging that gap. I can think of many things she said about people with addictions, you know? Sometimes the Church isn’t good at doing that, but she was good at looking at things which were difficult to talk about, but talking about them in a way that was very, very meaningful and always bringing people back to the center, which is Christ. I listened to all of her podcasts, and I just thought it was phenomenal. It certainly helped me in my preaching, and also helped me in the living of my priesthood.
In view from your position on the Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, how do you think Mother Angelica has influenced the New Evangelization? Clearly she’s been a huge personality …
I think Mother Angelica was a New Evangelizer ante litterum (before her time). I think John Paul II coined the expression himself in 1979 when he was in Poland, and what Mother Angelica had been doing long before that was certainly New Evangelization, certainly. She just fits into that so well, because why do we have the New Evangelization? Not because the Gospel is new, the Gospel is ever-new, but it’s also unchanging, and the “new” in the New Evangelization is essentially seeking to find new languages – I use the term language in the extended sense – with which to communicate the Gospel to the men and women of our time, who obviously have to hear the Gospel in a language which can understand. But the thing about Mother Angelica is, it was never the case of communicating a content which really didn’t concern her. Her communicating the Gospel was she was really communicating a part of herself, because Christ was so much a part of her and a part of her religious vocation. In communicating Christ through television, through radio, through her many books, she was actually communicating a part of herself, she was so identified with Christ, and I think that’s the heart of the New Evangelization. Obviously another thing I think is very close to the heart of the New Evangelization is the whole question of witness. Because how did Jesus communicate the Gospel to his disciples? He is the Gospel in himself and in his person. It was done through what he said and what he did, and what he said and what did find their center in his very person. So it must be for those who witness to the Gospel. It’s not enough just to speak about Christ, and it’s not enough just to do good works. There has to be a relationship so that what we say is explained by what we do, and what we do is explained by what we say. And I think in Mother Angelica, as in the great saints, this is exemplified, this is exemplified very, very strongly.
A lot of people see the impact she had specifically in the Church in the Unites States and say that she changed the Church in the U.S. during a really critical time, but we also see that this is spreading very internationally. With your experience and in your time following EWTN, how do you see that she’s influenced culture even here in Europe?
Mother Angelica, it must never be forgotten, was a woman religious. And women religious have a very, very, very important role to play in the New Evangelization and in the Church generally, because people react so favorably to them, because they express the maternity of the Church in a way in which priests and men religious really aren’t capable of doing. Mother Angelica, I think, is exemplary in this, and in her clarity of identity. What you see is what you got, there was no mystification there. You saw this nun with her habit, and she was always the same, the message was always the same, and this sense of authenticity I think absolutely captivates people. And I think that’s a big part of her secret and why she’s so popular. It’s this capacity of expressing maternity in an age in which maternity is not very fashionable.
Being here in the Vatican for so long – you’ve been here for about 30 years, right? – have you seen any impact that she’s made here specifically?
I don’t know about that, about what impact she’s made here. I think she’s made a positive impact to the extent that I think women religious always make a positive impact. When women religious are faithful to their vocations and faithful to the Church, they always make an impact, and I think the history of the Church demonstrates this. I wouldn’t be able to say what her impact has been on the various dicasteries. Certainly I do consider her one of the forerunners of the New Evangelization, and it would be difficult to imagine the New Evangelization without figures like her. I think one of the keys to the success of the New Evangelization will be how we can involve women religious in this project. I think the more we involve them, the more the New Evangelization will be successful.
So in your opinion, aside from EWTN, what do you think is the core of the legacy she has left that and that we’re continuing to see grow?
I would say this very, very humble, that I think today in the Church we are very much concerned, I would even say obsessed, by the question of communications, because we want to keep up with the times and we realize that this is very, very important; communications are a very important part of how the modern world works, and it’s important that the Church should be there. But what we must never forget, in my opinion, is that content always has a primacy over the technical aspect. The technical aspect is absolutely wonderful, but if you’ve got nothing to communicate it’s completely useless, and I think Mother Angelica, she wasn’t just the person who founded this fantastic, hotshot television network that was financed completely by the people who listened to it. It wasn’t just that. It was the fact that she always put content first, and I think that’s a great part of her legacy. But I also think another equally important part of her legacy is the eternal truth of our Catholic faith. It always has been and always will be until Christ comes again, it’s a question of a man or a woman who believes in the Resurrection of Christ, looks into the eyes of another man or another woman and says ‘I believe’, and asks you to believe, too. And Mother Angelica exemplifies this; the transmission of the revelation, the transmission of our faith will always be an interpersonal relationship, and all of the hardware and all of the software and all of the gadgetry will never be able to replace that. And she never imagined that EWTN or her various initiatives would ever substitute this interpersonal transmission of the faith. So I think her legacy will be discovered 10, 20 years down the way. I really do.
Would you say that part of the appeal and effectiveness of how she communicated the Gospel and the Resurrection had to do with how she experienced it in her own life?
Yeah. She suffered. I can’t remember all the details of her biography, but I know early on in her life she had a serious medical conditions, and these were overcome and they were overcome through prayer. She might also have been the subject of a miracle, thinking about her very early life before she decided to become a nun. And then all through her life she battled through ill health. One of the things that makes her so authentic is that when you listen to – one of the things I used to love about EWTN was listening to all the podcasts, and you could hear her coughing, and she would put a cough sweet into her mouth, and if you look at the big, sleek media operations like the BBC, you very rarely hear people coughing and at EWTN you could hear all this, and it was so human. With technology, I think a television lens transforms everything, and it really is – if it’s the great observer, it’s also the great betrayer because you look at these television studios and how they come through the lens of the camera, but when you actually go there and you see how they’re built with all the cables everywhere that people never see, and the lighting makes it seem much bigger than it is, it’s smoke and mirrors, it really is from start to finish. You never got that impression with EWTN. You got the impression that here’s a lady in her parlor, speaking to you in your parlor, that’s what it came across as. So she coughed, and she put in a cough sweet and it was wonderful.
Did you ever get to meet her personally?
I didn’t, no. I always used to ask – sometimes we got people coming up from EWTN – I would always ask how is she, and I think the most of the latter half of her life she was bedridden. And sometimes you wonder what did God want from her in that time? What was her vocation in that time? That’s very difficult to discern.
It was striking to me that the culmination of those last few years and then to pass away on Easter after what I understand were very excruciating last days. There was clearly something at work …
Her oneness with Christ … Another chap who greatly influenced me when I was listening to Mother Angelica about 10-12 years ago was Father Benedict Groeschel, because he had Sunday Night Live. That would come out as a podcast and I would download that too. He is another one, I think they’ll both be saints. With Benedict, I know something happened at the end of his life, but that will be forgotten. In fact, it should probably be forgotten right away, because I don’t think he said what he was intending; an old man – and a young man – can make mistakes. But I am convinced that both of them will be beatified, I’m absolutely convinced.
[…]
War? What war when the pre-Vatican II masses are only in a tiny small minority of around 1,700 parishes out of the total of around 225,000 worldwide. Of these around 700 are in the U.S. which has a total of around 17,000 parishes in total. This is rather a loud and militant minority like a lost sheep for not fully accepting or antagonistic towards the Vatican II Council and mass which the universal shepherd, Pope Francis, out of pastoral charity has reproached and rescued even leaving the ninety-nine in the process.
why pick on them? Pope Peron plays games and loses the faithful. Btw, I have only been to the TLM a few times
Oh, yes, of course, the numbers game. But the Church started with only 12 apostles when the world population two thousand years ago was about 170 million.
And as for ukase and the czar, Russian folk literature offers a proverb that will outlive the malignant dark side of modernity: “One word of truth outweighs the whole world.”
“Pope Francis, out of pastoral charity has reproached and rescued…” Oh, so that’s what it is. Reproached for what? Rescued from what? Maybe like Big Brother “rescues” people from crime-thought.
The raw number of Latin Masses and people attending them is small compared to the Church as a whole, but at a time when every leading Catholic indicator is in free fall, why crush something that seems to be working (vocations, young families, lots of baptisms), even if it’s not a majority thing? The sad reality is that “most” Catholics don’t prefer the New Mass or the old Mass: the prefer no Mass at all. And of the very small minority of Catholics who do attend Mass at all (Novus Ordo), most do not believe in the Real Presence. So, although Latin Mass raw numbers are still small, what you have to bear in mind is that the RATE of increase of Latin Mass celebration and attendance is growing, and the RATE of the collapse of the mainstream Church (by ANY conceivable metric: church weddings, parish closures, infant baptisms per capita, conversion, etc.) is absolutely catastrophic. We must also grapple with the fact that Pope Francis in his motu proprio also makes several … let’s not call them lies, but … misstatements. For example, he says the 1980s indults and then ‘Summorum pontificum’ were only designed to coax back the SSPX but that since that didn’t work, now is time to scrap all that. But Pope Benedict XVI — the STILL LIVING legislator of SP — has stated not long ago that this is FALSE. “The reauthorization of the Tridentine Mass is often interpreted primarily as a concession to the Society of Saint Pius X. This is just absolutely false! It was important for me that the Church is one with herself inwardly, with her own past; that what was previously holy to her is not somehow wrong now” (‘Last Testament’). Emmanuel, even those who do not choose to worship in the older form still need to understand that the Church does not change in her essence nor reject her past. So the continued existence of the older liturgy is essential for the Church at large to accurately represent her own identity. (Another error Pope Francis makes is that his appeal to the example of Pius V proves exactly the OPPOSITE of what Francis wants it to, (1) since Pius V approved liturgical diversity, unlike the rigid uniformity desired by Francis; and (2) the 52-year-old Novus Ordo would hardly have survived Pius V’s abolition of any liturgy less than 200 years old. It’s actually sort of embarrassing: you’d have hoped Pope Francis would have a friendly editor who could have urged him not to include such howlers.)
When is Francis going to “rescue’ the Germans from their Bishops who are leading them into Schism?
If those who prefer the Latin Mass are so small in numbers, why is it necessary to come down on them like a meteor wiping out the dinosaurs? If they are a bunch of malcontents, etc., then why do so many bishops say that the Latin Mass people in their dioceses are the ones having large families, supporting Catholic schools, are young, engaged, active supporters of their parish and diocese? You don’t bring in a nuclear bomb to kill an ant. Something is very wrong here.
In the parable of the shepherd, Jesus did not say that a shepherd goes to ‘reproach and rescue’ one sheep. No ‘reproach’ is mentioned. It might also interest you to know that there is an answer to Jesus’s rhetorical question: What shepherd would leave the 99 to go and rescue one that had got lost?’ The answer is – No shepherd in his right mind would risk 99% of his flock in order to go and bring back just one, while leaving the rest open to the ravages of wolves.
You completely misunderstand the parable. Even if the shepherd is meant to be a crazy guy who cares so much about each individual shepherd that he will leave the 99 in some kind of safe enclosure while going after one that is lost, he does not then KILL AND SLAUGHTER the one that got lost, but carries it LOVINGLY back to the fold. Harshly and abruptly accusing every single person who attends Mass in Latin of being an apostate (which is what you imply – they are ALL in schism and must be ‘reproached and rescued’ from their apparently idiotic schism by Pope Francis’s harsh rebuke and sudden abrogation of the Mass), is beyond your ability to decide – as well as beyond Pope Francis’s ability to discern. He is NOT talking to the schismatics who deny the Second Vatican Council and have declared that there is no valid pope; he has not authority over those people because they left the Church already. He is saying that faithful Catholics, who attend a particular RITE of the Mass within their OWN Roman Catholic parish, are effectively in schism by attending Mass by a different rite.
The RITE that you attend does not determine if you are a faithful Catholic or not, if you are in union with Rome or not. If they are in a parish that is duly in union with its bishop and they attend any rite offered with full permission of Pope Benedict (and Vatican II, by the way, which NOWHERE abrogated the use of Latin), then they are not schismatic, not matter what confused opinions they might have.
If he wanted to ‘rescue’ or even ‘reproach’ people who attend the Latin Mass and have mistaken ideas about who is Pope and whether the Second Vatican Council is legitimate, then the PASTORAL thing to do would have been to address in a gentle, thoughtful and and FULLY INFORMED way any concerns that local bishops have reported to him about such ideas. Find out what the wrong ideas are, very carefully consider them and gently but firmly correct the errors and tell every bishop or every priest celebrating the Latin Mass to read the letter aloud at Mass.
If a sheep wanders, you don’t draw a bead on him and shoot him down. You draw him back. And you don’t draw sheep back by being harsh and heartless toward them.
Please read canon lawyer Cathy Caridi’s post ‘The Enormous Loophole in Traditionis Custodes’ on the blog, ‘Canon Law Made Easy.’ This is clearly a rushed document that doesn’t make much sense internally, and CANNOT be enforced canonically. https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2021/07/29/the-enormous-loophole-in-traditionis-custodes/
Finally, a bishop with courage to tell the truth.
Plain, blunt talk out of Holland.
As Bishop Mutsaerts complains of pre-Vatican II mass prayers lost in the Vatican II mass, I rejoice in the “treasure of revelation” (Dei Verbum 26), the Bible, mined much deeper and bigger in the Vatican II mass. In the pre-Vatican II mass lectionary, the selection of readings cover only 1% of the Old Testament and 14% of the New Testament whereas in the Vatican II mass lectionary this has significantly increased to 17% of the Old Testament and 71% of the New Testament.
To each his own. I’ve made icing for a birthday cake. The same ingredients can be made to cover more area by adding water.
Does a greater number of lectionary readings lead to greater understanding, knowledge, wisdom, or holiness? Is the essence of scripture diluted or intensified by increasing their variety? Increasing the number of readings in the lectionary cycle does not necessarily enhance the focus of the most important themes.
If I lecture to my students for a day, repeating the same idea twenty different ways, I KNOW THEY PREFER that I make the main point, then set them free. I could go on and on. Or I could keep it brief. I’d prefer to keep it brief, intense, and focused. So would my students.
Remember how short my time is! (Psalm 89:47)
So you would prefer to hear more of Scripture, but less frequently? Would you also prefer a three-year cycle for saints’ days?
Giving people three years to forget before it’s repeated. Exposure doesn’t mean remembering.
But the Mass isn’t a Bible study session, is it?
Angelo, that sounds reasonable in theory but in practice the newer, more expansive lectionary is not necessarily more pedagogical. Human nature being what it is, the yearly cycle of readings in the old missal can enter into one’s soul more easily over the years than the new three-year cycle. And although the new lectionary is bigger, it is not necessarily more representative. For that matter, some passages that WERE present in the readings of the old missal were CUT from the new lectionary, especially many of the “hard” sayings. For example, the warning against unworthy communion from 1 Cor 11 is found integrally in the traditional missal on Holy Thursday and Corpus Christi, but it is not found in the new rite. If it was already there, then why remove it, especially if the goal is “more” Scripture? The Old Testament features prominently in the Roman Rite (I use this title descriptively to designate the actual Roman Rite passed on through history, and not juridically, as Pope Francis does, to designate the rite compiled after Vatican II), especially at certainly times of the year, and the very “unusualness” of the fact is an important aspect of the liturgy at those times: Ember days (5 O.T. readings), ferias of Lent, Easter Vigil (12 O.T. readings!) and Pentecost Vigil (6 O.T. readings). Also, it is certainly true that the Mass is the most important part of the Catholic liturgy, but (1) the Mass is not mainly a Bible study, and (2) Mass is not the only liturgical service. The Divine Office, and especially Matins, is a privileged liturgical “locus” for the reading of Scripture. Attending the old Mass year in and year out and reading the Scripture lessons (on an app if necessary!) from the First Nocturn of Matins each day will give you already a great foundation, which can be complimented by any additional study and lectio divina you may wish to do.
What a Pope! He feels pressed to condemn not only traditions in the Church but also everything on the day for which he can fashion a dislike. I am possessed with trying to get a feel for what this Pope has for the Church. I am mystified. For a Church based on Love, I only see loving-to-assert.
I think the expanded biblical readings is widely considered one of the (rare) pluses of the NO Mass.
I doubt that even the most rabid traditionalist would have complained if, for example, readings from the Old Testament had been added to the Latin Mass.
My issue with this entire ADO is why does this come up now? What possible good can come from curtailing this small minority of worshipers at this time when so much more is serious and needs immediate attention from Rome. The list is long and far more important than whether these “conservative faithful” or “orthodox” Catholics want to attend a TLM? There has to be something more insidious behind the decision.
Francis should fix the falling numbers. The incredible lack of Catholic catechism being learned. The numbers are staggering and Francis wants to turn this screw ? I don’t get it. Or, maybe I do and that is scarier
God bless the bishop for his courage. No doubt he is reconciled to being an auxiliary for the rest of his life. The “unmerciful” part is spot on. If Francis was severe with the Germans and severe with the Latin American progressives and severe with all the homosexuals in the clergy, it would be easier to accept a tough tone and action towards conservatives, but that is far from the case. Just as when he refused dialogue to Cardinal Burke, it seems he reserves a special approach and sometimes seeming animosity for conservatives and the traditionally devout.
I agree with you.I live in South Carolina in an ever growing Catholic Parish which has respectful NO Masses.I have been living in the South for 30 yrs. I am 80 and have been through the bad and the good worship services. I love my parish and am a daily Mass goer. This controvery is bringing out the good Bishops and they are finally speaking out.
I think this is uniting them and a good thing. I have now at my age a desire to try the TLM but the closest one is in Savannah. I hope this controversy will promote more churches in South Carolina offering the TLC and I hope it catches on like wild fire.
There is a TLM at Stella Maris on Sullivan’s Island at 5:30 on Sundays, if that is closer for you.
I’m in a weird situation. Just at the same time that Pope Benedict made it easier to attend Mass in Latin, and I started to have the chance to do that in my diocese (not in the US), I was also given the answer to a long-term prayer which resulted in helping to begin Mass in English for foreigners in this country who speak English (from all over the world) but do not speak the (rather difficult) language of this country. So in effect, because we don’t have Mass in Latin anymore, we have to have Mass in English because so many modern people around the world know English. This is the only way most of these foreigners can get sacraments and pastoral care (including teaching for sacraments, preparation for marriage, and catechism to convert to Catholicism – which I now do in English) in this country. I have been assisting in this for 15 years, and am deeply involved to the point that while deep down, I’d much rather attend Mass in Latin, I simply cannot do so, at least not on Sundays. The community and the priests I work with rely on me to be present at Mass in English.
But I read awhile back that now there is a daily Mass in Latin in my diocese. Even when I lived closer to the church where it is offered, somehow I never went. But Traditionis Custodes makes me want to look up the times, and even if it means travelling nearly half an hour on public transport to get there, start attending daily Mass in Latin, if only in support of the Latin Mass and because who knows if it will be destroyed in this diocese as it surely will in others around the world. Last chance to experience the Mass that shaped the Christian mind, heart and imagination for centuries?
By the way, when my father came to visit me in this country when he was in his 80s, I took him to Mass in another city, in the language of the country. I had with me a missal in English, and was pointing to the different places in the Mass as we went along, so he could keep up, because he couldn’t understand a word of the Mass in this country’s language. He was not really able to ‘get with it,’ so to speak; just kind of sitting or standing there, dumbly. And then – I don’t know why – certain prayers and responses were said in Latin, and my father perked up and joined in with gusto. It was the first time in my life I ever heard my father say the responses and prayers in Latin; they stopped in my parish probably when I was too young to remember. But no matter what some people may tell you, people who attended the Mass in Latin in the ‘old days’ knew perfectly well what was going on. I have my mother’s daily Missal – Latin on one side and English on the other – to prove it. There was no excuse not to know what to do and say and not to understand – just use your missal, available in the pew or purchased for yourself.
Another example. I was at daily Mass in a parish here, in the language of the country (not English). After Mass, I was surprised to see a priest come out and prepare the altar in a side chapel – Marian chapel- where people often go for private prayers after Mass. Mostly elderly people over there, at nearly 9AM on a work-day. This was unusual. To my surprise, the priest was celebrating a ‘private Mass’ in Latin – facing east (the altar is fixed). Every single person in those pews stopped their rosaries and participated in that Mass, saying the responses, standing and kneeling, etc., clearly with full understanding of what was going on (I didn’t know what to do, and stayed kneeling on the other side of the church, where I had remained for prayer; I could only look on in sadness at my heritage, which to those older people was so familiar and dear and to me was more or less a closed book.) At the end, one of the participants in this ‘surprise’ Latin Mass went to the priest and thanked him profusely, and they joined in asking him if he was going to be attached to the parish, and offering that Mass every day – would he come again? Turns out he was just passing through.
Don’t let ANYONE tell you there is not a desire for the Latin Mass. People have just been dictated to for generations that it is no longer available – deal with it. But people loved it, still love it, want to know it and love it, and when they do know it, they eagerly participate in it.
Why those people must be slapped down, punished and treated like schismatics when their joy and eagerness to participate in the Holy Mass is evident is beyond me.