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.
[…]
“Mosaics by the alleged sexual abuser Rupnik, who is under investigation and awaiting a trial by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith…'”
How long does anyone who has committed such serious offenses get for those acts to still be considered “alleged?”
Until he’s convicted in a court of law. I think that relates to laws regarding libel. If someone were to accuse him, rather than mention allegations, they would be liable to a lawsuit, which would then be carried out in a civil court, with a lower standard of proof and no statute of limitations.
I get the legalese. But where’s the common sense and sense of justice? Nowhere to be found.
Sorry, but this guy’s misdeeds and his “in your face” attitude stinks.
I agree that Rupnik’s icons/paintings should be removed as quickly and quietly as possible. May Gods will be done. God bless.
Waiting for the next domino to fall. How long, oh Lord?
A “new symbolic step had to be taken to make the entrance to the basilica easier for all those who today cannot cross the threshold.” Thank you to Bishop Micas for taking another small step to console and protect victims of abuse, spiritual and physical. Slow though he may be moving, he has made another move at a most signficant holy site.
At least, Mary E, we know the second coming will resolve this Rupnik mosaic outrage.
A one-gallon can of Glidden Fundamentals Exterior Paint, White, Semi-Gloss, is available for $29.97 at WalMart.
The bishop — and anyone else who has a Rupnik to blot out — can order it online.
You’re welcome.
I think sledgehammers work better for mosaics.
Although, now that I’ve read the article, I’m wondering about what French art laws involve.
My sentiments, exactly, Amanda.
Given the totalitarian culture that now runs the French state, it’s likely that taking a sledgehammer to those mosaics might get you a trip to the guillotine.
Think of all the beautiful artwork over the last two thousand years depicting our Lady and our Lord and the church uses a mosaic that looks like it was made in the 1970’s. Then again, the current leadership of the Church are stuck in the 70’s.
All could be done much quicker if the Roman Catholics did not lose their understanding of the purpose of the sacred art. In that case, no “pressure” would be needed. Take the Virgin Mary and think hard “the shrine of the Virgin Mary was adorned by a serial sexual abuser/pervert who had seduced several nuns into a participation in orgies”. I have to be gross to make sure that my point is delivered: “the Virgin Mary – sexual pervert and rapist”. How does it sound? To me (an iconographer), the mosaics are the abuse of the Virgin Mary. They are mockery; the Virgin Mary heals, Rupnik destroys.
And so, the mosaics should be taken down for several reasons, as:
1) offensive to God
2) questionable iconography which is not helping to pray
3) “the art of a sexual pervert/abuser adorning the Catholic shrine” is nothing else but a form of spiritual abuse. Of course, it is especially offensive to the victims of the abuser, then to all who have ever endured abuse in the Catholic Church but it is also offensive (or must be) to all the Church which is the Bride of Christ.
Personally, I am not “bloodthirsty” wishing to destroy those mosaics (despite the fact that Rupnik destroyed the brilliant mosaic’s in the Vatican done by a well-known iconographer) but I would like to make a museum of abuse within the Church and relocate there those frescos. Something like a center of repentance for the abuse within the Church which is well overdue.
I have been thinking that when the time comes, Alexander Kornouknov should be consulted about the fate of the Rupnik/Aletti Center mosaics. Beginning with the Redemptorist Mater Chapel in the Vatican. How anyone can walk into that chapel and not want to scream or start throwing things around is beyond me.
I read that the destruction of one of his best (inspired really) works there made a very big impact on Kornouknov’s health. He refused to talk about it for decades. Hence, I am not sure that he would be interested. I think he concluded that it is better for a liturgical artist not to deal with the Roman Catholic Church. As a fellow iconographer who did some work for a Roman Catholic parish, I now am slowly coming to the same conclusion. There is no guarantee that our works (and we are) will be treated even with minimal respect, by those who exercise the power. Unfortunately, even if the laity appreciates the work, they cannot conceive to protest its destruction or at least to question it.
The most shocking thing about Kornouknov’s story, to me, is that it was commissioned and praised by JPII. Despite that, no one stopped Rupnik from throwing Kornouknov out of the Vatican and from demolishing his mosaics, to free the space for his own work. And it was not just about the iconographer – behind him there were also Russian Orthodox philocatholics – philosophers, theologians, clergy, writers, poets who were enthusiastic about the reunion of two Churches and aided him with working out the new iconography which was about the Western and Eastern Churches as one, the unity. I know that circle of people, they were idealists. And this is not all – the Moscow Patriarch of that time gave him his blessing specifically for that work. None of them treated it as just a commission but a very important spiritual task. Well, the Vatican and Rupnik gave their answer to the good will of the Orthodox.
As for how people are not running out from the sight of the Rupnik’s works, I speculate that they think “if it is in the Church, it must be OK”. This is how the evil works, hiding under the umbrella of authority. Plus, no tradition of praying before the images and thinking they are for decoration.
As Ruby Franke’s daughter posted when she saw her mother being taken away in handcuffs, “Finally.”
Get the jackhammer.
Destroy and cover up all “art” by the disgusting rapist Rupnik. Besides it being tainted by association, it’s just plain hideous.
As well as derivative, unimaginative and soulless. He conveniently filled the post-conciliar liturgical art void with the finesse of a rip-off “artist.”
Yes, it’s bad enough art to be removed on that basis alone.
Jackhammer!
I think the accusers, take a step back and let judgement be that ileft to the lord, father almighty. The artwork stands as worship or repentance for sins, as one receives from a priest in a confessional.
That said, delaying investigation, obfuscation and making a mockery of the investigation to leave many accusers ignored and further distancing themselves from the Church, the Bride of Christ is reprehensible and grossly aligning with the Devil’s desires and not that of the Church.
Time for a Crusade! We are the the Church, we are God’s people. Time to take back our faith from the hands of those who stand in the way, and think they are Teflon protected. Time for a whirlwind or two. I pray for our Lord to intervene and offer his hand to all in need. Let us pray!
Within the ecclesial framework, believers are enjoined to cultivate patience and practice anticipatory faith regarding the stewardship exercised by divinely appointed representatives. This stance reflects a fundamental theological conviction in divine sovereignty, acknowledging that while some may deviate from established precepts, ultimate accountability rests within the purview of divine judgment. Such judgment, informed by infinite mercy and love, is properly reserved to the divine.
Regarding Rupnick’s purported artwork, a reasoned course of action from body of Christ would involve formal communication with each Church leader which is a custodian of each piece of his artwork. Each communication should articulate the theological and ethical concerns necessitating the immediate concealment and eventual removal of the artwork. The rationale should emphasize the Church’s imperative to uphold its public persona as a teacher of holiness and obedience to divine law and doctrine. This approach would underscore the Church’s commitment to maintaining its integrity as a moral and spiritual authority within the broader community.
In a journey of 10,000 miles one must take the first step.
What about the shrine to Rupnik art in San Giovanni Rotundo? There was big money used to build this new shrine at Padre Pio’s home, and it is full of Rupnik mosaics, gold gilded floor to ceiling. We saw it while on pilgrimage in 2010. And his name listed quite proudly on their website.
Covered the images, eh? Wow. Is that supposed to be what passes for courage? I wonder what St. Paul would say about it.