Vatican City, Jun 4, 2017 / 04:20 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In his message for World Mission Day, Pope Francis said that the Church needs to spread the Gospel, caring for the spiritual wounds of people who desperately need the Good News of Jesus Christ.
“The world vitally needs the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” Pope Francis said June 4.
“Through the Church, Christ continues his mission as the Good Samaritan, caring for the bleeding wounds of humanity, and as Good Shepherd, constantly seeking out those who wander along winding paths that lead nowhere.”
The Pope’s message was published by the Vatican on June 4, the Solemnity of Pentecost; a few months ahead of the Church’s celebration of World Mission Day, which will take place October 22, 2017.
“Thank God, many significant experiences continue to testify to the transformative power of the Gospel,” the Pope continued, such as those of recent martyrs and those for whom it is difficult to even go to Mass or receive the Eucharist.
The Pope mentioned, for example, “the gesture of the Dinka student who, at the cost of his own life, protected a student from the enemy Nuer tribe who was about to be killed.”
“I think of that Eucharistic celebration in Kitgum, in northern Uganda,” he said also, “where, after brutal massacres by a rebel group, a missionary made the people repeat the words of Jesus on the cross: ‘My God, My God, why have you abandoned me?’ as an expression of the desperate cry of the brothers and sisters of the crucified Lord.”
“For the people, that celebration was an immense source of consolation and courage.”
In his message, Francis pointed out that the Church is missionary by nature, “otherwise, she would no longer be the Church of Christ, but one group among many others that soon end up serving their purpose and passing away.”
Because of this, we must ask ourselves certain questions about our responsibility as Christians and believers, especially in a world “marked by confusion, disappointment and frustration, and torn by numerous fratricidal wars that unjustly target the innocent.”
The questions the Pope proposed we ask ourselves are: “What is the basis of our mission? What is the heart of our mission? What are the essential approaches we need to take in carrying out our mission?”
One essential, Francis said, is that Church’s mission in the world be constantly invigorated by a spirituality of “exodus” and “pilgrimage;” that we are called to go forth into the world, past our own comfort zones, in order to reach people on the peripheries.
“The Church’s mission impels us to undertake a constant pilgrimage across the various deserts of life, through the different experiences of hunger and thirst for truth and justice,” he explained.
“The Church’s mission inspires a sense of constant exile, to make us aware, in our thirst for the infinite, that we are exiles journeying towards our final home, poised between the ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ of the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Taking part in the missionary aspect of the Church reminds us that the Church isn’t our end goal in itself, he said, but an instrument for bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven.
And part of the Kingdom of Heaven is spreading the message of the Gospel of Christ, also called the “Good News,” he said, because it is filled with a contagious joy, the offer of a new life in Christ, who through the Holy Spirit becomes for us the Way, the Truth and the Life.
And it is this life that “sets us free from every kind of selfishness, and is a source of creativity in love.”
God desires our “existential transformation,” the Pope continued, guided by the Holy Spirit, which finds expression in worship and in an imitation of Jesus.
Francis went on to explain what this means for the mission of the Church, which he said is not about spreading a “religious ideology” or a “lofty ethical teaching.”
Instead, “through the mission of the Church, Jesus Christ himself continues to evangelize and act; her mission thus makes present in history the Kairos, the favorable time of salvation.”
“Through the proclamation of the Gospel, the risen Jesus becomes our contemporary, so that those who welcome him with faith and love can experience the transforming power of his Spirit, who makes humanity and creation fruitful, even as the rain does with the earth.”
Quoting from the words of Benedict XVI in “Deus Caritas Est,” Francis said that Christianity is an encounter with a Person, not an “ethical choice or lofty idea.”
And through the Sacraments of the Church, this Person “continually offers himself and constantly invites those who receive him with humble and religious faith to share his life by an effective participation in the paschal mystery of his death and resurrection.”
The Pope mentioned the important role of both young people and the Pontifical Mission Societies in serving humanity “with courage and enthusiasm.”
In the Pontifical Mission Societies, “thanks to a profound missionary spirituality, nurtured daily, and a constant commitment to raising missionary awareness and enthusiasm, young people, adults, families, priests, bishops and men and women religious work to develop a missionary heart in everyone,” he said.
The celebration of World Mission Day in October, promoted by the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, “is a good opportunity for enabling the missionary heart of Christian communities to join in prayer, testimony of life and communion of goods, in responding to the vast and pressing needs of evangelization.”
Finally, Francis said, in carrying out her mission, the Church must draw inspiration from Mary, Mother of Evangelization.
“Moved by the Spirit, she welcomed the Word of life in the depths of her humble faith. May the Virgin Mother help us to say our own ‘yes,’ conscious of the urgent need to make the Good News of Jesus resound in our time,” he concluded.
“May she obtain for us renewed zeal in bringing to everyone the Good News of the life that is victorious over death. May she intercede for us so that we can acquire the holy audacity needed to discover new ways to bring the gift of salvation to every man and woman.”
[…]
A welcome report. Next is the mascot.
Time for a clean sweep. Get the jackhammer. Pedestrian derivitive imagery without the genesis of authentic faith need be wiped from our shrines and churches.
Then, consequences for the perpetrator.
Can a child conceived in sin become a saint?
Br. Jacques,
The question of scandal is one additional to the quality of the art. I don’t believe in censoring art or music solely because of the sins of the artist/composer, but certainly when the alleged abuse is this disturbing & recent & when the art is so poor & cartoonish, I believe there’s good enough reason to.
I’m not so certain that censoring art for any reason is a good idea. That said, if I were the owner of any of Rupnick’s art (which the Church in various locales is), then it is fully within my purview to do with it whatever I please – including destroy it – for any reason of my choosing.
I’ve concluded that Rupnick is incapable of feeling shame.
Then is he not human? No possibly of repentance?
Shame and repentance are different phenomena. Shame can lead to repentance but it need not. He has brought dire consequences to his victims and scandal upon the Church of Christ. Given his public persona a public acknowledgement of his guilt by him is required.
Br. Jaques, you have an erroneous notion about the nature of shame. I am not talking about guilt for sin. You should read up on the psychological meaning of shame. You seem very quick to pounce.
Diogenes: my apologies, I was wrong I, lacked knowledge of the clinical meaning of shame. I did not mean to “pounce” , however just the opposite. I meant that we should withhold judgment of the man assuming that we don’t really know his inner makeup. We do know that he has caused much pain and it seems that public acknowledgement of this is certainly in order; but we don’t know why he did what he did. We can’t really walk in another man’s shoes.
I hear you, Br. Jaques. But as members of a Christian community we are expected to take note of a brother or sister’s observable behavior and when we feel it is warranted to provide counsel. How can we ever correct a brother if we don’t take notice of what they’re doing? That is not to say that we can ever judge the state of another’s soul. That alone belongs to God. In the case of Rupnick, his acts have caused a rupture in the Christian community and the rupture in most people is cause for their feeling (a)shamed. There have been no reports to my knowledge that he acknowledged publicly what he’s done. He seems to just move along as if nothing has happened.
Has he repented recently? Has he demonstrated any sense of guilt or shame to date? Has he offered to make restitution to those he harmed? If not, why not?
Welcome news that the artwork was removed but the question is now “removed to where” and for “for what purpose?”
But what is the relationship between art and the one who created it? Is artwork good (intrinsically beautiful, inspiring etc.) as long as the creator is in good standing in society? Most people
agree that Michelangelo‘s Sistine chapel is beautiful and inspiring But what would happen if art historians suddenly found that he was the most reprobate character in history? Would we then paint them over and smash up all of his beautiful sculptures? Or would we refrain from doing so because those harmed were long gone and forgotten? I’m not saying that Rupnik’s art was either beautiful or inspiring ( quite the contrary : the little that I saw of it looked ugly to me). But prior to the public knowledge of his behavior, many Catholics liked and valued his work and placed them in Churches etc. What if Rupnik were the equivalent of a modern Michelangelo? Would we still be calling for the destruction of his work? But you may counter that his work was not as good as Michelangelo‘s, but that’s a matter of opinion and not easily proved. Now we get down to the character of the artist and the question is – can a bad man create good art? Can a non Christian create good Christian art? If Hitler, for instance, really was talented (he painted post cards) would we put his work in our Churches? If he did paint a beautiful painting and it was in a Church for years, much loved and valued and reproduced and insured for millions and we suddenly discovered that he was the artist what would we do?
I do not mean to make judgments here I just asking some questions. Why do we want to destroy the art simply because it was created by a sinful person? Would this art become more acceptable over time? If so why? Can evil create good ?
James, some good points and I partially agree with you, however I don’t think there are answers to your questions.
James Connor, my position is that whoever is the owner of the art has the right to do with it whatever he or she pleases. If I own the Mona Lisa and decide to set it afire, that is my prerogative. To do so would be stupid and an offense against cultural sensibilities but it’s still my prerogative.
Here’s the solution for Rupnik art:
Bury some samples of it inside the tomb of his papal benefactor the Pontiff Francis.
Then jackhammer the rest, and distribute the rubble to the Jesuits.
Now THAT’S a plan!
Thank you.😉