Special Spazio Spadoni October Missionary 2024
Cardinal Marengo: the novelty of the first proclamation of the Gospel should not be ‘evaporated’ into generic talk about mission
“There is a specificity of the first proclamation of the Gospel. And when reflecting on the mission of the Church, I would like to break a lance in favor of this specificity,” which ”should not be evaporated in too generic discourse on mission.”
October begins, the month the Church dedicates not only to the Rosary but also to mission. And Cardinal Giorgio Marengo, a Consolata missionary and Apostolic Prefect of Ulaanbaatar, takes the opportunity to share in a conversation with Fides Agency luminous insights full of apostolic passion for missionary work.
Also this year, as often happens, “Missionary October” is intertwined with the work in Rome of the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, in which Cardinal Marengo is also taking part. And that assembly, too, is called to reckon with the missionary horizon of every authentic ecclesial work, as is evident from its title (“For a Synodal Church: communion, participation and mission”).
Cardinal Marengo, is there not enough emphasis on the missionary nature of the Church and the call of all the baptized to mission?
The rediscovery of the call to be all missionaries, inscribed in baptism, was in many ways providential. But now the specificity of the missionary vocation called “ad gentes” seems to have been somewhat lost sight of.
It is as if, in the age of globalization and the apparent reduction of geographical distances, there is no longer any place for this horizon of missionary work that involves going out and inserting oneself in human contexts different from one’s own.
Instead, I believe, precisely in our time it agrees to recognize that there is a specificity of the first proclamation of the Gospel, of the Gospel proclaimed to those who really do not know what it is. It agrees that this specificity should not be diluted, should not be evaporated in an overly generic discourse on mission.
In this time, precisely perceiving and always taking into account this specificity seems to me vital for the whole work of the Church in the world, and for her journey through history.
Why should this specificity of the first proclamation for you not be removed and is crucial in the missionary dynamism of the Church?
If belonging to the Church means walking together with Jesus and behind Jesus, mission can be described and formulated as “making possible an encounter with Christ.”
This encounter can always take place in ways unknown to us. But normally the impact with a human reality remains necessary. A human reality that facilitates and makes possible the encounter with Christ. For always this experience is transmitted by attraction and contact. And this dynamism is most clearly manifested and perceived where the real possibilities of somehow coming into contact with the person of Christ are objectively few. For example, in places where the Church is not there or is in a nascent church state, as in the case of Mongolia.
You belong to a missionary institute. And in recent decades there has been a sharp decline in the number of members of these Institutes.
Perhaps there is no longer a need for large numbers as there once was, and we should not be shocked that missionary Institutes are declining numerically. But even with less impact, the perennial need for the proclamation of the Gospel that prompted the birth of those Institutes still remains alive.
The specificity of the “Missio ad gentes” you mentioned evokes what used to be the “mission territories,” areas that are now called the “Global South” or Global South.” Is this identification still valid?
Rather than slipping into the treacherous terrain of socio-political formulas and definitions, those that, for example, refer to the “north” and “south” of the world, it is better to stick to the exquisitely ecclesial criteria.
This specificity has to do with actual exposure to the proclamation of the Gospel. It is a matter of seeing whether in different social contexts there is the possibility of real exposure to the Gospel, because in that given context the Gospel is in some way actually proclaimed, or whether this does not happen. Always taking into account all the particular situations and their diversity.
What diversity?
It is one thing to live in places where the Church is established with all charisms and ministries, and one thing to have a Church with only one native priest, as is the case with us in Mongolia. It is one thing to be in societies that are extremely critical of Christianity because of the weight of history. And a con is interacting with societies that are not themselves opposed to and hyper-critical of the Church, because their histories have never intertwined.
In different contexts and situations, the mission of first proclamation is one that nonetheless makes people experience the newness of the Christian faith. Both when this occurs in contexts that have not historically been confronted with it, and when it is rediscovered as novelty in places where it has shaped previous generations but has now somehow evaporated from the common horizon.
What are the elemental and proper features of the mission of the first proclamation?
God our Father did not send a message, but became flesh by sending his only Son.
God lowered himself to embrace the human condition. And by analogy, mission, too, has since been called to submit to the laws of time and space, having Jesus as its model.
If Christ’s message were a mere message, a teaching of life, there would have been no need to ask men and women to go to the ends of the earth, as Jesus himself does in the Gospel.
Jesus became part of a defined people and culture. Thirty years of hidden life, three years of explicit activity, and three days of passion, leading to resurrection. All who follow him are called to be shaped by the Holy Spirit to live the same mystery. This is the mission.
Submitting to the laws of space and time by following Jesus frees one from abstractions and embraces all the toil and patience of missionary work, which can seem “futile” and “fruitless.”….
Think of the time spent in learning difficult and distant languages, in lowering oneself deeply and respectfully into the cultures of the people with whom one lives. All presupposes understanding, friendly closeness to grow a relationship of trust. Much of the missionary effort is aimed precisely at identifying with the context and creating these conditions of mutual trust, and then sharing with others our treasure, that which we hold most dear.
Isn’t this “patience” of the long times of mission out of step with the fast dynamics of the present time?
Perhaps some may think today that it is more effective to invest in communication to achieve measurable impacts on public opinion. But the gospel is not communicated as an idea or as one of the options on a menu. That is marketing.
Sometimes we have a tendency to make theories about mission, or to organize strategies with social or humanitarian actions that we present as things useful for what we call “proclamation.” Up to the illusion of a Church that is built “by design.”
How do you perceive the current urgencies of the Church’s missionary work from your vantage point in Ulaanbaatar?
I am amazed at the growing interest of writers, journalists and church scholars in our small Church in Mongolia, in which they see a mission experience similar to that of the Acts of the Apostles. The Apostles bore witness to the Lord Jesus in conditions of absolute minority compared to the social and cultural contexts in which they moved.
Their work had connotations of marginality and novelty. In Mongolia, too, the experience of the first contact with the Gospel by people and social realities that until then had never been confronted with it reoccurs.
Those who take an interest in our Church sometimes tell me that from attending to our poor and small experience can also come benefits and inspirations for situations in post-Christian societies, where even a vague common reference to Christianity can no longer be taken for granted, as it was in the past.
You, also in a recent lecture at the Institut Catholique in Paris, referred to the “record of discretion” that must always connote missionary work. To what are you referring?
What makes the encounter with Christ possible is always his Holy Spirit, and not our methodologies or precautions. But perhaps his work will find fewer obstacles if those who want to serve the Gospel make themselves close to their brothers and sisters for who they are, announcing Christ’s resurrection with discretion.
Lazarist Father Joseph Gabet in 1840, after his first trip to Outer Mongolia, wrote to Propaganda Fide, “The first appearance of Europeans among the Mongols and Tibetans is a very delicate undertaking, and the success of preaching among these peoples will long depend on the degree of discretion shown.”
You participated in the Dicastery for Evangelization Plenary (Section for First Evangelization and the New Particular Churches) dedicated to the Pontifical Urbanian University. How do you see the present and future of that University?
Pope Francis during the Mass in the Singapore Stadium recalled a letter from St. Francis Xavier to his early Jesuit companions, in which the great missionary spoke of his desire to go to all the universities of his time to “shout here and there like a madman” and shake the intellectuals who were engaged in endless discussions, to urge them to become missionaries to serve the charity of Christ.
In this time perhaps theological insights on mission are also needed, academic paths are needed to help recognize and re-propose the perennial urgency of proclaiming the Gospel, especially in situations of first evangelization. Who knows that by this path precisely the Pontifical University, with all its history, may not renew and realize the dream of St. Francis Xavier today.
By Gianni Valente
Images
- Image digitally created by spazio + spadoni