Missiological Reflections on
the Maryknoll Centenary:
Maryknoll Missiologists’
Colloquium, June 2011
This year Maryknoll celebrates its founding as the Catholic
Foreign Mission Society of America. In the early 1900s, the idea of
founding a mission seminary in the
United States circulated among the
members of the Catholic Missionary Union. Archbishop John Farley of New York had suggested the establishment of
such a seminary, and also tried to entice the Paris Foreign Mission
Society to open an American branch. Finally, two diocesan priests,
Fathers James Anthony Walsh and Thomas Frederick Price, having
gained a mandate to create a mission seminary from the archbishops
of the United States,
travelled to Rome and received Pope Pius X’s permission to
do so. The date was June 29, 1911, the Feast of Saints Peter and
Paul. In the years since, well over a thousand Maryknoll priests and
Brothers have gone on mission to dozens of countries throughout the
world. Many died young in difficult missions, and not a few have
shed their blood for
Christ. This is a time to celebrate the glory given by Christ to His
relatively young Society.
The main
purpose of this event, though, is not to glory in our past. We
celebrate principally to fulfill the burning desire of our founders,
in words enshrined over the main entrance of the Seminary building,
Euntes Docete Omnes Gentes,
“Go and teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Nearly twenty centuries
after Christ gave this command, the Church, during the Second
Vatican Council, again defined this as the fundamental purpose of
mission, being “sent out by the Church and going forth into the
whole world, to carry out the task of preaching the Gospel and
planting the Church among peoples or groups who do not yet believe
in Christ” (Ad
Gentes,
6).
In our
Maryknoll century of mission, the Church grew further in its
understanding of its evangelical work. In 1965, the Council declared
that the Church is missionary “by her very nature” (AG,
2). Mission is not just one characteristic of the Church, it forms
its
fundamental identity. Nor is it something relegated to professional,
lifetime missionaries; it is the responsibility of every member of
the Church.
In
retrospect, the Council proclaimed this at a time when the Church in
the United States
had reached a pinnacle in its missionary efforts; a great multitude
of its sons and daughters were on lifetime mission in foreign lands.
In 1965, Maryknoll had passed its fiftieth anniversary, and its
membership was at a peak from which it would decline to where it is
today, a little over a third of what it was then. Thus, we
Maryknollers are not as numerous as before. In fact, there are only
ten permanent members under the age of fifty. While we are still
nearly two hundred active members “in the field,” that number will
decline steeply over the next two decades. In twenty years,
depending on new vocations, we may have less than fifty active
members on mission. We cannot deny this reality and act and live as
if we were still hundreds more. We need to ask, “Where will we focus
our missionary activity, and what will we let go of?” We have to
help younger members among us plan for a more practical missionary
future.
But we
have hope in this smaller Society of the future. We were relatively
few when we first went into China and pioneered some new mission
strategies. The same holds true for many of the new missions we
worked in and developed throughout the world.
In order
to plan well for the future, it would be good to recognize some
important developments in mission and the Church which have shaped
our Maryknoll work over the past 100 years. Maryknoll has never been
an island set apart, but a Missionary Society of Apostolic Life
integrated with the greater world Church. At this critical juncture,
in this year when we celebrate our foundation, we propose four
foundational elements to reflect upon. They are: 1) Maryknoll’s
unique history, 2) the local Church, 3) proclamation and dialogue,
and 4) mission and the Paschal Mystery.
1.
Maryknoll’s Unique History and Role in Mission
Inspired by the Paris Foreign Mission Society, our founders sought,
together with the bishops, to create something new within the U.S.
Church: a vehicle for training and sending priests (and soon after,
Brothers) to missionary fields abroad. Distinct from a religious
order or congregation, they envisioned that diocesan priests,
seminarians, and Brothers would come from their dioceses, through
Maryknoll, and go forth to the missions. This required a special
relationship with the U.S. bishops,
which both co-founders fostered and nurtured. But Bishop James A.
Walsh also wished Maryknollers to be humble about this unique
status, often mentioning that there were other missionaries from the United States who had been on
mission longer than those of the young Society. Bishop Walsh is
remembered as a man who always approached both high and low within
the U.S. Church with gratitude and humility, ever anxious to
maintain and grow Maryknoll’s connection to it.
We were
eventually obliged to take on a firmer canonical structure, and, in
some ways, we began to simply resemble the religious orders and
congregations around us. Yet, this special history of ours, as a
Missionary Society of Apostolic Life formed by the U.S. bishops, is a gift that may
enable us to be of greater service in the promotion of mission
within the U.S. Church.
Fulfilling this goal depends upon our relationship with the bishops
and the faithful. While we still have good relations with much of
the hierarchy, clergy, religious, and laity within the U.S. Church,
there is a growing ignorance about Maryknoll, especially among the
younger clergy, religious, and laity. In addition, most of the
numerous foreign clergy and religious working in the
United States
do not know us. Also, we must admit that there are others in the
U.S. Church who have a less than positive opinion of us. A
centennial presents us with an opportunity in this regard. The
ancient Israelites would have “jubilee” years, when debts were
forgiven and things were made right. Our present Superior General,
Father Edward Dougherty, has said that the Centennial should be a
jubilee, that along with the rejoicing, it should initiate a process
of asking forgiveness for our past mistakes, and for having
alienated portions of the U.S. Church. This is the time to mend
fences and rebuild bridges that were broken by our own arrogance.
These are
foundational characteristics of our history: that we have a unique
relationship to the U.S. Church; that we are not “religious” but
“secular” (diocesan) priests and Brothers; that our founders wished
us to promote vocations coming straight from the dioceses; that we
exist totally for world mission and only for world mission. These
are all elements we should rely upon as we revitalize ourselves for
the future.
2.
Developments in Ecclesiology: The Mission Identity of the
Local
Church.
Because of the Vatican Council, we have come to a new
awareness of what is most essential about the Church, since she has
her origin “from the mission of the Son and the mission of the Holy
Spirit … in accordance with the decree of God the Father” (AG,
2). We believe that the Church is born from the mission of the Holy
Trinity, and that the Church lives to proclaim Christ. This
missionary nature of the Church should be part of the faith that all
Catholics live: “[Since] the People of God lives in communities,
especially in dioceses and parishes, and becomes somehow visible in
them, it is also up to these to witness Christ before the nations” (AG
37). Years earlier, Father Price himself observed, “The matter of
mission lies at the very essence of Catholicity.”
It is up
to each local Church to participate in mission, with the bishop as
the leader in this effort. “All bishops, as members of the body of
bishops succeeding to the
College
of Apostles, are
consecrated not just for some one diocese, but for the salvation of
the entire world. The mandate of Christ to preach the Gospel to
every creature (Mark 16:15) primarily and immediately concerns them,
with Peter and under Peter.” Each bishop is called upon to make “the
mission spirit and zeal of the People of God present and as it were
visible, so that the whole diocese becomes missionary” (AG,
38).
In
practical ways, this growing sense of all local Churches being
missionary has affected our Maryknoll work. At the time of our
founding, the Church organized its foreign mission work by a set of
principles set up in the 1600s known as the
jus commissionis,
i.e., certain mission territories would be entrusted to particular
religious groups. To this end, James Anthony Walsh went to the
Far East
to search for territories that could be entrusted to Maryknoll so
that we might become missionaries. The Church largely abandoned this
system in 1969, making the local Church, and not missionary orders,
responsible for evangelization. Thus, we can say from that time
onward, Maryknoll began to think of itself less as developing a
certain mission territory, and more as working in service to local
Churches throughout the world.
This
change, that all local Churches must be missionary, has become an
important part of our identity as
ad gentes, ad vitam
(“to the nations, for life”) missionaries. We are able to speak with
authority from our own experience about mission to both the local
Church from which we originate, and to the local Churches to which
we are sent. In fact, this could be one description of our “new”
specific mission after the Council: enabling local Churches to
assume and live their missionary identity. “In order that this
missionary zeal may flourish among those in their own homeland, it
is very fitting that the young churches should participate as soon
as possible in the universal missionary work of the Church…” (AG,
20).
This
development is seen in local Churches that are young and growing.
For example, the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences reflected
this thinking when it said: “The renewal of our sense of mission
will mean … that the acting subject of mission is the local church
living and acting in communion with the universal Church” (FABC
V., 3.3.1). The fact that all local Churches are by nature
missionary
makes us ask the question: How can local Churches today find newer
ways to structure their response to the vast needs for worldwide
evangelization?
3.
The Proclamation of Jesus Christ, Interreligious
Dialogue, and Authentic Human Development.
The Council opened the windows of the Church to see other
faiths in a more positive light. While missionaries had been taught
to accept local customs that do not directly conflict with faith and
morals, the Holy Spirit inspired the Council to move even further
toward an appreciation of other faiths and cultures.
Developing positive relations with other religions, or
“interreligious dialogue,” has become a significant part of
our overall work and outlook. Blessed John Paul II explained that
this dialogue should proceed not from tactical concerns or
self-interest, but from a “deep respect for everything that has been
brought about in human beings by the Spirit who blows where he
wills” (Redemptoris
Missio,
56). In dialogue, the “seeds of the Word” are encountered within the
faiths of others. John Paul II was aware that dialogue is not the
work of dreamy idealists, that it has its challenges: “Other
religions constitute a positive challenge for the Church: they
stimulate her both to discover and acknowledge the signs of Christ’s
presence and of the working of the Spirit, as well as to examine
more deeply her own identity and to bear witness to the fullness of
Revelation which she has received for the good of all” (RM,
56).
Although
this has all been enriching, it has not been the easiest shift for
missionaries. We wonder: Is dialogue a substitute for proclamation?
Is proclamation itself still valid? Is evangelization in the hopes
of conversion a worthy activity? In answer to questions such as
these, the Church has issued further clarifications. John Paul
himself quotes Paul VI, who said that “salvation comes from Christ
and that dialogue does not dispense from evangelization” (RM,
55). In addition, the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue
explained that “Proclamation and dialogue are … both viewed, each in
its own place, as component elements and authentic forms of the one
evangelizing mission of the Church. They are both oriented towards
the communication of salvific truth” (Dialogue
and Proclamation,
2).
In
practical ways, these clarifications on dialogue could just as
easily be addressed to Maryknollers involved in the social
apostolate: all missionaries, whatever their everyday work, cannot
avoid the fact that they are called to proclaim Christ. We work to
better the lives of people in places where there is a need for
action for integral development and liberation from all forms of
oppression. In this, our work of evangelization and development does
not begin and end on a strictly human level. The Gospel of Christ
always sees human persons in both their finite and infinite ends.
John Paul challenges missionaries to always attend to both:
Through the gospel message, the Church offers a force for
liberation which promotes development precisely because it leads to
conversion of heart and of ways of thinking, fosters the recognition
of each person’s dignity, encourages solidarity, commitment and
service of one’s neighbor, and gives everyone a place in God’s plan,
which is the building of his kingdom of peace and justice, beginning
already in this life. Human development derives from God and must
lead back to God. That is why there is a close connection between
the proclamation of the Gospel and human promotion (RM,
58-59).
Wherever we work, we Maryknollers need to continue to ask
ourselves, according to varying circumstances, how are we
participating in the work of proclaiming Christ, and how are we
fostering a missionary Church.
4.
Mission
and Participation in the Paschal Mystery
Why do we go on mission? Sometimes asking the simplest
question brings the most fruit. One of John Paul II’s answers to
this question has a deep, spiritual appeal: “The ultimate purpose of
mission is to enable people to share in the communion which exists
between the Father and the Son” (RM,
23).
God made
human in Christ unites God with humanity. Christ, in the Paschal
Mystery, took upon Himself our sin and through the Cross redeemed
us, making it possible for us to be one with God.
Gaudium et Spes
states how this grace of redemption is communicated to us Christians
by the Holy Spirit. But, surprisingly, it adds: “All this holds true
not only for Christians, but for all persons of good will in whose
hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all,
and since the ultimate vocation of humanity is in fact one and
divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known
to God offers to every person the possibility of being associated
with this paschal mystery” (Gaudium
et Spes,
22).
We might
define mission, then, as promoting a full, conscious participation
in this Paschal Mystery that the Holy Spirit has already begun in
cultures not yet touched by the Gospel. People “of good will” will
find the explicit and full understanding of what God has begun in
them by their hearing of the Gospel. Beyond just the
understanding
of this mystery, they will come to participate more fully in it.
“Evangelization is everything [the Church] does to promote the
people’s
participation
in the mystery of Christ” (from the
Instrumentum Laboris
for the 1974 Synod of Bishops; emphasis ours).
Mission promotes people’s
participation in the Paschal Mystery in many ways. There are the
normal human encounters of the missioner with the unevangelized, or
of the newly baptized with the larger culture. There are shared
projects among religious and secular groups for the development of
peoples. But the pinnacle of our efforts to promote people’s
participation in the Paschal Mystery is found in the Sacred Liturgy.
In the Mass, we encounter the Christ who has died for our sins, and
“the victory and triumph of his death are again made present” (Sancrosanctum
Concilium,
6). The Church desires that the people participate in “the sacred
action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full
collaboration…. They should give thanks to God; by offering the
Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but
also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through
Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more
perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may
be all in all” (SC,
48).
The
Council later expanded on the missionary nature of this liturgical
participation, stating: “The Most Blessed Eucharist contains the
entire spiritual boon of the Church, that is, Christ himself, our
Pasch and Living Bread, by the action of the Holy Spirit through his
very flesh vital and vitalizing, giving life to all who are thus
invited and encouraged to offer themselves, their labors and all
created things, together with him. In this light,
the Eucharist shows itself as the source and the apex of the whole
work of preaching the Gospel”
(Presbyterorum
Ordinis,
5, emphasis ours).
It is
said that both of the cofounders of Maryknoll took great care in the
offering of the Sacred Mysteries, and taught their spiritual sons to
have the same devotion. They anticipated in their own way these
later words of the Council, that the Eucharist is “the source and
apex” of the work of evangelization. Bishop James Anthony Walsh
expressed this thought in a similar way in a speech he gave to the
Catholic Missionary Union before the formation of Maryknoll. He
said:
The true priest lives his short life for the salvation of his
fellow creatures. Every sincere Christian longs for the day when the
Kingdom of the Savior shall rule all men’s hearts. What we priests
and laymen can do by effort and prayer to win the world to Christ,
this we should do, so that the altars may be more numerous on the
earth than the stars in the heavens; that multitudes in every land
may be nourished with the Bread of Life—the Body of Christ; that
this earth may be deluged in the Precious Blood of the Lamb—a ruby
earth glistening like a radiant jewel under the sunlight of the
glorious Cross of Him who died on it, not for you or me alone, but
for every child of man.
From its
beginning, then, Maryknoll has had a deep Eucharistic, Paschal, and
missionary foundation. We might ask ourselves in this time of
Jubilee how we can best renew our sense and our practice of what
James Anthony Walsh expressed above. We have been graced to see the
growth of people’s participation in the Paschal Mystery in dozens of
countries over a number of generations. We can continue to ask
ourselves how we find the Paschal Mystery already present in the
cultures to which we are sent. Doing so, we become more able to
proclaim Christ as the “Alpha and Omega” of this Mystery, especially
in our missionary Eucharistic actions.
As a
final note to this section, we must add that Maryknollers
participate in the work of proclaiming the Gospel even when we are
no longer able to go on mission. Many of our elder members,
suffering with debilitating illnesses, are now united more
intimately to the paschal sufferings of Christ. Their mission has
become one of prayer and of bearing their own infirmities for the
sake of Christ’s mission and his Church. In the words of Saint Paul:
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am
filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of
his body, which is the Church” (Colossians 1:24). Like the Church,
the members of Maryknoll form one body, where the efforts, prayers,
and sufferings of all work together for our one mission. “We know
that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called
according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).
Conclusion
In our Centenary, while we think about our past, we also
envision our future. We ask, “What do we hope the Society will
become in the service of mission?”
In a
recent encyclical centered on the meaning of hope, Benedict XVI
states: “The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes
has been granted the gift of new life” (Spes
Salvi,
2). The Holy Father draws from Romans 8:24-25: “For in hope we were
saved. Now hope that sees for itself is not hope. For who hopes for
what one sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait with
endurance.”
Given our
present reality, what do we hope for? While we will be significantly
more limited by numbers, we can also reflect upon the unique gifts
we have to build upon. Two principal ones come to mind.
First, we
are the only Society of permanent members created by the U.S. bishops for
the purpose of
ad gentes
mission (“to the nations”)
ad extra
(“beyond our borders”) and
ad vitam
(“for life”). In discussions with the Bishops’ Advisory Board to
Maryknoll over
the past years, the bishops have been unanimous in encouraging us to
retain this unique identity of being a U.S. Church response to World
Mission needs: they recognize that we are “their” mission Society.
We can draw more upon this unique relationship. We can also increase
our own identification of being a part of the Church in the United States,
and encourage all the bishops to fulfill their missionary duty in
new ways. We can look to recruitment, formation, and support as
areas for further collaboration (cf.
AG,
38).
Second,
we have vast mission experience to draw upon, both from the lives of
the men who went before us, but also from the many of us who are
still fully active in
ad gentes
mission. It would be hard to find a group more versed in the types
and varieties of missions in which we have been involved. This
experience should help us plan well for our future. Where do we
realistically hope to work in the near future with our smaller
numbers?
Keeping in mind the Holy Father’s words above, we can
approach these questions with hope. Although we may soon have to
limit ourselves to a smaller number of missions, is it not possible
that this will also create opportunities for us to become better
evangelizers? Our situation may help us focus more deeply upon the
foundations
of mission mentioned above, and upon many other questions as well.
We may find that while we still involve ourselves with basic mission
work with those who do not know Christ, we may devote more effort to
helping many other local Churches themselves become
ad gentes
missionaries.
Finally,
we remember that our primary hope is not in ourselves, but rather in
the Lord, in whom our co-founders and earliest members trusted so
completely. With Bishop James Anthony Walsh and Father Thomas
Frederick Price, we ask again that Our Lady, Queen of Apostles,
whose name our Society bears, intercede for us with Her Son, that
the Holy Spirit be sent upon us anew to shepherd our Society into a
bright future.
Missiologists
Centennial Colloquium, June 1-3, 2011
Maryknoll, New York
John Gorski, M.M.
Kevin Hanlon, M.M.
James Kroeger, M.M.
William LaRousse, M.M.
