On May 9, 1983, at a speech in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Pope Saint John Paul II first called for a "New Evangelization," a term Pope Paul VI had first used in 1975. Pope Benedict repeated that call, and so has Pope Francis. The idea-- repeated so often in the last 36 years-- is that we should proclaim again and in a new way the good news of Jesus Christ to all the nations, especially those of Europe and the Americas.
So, three plus decades later, how are we doing?
Looking at the numbers, at least, we have to say that we have failed miserably. There are fewer Catholics, and fewer Christians in general, going to church. There are more and more people who have no religious affiliation. In the United States the second largest religious group is the people who were formerly Catholic. In many places in Europe the wonderful cathedrals are now mostly museum pieces rather than places of worship.
Sure, here and there we have established programs associated with the New Evangelization, like the Chair in New Evangelization at the Franciscan University at Steubenville. But merely improving the teaching of theology seems to me to miss the point, and it certainly hasn't gotten the job done.
I say that focusing on theology misses the point based on what Jesus does in today's Gospel reading (Lk 9: 1-6) when He first sends out the Twelve to proclaim the Good News. When He sends them out, Jesus first gives the Twelve "power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases." Then, Jesus sends them out to do two things: "to proclaim the Kingdom of God and to heal the sick."
Those two things are inextricably bound together. Jesus doesn't say: "Oh and by the way, if you get a chance, care for some sick people" or "after you have converted them, see if you can do some healing," or "you leaders, you do the preaching-- let others take care of the sick."
No, it is integral to the mission of proclaiming the Good News that we heal the sick. And by "healing the sick," I think Jesus meant that we use that term broadly to include all those in need, whether they are sick in body or suffer from some other problem. After all, why did Jesus give the Twelve power over "all demons" (ie, every cause of human suffering) and not just give them power to "cure diseases" if Jesus meant His instruction to be construed narrowly?
The reason why the dual instruction must be read together-- why we must do both or not bother with proclaiming the Good News at all-- is that the only way we can proclaim the Kingdom successfully is if we couple that proclaimation with care for our brothers and sisters. Otherwise, we look like hypocrites. We're not practicing what we preach.
Or, to borrow a phrase from Paul (1 Cor 13:1) if we don't act with love towards our fellow humans, we're just "a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal."
We've done that too often. We've let the New Evangelization become a tool in the culture wars, or a reason for proclaming the need for "better catchesis." We seem to think that the people who walk away from the Church don't know what they're walking away from, when the reality is that they are mostly tired of trying to bridge the gulf between what the Church teaches and how it seems to live.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we trained people to do what Jesus commands-- to heal the sick and proclaim the Kingdom of God? Maybe that would mean that seminarians and those in diaconate formation spent as much time in a hospital, or a nursing home, or a prison, or a homeless shelter, or a poor school, as they spent in a classroom. Maybe that would mean lay people studing Church teachings would also be trained to mobilize volunteers for community charities. Maybe Catholic healthcare would be a place where "healing the sick" was truly a way to "proclaim the Kingdom of God" and not just a profit center.
Ok, I'll get off my soap box.
But I do think that unless we start thinking and acting differently when it comes to the "New Evangelization," the next 36 years will prove to be no more successful than the last 36 years. The Good News certainly deserves a lot better.