Because Caravaggio yes and Rupnik no? – Why Caravaggio yes and Rupnik no? – Why Caravaggio yes and Rupnik no?

/in /by

Italian, english, español

WHY CARAVAGGIO YES AND RUPNIK NO?

If the value of a work depends on the morality of its author, then we will have to empty churches, museums and art galleries across the West

- Actuality -

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

.

For some years now hosts of candid souls have formed who demand that the works of Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik be removed from churches, sanctuaries and places of worship. There is no shortage of professional indignants, the permanently scandalized and the vestal virgins who, after suddenly discovering the existence of sins against the Sixth Commandment, they call for the cancellation of the mosaics created by the former Slovenian Jesuit.

The fiercest accusers of this artist they are precisely those subjects who, a page before or two pages later, state and explain that certain rainbow-coloured ecclesiastics cannot be questioned for their life conduct, because certain vices and habits would be part of their private life.

An inevitable question then arises: the execrable sexual conduct attributed to Marko Ivan Rupnik perhaps took place in St. Peter's Square during the Sunday Angelus recitation, or they also belonged to his private life? Because, if private life is invoked as a reason to remove some subjects from any public judgment, it is difficult to understand why the same criterion should be suddenly abandoned when the subject in question is Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The accusation according to which the artist would have had a moral conduct incompatible with the presence of his works in sacred buildings, in fact it introduces a criterion so eccentric as to be impracticable when tested by facts. If applied with a minimum of consistency, it would in fact force us to empty not only part of the history of Christian art, but a considerable part of the history of Western art, especially the sacred one. Yet this very criterion is today proposed with increasing insistence. It is not simply asked that any personal responsibilities be ascertained by the competent ecclesiastical authorities, something different is expected: that the work is dragged into the same process as the man who created it; that the moral judgment on the author automatically transforms into condemnation of the work; what mosaics, frescoes, paintings and sculptures are evaluated not for what they represent, but for the private biography of those who created them.

The question, therefore, It's no longer just about Marko Ivan Rupnik. It concerns a much broader principle. Because if the artistic and spiritual value of a work must be measured on the basis of the moral conduct of its author, then we need to have the courage to apply this criterion to the entire history of art and not just to the artist who, for media or ideological reasons, has become the target of the moment.

Already in December of 2022, when the case had taken on international dimensions, Vicar General of His Holiness for the diocese of Rome, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, recalled that Father Marko Ivan Rupnik had provided the Church of Rome with "numerous and precious ministerial services" and that his artistic activity had left a visible mark in ecclesial places of primary importance. At the same time he expressed dismay at the matter and assured full collaboration with the competent authorities. Two statements that are not mutually exclusive and that, indeed they should be kept together. One thing is to ascertain any personal responsibilities, another is the judgment on the artistic work produced by a person (cf.. Diocese of Rome, Statements by Cardinal Angelo De Donatis on the Rupnik case, 19 December 2022, who).

At this point the question becomes inevitable: we are really willing to apply to the history of art the criterion according to which the work must be condemned together with the man who created it? Because, if this is the path we intend to take, we will have to be consistent all the way. And then the problem will no longer concern only Marko Ivan Rupnik.

Let's start with Michelangelo Merisi known as Caravaggio. Extraordinary painter, author of some of the greatest masterpieces of sacred art, he was at the same time a violent man, involved in constant fights and legal affairs, until he killed Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606 and to be formally condemned to death by the justice of the Papal State. Yet no one proposes removing the Vocation of Saint Matthew from the churches, the Conversion of Saint Paul, the Deposition, the Martyrdom of Saint Lucia and so on. Evidently the value of the work is not judged on the basis of its author's criminal record.

Let's move on to Benvenuto Cellini, sculptor, brilliant goldsmith and artist. The chronicles of his time and his own autobiography tell of murders, violence, fights and trials for sodomy. Even in this case no one has ever thought of eliminating his works from museums or erasing his name from the history of art.

We continue with Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, went down in history with the nickname of Sodom, which was not attributed to him out of distraction or gratuitous slander. Yet his frescoes, filled with clearly homoerotic scenes in Renaissance style, continue to be admired in churches and monasteries without anyone calling for campaigns to remove or cancel series of frescoes from monastic cloisters.

We then come to Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the greatest artist of the Roman Baroque. When he discovered the relationship between his brother and Costanza Bonarelli, of whom he was a lover, he reacted with such violence that one of his servants slashed the woman's face in revenge. This did not prevent his works from continuing to adorn basilicas, squares and churches, without anyone ever thinking of demolishing the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or the Baldachin of Saint Peter.

We could go on and on. But the point is already clear: for centuries Christian and Western civilization has distinguished the moral judgment on man from the artistic judgment on the work. Today, instead, someone claims to introduce a new criterion according to which the artist's sin should automatically contaminate what he has created. Except support, when the protagonists are others, that no one should be interested in their lifestyle because they belong to that private sphere which, apparently, it remains inviolable for some and becomes a criterion of public condemnation for others.

Florence, 14 June 2026

.

WHY CARAVAGGIO YES AND RUPNIK NO?

If the value of a work of art depends upon the morality of its creator, then we shall have to empty churches, museums and art galleries throughout much of the Western world

— Actuality —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

For several years now, whole ranks of pure souls have been demanding that the works of the Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik be removed from churches, shrines and places of worship. There is no shortage of professional moralists, perpetual scandal-seekers and modern vestal virgins who, having suddenly discovered the existence of sin, call for the removal of the mosaics created by the former Slovenian Jesuit (cf. here). The most relentless accusers of this artist are often the very same people who, one page earlier or two pages later, explain that certain rainbow-coloured churchmen should not be criticised for their conduct because such vices and habits belong to their private lives (cf. here).

An inevitable question therefore arises: were the sexual acts attributed to Marko Ivan Rupnik carried out in Saint Peter’s Square during the Sunday Angelus, or did they also belong to his private life? For if private life is invoked as a reason for shielding certain individuals from public scrutiny, it becomes difficult to understand why the same principle should suddenly be abandoned when the person concerned is Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The accusation that the artist’s alleged moral conduct is incompatible with the presence of his works in sacred buildings introduces a criterion so eccentric as to prove unworkable when tested against historical reality. Applied with even a minimum degree of consistency, it would require us to empty not only a significant part of Christian art, but a considerable portion of Western art as a whole, especially sacred art. Yet this is precisely the criterion that is being proposed with increasing insistence today. What is being demanded is not simply that any personal responsibilities be investigated by the competent ecclesiastical authorities. Something far more radical is being proposed: that the work of art be dragged into the same trial as the man who created it; that moral judgement upon the artist automatically become a condemnation of the work itself; that mosaics, frescoes, paintings and sculptures be evaluated not according to what they represent, but according to the private biography of their creator.

The issue, therefore, no longer concerns Marko Ivan Rupnik alone. It concerns a much broader principle. For if the artistic and spiritual value of a work must be measured according to the moral conduct of its creator, then one must have the courage to apply the same criterion to the whole history of art and not merely to the artist who, for media or ideological reasons, has become the latest target of public condemnation.

As early as December 2022, when the case had already assumed international dimensions, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, Vicar General of His Holiness for the Diocese of Rome, recalled that Father Marko Ivan Rupnik had rendered «numerous and valuable ministerial services» to the Church of Rome and that his artistic activity had left a visible mark upon ecclesiastical sites of primary importance. At the same time, he expressed deep concern over the affair and assured full cooperation with the competent authorities. These are two statements that do not exclude one another and which, indeed, ought to be held together. One thing is the investigation of any personal responsibilities; quite another is the judgement to be passed on the artistic work produced by a person (cf. Diocese of Rome, Statement of Cardinal Angelo De Donatis regarding the Rupnik case, 19 December 2022, here).

At this point the question becomes unavoidable: are we truly prepared to apply to the whole history of art the principle that a work must be condemned together with the man who created it? For if this is the road we intend to take, then we must be consistent to the very end. And in that case the problem will no longer concern Marko Ivan Rupnik alone.

Let us begin, then, with Michelangelo Merisi, known as Caravaggio. An extraordinary painter and the creator of some of the greatest masterpieces of sacred art, he was at the same time a violent man, constantly involved in brawls and legal troubles, eventually killing Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606 and being sentenced to death by the courts of the Papal States. Yet no one proposes removing from churches The Calling of Saint Matthew, The Conversion of Saint Paul, The Entombment, or The Burial of Saint Lucy. Evidently, the value of the work is not judged on the basis of the criminal record of its creator.

Let us move on to Benvenuto Cellini, sculptor, goldsmith and artistic genius. The chronicles of his age and his own autobiography recount murders, acts of violence, brawls and trials for sodomy. Yet no one has ever suggested removing his works from museums or erasing his name from the history of art.

We may continue with Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, who entered history under the nickname of Sodoma, a name that was certainly not bestowed upon him by accident, still less through gratuitous slander. Nevertheless, his frescoes, permeated with unmistakably homoerotic Renaissance imagery, continue to be admired in churches and monasteries without anyone calling for campaigns of removal or for entire cycles of frescoes to be erased from monastic cloisters.

Then there is Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the greatest artist of the Roman Baroque. Upon discovering the relationship between his brother and Costanza Bonarelli, with whom he himself was involved, he reacted with such violence that he had the woman’s face slashed by one of his servants in an act of revenge. Yet this has not prevented his works from continuing to adorn basilicas, churches and public squares, nor has anyone ever suggested demolishing the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or the Baldachin of Saint Peter’s Basilica.

We could continue at length. Yet the point is already clear enough: for centuries Christian and Western civilisation distinguished between moral judgement upon the individual and artistic judgement upon the work. Today, by contrast, some seek to introduce a new criterion according to which the artist’s sin should automatically contaminate whatever he has created.

This principle, however, is not applied consistently. For the very same people who demand that works of art be judged according to the moral conduct of their creators are often the first to insist, when confronted with the conduct of others, that such matters belong exclusively to the sphere of private life and should therefore be of no concern to anyone else.

The question, then, remains unanswered: why should one principle apply to Marko Ivan Rupnik and another to everyone else? If the value of a work of art truly depends upon the moral perfection of its creator, then consistency would require us to remove from churches, monasteries, museums and galleries a considerable part of the artistic heritage of the Christian West. If, on the other hand, we recognise that the value of a work cannot simply be reduced to the virtues or vices of its author, then we must admit that the issue extends far beyond the case of Marko Ivan Rupnik.

For this reason the debate is not really about one artist. It is about whether we wish to preserve a civilisation capable of distinguishing between the moral failings of a human being and the objective value of what that human being has created.

From Florence, 14 June 2026

.

WHY CARAVAGGIO YES AND RUPNIK NO?

If the value of a work of art depends on the morality of its author, then we will have to empty the churches, the museums and art galleries of much of the West

— Current Events —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

For some years now True legions of candid souls have formed who demand that the works of the Jesuit Marko Ivan Rupnik be removed from churches, shrines and places of worship (cf. here). There is no shortage of those who are indignant by profession, the permanently scandalized and the vestal virgins who, after suddenly discovering the existence of sins against the Sixth Commandment, They call for the elimination of the mosaics made by the former Slovenian Jesuit. The fiercest accusers of this artist are precisely those who, one page before or two pages after, They affirm and explain that certain rainbow-hued ecclesiastics should not be questioned for their way of life, because certain vices and customs would be part of their private sphere (cf. here).

An inevitable question then arises.: Did the execrable sexual behavior attributed to Marko Ivan Rupnik take place in St. Peter's Square during the Sunday Angelus prayer?, or they also belonged to his private life? Why, if private life is invoked as a reason to remove certain people from all criticism, It is difficult to understand why this criterion should be abandoned when the person in question is Marko Ivan Rupnik.

The accusation according to which the artist would have maintained a moral conduct incompatible with the presence of his works in sacred buildings introduces, indeed, a criterion so eccentric that it is impracticable when confronted with the reality of the facts. This criterion, Applied with a minimum of consistency, would force not only to empty a part of the history of Christian art, but also considerably from the history of Western art, and in particular sacred art. Y, however, Precisely this criterion is today proposed with increasing insistence. It is not simply requested that possible personal responsibilities be clarified by the competent ecclesiastical authorities; something very different is intended: that the work be dragged into the same process as the man who made it. That the moral judgment on the author automatically becomes a condemnation of the work; what mosaics, frescos, paintings and sculptures are valued not for what they represent, but for the private biography of the one who created them.

The question, therefore, It no longer concerns only Marko Ivan Rupnik. It refers to a much broader principle. Because if the artistic and spiritual value of a work must be measured on the basis of the moral conduct of its author, then it is necessary to have the courage to apply this criterion to the entire history of art and not only to the artist who, for media or ideological reasons, has become the target of the moment.

Already in December 2022, when the case had acquired international dimensions, the Vicar General of His Holiness for the Diocese of Rome, Cardinal Angelo De Donatis, He recalled that Father Marko Ivan Rupnik had provided the Church of Rome with "numerous and valuable services of a ministerial nature" and that his artistic activity had left a visible mark in ecclesiastical places of primary importance.. At the same time, expressed its dismay at the events and assured full collaboration with the competent authorities. They are two statements that are not mutually exclusive and that, on the contrary, they should stick together. One thing is the clarification of possible personal responsibilities; It is quite another to judge the artistic work produced by a person. (cf. Diocese of Rome, Statements by Cardinal Angelo De Donatis on the Rupnik case, 19 December 2022, here).

At this point, the question becomes inevitable: Are we really willing to apply to the history of art the criterion according to which the work must be condemned along with the man who made it?? Why, If that is the path we intend to take, we will have to be consistent until the last consequences. And then the problem would no longer affect only Marko Ivan Rupnik.

Let's start with Michelangelo Merisi, known as Caravaggio. Extraordinary painter, author of some of the greatest masterpieces of sacred art, who was at the same time a violent man, continually involved in fights and legal proceedings, to the point of killing Ranuccio Tomassoni in 1606 and be formally sentenced to death by the justice of the Papal States. Y, however, no one proposes removing the vocation of Saint Matthew from the churches, The conversion of Saint Paul, The descent of Christ, The burial of Saint Lucia and many other works. Evidently, The value of a work is not judged based on the criminal record of its author.

Let us now turn to Benvenuto Cellini, sculptor, brilliant goldsmith and artist. The chronicles of his time and his own autobiography recount homicides, acts of violence, fights and trials for sodomy. Nor in this case has anyone ever thought about removing his works from museums or erasing his name from art history..

Prosigamos with Giovanni Antonio Bazzi, gone down in history with the nickname of Sodom, which was not attributed to him either through carelessness or gratuitous slander. However, its fresh, impregnated with openly homoerotic scenes in a Renaissance key, They continue to be admired in churches and monasteries without anyone calling for withdrawal campaigns or the elimination of entire cycles of frescoes from monastic cloisters..

Let us now come to Gian Lorenzo Bernini, the greatest figure of the Roman Baroque. When he discovered the relationship between his brother and Costanza Bonarelli, of whom he was a lover, He reacted with such violence that he ordered one of his servants to disfigure the woman's face out of revenge.. This has not prevented his works from continuing to adorn basilicas., squares and churches, without anyone having ever thought of demolishing the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa or the Baldachin of Saint Peter.

We could continue like this for a long time. But the point is already made clear: for centuries, Christian and Western civilization distinguished between moral judgment on man and artistic judgment on the work. Hoy, instead, Some seek to introduce a new criterion according to which the artist's sin should also automatically contaminate what he has created.. Except hold, when the protagonists are others, that no one should be interested in their life behaviors because they belong to that private sphere that, apparently, remains inviolable for some and becomes a criterion of public condemnation for others.

Florence, 14 June 2026

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Sheep without a shepherd and the gratuitousness of the gift: beaten sheep and caressed wolves – Sheep without a shepherd and the gratuitousness of the gift: beaten sheep and caressed wolves

/in /by
Homiletics of the Fathers of the Island of Patmos

Homiletics of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos

(Italian, English, Español)

 

THE SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD AND THE GRATUITY OF THE GIFT: SHEEP BLASTED AND WOLVES CURED

Jesus orders the Twelve to turn first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to go among the pagans and the Samaritans. It is perhaps not a contradiction in terms with the universality of Jesus' announcement?

.

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

.

There are pages of the Gospel that appear difficult to understand and decipher from the first listen, among the various examples it is enough to remember the passage from John in which Christ affirms: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (GV 6,54).

Jesus' gaze towards the prostitute, mosaic, opera by Marko Ivan Rupnik, Basilica San Pio da Pietrelcina

They are words that test our ability to understand. In fact, Jesus connects a material gesture, such as eating and drinking, to a supernatural and eternal reality such as salvation. Nor should we forget that certain evangelical stories take place in specific theatrical scenes of Judea, where the Halakah, Jewish Law, prohibited the consumption of animal blood, for this reason the meat must be bled completely through specific salting and washing procedures before being eaten as kasher, i.e. permitted. Imagine the reference to human blood, or worse, eating human flesh. Hence the accusation leveled against Christians, first by the Jews of Judea and then by the Romans, to practice ritual cannibalism. It is therefore not surprising that many of his own disciples reacted by saying: “This language is harsh; who can understand it?» (GV 6,60). In cases like these the difficulty emerges immediately, because the mystery announced by Christ surpasses what human reason alone is able to fully grasp. Other texts, instead, they seem simple, linear, almost obvious. And this is precisely where the risk lies: that of believing that we have already understood them. This Sunday's Gospel belongs to this second category, Let's read the text:

"During that time, Jesus, seeing the crowds, he felt sorry for it, because they were tired and exhausted like sheep that have no shepherd. Then he said to his disciples: “The harvest is abundant, but there are few workers! Therefore pray to the Lord of the harvest to send workers into his harvest!”. Called his twelve disciples to him, he gave them power over impure spirits to drive them out and heal every disease and every infirmity. The names of the twelve apostles are: first, Simone, called Peter, and Andrea his brother; Giacomo, son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Filippo and Bartolomeo; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; Giacomo, son of Alphaeus, and Taddeo; Simon the Canaanite and Judas the Iscariot, the one who then betrayed him. These are the Twelve that Jesus sent, ordering them: “Do not go among the pagans and do not enter the cities of the Samaritans; turn instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Along the way, predicate, saying that the kingdom of heaven is near. Heal the sick, raise the dead, purify the lepers, cast out the demons. You received it for free, give freely”» (Mt 9,36 -10,8).

It all starts with a look: Jesus, seeing the crowds, he felt sorry for it, because they were "tired and exhausted like sheep that have no shepherd". This image is not accidental, recalls a long prophetic tradition, in particular chapter XXXIV of the prophet Ezekiel in which God rebukes the shepherds of Israel, accusing them of having thought of themselves instead of the flock entrusted to them: «The sheep were scattered for lack of a shepherd» (This 34,5). The same accusation also returns in the prophet Jeremiah: "Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture" (Gives 23,1). Therefore, when Jesus scrutinizes the crowds like sheep without a shepherd, he does not simply see a multitude of people tired by the difficulties of life, but rather a people who risk dispersing because they lack authentic guides. For this reason, the Evangelist's image of sheep without a shepherd does not offer a generic description of the human condition, but a very specific reality that runs through the entire biblical history: that of the flock entrusted by God to shepherds called to guard and guide it. Christ's compassion must be understood in this context, not as a simple movement of emotion, but as the manifestation of God's own gaze on his people. He whom the prophets had announced as the true Shepherd of Israel, now he finds himself in front of the scattered flock and is preparing to gather them.

After having contemplated Christ's compassion towards the crowds, the Gospel takes a decisive step: Jesus calls twelve men to him and sends them. This is not a random choice, in the Old and New Testament numbers always have a symbolic and mystagogical meaning: in this case the number of those called refers to the twelve tribes of Israel (cf.. Gen 35,22-26; Is 24,4) and manifests Christ's will to gather the new people of God around himself. Below the Evangelist lists their names, before which it is difficult not to be struck by what we find: Peter will deny the Master during the Passion (cf.. Mt 26,69-75). Matthew comes from the world of publicans, meaning the employees of what is now called the Revenue Agency, a category, that of tax collectors, regarded with little sympathy by many of his contemporaries (cf.. Mt 9,9-13), yesterday as today. Thomas will struggle to believe the testimony of the Resurrection (cf.. GV 20,24-29). Judas Iscariot will even betray him (cf.. Mt 26,14-16; 47-50).

If none of the Apostles appear as ideal candidates for a mission destined to change history, because Christ chooses them? Certainly not because you ignore their weaknesses, who knows better than anyone. He chooses them precisely knowing who they are and in doing so teaches a fundamental truth: the Kingdom of God is not founded on the perfection of men, but on the power of divine grace. The Apostle will write later: «My grace is enough for you; in fact my power is fully manifested in weakness" (2 Color 12,9). If the apostolic mission had been entrusted to impeccable men, one might have thought that the success of the advert depended on their qualities, while Christ instead chooses fragile men to remember our human frailties, so that it appears more clearly that the work belongs to God and not to man. In this regard Benedict XVI, the 15 June 2008, giving the homily at the Holy Mass celebrated at the Banchina di Sant'Apollinare in Brindisi, he remembered that Christ did not choose the Apostles because they were already saints, but for them to become so. It's a crucial distinction: Holiness is not the prerequisite of the call but the fruit of the response to the call. And this applies not only to the Apostles, but for every Christian.

The Gospel story he then continues with a statement that might surprise us: Jesus orders the Twelve to turn first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to go among the pagans and the Samaritans. It is perhaps not a contradiction in terms with the universality of Jesus' announcement? No, if we take into account that God had been preparing his people for centuries for the coming of the Messiah. Israel is the place of promises, of the Covenant and of that long divine pedagogy through which the Lord had progressively educated his people to welcome the Savior. This is why the announcement starts from Israel, not because other peoples are excluded from salvation, but because the promises entrusted to the Patriarchs and Prophets had to be fulfilled precisely in Israel. Only after the Resurrection will the Apostles receive the mandate to go to all people (cf.. MC 16, 15), bringing to the ends of the earth that Gospel which was first announced to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The universality of salvation, so, it is not denied but prepared for, according to that divine plan that leads from the Ancient Covenant to the preaching of the Gospel to all peoples.

Jesus finally concludes with a sentence which is perhaps the most challenging of the whole piece: "You received, freely give ". The Apostles must remember that nothing they possess truly belongs to them, why the call, grace and mission are gifts received that cannot be transformed into possession. These words also apply to us: no one gave themselves faith alone, nor did anyone proclaim the Gospel to himself. We have all received something from others: faith, the witness, prayer, forgiveness, the charity. This is why the Lord asks us not to hold back what we have received. Evangelical generosity does not only concern the proclamation of the faith, but also the concrete exercise of charity. Saint Paul reminds the Christians of Corinth: «What do you have that you have not received?» (1 Color 4,7). It is a question that still retains all its force today: if everything we are and possess is first and foremost a gift from God, then even the good we do towards others cannot become a source of personal pride, but it must remain a grateful response to the grace received.

If we had to summarize this evangelical pericope in a few words, we could say that Jesus sees, feel compassion, call and send. Finally, it teaches that the gift received must become a shared gift. This is the logic of the Gospel through which the Lord continues to take care of his people today, because sheep can get lost, but they are never forgotten by the Shepherd who gave his life for them, even if today, in the visible Church, one often has the perhaps wrong impression that sheep are beaten to pet wolves in a complacent or, as they say with worldly flattery: inclusively.

From the island of Patmos, 14 June 2026

.

_________________________________________

THE SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD AND THE GRATUITY OF THE GIFT: WHEN SHEEP ARE BEATEN AND WOLVES ARE STROKED

Jesus orders the Twelve to go first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to the pagans and the Samaritans. Is this not, at first sight, a contradiction of the universal character of Christ’s proclamation?

.

.

There are passages in the Gospel that appear difficult to understand from the very first hearing. Among the many examples, one may recall the Johannine passage in which Christ declares: «Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life» (Jn 6:54). These are words that challenge our capacity for understanding. Jesus links a material act — eating and drinking — to a supernatural and eternal reality, namely salvation. Nor should we forget that certain Gospel narratives unfold within the very specific religious setting of Judea, where the Halakhah, the Jewish Law, forbade the consumption of animal blood. For this reason, meat had to be completely drained of blood through specific procedures of salting and washing before it could be eaten as kosher, that is, as lawful food. One can therefore imagine the shock provoked by any reference to human blood, let alone to the eating of human flesh. From this arose the accusation, first among some Jews of Judea and later among the Romans, that Christians practised ritual cannibalism. It is therefore hardly surprising that many of Christ’s own disciples reacted by saying: «This saying is hard; who can accept it?» (Jn 6:60). In cases such as this, the difficulty is immediately apparent, because the mystery proclaimed by Christ surpasses what human reason alone can fully grasp.

Other texts, however, appear simple, straightforward and almost self-evident. And it is precisely here that the danger lies: that of believing we have already understood them. The Gospel of this Sunday belongs to this second category. Let us therefore read the text:

“At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest.’ Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him. Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus: ‘Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, make this proclamation: “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give’” (Mt 9:36–10:8).

Everything begins with a gaze. Seeing the crowds, Jesus was moved with compassion for them because they were «troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd». This image is not incidental. It evokes a long prophetic tradition, particularly Chapter 34 of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, in which God rebukes the shepherds of Israel for having cared for themselves rather than for the flock entrusted to them: «The sheep were scattered for lack of a shepherd» (This 34:5). The same accusation reappears in the Prophet Jeremiah: «Woe to the shepherds who mislead and scatter the flock of my pasture» (Because 23:1). Therefore, when Jesus looks upon the crowds as sheep without a shepherd, He does not merely see a multitude of people wearied by the hardships of life. He sees a people in danger of being scattered because they lack authentic guides. For this reason, the Evangelist’s image of sheep without a shepherd does not offer a generic description of the human condition, but points to a very specific reality that runs throughout biblical history: the flock entrusted by God to shepherds called to guard and guide it. It is within this context that Christ’s compassion must be understood, not as a simple movement of emotion, but as the manifestation of God’s own gaze upon His people. The One whom the prophets had foretold as the true Shepherd of Israel now stands before the scattered flock and prepares to gather it together.

After contemplating Christ’s compassion for the crowds, the Gospel takes a decisive step forward: Jesus calls twelve men to Himself and sends them out. This is no arbitrary choice. In both the Old and the New Testament, numbers always carry a symbolic and mystical significance. In this case, the number of those called recalls the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Gen 35:22–26; Ex 24:4) and manifests Christ’s desire to gather around Himself the new People of God. The Evangelist then lists their names, and it is difficult not to be struck by what we find. Peter will deny his Master during the Passion (cf. Mt 26:69–75). Matthew comes from the world of tax collectors, those responsible for collecting taxes, a profession regarded with little sympathy in his own day (cf. Mt 9:9–13), no less than in ours. Thomas will struggle to believe the testimony of the Resurrection (cf. Jn 20:24–29). Judas Iscariot will go so far as to betray Him (cf. Mt 26:14–16; 47–50).

If none of the Apostles appears to be the ideal candidate for a mission destined to change history, why does Christ choose them? Certainly not because He is unaware of their weaknesses, which He knows better than anyone else. He chooses them precisely knowing who they are, and in doing so He teaches a fundamental truth: the Kingdom of God is not founded upon the perfection of men, but upon the power of divine grace. As the Apostle would later write: «My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness» (2 Color 12:9). Had the apostolic mission been entrusted to flawless men, one might have been led to think that the success of the Gospel proclamation depended upon their personal qualities. Instead, Christ chooses frail men in order to remind us of our own human frailty, so that it may appear all the more clearly that the work belongs to God and not to man. In this regard, Benedict XVI, in the homily delivered on 15 June 2008 during the Holy Mass celebrated at the Sant’Apollinare Quay in Brindisi, recalled that Christ did not choose the Apostles because they were already saints, but so that they might become saints. It is a decisive distinction: holiness is not the prerequisite for the call, but the fruit of one’s response to that call. And this applies not only to the Apostles, but to every Christian.

The Gospel narrative then continues with a statement that may surprise us. Jesus instructs the Twelve to go first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to the pagans or the Samaritans. Is this not, at first sight, a contradiction of the universal character of Christ’s proclamation? No, provided we bear in mind that God had prepared His people for centuries for the coming of the Messiah. Israel is the land of the promises, of the Covenant, and of that long divine pedagogy through which the Lord gradually educated His people to welcome the Saviour. For this reason, the proclamation begins with Israel, not because the other nations are excluded from salvation, but because it was precisely in Israel that the promises entrusted to the Patriarchs and the Prophets were to find their fulfilment. Only after the Resurrection would the Apostles receive the mandate to go forth to all nations (cf. Mk 16:15), carrying to the ends of the earth that Gospel which had first been proclaimed to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The universality of salvation, therefore, is not denied but prepared, according to that divine plan which leads from the Old Covenant to the proclamation of the Gospel to all peoples.

Finally, Jesus concludes with what is perhaps the most demanding statement in the entire passage: «Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give». The Apostles must remember that nothing they possess truly belongs to them, for their calling, their grace and their mission are gifts they have received and which cannot be turned into personal possessions. These words apply equally to us. No one has given himself the faith, nor has anyone proclaimed the Gospel to himself. All of us have received something from others: faith, witness, prayer, forgiveness and charity. For this reason, the Lord asks us not to hold on to what we have received. Evangelical gratuity concerns not only the proclamation of the faith but also the concrete practice of charity. Saint Paul reminds the Christians of Corinth: «What do you possess that you have not received?» (1 Color 4:7). It is a question that retains all its force even today. If everything we are and possess is first and foremost a gift from God, then even the good we do for our neighbour cannot become a source of personal pride, but must remain a grateful response to the grace we have received.

If we were to summarise this Gospel passage in a few words, we could say that Jesus sees, feels compassion, calls and sends. Finally, He teaches that a gift received must become a gift shared. This is the logic of the Gospel through which the Lord continues, even today, to care for His people, for sheep may stray, but they are never forgotten by the Shepherd who gave His life for them, even though in the visible Church one sometimes has the perhaps mistaken impression that it is preferable to lose the sheep in order to welcome and caress the wolves.

From the Island of Patmos, 14 June 2026

 

.

_________________________________________

SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD AND THE FREENESS OF THE GIFT: BEATEN SHEEP AND PETTED WOLVES

(J)Jesus commands the Twelve apostles address first of all the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not from go among the pagans nor between the samaritans. Is it not this a contradiction with the universality of the announcement of Christ?

.

.

There are pages of the Gospel that seem difficult to understand and decipher at the first listen. Among the many examples, It is enough to remember the Johannine passage in which Christ affirms: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (Jn 6,54). They are words that test our ability to understand.. Indeed, Jesus links a material act, how to eat and drink, with a supernatural and eternal reality such as salvation. Nor should we forget that certain evangelical stories take place in the precise religious context of Judea., where the Halaya, Jewish Law, it was forbidden to consume animal blood. For this reason, The meat had to be completely bled through specific salting and washing procedures before it could be consumed as kosher food., that is to say, lawful. Imagine then the impact that any reference to human blood could have., or even worse, to eat human flesh. From there arose the accusation against Christians, first by some Jews of Judea and then by part of the romans: practice ritual cannibalism. It's not surprising, therefore, that many of his disciples reacted by saying: «This way of speaking is harsh, who can accept it?» (Jn 6,60). In cases like this, the difficulty appears immediately, because the mystery announced by Christ surpasses what human reason alone is capable of fully encompassing.

Other texts, instead, they seem simple, linear, almost obvious. And that is precisely where the risk lies.: that of believing that we have already understood them. This Sunday's Gospel belongs to this second category; let's read the text:

«Seeing the crowd, he felt sorry for her, because I was tired and dejected, like sheep that have no shepherd. Then he said to his disciples: “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Rogad, well, to the owner of the harvest to send workers to his harvest.”. Calling his twelve disciples, He gave them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out and to cure every disease and illness.. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew, his brother; Santiago, son of Zebedee, and John, his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the publican; Santiago, son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Canaanite and Judas Iscariot, the same one who delivered it. Jesus sent these Twelve, after giving these instructions: “Do not go to the land of the pagans or enter the cities of the Samaritans.”; rather turn to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Go and proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven is near. Heal the sick, raise the dead, purify lepers, cast out demons. Freely you have received; give for free” (Mt 9,36–10,8).

It all starts with a look: Jesus, seeing the crowd, He felt sorry for her because she was "tired and dejected", "like sheep that have no shepherd". This image is not coincidental. It refers to a long prophetic tradition, in particular to chapter XXXIV of the prophet Ezekiel, in which God reproaches the shepherds of Israel for having thought of themselves instead of caring for the flock that had been entrusted to them: "The sheep were scattered for want of a shepherd" (This 34,5). The same accusation reappears in the prophet Jeremiah: «Woe to the shepherds who let the sheep get lost and scatter from my pastures!» (Because 23,1). When, therefore, Jesus sees the crowds as sheep without a shepherd, he does not simply see a crowd of people tired by the difficulties of life, but a people that runs the risk of dispersing due to a lack of authentic guides. That's why, The evangelical image of sheep without a shepherd does not offer a generic description of the human condition, but a very concrete reality that runs through all of biblical history: that of the flock entrusted by God to shepherds called to guard and guide it. In this context the compassion of Christ must be understood, not as a simple feeling of shock, but as the manifestation of the same gaze of God on his people. He whom the prophets had announced as the true Shepherd of Israel now stands before the scattered flock and prepares to gather them together..

After contemplating Christ's compassion toward the multitudes, the Gospel takes a decisive step: Jesus calls twelve men and sends them. This is not a casual choice. In the Old and New Testaments, numbers always have a symbolic and mystagogical meaning.. In this case, The number of those called refers to the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. GN 35,22-26; Ex 24,4) and manifests the will of Christ to gather around himself the new People of God. Next, the Evangelist lists their names, and it's hard not to be impressed by what we find. Peter will deny the Master during the Passion (cf. Mt 26,69-75). Matthew comes from the world of publicans, that is to say, of tax collectors, a category viewed with little sympathy yesterday (cf. Mt 9,9-13) like still today. Thomas will have difficulty believing in the testimony of the Resurrection (cf. Jn 20,24-29). Judas Iscariot will even go so far as to betray (cf. Mt 26,14-16; 47-50).

If none of the Apostles seem like the ideal candidate for a mission destined to change history, why does Christ choose them? Certainly not because he ignores his weaknesses, who knows better than anyone. He chooses them precisely knowing who they are, and in doing so teaches a fundamental truth: The Kingdom of God is not based on the perfection of men, but in the power of divine grace. The Apostle will write later: «My grace is enough for you, because my strength is fully manifested in weakness." (2 Color 12,9). If the apostolic mission had been entrusted to impeccable men, one might have thought that the success of the advertisement depended on its qualities. Christ, instead, choose fragile men to remind us of our own human frailties, so that it appears with greater evidence that the work belongs to God and not to man. In this regard, Benedict XVI, In the homily delivered on 15 June 2008 during the Holy Mass celebrated at the San Apolinar Pier in Brindisi, He remembered that Christ did not choose the Apostles because they were already saints, but so that they could become. This is a decisive distinction: holiness is not the presupposition of the call, but the fruit of the response to the call. And this applies not only to the Apostles., but for every Christian.

The gospel story continues then with a statement that might surprise us: Jesus orders the Twelve apostles to go first and foremost to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to go among the pagans or among the Samaritans.. Is it not this a contradiction with the universality of the announcement of Christ? No, if we take into account that God had prepared his people for centuries for the coming of the Messiah. Israel is the land of promises, of the Covenant and of that long divine pedagogy through which the Lord had progressively educated his people to welcome the Savior. That's why the announcement begins in Israel, not because other peoples are excluded from salvation, but because precisely in Israel the promises entrusted to the Patriarchs and Prophets were to find fulfillment.. Only after the Resurrection will the Apostles receive the mandate to go to all nations (cf. MC 16,15), taking to the ends of the earth that Gospel that had been announced first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The universality of salvation, therefore, is not denied, but prepared, according to that divine plan that leads from the Old Alliance to the preaching of the Gospel to all peoples.

Jesus finally concludes with a phrase which may be the most demanding of the entire passage: "Freely you have received; give free». The Apostles must remember that nothing they own truly belongs to them, because the call, grace and mission are gifts received that cannot be transformed into possession. These words are also valid for us: no one has given himself faith, nor has anyone announced the Gospel to himself. We have all received something from others: faith, the testimony, the prayer, forgiveness and charity. That is why the Lord asks us not to retain what we have received. Evangelical gratuitousness does not refer only to the announcement of the faith, but also to the concrete exercise of charity. Saint Paul remembers the Christians of Corinth: «What do you have that you have not received?» (1 Color 4,7). It is a question that still retains all its force today.: if everything we are and possess is above all a gift from God, then also the good we do for our neighbor cannot become a source of personal pride, but must remain a grateful response to the grace received.

If we had to summarize this evangelical pericope in a few words, we could say that Jesus sees, sympathize, call and send. Finally, it teaches that the gift received must become a gift shared. This is the logic of the Gospel through which the Lord continues today to care for his people., because sheep can go astray, but they are never forgotten by the Shepherd who gave his life for them, although today, in the visible Church, there is often the impression, maybe wrong, that it is preferable to lose the sheep to welcome and caress the wolves.

From the Island of Patmos, 13 June 2026

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.