THE CATHOLIC CHARISMATIC RENEWAL Pope Francis’ Assessment of Its Challenges
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE CATHOLIC CHARISMATIC RENEWAL Pope Francis’ Assessment of its Challenges FRANK CUMBO A note to the reader: the direct quotes from cernment of the guidance and inspiration of Pope Francis’ address in this article are taken the Holy Spirit. Pope Francis borrows the from the English translation of the address phrase ‘the danger of getting too organised’ provided in the papal documents section of the to refer to this first factor contributing to the Vatican website. For ease of reading, text from disharmony in the contemporary CCR, but it this source has been placed in quotation marks is perhaps more readily understood as the ex- but is not succeeded by parentheses specifying ecutive approach to leadership. The pontiff its source. All other direct quotes have their contends that adopting this approach causes sources specified in this way. a leader in the CCR to think ‘of himself or herself as being more important or greater A First Look at the Text than the others’. In place of this executive model of leadership, Pope Francis’ address Pope Francis’ June 2014 address to the 37th promotes a return to the servant leadership National Convocation of Renewal in the Holy model which characterised the early CCR. He Spirit challenges leaders of the Catholic argues that this latter model allows the Holy Charismatic Renewal, hereafter termed the Spirit to lead the CCR and therefore promotes CCR, to abandon attitudes and practices which harmony ‘because unity comes from the Holy the pontiff contends have contributed to Spirit’. ‘infighting’ within and amongst CCR groups. The second divisive attitude which Pope Given the brevity of this address and its focus Francis discusses is related to the first. Hav- on identifying and critiquing the root cause of ing identified the need to return to a ‘servant this discord it contains only two examples of leadership’ model with respect to entire CCR divisive attitudes and practices and does not groups, Pope Francis identifies the need for speak to their prevalence. Instead, Pope Francis change with regard to the approach taken to uses the two examples he discusses as evidence leadership of individuals in the CCR. The pon- in support of his central contention: that the tiff admonishes those leaders of the CCR who disunity in the contemporary CCR is have sought to become what he terms ‘arbi- symptomatic of an unnecessary and damaging ters of God’s grace’ taking upon themselves effort on the part of its leaders to control its the right to determine who may receive ‘the activities. prayer of outpouring or Baptism in the Spirit’. The first example discussed in this address Pope Francis clearly feels, therefore, that the pertains to leadership of entire CCR groups. ‘executive approach to leadership’ must not Pope Francis admonishes leaders in the CCR be adopted towards an individual wishing to who exceed the role of facilitators and instead experience charismatic prayer or become ini- attempt to direct the activity of CCR groups tiated into the CCR. Pope Francis presses this without due regard for other members’ dis- point by contending that this attitude is not in 21 COMPASS keeping with the freedom with which the ear- Frank Cumbo is the liest members of the CCR received charisms, Liturgy, Faith and engaged in ecumenical activities and evange- Mission Coordinator at lised. St Monica’s College, Epping. He is completing Placing This Address in (an) Historical a master’s level thesis on Context the ecclesiology of the Catholic Charismatic Notably, Pope Francis’s address does not make Renewal at Catholic Theological College, explicit what he believes precipitated the Melbourne. change away from servant leadership in the CCR. However, sections of this address do as a movement intent on promoting a strong allude to a cause when they are read in the affective response to shared prayer, which context of the historical development of the it terms Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Each of CCR. Moreover, it would seem that Pope the many testimonies the Ranaghans repro- Francis intended this address to be understood duce in their text recounts how the experi- with this background in mind, since he ence of Baptism in the Holy Spirit imbued intersperses references to the development of the person providing the testimony with cer- the CCR in it passim. tain gifts and prompted in that person a The early history of the CCR can be cat- strong desire to share this experience with egorised in two phases. The first of these two others. The most frequently referenced char- phases, the ‘movement’s birth’, did not in- ism described as a manifestation of Baptism clude any significant theological reflection on in the Holy Spirit in the Ranaghans’ work is the CCR’s mission and place within the glossolalia, a ‘spontaneous verbal expres- broader Catholic Church. The overriding con- sion, in which syllables succeed one another, cern for those involved in this first phase of forming phrases that are unintelligible’. (Leo the CCR was sharing what they described as Joseph Cardinal Suenens, A New Pentecost? a powerful and life-transforming outpouring 1974, 99). However, Catholic Pentecostals of the Holy Spirit which was first experienced does not present ‘speaking in tongues’ as an in the context of a Protestant, Pentecostal absolute indicator that ‘Baptism in the Holy prayer group. Spirit’ has occurred since this experience The seminal work on this first phase of the and the discernment of charisms is presented CCR Catholic Pentecostals, written by Kevin as an entirely subjective process. and Dorothy Ranaghan and published in 1969, Nevertheless, the Ranaghans do outline a is an ideal source for evaluating Pope Francis’ method for obtaining Baptism in the Holy portrayal of the early CCR. Not only does it Spirit. They direct anyone seeking renewal to describe the initial structures and activities of gather with others to ask Christ in prayer to the CCR during its early years in detail, it is ‘renew in him the gifts and fruits bestowed in also listed as recommended reading in the baptism but not fully actualized in a living works of Cardinal Suenens, whose texts and way’. (Catholic Pentecostals, 144) While it is contribution to the development of the CCR made clear in subsequent passages that this Pope Francis praises in this address. Moreo- prayer for renewal is just that: ‘a prayer, not a ver, Catholic Pentecostals is referenced in the sacrament,’ (Catholic Pentecostals, 150) this statutes of the ICCRS, a body whose ‘service seems to be more a concession to the demands of the worldwide renewal’ is also praised in of orthodoxy rather than a point of conviction, the pontiff’s address. as evidenced by the subsequent addition of ‘if Catholic Pentecostals depicts the CCR such a radical distinction needs to be made’. 22 THE CATHOLIC CHARISMATIC RENEWAL (Catholic Pentecostals, 150) On the level of actual experience, we can and Indeed, many of the testimonies the indeed must admire classical Pentecostals for Ranaghans reproduce in Catholic Pentecostals their faith in the action of the Holy Spirit. How- contain passages which suggest that, in the first ever, as everyone knows, as Catholics we can- phase of the CCR’s history Baptism in the Holy not follow them on a doctrinal and exegetical level in their interpretation of ‘baptism in the Spirit was understood in a way that is incon- Spirit’ nor in the matter of speaking in tongues sistent with the Catholic understanding of the (A New Pentecost? 79) Sacrament of Confirmation. To provide but one example, while describing part of the stu- Hence, this second phase in the CCR’s dent retreat conducted at Duquesne Univer- early development was characterised by the sity in 1967 during the weeks immediately fol- effort to safeguard the CCR from the danger lowing the founding of the CCR, one of the of syncretism. Suenens and others who shared participants, David Mangan, states that he ‘re- his concerned attempted to achieve this alized what my reception of the Holy Spirit in through the introduction of what can be termed the Sacrament of Confirmation was supposed ‘an objective theological framework’ which to be and how I didn’t participate in it’. (Catho- would allow the subjective experiences in the lic Pentecostals, 25) This account, and many CCR to be evaluated and expressed in terms of the others which were published and pro- which were more consistent with Catholic the- moted in Catholic Pentecostals, therefore im- ology. plies that the reception of grace at Confirma- Suenens sought to introduce this objective tion is contingent on an act of the will on the theological framework by emphasising two part of the one being confirmed. key aspects of the Catholic understanding of Their weak protest to the contrary notwith- charisms not evident in the first phase of the standing, throughout Catholic Pentecostals, early CCR. Firstly, Suenens sought to ensure the Ranaghans clearly present Baptism in the that charisms were understood as gifts which Holy Spirit as a means by which the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit imparts primarily for the good effects a change in the life of a Catholic which not of the individual, but of the whole Church. may not have been conferred through the re- This was explored briefly at the Second Vati- ception of the Confirmation. This disregard of can Council in the Constitution Lumen Gen- the objectively conferred, ontological change tium, which defines charisms as the means by which occurs at Confirmation is inconsistent which ‘faithful of every rank’ may ‘contribute with Catholic theology and is the product of toward the renewal and building up of the the entirely subjective approach to discernment Church’. (Lumen Gentium, par 12) Secondly, and religious experience prevalent in this first Suenens sought to promote awareness of the phase of the CCR.