THE CATHOLIC CHARISMATIC RENEWAL Francis’ Assessment of its Challenges

FRANK CUMBO

A note to the reader: the direct quotes from cernment of the guidance and inspiration of ’ 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 . 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 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. need for objective discernment of charisms by The lack of theological reflection which ‘those who are appointed leaders in the characterised the activity of the early years of Church, to whose special competence it be- the CCR was seen as a dangerous omission by longs’. (Lumen Gentium, par 12) This was a Cardinal Suenens, whose involvement in the topic of no small import to Suenens, who re- CCR began the second phase in its early his- counts in his text A New Pentecost? that he tory, approximately six years after the first had strongly advocated for the inclusion of this CCR retreat at Duquesne University. Suenens section on charisms in Lumen Gentium while saw the deficiencies in the sacramental under- acting as a moderator of the Second Vatican standing of the early CCR as symptomatic of Council. (A New Pentecost? 25) its origins in Protestant Pentecostalism and the A New Pentecost? was written partially as exclusive emphasis on subjective experience a response to Catholic Pentecostals and there- therein: fore outlines some aspects of early CCR

23 COMPASS thought which he considered theologically tion, at a mature age, of the sacraments of ini- problematic. Specifically, while taking great tiation’. (A New Pentecost? 74) Given the dan- care to commend many of the laudable aspects ger Suenens saw in the term Baptism in the of the work of those involved in the first phase Holy Spirit implying ‘a sort of super-baptism, of the CCR, Suenens rejected the contention or a supplement to sacramental baptism which that glossolalia is in every instance a charism. would then become the pivot of the Christian Instead, Suenens situates it ‘on a natural plane’ life’ (A New Pentecost? 82) Suenens therefore (A New Pentecost? 101) and only concedes advocated the discontinuation of the use of this that it might, rarely, have been an instance of term in the CCR. a supernatural gift. In summary, this second phase of the For Suenens, the lack of a direct corpo- CCR’s development can be characterised by rate, ecclesiological benefit of glossolalia is the effort to preserve and affirm the value of the primary reason that it is to be considered the affective and subjective in the CCR while more properly as one ‘among the fruits of upholding the preeminent importance of re- grace’. (A New Pentecost? 104) When describ- maining within the theological boundaries ing how he came to arrive at this understand- delineated by Catholic Tradition. Suenen’s ing of glossolalia, Suenens specifies that he efforts to introduce objective discernment of first ‘had to disassociate it from a vocabulary charisms, and his advocacy of finding an al- and theology which had their origins in classi- ternative to the phrase Baptism in the Holy cal Pentecostalism’. (A New Pentecost? 223) Spirit for the threshold experience through Clearly, Suenens felt that this vocabulary and which an individual is initiated into the CCR theology were present in the CCR when he first were two ways in which he sought to safeguard encountered it, and hence that glossolalia was the CCR from the danger of syncretism. considered at least by some in the CCR to be ‘an infused gift enabling someone to pray in a The Subtext of the Address real language which he himself does not un- derstand’. (A New Pentecost? 99) Pope Francis clearly had Suenens’ concerns In place of what Suenens termed ‘classi- regarding the problematic implications of the cal Pentecostal’ theology, which considers sub- use of the phrase Baptism in the Holy Spirit in jective affect as paramount, Suenens sought mind when he exhorted CCR members to ‘share to promote in the CCR an understanding that with everyone in the Church the grace of the subjective benefit an individual derives baptism in the Holy Spirit (a phrase we find in from receiving charisms is superseded by the the Acts of the Apostles)’. The pontiff’s defence primary benefit of charisms; meeting the ob- of the use of this phrase in this address, when jective needs of the Catholic Church as a coupled with his rejection of the effort to whole. For Suenens, affirming the primacy of provide objective discernment for individuals, the objective was not equivalent to a rejection provides a strong indication that Pope Francis of the subjective dimension of charisms. To considers Suenens’ work to be the greatest the contrary, in A New Pentecost? he describes contributing factor to the introduction of an in detail the significant affirmation he received executive approach to leadership in the CCR. through his experiences of glossolalia and Pope Francis’ exhortation to leaders in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. However, of greater CCR to stop imposing the objective discern- import to Suenens was the need to safeguard ment of charisms on other members of CCR is the integrity of the Sacraments in the Catholic based on two observations best understood in Church.; Hence, Suenens argues that, for terms of Suenens’ contribution to the devel- Catholics, Baptism in the Holy Spirit must be opment of the CCR. The first is that the cir- understood as nothing more than a ‘reaffirma- cumstances which Suenens sought to address

24 THE CATHOLIC CHARISMATIC RENEWAL through the introduction of objective discern- selectively read and misappropriated to serve ment of charisms have changed. Although the as justification for the executive approach to pontiff does not explicitly state this position leadership may well be the reason that Pope in his address, Pope Francis clearly contends Francis elected to be circumspect about the that the CCR no longer lacks the theological origins of the executive approach to leader- reflection which led to the heterodox ship in the CCR. Indeed, there is evidence to understandings Suenens observed in the CCR support the contention that Pope Francis de- of his time. liberately sought to ensure that his criticism In his address the pontiff makes several of the executive model of leadership was not references to the wealth of theological reflec- conflated with a rejection of Suenens. Firstly, tion available to the contemporary CCR. Pope Suenens is one of only three theologians Pope Francis refers his audience to Suenens’ work Francis commends by name in this address. and to the ongoing contribution of the ICCRS Secondly, the only texts explicitly recom- and Catholic Fraternity, two organisations mended by the pontiff in this address are the whose service of the worldwide renewal the ‘Malines Documents,’ two of which Suenens pontiff praises. Additionally, the theological authored and one of which he co-authored with guidance offered by contemporary CCR theo- another bishop. Pope Francis encourages logians such as Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, members of the CCR to utilise these Malines whom Pope Francis also praises and quotes documents as ‘a guide, a reliable path to keep in his address, is clearly seen by the pontiff you from going astray’, specifying Suenens’ as a sufficient safeguard against the re-emer- role in their composition in the process. Pope gence of heterodox theological positions in Francis can therefore be seen to have taken the CCR. care to ensure that his rejection of some of The second observation included in his Suenens’ concerns in this address was balanced address which demonstrates that the objective by the inclusion of repeated positive apprais- discernment of charisms is deleterious to the als of Suenens’ contribution to the develop- contemporary CCR is that it has led to an ego- ment of the CCR. ism in the minds of some leaders which has In conclusion, the subtext of this address stifled the ‘spontaneity and life of the renewal’ is a firm rebuke of those who see their (A New Pentecost? 93) in precisely the way knowledge of or experi- Suenens warned against. Accordingly, Pope ence in the CCR as license to direct the ac- Francis makes clear that the ICCRS and Catho- tivity of the contemporary CCR or determine lic Fraternity must not operate out of an ex- who is suitable for admission in CCR ecutive approach to leadership any more than groups. Pope Francis clearly contends that individual leaders ought to, exhorting all mem- this selective implementation of Suenens’ bers of the CCR: call for the introduction of objective discern- Let yourselves be guided by the Holy Spirit, in ment into the CCR is a damaging source of freedom; and please, don’t put the Holy Spirit disunity in the contemporary CCR, ignores in a cage! Be free! Seek unity in the renewal, important caveats which Suenens explored the unity which comes from the Trinity. in great detail in his works, and is, in any Awareness that Suenens’ work had been case no longer necessary.

Let yourselves be guided by the Holy Spirit, in freedom; and please, don’t put the Holy Spirit in a cage! —Pope Francis

25