I posted this over on our forum, and I thought I could post it here to solicit responses as well. Now before you read the title and think I have become opposed to any charismatic experiences, realize that I do consider myself charismatic, in a limited sense (at least limited from the perspective of most non-Catholic Charismatics I am sure). I am not opposed to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and understand that I believe that the Holy Spirit does work in the Church and in the hearts of believers today. I have even had experiences I consider “charismatic.”
I was reading a book the other day called The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church by Edward O’Connor, CSC (please share opinions on this book if you have read it). He is a charismatic Catholic, supportive of the movement, *but* is also a loyal Catholic, so he lists some dangers that *may* result from Catholics that become involved in the charismatic movement, and honestly, these are some of the same complaints I see folks having about the Charismatic Episcopal Church on our forum. Also, these are dangers that are outright taken for granted in most non-liturgical charismatic churches, and the main reason why I am suspicious of purely charismatic churches. Let me know what you think about these dangers:
1. Illuminism - i.e. folks believe God is telling them something unique that nobody else knows. There is a need to feel “special” and if God isn’t telling you something unique or even mildly provocative, your credibility as a leader/follower is called into question. In my parents Sunday school class when I was in college, there were about 5 people who always said “God told me to…” whether it was which car to buy or even to get up in the morning. Not only does this destroy the free will God created us with, but how can you argue with “God told me…”??
2. Paraclericalism - a downplaying of the role of clergy, or even suggesting there is no need for the Church hierarchy. I have seen this attitude even among charismatic clergy! There is such an emphasis on the experience of the individual, that any kind of formality or hierarchy is looked down upon. The result for some Catholics is to downplay the role of the Holy Spirit acting in the Church, because the Church and her rules seem too “formal,” and the hierarchy too “stifling.” This leads some charismatic Catholics to become cafeteria Catholics, believing only in what gets them spiritually “excited.”
3. Charismania - attributing excessive significance to the charisms while downplaying other spiritual acts. I have seen this, not so much firsthand, but from the testimony of others. Speaking in tongues or prophecy become the litmus tests for true spirituality, while feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc, are downplayed or even ignored. In some churches, the more outrageous the “charismatic” event, the more the Holy Spirit is deemed present. Unfortunately, this means the Holy Spirit is never allowed to work in a dignified and quiet manner.
4. Neglect of Traditional Spirituality - i.e. past spiritual experiences are downplayed or not even studied because it is all about what “I” am experiencing “now.” This can also be seen when the traditional liturgy is “suspended” when the Spirit leads to be replaced by often questionable pet projects of the pastor. There is also a hostility to formality, and to suggest that something should be done a proper way (such as clerical dress or properly executing an essential part of the liturgy) is viewed suspiciously.
5. Tyranny of the Prophetic - This isn’t Fr. O’Connor’s, but is a term used by a good friend of mine from my seminary days. This means that the prophetic, in this case referring to the illuminism mentioned above, can trump anything. In other words, if there is an objection to what the pastor is doing, the pastor just reminds the objectors that he talked to Jesus and “God told him…” and that settles it. 2000 years of Tradition is forced submit to the private revelation of one pastor.
6. Cult of Personality - I have to add this after reading the comments to the post. One commenter makes a good point in that in some charismatic churches, and even charismatic movements, a cult of personality can develop around the pastor or leader. Despite a general suspicion of traditional hierarchy and church order among some charismatics, the pastor, who has been given special prophetic knowledge, is often viewed idealistically. The result is that he can do whatever he wants without discipline or question, including taking huge sums of money from the congregation. Why? Well it goes back to number 5 above. He has spoken with God. That settles it!
Now, these 6 things are not reasons to discard the charismatic movement in the Catholic Church, just a kind of “head’s up.” They are, I think, a good critique of charismatic experiences outside a historical Church. I mention in my article I Can’t Be Charismatic…I’m Catholic that personal charismatic experiences must submit to the Teaching of Christ’s Church, where the Holy Spirit objectively operates. And while renewal movements often spiritually enliven the Church at times when she needs renewal, all renewal must be subject to the Teachings of Christ in His Church. The Holy Spirit operating in the individual will not contradict the Holy Spirit operating in Christ’s Church.
What do you all think?
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
September 19, 2006 at 8:59 pm
I think that the real danger, and irony, of charismatic movements is that is precisely among those who are very aware of the movement of the Spirit who also have no means of “testing the spirits.”
The broader catholic traditions - the creeds, and in my case confessions - provide us with a way to keep ourselves rooted in the historic faith. This prevents us from preaching out of our own egos & desires.
The other great danger for charismatic churches — especially those not connected to a historic church body — is for the church to become a cult of personality. Some of these congregations seem so pastor-driven that it is hard to see where the pastor’s personality ends and the gospel begins.
September 20, 2006 at 12:45 am
I would say there are no dangers in being truly charismatic (filled with and open to the Holy Spirit)…there ARE dangers in some aspects of the Charismatic Renewal. I have seen prayer groups that practically divorce themselves from historic Christianity because they think the Spirit is telling them some special, new teachiing. I have seen charismatic leaders become totally “I”-centred instead of Christ-centred.
However, I wonder if being closed to the Holy Spirit’s working isn’t more dangerous. I have heard Catholic and Orthodox priests, as well as Protestant clergy, who practically deny any working of the Spirit in the lives of lay Christians today and, in fact, teach a kind of “priestcraft”. As usual, Christian truth is a fine line between extremes.
September 20, 2006 at 3:14 am
I would say the common thread among your 5 points is the subjectivity of the charismatic practice. God is telling me something, or God told my pastor something. It can’t be verified. This means we rely heavily on the person. Are they trustworthy in their motives, perceptions, etc. The problem is that most charismatic circles emphasize charismatic activities over good, solid character and virtues. If a person has abundent prudence and moves in the charismatic, the danger is minimized. Generally, the errors flow from those whose character is lacking.
September 20, 2006 at 7:14 am
I don’t know much about the charismatic movement in the church. Maybe some folks need it to become inspired in their worship. I did go to two healing services, one charismatic and one un-charismatic for lack of a better word. I thought it was odd that at the former practically everyone fainted and I was enlisted to help catch them as they keeled over. At the latter, no one did a Benny Hinn act. I didn’t feel anything, so I don’t what to make of those who did. But I can say that a friend of my mother’s who was one of those who fainted is practically a heretic. She is part of the choir and loves the Mass, but strangely, according to mom, she pooh-poohed the need for confession and says she doesn’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
October 21, 2006 at 1:49 pm
David:
I could have written this post myself! I experienced all of the above in my 30 some years in evangelico-charismatic churches. I experienced much hurt due to the prophetic words over me and about me. (I just kinda never raised my hands and stuff and being a melancholic looked to them like demons were in me, hey I’m a musician and a doctor , what can I say?)
Since I “got saved” in a charismatic type para church as a young teen, I just assumed they were the best and that is actually another danger, which is extreme triumphalism. Many in my past experience questioned the validity of other believers salvation because they didn’t buy into the charismatic experience. The sheer joy of being Catholic for me is knowing that no “spiritual experience ” or feeling can trump receiving Christ in the Eucharist, irregardless of my emotional frame of mind at the time. I love that about being Catholic. I can’t get any closer to Christ than through the eucharist and no worship meeting or falling on the floor or speaking in tongues makes you closer than receiving Him physically through the Blessed Sacrament!
Thanks for your blog, I’m with you guys!
July 29, 2007 at 4:37 am
I’ve run into an interesting question. I find that when I’m discussing the charismatic movement within the Church with charismatics, that what often makes me uncomfortable is the mutation or adaptation of the Sacred Liturgy to the “spirit of the movement.” (Hand holding during the Our Father, among other times, generally inappropriate behavior [for the Divine Liturgy], e.g. jumping around, shouting, generally making a spectacle of yourself, things of this nature.)
My question for you would be this: in your opinion, when is the adaptation of the Liturgy to suit the Movement licit, and when does it cross the line into holding the Church hostage, and/or even sacrilege? When do perhaps licit adaptations take the Ancient Sacrifice to the level of “neighborhood happy fun time with Jesus” block parties? They say they adapt the Liturgy to suit their needs, to make the Liturgy more “interactive” more “engaging” more “interesting” but with this logic, when or how can one suggest that they conform their worship to that of the Church, instead of vice versa?