It is manifest that this clique of hyper-spiritualists exerts an unduly preponderant influence over the theological and spiritual orientation the movement has adopted during the thirty –five or so years of its existence within the Catholic Church. As far as the ideology and theological orientation of this group is concerned, its members can be as far to the right as those who make up the so-called covenant communities (which are very near to being fundamentalist communes) and as far to the left end of the theological spectrum as those who practice Silva-mind control and Jungian dream-work. J. Massyngberde Ford, in her work published in 1976 entitled Which way for Catholic Pentecostals? distinguishes two types of Catholic Charismatics or Pentecostals, a Type I, which includes those members of the Renewal having most in common with the classic Pentecostals, and a less rigid Type II more in line (according to Ford) with traditional Catholic spirituality and mysticism, who are consequently more liberal in outlook: The first type has a paraecclesial structure; a teaching, advisory, and executive magisterium; and a disciplinary system. It appears to be modeled on (a) the Church of the Redeemer, Houston Texas; (b) the Word of God Community, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the People of Prayer Community, South Bend, Indiana… The second type of Catholic Neo-pentecostalism is flexible and less structured. It is fully integrated with the theology and sacramentality of the contemporary Catholic Church, and is open to non-Pentecostal influences, and is deeply interested in Eastern Orthodox theology. (J. Massyngberde Ford, Which way for Catholic Pentecostals? Harper and Rowe Publishers, New York, NY 1976, pge 1) In Ford’s estimation, Type I would include individuals like Ralph Martin, Kevin Ranhagan, Paul DeCelles, etc., who are perceived by many as fundamentalist oriented Catholics, and who are prominent in the Church today precisely because of their neo-Pentecostal beliefs. Type II, on the other hand, would tend to be Catholics whose interest or participation in the Charismatic Renewal was merely incidental to their life as prelates, theologians or professionals; members of this group would included the late Cardinal Suenens, Mariologist Rene Laurentin, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, etc. However, much has changed with regards to the Charismatic renewal since the work cited above was published. While many in the movement still retain a nostalgic attachment to the neo-Pentecostal good old days, the movement certainly has not stood still; it has metamorphosed time and time again, and has seemed to have arrived at an understanding with the so-called Marian movement. Indeed, much of the attachment to the omnipresent (and for the most part, spurious) apparitions and revelations by members of the Marian movement seems to be directly influenced by a Pentecostal approach to spirituality. Many of those who would have formerly been repelled by neo-Pentecostalism are now inclined to accept it under the veneer of Marian devotion, and so have become, in a sense, Type I pentecostals. On the other hand, many Catholics who would never have thought of participating in quasi-occult spiritual practices, such as divination and the interpretation of dreams, now do so under what they perceive to be the safe, Catholic aegis of the Charismatic movement’s more liberal wing. It is apparent that the issue is no longer as cut and dried as Massyngbe Ford judged to be the case in the mid seventies. There is a threat to the essential underpinnings of the Catholic faith coming from both sides of the movement, in the sense that both adhere to a view of spirituality that is fundamentally experiential and subjectivist; and both, in more or less subtle language, seem to put forth the idea that there is, in these days, a new, charismatic, super-church in the making, which will inevitably supplant the antiquated institutions of historical Christianity. Those at the fringes of the movement tend (nowadays, using very cautious language) to consider any questioning of its hyper-spiritualism as, at best, a manifestation of a hard hearted traditionalism or intellectualism, and at worst, a diabolical the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Again, I must caution the reader once more that what is to follow should in any way impugn the majority of Catholics who somehow participate in the Renewal and are faithful to the perrenial teachings of the Church. Nonetheless, many ideas, concepts and teachings which are irreconcilable with Catholic truth have infiltrated the thinking of the faithful by means of the influence exercised by many radical members of the Renewal’s leadership.
Posted on: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:58:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015