The identification and incorporation of CR by the Catholic Church has in part been hampered by an inadequate vocabulary and lack of clear, pre-existing contexts or categories in which to reflect upon it. Certain confusion has also been the result of perceived similarities between CR and non-Catholic or even non-Christian groups. Thus, in 1986 the Vatican Secretariats for Promoting Christian Unity and for Non-Believers, and the Pontifical Councils for Inter- Religious Dialogue and Culture, issued a Report in response to the concern of episcopal conferences ‘throughout the world’ (Vatican Report, 1986, p.1), This was intended to address the pastoral challenges created by ‘sects’ and ‘new religious movements’ (NRMs). However, it could prompt even some Catholics to identify CR, as a new movement , with groups outside the Church (CESNUR: the Centre for Studies on New Religions, 2005). In part, this may be because of the inconsistent use of the terms ‘cult’, ‘sect’ and ‘new religious movement’ (Introvigne, 1999) in these documents, which could then be taken, mistakenly, to apply to CCR. NRM sounds very similar to the term ‘ecclesial movement’ and ‘new movement’ which are used interchangeably by Church authorities to identify CCR and other Catholic groups )Pontifical Council for the Laity, 2015).
However, in contrast to the suspicion under which the NRMs are held in general, many of the ‘new movements’ are often seen with approval by Church authorities. Thus, Brendan Leahy (2011) and Massimo Faggioli (2014) in their works on the new movements, note the advocacy of the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to promote them and even, in the case of Benedict’s pontificate, to have them ‘play a central role as part of Benedict’s vision of the relationship between the Church and politics’ (Faggioli, 2014, p.138). In this capacity they realise their lay characteristic, being oriented to the secular sphere in their apostolate. How this is established theologically will be examined in the next chapter. Some of the tensions and complexities of such an interpretation of what characterises ‘laity’ will also then be discussed.
There is a marked similarity between CR and some of the NRMs in their styles of worship, activities, use of the Bible, emphasis upon small groups and communities and lay leadership. Thus, the Report of Cardinal Arinze to the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals in 1991 identifies the attraction of NRMs as ‘their thirst for Scripture reading, singing, dancing, emotional satisfaction,
93
and concrete and clear answers. The NRMs offer to fulfill people’s intense desire for biblical and spiritual nourishment’ (n.12). He also notes, ‘[w]here parishes are too large and impersonal, they install small communities in which the individual feels known, appreciated, loved and given a meaningful role. Where lay people or women feel marginalized, they assign leadership roles to them’ (n.14).
Arinze notes these as positive contributions of the NRMs in offering models of practice which challenge parish structures and encourage the formation of laity and promote inculturated liturgy. He even cites CR as positively meeting this need, ‘where this is properly integrated into the pastoral program of the Church’ (n.36). However, he does not indicate how CR may be ‘integrated’ into local pastoral programmes, or how the Church may rise to the ‘challenge and opportunity’ (n.43) of CR itself, when it appears so very similar to what the Church is here being warned against. Arinze acknowledges that the Church should learn from the good practice of the NRMs by critically reflecting upon its own pastoral shortcomings, proposing diocesan programmes of renewed catechesis, lay formation and liturgical renewal.
However, it is questionable how widely these good practices are realised in fact. According the principal role of pastoral discernment to the ‘pastors’ (meaning bishops) is in keeping with the teaching of the Catholic Church (LG, n.25). However, in reality this practice does not seem to have been able to bridge the gap between the demands of doctrinal orthodoxy which the bishops are tasked to teach and promulgate, and the embrace of pastoral renewal which challenges existing structures and practices. This is an illustration, in Congar’s terms, of a problematic relation between centre and periphery in the Church.
3.11 Conclusion
This chapter has described the characteristics and origins of CCR in England. It has been shown that although it has local identity and history, its origins are diverse, both in England and from overseas, particularly the United States. However, as part of the charismatic stream of grace that has emerged in particular forms in the twentieth century, it also has associations with Pentecostalism and the wider spread of Charismatic Renewal globally over
94
the last 60 years. A particular issue for Catholic CR has been its theological incorporation, both in terms of its organisation, and for the understanding of its foundational expression, baptism in the Holy Spirit. It has been shown that while CR can be described as a movement, its deeper identity as a charismatic expression of ecclesial renewal transcends this definition. As a work of grace in the life of the church, manifest also in many denominations and communions, it also has an ecumenical aspect, and an eschatological dimension, since it points to future fulfilment.
So far, the historical roots of CR have been examined, and so too various Catholic theological understandings of baptism in the Holy Spirit. It remains to describe both the ecclesial and theological contexts into which CR emerged 50 years ago. This description will include a brief examination of the pre- history of the Council, after which a more detailed review of two of the Council’s key conciliar texts on the laity and charisms will be presented. This will be the focus of the following chapter.
95 Chapter Four
Charism and Catholic teaching
4.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces and briefly explores the ecclesial doctrinal context into which CCR emerged in the late 1960s. This is done to situate the charismatic claims and understandings of CCR within the context of Church teaching. Renewal as part of, and an expression of, the charismatic dimension of the Church, is an experience and expression of faith. Therefore, further examination will also be made into the transmission of faith through tradition and the sensus fidei, the sense of the faith, since these are also of the lived and charismatic order. This will connect at the end of the chapter with a consideration of the prophetic function of the laity, as they exercise the sensus
fidei, and contribute to tradition.
Christian doctrine as it has developed is more typically characterised by prioritising the theoretical over the experiential in the transmission of faith. Thus, for example, the General Directory for Catechesis (GDC) claims
the Second Vatican Council set as one of its principal tasks the ‘better conservation and presentation of the precious deposit of Christian doctrine so as to render it more accessible to Christ’s faithful and to all men (sic.) of good will’…for the teaching of the faith.
(n.125)
However, the distinction is not so clear, since, as will be explained below, the Tradition that together with Sacred Scripture constitute the ‘deposit’ of doctrine is, in part, also a lived experience of faith which is both reflexive, and communicative, and also describes a process whereby faith is passed on to others.
Charismatic Renewal emerged soon after the Second Vatican Council, (1962 – 1965) and, therefore, it is reasonable to look to the teaching of the Council for its doctrinal contextualisation. This is especially true since it was the first council to directly address (albeit quite briefly) the role and function of charisms. However, since CR and the discussion of charisms at the Council
96
also directly (though not exclusively) concerned the laity, I shall first set out a brief historical preamble concerning lay status and ecclesial participation.