My respectful comments on Fr. Hardon’s 1971 remarks follow in bold print:

Let me first note that this article is from 1971. The modern Catholic Charismatic Renewal began gaining steam only about 4 years before these remarks were made in 1971. As you can see, something big was spreading quickly as shown by the fact that Hardon made such extensive remarks only 4 years later. In my personal opinion, Fr. Hardon “jumped the gun” because of his fear (understandable in the light of other confusing events in the sixties and seventies) that this new movement was somehow not orthodox. He was, fortunately, wrong about that; but I can’t be too hard on him given that in 1971 it was not fully clear where all of this was heading. Maybe and possibly, his warnings somehow served a useful purpose in keeping the Renewal on the right track. Thankfully, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal did not live up to the understandable but thankfully mistaken fears and anxiety of Fr. Hardon. None of my remarks below imply any disrespect to the memory of Fr. Hardon, and I invoke his intercession for my efforts in this and other tasks. (By the way, I recall once visiting his grave a few years ago to commemorate his death.) He did great good. But, in this essay, he was, in my personal opinion, not at his best, which should serve as a healthy warning to all of us when it comes to making premature, strong judgments about the workings of the Holy Spirit with which we may not be fully familiar. The only reason I make this evaluation of Fr. Hardon's remarks is because the remarks were presented to me for my reaction and are obviously still available and circulating on the internet.

My comments will be in bold print. I will put in red print any parts of the article itself on which I want to focus my comments.

Respectfully,

Oswald Sobrino

Pentecostalism: Evaluating a Phenomenon

by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Before entering on the formal presentation, I think it will be useful
to first clarify some possible sources of misunderstanding.

The immediate focus of this study is Pentecostalism. It is not
directly concerned with the persons who call themselves Pentecostals
or, as some prefer, Charismatics.

An interesting disclaimer above by Fr. Hardon.

Moreover, the purpose here is to make an evaluation. It is not to
impart information about Pentecostalism, since such information is
fairly presumed, with all the literature by and about the movement
and, for many people, either personal experience or direct observation
of the movement in action.

Finally, though I seldom do this when speaking, in this case it may be
useful to give a brief run-down of “references” about the speaker’s
own qualifications in talking on the subject.

My professional work is teaching Comparative Religion. A phenomenon
like Pentecostalism, I know, has for years been one of the
characteristic features in other religious cultures, and not only in
Protestantism or Roman Catholicism; in fact, not only in Christianity.

Since the first stirring of Pentecostalism in Catholic circles, I have
been asked to give some appraisal of it to leaders in the Church who
sought counsel on the question: e.g., Bishop Zaleski as chairman of
the American Bishops Doctrinal Commission and, recently, the Jesuit
Provincial of the Southern Province, in a three-day private conference
in New Orleans.

For several years I have been counseling persons dedicated to
Pentecostalism, mainly priests, religious, and seminarians. And on
Palm Sunday of this year I preached at the First Solemn Mass of a
priest who is deeply involved in the movement.

My plan for today’s talk is to cover three areas of the subject, at
uneven length, namely:

The Historical Background of the Pentecostal Movement, up to the present.

What are the principal elements of Pentecostalism, as viewed by Roman
Catholics dedicated to the movement?

An Evaluation in the form of a Critical Analysis of Pentecostalism as
a Phenomenon which has developed an Ideology.


Historical Background

The essentials of the Pentecostalism we know today began with the
Reformation in the sixteenth century as a complement to Biblicism. The
two together have formed an inseparable duality in historic
Protestantism.

Where the Bible was canonized in the phrase, Sola Scriptura, as the
sole repository of divine revelation, the indwelling Holy Spirit in
the heart of every believer was invoked as the only criterion for
interpreting the Scriptures or even for recognizing their canonicity.
Thus Solo Spiritu became the basic principle of direction in the life
of a Christian, in place of the professedly divine guidance by the
Spirit residing in the papacy and the Catholic hierarchy.

Interestingly, many evangelical Protestants are, to this day, anti-charismatic and believe that the charismatic gifts ceased with the apostolic age. Such views are termed “cessationist.” The Catholic Church has never officially embraced this Protestant cessationist view of the charisms somehow ending with the last apostles.

Pentecostalism turned sectarian in the nineteenth century when groups
like the Irvingites, Shakers, and Mormons broke away from their parent
bodies over what they said was indifference in the established
Protestant churches to external manifestations of the presence in
converted believers of the Holy Spirit.

What gave these sectarian groups theological rootage was the parallel
rise of the Holiness movement among Methodists. Experience of
conversion and an awareness of the Spirit had always been prominent in
Wesleyan thought. With the advent of biblical criticism and the
solvent of rationalism, many followers of Wesley fell back almost
exclusively on personal experience as a sign of God’s saving presence.

When some of these Holiness groups affiliated with the Irvingites and
their counterparts, modern Pentecostalism was born.

Some would date the beginning with 1900, but, more accurately, from
1900 on the Pentecostal movement began its denominational period. One
after another, new congregations were formed or old ones changed to
become Pentecostal in principle and policy. By 1971, some 200 distinct
denominations in America qualified as Pentecostals. While total
membership is uncertain, ten million in the United States is not too
high a figure. Outside North America, the largest contingent is in
South America, where Pentecostal missionaries from the States have
successfully evangelized in every country below the Rio Grande. Brazil
alone has four million, of whom 1,800,000 are communicants; mainly
converts who were originally baptized Catholics.

This growth trend continues today. It is common to read in the media that the fastest growing form of Christianity in the world today is Pentecostal or charismatic. I am not surprised, but it is interesting to see that the trend was already apparent 38 years ago in 1971 and has gotten even stronger as of 2009. It is a remarkable pattern of growth which even Fr. Hardon could see back in 1971.

The most recent development in Pentecostalism was the ecumenical
collaboration with Catholic groups in the United States, at first
cautious, then bolder, and now becoming a pattern that gave rise to
what some call “Catholic Pentecostalism,” but others prefer to say is
“The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church.”

Of course, the name eventually became the Catholic Charismatic Renewal for the obvious reason of avoiding confusion with Protestant Pentecostals.

From this point on, my concern will be uniquely with this latest
development, seen through the eyes of its dedicated followers and
described by men and women who believe they are, and wish to remain,
loyal Catholics but honestly believe that a new dimension should be
added to the concept of Catholicism before it was touched by the
present outpouring of the Pentecostal grace of the Spirit.

It’s not a “new dimension” but rather, as John Paul II said in 1998, a “rediscovery” of a very ancient and very traditional dimension of Catholicism. By calling it a “new dimension,” Hardon is already tipping his hand that his evaluation will be negative.


Main Elements of Pentecostalism

It is perfectly appropriate to look at the Protestant roots of the modern revival of so many charismatic gifts. Yet, many Catholics, unfamiliar with Catholic teaching, assume that such Protestant roots taint the fruit. I cannot read Fr. Hardon’s mind, but it would not surprise me if he also tended to share in that assumption, conscious or unconscious, that somehow the Protestant roots automatically poison the fruit. In contrast, it is clear Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit is active among our separated brethren. So it would not be surprising at all if the Holy Spirit produced a revival of charismatic gifts among them. After all, most Protestants share with us a valid Sacrament of Baptism, the sacrament in which the Holy Spirit is first bestowed on Christians. Catholic sacramental theology is not surprised at the working of the Holy Spirit among validly baptized Protestants.

Although American Catholic involvement in the Pentecostal movement is
hardly five years old, a growing body of literature is accumulating.
Most of it is still descriptive or historical, but more than a score
of monographs and half a dozen books are frankly theological. Their
authors seriously try to come to grips with what they call Charismatic
Renewal, and their studies are couched in formal, even technical,
language.

There is no doubt that those who are professed Catholics and, at the
same time, committed to Pentecostalism, want to span both shores. As
they view the situation, it should be seen from two perspectives: 1)
from the standpoint of Pentecostalism, defining what are its essential
features; and 2) from the side of Catholicism, distinguishing what is
different about Pentecostalism today, compared with other historical
types of the same movement in former times.

Essentials of Pentecostalism. Writers of a Catholic persuasion isolate
certain elements of Pentecostalism and identify them as
transconfessional. They are simply characteristic of this aspect of
Christianity wherever it occurs, whether among Catholics or
Protestants or, in fact, whether before the Reformation or since.

The primary postulate also gives Pentecostalism its name. Just as on
the first Pentecost in Jerusalem there was an extraordinary descent of
the Holy Spirit and a marvelous effusion of spiritual gifts, so at
different ages in the Church’s history a similar phenomenon occurs.

It is generally occasioned by a grave crisis or need in the Church.
God raises certain charismatic persons to visit them with special
graces and make them heralds of His mission to the world. Such were
Benedict and Bruno, Francis and Dominic, Ignatius and Teresa of Avila.

I recall, ironically, an article by Fr. Hardon (still on the web) strongly defending the gift of tongues of St. Francis Xavier against people skeptical about the saint’s having that particular gift.

The present age is such a period, certainly of grave crisis in
Christianity, during which the Holy Spirit has decided to enter
history in a miraculous way, to raise up once again the leaders of
renewal for the Church and, through the Church, for all mankind.

No less than on Pentecost Sunday, so now the descent of the Spirit
becomes palpably perceptible. This perceptibility shows itself
especially in three ways:

In a personally felt experience of the Spirit’s presence in the one
who receives Him. The qualities of this coming are variously
described, but they cover one or more of the following internal
experiences: deep-felt peace of soul, joyousness of heart, shedding of
worry and anxiety, strong conviction of belief, devotion to prayer,
tranquility of emotions, sense of spiritual well-being, an ardent
piety, and, in general, a feeling of intimacy with the divine which,
it is said, had never or only for sporadic moments been experienced
before.

Jesus says that by their fruits you will know them. There is nothing wrong in the least in using good fruits as evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit. By using the phrase “personally felt experience,” Hardon is signaling that he will seek to raise great fear about the validity of such personal experiences. It is better, in my opinion, to not denigrate personal experiences but rather to see what kind of objective fruit they yield, as Jesus directs us to do.

Along with the internal phenomena, which themselves partake of the
preternatural, are external manifestations that can be witnessed by
others. Such are speaking in strange tongues, the gift of prophecy,
the power of healing, and, it would seem, all the gamut of charismata
enumerated in the Acts of the Apostles and the Letters of St. Paul.

Capping the two sets of phenomena, of internal experience and external
manifestation, is the inspiration given by the Spirit to communicate
these gifts to others. Normally a Spirit-filled person is the channel
of this communication; he becomes a messenger of the Spirit to others
and his zeal to act in this missionary role is part of the change that
the divine visitation effects in him.

The basic condition required to receive the charismatic outpouring is
openness of faith. The only fundamental obstacle is diffidence or
distrust of the Spirit to produce today what He had done in ages past.

What Hardon fails to mention is that among many Catholics, a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the release of charismatic gifts leads to a greater devotion to the Eucharist and to Mary as the exemplary “charismatic” in her full surrender to the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Distinctive Features. If the foregoing are typical of Pentecostalism
in every critical period of Christianity and the common heritage in
Protestant as well as Catholic experience, certain features are
typical of Pentecostalism today.

Present-day Charismatic experience is far wider than ever before.
Where in former days only certain few people received the Pentecostal
outpouring, it is now conferred on thousands. And the conferral has
only started. It is nothing less than a deluge of preternatural
visitation.

I think this aspect is what troubles Hardon greatly—that today the gifts are being poured out on “all flesh” as opposed to simply a smaller group of mystics and contemplatives. Yet, that is what Peter preaches in Acts when he quotes the prophet Joel that the Lord will pour out His Spirit on “all flesh.” This widespread outpouring is also consistent with the universal call to holiness prophetically proclaimed in Vatican II (1962-65), which anticipated the charismatic renewal that would burst open on the Catholic scene in 1967, two years after the Council ended.

Consistent with the large numbers is the fact that Pentecostalism,
otherwise than ever before, affects the lettered and unlettered, those
obviously pursuing holiness and the most ordinary people. Indeed, one
of the truly remarkable facts is that even quite unholy persons may
now suddenly receive the Spirit, provided they open their hearts to
Him in docile confidence and faith.

It first requires repentance by the “unholy.” These remarks seem tendentious to me by somehow implying that many serious sinners are now exercising the gifts. Hardon’s comments on the surface appear to be objective, but in reality are full of this subtle sort of negative innuendo that sets up the reader for his negative conclusion at the end.

Also, unlike in previous times, this is a movement. It is not just a
sporadic experience but a veritable dawn of a new era of the Spirit;
such as Christianity had never known in ages past. It is destined, so
it seems, to sweep whole countries and cultures, and promises to
effect changes in so-called institutional Christianity – not less
dramatic than occurred in Jerusalem when Peter preached his first
sermon in response to the coming of the Holy Spirit.

As might be expected, the Spirit is now to affect not only individuals
or scattered groups here and there. His charismatic effusion will
remake Christian society. His gifts are to recreate and, where needed,
create new communities of believers, bound together by the powerful
ties of a common religious experience and sustained by such solidarity
as only a mutually shared contact with the divine can produce.

Here, Hardon is implying that Catholic charismatics want to remake the institutional Catholic Church. That is wrong. He is likely confusing Catholic charismatics with theological liberals who did and still do want to do that. Catholic charismatics are not theological liberals. Hardon is unfairly blurring the lines between them to justify his negative evaluation of the Renewal.

While there had been Pentecostal experience in every stage of
Christian history, generally they were characterized by public
phenomena or at least their external manifestations were highlighted.
Modern Pentecostalism includes these phenomena, indeed, but the stress
is on the internal gifts received by the people. Their deep inside
conviction of mind and joy of heart are paramount. These are, of
course, no less phenomenal than the physical gifts of tongues or
prophecy or healing of disease. They, too, partake of the miraculous.
But they are the interior gifts from the Spirit in the spirit, and as
such, are the main focus of Pentecostalism in today’s world of doubt
and desperation.

In contrast, Catholic charismatics emphasize the externally manifested fruits of the Holy Spirit as evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit. See

Galatians 5:22-25 (RSV): “22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.  24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.  25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.”

Critical Analysis

So far I have given what might be called an overview of
Pentecostalism, with emphasis on that form which professed Catholics
have not only adopted but which their leaders, priests, religious and
the laity, are defining and defending in a spate of books and
periodicals.

I submit that this overview has unfairly and tendentiously emphasized the negative in order to set up his negative critical analysis which follows.

I have witnessed the phenomena they describe, read the literature they
have written, spent hours in conference and consultation with those
deeply committed to the movement, conferred at length with specialists
in the psychological sciences who dealt professionally with “Catholic
Pentecostals,” and I have carefully watched the consequences of the
movement for several years. My growing conclusion is that
Pentecostalism in the Catholic Church is symptomatic of some grave
needs among the faithful that should be met soon and by all effective
means at our disposal. But I also think that Pentecostalism as an
ideology is not the answer to these needs. In fact, it may be a
serious obstacle, even a threat, to the authentic renewal in the
Spirit inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council.

Hardon speaks of an authentic renewal in the Spirit inaugurated by Vatican II. Even he could see that in 1971. That’s exactly what the Catholic Charismatic Renewal is, as demonstrated by consistent papal endorsements since 1971 to the present.

My reasons for this twofold judgment naturally suggest two sets of
appraisal: one for considering Pentecostalism symptomatic and the
other for believing it does not meet the felt needs of the Church
today.

Pentecostalism As Symptomatic. It is not surprising that a phenomenon
like Pentecostalism should have risen to the surface in Catholic
circles just at this time. The Church’s history has seen similar, if
less widely publicized, phenomena before.

The widespread confusion in theology has simmered down to the faithful
and created in the minds of many uncertainty about even such
fundamentals as God’s existence, the divinity of Christ, and the Real
Presence.

Confusion seeks certitude, and certitude is sought in contact with
God. When this contact is fostered and sustained by group prayer and
joint witness to the ancient faith – it answers to a deep-felt human
need. Pentecostalism in its group prayer situations tries to respond
to this often desperate need.

Among the critical causes of confusion, the Church’s authority is
challenged and in some quarters openly denied. This creates the
corresponding need for some base of religious security – which
Pentecostalism offers to give in the interior peace born of union with
the Spirit.

Due to many factors, many not defensible, practices of piety and
devotion – from regular Novenas, to statues, rosaries and religious
articles – have been dropped or phased out of use in the lives of
thousands of the faithful. Pentecostalism serves to fill the
devotional vacuum in a way that startles those who have, mistakenly,
come to identify Christianity with theological cerebration or the bare
minimum of external piety.

Among Catholic charismatics, there is a strong emphasis on Eucharistic Adoration, on the intercession of Mary, and on the intercession of the other saints. Being charismatic does not lead to a lessening of traditional Catholic devotional practices, but rather to a strengthening and deepening of attachment to and experience of such traditional Catholic devotions. If you do not believe me, visit my parish, Christ the King Catholic Church in Ann Arbor, or visit Franciscan University in Steubenville. Actually, visiting these actual places is much, much better than reading my comments! Go and see for yourself and make up your own mind!

Ours is, in growing measure, a prayerless culture. This has made
inroads in Catholicism. It is a commentary on our age that millions
have substituted work for prayer; and now the balance needs to be
redressed – with Pentecostalism offering one means of restoring the
spirit of prayer.

In the same way, religion for too many had become listless routine,
and prayer a lip service or almost vacuous attendance at the Liturgy.
Religion as experience, knowing God and not only about Him; feeling
His presence in one’s innermost being – was thought either exotic, or
psychotic, or presumptuous. Pentecostalism promises to give what
Christians in our dehumanized Western Society so strongly crave –
intimacy with the Divine.
All of this, and more, is part of the background which helps explain
why such a movement as the Charismatic came into being. Its existence
is both symptomatic and imperative that something be done – and done
well – to satisfy the desire of millions of Christians for peace of
mind, security of faith, devotion in prayer, and felt realization of
union with God.

I would agree with much of Fr. Hardon’s eloquent portrayal of the religious crisis in the previous three paragraphs.

Pentecostalism As Mistaken Ideology. The question that still remains,
however, is whether the Pentecostal movement is a valid answer to
these recognized needs. Notice I do not say that individuals who have
entered the movement cannot find many of their spiritual needs
satisfied. Nor am I saying that group prayer is not helpful for many
people; nor, least of all, that the Holy Spirit has been inactive
during these trying times to confer precisely an abundance of His
seven-fold gifts on those who humbly and in faith invoke His
sanctifying name.

Fr. Hardon is too smart to even theoretically risk the unforgivable sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. More should follow his example here. In his comments in red, Fr. Hardon is in fact discerning authenticity in the Renewal.

What I must affirm is that Pentecostalism is not a mere movement; it
is, as the ending “ism” indicates, an ideology. And as such it is
creating more problems objectively than it solves subjectively. In
other words, even when it gives symptomatic relief to some people, it
produces a rash of new, and graver, issues touching on the Catholic
faith and its authentic expression by the faithful.

All new movements have raised such risks, even the early Franciscan movement. That is why we have Peter, through the Pope, to keep us in line with his guidance and teaching. The Popes beginning with Paul VI have done that job so that today we have an orthodox Catholic Charismatic Renewal in the heart of the Church building up the Church and not in schism.

The fundamental problem it creates is the absolute conviction of
devoted Pentecostals that they have actually received a charismatic
visitation of the Holy Spirit.

I am not here referring to such external phenomena as the gift of
tongues, but of the deeply inward certitude that a person has been the
object of a preternatural infusion, with stress on the infusion of
preternatural insight, i.e., in the cognitive order.

This is an astounding assertion, and the only thing unremarkable about
it is that so many Pentecostals are now firmly convinced they have
been so enlightened.

Their books and monographs, lectures and testimonials simply assume to
be incontestable - and beyond refutation - that they have been
specially illumined by a chrism which, they say, is available to
others who are equally disposed to receive it.

But repeated affirmation is not enough, and even the strongest
subjective conviction is not proof - where a person claims to have
been the recipient of such extraordinary gifts - notably of spiritual
knowledge – as God conferred in apostolic times or gave to His great
mystics in different times.

Solution offered by Jesus: you will know them by their fruits. That’s the core of all Catholic discernment. The fact that it is often a hard task does not mean that we need to shy away from the challenge of discernment or retreat into a risk-free way of life. After all, there is no risk-free way of life. You have heresy and schism arising all over the place, even among very traditionalist Catholics, as seen in the schismatic Society of St. Pius X.

The dilemma this raises can be easily stated:

Either the Pentecostal experience really confers preternatural insight
(at least among its leaders),

Or the experience is quite natural, while certainly allowing for the
normal operations of divine grace.

Everything which the Pentecostal leadership says suggests that they
consider the experience - and I quote their terms - “preternatural,
special, mystical, charismatic, extraordinary.”

It is irrelevant to discourse about the charismata in the New
Testament, or theologize about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. No
believing Christian denies either the charisms or the gifts. The
question at stake is not of faith, but of fact.

This sentence in red is a big point at which Hardon recognizes the theological validity of the Charismatic Renewal. It seems that for him the problem is just one of factual discernment. It also implies that Hardon is not a cessationist (that is, he does not believe that the charismatic gifts ended with the apostles). What I suspect is that Hardon may be primarily troubled by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit among so many who are unlettered or uneducated. But, if you read the Acts of the Apostles, that’s exactly what troubled the Jewish leaders about the first apostles, a motley, uneducated crew of mostly fishermen with Galilean accents.

Are the so-called charismata truly charismatic? If they are, then we
stand in the presence of a cosmic miracle, more stupendous in
proportion – by reason of sheer numbers – than anything the Church has
seen, I would say, even in apostolic times.

Well, why is it not possible for the Holy Spirit to so surprise and astound Fr. Hardon or anyone else, for that matter with such a stupendous outpouring? In fact, Pope (now also Blessed) John XXIII prayed for a New Pentecost as he invoked the Second Vatican Council. Why is it so implausible that the Lord answered the Pope’s prayer in a stupendous way?

But if the experiences are not authentically charismatic, then, again,
we stand in the presence of a growing multitude of persons who believe
themselves charismatically led by the Holy Spirit. They will make
drastic decisions, institute revolutionary changes, or act in a host
of other ways - firmly convinced they are responding to a special
divine impulse whereas in reality they are acting in response to quite
ordinary, and certainly less infallible, motions of the human spirit.

Certainly, such abuses have happened. But, as I survey the scene today, the Catholic Charismatic Renewal is a vibrant and vigorous part of the Catholic Church at its highest levels. In fact, the official preacher to the papal household for both John Paul II and Benedict XVI has been charismatic. Thankfully, the fears of Fr. Hardon have not come to pass. The Renewal is orthodox and fully at home in the very heart of the Catholic Church.

At this point we could begin a completely separate analysis, namely,
of the accumulating evidence that the impulses which the Pentecostal
leaders consider charismatic are suspiciously very human. Their
humanity, to use a mild word, is becoming increasingly clear from the
attitudes being assumed toward established principles and practices in
Catholicism.

Again, this fear of a rebellion against the authority of the Pope and the hierarchy has not come to pass.

Logically, it may be inferred, the Holy Spirit would not contradict
Himself. We expect Him to support what Catholic Christianity believes
is the fruit of His abiding presence in the Church of which He is the
animating principle of ecclesiastical life.

Catholic Charismatics fully agree with the above statement.

What do we find? In the published statements, and therefore not the
casual remarks of those who are guiding the destiny of the Pentecostal
movement among Catholics, are too many disconcerting positions to be
lightly dismissed by anyone who wants to make an objective appraisal
of what is happening.

I limit myself to only a few crucial issues, each of which I am sure,
will soon have a cluster of consequences in the practical order:

The Papacy. If there is one doctrine of Catholic Christianity that is
challenged today it is the Roman Primacy. Yet in hundreds of pages of
professional writing about the charismatic gifts, we find a studied
silence - no doubt to avoid offense to other Pentecostals - about the
papacy; and a corresponding silence about a more loyal attachment to
the Holy See.

This fear of rebellion against the Pope has proven to be unfounded. See my earlier comments.

It is painful to record but should be said that, the pioneer of
American Pentecostalism among Catholics and its prolific defender
(Kevin Ranaghan) was among the first to publicly take issue with Pope
Paul VI on Humanae Vitae.

If that is an accurate statement, then I too condemn Mr. Ranaghan. Come to Christ the King, Ann Arbor, a charismatic parish; and you will hear homilies strongly defending Humanae Vitae.

The Priesthood and Episcopate. Running as a thread through apologists
for Catholic Pentecostalism is an almost instinctive contraposition
of, and I quote, “charismatic” and “hierarchical” or “spiritual” and
“institutional.”

While some commentators state the dual aspects in the Church and even
stress the importance of harmony between the two, others have begun to
opt for a theological position quite at variance with historic
Catholicism. They suggest that in the New Testament there was
essentially only one sacrament for conferring the gifts of the Spirit.
Baptism gave a Christian all the essentials of what later on the
“institutional church” developed into separate functions, namely the
diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate. [1]

The view described by Hardon is not part of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. It is easy to pick out someone in error. It is unfair to tar everyone with the error of one person. Events since 1971 have demonstrated that Hardon’s fears were unfounded, even if understandable way back then.

Catholic Apostolate. The heaviest artillery of Pentecostals in the
Catholic camp is leveled at the “ineffectual, irrelevant and
dispirited” form of Christianity prevalent in the Church.

Accordingly, under the impulse of the Spirit, radical changes are
demanded in the Church’s apostolate. Old forms of trying to reach the
people, especially the young, should be abandoned. This applies
particularly to Catholic education. “In spite of the immense
expenditure of money and human effort being put into parochial
schools,” Pentecostals are saying, “how often do we not hear the
complaint that a pitifully small proportion of the students emerge as
deeply convinced and committed Christians? We can therefore well use
some new life in the Church.” [2] Concretely, this means to enter
other kinds of work for the faithful, and not retain Catholic
parochial schools - as more than one teaching order, influenced by
Pentecostalism, has already decided to carry into effect.

I think it is tendentious and misleading for Hardon to refer to Catholic charismatics merely as “Pentecostals” because that makes Catholic readers immediately think that Catholic charismatics are not really Catholic but rather Protestant. By the way, in Ann Arbor, the local Catholic Charismatics run a Catholic elementary school called Huron Valley school. So much for this exaggerated accusation and fear by Hardon.

The New Spirituality. Given the posture of Pentecostalism as a
phenomenal downpour of charismatic grace, it is only natural that the
human contribution to the divine effusion is minimized. Actual
defendants of the movement are careful to explain that a new kind of
spirituality was born with Pentecostalism.

As heretofore taught, persons aspiring to sanctity were told that
recollection has to be worked at and cultivated. It meant painstaking
effort to keep oneself in the presence of God and consciously
fostering, perhaps through years of practice, prayerful awareness of
God. The charismatic movement is actually a discovery that all of
these propaedeutics are unnecessary. In view of its importance, it is
worth quoting the new spiritual doctrine in full:

There is a subtle but very significant difference between what the
presence of God means in the spiritual doctrine that has long been
usual in novitiates, seminaries and the like, and what it means for
those who have shared the Pentecostal experience.

The difference can be put bluntly in the following terms: the former
put the accent on the practice, whereas the latter put it on the
presence. That is to say, the former regard the constant awareness of
God’s presence as a goal to be striven for but difficult to attain;
hence they exert themselves in recalling over and over that God is
here and in frequently renewing their intention to turn their thoughts
to Him.

The latter, on the contrary, seem to start with the experiential
awareness of God’s presence as the root which enlivens and gives its
characteristic notes to all their prayer, love and spirituality. [3]

It is not too much to call this “instant mysticism.” And if some
Charismatics do not succeed as well (or as soon) as others in this
sudden experience of God which dispenses with the laborious process of
cultivating recollection, it must be put down to a lack of sufficient
docility to the Spirit or, more simply, to the fact that the Holy
Spirit remains master of His gifts and breathes when (and where) He
wills.

But the essential dictum stands: those who charismatically experience
God, and they are now numbered in thousands, came by the phenomenon
without having to go through the hard school of mental and ascetical
discipline still taught by an outmoded spirituality.

Here I think is the root of the anxiety of Fr. Hardon. Sad to say, he is struggling here with a false conflict. The charismatic and the contemplative are not only not contradictory, but actually are integrated in any authentic life of mystical prayer. I direct your attention to the book The Fulfillment of All Desire by Ralph Martin (a major charismatic leader). Martin is currently the director of the New Evangelization graduate program at Detroit’s Sacred Heart Major Seminary. He has had a show on EWTN for decades and recently completed an EWTN series on contemplative prayer based on the above mentioned book. Once you read that book, you see that the conflict proposed by Hardon has been proven false.

Aggressive Defensiveness. Having postulated what they call the
“Pentecostal Spirituality,” its proponents defend it not only against
present-day critics of such “cheap grace,” but they anticipate
unspoken objections from the masters of mystical theology. Among their
silent critics, whom they criticize, is St. John of the Cross.

As elsewhere, so here is offered a contraposition, the classical
doctrine on the charisms (or extraordinary gifts of the Spirit) and
the new doctrine of Pentecostalism. Again, direct quotation will bring
out the full confrontation:

On the practical level, the classical doctrine on the charisms has
been formed chiefly by St. John of the Cross.

The stand that he takes is predominantly negative; i.e., a warning
against the harm that comes from rejoining excessively in the
possession of such gifts. The one who does so, he says, leaves himself
open to deception, either by the devil or by his own imagination; in
relying on these charisms, he loses some of the merit of faith; and
finally, he is tempted to vainglory.

Similarly, when St. John discusses supernatural communications that
come by way of visions or words, particularly those that are perceived
by the imagination or the bodily senses, he is mainly concerned to
warn against the dangers of deception and excessive attachment. He
condemns the practice of seeking to obtain information from God
through persons favored with such communication. Even when God answers
the queries that are thus addressed to Him, He does so out of
condescension for our weakness, and not because He is pleased to be
thus questioned.

If there is anywhere that Pentecostal spirituality seems to conflict
with the classical it is here. [4]

Then follow pages of a strong defense of the new positive approach to
charismatic experience, admitting that where conflict exists between
this and the teaching of such mystics as John of the Cross, the main
reason is obvious. Men like John and women like Teresa of Avila lived
in a former age, when charisms were rare and then given only to
individuals. In our age they are literally an inundation and their
recipients are countless multitudes.

In my charismatic parish, there is a strong Third Order Carmelite group that, of course, studies not only St. Teresa of Jesus but also St. John of the Cross. Moreover, our altar contains a relic of St. John of the Cross. We fully embrace the advice of St. John of the Cross not to focus on the sensational out of pride or immaturity. The charisms are for building up the Church, not for entertaining us or for bolstering our egos. Fr. Ed Fride of Christ the King Catholic Church in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has in the past made clear that there is no conflict between Carmelite spirituality and the charismatic life in a talk to area Carmelites in Michigan.

Religious Communities. Not surprisingly, the Pentecostal movement has
made some of its deepest effects on religious communities, of men, but
especially of women.

All problems facing the Church at large affected the lives of those
who, by prior commitment, dedicated themselves to the pursuit of
holiness.

When the charismatic experience offered them release from anxiety and
the hope of a strong sense of God’s presence – in spite of the turmoil
all around – religious took to the movement on a scale that no one
actually knows. But all estimates indicate that the number is large.

We are still on our final analysis and our approach has been to point
up the ideology of Pentecostal Leadership; to see whether (and if) it
is at variance with historic Catholicism.

A recently, privately-bound study of religious who took to
Pentecostalism reveals many things about converts and cloisters that
is common knowledge among the initiated but still unknown among the
faithful at large.

Thematic to this study is the firm belief that the bete noire of
religious life is structure and institutionalism; that openness to the
Spirit along Pentecostal lines gives best promise for religious in the
future. A few sample statements indicate the general tenor:

We must remember that in order to choose religious life, you must be a misfit.

The danger is that a sacred institution tends to isolate man so he can
stand back and deal with God. The institution tends to come between
man and God.

Religious life is a human institution that God merely tolerates. God’s
good pleasure is the one thing necessary, and God’s good pleasure is
man’s total openness. It is in this openness that we find our true
identity, but this takes courage.

Total openness takes faith. Awareness of our true identity implies a
life of faith. But faith implies doubt. You can’t have faith without
doubt. Doubt and faith are two sides of the same thing. We don’t pray
right because we evade doubt. And we evade it by regularity and by
activities. It is in these two ways…by which we justify the
self-perpetuation of our institutions. [5]

While other factors have also been operative, it was sentiments like
these that contributed to the growing tide in some communities with
impatience at the slowness of the institutional Church to up-date
religious life, make it truly open to the Spirit, and experience the
rich depth of internal peace and joy that seemed to be so lacking in
“structured community routine.”

It is not a coincidence that some spokesmen for the charismatic
approach to a life of the evangelical counsels have been most critical
of such symbols of institutionalism as the Sacred Congregation for
Religious. Nor is it surprising that some who feel that Rome is
archaic or out of touch with the times should also be most
enthusiastic about Pentecostalism.

Again, this fear has proven unfounded. Today, there are many charismatic religious communities. In my own charismatic parish, Sister Ann Shields started the Servants of God’s Love (you can hear her daily on Ave Maria Radio). I also think of other very active communities including both religious and lay people such as the Emmanuel Community and the Community of the Beatitudes started in France. Here is a link to other charismatically inspired religious communities: http://www.nsc-chariscenter.org/searchdb.asp

The list is not complete because I see that a very traditional, charismatic women’s religious order based in Miami is not on the list. Here is their link:

http://www.piercedhearts.org/

Epilogue

There are those who say we should just allow the Pentecostal movement
to go on and then see what happens. But that is not in the best
tradition of Christian prudence. If, as I personally believe,
latter-day Pentecostalism is in the same essential stream with
Gnosticism, Montanism, and Illuminism, we do not pass moral judgment
on people but prudential judgment on an ideology if we say all that I
have said in this lecture.

This paragraph unfairly and unjustly lumps together Catholic Charismatics with a broader category called “Pentecostalism.” This type of broad brush approach is, in my personal opinion, just plainly unacceptable.

There are grave needs in the Church today - of which the gravest is
the urgent recovery of prayer across the spectrum of Catholic living -
among bishops, priests, religious and the laity.

But if prayer and the experience of God’s presence are so urgently
needed, we must use the means that centuries old Christian wisdom has
shown are securely effective to satisfy this need. Pentecostalism is
not one of these means.

There is nothing more ancient, more Catholic, more traditional, more orthodox than Pentecost and the gifts flowing from Pentecost. Fr. Hardon has given a strong and effective critique of anti-Catholic, Protestant Pentecostalism; but he has totally missed the boat when it comes to addressing the Catholic Charismatic Renewal as endorsed by so many Popes. In this talk, Hardon begs the question supposedly at issue by aiming his remarks at the wrong target. As they say in my old profession of the law, these remarks are out of order when aimed at the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

John A. Hardon, S.J.

Lecture given at the
Annual Conference for the Clergy,
Archdiocese of New York,
April 20-21, 1971.


References:

1 Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan, Catholic Pentecostals, New York: Paulist
Press, 1969, p. 128. In context, the authors apply all the classic
passages in St. Paul as conferring no special sacramental grace of
orders. Their line of argument is the same as that of writers like
Hans Kung, who claim that the apostolic Church did not recognize a
unique sacrament deriving from Christ’s ordination of the apostles at
the Last Supper, which confers the priestly powers including the
change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

2 Edward D. O’Connor, The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church,
Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 1971, p. 180.

3 O’Connor, p. 197.

4 O’Connor, pp. 210-211.

5 Hope ‘69 In Immediate Retrospect, Part III, p. 3.