Topic: Evil Spirts and the Laity
Question:
Can you tell me what the Catholic Church teaches about the laity laying hands on someone and praying for them to be released from an evil spirit? I need documentation on this.
Answer:
Part 1:
"Deliverance" prayers, like "laying on of hands," and "Baptism in the Spirit" are controversies originating from the Charismatic Renewal. Taking many of its practices, ideas, and terminology (and accompanying definitions) from Pentecostalism --- which has a very anti-hierarchical, anti-institutional, anti-sacramental understanding of Christ's teachings and the New Testament Church ---- it has tried to accomodate them to a more Catholic milieu. How successful they are is open to debate. A book worth looking at that seeks to reconcile charismatic "deliverance" ministry and Church beliefs is Rev. Charles Harris, "Resist the Devil: A Pastoral Guide to Deliverance Prayer" (Greenlawn Press, 1988). As per usual it claims to have rediscovered or at least be reintroducing the practice of the early Church. I would say his presentation is not too convincing but he is not intending it to be a scholarly work. Rev. George Montague has attempted such a work on the charismatic gifts in the early Church.
Part 2:
Such ideas and terminology are largely born out of the Pentecostal experience and interpretation of the Bible. They (sometimes) use biblical terminology but interpret them according to their own theology and practice. Historically they are questionable but there are competent Pentecostal and Charismatic scholars attempting to show their biblical and historical roots. I remember once meeting Fr. George Montague, a renowned biblical scholar and charismatic, presenting a talk on a (then) new book he had co-authored; "Christian Initiation and Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (1991). It tries to make a Scriptural and historical case for the charismatic understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The book ties 'Baptism in the Spirit' into Christian Initiation but seems ambiguous about its actual connection to Sacramental Baptism. The book appears to want to separate Sacramental and Spirit Baptism while maintaining them both as integral parts of Christian Initiation. I would suspect much of the material quoted from the Fathers is either refering directly to the Sacrament or, at best, is of an obscure nature. As for the Scripture component Fr. Montague seems to want it to be a different (but related) post-baptismal gift of the Spirit. Unfortunately clarity seems to be lacking, as per usual in so much that is written today (or maybe its my cursory reading). At the presentation I attended I specifically brought up two issues:
a) Is it not true that when the "pentecostal" gifts were supposedly bestowed at the beginning of the 20th century, there main advocate, thought he was actually speaking in Chinese --- that God had given him the gift of tongues as he thought it was received on the original Pentecost? He died in fact thinking it was Chinese, meant for mission work in that country.
b) Is it not true that in the New Testament it is unclear what is really meant by speaking in tongues? At the beginning of Acts it refers to the apostles being understood by those present in Jerusalem in their own native language that eventful day (were the apostles speaking different languages or being understood by the hearer in different languages?) and in Corinthians it seems to not be a recognizable human language at all, but some sort of 'spiritual' utterance needing an interpreter. Therefore is it not impossible to say with any degree of certainty that what is being called "speaking in tongues" today has any relation to what is obscurely referred to in the New Testament?
To both queries Fr. Montague responded in the affirmative. I would add that glossalia is found worldwide among various primitive tribes in their rituals and amongst certain esoteric sects (like Voodoo) usually in conjunction with highly emotive, repetitious, and enervating chanting, singing, and/or dancing. It may be a physiological response to mental fatigue and brain over-stimuli combined with subjectively expected behaviours. It may also be the Holy Spirit! This I do not discount. My problem is I have found no credible explanation or criteria to differentiate one from the other. The old "fruits" argument is too subjective and self-serving. The fruits of Pentecostalism include enthusiastic religiousity and many conversions but also heightened religious subjectivism in a highly subjective age and loss of appreciation, attachment, or emphasis upon the sacraments and the hierarchical/historical Church. Many Catholics have abandoned their religion for Pentecostal Churches (a 'fruit' of the Spirit --- division?) and many charismatics in the Church try to reconcile the two things but show the theological and practical strains of such a marriage. They often become generally orthodox Catholics who acknowledge Church teaching and the role of the magisterium but look to the Pentecostal churches for the latest ideas and 'movements of the Spirit.' Ecumenically they feel closer to Pentecostalism than even Orthodoxy or Lutheranism, being largely uncritical to its recent and aberrant historical and theological origins. In fact they generally assume it is a true and definitive outpouring of the Spirit upon the churches (in response, some suggest, to both Leo XIII and later John XXIII prayer for a new Pentecost) as in New Testament times.
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying the charismatic gifts are not true. I am only saying they are not evidently so and raise many as yet unresolved questions and issues. Many of my favourite Catholic authors are converts to Charismatic Catholicism (Kreeft, Rhonda Chervin & Scott Hahn for example). If it were not for these authors, and the liveliness and enthusiasm of the Charismatic movement in general, the Church would be in an even more anaemic state. The young, non-Catholics, and nominal Catholics are often brought to a more enthusiastic and faithful commitment to the Church by the so-called Renewal movement. I wonder, however, if it is actually a direct gift of the Spirit, or the Spirit using people's natural tendencies and their existential situation to reach them in whatever manner is made available to Him, or something else. In the end, I cannot say. I just do not agree with those who show more certitiude (for or against) than the evidence warrants in these matters.
Part 3:
The movement has many good and committed Christians in it. It brings many back to the Church or makes many more active and committed to their faith. It fights the good fight for Christianity in a secular society. But it is highly subjective. Words, ideas, actions, and projects are constantly being presented as manifestations of the Spirit at work. It also suffers from an uncritical and presumptuous appropriation of New Testament texts related to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. To question their interpretation or application of these texts and the charismatic gifts refered therein is dismissed as lacking the 'Spirit's' enlightenment, an impediment to the outpouring of the gifts into one's own life, and symptomatic of institutional and congregational obstruction to the Spirit's renewal of Church today. The charismatic gifts and the pentecostal movement are frequently refered to in ways that make them seem bigger (and possibly more important)than any one church --- including the Catholic --- and as God's plan for bringing about Christian unity. In fact the charismatic gifts, according to their own understanding of them, are presented as basic (therefore fundamental) to Christianity (ala ALPHA).
What is most frustrating, for me, is attempting to analyse and clarify what exactly it is Charismatics are claiming about themselves, the 'gifts', and the movement and its relationship to the Catholic Church and Pentecostal churches. When one attempts an analysis one often receives vague, evasive, ambiguous, or contradictory responses. Either that or explanations so hopelessly subjective as to be useless. Part of it can be their own uncertainty as to what is happening or what it all means. But if that were the case then such uncertainty should elicit greater caution in interpreting its nature, authenticity, and value. It does not.
I'll give you an example to illustrate my last couple points. The details and phrasing might not be totally accurate due to failure of memory: A rather prominent Charismatic Catholic was once interviewed in the paper years ago. In speaking of the revitalization that had occured in a particular parish he attributed it, naturally, to the Spirit working through him and others. He then went on to disclaim the use of the term 'Charismatic' for himself or the movement. He made two points: 1. 'Charismatic' is a label imposed to him and 'charismatics' by others 2. He'd much rather be called simply 'Fully Catholic' since the charismatic gifts are meant for all as part of being fully Catholic.
I wrote him asking two questions: 1. Is it not the case that the term 'Charismatic' was chosen by members of the movement itself to replace the appellation given previously by others of 'Pentecostal Catholics'? It is one thing to want to change a name you no longer wish to use or find inappropriate but quite another to accuse others of having foistered it on you in the first place. 2. What do you mean by the 'charismatic gifts' needed to make one fully Catholic? The designation 'charism' is used in three different ways: a) At the non-technical level it refers to any spiritual gift given by God (Rm 1:11; 5:15; 1 Cor. 12:1). b) A special gift of God given to carry out one's particular Christian duty or role for the good of others (1 Pt 4:10; Eph. 4:11; Rm 12:7; celibacy in 1 Cor. 7:7) 3. The remarkable gifts mentioned in Acts (Acts 2:4) and more extensively by St. Paul (1 Cor. 12:4-11) which includes, among others, 'speaking in tongues.' I asked him if what he meant by saying all are meant to have the charismatic gifts to be fully Catholic? If he meant all need spiritual help from God (#1) I agree. Grace is necessary for any movement toward God. If he meant each person receives special gifts of grace from God to help them in their particular Christian vocation or duties I agree again. If God gives us a particular responsibility He must also offer us the needed help. If he meant that all are supposed to speak in tongues or manifest one of the gifts spoken about by St. Paul at Corinth (#3) then I beg to differ. The exact nature of these gifts is not clear in the text, neither is it evident that they were universal in the Church at that time, nor is it evident that they continued universally in the Church. Even St. Paul cautions about inappropriate use or emphasis being placed upon them (1 Cor. 12-14). Am I any less than fully Catholic if I do not clearly manifest the gifts spoken of by St. Paul? In the letter he sent me he never addressed either question I had directly and clearly asked him. Instead he focused on other aspects of the interview that did not interest me nor involve my questions. Have you yourself ever read a CLEAR and ACCURATE explanation that deals with some of the points I mention by leaders of the movement?
To end, if you want to use this e-mail or the other on your website you may, with two provisos: 1. Do not use my name or mention I am a priest (the above incident occured long before my ordination)--- I do not want clerical disagreements being publicized. 2. Could you possibly edit them into a more united and coherent whole before posting? Also, Fr. John Hardon has a very good evaluation of the Charismatic movement that is posted on David Armstrongs site.
P.S. the name of the Pentecostalist who thought he was speaking Chinese was Charles Fox Parham. I'm sorry I forgot to include it.
Ignatius
The Catholic Legate
December 29, 2001