Institution would have to explain their use of the sacramental of the lh without

contradicting Sacrosanctum Concilium (hereafter SC). Has the Church instituted the LH

for the laity? To which sacrament(s) does the LH bear resemblance? What effects does

the LH signify and where is the Church interceding in this? How does the LH dispose one

to receive the effect of a sacrament? The final line of the paragraph is speaking about the

occasions of first communion, baptism, marriage, etc. but is it possible to interpret the

“various occasions” of life to include the LH in a charismatic prayer meeting?

Just as paragraph 60 of SC seems to limit the scope of what can be considered a

sacramental, the following paragraph would seem to allow in the LH:

Thus, for well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event in their lives; they are given access to the stream of divine grace which flows from the paschal mystery of the passion, death, the resurrection of Christ, the font from which all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is hardly any proper use of material things

which cannot thus be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.²³³

²³² Sacrosanctum Concilium, 60. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-

ii_ const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html. ²³³ Ibid., 61.

112

Key ideas applicable to the LH are the notion of a well-disposed member of the faithful, and that the sacramental gives access to divine grace. The CCM, which does emphasize the openness of the aspirant receiving the LH, would completely agree with this passage: the LH on its own accomplishes nothing, which would seem to go without saying. The CCM would also agree that the faithful are given access to the stream of divine grace, except that they had said this about the baptism in the Spirit, not the LH. Since the movement does not describe the baptism in the Spirit as, nor has the movement ever claimed that it is, a sacramental, one quickly finds incongruence.

The baptism in the Spirit has been and will continue to be defended as not a sacrament, though much of the language that is used to describe the experience even echoes language found in SC. Just one for instance, Steve Clark’s book states that it is Jesus who is the baptizer in the baptism of the Holy Spirit.²³⁴ This is the precise language used to describe the seven sacraments: they confer sanctifying grace because it is Christ who is acting.²³⁵

In short, the movement states that the LH is a sacramental. But their description of the baptism in the Spirit closely resembles the Church defined notion of sacramental: it does not confer grace, but merely stirs it up in the believer. But if the LH is a sacramental, it goes unexplained how it stirs up the grace in the faithful; the movement is consistent on the point that it is the Spirit stirring in the aspirant and the LH is unneeded. Lastly, the Church institutes sacramentals, and there is no institution of the LH as a sacramental used for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Strictly speaking, the CCM cannot

234. See note 229.

235. Paragraphs 1127 and 1128 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, though written after Vatican II, cite

a historical understanding of how the sacraments work, citing Aquinas: “"the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm.

113

officially call the LH in the Catholic Charismatic context a sacramental. Obviously, as will be seen, the significance of the gesture cannot be removed because of this. It simply must be shown that the movement’s designation, albeit somewhat impromptu and without argument, of the LH as a sacramental doesn’t stand up by ecclesial definitions.

Similarly, the baptism in the Spirit is aptly criticized as a pseudo-sacrament by critics of the CCM, though charismatics will adamantly deny this charge. This study cannot, and does not wish, to validate the LH as an official sacramental of the Church. Close reading of the personal testimonies written on the events that lead to the Duquesne Weekend, and the retreat itself, with focus on how the LH was actually used by those involved will give us a clearer picture of how the gesture should be regarded as a rite or, to be crass, a super-sacramental, especially as it was used consistently by the first Catholic Pentecostals, and at the interdenominational prayer meeting where the first two Catholics were baptized in the Spirit with the LH by Protestant Pentecostals.

The movement’s growth can almost be marked by the use of the LH. The communities that emerged in some areas put the LH to even more particular uses and it is to these communities and the emerging notion of charismatic culture to which this study now turns.

The Laying on of Hands and the Formation of Communities

In October of 1973, the first international conference of Catholic charismatic leaders was held in Grottaferrata, Italy, which is just outside the diocese of Rome. Over a hundred delegates were there from 34 countries. One outcome of the four day conference was a document, “Statement on the Theological Basis of the Catholic Charismatic

114

Renewal.”²³⁶ The main point of the Grottaferrata statement, signed by Heribert Mühlen, was to bring understanding to the movement.²³⁷ It takes note of the fidelity of the renewal, i.e. that Catholics are reinvigorated in their religious life. It clarifies that the charisms are not restricted to those listed in 1 Corinthians 12.28 and are meant for ministering to and building up the whole body of the church. The statement calls attention to the observation of the CCM that the contemporary church does not know what the charisms are and has limited expectation on the Spirit’s movement or action in daily life. ²³⁸ The statement explains how they retrieve the historical record of initiation in the Spirit from the church history and biblical precedent. It does not mention the LH, but does discuss the practice of the baptism in the Spirit and it validates the description of the experience that charismatics employ: an actualization or release of the Spirit, which can result in a manifestation of the charisms such as glossolalia.²³⁹ It closes on the note of the CCM’s relation to other renewals who have differing theological explanations for the same “spiritual realities”, as well as different understandings of revelation. The charismatic renewal is noted as not self-appointing itself as the purveyor of the Spirit in the Church, but recognizing that all groups have the Spirit who proclaim, to the Father’s glory, the lordship of Jesus: “That presence in all streams of the renewal is the body of

236. Kilian McDonnell, Worship 47, no. 10 (1973), 610-20.

236. Ibid., 619-20. Kilian McDonnell was the original writer of the document, at the suggestion of Cardinal Suenens. McDonnell controlled the document and made the final revisions. The document was reviewed at Grottaferrata, and a small group of theologians was selected to suggest revisions. The final version was distributed to all at the conference, but it was not voted on or debated publicly. The theologians who suggested changes to the document were free to sign it. Other cosignatories were: Salvador Carrillo M.SP.S. (Mexico), Albert de Monleon O.P. (France), Francis Martin (Canada), Donatien Mollat S.J. (Italy), and Francis Sullivan S.J. (Italy).

236. “One of the reasons for the restricted expectations is the tendency to describe the assistance of the Holy Spirit primarily in terms of the hierarchical ministry.” Ibid., 614-615.

236. Ibid., 616. The statement explains tongues a gift allowing prayer at a deeper level; it is only one of a number of forms of prayer; it is the “lowest of the charisms” and, as such, it is not surprising that it is so common.

115

their unity.”²⁴⁰ For the CCM, a Christian group so united on the proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus has the Spirit.

The basic premise that the proclamation of the Jesus’ Lordship indicates the Spirit’s presence is a key to beginning to understand the charismatic culture. Charismatic culture in this case refers to the social relationships between those who engaged in the LH for spiritual reasons at the birth of the movement, in both interdenominational and purely Catholic contexts, i.e. the Duquesne Weekend. Charismatic culture thrives on this understanding of the Spirit as renewing the lives of believers through “direct” contact with God, and thus the Church: “What is happening is a renewal in people’s relationship with God…The charismatic renewal involves a new experience of God…and the central concern of the charismatic renewal is that a deeper, experientially vital relationship with God the Father, in his Son, through his Spirit, should be the norm of Christian life.”²⁴¹

The working of the Spirit in the life of believers and of the church is the focus of the movement, and the movement’s claims of ecclesial legitimacy and historical rootedness are carried right up to the Second Vatican Council because of the council’s emphasis on renewal, particularly in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which speaks of the Spirit renewing the Church.²⁴²

240. Ibid., 619.

240. Stephen B. Clark, “Charismatic Renewal in the Church,” in As the Spirit Leads Us, eds. Kevin and

Dorothy Ranaghan (New York: Paulist Press, 1971), 20.

²⁴² No. 4 is particularly relevant in respect to the CCM’s view of itself: “When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that He might continually sanctify the Church, and thus, all those who believe would have access through Christ in one Spirit to the Father. He is the Spirit of Life, a fountain of water springing up to life eternal. To men, dead in sin, the Father gives life through Him, until, in Christ, He brings to life their mortal bodies. The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful, as in a temple. In them He prays on their behalf and bears witness to the fact that they are adopted sons. The Church, which the Spirit guides in way of all truth and which He unified in communion and in works of ministry, He both equips and directs with hierarchical and charismatic gifts and adorns with His fruits. By the power of the Gospel He makes the Church keep the freshness of youth. Uninterruptedly He renews it and leads it to perfect union with its Spouse. The Spirit and the Bride both say to Jesus, the Lord, ‘Come!’ Thus, the Church has been seen as ‘a

116

The answer to a significant question—is the Catholic Pentecostal movement, as it

was in the early 1970s, the renewal of which Vatican II speaks—is not responded to with

a definite yes by the movement, but there was also unambiguous language, within the

first few years from its birth, on a stated goal of the movement to seek church renewal:

I believe that the charismatic renewal can be the vehicle whereby the life of the entire Catholic Church will be renewed. I believe that its potential is not merely to be a movement or a sect within the Church…The goal is a charismatically renewed Church, not a separate “pentecostal” organization “for people who go for that sort of thing.” Having some identity as a movement may be necessary for a time in order to accomplish the larger goal. But the larger goal is the significant one: a charismatically renewed Catholic Church.²⁴³

A message of identity through purpose is read in their identification of a goal.

Simultaneously, this statement that the movement can be a “vehicle” implies the question

on what form this vehicle will take.

The Catholic Pentecostal experience from the beginning was the coming together

in a community, even a short-lived one, to pray for the baptism in the Spirit with the LH.

The movement that emerged was the formation of small communities united around this

pentecostal experience. These communities are the prayer meetings of the Catholic

charismatic groups that emerged from the spread of the movement, but there was

something more. Ralph Martin refers to the forming of Christian communities in his

opening statement in the February 1973 issue of New Covenant. This special issue of the

magazine of the renewal, on the sixth anniversary of the Duquesne Weekend, spoke of

the major changes already witnessed in the Church because of the renewal. The

widespread experience of the renewal, namely through the experience of the baptism in

people made one with the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.’” http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html (accessed March 20, 2016).

²⁴³ George Martin, “Charismatic Renewal and the Church of Tomorrow,” in As the Spirit Leads Us, eds. Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan (New York: Paulist Press, 1971), 237.

117

the Spirit and the charisms, was influencing Christian life in all areas, “eventually

blossoming in the development of vital Christian communities.”²⁴⁴ This was based on an

interpretation of the experience of a life in the Spirit as extending to a community life

where this new knowledge in the Spirit, especially the charisms, could and should be

grown and used for others:

The baptism in the Spirit can no longer be looked upon as an isolated religious experience; rather, it is the releasing of the power of the Spirit to build us into a living community in which the knowledge and experience of God can increase and grow, and in which men and women can be attracted daily to the life of the Lord as manifested in his body, his temple, his Church, his people, his community.²⁴⁵

Ralph Martin’s statement adds a different dimension to the notion that the Pentecostal

experience has to do with coming into contact with God—now cultivating groups of

people toward this end is natural outcome. Building a living community is a natural

outcome because, according to Martin, those who have received the SS, thus entering into

a union with God in love, should also share this in a community. “Yielding to God must

mean yielding to a community form of life.”²⁴⁶ In other words, literal “bodies of

Christians” need other bodies for the charisms and “life in the Spirit” to mean anything

other than a onetime experience. Martin uses John 17.20-23 and 1 Corinthians 12.12-27

to help support this idea, but also Acts 2.44-47. A biblical foundation is a key in nearly

all aspects of the development of the CCM. But the movement also drew from its

collective experience to steer itself based on how the first prayer groups formed.

Martin noted that it was a “common” thing for a prayer group to form after a

small group of people had experienced the baptism in the Spirit. New people would

244. “About this issue,” New Covenant 2, no. 8 (1973): inside cover.

245. Ralph Martin, “Life in Community,” in As the Spirit Leads Us, eds. Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan (New York: Paulist Press, 1971), 148. Note: Ralph Martin bears no relation to George Martin.

246. Ibid., 146.

118

eventually come to be present at these meetings, who would eventually desire the baptism in the Spirit. But there would also be those who did not intend to ask for this experience. Martin warns that prayer groups, thus Christian communities, had to be unabashedly pentecostal in nature.²⁴⁷ The greater point to be noted though is that, within a few years, the movement had noted among its own ranks the developments of patterns, and it sought to keep its ranks “pure” so to speak. Furthermore, the movement saw the uniquely pentecostal experience of baptism in the Spirit as fundamental: “The ‘full Gospel’ should be preached and lived in such a way that it would be impossible for a sizable number of people to continue to come without choosing for or against receiving the baptism of the Spirit and the manifestations which follow.”²⁴⁸ Pentecostals, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, were known for a desire to share their experience, and the movement had now moved into a stage that sought to make it a norm.

An appropriate question at this point would be on the whereabouts of the LH in all of this community building. Martin mentions the experience of the baptism in the Spirit specifically, but not the LH. The LH can be assumed to be attached to almost any mention of the baptism in the Spirit after the Duquesne Weekend, especially in the context of prayer meetings. This is based on the personal testimony of witnesses as the goings on of the first meetings on the Notre Dame campus, such as the article of Mary Papa in the National Catholic Register, in addition to the first-hand accounts in the February 1973 issue of New Covenant, and the books by Laurentin, O’Connor, and the Ranaghans also attest to the presence of the practice. Given the frequency with which it is mentioned in the early testimonies, and that it is mentioned as a common practice at the

247. Ibid., 153-54.

248. Ibid., 154.

119

first prayer meetings, it is likely that when prayer for the baptism of the Spirit is mentioned, the LH was used.²⁴⁹ Martin’s insistence on adhering to the pentecostal experience is immediately followed up with a chapter that hits home this point of the charismatic movement as containing cultural norms and practices from which deviation should not or could not occur.

Bert Ghezzi describes the emergence of charismatic communities in Michigan that all began in 1967 or 1968.²⁵⁰ The details given of community practices make it clear that by this point in the life of the early CCM that the LH was virtually taken for granted. The language of “Spirit-led” communities Ghezzi describes carries forward Martin’s thesis of the necessity of charismatic communities for the movement. Ghezzi and Martin strongly imply, if not outright declare, that the notion of an exclusive culture—which is not intent on excluding, quite the opposite—which has developed with a method for entry based on not just belief and shared values, but also invitation and style of worship, is a natural outcome of the movement. Further, they are being lead to this point, they will maintain, by the Holy Spirit.

The community in Grand Rapids, described as “heterogenous”, i.e. interdenominational but mostly Catholic, began in someone’s living room in November of 1967, less than a year after the Duquesne Weekend. Within three months, they outgrew the living room and had to move to a parish hall. In their first year of existence, Ghezzi describes the group as being “only a prayer group” because they did not have a way or method of leading people to the baptism in the Spirit. By 1968 the group began

249. A notable testimony includes specific mention that the LH was not in play during this one particular instance of the experience of baptism in the Spirit. This is the case with Patti Gallagher at the Ark and the Dove mentioned in chapter 1. See As By a New Pentecost (Steubenville, OH: Franciscan University Press, 1992), 39.

249. Bertil W. Ghezzi, “Three Charismatic Communities,” in Ranaghan, As the Spirit Leads Us, 164-86.

120

creating sub-communities to take care of its needs, as in prayer, music, leadership, and teaching. A whole team was dedicated to leading people to a baptism in the Spirit. The Tuesday night prayer meetings initially would consist of explaining to newcomers what the renewal meant, followed by the prayer meeting, and then an invitation for those who sought the baptism in the spirit: “The newcomers joined the assembly for the second part, and when it was finished we publicly laid hands on those desiring to pray for the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This continued for many months before we discovered this was too hasty and impersonal an approach.”²⁵¹ They stopped publicly praying for the baptism in the Spirit with the LH based on discoveries that some didn’t really understand it, and some hadn’t “committed their lives to Jesus.”²⁵² Their new method is explained as following the lead of charismatic communities in Ann Arbor and Detroit, so it had already been established in the movement. Now they would invite back newcomers who had heard the “introductory” talk in their first time attending. The following week, the newcomer would have a “personal interview” with a leader which included prayer, sharing, and questions. The two would also discuss if they thought the newcomer was ready for the baptism in the Spirit experience. If so: “We pray for him with the laying on of hands the following Tuesday evening. At the same time we began to ask of those on whom we laid hands to commit themselves to six teachings on growth in the life of the Spirit.” Ghezzi does not say that those who had received the Spirit were to come back for further teaching; he says those who had received the LH. The CCM does not place the LH above the baptism in the Spirit; on this they are univocal. The Grand Rapids community, in seeking to share the experience of the Spirit that its members had all

251. Ibid., 176.

252. Another reason given was that some of those who received the LH simply did not return, or those who did return “never seemed to go very deep in the Spirit.” Ibid. (176)

121

individually experienced was discriminating between newcomers who had received the LH and those who had not.

Many criticisms or critiques of the movement approach this topic of elitism or exclusionary tendencies.²⁵³ It is true, to be fair, that their best intentions are to “listen” to the Holy Spirit in communal prayer and bring people together and closer to God, through this now ritualistic experience: teaching, discernment, discussion, prayer and the LH, followed by teaching, and continued life in the community. Ghezzi, who was a member of the Grand Rapids community, explains: “We began to see that the baptism in the Holy Spirit was only one part of a process God was using to lead men into union with him. We learned that he intended the baptism in the Holy Spirit to build men into union with each other in a community which would be a local expression of the body of Christ.”²⁵⁴ In other words, the Spirit-experience was only a first step in a life in the Spirit, but it is never referred to directly as an initiation in any form. Because this was a mostly Catholic group,²⁵⁵ though an interdenominational community, it may be that the question of interference with the sacraments never had to be broached, and thus their method of

²⁵³ Francis A. Sullivan exhorted leadership in the movement to guard against anything that leads to alienation. Language was called out as a likely candidate because of terms like “baptism in the Spirit,” “Spirit-filled,” “life in the Spirit,” etc. The word “charismatic” is called to task because it divides Catholics immediately into two groups. This was in agreement with other critics, such as Yves Congar, who disliked the terms “charismatic” and “baptism in the Spirit” when rightly all Catholics had received the Spirit. So to speak of a “non-charismatic” was to deny this and to suggest that the pentecostal experience was the only way to be “charismatic.” This line of thought leads to the question of what is a charism, and who is charismatic. Sullivan holds that the CCM at the time was narrowing the sense of the word to specific phenomena like glossolalia, or prophecy. Ironically, it was Cardinal Suenens, a proponent of the CCM, who at Vatican II defended the inclusion of the charisms in the council documents based on the Pauline interpretation, which was much broader: any gift of grace that worked for the up building of the Church. Cardinal Ruffini who “lost” the argument, was for the narrower view of the unique phenomena of the charims, which Sullivan claims the CCM was tending towards. “Ecclesiological Context of the Charismatic Renewal,” in The Holy Spirit and Power: The Catholic Charismatic Renewal, ed. Kilian McDonnell (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1975), 133-36. Cf. “Cardinal Suenens on the Charismatic Renewal,” New Covenant 2, no. 1 (1972): 6-7.

254. Ibid., 177.

255. Ghezzi reports that it was about 70% Catholic, though it is unclear if this was at its “current” peak in 1970 or 1971, around when the book was published, or if it was at the onset. Ibid., 172.

122

induction could safely be removed from discussion of initiation of any sort; they were simply realizing or actualizing graces already received. The mention of building union between people in a community that is the expression of the body of Christ highlights the mention of the practice of LH even more significant. The desire to build Christian communities in this Spirit-led fashion meant that the LH had to become—yes necessarily, even given the claims of the movement that it was not necessary for reception of the SS—an unofficial yet clearly visible and preferred rite labeled as the first step into a transformed life.

A community of bodies for the CCM at this time meant a unity in body. The Ann Arbor community, which Ghezzi also describes, began in November 1967 as well, but grew at a more rapid pace.²⁵⁶ In many ways, its growth mirrored what occurred in Grand Rapids. It started in a home setting, which it quickly outgrew, once a week on Thursday nights. It had made such a significant impact in the area that it attracted hundreds of people in the eastern region of Michigan, according to Ghezzi. Because of the massive size it took, by 1969 a Monday night prayer meeting was created “for Christians living around the university who were baptized in the Holy Spirit and who were become more strongly knit together. This community has drawn together about 200 students and other young men and women who were already sharing their Christian lives in prayer meetings, liturgies, households, common apostolates and in other ways.”²⁵⁷ The character of the Ann Arbor community was unique from the beginning because of this fact of its development. The group may be able to be criticized for many things, but wanting to be

256. Many of the original members were leaders at the birth of the CCM including Jim Cavnar, Steve Clark, Ralph Martin, and Gerry Rauch. Ibid., 180.

256. Ibid., 180-81.

123

around others who shared a common experience and style of worship is not one of them.

The significance of this decision speaks for itself.

The central event for the core community is the Monday prayer meeting. This meeting is not a public gathering but an assembly to which one is invited after he receives the baptism in the Holy Spirit and commits himself to the community. The Monday meeting has no definite structure; it usually begins with an exhortation from the leader for the evening and commonly includes spontaneous prayer, manifestations of the charismatic gifts, reading from Scripture, and song. Frequently one of the leaders gives a prepared talk which lasts about 15 minutes. At the end of the meeting new members are introduced and everyone prays for them as they receive them into the community.²⁵⁸

This group of Pentecostals—mostly young and students, and Catholic, but also

Protestant—had quickly developed a closed culture. The private meeting required an