Answers Concerning the Charism of Healing

The recent article by my colleague Phil Blosser, “Questions Concerning the Charism of Healing,” gives me an opportunity to address the misconceptions, concerns, and fears that many Catholics have about prayer for healing and about the charismatic dimension of the Christian life in general.

The article focuses on my book Healing: Bringing the Gift of God’s Mercy to the World (Our Sunday Visitor, 2015). Unfortunately, it contains few substantive arguments regarding what I wrote in the book, and relies instead largely on innuendo, aspersions, and straw-man claims that play into some common prejudices regarding the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. Many sentences begin with “Some readers might think . . .,” followed by pejorative interpretations, without clarifying whether Blosser himself holds these views. Blosser seems unaware of the many books and articles that have already addressed these concerns.¹ Nevertheless I will seek to address briefly the main questions and objections that his article raises.

Is the Emphasis on the Holy Spirit and
His Charisms a Kind of Catholic Pentecostalism?

Blosser charges that I, and the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, represent a “charismatic-inspired, essentially Pentecostal understanding of the Church’s mission.” By “Pentecostal” he presumably means the Christian denominations that trace their origin to the Azusa Street revival that began in 1906. But “Pentecostal” can also, and more properly, refer to the Pentecost event of AD 33. Indeed, in this sense the Church and her mission are “essentially Pentecostal”! The Church was born in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost; she lives by the Holy Spirit, the soul of the mystical body of Christ, and she is able to carry out her mission only in the power of the Holy Spirit and his sanctifying and charismatic gifts.² Thus an emphasis on the Holy Spirit and his gifts is in fact essentially Catholic. Indeed, the popes of the last half-century have strongly reaffirmed this by referring, often in tones of urgency, to the Church’s need for a “new Pentecost” — a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit — in order to fulfill her evangelizing mission.³ The magisterium’s concern that the charismatic dimension of the Church be properly understood and embraced is also reflected in the 2016 document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iuvenescit Ecclesia, on “the Relationship Between Hierarchical and Charismatic Gifts in the Life and the Mission of the Church.”

But this charge of “Pentecostalism” also points to a deeper issue. Ever since the Reformation, there has been a tendency among Catholics to define Catholicism over against Protestantism. Many Protestants reject certain Catholic doctrines (e.g., saints and sacraments) and emphasize others (e.g., Scripture and evangelism). In response, some Catholics tend to emphasize what Protestants reject and downplay what Protestants accept. But, ironically, this only leads to another form of diminished and reductive Christianity. In reality, the Catholic Church embraces the whole (katholikon) of the apostolic heritage. She is Pentecostal and Eucharistic, charismatic and hierarchical, Marian and Petrine, biblical and traditional. The fact that various Protestant traditions have emphasized various aspects of the Catholic faith does not make those aspects any less Catholic. Otherwise we’d have to say that affirming the authority and inerrancy of Scripture is “Protestant,” or that affirming the duty of all Christians to evangelize is “Protestant,” or that affirming the dignity of the laity is “Protestant.” Surely we do not want to cede any of those aspects of the Gospel to others and say that they don’t belong to us.

Nor do we want to be so narrow-minded as to claim that because the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth, therefore truth is found only within the Catholic Church.⁴ St. John Paul II, when asked why God had allowed the historic divisions in Christianity, spoke of grievous human failings but then speculated on another factor: “Could it not be that these divisions have also been a path continually leading the Church to discover the untold wealth contained in Christ’s Gospel and in the redemption accomplished by Christ? Perhaps all this wealth would not have come to light otherwise.”⁵ If Protestants have brought to light certain aspects of the apostolic heritage that had been neglected — including the power of the Holy Spirit and his supernatural gifts — this is not reason to complain about Protestant influence, but to rejoice that our brethren have helped us rediscover what is our own.

Does Openness to the Holy Spirit
Lead to Subjectivism?

Blosser expresses his fear that I or others who emphasize the charisms may fall into the trap of doctrinal indifferentism, or of an “exclusive adherence to subjectively discerned guidance of the Holy Spirit” like that of “some of the more egregious heresies of Church history.” Again, he provides no evidence for this charge and seems to assume that those whose style differs from his are suspect until proven innocent. In fact, seeking personal guidance from the Holy Spirit is one of the basic practices of the Christian life, recommended by St. Ignatius among many others. It in no way entails a denigration of doctrine or of Church authority. Rather, personal guidance from the Holy Spirit (for instance, regarding one’s state in life, or of a particular mission one is called to) takes place within the vast expanse of revealed truth, and is discerned in light of that truth.⁶ To fail to seek such personal guidance from the Lord out of fear, as if we must be guided by the doctrines and precepts of the Church alone, is to live an impoverished Christianity. As Benedict XVI noted, “Christian faith is not only a matter of believing that certain things are true, but above all a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. . . . When we enter into a personal relationship with him, Christ reveals our true identity and, in friendship with him, our life grows towards complete fulfilment.”⁷

Thus there is no conflict between fidelity to objective truth and openness to the prophetic guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Catholics who have experienced “baptism in the Holy Spirit”⁸ almost universally testify that the result is a coming alive of their Catholic faith, a deeper love for the Church and the sacraments, a passion to better understand the Faith, and a greater zeal to bear witness to Christ. As the theologian Yves Congar noted, the Charismatic Renewal resembles previous renewal movements in the capacity it brings for a transformation of life, but differs from them in its fidelity to the institutional Church.⁹ It is not accidental that every Catholic charismatic leader I know is fervently committed to the Church and her teachings; many have frequently defended them in public, and many have paid a price for holding these teachings in ecclesial environments where dissent was the order of the day.

Is It Proper to Seek the Charism of Healing?

According to Blosser, I hold that “the charism of healing on command is . . . common and normative for all Christians.” But this is a serious misrepresentation of what I wrote. I never use the strange expression “healing on command” (see below). Nor do I claim that the charism of healing is normative for all Christians. Rather, I note that Jesus’s missionary mandate, to proclaim the Gospel in both words and in supernatural deeds including healings and miracles (Mt 10:7–8; Mk 16:15–18; Lk 10:9), remains valid for all time. This does not mean that healings and miracles are a moral imperative for each individual Christian, but they are normative for the Church’s mission corporately, and every Christian should seek to discern, with sincere openness to the Holy Spirit, how we are called to participate in that mission and what charisms the Holy Spirit has bestowed on us to empower us to do so. Moreover, Scripture exhorts us to “strive eagerly” for the spiritual gifts, which include healing (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1).

What about the warning of Vatican Council II that “extraordinary gifts are not to be rashly desired, nor from them the fruits of apostolic labors to be presumptuously expected”?¹⁰ Blosser seems to think this warning is in tension with the biblical exhortation to “strive eagerly” for the spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1), and therefore healing (and other supernatural gifts) must be excluded from our striving. But there is no contradiction between the two. Indeed the gifts should never be sought rashly. To seek them rashly would entail, for instance, seeking them with self-centered motives such as pride or a desire for recognition, or a “need to be needed,” or in hope of financial gain. Or to seek them without a corresponding commitment to living a life of holiness and Christian virtue, or while neglecting the duties of one’s state in life. As the Council also notes, we must not presumptuously expect the fruits of apostolic labor from the gifts of the Spirit. Healings and miracles are not a substitute for preaching the Gospel; they are its accompaniment. And preaching the Gospel is only the beginning of a long process that involves bringing people into an encounter with Jesus, catechesis, Christian initiation through baptism and the other sacraments, formation, and ongoing conversion and growth in holiness.

But to seek the charisms eagerly, as St. Paul exhorts (see also Mt 7:7–11; Lk 11:9–13), is not the same as seeking them rashly. The reason we should seek them eagerly is because they are God’s gifts to be given away; they are the supernatural means by which God empowers his children to minister his love and grace to others. Many people today are deeply wounded in ways that neither modern medicine nor therapy can fully address. They need an encounter with the living Christ and an experience of his power in their lives. As I noted in the book, “the risen Lord is waiting for his disciples, filled with the Holy Spirit, to act in the power they have already been given and to ask for more heavenly power to meet the needs of those around them.”¹¹

Blosser says he shudders to recall the words of Jesus: “Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you’” (Mt 7:22–23). He seems unaware that I quoted the same passage and noted that Jesus “cautions against the assumption that charisms, even extraordinary ones, are a proof of holiness. . . . The sobering truth is that it is possible to exercise supernatural gifts and yet have a heart hardened against the Lord (1 Cor 13:1–3).”¹² But the reverse side of this truth is heartening: the exercise of charisms — even extraordinary ones — is not a reward for virtue, nor a measure of sanctity. As the very word charism implies, they are free gifts: God gives them freely, simply because he loves us and delights to involve us in his work of building up the body of Christ. Thus we should not hesitate to ask God for charisms, if our motives are sincere. To seek charisms is not a sign of presumption or pride, but of a desire to put oneself at the service of the body of Christ. God gives charisms for the sake of love, and to use a charism properly is an act of love.

Healing on Command

Blosser repeatedly criticizes what he calls “healing on command,” although he admits in a footnote that he is unaware whether I ever use that term. In fact I do not use that term. On the contrary, I emphasize in the book that healing is not under our control but under God’s control: “It is important to keep in mind that signs and wonders are never performed on demand (cf. Matt 12:38–39)”; “every time you exercise a charism, God the Holy Spirit is operating through you, displaying his presence and power. A charism like healing is not something you ‘possess’ or can pull out of your pocket at will. You cannot heal someone whenever you feel like it. Rather, you are a musical instrument on which the Holy Spirit plays according to his will and his timing. The more yielded you are to him, the more freely he will play.”¹³

I do, however, point to the striking fact that in the miraculous healings depicted in the Acts of the Apostles, only twice is prayer mentioned; on all the other occasions the apostles or other Christians heal by announcement or by command. For instance, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk” (Acts 3:6); “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed” (Acts 9:34). This demonstrates their awareness that they had been given a share in Christ’s own authority over sickness and disease, as confirmed by the Lord’s words (Lk 10:17–19; Mk 16:17–18). So today, those joined to Christ through faith and baptism share in his authority to heal the sick and liberate the oppressed.

Is an Emphasis on Lay People Exercising
Charisms a Form of Anti-clericalism?

For Blosser, my “apparent eagerness to demonstrate that the exercise of most miraculous charisms does not require clerical permission or authority seems similar to the sort of anti-clerical disposition one encounters in many Protestant Fundamentalist sects.” But the notion that the exercise of charisms requires clerical permission or authority is precisely the kind of clericalist mentality that Vatican II sought to overcome. In its Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity the Council taught that the laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate not from Church authorities, but from the Lord Himself.¹⁴ Further,

For the exercise of this apostolate, the Holy Spirit Who sanctifies the people of God through ministry and the sacraments gives the faithful special gifts also (cf. 1 Cor. 12:7), “allotting them to everyone according as He wills” (1 Cor. 12:11) in order that individuals, administering grace to others just as they have received it, may also be “good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Peter 4:10), to build up the whole body in charity (cf. Eph. 4:16). From the acceptance of these charisms, including those which are more elementary, there arise for each believer the right and duty to use them in the Church and in the world for the good of men and the building up of the Church, in the freedom of the Holy Spirit who “breathes where He wills” (John 3:8).¹⁵

This is not to deny that the exercise of charisms is subject to the discernment and oversight of the pastors of the Church. A very important part of their leadership role is precisely to uncover, discern, acknowledge, foster, and coordinate the harmonious exercise of the varied charisms of the faithful.¹⁶ As Vatican II put it, “to [their] special competence it belongs, not indeed to extinguish the Spirit, but to test all things and hold fast to that which is good.”¹⁷

Was the Idea of Glossolalia Invented in
the Nineteenth Century?

According to Blosser, the gift of tongues, understood as “an unintelligible private ‘language’ of prayer,” is alien to Catholic tradition; instead it derives from “the novel theory of ‘glossolalia’ introduced in the nineteenth century by Protestant biblical scholars.” It is difficult to see how anyone who has read 1 Corinthians 12–14 carefully could make this statement. St. Paul clearly refers to the gift tongues as a form of non-conceptual yet vocalized prayer: “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit” (1 Cor 14:2; cf. 14:7–11). Prayer in tongues, as Paul describes it, is a kind of “prayer of the heart that goes directly to God, bypassing the mind”;¹⁸ it is thus similar to contemplative prayer.

Of the many instances where the gift of tongues is mentioned in the New Testament (Mk 16:17; Acts 2:4–11; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor 12:10, 28; 13:1, 8; 14:2–39), only one, the account of Pentecost, clearly refers to tongues as speaking in known human languages.¹⁹ In the Pauline passages, tongues clearly refers to unintelligible speech by which one praises God in a way that goes beyond human words. The tongues reported at Pentecost appear to be a unique phenomenon in the New Testament, although this phenomenon has been attested on occasion throughout Church history and in our own time.²⁰ The Church Fathers generally reserved the term “tongues” to refer to this miraculous form of the gift, while using the term “jubilation” to refer to non-verbal but vocalized praise of God. The similarities between what the tradition calls jubilation and prayer in tongues as it is experienced today are unmistakable.²¹ St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, writes, “When our mind is kindled by devotion as we pray, we break out spontaneously into weeping and sighing and cries of jubilation and other such noises. . . .”²² “The jubilus is an inexpressible joy which is not able to be expressed in words but even so the voice declares this vast expanse of joy. . . .”²³ Likewise St. Teresa of Avila attests that “Our Lord sometimes gives the soul feelings of jubilation and a strange prayer it doesn’t understand. I am writing about this favor here so that if He grants it to you, you may give Him such praise and know what is taking place. . . . It seems like gibberish. . . .”²⁴ Today, charismatic Catholics and other Christians experience a similar grace, but have returned to the Pauline usage of the term “tongues” to refer to it.

A few other misleading or inaccurate statements in Blosser’s article call for a brief response. He claims that the “traditional Church, in Healy’s view, has grown old and ossified.” In fact I made no such distinction between the “traditional Church” and some other (“non-traditional”?) Church. Rather, I wrote, “The Church in our time, it must be admitted, has in some ways become inward-looking. Catholics — whether in a parish, a diocese, or the universal Church — sometimes look like a circle of people all looking inward and talking to each other about our structures, our programs, our problems, our reforms.”²⁵ This is a danger of the Church in every age, though it is particularly evident in our time.

Blosser states, “Healy claims that ‘[St.] Paul believed there was a grave danger in people coming to Christ on the fragile basis of human persuasiveness rather than the firm basis of God’s power,’ by which she means supernatural ‘signs and wonders’ (p. 52).” On the contrary, on that same page I stated clearly that God’s power does not refer only to signs and wonders: “By ‘demonstration of Spirit and power’ [Paul] probably meant both the convincing power of Holy Spirit at work in the hearts of the hearers, convincing them that the gospel is true, as well as the miracles that accompany the gospel, proving that Jesus is indeed alive and at work in the world.” This supernatural power of the Holy Spirit is indeed essential to effective evangelization. As the great theologian Avery Dulles observed, “Because faith does not rest on human reasoning alone, the charismatic element is essential for any fruitful proclamation of the Gospel. In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul insists that he proclaimed the crucified Christ not in plausible words of human wisdom but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. . . . It remains true today that the Christian message cannot be imparted by logical demonstration but only by words taught by the Holy Spirit. To speak in such Spirit-inspired words is to exercise a charismatic gift.”²⁶

Blosser refers to “Randy Clark . . . with whom [Healy] spent her sabbatical in 2013 performing healings in Brazil.” I am not certain what force that claim is meant to have, but it is in fact erroneous. I spent only two weeks of my sabbatical with a team of 80 people led by Dr. Clark in Brazil, as Blosser knows from the sabbatical report I gave to faculty at Sacred Heart.

Blosser objects that I quoted “Cardinal Ratzinger’s assertion that ‘what is needed is less organization and more Spirit,’ extracting this assertion from a much larger qualifying context of cautionary statements.” In fact, the cardinal makes several even stronger assertions in the context, which should suffice to show that I was not misinterpreting him:

But the local Churches, too, even the bishops, must be reminded that they must avoid any uniformity of pastoral organizations and programmes. They must not turn their own pastoral plans into the criterion of what the Holy Spirit is allowed to do: an obsession with planning could render the Churches impervious to the action of the Holy Spirit, to the power of God by which they live. . . .

. . . What, in the last analysis, needs to be established is not a blasé attitude of intellectual superiority that immediately brands the zeal of those seized by the Holy Spirit and their uninhibited faith with the anathema of fundamentalism. . . .

. . . [W]hat should remain at the end is above all a feeling of gratitude and joy. Gratitude that the Holy Spirit is quite plainly at work in the Church and is lavishing new gifts on her in our time too, gifts through which she relives the joy of her youth.²⁷

There are other examples in the article, but these are sufficient to demonstrate that Blosser has not offered a fair evaluation of my book, nor of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, but has instead been guided by prejudices, guilt by association, and groundless suspicions that unjustly call into question the fidelity and orthodoxy of those who emphasize the charismatic dimension of the Christian life.

What is needed is the wisdom of the popes since Vatican Council II, all of whom recognized in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in our times a work of God in response to the needs of our age, and who called Catholics to be fearlessly open to the action of the Spirit. Pope Paul VI described the Charismatic Renewal as “a chance for the Church and for the world.” St. John Paul II reiterated in 1981, “Pope Paul described the movement for renewal in the Spirit as ‘a chance for the Church and for the world,’ and the six years since that Congress have borne out the hope that inspired his vision.”²⁸ And again in 2004, “Thanks to the Charismatic Movement, a multitude of Christians, men and women, young people and adults have rediscovered Pentecost as a living reality in their daily lives. I hope that the spirituality of Pentecost will spread in the Church . . . .”²⁹ At the gathering of ecclesial movements in Rome in 1998 he gave this heartfelt exhortation: “Today, I would like to cry out . . . to all Christians: Open yourselves docilely to the gifts of the Spirit! Accept gratefully and obediently the charisms which the Spirit never ceases to bestow on us!”³⁰ Pope Benedict XVI reiterated the call for a culture of Pentecost, and often expressed the fervent desire for a new Pentecost.³¹ And Pope Francis has amplified this theme, stating that “Spirit-filled evangelizers means evangelizers fearlessly open to the working of the Holy Spirit.”³² To the Charismatic Renewal he said, “I expect from you that you share with all, in the Church, the grace of Baptism in the Holy Spirit.”³³

At the end of Blosser’s article he expresses a concern to “retrieve a more robust sense of the Spirit’s work in the Christian’s life,” and offers a brief but rich résumé of the Spirit’s many-sided role as revealed in Scripture: he is our Comforter, Advocate, and Counselor; the Spirit of truth, who bears witness to Christ, convicts us of sin, regenerates us, assures us of our adoption as sons of God; the giver of life who brings about a new creation; etc. Indeed these and other aspects of the Spirit’s work have been explored by many in the Charismatic Renewal,³⁴ but there is always need for more. Meanwhile, the exhortation of St. Paul remains ever valid: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good. Refrain from every kind of evil” (1 Thess 5:19–22).