Why ‘charismatic spirituality’ belongs at the heart of our communal life

by Kathleen van Schaijik

Though he obviously tried to be fair in his article on charismatics, traditionalists and the liturgy, and though he says he used to be a charismatic himself, I cannot help thinking that Adam Tate must not really understand what the renewal is all about.

The charismatic renewal is not a private spirituality developed by men as a means of expressing their faith. Rather, it is mainly something God has done—a grace He has poured out in order to renew His Church. It is, first and foremost, an inward grace: a gratuitous, overpowering and very intimate certitude of God’s presence, His love and His saving power, which is often (but not always) accompanied by extraordinary spiritual gifts, such as those that appeared among the early Christians after Pentecost.

For at least two or three recent decades, this grace has been offered in gigantic measure and on a gigantic scale to practically anyone who showed himself willing to receive it. And, in this way, the personal renewal of untold thousands became a sort of informal “movement” in the Church. Those who shared the experience naturally began to congregate together, in places where they could freely express their jubilation, exercise their “gifts,” and live our their new faith without reserve. Steubenville became one of those places.

But Franciscan University was not only a place where the charismatic river of life could flow freely, so to speak, but also a place where its characteristic unruliness could be channeled and harnessed; made to stay inside the safe banks of orthodoxy and Catholic tradition; kept from flooding and destroying otherwise fertile ground. In my opinion, this is one of the most obvious of divine purposes for our campus: that it be a place where the astonishing power of the charismatic renewal can be matured through the life of the mind and chastened by the disciplines of Mother Church, in a way that multiplies it’s fruitfulness by pruning its “luxuriance.”

This is not to say that everyone at Franciscan University ought to be a card-carrying member of the charismatic renewal, nor that unless they are, they are not living a full life in the Spirit. Nor does it necessarily mean that all our services ought to be conspicuously charismatic in style. But it does mean that to deliberately suppress the renewal, or to banish every expression of it (as Adam Tate proposes) from the liturgies, which are the heart of our communal life, could amount to a rejection of a divine gift, and a betrayal of the specific mission of our University.

Of course, part of the right “disciplining” of the renewal might include keeping certain of its manifestations out of the liturgy for various reasons, either doctrinal or prudential, and it would be stubbornness on the part of “charismatics” if they refused to listen to legitimate concerns about distractions or unfitting behavior or unworthy music at our liturgies. But this sort healthy “pruning” and perfecting of our liturgical life is something different from a wholesale prohibition against the expression of charismatic spirituality at Mass. Particular behaviors may be duly criticized, but a gift from God should be carefully cherished.

Kathleen (Healy) van Schaijik, Class of ‘88

issue cover

Related articles:

Same issue

Same topic: charismatic & traditional spirituality

II,1 Can charismatics and traditionalists peacefully coexist?, Kathleen van Schaijik II,7 Confrontation and culture at Franciscan University, David Schmiesing II,8 Traditionalists, charismatics and the liturgy, Adam Tate II,9 Why tradition in the liturgy is so important to our religious life, Alice von Hildebrand II,9 Charisms are traditional, Alicia Hernon III,1 Filling out the meaning of the term ‘Charismatic’, Jim Weiner III,3 Campus Spiritualities: Responding to charismatic critics, Adam Tate III,3 Campus Spiritualities: Tongues in Scripture, Gerald E. Hatcher IV,7 The importance of engaging questions about our campus culture, Mark Fischer V,3 A match made in heaven, Carole Brown V,4 Bringing the masses from starvation to full strength, Kathleen van Schaijik V,4 Baptism in the Holy Spirit goes beyond the charisms, Ralph Sharafinski V,4 Latin, Gregorian Chant, and the Spirit of Vatican II, Jeff Ziegler V,4 Learning about the Eastern Rites, Michael Wrasman V,4 Complimentary opponents of modernism, Michael Houser V,4 What does ‘charismatic’ really mean?, Adam Tate V,4 The blessings of both sides: a personal testimony, Sr. Jane M. Abeln, SMIC VI,1 Reconsidering the term ‘Baptism in the Holy Spirit’, Scott Johnston

Same author

I,1 NFP, by itself, does not compromise the marriage vocation I,2 What is a ‘real’ Catholic education? I,3 Orthodox not paradox I,4 How does a university evangelize? I,4 NFP and connaturality I,5 Thomism and intellectual freedom I,7 Keeping our worship in step with ‘what the Spirit is saying’ to FUS II,1 Can charismatics and traditionalists peacefully coexist? II,1 The horror of polygamy and the persistence of chauvinistic theories in Catholic academia II,2 The challenge of the Concourse: discussion without (much) contention II,3 When old ideas are breaking up II,4 Why the polygamy problem is not as passe as it appears: Kathleen van Schaijik responds to critics II,9 Why ‘charismatic spirituality’ belongs at the heart of our communal life III,1 What is the University Concourse? III,1 How not to help households III,3 Silence betokens ... What? III,4 The freedom of stricture III,5 What were households meant to be? III,5 Different degrees of authority IV,1 Love Never Leaves IV,2 Faith and Reason IV,5 A different perspective on the modesty question IV,6 Strangers to the world V,1 New face, same spirit V,3 The ‘Stratford man’ and the Shakespearean canon: no match at all V,4 Bringing the masses from starvation to full strength V,6 Branching out through Christus Magister V,6 Kathleen van Schaijik replies to John Doman on Shakespeare V,7 A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship VI,1 The evil of exorcising judgement VII,1 Jump Start VII,1 Abusing NFP VII,1 It’s not the Vatican, it’s the laity III,6 Last words (for now) III,6 A suggestion regarding Extraordinary Ministers III,6 Catholic teaching on capital punishment III,6 A final thought on the household issue III,6 What is our mission, really? III,6 What if Shakspere wasn’t Shakespeare? III,6 Clinton’s sorry legacy III,6 Evolution III,6 Intimidated? Please don’t be. III,6 A gift for the graduates of ‘98 III,6 A point of policy III,6 A point of principle III,6 A word of thanks IV,7 Happy & sad IV,7 Oxford gaining on Shakspere IV,7 Of private and collegiate morality IV,7 Newman, education and context IV,7 Witnesses to Faith in the face of death IV,7 Viva the class of ‘99! IV,7 A prize winning physicist out of his depth IV,7 A positive psychology IV,7 How to become a leader IV,7 Campus politics IV,7 Thanksgiving V,8 Fr. Michael’s achievement V,8 Charity may be severe V,8 On the other side of the same coin V,8 The Weimar Republicans V,8 Drawing out an analogy V,8 Beware of economic Puritanism V,8 How to support the Concourse by buying books V,8 Shakespeare debate update V,8 What the education debate is and isn’t about V,8 Dear Class of 2000 V,8 Thanksgiving