John Doe – identity suppressed (November, 2017)

Introduction:

The many lay ecclesial movements in the Church since Vatican II (Faggioloi, 2014), compared to the impact of the local parish on ordinary Catholic parishioners, pale in significance. The average parishioner is seldom directly influenced by these ecclesial movements (EM) but, on occasion, contact between a parishioner and a member of an EM may occur, and often that contact is negative. Whether intended or not, the EM member may leave the impression that they are a better Catholic than the ordinary parishioner! Indeed, this is precisely why Pope Francis has expressed concern about lay ecclesial movements – the CCR being one of them – their elitism. Given this ongoing concern with CCR groups, I suggest, sociologically, that CCRs should function and operate as a special purpose group (SPG) within the parish rather than as an extra-parish group or movement.

Special purpose groups, sociologically considered, are smaller groups within the parish which connect parishioners in a deeper way (such as choir or youth group or Christian service group). They function to supplement Mass attendance and strengthen faith and community bonds (defined below and in Wuthnow, 1988). There are many different kinds of SPGs (Wuthnow identifies more than 800 such groups) and I propose CCR groups should be understood and should function as an SPG. Identifying CCR groups as SPGs broadens the ecclesiology of the CCR group because it is placed within the broader ecclesial context of the parish and, moreover, places CCR groups on the same operating plane as any other parish SPG. Accordingly, CCR groups are not better or worse than other SPGs and, understood as such, might just temper their elitism. Moreover, now located within the context of the parish, CCR groups can find a more secure identity within the broader institution of the Church. Be reminded that CCR presently exists in a kind of ecclesial limbo. It does not have standing as a religious order like the Christian Brothers, nor is it solidly parish based, and, thus, their limbo status gives weight to the argument that CCR groups should be located within the parish. Pope Francis has stated in no uncertain terms that the parish has a long institutional history and, by no means, should be considered outdated (2013: paragraph 28). Consequently, I believe the parish is the proper institutional context for CCR groups. Indeed, being identified as one among many parish SPGs should assist CCR leaders and members in understanding the many other forms through which parishioners’ faith can legitimately be expressed. It would be hoped that this would soften their perceived elitism and, importantly for CCR, provide greater institutional support (as a new SPG) in recruiting new members. Moreover, pastors would have a more direct link to CCR groups if they were located in parishes and thereby could more realistically and pastorally assist in curbing their elitism if such were needed.

In this paper I propose to, first, discuss the sociological notion of special purpose groups and CCR groups operating like SPGs. I do not discuss the history of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and its varied expressions. Not only because many others have provided this history (Hunt 2009, Csordas 1997, 2002), but primarily because such a history is not directly related to this paper’s central proposal. Second, I discuss what SPGS are, sociologically, and then make the claim that CCR groups should be embedded in parishes, as any other SPG, in order to operate in a more balanced ecclesial manner. Third, I briefly discuss the modern rational temporal order. This is a sociological theory of time and how time commitments are socially conditioned. I raise this point to show how this social temporal order impacts SPGs, CCR groups, and the parish at large. I conclude with ecclesiological and sociological implications of the proposal that CCR groups should be located within parishes and therefore organizationally operate like any other parish SPG.

CCR Groups are Similar to Special Purpose Groups:

Many CCR groups and other lay ecclesial movements operate on the margins of the larger institutional Catholic Church (Lee and D’Antonio, 2000). CCR groups, in other words, are betwixt and between, straddling two worlds somewhere between Protestant Pentecostalism and institutional Roman Catholicism. This marginal status naturally creates conflicting loyalties and commitments with respect to various Catholic behaviors and beliefs as well as creating the elitist attitudes mentioned above. Moreover, in occupying this marginal status and thereby embracing more Protestant Pentecostal behaviors and beliefs, CCR groups operate out of a narrow ecclesiology compared to the larger Catholic Church (diocese) or the local parish. CCR groups need the parish and diocesan church to broaden their ecclesiology or, to be more accurate, to operate within an institutional context that has a broader ecclesiology, and, by so doing, places them in relationship to proper authority figures (pastors) who can oversee their theological and spiritual direction.

CCR groups’ marginal status is a claim made not just from personal experience. Two other sources legitimating this claim come from St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. Although St. Pope John Paul II was supportive of the CCR and spoke approvingly of such activity in Redemptoris Missio (51), he also had concerns about CCR as well as other lay ecclesial movements ever since the late 1970s. Second, Pope Francis has spoken with great concern about lay ecclesial movements, especially the CCR, in noting their tendency toward elitist orientations. For example, in his June 2014 address to participants in the “37^th National Convocation of the Renewal in the Holy Spirit”, he warned not only of the danger of divisiveness but the danger of excessive planning and organization in an attempt to become “‘managers of grace” or “arbiters of God’s grace.” Pointedly, he declared: “Don’t act like a tollhouse for the Holy Spirit!” and “never lose the grace of letting God be God!” A third substantiating factor of CCR’s marginal status is the fact that this group and other lay ecclesial movements do not have a structured, legitimated ecclesial location or a specified relationship to a parish or, in some cases, a diocese. They have no juridical character. Although some bishops and pastors are supportive and welcoming, this in itself does not create a juridical home for CCR groups.

A pointed sociological observation about groups occupying a marginal status is that such marginalized groups become breeding grounds for religious virtuosi. Although religious virtuosi can be positive forces revitalizing the faith of followers, they also can spin off in directions inimical to the larger institutional context that bred them in the first place. Religious virtuosi are those members who exhibit greater energy, enthusiasm, and zeal to revitalize the spiritual life and larger organizational structure of the church. Religious virtuosi are spiritual athletes who are up for a larger commitment and involvement in their faith than what the normal parish community expects of its members. But, in many cases, these religious virtuosi may also exhibit a spiritual elitism that ordinary parishioners find demeaning. For example, Meredith McGuire (1982: 161-65) directly observed Catholic charismatics frequently referring to other Catholics, not baptized in the Spirit, as ‘baptized pagans.’ They were fellow Catholics who followed Catholic traditions but, in the charismatics’ opinion were not truly ‘born again.’ Mary Jo Neitz (1987: 217), another sociologist of religion engaged in ethnographic research of Catholic charismatics, found that the ecumenical desire in Catholic charismatics may lead them to feel more at home with their Protestant friends than in their own Catholic parishes. My own experience with Catholic charismatics in the late 1970s at my home parish strongly corroborates these sociological studies that found elitist attitudes among them.

The positive aspect of religious virtuosi, however, is the fact that they can create a certain collective effervescence that spills over into the larger social organization. Historically, monasteries and religious orders were social locations or institutional contexts for these enthusiastic virtuosi to express their spiritual athleticism. However, when Vatican II called for all Christians to strive for spiritual perfection and enthusiasm, the church indirectly opened up new social venues through which religious virtuosi could express their spirituality such as the many extra-parish lay ecclesial movements that now exist (CCR e.g.). Several sociologists and theologians (Lee, 2000; Finke and Wittberg, 2000) therefore claim that CCR groups or other extra-parish lay ecclesial movements may be functional equivalents of monasteries, offering an alternative communal space for religious virtuosi. Indeed, these same sociologists and theologians draw on CCR groups’ marginal status and their having no juridical home to support their argument that they are similar to and operate like monasteries. But this claim is overdrawn, and I argue instead that CCR groups are actually more similar to what Robert Wuthnow (1988) calls special purpose groups (SPGs) and therefore should operate as such. Sociological studies have shown (Finke and Wittberg, 2000; Weber, 1922; Collins, 1988) that the Catholic church has been able to maintain its institutional success throughout the ages, including our own post-Vatican II era, due to its ability to retain sect-like tendencies of religious virtuosi through the historical invention of convents, monasteries, seminaries, etc. (Max Weber in 1904 claimed this was the genius of the Catholic church – the retention of religious virtuosi through such institutional means compared to Protestants who did not have such an organizational system and were therefore prone to sectarianism). This sociological claim is also overdrawn because CCR groups have not been around long enough to have earned the same status as monasteries and because, more importantly, they have not been able to prevent some religious virtuosi from displaying spiritual elitism. Organizationally, then, equating CCR groups with special purpose groups (SPGs) is a better fit. So what are SPGs and why are they a better fit?

Special Purpose Groups as an Organizational Type and CCR Groups Embedded in Parishes

Sociologically, SPGs are different from both sects and churches/parishes – falling somewhere between these two religious organizational types. Dissimilar from sects in that SPGs are non-intensive whereas sects are “intensive.” SPGs demand time and energy but for only one “special purpose” (prison ministry, home bible study, Christian drag car racers, intensive prayer, etc.) and therefore are “non-intensive” in that one’s time, money, and social life are not overly extracted from its members as is done in sects. On the other hand, SPGs are dissimilar from parishes in that they are small whereas churches/parishes are large. Consequently, SPGs are more demanding than churches (in that parishes require only Sunday Mass attendance), but not as demanding as sects which require much familial and social time commitment from their members. Theoretically, SPGs function like monasteries in retaining sect-like tendencies from spilling outside of the church’s boundaries while at the same time different from monasteries in not being too greedy of members’ resources. SPGs, it could be said, combine the best of both worlds; like churches they require non-intensive commitment, and, like sects, they are small in size (see figure 1 below).

Figure 1 Involvement

		Intensive	Non-intensive
SIZE	Large	empty cell	CHURCH
	Small	SECT	Special Purpose Group

SPGs provide ways for the local parish to catch the attention of prospective members because they are small and focus on one issue. CCR groups and their focus on scripture and prayer is one of those ways – arguably one of the more “intense” Christian ways – compared to other SPGs (e.g., Christian drag racers). Nevertheless, most SPGs can revitalize the parish because, as Wuthnow shows, commitment is not entirely a function of personal values and beliefs as most social scientists assume – commitment “is also a function of the vast infrastructure of SPGs that makes available the activities to which people become committed” (1988: 122). In other words, when there are groups to join then people become involved and faith is revitalized. People do not necessarily become involved because they believe and are committed to group prayer and bible based faith sharing, for example, and then try to find such a group, but because there is a group to join in the parish that already is doing prayer and faith sharing. CCR groups, by focusing on scripture, prayer, and small group sharing, are more like SPGs than the sect-like monastic or religious orders which are more demanding of members’ time and resources.

If CCR groups are housed in parishes, then they can more easily fit into the broader ecclesiology of the parish just as other SPGs do. Most parishes already have SPGs involved in education, Christian service, prayer, devotions, youth ministry, music, or recreation. Linked to the parish more intimately, CCR groups may even branch out in terms of more Christian service or Catholic social justice ministry than when they are disconnected from parish life. Disconnected from parish life, CCR groups are prone to become too closed in on themselves, too individualistic, too inward looking, too narrow, too preoccupied with internal concerns, and not involved enough in Christian social action – exhibiting therefore a narrow ecclesiology. I find CCR groups’ disconnect from parishes to be sociologically naïve and inviting problems of authority relations, spiritually questionable behavior, and sectarianism. Located within parish structures these problems could be recognized, then checked and corrected, if necessary, by pastors and pastoral staff.

The organizational dimension of church life, I believe, would function more smoothly if CCR groups would link up with parishes. For example, could CCR groups link up with the Christian Service Commission of the parish to develop its social outreach if such an occasion arises? It is easier than trying to make Christian service a central aspect of their identity as a group disconnected from mainstream parish life. Moreover, maybe CCR group members are already contributing to the Christian Service dimension of parish life without necessarily doing so as CCR members? CCR groups being linked to parishes is the main ecclesial reason why CCR groups don’t have to do everything “Catholic” in that it is the parish that is expected to ensure that the various dimensions of church life are being implemented (worship, religious education, Christian service, stewardship, and evangelization), not any one segment of the parish. In other words, CCR groups disconnected from parish life easily become ecclesiologically narrow in their mission and ministry and, moreover, religious virtuosi can “run wild” in the community rather than be overseen by legitimate authorities (priest/pastor).

Another advantage to CCR groups being connected to parishes is their presence to more of the faithful and other prospective Catholics. We know from sociological research done at the parish level, especially since the 1990s (Warner: 1993), that this is where much vibrant religious activity happens. One of the organizational geniuses of the Catholic Church is its network of local parishes, and if CCR groups are not integrated into a parish, they not only risk becoming truly sectarian but lose the chance to revitalize the faith of Catholics and would be Catholics — their potential ecclesial influence diminishes. One CCR group or SPG cannot do everything, but organized together under one roof called a parish, much can be done.

Time and CCR Groups:

Another problem concerns the modern issue of time. The sociologist Zerubavel believes that we live in a highly rationalized “temporal order” and therefore time is a most effective principle of differentiation. Individuals inhabit separate private and public spheres and, more to the point, this rationalizing of time is a functional necessity today. As he states it:

With increasing functional and structural differentiation within individuals’ webs of social affiliations and the growing bureaucratic split between “person” and “role,” maintaining the partiality of the involvement of modern individuals in each of the various social roles they occupy becomes a necessity (1981: xv).

Rational temporal orders are thus necessary because today’s social order assumes that people can only be partially involved in most social arenas and only honor limited commitments. This puts CCR group members in a temporal tug-of-war between their CCR group asking for more time and commitment, their local parish asking for their participation, and society’s growing differentiation which demands they rationally order their time. If Zerubavel is correct about society’s temporal order, then why do charismatics want a social order separate from the historical and institutional structural system of the local parish? I realize one reason is that the CCR believes they can renew the Church better from the margins than from the center, but that is not necessarily true sociologically. The tremendous effort it takes to get people involved in CCR groups in the first place should tell us something about the time famine most ordinary lay people experience (this may, in part, explain why the CCR population in the United States is declining (see Flory and Sargeant, 2013; and in Appendix 1 page 327). CCR groups can easily become, to say it in other terms, “greedy organizations” (Coser: 1974). Greedy in that most ordinary laity cannot afford such time and resources that extra-parish CCR groups demand. Moreover, if laity do participate as much as CCR groups wish, then it is most likely they will be cutting back on their time commitment and support of their local parish. It is unrealistic and naïve, in my opinion, to negatively critique CCR groups by saying they are sectarian or they are not doing enough or they need to do more in terms of the other dimensions of church life (Christian service, etc.). Although such critiques might be legitimately made theologically, sociologically speaking, the critique of CCR groups should simply be that they need to be connected or institutionally embedded within the parish structure.

Conclusion:

Although I agree with sociologists who argue that, overall, people are seeking community and that communities should not become simply life-style enclaves (Bellah, et al: 1985), I also would urge church professionals to heed Putnam’s work (although debated – Ammerman, 1996; Fine, 2004) indicating that even though there is a decline in social capital or social connectedness in the last fifty years, it is in the mainline churches where “arguably the single most important repository of social capital [connectedness] in America” is to be found (Putnam: 2000: 66). Put simply, parishes are robust centers of community even though many church professionals don’t believe it. If they don’t believe it, then CCR leadership, disconnected from ordinary parish life, are even more prone to fall into this ideological trap of believing that ordinary Catholics are not good enough Catholics (elitism). CCR leaders are more prone to hold this attitude because they are more sectarian and are also producing future religious virtuosi who continue to believe ordinary Catholics are not good enough. One sociological conclusion, therefore, is an old one: there is an attitudinal and behavioral gap that exists between professionals (who are in this case CCR religious virtuosi) and ordinary lay people (that is, those in the pew – see Dinges, 1983; McSweeney, 1980; Hadden, 1970; Flanagan, 1991; Stark and Fink, 2000), showing over and again how misaligned many church professionals are with ordinary pew-dwellers. CCR leaders wanting “more” from CCR group members (and ordinary Catholics in general) communicate a message to ordinary pew-dwellers that they are not “good enough” (granted this communication is often ‘given off’ non-verbally). CCR leaders, in particular, need to be connected to ordinary parish life because then, just maybe, they will see and understand that their religious virtuosity and their demand for more from ordinary Catholics are unwarranted or overdrawn. Just maybe their religious elitism will be dampened as they troll through the ordinary lives of ordinary Catholics trying to live out their faith in a post-modern world that legitimizes multiple sacred forms and multiple lifestyles that often confuse many ordinary Catholics, leaving them bereft of a sense of community and a sacred center. Rather than beating-up on ordinary Catholics and their supposed deficiencies, CCR leadership might discover ‘welcoming’ as the best means of evangelization.

The purpose of this paper was to argue that CCR groups connected to parish life and operating like any other parish SPG can assist CCR groups in locating themselves in a broader ecclesiology and, at the same time, become another SPG through which parishioners, so inclined, might enrich their spiritual lives. Allegiances between CCR groups and historical Catholic parishes can act to temper some of the perceived excesses that Catholic charismatics display and, at the same time, afford CCR groups a better opportunity to reach out to ordinary Catholics and non-Catholics alike in a more balanced ecclesial context and with a more balanced pastoral approach.

References

1. Ammerman, Nancy. 1996. “Bowling Together: Congregations and the American Civic Order.” The
2. Arizona State University Lecture in Religion.
3. Bellah, Robert et al. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life.
4. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5. Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate. 2000. “Small Christian Communities Growing.” Volume
6. 6 (2): 1.
7. Collins, Randal. 1988. Theoretical Sociology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
8. Coser, Lewis. 1974. Greedy Institutions. New York: Free Press.
9. Csordas, Thomas. 2002. Body / Meaning / Healing. New York: Palgrave.
10. ______________. 1997. Language, Charisma, and Creativity: The Ritual Life of a Religious Movement.
11. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12. Dinges, William D. 1987. “Ritual Conflict as Social Conflict: Liturgical Reform in the Roman Catholic
13. Church. Sociological Analysis 48, 2:138-157.
14. Dulles, Avery. 1983. A Church to Believe In: Discipleship and the Dynamics of Freedom. New York: Crossroad
15. Faggioli, Massimo. 2014. Sorting Out Catholicism: A Brief History of the New Ecclesial Movements.
16. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazer Books—The Liturgical Press.
17. Fine, Gary A. 2004. “Bowling Alone . . . .” Society.
18. Finke, Roger and Wittberg, Patricia. 2000. “Organizational Revival From Within: Explaining Revivalism & Reform in the Roman Catholic Church.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion: 39: 154-170.
19. Flanagan, Kieran. 1991. Sociology and Liturgy: Re-presentations of the Holy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
20. Flory Richard and Sargeant, Kimon H. 2013. “Conclusion: Pentecostalism in Global Perspective.” In
21. Spirit and Power: The Growth and Global Impact of Pentecostalism. Edited by Miller, Donald E., Sargeant, Kimon H. and Richard Flory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Gautier, Mary. 2003. Book Review of The Catholic Experience of Small Christian Communities. New York:
23. Paulist Press. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, volume 4: 192-93.
24. Hadden, Jeffrey. 1970. The Gathering Storm in the Churches. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
25. Hunt, Stephen. 2009. A History of the Charismatic Movement in Britain and the United States of
26. America: The Pentecostal Transformation of Christianity (Books 1 and 2). Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.
27. Lee, Bernard, D’Antonio, William V. et al. 2000. The Catholic Experience of Small Christian Communities. New York: Paulist Press.
28. McSweeney, William. 1980. Roman Catholicism: the Search for Relevance. New York: St. Martins Press.
29. McGuire, Meredith. 1982. Pentecostal Catholics: Power, Charisma and Order in a Religious Movement. Philadephia, PE: Temple Press.
30. Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
31. Neitz, Mary Jo. 1987. Charisma and Community: A Study of Commitment Within Charismatic Renewal. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Books.
32. Pope Francis. 2014. Speech at the “37^th National Convention of the Renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
33. __________. 2013. The Joy of the Gospel (Evangelii Gaudium).
34. Pope John Paul II. 1991. Redemptoris Missio. Encyclical of the Catholic Church.
35. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
36. Stark, Rodney and Finke, Roger. 2000. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37. Warner, Stephen R. 1993. “Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology, 98 (5): 1044-93.
38. Weber, Max. 1922. Sociology of Religion. New York: Free Press.
39. ___________. 1904. The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner.
40. Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The Restructuring of American Religion.: Society and Faith Since WWII. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
41. Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1981. Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.