Francis MacNutt

[Sirach2]

Andre:

Pray for me as I am discerning to be a priest and want to be involved in healing ministry. For the Lord to open doors for me.

As I read about your interest in the healing ministry and priesthood, I couldn’t help but think of Brother André and his ministry, and wondered if that is the reason you chose this user name? Did you know he is going to be canonized in October? Praise God! And may He bless you with wisdom as you discern the Lord’s call.

 

[Victorious]

He has also been laisized and he and his wife are both in the Catholic Church. His work has allowed him to minister in and out of the Church. I believe he has brought much understanding of the faith to others.

A laicized priest cannot minister. That is one the conditions of being laicized. Nor may we legitimately have recourse to a laicized priest for the Sacraments, except under extreme necessity (i.e., we’re on the point of death and there are no priests in good standing available).

Sir, every baptized Christain could have a ministry. Mr. McNutt was ordained a priest; man cannot undo what the Holy Spirit has done. Mr. McNutt is *laicised * from his priestly duties in the Catholic Church, but he is still a priest: he is a “a priest forever”. His spritual state hasn’t been lowered back to he lay state because God doesn’t take back His gifts. I understand Mr. McNutt doesn’t perform his ministry as a priest either, but as one of the faithful. God could still bestow grace upon us through Mr. McNutt just as he can do it through you too.

I’m not sure where you get the idea that lay people are not supposed to have a “ministry” in the Church. I think that the sensitivity on the part of the Vatican was a sense that lay people were replacing or de-emphasizing the ministry of priests, particularly when lay people doing liturgical ministries that were traditionallly the domain of clergy. However, lay people have continued to serve as volunteers and full-time ministers and, in fact, have assumed greater and greater responsibility for the work of the Church worldwide as the number of priests declines in many areas and the educational level of the laity – including in areas such as theology and pastoral ministry – increases.

I think MacNutt was not doing seminars or services in the Catholic Church because of two factors: (1) he was a former priest who married, and (2) there is less support in the Catholic Church for healing ministry of the sort practiced by MacNutt.

This all represents some very confused thought. Take a good look at Christifideles Laici (John Paul II, 1988).

 

[Sirach2]

This all represents some very confused thought. Take a good look at Christifideles Laici (John Paul II, 1988).

This document is exceedingly long. Did you have a particular section in mind? I’m understanding from John Paul that any (and all) lay person(s) in the Church, which would include Francis MacNutt, is called to actively serve others in whatever capacity God is inspiring them. Even without your citing a particular paragraph, the document is very beautifully written with a lot of encouragement.

 

[Victorious]

I’m understanding from John Paul that any (and all) lay person(s) in the Church, which would include Francis MacNutt, is called to actively serve others in whatever capacity God is inspiring them.

The first thing we have to do before we actively serve is to make sure that it is really God’s inspiration we’re acting on, and not our own whims with the label of “inspiration” slapped on them. This is why we have the authority of the Church: to guide us in discerning God’s will. God can’t be inspiring a laicized priest to engage in that which the Church forbids a laicized priest to engage in. Nor can it be He Who inspires any layman to engage in that which is reserved for priests. One of the points JPII makes in Christifidelis Laici is that Vatican II emphasized that you can’t confuse the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood. From Section 23:

When necessity and expediency in the Church require it, the Pastors, according to established norms from universal law, can entrust to the lay faithful certain offices and roles that are connected to their pastoral ministry but do not require the character of Orders. The Code of Canon Law states: “When the necessity of the Church warrants it and when ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply for certain of their offices, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside over liturgical prayers, to confer Baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion in accord with the prescriptions of the law.” However, the exercise of such tasks does not make Pastors of the lay faithful: in fact, a person is not a minister simply in performing a task, but through sacramental ordination. [Emphasis in original.] Only the Sacrament of Orders gives the ordained minister a particular participation in the office of Christ, the Shepherd and Head, and in his Eternal Priesthood. The task exercised in virtue of supply takes its legitimacy formally and immediately from the official deputation given by the Pastors, as well as from its concrete exercise under the guidance of ecclesiastical authority.

And then later on in the same section, he says:

In the first place, then, it is necessary that in acknowledging and in conferring various ministries, offices and roles on the lay faithful, the Pastors exercise the maximum care to institute them on the basis of Baptism in which these tasks are rooted. It is also necessary that Pastors guard against a facile yet abusive recourse to a presumed “situation of emergency” or to “supply by necessity”, where objectively this does not exist or where alternative possibilities could exist through better pastoral planning.

The various ministries, offices and roles that the lay faithful can legitimately fulfill in the liturgy, in the transmission of the faith, and in the pastoral structure of the Church, ought to be exercised *in conformity to their specific lay vocation, *which is different from that of the sacred ministry [emphasis in original].

There is too much crossing over of the laity into the territory of priests, and vice versa, and this is contrary to the mind of the Church. That is the kind of confused thinking I was talking about.

 

[Alan55]

A laicized priest cannot minister. That is one the conditions of being laicized. Nor may we legitimately have recourse to a laicized priest for the Sacraments, except under extreme necessity (i.e., we’re on the point of death and there are no priests in good standing available). [Your comment] all represents some very confused thought. Take a good look at URL=“http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html”]Christifideles Laici

(John Paul II, 1988).

Your quotes from *Christifedeles laici *make my point for me, namely, that the concern regarding lay “ministry” relates in large part to liturgical and quasi-liturgical functions – that is, work normally associated with “pastoral” (read: “priestly”) ministry. The additional concern is to ensure that the work of the laity be overseen and guided by the clergy. To quote again what the document says (my emphasis):

“When necessity and expediency in the Church require it, the Pastors, according to established norms from universal law, can entrust to the lay faithful certain offices and roles that are connected to their pastoral ministry that is, the ministry of pastors = priests] but do not require the character of Orders. The Code of Canon Law states: “When the necessity of the Church warrants it and when ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply for certain of their offices, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside over liturgical prayers, to confer Baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion various liturgical ministries] in accord with the prescriptions of the law.” However, the exercise of such tasks does not make Pastors of the lay faithful: in fact, a person is not a minister simply in performing a task, but through sacramental ordination.”

In fact, I think we have a similar understanding of the document, although you apply this understand quite differently:

The first thing we have to do before we actively serve is to make sure that it is really God’s inspiration we’re acting on, and not our own whims with the label of “inspiration” slapped on them. This is why we have the authority of the Church: to guide us in discerning God’s will. God can’t be inspiring a laicized priest to engage in that which the Church forbids a laicized priest to engage in. Nor can it be He Who inspires any layman to engage in that which is reserved for priests. One of the points JPII makes in Christifidelis Laici is that Vatican II emphasized that you can’t confuse the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood…There is too much crossing over of the laity into the territory of priests, and vice versa, and this is contrary to the mind of the Church. That is the kind of confused thinking I was talking about.

The Vatican is concerned that, where the supply of priests is lacking, that lay people will step into roles formerly reserved to the ordained and think of themselves as quasi-clergy – the so-called “clericalization” of the laity. Whether you are queasy about a former priest serving the faithful in healing ministry, this has nothing to do with the concerns experssed in Christifedeles laici/I. You seem to think that MacNutt is doing something that the Church does not permit a lay person to do. Laying hands on people and praying that God heal them? He isn’t administering the sacrament of Anointing, so I don’t see that he’s doing anything forbidden to the laity. The laity has always prayed that others they care for recover from sickness. Through a spiritual gift that God has seen fit to give MacNutt, his prayers have remarkable effectiveness. God gives spiritual gifts of healing, the working of miracles, teaching, prophecy, etc., etc. to non-ordained people, and such gifted non-ordained people are supposed to use those gifts for the good of others. MacNutt’s bishop permits and, it seems, encourages him to use the spiritual gifts God has given him. That’s good enough for me.

 

[Victorious]

Whether you are queasy about a former priest serving the faithful in healing ministry, this has nothing to do with the concerns experssed in Christifedeles laici

I was addressing two different issues which you are conflating. I was addressing (1) the scope of activities forbidden to a priest who has been laicized; and (2) the scope of the lay apostolate. I brought up (2) because I noticed confusion in earlier posts regarding the boundaries between clergy and laity. I brought up (1) because of the mentions of public ministry on the part of Francis MacNutt.

Now I am going to go back to (1). Ex-priests are strictly limited on what they can and cannot do, and they have a duty to avoid giving scandal. Here is a post Jimmy Akin put up four years ago on this subject.

 

[Sirach2]

Jimmy Akin's article:

By extension (though there are some doubtful cases), anything a laicized priest is not forbidden to do in his rescript is something he is permitted to do.

I read your link, but I did not see anything forbidding him to pray for the sick or to instruct others how to pray effectively for them. This sentence in the article apparently does not debar him from this type of service to the faithful. I would think by now, that if he was doing anything forbidden, the public would have notified someone in Church authority. You KNOW how finicky some people can be.

 

[Alan55]

Ex-priests are strictly limited on what they can and cannot do, and they have a duty to avoid giving scandal. Here is a post Jimmy Akin put up four years ago on this subject.

Here’s the list of what laicized priests cannot do, taken from Jimmy Akin’s post:

“1) He can’t celebrate any of the sacraments except for hearing deathbed confessions. It is especially noted that he can’t give homilies. (2) He can’t serve as an extraordinary minister of holy Communion. (3) He can’t serve any “directive office in the pastoral field” (e.g., serving as a parish administrator). (4) He can’t do anything at all in a seminary. (5) He can’t serve as a director or teacher in a Catholic university. (6) He can’t teach theology or any closely related discipline (e.g., religious studies, history of theology) in a non-Catholic university. (7) He can’t serve a director (e.g., school principal) in a parochial school. (8) He can’t serve as a teacher in a parochial school unless he gets the bishop’s permission. (9) He shouldn’t live in or frequent places where his status as an ex-priest is generally known, unless he gets the bishop’s permission. By extension (though there are some doubtful cases), anything a laicized priest is not forbidden to do in his rescript is something he is permitted to do.”

You comment is fair enough. I wasn’t focusing on the specific things that MacNutt as a laicized priest should not do. However, as I work my way down the list, I still don’t find anything objectionable about MacNutt’s praying for the sick or teaching others to do the same.

 

[StephanieClaudi]

All my experience with Francis McNutt has been through my grandparents, who are very avid followers of his - I originally sought out more information on him in the first place because they are always talking about him and and what a beautiful person he is and to be quite honest I was getting nauseated with it. I have not read any of his books, and have only looked at a snippet from his monthly magazine that he sends out to members, and pieces of a recorded talk he gave years ago. What I can say is this: My grandparents are very much into his healing ministry BUT they talk about his excommunication from the Church as if it was the Church’s fault, they do not frequent the Sacraments, don’t really defend the Catholic clergy and have a sort of rebellious attitude toward the traditional Church. I know that McNutt has deeply influenced them, as they have been attending his seminars for years and in their case I would say that it has not brought them to holiness. In face I would say that it has made them very “Protestant” in thinking- including someone’s remark that they do not value the virtue of suffering but immediately expect everyone to be physically healed. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I also have heard them quote McNutt concerning the Church as being “rules and regulations.” One of the talks he gave that I heard was also in that flavor. In summary, from reading this thread, I’ve come to the conclusion that McNutt started out as a very good priest, given very special gifts and insight, but that the devil seems to have gotten into the situation and really turned it on its head. I do not know what McNutt’s philosophies are now, but I can say that there are many childlike people like my grandparents who will believe anyone who can really wow them with miracles but have been poisoned with his words.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .What I can say is this: My grandparents are very much into his healing ministry BUT they talk about his excommunication from the Church as if it was the Church’s fault, they do not frequent the Sacraments, don’t really defend the Catholic clergy and have a sort of rebellious attitude toward the traditional Church. . … .

From what I remember, and according to the McNutt’s web site, he has been reconciled with the Catholic Church and is in good standing.

. . .In 1975 he traveled to speak in Jerusalem where he met Judith Sewell who was a missionary there. In 1980, after consultation and prayer, they decided to marry. Immediately, Francis sought a dispensation (laicization) from Rome. In 1993 it was granted, and their marriage vows were renewed and blessed at Mass in the presence of the local bishop at the Catholic Retreat Center in Jacksonville, Florida. They have lived in Jacksonville since 1987 and are Catholics in good standing.

                                             Moreover, in time, there has been  a deep  reconciliation with the Catholic Church, and they have been invited to  Rome for Church sponsored colloquia, culminating in two international   conferences in Jacksonville  for Catholic charismatic leaders from all  over the world (450 each time). These  conferences were co-sponsored by  Christian Healing Ministries and the International  Catholic Charismatic  Renewal Service (ICCRS), the office of the Vatican that  serves the  worldwide Catholic Charismatic Renewal.. . . .

 

[Sirach2]

I know that McNutt has deeply influenced them, as they have been attending his seminars for years and in their case I would say that it has not brought them to holiness. In face I would say that it has made them very “Protestant” in thinking- including someone’s remark that they do not value the virtue of suffering but immediately expect everyone to be physically healed.

It is foolish to attribute the behavior of your grandparents on Father MacNutt, for you really don’t know the workings of their conscience. All of us have free will, and I seriously doubt that he is the root cause of their not receiving the sacraments. Nor have you read his books, for if you did, you would realize that he upholds redemptive suffering.

My thoughts lean toward their obtaining other outside influences from TV evanglists who preach a gospel that Father MacNutt never envisioned, a prosperity name-it and claim-it healing.

Whatever he may be today in his present theology, I don’t know, nor do you, but I highly recommend his two books on healing as being the most sound exposition of Catholic theology on healing that I have read so far.

 

[mr_bamber]

My grandparents are very much into his healing ministry BUT they talk about his excommunication from the Church as if it was the Church’s fault, they do not frequent the Sacraments, don’t really defend the Catholic clergy and have a sort of rebellious attitude toward the traditional Church. I know that McNutt has deeply influenced them, as they have been attending his seminars for years and in their case I would say that it has not brought them to holiness. In face I would say that it has made them very “Protestant” in thinking- including someone’s remark that they do not value the virtue of suffering but immediately expect everyone to be physically healed. .

I think this is one of the dangers of the Charismatic Renewal, over the years I have seen many people start off Catholic and then become too focused on personalities from the Renewal and the Protestant style of prayer and calling on the Holy Spirit, eventually they leave the Church or preach an “denominations don’t matter” type of attitude. McNutt started off solid but then became much too heavily influenced by Protestant Charismatics such as John Wimber and adherents of the “Toronto Blessing”. I would stay away from the talks and seminars of MacNutt with a ten foot barge pole, I believe his work is endangering souls.

 

[Sirach2]

Mr. Bamber,

McNutt started off solid but then became much too heavily influenced by Protestant Charismatics such as John Wimber and adherents of the “Toronto Blessing”.

It is considered slander when anyone falsely accuses another without valid backup. I noted that you made questionable comments earlier in this thread as well, without so much as a link to proof. Have you a source for what you say? News articles? Websites? Personal attestations from your having heard him speak recently? Unless you can provide substantial proofs, your opinion is simply personal antipathy and should be disregarded by anyone reading this thread.

 

[mr_bamber]

Mr. Bamber,

It is considered slander when anyone falsely accuses another without valid backup. I noted that you made questionable comments earlier in this thread as well, without so much as a link to proof. Have you a source for what you say? News articles? Websites? Personal attestations from your having heard him speak recently? Unless you can provide substantial proofs, your opinion is simply personal antipathy and should be disregarded by anyone reading this thread.

Wow, you do seem very protective of Francis MacKnutt on this thread, and seem to be jumping on anyone who says anything negative about his ministry. Well sorry I am entitled to my opinion and I do note that you haven’t provided any quotes to back up your own assertions. And who says I need to have heard him speak (I have actually)? I think we would agree that we don’t a link to know that Obama is anti-life.

I am surprised you some so forthright about backing up some who disobeyed the Church and left the priesthood to marry his wife and has only more recently reconciled with it. Well until I witness some ‘fruit in keeping with repentance’ (Luke 3:8) from Francis I have every right to express my concerns about his public ministry, which is still very, very Protestant in outlook.

I mean look at his doctrinal statement on his website; where exactly does it show his allegiance to the One True Catholic Faith? (In particular remember this person worshiped in an Episcopalian church when he was excommunicated) :

christianhealingmin.org/about/doctrine.php

 

[mr_bamber]

Also Sirach 2 it is a fact and not slander to say that Macnutt was heavily influenced by Wimber and the Toronto Blessing do a google search and you will find numerous articles will come up.

 

[Sirach2]

As I suspected, Mr Bamber,

No proof whatsoever. Why? Because there is none! I go back to my premise, that you are falsely smearing the reputation of this person without any proof that he is an adherent of the “Toronto Blessing” and affiliated with John Wimber. Google has pages of entries for Francis MacNutt, but I found nothing derogatory that suggests anything like your statement. This is simply your own unfounded opinion based on his being an ex-priest, and having experience in the Charismatic renewal. Some folks seethe with indignation whenever they hear the word “charismatic.”

McNutt started off solid but then became much too heavily influenced by Protestant Charismatics such as John Wimber and adherents of the "Toronto Blessing. I would stay away from the talks and seminars of MacNutt with a ten foot barge pole, I believe his work is endangering souls.

(In particular remember this person worshiped in an Episcopalian church when he was excommunicated) :

So? Many of us have prayed in noncatholic churches, worshipping God in our hearts. That does NOT mean we partake in their liturgies or their sacraments. The ecumenical movement, especially during lent and world days for peace are well-attended by all faiths, and they do meet in churches not their own denomination. This is simply a straw man argument designed to deflect my asking for proof of your unfounded statements. Kindly show the proof.

I am not protective of MacNutt, but anyone who marches in with strong condemnations of another without any proof will find me defensive, as well. It’s the Catholic thing to do, yes?

Well sorry I am entitled to my opinion and I do note that you haven’t provided any quotes to back up your own assertions. And who says I need to have heard him speak (I have actually)? I think we would agree that we don’t a link to know that Obama is anti-life.

What assertions do I need to back up? I have said his books were solid, the best I have read. Anything else? Obama’s feelings have been well publicized and do not even equate with MacNutt’s, whose words are NOT public. In fact, when you google the sites you mention about the T.B. and Wimber, these are non-existent, other than an isolated spot mention of MacNutt’s name in the line-up of a blogger. Hardly a bona-fide link. Again, show me.

 

[mr_bamber]

As I suspected, Mr Bamber,

"This is simply your own unfounded opinion based on his being an ex-priest, and having experience in the Charismatic renewal. Some folks seethe with indignation whenever they hear the word “charismatic.”

wow very judgemental, can you read my heart??

So? Many of us have prayed in noncatholic churches, worshipping God in our hearts. That does NOT mean we partake in their liturgies or their sacraments. The ecumenical movement, especially during lent and world days for peace are well-attended by all faiths, and they do meet in churches not their own denomination.

[No sorry this is a strawman when did I deny this form of Ecumenism?

This is simply a straw man argument designed to deflect my asking for proof of your unfounded statements. Kindly show the proof.

**More judgementalism, who said I was deflecting, I thought you were able to do a google search, also saying please when you ask for something would be nice:

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3NDCzLums94J:www.christianhealingmin.org/newsletter/archives/miscellaneous/reflections.php+toronto+airport+francis+macnutt&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a****

tacf.org/Portals/18/docs/stf/stf%207-1.pdf. (see pg 5 Macnutt ministers at Toronto conference with whole host of Toronto Blessing adherents)

** If you look at the ‘healing’ and ‘deliverance from evil spirits’ books by Macnutt, he allowed Wimber to endorse them, despite the massive controversy surrounding Wimber’s theology. **

I am not protective of MacNutt, but anyone who marches in with strong condemnations of another without any proof will find me defensive, as well. It’s the Catholic thing to do, yes?

Condemnations: Pot calling the kettle black?

What assertions do I need to back up? I have said his books were solid, the best I have read. Anything else? Obama’s feelings have been well publicized and do not even equate with MacNutt’s, whose words are NOT public. In fact, when you google the sites you mention about the T.B. and Wimber, these are non-existent, other than an isolated spot mention of MacNutt’s name in the line-up of a blogger. Hardly a bona-fide link. Again, show me.

** “I have said his books were solid, the best I have read”: Now’s that a very objective comment **

 

[Sirach2]

My heavens, you are reaching way into outer space to find something concrete to pin on MacNutt! Really far out!

tacf.org/Portals/18/docs/stf/stf%207-1.pdf. (see pg 5 Macnutt ministers at Toronto conference with whole host of Toronto Blessing adherents)

I did not see a single word that identified the adherents as T.B.'s. Not one. Just an isolated witness from one person who claimed a blessing of laughter. This can occur at ANY public charismatic meeting, and does not in any way depict that the leaders taught it or were connected with it.

And the article in your first link is ridiculous, for MacNutt only explained the phenomena in a single sentence, as he understood it, and was not specifically hosting a conference in which he taught it. Geesh, you really take the cake on this, Mr. B, for a lame explanation. No links are showing his absolute affiliation, nor teaching, nor putting souls in danger, nor unorthodoxy, nor anything else you want to come up with. I am open to listen, but I won’t dialogue with you over silly nonsense like this that hasn’t a shred of danger such as you would have our readers believe.

I’m finished. You are just blowing bubbles.

 

[Sirach2]

One final correction, Mr. Bamber, to your allegation that his books on “healing” and “deliverance” were endorsed by Wimber. I own the healing books, and there is no such endorsement either in the preface or on the back cover - nowhere. This appears to be some hearsay that you picked up. The only endorsement is from Rev. Michael Scanlon of Franciscan University, Donald Gelpi, SJ, Ms. Barbara Schlemon, and Rev. Tommy Tyson.

I don’t own anything on deliverance, so this may be true, I can’t say. But the other two books on healing are NOT endorsed by Wimber.

 

[Sirach2]

Mr Bamber,

“If you bring your gift to the altar,and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother …”

This was today’s gospel, and I did remember that you have some angst against me, judging from the response in this thread. I do pray that we may agree to be at peace, though we may still not see eye to eye.

Last night I recalled a very good teaching from St. Teresa of Avila that may well apply to Francis MacNutt.

I say ***it leaves seed ***because for my own part I believe it is God’s will that so great a favour should not be given in vain, and that if the soul that receives it does not profit by it others will do so. For, as the soul possesses these aforementioned desires and virtues, it will always profit other souls so long as it leads a good life, and from its own heat new heat will be transmitted to them. Even after losing this, it may still desire others to profit …
catholictreasury.info/books/interior_castle/ic15.php

Whatever may be his relationship with Our Lord at this point in time is not ours to judge, but I still stand by the fact that the teachings in his books on healing are very much like the good seed St. Teresa spoke about. And who knows, the Holy Spirit may still be bringing healing to the Body of Christ through his gifts.

The time frame you posted for his appearance at Toronto is ten years ago, and unless you attended that conference, it is unwise to judge the man, since he may have been there to teach the Catholic theology of healing and deliverance. It is good to remember that just because Jesus ate with pharisees, we cannot conclude that HE was a pharisee or that He believed as they did. When in their presence, He tried to present God’s truth to them.

I maintain that unless one knows by personal attendance at these conferences, especially those of late, or by actual links/articles, that MacNutt is teaching heresy, it is totally displeasing to God to label him according to other people’s hearsay.

God bless.