“For 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
In recent decades, praying, speaking, and singing in tongues has become one of the most characteristic features of charismatic Christian prayer. But what exactly is the gift of tongues, and what is its purpose? Is there only one form of it? What does it—or should it—sound like? What is the basis for this way of praying in Scripture and the Church’s Tradition? Today, there is still strong disagreement and controversy over the nature of this spiritual gift, not only between various groups of Christians but also within the Catholic Church.
Context
This summer, the Catholic Scripture scholar Dr. Mary Healy released a video called “The Gift of Tongues Explained”. Using Scripture and patristic sources, Healy defends multiple forms of this gift, including the charismatic interpretation of “praying in tongues” as a form of unintelligible speech inspired by the Holy Spirit. The following month, Catholic Answers apologist Karlo Broussard published an article in response to Healy’s video titled, “Who Understands Those Tongues?” Broussard respectfully disagrees with Healy’s interpretation of a key verse regarding the gift of tongues, 1 Corinthians 14:2, and he offers an alternative interpretation.
More significantly, as the title of this post suggests, there is also a popular video featuring the well-known exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger in which he strongly denounces the charismatic interpretation of the gift of tongues during a Q&A session (another audio recording of Fr. Ripperger speaking on this topic is available here). Fr. Ripperger not only rejects the charismatic understanding of praying in tongues, but claims that attempting to pray in this way is spiritually dangerous.
In this article, I will defend Healy’s interpretation of the gift of tongues against the criticisms and interpretations of Broussard and Fr. Ripperger. I am responding to them because I think they express the more serious objections to praying in tongues. I also want to clarify at the outset that I mean no disrespect to either of these men; I am grateful for their service to the Church and their zeal for souls.
Karlo Broussard
“Who understands those tongues?”
Broussard’s objection to Healy’s presentation is fairly reserved. He does not claim that the charismatic interpretation of praying in tongues is absurd or spiritually dangerous, or even that it is certainly the wrong interpretation. He simply finds Healy’s biblical arguments in favor of this interpretation unconvincing.
Broussard’s argument centers specifically on Healy’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:2, which states: ““For 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.” Broussard argues that, in order to make sense of this verse, it is not necessary to interpret praying in tongues as an unintelligible prayer language (i.e., what sounds like noises or gibberish), and that St. Paul could be referring instead to a merely human language that is unknown to the speaker. Broussard writes:
The “speaking to God alone” in a “tongue” could still be in a real human language. […] But what about Paul’s statement, “For no one understands him”? Doesn’t that support the charismatic interpretation? Not necessarily. It’s true that no one would understand a special unintelligible prayer language. If, however, the gifted tongue were a real human language, but there were no one present with the relevant knowledge to translate the tongue (which is the context of Paul’s discussion in verses 13-17), then the statement “no one understands him” would still apply.
For Broussard, then, praying in tongues could simply refer to a person who, by the inspiration and power of the Holy Spirit, prays to God privately in a real human language that he himself does not understand (or at least, that he does not understand under normal circumstances). Frankly, this way of reading of the verse strikes me as forced and stretched, as if Broussard wants to avoid the charismatic interpretation of praying in tongues, which the plain meaning of the text clearly implies.
Even before entering into the details of this topic, I already have to ask: Which is easier to believe, that Christians worshipping the ineffable mystery of God would at times feel inspired or moved to praise God in joyful yet unintelligible sounds, or that the Holy Spirit would inspire someone to pray to God privately in a different, merely human language that is understood by no one present, including the speaker himself? While we cannot rule out the latter interpretation as logically impossible, what would be the meaning or purpose of praying in a different language if no one were present who understood that language? One might reasonably object, “Fair enough, but what would be the meaning or purpose of praying what sounds like gibberish?” Please keep reading!
When we look at the larger context of the fourteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, we see St. Paul repeatedly emphasizing the unintelligibility of this inspired prayer language. Already in verse 2, he says of the person praying in tongues that “no one understands him”. In verse 14, he says: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [ákarpos]” (1 Cor 14:14). This fruitlessness of the mind strongly implies that not even the speaker himself understands what exactly he is expressing in his prayer. Emphasizing this unintelligibility, the Scripture scholar Fr. Francis Sullivan writes:
Corinthian glossolalia [praying in tongues] was unintelligible not only to the hearers but also to the tongue-speaker himself. The fact that tongue-speech was unintelligible to the hearers provides the basis of Paul’s whole argument in 1 Corinthians 14 showing the inferiority of the gift of tongues to the gift of prophecy, an inferiority that is based precisely on the unintelligibility of what is spoken in tongues, as compared with the intelligibility of what is said in prophecy (Charisms and Charismatic Renewal, p. 124; italics original).
Praying in the Spirit
Let’s broaden our biblical point of reference for a moment. The notion of the Holy Spirit moving us to pray in ways we cannot understand is also present, though in a different way, in the marvelous eighth chapter of the Letter to Romans. There, St. Paul describes how the Spirit operates in us in prayer, at times causing us to cry out to God, and at other times praying silently in us, communicating our needs to God in accordance with His perfect will. Paul writes:
For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God . . . (Rom 8:15–16).
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words [alalētois – inexpressible/ wordless/ ineffable]. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God (Rom 8:26–27).
While these passages do not refer to praying aloud in unintelligible speech, they do describe yielding to the Holy Spirit as he actively inspires our prayer. Prayer is not a purely rational exchange of verbal content; some movements of the heart and soul are literally indescribable, and this quality can cause different reactions: oftentimes it is silent wonder and adoration, but other times it is some verbal expression of joy and praise.
Tongues of Angels?
In 1 Corinthians 13, St. Paul uses another phrase to describe the gift of tongues: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor 13:1). The notion of “tongues of angels” [glōssais…tōn angelōn] is certainly mysterious, since angels do not have physical bodies with lungs, voice boxes, tongues, etc. However, is it likely that this phrase refers to a merely human language, especially when it is contrasted with “tongues of men” in the same sentence? No, clearly not. That the phrase “tongues of men” refers to other human languages is certain, but why would Paul also include the phrase “tongues of angels” if it referred only to other “tongues of men”? Here again, this is not an impossible interpretation, but it would make a unique and otherwise meaningful phrase seem rather superfluous. Paul's distinction here between tongues of men and tongues of angels implies that some inspired speech is meant for communication with other human beings (preaching and evangelization), whereas other inspired speech is directed to God alone (prayer and worship). We will see this distinction more clearly in what follows.
Fr. Chad Ripperger
Tongues as irrational vs. supra-rational
In the resistance to the charismatic interpretation of praying in tongues as unintelligible speech inspired by the Holy Spirit, we can detect a certain rationalism that sees all active prayer as an exchange of content. For his part, Fr. Ripperger explicitly objects to an unintelligible form of praying in tongues on the basis of the rational nature of man and our intellectual capacity. Broadly speaking, this objection is based on the distinction, made by Thomas Aquinas and others, between an actus hominis (an act of a human being) and an actus humanus (a human action). An actus hominis is more general, referring to any action a human being does, whether or not it is is rational or consciously chosen (e.g., bodily functions, reflexes, unintentional reactions, etc.). An actus humanus is an action that is the result of rational thought and the deliberate choice of the will. Generally speaking, only rational and deliberate actions are considered morally and spiritually significant. Thus, in the video mentioned in the introduction, Fr Ripperger says:
There’s a principle: God always uses an instrument according to the nature of that instrument […] We are intelligent creatures; God doesn’t use us in a way—when we’re supposed to be doing something volitional or voluntary, or speech or things like that—He doesn’t use us unless we know what we’re doing. He infuses the knowledge in us, and from there we can actually know what we’re doing.
The general problem with this objection is that it limits God’s operation in us and our response to Him to what we can rationally understand. It is true that “grace perfects nature according to the manner of the nature” (Aquinas, STh., I q.62 a.5 resp.). In other words, God's grace does not violate or destroy our human nature by contradicting its original design and purpose. However, the primary natural purposes of our faculties are not the limits of their possible functions. In the case of tongues, for example, we cannot start from the fact that the primary natural purpose of the human voice is rational communication and conclude from this that the only legitimate use of the voice is intelligible speech. If we consider instead that the highest and most noble use of the human voice is the praise and worship of God, who is literally ineffable and beautiful beyond description, it is fair to ask whether this praise can be achieved only through the formation of intelligible sounds and the articulation of known human words.
While the analogy is admittedly imperfect, there is a certain similarity between praying in tongues and praying in Latin for those who do not understand it (or understand very little). Of course, one can rightly counter that in the case of Latin, people can safely pray the trusted and official prayers of the Church. However, while the content is not suspect, the element of unintelligibility is still present, and yet the person praying these prayers does not violate his rational nature by praying what he does not understand. Especially in the case of singing, people are able to appreciate the beauty of words without understanding them.
In the case of praying in tongues, what one utters can be supra-rational (beyond reason) or even a-rational (non-rational) without being irrational or a sin against our rational human nature. To use an analogy, instrumental music does not express intelligible words, and yet it is beautiful and can serve to praise and glorify God. The human voice can also function as an instrument, expressing and lifting up to God certain movements of the heart that (as yet) are beyond articulation. This may be at least part of what St. Paul had in mind when he wrote the following in his Letter to the Ephesians:
And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart… (Eph 5:18–19).
Speaking in tongues vs. praying in tongues
St. Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 14 about the need for the interpretation of tongues gives rise to an essential and often overlooked distinction between praying in tongues and speaking in tongues. In The Spiritual Gifts Handbook, Mary Healy and Randy Clark explain this distinction, showing that “praying in tongues” is a kind of personal prayer language not aimed at communication with others, whereas “speaking in tongues” is a Spirit-filled mode of delivering a prophetic message to others. It is precisely this distinction that determines whether or not interpretation is needed. The following excerpt from Healy and Clark is a bit lengthy, but worth citing in full:
The gift of tongues is speech inspired by the Holy Spirit in a language the speaker does not understand. In First Corinthians, Paul seems to speak about two different forms of this gift: tongues as a language for personal prayer and praise, and tongues as a public message for the congregation.
Tongues as a prayer language is a means by which the Holy Spirit enables a person to praise and thank God, uninhibited by the need to conceptualize or put into words the movements of the heart. It is like a musical composition without lyrics. Paul refers to this form of the gift when he writes, “For 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 Corinthians 14:2). It is a gift for expressing our love for God in a way that overflows beyond the limitations of human language. Prayer in tongues bypasses the mind and comes directly from the heart; it is thus a form of what Catholic tradition calls contemplative prayer—a kind of prayer in which the mind is not active, but the heart is completely attentive to God. One of the most beautiful forms of this gift is when a whole congregation is singing in tongues together, in a rising and falling harmony inspired by the Holy Spirit, worshiping God as with one voice.
Tongues as a prayer language is the only spiritual gift that Paul specifically notes is not for the benefit of others, but rather, benefits the one using it: “The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself” (1 Corinthians 14:4). It edifies us by deepening our relationship with the Lord and enkindling our love for Him. To edify yourself is a very good thing since it gives you a greater capacity to edify others in turn.
The gift of tongues in the second sense, as a message for the Church, fulfills its purpose only when it is followed by an interpretation. It then becomes a form of prophecy. This second form of the gift is much more rare than the first.
Paul emphasizes that whoever gives a message in tongues should pray for an interpretation, so that people can understand it and be built up by it. Otherwise, it has no value. He writes, “One who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret” (1 Corinthians 14:13), and “The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up” (verse 5) (Randy Clark and Mary Healy, The Spiritual Gifts Handbook, pp. 178-179; emphasis added).
“They will speak in new tongues”: xenolalia
Clark and Healy also distinguish a third form of the gift of tongues, which they call “the miraculous gift of tongues” (Ibid., p. 180). This kind of tongues is known as xenolalia (literally, “foreign speech”) which occurs when people speak real human languages that they do not understand or speak. This is what happened at Pentecost (see Acts 2). However, it is not clear from Luke’s account whether the apostles’ preaching on Pentecost was miraculously spoken in various languages or miraculously understood by speakers of other languages. Luke summarizes the crowd’s reaction with these words: “they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language” (Acts 2:6). But then, in the very next verses, Luke writes: “And they were amazed and astonished, saying, ‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?’” (Acts 2:7–8).
The miraculous speaking of foreign languages would seem to fulfill one of Jesus’ promises at the Great Commission: “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name […] they will speak in new tongues…” (Mk 16:17). Jesus’ reference to “new tongues” seems to refer primarily to foreign languages, since he says this in the context of commissioning the apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations.
Throughout Church history, and in our own times, there are numerous testimonies of both forms of xenolalia: miraculous speech and miraculous understanding. Practically speaking, it can be difficult to know for sure which of these occurred in a given case, depending on what the speaker and listener experience: the speaker may remember speaking only his native language, and likewise, the listener may remember hearing only his native language. And yet, miraculously, both parties understand.
There are also rarer cases, which Fr. Ripperger acknowledges, of people having the knowledge of languages miraculously infused into their minds, so that they can speak a language they have never studied, and they also know exactly what they are saying. (As I have already noted, for Fr. Ripperger, the speaker’s understanding of what he is saying is absolutely necessary.)
Conflating different gifts
Here we come to the central problem: Fr. Ripperger and other critics of the charismatic interpretation of “praying in tongues” conflate praying in tongues and speaking in tongues into a single reality. Yes, the Scriptural basis for xenolalia at Pentecost is evident. But these critics completely overlook or ignore St. Paul’s description of praying in tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, which clearly refers to something very different. Praying in tongues is not a means of intelligible communication, but a Spirit-inspired expression of praise that edifies the person praying. The use of the same word “tongues” in both cases does not oblige us to force these very different gifts into a single phenomenon.
This raises a more general point worth mentioning. When something in Scripture is unclear to us, we have to appeal to Christian experience, both historically and in our own times, in order to understand it. It is not acceptable for us to altogether abandon a gift of the Holy Spirit that is described and recommended in Scripture simply because we find it difficult to understand. While I clearly disagree with his interpretation, I give credit to Karlo Broussard for treating Healy’s video—and this topic—as important enough to merit a response (a very charitable response, I would add). The spiritual gifts are not matters of secondary importance—we need to understand them correctly in order to desire them, value them, and exercise them properly.
In his article, Broussard limited himself to responding to Healy’s Biblical arguments at face value, acknowledging that she had presented other arguments based on the Church Fathers and tradition. While analyzing Scripture in insolation is legitimate to a certain extent, as Catholics we always interpret Scripture through the lens of the Tradition, including how the saints lived the teachings of Scripture. There are some Catholic doctrines whose Biblical foundation is plausible, but not obvious or conclusive, and thus they require the testimony of Tradition (e.g., the Assumption of Mary). With that said, let’s turn now to some of these extra-biblical witnesses to the gift of tongues.
The witness of the Church Fathers and Saints
In The Spiritual Gifts Handbook (pp. 91-92), Healy recounts how the "gift of tongues” came to refer exclusively to xenolalia, the miraculous speaking of foreign languages as occurred at Pentecost. She argues that “praying in tongues” as described in 1 Corinthians 12-14, while rarely referenced, corresponds to an expression of prayer that came to be called “jubilation”. To demonstrate this, Healy cites multiple Church Fathers and later saints, including Doctors of the Church. Her clearest example is perhaps that of St. Augustine, who wrote the following:
One who jubilates does not utter words, but a certain sound of joy without words: for it is the voice of the soul poured forth in joy, expressing, as far as possible, what it feels without reflecting on the meaning. Rejoicing in exultation, one uses words that cannot be spoken and understood, but he simply lets his joy burst forth without words; his voice then appears to express a happiness so intense that he cannot explain it (On the Psalms, 99.3; cited in The Spiritual Gifts Handbook, p. 92).
Rejoice and speak. If you cannot express your joy, jubilate: jubilation expresses your joy if you cannot speak. Let not your joy be silent. (Ibid., 97.4)
In another one of his sermons (not cited by Healy), which the Church includes in the Office of Readings for the memorial of St. Cecilia, Augustine uses other images to describe this special form of joyful yet wordless praise:
See how he himself provides you with a way of singing. Do not search for words, as if you could find a lyric which would give God pleasure. Sing to him “with songs of joy.” This is singing well to God, just singing with songs of joy.
But how is this done? You must first understand that words cannot express the things that are sung by the heart. Take the case of people singing while harvesting in the fields or in the vineyards or when any other strenuous work is in progress. Although they begin by giving expression to their happiness in sung words, yet shortly there is a change. As if so happy that words can no longer express what they feel, they discard the restricting syllables. They burst out into a simple sound of joy, of jubilation. Such a cry of joy is a sound signifying that the heart is bringing to birth what it cannot utter in words.
Now, who is more worthy of such a cry of jubilation than God himself, whom all words fail to describe? If words will not serve, and yet you must not remain silent, what else can you do but cry out for joy? Your heart must rejoice beyond words, soaring into an immensity of gladness, unrestrained by syllabic bonds. Sing to him with jubilation (Sermon on Psalm 32; emphasis added).
St. Teresa of Avila, one of the great masters of the spiritual life whom the Church reveres as the “Doctor of Prayer”, also describes jubilation in her mature work, Interior Castle. In the following passage, note her insistence that the person who praises God in jubilation does not understand his own prayer and that it even seems like “gibberish” or “noise” to him:
Our Lord sometimes gives the soul feelings of jubilation and a strange prayer it doesn’t understand [unos júbilos y oración extraña, que no sabe entender qué es]. 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 [algarabía - noise, hullabaloo, racket, commotion] and certainly the experience is like that, for it is a joy so excessive that the soul wouldn’t want to enjoy it alone but wants to tell everyone about it so that they might help this soul praise our Lord. I knew a saint named Friar Peter of Alcantara . . . who did this very thing, and those who listened to him thought he was crazy. Oh what blessed madness, sisters! If only God would give it to us all! (Saint Teresa of Avila, Interior Castle, VI.6.10–11, cited in The Spiritual Gifts Handbook, pp. 185-186; emphasis added; original Spanish text taken from Santa Teresa de Jesús. Obras completas, Aguilar: Madrid, 1982).
In light of these citations (to which many more could be added), I think it impossible to deny that some form of unintelligible speech-like prayer, which corresponds at least in a basic way to St. Paul’s description of praying in tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, exists in the Catholic spiritual tradition. If this is the case, we have to evaluate the contemporary experience of praying in tongues in light of this tradition instead of treating it as a complete novelty. It often happens that those who claim fidelity to the Church’s Tradition are ignorant of relevant parts of it that do not fit their theological perspective. There are more errors of omission than commission, as the saying goes…
Fr. Ripperger
Praying in tongues: delusional at best and demonic at worst
In his videos, Fr. Ripperger claims that, outside of the authentic gift of tongues (i.e., speaking real foreign languages), there are only two other possibilities for those who attempt to exercise this gift:
- A merely human invention, which is simply gibberish and not a spiritual gift in any way
- A diabolic counterpart or counterfeit of the authentic gift of tongues, in which the possessed person has the ability to speak and understand languages that he/she never learned or studied
In support of his “merely human” charge, Fr. Ripperger mentions scientific studies that have analyzed the speech of people praying in tongues and identified natural human speech patterns that exist in the languages the person already knows. According to Fr. Ripperger, this proves that the attempt of charismatics to pray in tongues is merely human and not of God. I’m sorry, but this objection is embarrassingly weak. This is the kind of argument that atheists make to explain away mystical experiences. For example, there is a growing number of studies comparing various states of prayer and mystical experience to the hallucinations produced by psychedelic drugs. The fallacious claim is that, if a similar subjective experience can be produced by natural means, then nothing supernatural is occurring in the sober person who is deep in prayer. Fr. Ripperger’s objection presupposes that praying in tongues involves the miraculous production of physical sounds that the praying person is naturally incapable of making, an idea which virtually no one defends. The argument is not that the sounds themselves are miraculous or somehow not of this world.
In contrast to Fr. Ripperger’s claim, Fr. Sullivan explains that the physical phenomenon of tongues itself (i.e., the sounds) is not particularly important, but the transformative interior work of grace of which tongues are only an outward expression: for example, surrendering to God, letting go of control, becoming childlike, overcoming perfectionism and performance in prayer, etc. Sullivan writes:
In my opinion, the gift of tongues does not consist in a new capacity to speak in a way that others, lacking such a gift, could not speak. I am convinced that to begin to speak in tongues means simply to activate a latent capacity which probably everyone has. […]
The merely natural factors, I believe, can account adequately for a person’s speaking in tongues, but they cannot account for a deep spiritual renewal. Speaking in tongues, then, is a work of grace when it is a sign of such genuine renewal in the Spirit. The phenomenon of speaking in tongues, as such, is not an authenticating sign of spiritual renewal, but itself needs to be authenticated by subsequent evidence that a real spiritual renewal has taken place (Charisms and Charismatic Renewal, pp. 140–141, 143; emphasis added).
Here I should note, as Sullivan implies, that there is no inherent problem with tongues being merely human in some cases, or at least partially so, especially when one begins to pray. As Christians, we can choose to do many things by our own natural abilities that the Holy Spirit then works through or animates in a supernaturally efficacious way. The fact that a person chooses when to pray in tongues and can generally control it makes this more credible as an authentic spiritual gift, not less, since spiritual gifts do not operate against a person’s freedom. For example, preaching is a natural human activity that priests and deacons choose to engage in according to their natural, rational capacity. And yet, some preachers do have a charism of preaching, and we have all experienced certain homilies as inspired by the Holy Spirit in an evident and powerful way. The spiritual fruit of such homilies cannot be explained simply by analyzing the literal words, speech patterns, and vocal inflections employed by the preacher—to say otherwise would be to embrace a kind of materialism with regard to human nature. Moreover, performing certain external, physical actions does not guarantee the spiritual efficacy of a charism, as if we could force the Holy Spirit to grant us a gift by completing the right "formula". Rather, the Spirit “apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor 12:11).
When explaining the relationship between our natural capacities and the work of the Spirit, Fr. Sullivan makes an analogy with the gift of tears, which is well recognized in the Catholic spiritual tradition as an authentic gift of prayer. He writes:
I would suggest the relationship between the gift of tongues and the “gift of tears.” In both cases, I believe, it is a question of the activation of a natural capacity. Obviously, everyone has the natural capacity for tears; in my opinion everyone also has a latent capacity for glossolalia. The “gift” does not consist in either case in the imparting of a new physical capacity. Further, just as not every kind of weeping qualifies as the “gift of tears,” so also, in my opinion, not every kind of glossolalia qualifies as the charismatic gift of tongues (Charisms and Charismatic Renewal, p. 144).
Is praying in tongues a gateway to the demonic?
After dismissing tongues as a merely human phenomenon and superstition, Fr. Ripperger goes on to claim that it can also be a grave spiritual danger. By attempting to open oneself to the Holy Spirit in this superstitious and erroneous way, he says, one can inadvertently “channel” demons instead. He mentions the case of a woman who became severely possessed, he claims, as a consequence of trying to pray in tongues. Honestly, I find this exorcist “trump card” not only irresponsible, but tiresome. Here is how this trump card works: “I know someone who did x, and he/she ended up getting possessed.” Without knowing a thousand more details about this woman’s life, how can we possibly know whether there was a causal relationship between her attempts to pray in tongues and her becoming possessed? This could be a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (“after this, therefore because of this”)—a jump from correlation to causation. This woman was presumably engaged in many other activities, including other spiritual practices, that could have contributed to her possession—not to mention the high probability of abuse, trauma, etc. We do not know, because Fr. Ripperger only mentions one factor, praying in tongues. Whenever I hear stories like this, I immediately think of Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Luke:
“What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Lk 11:11–13).
Again, while we do not know the full story, Fr. Ripperger is suggesting that it is dangerous to open yourself to the Holy Spirit and attempt to pray in the way the Word of God describes in 1 Corinthians 14. In other words, if we sincerely ask in faith for a fish or an egg, God might give us a serpent or a scorpion. Boy, that really puts a damper on St. Paul's threefold exhortation to “earnestly desire” the spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:31; 14:1; 14:29). If Fr. Ripperger is right, we are better off “earnestly playing it safe”.
But we do not have to wonder about the spiritual safety of praying in tongues, nor do we simply have to take Fr. Ripperger's word for it. We have literally thousands upon thousands of testimonies of people who have had powerful encounters with the Lord that were precipitated by praying in tongues. There are also millions of Christians who fall within the category of "charismatic", and many of them pray in tongues frequently or have prayed in tongues. Even if Fr. Ripperger's case does support his position in some way, we have to weigh this against the experience of millions of Christians who have not only managed to pray in tongues unharmed, but are thriving spiritually, especially in comparison to the lukewarm majority of Christians today: "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Mt 7:16).
In its official capacity, the Catholic Church has responded overwhelmingly in positive and affirming ways to the Charismatic Renewal. Popes and national conferences of bishops (including the USCCB) have repeatedly thanked the Renewal for its contribution to renewing the Church, especially with respect to prayer and praise. In 1997, for example, the U.S. bishops stated:
[The Charismatic Renewal] has renewed the appreciation for the role of praise in individual and communal prayer and enriched the Church with many gifted musicians, music ministries, and song writers. The Renewal has taught a commitment to the Pope, the Bishops, and to orthodox teaching. Vocations to priesthood, diaconate, and religious life have been fostered. It has called forth the gifts of the laity who are today serving in a variety of ecclesial lay ministries; e.g., in the liturgy, religious education, and youth ministry, and ministries for the transformation of the world ("Grace for the New Springtime").
If praying in tongues, one of the most common and characteristic practices of charismatics, were not only a misguided practice but seriously dangerous, one would think the shepherds of the Church might have said something about this. There are large, prominent apostolates and ministry groups (e.g., Encounter Ministries, Renewal Ministries) that teach about praying in tongues and enjoy the approval and enthusiastic support of many bishops. But this leads directly to my next point.
The pseudo-magisterium of exorcists
I think Fr. Ripperger’s casual reference to a possession case with no other information is an unfair way of trying to prove a point. But this is emblematic of a broader problem that I think needs to be addressed today: the role of an exorcist is not a teaching role. Exorcists are assigned by their bishop to perform a serious and important task, but their theological formation (unless they happen to have completed other studies) does not compare to that of a theologian. I understand that Fr. Ripperger is a well educated priest. However, I am concerned that, due to the lack of clear and orthodox teaching from many priests and even bishops, many Catholics are turning to exorcists as a kind of alternative Magisterium. Disillusioned with their own pastors and bishops, many turn to these priests for the “real answers” on a wide variety of spiritual topics, includes ones well outside of the realm of exorcism and deliverance. People see exorcists as having an enormous amount of credibility because they are the ones who work "in the trenches” of the supernatural. With that said, I will happily admit that I have consumed plenty of content produced by or featuring exorcists—I think some of them have many valuable things to say. But we should not attribute to them an authority they do not have. An exorcist’s theological interpretation of his ministry experience has zero weight if it conflicts with the clear witness of Sacred Scripture, Church teaching, or the testimony of many saints.
In a short video produced for Encounter Ministries, Fr. Boniface Hicks, OSB addressed this question of the teaching authority of exorcists. He said:
I found that there's a lot of fascination around exorcists because they deal with some kind of supernatural realm that seems to be outside of people's experience, and it's tapping into a lot of Hollywood things, the kind of “expert priest” or the elite. But the reality is that all it takes to be an exorcist is the decree from a bishop. The bishop signs the decree and that person is an exorcist as long as the decree is in place. And then, that person ceases to be an exorcist. It's not a kind of accomplishment that someone makes because of some spiritual excellence—although the bishops should choose people who are more qualified, better priests, better reputation. But the reality is they don't have any more theological formation. There are no requirements on teaching, and [on] being an exorcist. Unlike being a bishop, for example, which is part of the magisterium—there is a grace of holy orders—there isn't a grace in exorcism to be able to teach. It's not a teaching office. Exorcists are not teachers. Exorcists are designated by bishops to perform a certain service in the Church.
Note: Someone might respond, fairly enough, that I, Fr. Christopher Trummer, do not have more theological formation, experience, or teaching authority than Fr. Ripperger. That is certainly true. But I am not appealing to my own understanding, authority, or personal experience. I am appealing to theologians like Dr. Mary Healy, Fr. Francis Sullivan (and Dr. Ralph Martin, Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa, etc.), and to the great Church Fathers and Doctors. I am simply passing on what these authorities and teachers say. If anyone can come up with a better interpretation of the gift of tongues that accounts for Scripture and these important witnesses of the Tradition (not only Aquinas), I will happily consider it.
Real problems/dangers associated with tongues (and other gifts)
I already addressed some of the major problems or dangers that charismatics face in Part II of this series, “Answering Objections to Charismatic Christianity”. However, I will add a couple here that are specific to the gift of tongues.
Exaggerating the importance of praying in tongues
First, while this is an idea promoted primarily by Pentecostals, some charismatics, especially when introducing people to “Life in the Spirit”, exaggerate the importance of praying in tongues. In fact, some Pentecostals consider tongues to be the necessary sign of baptism in the Holy Spirit, which in turn is the sign of being born again (saved). No pressure, right? Perhaps few Catholics would insist on praying in tongues as absolutely necessary for baptism in the Holy Spirit, and much less for salvation. However, we should avoid pressuring people to attempt praying in tongues. St. Paul made it clear that this is a valuable gift, but not as important as other gifts, especially prophecy:
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue (1 Cor 14:18–19).
Causing worship to become disordered and chaotic
Second, in my personal experience, I do think there are times when people pray in tongues in a large communal setting and it becomes a bit chaotic and disordered. St. Paul explicitly says, “do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:39–40). Also, if “the one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself” (1 Co 14:4), and praying in tongues is in some sense a private way of praying, I think we should reflect on how we engage in this form of prayer in communal settings, especially at events where some attendees are completely unfamiliar with this gift and with other charismatic expressions of prayer. While Christians who are new to charismatic prayer are obviously not “unbelievers”, they are “outsiders”, and thus St. Paul’s warning to the Corinthians still applies: “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?” (1 Co 14:23)
Fear of man is real and always to be rejected, but not every consideration of other people’s receptivity is fear of man. Moreover, hospitality is also real, and we should avoid comporting ourselves in a way that will needlessly alienate people who are otherwise interested in an encounter with the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion
In closing, let me be clear: there is no obligation for anyone to speak or pray in tongues. Your salvation does not depend on it. Also, I have no desire to impose a one-size-fits-all spirituality on everyone. However, the divisions within the Catholic Church, especially between committed disciples who identify as either traditional or charismatic, are only perpetuated and worsened by misunderstandings about basic spiritual gifts like the gift of tongues. Everyone does not have to pray the same way, but if a large number of Christians think that the way some of their brothers and sisters pray is superstitious delusion and hysteria at best, and demon channeling at worst, this is a serious problem that must be resolved.
Fr. Chad Ripperger’s opinion of praying in tongues is unbiblical and induces fear about an important gift of prayer, and therefore it must be rejected. Karlo Broussard’s interpretation of this gift, while more plausible and presented much more charitably, is also untenable, especially in light of the witness of important Church Fathers, Doctors, and Saints.
Therefore, if any Christian feels moved in prayer to “make a joyful noise to the Lord” (Ps 100:1) but cannot find the words to express this joy, he can feel perfectly safe in speaking or singing whatever sounds come out during his time of worship. When the Lover and the Beloved speak, sometimes words fail. When that happens, we can heed the advice of St. Augustine cited earlier: “If words will not serve, and yet you must not remain silent, what else can you do but cry out for joy? Your heart must rejoice beyond words, soaring into an immensity of gladness, unrestrained by syllabic bonds.”
Sonet vox tua in auribus meis: vox enim tua dulcis
“Let thy voice sound in my ears: for thy voice is sweet”
Song of Songs 2:14
† Under the Mercy,
Fr. Christopher Trummer
Recommended Resources:
For anyone interested in studying the gift of tongues more deeply, especially its scriptural foundation, I would highly recommend two of the sources cited in this post:
- Francis A. Sullivan. Charisms and Charismatic Renewal: A Biblical and Theological Study (2004). Chapter 8.
- Randy Clark, Mary Healy. The Spiritual Gifts Handbook: Using Your Gifts to Build the Kingdom (2018). Chapter 7.
