Friday, October 12, 2012

David Quinn: McAleese wrong to hold up Anglican Church as shining example for us all

A YEAR after stepping down as president, Mary McAleese has re-launched herself as a campaigning liberal Catholic.

This is abundantly clear from her new book, 'Quo Vadis', her interview with Gay Byrne on RTE this week, and her interview on 'Today with Pat Kenny' a fortnight ago.

Mary is a hugely respected figure because she served the country so well during her 14 years as president. This makes it hard to criticise her.

But Mary is the last person who would want to be placed on a pedestal. She knows that's where we used to put bishops: on a pedestal and above criticism.

However, whereas the presidency is a non-partisan office by and large, Mary McAleese has now placed herself firmly on one side in the debate about the future of the church and therefore must expect, and indeed welcome, criticism.

She has placed herself on the side of liberal clerics like Fr Brian D'Arcy by calling for acceptance of women priests, homosexuality, contraception, and for the drastic reform of the way in which the church is governed.

She looks to the Anglican Communion as the way forward. She told Pat Kenny two weeks ago: "Well, I think the Anglican Communion is probably a very good example of where you argue the toss, you debate, very messy, loud, noisy, sometimes scary debates and then you put your hands up and make a decision and that's that and people respect the decision and move on. And you may very well keep debates open for 20, 30, 40, 120 or 220 years."

It's true that Anglicanism has huge strengths. In fact, I'd love to see the Church of Ireland become a more influential Christian voice in Irish life, challenging secular thinking, now that the Catholic Church is so badly weakened.

However, the notion that Anglicans "make a decision" and then "move on" after a "noisy" debate is absolutely contrary to the evidence.

The Anglican Communion is tearing itself apart precisely because of hugely contentious debates about issues such as women priests and homosexuality.

Indeed, Rowan Williams has stepped down as Archbishop of Canterbury lamenting the divisions in Anglicanism.

When the worldwide Anglican Communion had its last once-a-decade meeting in Lambeth in Canterbury in 2008, a quarter of Anglican bishops didn't attend because of the divisions over homosexuality.

The previous Lambeth Conference in 1998 voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion upholding the traditional Christian understanding of homosexuality and marriage.

As Mary McAleese would have it, the vote was taken, a decision was made and it was respected. Only it wasn't.

Liberal Anglicans completely ignored it and pressed on. Anglicans in America appointed as a bishop a man in an openly gay relationship despite the Lambeth vote. Why? Because they're convinced they're right and that one day the rest of Anglicanism will come around.

In other words, they don't think the truth can be decided by a vote and therefore they believe they can ignore any vote and do what they think is right anyway, no matter how much division is caused.

So why in the world does Mary McAleese believe the Anglican system of government is the one the Catholic Church should copy?

And why does she believe that the liberal reforms she touts on issues of doctrine and morality would revive the fortunes of the church? They haven't done so for any other church.

In fact, a new poll from the US shows that a record number of Americans (one in five) now say they have no religious affiliation.

This is despite Americans having every imaginable shade of religion at their disposal, from the ultra-conservative to the ultra-liberal to the unclassifiable.

American Anglicanism -- that is, Episcopalianism -- is declining particularly sharply despite (or because of?) its quasi-democratic governing structures and its very liberal theology.

Time will tell just how liberal Mary McAleese's theology is. To judge from her interview with Gay Byrne the other night, the answer is, very.

Asked about Jesus, for example, she seemed to dismiss the notion that he is a saviour figure, sent to save us from our sins.

That is, she came perilously close to offering us the type of soft, 'I'm ok, you're ok' Christianity lamented by the great Lutheran theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, as "grace without the cross".

Mary McAleese could use her considerable talents to explain, instead of deride, some of the more controversial teachings of her church.

If not that, then she could challenge some of the more aggressive forms of secularism and irreligion on display in Irish life. 

Maybe she'll do that in time.

For now, she is jumping -- no doubt in all sincerity -- on an already overcrowded bandwagon by becoming one more campaigning liberal, something Ireland needs about as much as it needs more debt.

In her new book, she asks, Quo Vadis?, that is, 'where are you going?' Mary's path is definitely not the way to go because down that path lies even more faction and disunity. 

It's amazing she can't seem to see this.