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.