President's advocacy of a positive, living faith

The President's position was not fairly represented by those who did the initial reports on her speech to the National Conference of Priests of Ireland. Yes, Mrs McAleese said: "Yet we can all sense disappointment and impatience on many fronts - the mixed messages about ecumenical dialogue with sister Christian churches and respect for other faith systems, the failure to utilise the full giftedness of women, the paucity of avenues for debate, and the sense of drift rather than direction in the face of the collapse of vocations in the Western world."

That was a single paragraph in a six-page speech. It was bracketed by an acknowledgement of the enormous contribution of priests and religious to life in Ireland. Yet, as she put it, the public is not generally to be found in "gratitude mode". She acknowledged the pain of those religious and priests who, in spite of living out their vocations to the utmost of their ability, find themselves the victims of "desolation and distrust" generated by the actions of others.

She expressed sadness that the heady days of the 1960s had not fulfilled their promise. However, she scrupulously acknowledged the many positive changes within the Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul's strenuous efforts to reach out to the "other great Abrahamic traditions of Judaism and Islam". In a lyrical and moving passage, she captured exactly the flavour of the faith which sustains so many ordinary people and motivates them to work for others, despite the fact that the new, pseudo-sophisticated Ireland tends to sneer at such faith.

What, then, of her criticisms? They are serious and should not be minimised. Is it any part of a president's role to criticise the majority church, even if it is but a small part of a carefully crafted speech?

There is no doubt that Mary Robinson changed the face of the presidency. She was a woman with a mission. She had a wonderfully coy expression to describe pushing the limits of her office - she called it "peeking over the line". There are many who feel she marched over the line on some occasions.

For example, in a biography of her by Olivia O'Leary and Helen Burke, Mrs Robinson acknowledged that her presence as president influenced the outcome of the divorce referendum. Like many people, I was very comfortable with much of Mary Robinson's agenda, particularly her espousal of the rights of Travellers and refugees, and her constant championing of community action. Her lasting legacy, however, is probably the notion of an activist presidency.

I suspect that part of Mary McAleese's mission is that she wants to affirm the positive role of faith in people's lives and to advance ecumenism. Neither is an uncontroversial notion, particularly in a climate where what passes for a ruling intellectual elite is often virulently anti-clerical. While that elite will squirm at her references to a life of faith, they are thrilled at what they perceive as attacks on the Catholic Church, such as her reception of communion in a Protestant church. Conversely, those who are uncomfortable with intercommunion are reassured by her own obvious faith.

It is a dangerous game. There is always the danger of being used by those who enjoy kicking the Catholic Church now that it is now longer a major power. There is also the danger of overstepping the role of a president and becoming a source of division rather than a source of unity.

Mary McAleese is a loving critic of the Catholic Church, but also a strong-minded and opinionated one. I am often fascinated that those who most advocate church re form are often the most adamant it should be done their way. Take the reference to using the "full giftedness of women" - most people would take this as code for ordaining women. "Lay person" in a religious sense can only be defined negatively, that is, not an ordained person. Will ordaining a minority of women alter in any sense the status of the vast majority of women who will never been ordained? Has it altered the status of lay men that some men are ordained?

THE pursuit of ordination, though I recognise the deep sincerity of the minority who long for it, actually reinforces in some ways the idea that being a lay person is not enough. What about recognising the "full giftedness" of men and women who have a different vocation which does not include ordination? That is, the majority of Christians?

The President also made oblique reference to Dominus Iesus, the controversial document which reaffirms the uniqueness of Christ and of the Catholic Church as an ins trument of salvation. It is true that Dominus Iesus says nothing new, but what it does not say represents a missed opportunity.

The Catholic Church has not only a right but a duty to rebut the idea that Christ is but one among many, that "all the religions are the same". That may be embarrassing or unpalatable in today's "whatever you are into" world, but practically all Christians of whatever tradition would acknowledge that Jesus Christ as Redeemer is the central message of Christianity.

In many ways, Cardinal Ratzinger's document is a blunt and ungenerous statement which does not acknowledge the vast strides made in ecumenism under the present Pope. Nevertheless, many commentators act as if this were the "real" views of John Paul. I find this hard to understand, since Ut Unum Sint, John Paul's own encyclical on ecumenism and inter-faith dialogue could not be more of a contrast in tone and emphasis.

Although Ut Unum Sint is equally unflinching on the centrality of Christ, it begins with an acknowledgement of the sacrifice and courage of those who have died for their faith, "including members of churches and ecclesial communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church", and describes how such sacrifice should spur us to greater unity. The encyclical contains a frank acknowledgement of the human frailty of the Pope, and of how only the Spirit of God could work through such a frail instrument to bring about unity.

John Paul shows that it is possible to hold steadfastly to the truth with humility and deep respect for the views of others. That human softness and reconciliatory tone is sadly absent from Dominus Iesus.

Some would counter that Dominus Iesus is intended as a sharp rebuke to Catholic theologians who have been writing as if the revelation of Buddha was identical to the revelation of Christ in its importance to Catholics, but in today's media-dominated world there is no such thing as an in-house rebuke.

It suits a particular anti-clerical agenda to blur the very real distinctions between John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger in their approaches to ecumenism. It also suits them to highlight Mary McAleese's criticisms at the expense of her words of encouragement. Headstrong she may be, but the President is more than intelligent enough to see the danger.

bobrien@irish-times.ie