Obsessing about women priests ignores need for meaningful reform of Church

FORMER President Mary McAleese is a reporters’ dream. She is never shy in front of a microphone and as an accomplished journalist herself is almost unrivalled in her ability to craft a headline-grabbing soundbite.

It wasn’t by accident that she used the term “empire of misogyny” to describe the Catholic Church.

The evocative phrase was irresistible for newspaper editors all across the globe and succeeded in putting the role of women in the Church centre-stage on International Women’s Day.

The Church has a long way to go on women’s issues, but even people sympathetic about some of the points Ms McAleese (pictured below) is making will recognise her “empire of misogyny” comments as hyperbolic.

When it comes to the Church and women, too often there is an almost exclusive focus from some campaigners on the issue of female ordination. The absence of women priests is seen as a gaping wound, and there is no doubt that for the women who feel they would like to be priests that feeling of exclusion is real. But the focus on priesthood and ordination also runs the risk of ignoring much deeper questions about decision-making and how authority is exercised in the Church.

As it stands, the Catholic Church is far too clerical – that is to say dominated by clergy.

It is only when there is a proper rebalancing of power between priest and people – the ordained and the non-ordained – that the Church can be authentically reformed. What do I mean?

Well, virtually every report into the mishandling of allegations of sexual abuse against priests highlights the phenomenon of clericalism as a major factor of cases not being handled properly. Time and again, bishops and religious superiors put the Church’s good name and the reputation of the accused cleric ahead of child welfare.

It’s not unique to the Church. It’s the same pattern of behaviour that we have all too often witnessed in the Garda, the Defence Forces or other institutions when things go wrong. The instinct is to cover up, protect those who have done wrong and shun and demonise those who are trying to call attention to the wrongdoing.

Clericalism – in all its guises – is a little bit like the wallpaper: it’s been there so long no-one notices it. But, it has a corrosive effect, and institutions seem almost incapable of reforming themselves. As the transformation of policing in the North under the indefatigable Nuala O’Loan showed, only by inviting in outsiders to the club can institutions show signs of real reform.

But, back to the Church. As things stand, decisionmaking and governance is currently vested in priests and bishops alone. Advocates for the ordination of women argue that this is why it’s vital for women to become priests so they can start to exercise real power within the Church.

But, what about shifting away from clerical power to a culture of co-responsibility within the Catholic Church where priests and laypeople make decisions together?

What campaigners for women priests frequently fail to understand is that the current model of leadership in the Church doesn’t exclude women because they are women, it excludes them because they are not ordained.

And in this, they are in the same boat as laymen within the Catholic system.

The ordination of women would simply add more members to the particular caste making all the decisions within Catholicism – admittedly bringing the unique perspectives of women to the task.

One can see how this might be appealing to women who feel that their voice is unheard, but a more radical approach would be to call for a reform of how the Church is governed. One that would fully embrace the vision of the reforming Vatican II agenda that sought to put laypeople front and centre in the Church working together with priests and bishops.

Critics of a more lay-based approach to governance will often grumble that the Church is not a democracy, and they’re right.

In fact, theologically it is much more than a democracy – it is a communion.

Which means everyone working together for the common good. That means more than electing people every four or five years to make decisions on behalf of everyone else: it means all voices should be heard in the Church, and people should be able to offer their opinions on what they think is for the good of the Church.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that doctrines and dogmas are subject to a popular vote: the Catholic Church will never change what it teaches on what it believes to be essentials – the ordination of women included.

Paradoxically, obsessing about women priests plays into the hands of those opposed to the meaningful reforms that would give laypeople their rightful place within Church decision-making.

It focuses minds away from what can actually be achieved in terms of the Church and it allows opponents of reform to dismiss all calls as coming from a radical fringe.

Those women impatient for reforms in the Church would do well to set aside the megaphone diplomacy and join in advocating for a Church where ordination is not seen as the golden ticket to power, but where people work and make the important decisions together.