Below is the editorial in The Tablet this week.
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life, provided Mary McAleese with a great publicity boost by banning her participation in a conference on women’s rights to be held at the Vatican.
The conference was moved to the Jesuit Curia office nearby, and the former President of Ireland did not disappoint. The Catholic Church, she said, was an “empire of misogyny”. Power lay “among a hermetically sealed cosy male clerical elite …”
There may be worse examples of institutional misogyny in the world, but her latter point hit its target. What she is describing is clericalism, a caste system which elevates the ordained Catholic priesthood onto a pedestal and downgrades those not of this caste to a lower status.
Especially if they are female. Dr McAleese is a forthright advocate of women’s ordination. The explanation for Cardinal Farrell’s “no-platforming” her may lie in the ruling by Pope John Paul II that the issue of women priests may not even be discussed. That was and is an unacceptable limitation of freedom of speech, and it is more and more disregarded. If the grounds for not ordaining women are sound they should stand up to critical examination.
Clericalism is a related issue, but separate. Why should women want to join an institution that is, in Dr McAleese’s words, “a cosy clerical elite”, whether entry is restricted to men or not? Would adding women to it cure it of clericalism?
Before the issue of ordaining women can be properly tackled, it surely has to be asked, what is the point of ordaining men? And what sort of men, by what preparation process? And that relates to the current concern of every bishop – with a steady decline in clergy numbers, how to attract candidates to the priesthood? Urging congregations to pray for vocations has not been enough.
A thorough rethink of seminary training is overdue. The new guidelines for priestly formation issued in December 2016, reminding us that the Church needs “holy, healthy and humble priests”, made a start.
But it would be helpful to replace the old emphasis on “formation” with a more person-centred vocabulary.
Seminarians should enjoy a much broader syllabus, and be taught in much more open institutions.
Wherever possible, they should be educated alongside lay men and women. The seminary system dates from the sixteenth century, and aimed to produce experts in the Catholic faith. That’s all well and good; but there are other needs too.
Modern priests should also be mature human beings who can understand the modern world without being absorbed by it. A lot of their work will be akin to social work, for which they should be prepared.
Above all they must be “people people” – which of course the best already are. They must not assume they will be leaders; they are to be servants. The ability to work in a team is essential. And need they all be unmarried?
A bold reform of seminary education is needed if clericalism in all its forms is to be dealt a fatal blow.
2 comments:
Michael, I am puzzled by your post. There is no one seminary system. And I suspect the kind of seminary system you are thinking of...well it dates from the 18th century. [The Council of Trent sought to establish what we might call minor seminaries, boarding schools to give an academic, religious and cultural education to those who might receive none of these...."poor boys"]. There is no obligation on a bishop to ordain only men who have been through a seminary (of any kind). Very many seminarians experience their training alongside lay people. Formation in an all clerical environment does not occur in Rome, I understand.
What about the Dominican seminarians in their house of studies in Dublin? Are there many women and lay men studying there?
Post a Comment