Tony Flannery in The Journal: Women and the Catholic Church

Reform has long been promised, but real change has been denied

While the new Pope Leo may be a welcome and outspoken leader, women remain excluded from power and decision-making in a Church still struggling to modernise, writes Fr Tony Flannery.

Link: https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/pope-leo-catholic-church-7008116-Apr2026/

AFTER A LONG period of stagnation, even retrenchment, in the Catholic Church, Pope Francis was a reformer.

Through a movement which he called Synodality, he attempted to change the structure of the Church, in particular in its decision-making processes.

The idea reflects the need to shift from a system where traditionally all the power and authority were in the hands of the clergy to a system where all the believers had a voice and accepted that, at a basic fundamental level, all the baptised were equal. It was a radical concept.

His successor, Leo, was a surprise choice, especially because he was an American – it was generally assumed in the church that an American would never become pope – but he immediately lined himself up as being of a similar mind to Francis in the area of synodality.

However, Leo’s first year has been distinguished for a different reason. As a native of the US, he has gradually emerged as one of the leading critics of US President Donald Trump and his administration, recently describing his behaviour as ‘truly unacceptable’. It is refreshing to see that our Pope is unafraid of those in power and making a clear stand for the dignity of every human person. His criticism is in contrast to the attitude of many European leaders.

Issues closer to home

But Pope Leo needs to deal with internal church issues in order to bring the Church more truly into the modern world. Back in 1974, probably the greatest theologian of the twentieth century, Karl Rahner, wrote, “If we are honest, we must admit that we are to a terrifying extent a spiritually lifeless Church’. That is still, I believe, largely true.

The synodality movement would now appear to be running into a roadblock around the issue of equality for women. Women are still second-class citizens in the Church. They cannot be priests or deacons. (Deacons are the next layer of the clerical church after priests; they can administer some of the sacraments and preach at Mass, but they cannot celebrate Mass or hear confessions. Married men can be deacons, but no woman can, even though it is clear that there were women deacons in the early Church.) That means that women have no say in decision-making at any level of the Church, unless they are invited to do so by their priest or bishop.

The present Church authorities, at all levels, seem to be unable to face up to that issue. Women are relegated to reading the scripture at Mass – but not allowed to read the Gospel, which is reserved for the priest – and distributing Holy Communion. And of course, it is largely women who do the menial tasks, like cleaning the church and washing the altar linen.

Stuck in the past

But there is a bigger challenge facing the Pope and the whole Church, and it touches on the credibility of some of the basic Church teachings. In 1992 the then Pope, John Paul II, published a new Catechism of the Catholic Church which asserted, among many other things, that the story of creation, and of the sin of our first parents, as recounted in the Book of Genesis, was, though told in figurative language, an actual historical account of an event that took place at the beginning of the history of humanity.

Two years earlier, in 1990, the Hubble telescope was launched. We learned that our earth is only a tiny speck in the enormity of a universe that originated many billions of years ago, that grew, and continues to grow, through the process of evolution, and that human beings first walked on this earth about one hundred and 20 thousand years ago. So the creation of the earth as told in the Book of Genesis is not, despite what the Catechism asserts, an historical account. There was no Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve did not eat the apple. All of this is mythology.

There is nothing wrong with mythology; we here in Ireland have our own mythological stories. But the problem started when the Church began to frame dogmas as if the Genesis account was historical, dogmas around Original Sin, the dwelling place and the nature of God, and the purpose of the life of Jesus. These dogmas asserted that God, dwelling in the skies, closed the gates of Heaven until such time as his son, Jesus, came down and died a horrible death on a cross to appease the anger of God and open those gates.

With the Hubble images beaming into homes around the world, many believers, theologians or otherwise, could not fail to see their implications. Questions began to be asked about God dwelling in a heavenly abode, about where we fit into this wonderful universe, about evolution, and about where Jesus fits into the Christian story.

The authorities got worried.

A quote from the 1998 Catechism now became prominent, indeed was used as a weapon by some bishops who wanted to silence people:

“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows full well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

And, to add to this assertion of Church authority, in 2000, the then Cardinal Ratzinger promulgated a theological document, called a Declaration, Dominus Iesus, asserting traditional teachings: It stated:

“Jesus, and Jesus alone, bestows revelation and divine life to humanity.”

Also:

“No one can enter into communion with God except through Christ.”

In other words, we were back to the old belief that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ – only Catholics could be saved, and only by believing what the Church teaches. No allowance is made for people’s own intelligence and conscience, or for loving people who follow the Prophet Mohammed, the Buddha, or other faiths.

Now we had two documents, the Catechism of 1992 and the Declaration of 2000, affirming traditional teaching, and both were sent around to all the bishops of the world. The instructions were clear; anyone who deviated from these teachings, no matter how sincerely their views were held and expressed, was to be silenced.

We were ordered to accept, despite incontestable knowledge to the contrary, that humanity emerged into a state of paradise. It didn’t. Humanity developed over billions of years through the evolutionary process, until beings with self-awareness emerged, and humans, as we know ourselves, began to walk the earth.

But as long as the Vatican and bishops around the world have the authority to silence any questioning of such dogmas as infidelity to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Rahner’s description of a spiritually lifeless Church will persist.

Flickers of a modern Church

New hope came with Pope Francis. He largely put a stop to the ‘silencing’ and began the process of open discussion. It was greeted with great enthusiasm in many quarters of the Church, and in the past number of years it has achieved a fair amount, mainly in just allowing and creating the forum for free and open discussion, for the acceptance of the mysterious, for faith in the Divine, despite life’s uncertainties.

But now I am fearful, when I see the great difficulty we are having in accepting a simple change of allowing women to be ordained deacons in the Church, and the continued unwillingness to have even a suggestion of openness to the priesthood for women, or for people who choose to marry.

When we cannot manage these changes, how are we going to face the need to revise ancient teachings and dogmas on the basis of our new understandings? As the Czech theologian, Tomas Halik, said, all views, opinions and statements are time-bound, based on current knowledge and understanding, so each new era with its new learnings and developments, needs to revise and restate the ancient truths in a way that makes sense to modern times.

That is not to suggest that ancient truths do not contain basic truths about the human condition, but they need to be revised and restated in a way that makes sense to our modern understanding.

That is the biggest challenge facing the Catholic Church, and indeed all religious institutions.

Fr Tony Flannery is a Redemptorist priest who was forbidden to practice by his superiors in Rome in 2012 for speaking up on many issues. This continues to this day. More at TonyFlannery.com 

Similar Posts

7 Comments

  1. Joe O'Leary says:

    Tony, if we look up the three quotes you attribute to Vatican sources, we find no reference except to your own text here and at Clerical Whispers.

  2. Dermot Quigley says:

    My own view is that human knowledge is indeed time bound, but Divine knowledge, or anything revealed by the Holy Ghost to the One, Holy, Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, aren’t time bound. The Holy Ghost exists outside of earth time.

    The Council of Trent defined the Dogma of Original Sin in the Decree Concerning it, which was adopted during the Fifth Session on 17 June 1546.
    Among the many points made were:
    Original Sin is passed to each individual by propagation (birth), not merely through the imitation of Adam’s bad example. The Council emphasized the necessity of baptizing infants for the remission of Original Sin, even if they have not committed actual personal sins.

    If Original Sin as taught at Trent isn’t true, then the 1854 Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our most Blessed Lady as defined by Pius IX, of Happy Memory, in “Ineffabilis Deus “, falls.

    I am certain that one day I will stand before the Divine judgement Seat. I am equally certain that the Dogmas of Original Sin and the Immaculate Conception are true. They were inspired by the Holy Ghost, whose knowledge isn’t time bound.

    1. “necessity of Baptizing infants for the remission of original sin.”
      I had a conversation on this point with Professor Walter Vogels (RIP). He was a scripture scholar and the author of well known books. My Maternal Grandmother, Mary Sullivan, was informed by Church officials that her still born baby boy could not be buried in the family plot in the Catholic Cemetery. Why? Because he was not Baptized. She informed the other children that their baby brother was now in the arms of a loving God. The church was wrong she said. Professor Vogels agreed with her words and praised her wisdom.

  3. Tony Flannery says:

    Joe O’Leary contests the authenticity of the quotes I used. Here are the references:

    From the CCH
    The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” (#390)
    “The harmony in which they had found themselves is now destroyed: control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is destroyed … Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay” … Death makes its entrance into human history.” (#400)
    “The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows full well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.” (#389)

    FROM THE Ratzinger DECLARATION:
    Only our Scriptures are “divinely inspired”; (#8)
    “As an innocent lamb Jesus merited life for us by his blood which he freely shed. (#10)
    Jesus and Jesus alone bestows revelation and divine life to humanity (#13)
    The Church is the instrument of salvation for all humanity, (#20)
    “No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit.” (#12)

  4. Joe O'Leary says:

    The “Jesus, and Jesus alone” quote does not appear in DI #13 — it seems to be a paraphrase, which is why it does not turn up in a google search.

    The omission of “therefore” in the quote from #12 is what made it unfindable. By the way, that quote (“No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit”‌) is footnoted to John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, #5, which is a text that did not arouse as much criticism as DI.

    The Catechism quote still does not show up on google: “The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.” — oh, I see, you wrote “full well” instead of “very well”

  5. Joe O'Leary says:

    One of the terrible things about Vatican documents is that they stay around for a long time and any effort to challenge or criticize them is regarded as dismissive. This slows the pace of Catholic thought, and not in a good sense. Theologians find themselves condemned to re-invent the wheel over and over again, arguing for example for the liceity of artificial contraception when the whole world has moved on to a different place. Or they just stop talking at all about issues where the discussion is frozen. The document against Anglican Orders of Leo XIII is a case in point, as are Humanae Vitae and Homosexualitatis Problema, and Dominus Iesus. Young Catholic theologians are liable to go back to these documents when addressing the issues, effectively letting the worries of the CDF frame the entire debate even 60 or 40 years after their last iteration (reinforced by their insertion in the Catechism). Pope Francis never engaged a debate with Dominus Iesus, but he moved against it by striking gestures: his dismissal of Cardinal Ratzinger’s CDF successor Müller, his comments at a memorial service for his friend Bishop Tony Palmer, where he said (roughly recalled): “We are all on the same path together to the Kingdom of God — whether we be Protestant or Catholic, Jew or Muslim, Buddhist of Hindu — (with a smile) this is a theological disaster!”, or his comment to the young people in Singapore, that all religions are paths to God. Dominus Iesus actually contains the inclusive teaching of Vatican II and Redemptoris missio, but saddled uneasily with the extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentality. Par. 8 reads: “God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors’”‌ [John Paul II, with subquote from Paul VI]. Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.” God makes himself present to entire peoples precisely through their religions, but “”nonetheless”…. Is the whole history of theology riddled with these unsettling qualifiers which come close to inconsistency? The “therefore” is a bold non-sequitur which captures well the tension underlying the document. Perry Schmidt-Leukel sees the authors as torn “between the conciliar (Vatican II) and post-conciliar inclusivistic affirmation of positive salvific elements in other religions and the pre-conciliar ecclesiological exclusivism of the extra ecclesiam nulla salus which obviously dominates over a number of statement in DI.” On so many fronts, theology needs new departures, but does theology really exist? Should solidarity not have meant that voices of theological wisdom would be raised and heard in every part of the church, as well as voices from other churches and religions.? But did anything of the sort happen?

    1. “We are all on the same path together.” Off the cuff… a few non Christian names that leave a blessing with their memory:
      Mahatma Gandhi (Hindu). Martin Buber (Jewish). Dalai Lama (Buddhism).
      Numerous non-Catholics who left a spiritual legacy in their writings. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Nelson Mandela and C.S. Lewis to name a few.

Join the Discussion

Keep the following in mind when writing a comment

  • Your comment must include your full name, and email. (email will not be published). You may be contacted by email, and it is possible you might be requested to supply your postal address to verify your identity.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger. Comments containing vulgarities, personalised insults, slanders or accusations shall be deleted.
  • Keep to the point. Deliberate digressions don't aid the discussion.
  • Including multiple links or coding in your comment will increase the chances of it being automati cally marked as spam.
  • Posts that are merely links to other sites or lengthy quotes may not be published.
  • Brevity. Like homilies keep you comments as short as possible; continued repetitions of a point over various threads will not be published.
  • The decision to publish or not publish a comment is made by the site editor. It will not be possible to reply individually to those whose comments are not published.