There are those among the Roman Catholic faith who feel that the President, Mrs McAleese, erred or perhaps let the side down by taking Communion at a Church of Ireland service a fortnight ago. But there can be no doubt that they are greatly outnumbered by their co-religionists who either support her action or, at very least, support her right to decide for herself in the matter. Last weekend an opinion poll showed an overwhelming approval of her stance and that has been reflected in public attitudes as expressed, for example, in the letters section of this newspaper.
The views of the laity seldom sway the Roman Catholic Church however when it comes to matters of faith or morals - and that is not confined to Ireland. One has only to consider the resolute adherence over a period of 30 years, to Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae encyclical proscribing artificial contraception. The faithful worldwide have ignored its teaching but Rome has remained unmoved. How very much less likely must it be that the Irish hierarchy would tolerate some bending of the rules on the Eucharist for Mrs McAleese. This, as one clerical gentleman has pointed out, is what the Reformation was about, after all.
But today's Irish Catholic Church is not the monolith it was. The members of the Hierarchy perhaps wish the affair would die down. Thus their disapproval has been muted. Other Catholic churchmen of strongly orthodox views have been a great deal more vociferous. Yet there are many Catholic clergy - before ever one considers the laity - who believe that their church's teaching on Anglican Communion can be interpreted in a more flexible way. One member of an enclosed religious order - not a young man - writing in a private capacity this week observed: "it can be argued both ways. She was invited for prayer service and communion is a vital part. She need not believe it to be more than wine with symbolism. She was sharing with a congregation". Others take the view that in the circumstances of her presidential role, her participation was not merely justifiable but a positive step towards reconciliation on an island which badly needs it.
For devout adherents of either church, the theological issues are important and for committed Catholics the rule of Canon Law is a serious, indeed a binding, matter. For the generality of citizens however, the issue will be judged on more prosaic grounds. Was it a healing gesture? Was it intended to lessen differences rather than accentuate them? Did it signify trust and respect for another tradition? And the answers to these questions must be yes, very emphatically.
Many Catholics will also feel a sense of regret that senior churchmen, most especially the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Connell, have found it necessary to be so ungenerous and forthright in their condemnation of the President's action. If they find fault with what she did - even serious fault - surely they could at least acknowledge that there might be another way of looking at the matter and that the President herself acted with the best of motives. In particular, they will ask themselves whether it was necessary to use words which members of other churches have found embarrassing and offensive.
Not for the first time in recent years, the Catholic Church in Ireland seems set to lose ground and goodwill even with many people who wish it well. Archbishop Connell has explained that he did not intend to use the word "sham" in a pejorative sense in respect of Anglican Communion. Members of the Church of Ireland will very likely be generous and forgiving in their response. But it is difficult to see how well-disposed Catholics can be other than distressed by their church's reaction to the President's gesture. Mrs McAleese has given tangible expression to her promise of being a builder of bridges. It is regrettable that Dr Connell and others cannot so readily be counted in that company.