Broadcaster Olivia O’Leary has, very publicly, left the Catholic Church.
The Carlow-born journalist renounced Catholicism because of the church’s refusal to ordain women, though the institutional cover-up of clerical child sex abuse was a “proximate factor”.
This Christmas, Ms O’Leary, who was educated by Convent of Mercy nuns, will celebrate Christmas with carols and lessons at the Church of Ireland St Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin.
The former Today Tonight anchor used her regular and popular essay on RTE radio’s Drivetime programme to explain why she left the church some two years ago.
The central reason was the continued refusal of the church to accept the equality of women, “in other words, to ordain us”.
Weary O’Leary leaves church over its refusal to ordain women
“No longer at my age can I accept a subordinate role; not for myself, not for my daughter, not for my sisters, my nieces or friends,” the 61-year-old current affairs presenter declared.
She added that other women had walked out of the church a long time ago.
“Maybe I just kept hoping,” she added.
“At this stage I don’t feel rage so much as weariness — that ‘difference’ is still latched onto as a reason to discriminate; weariness and, for me, relief, that it’s all over now. I’ve moved on out.”
She said it had taken her so long to leave because she knew, perhaps, how much she would miss the church, especially the Liturgy, which she described as “one of the the world’s great art forms and “such a comfort at times of loss and pain”.
And she was also mindful of what she called the “family connections” — “beloved aunts who are nuns, beloved uncles who are priests and good kind friends who are nuns and priests”.
“But it is their humanity that distinguishes them, not their role in an institution. And it is our humanity which distinguishes us, not the fact that we are women.
“So a church that does not recognise that. . . is in an ethical desert, like white-only churches in the American south or in apartheid South Africa.”
She said that among the reasons she would celebrate Christmas in St Patrick’s Cathedral was that she could stand tall there.
“I can stand tall because the Church of Ireland, whether I join it or not, accepts my full humanity. It ordains women.
“Otherwise I’ll celebrate by simply being outside in the wind and the rain, outside in the sunshine walking the world that the creator made for us all equally.
“Not because we are male or female but because we are human,” she concluded.
- Independent.ie.
The fight for equality in the Roman Catholic church (amongst others it has to be said) reminds me of the place of women in Islam. It is quite clear that originally equality was mandated by God in the Quran, yet the institutions of Islam today, like the Vatican, subsume women into an otherness that is spoken of as “not men”, to use feminist language. This forceful patriarchal ideological position only hurts the church more and more as our cultures shift and develop, belief-wise. The Roman Catholic church, like Islam, is swiftly becoming institutionally pre-modern. No matter what laity (Catholic and Muslim) think and believe, and practise.
I don’t know enough to comment on the Quran, but it is certainly clear to me that the present patriarchal structure of the modern Catholic Church has more to do with preserving a privileged, self-selecting and unaccountable elite than it has to do with Scripture.
We know that there were women deacons for much of the first millenium, and that in his own ministry, Christ was more open to talking and working with women, than was common in his social conditions. In the medieval church, Abbesses were powerful women, often more so than their local bishops.
The Catholic Church has gone backwards, as the rest of the world has become more inclusive.
*Technicality: The Ancient Churches (Catholic, Orthodox, etc) are older (slightly) than scripture; this alters the importance of scripture in the role of those religions. While protestantism founds itself on the bible solely, the ancient churches do not view scripture as the foundation of their religion; in their view scripture is a supplement to explain the life and teachings of christ and the apostles ONLY, everything else is left to Tradition/Magisterium. Sola Scriptura is basis for changing theology and doctrine in protestantism, but in the ancient churches it is insufficient. In those churches you need Scripture AND Tradition/Magisterium. So, unfortunately, the fact that it has nothing to do with scripture does not have real bearing on the church’s mind; that makes the jobs of progressive MUCH harder in those churches
.
I am not an expert on the Qur’an, but I am not really sure that equality was ‘mandated’; however it is explicit that both a woman and a christian were fundamental to Muhammad’s success and he held a special place for both of them. Just like in Christianity, Muhammad’s holding of women and people of other (abrahamic) religions in higher regard than the norm did not last long in the power-hungry, small-minded, and intolerant cultures that they grew up in (ie. Roman Imperial culture and Arabian-Warrior culture).
I read a comment over at the NCR from Little Bear that really struck me forcefully. Little Bear wrote that Jesus had the body of a man, but the soul of a woman. There is a great deal of truth in that, and it also explains why Roman Catholicism can not survive by denying the equality of women. The whole idea of ‘servant leadership’ is a feminine attribute and no matter how pretty the clerical dresses, an entirely male leadership can not model this fact.
Lately I’ve been think a great deal about Peter and why Jesus singled him out. I don’t think it was because Peter actually understood what Jesus was teaching so much as it was because Peter represented the norm and that’s where His Church would have to start. In other words, Peter was not to be the Omega point, he was to be the Alpha point. As it stands now, Catholicism seems unable or unwilling to transcend ‘the rock’.
That is very profound, I have never quite thought of it that way. I will have to bring that up with my religious studies professors when the next semester starts up in a few weeks.
I understand that this is not going to be a ‘popular’ comment; but I never go on what is popular, but what I see. Honesty about the basic principles behind any sentiment or statement is the only way to properly interpret something. Olivia O’leary’s ‘reasons’ for leaving the church represents exactly why progressives have not only made little to no ground, but also why the only results they achieve are a furthering of the divide between the conservatives and the liberals in the church. Because I was once an extreme right-right wing catholic, I understand how they think; and I guarantee you that this is how the conservatives and most of the hierarchy will view this:
(1). She does not truly believe in the Catholic faith, but rather she views it as a social gathering. She is culturally catholic, but is really a protestant at heart.
(2). Evaluating her statements reveals this fact: (1) She is sorry that she is leaving the ‘people’ and the ‘relationships’, which reveals that she believes that the church is simply a social-cultural club rather than a mystery-religion, (2) She will miss the liturgy because it is ‘a beautiful art form’, which reveals that she thinks it is simply a cultural expression and so does not believe in the mystery of the ritual and the salvific nature of the sacrament of the Eucharist; which can ONLY be had in one of the ancient churches (yes, EVEN if it is a schismatic one) - this shows that she does not believe in the power of the sacraments. All three of those views essentially summarize the biggest theological and philosophical differences between protestant/secratianism and the Cathlo-Orthodox (A.K.A ‘ancient’) churches. Your view on those issues is what makes you a protestant christian or a Cathlo-orthodox christian.
(3). No one who believes in Catholic-Orthodox theology would leave the theological and philosophical realm of the ancient churches (wich includes the Roman Catholic Church, the 25 other Catholic Churches, all of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Churches, the Ethiopian Churches, the Oriental Churches, the Coptic Churches, etc) because of the moral standing of ANY of the clergy, or because of doctrinal differences such as ordination and celibacy rules. You can switch between those churches without changing theology and philosophical outlooks, which is why those churches (that are not in communion with one another) are simply in schism; where as protestant/sectarians are in heresy because the theology and philosophy of those groups is not compatible with any ancient church.
(4). She is ok with leaving the Cathlo-Orthodox realm because she does not believe in the religion, that is why she has the protestant view that moral standing and doctrinal disagreements are grounds for ‘switching’ religions as if it were nothing more than switching brands of toilette paper or switching from Ford to Chevy or BMW to Mercedes. Her theological and philosophical world-view is protestant at its core and so she is not and possibly never was a true believer in the religion; therefore, anything that she has to say about it has no bearing or validity and is entirely irrelevant.
Whether or not this view of her statement for is ‘pastoral’ or ‘right’ is a waste of time to discuss, because that is the traditional/conservative view and therefore that is the one that is in power at the moment, so we must PLAN and ACT accordingly. Her leaving is clearly and attempt at a political statement but it will mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the hierarchy and conservative elements because her reasons for leaving are reveal (in their minds) that she is not a ‘real’ Catholic. THis act is futile because those whom we need to convince will see it as ‘one less fake catholic muddling the faith’ to have to deal with; but if we PROVE to those people that we do understand and we do believe, then they will be infinitely more-likely to take what we have to say into consideration.
My personal evaluation of her statement is really not much more positive, though for different reasons:
(1). All I hear in her statement is “I” “I” “I” “Me” “Me” “Me” “What I want” “what suits me best” and a bunch of ego-centric statements. That, ladies and gentleman, is the ANTITHESIS of what Catholicism is about: “Religion changes the individual” not “religion conforms to the individual”. Radical individualism is not compatible with the Catholic/Orthodox religions nor with ANY of the teachings of Jesus Christ (as both the ancient churches AND objective secular scholarship of Christ reveal). “I am converting to another faith because I have come to believe in it” is the statement of someone who has been converted in their heart, but “This religion does not suit me” is a statement of someone who has no religion other than themselves: their ego and personal will is the supreme master of the universe, and neither transcendent truth nor the will of God factor in for them. Not once did she even hint at what God wants for the church nor what is good for the church as a whole. Her action benefits only herself while further damaging the church by hardening all sides of the divides present within it.
(2). She clearly does not take her religion more than skin deep, because she is unwilling to grapple with (or simply ignorant of) the theology of her religion. She clearly views the ordination of women in the church as purely a ‘choice’ like choosing what flavor icecream to eat - that reveals that she is a protestant because protestant philosophy views the will of man as the supreme arbiter of the faith. She fails to grasp that there is a theological MOUNTAIN that must be overcome for women’s ordination to be accepted - which is, that Catholic/Orthodox theology states that the Church DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to ordain women. Protestant theology states that whatever the individual thinks is “the true will of god” (and of course that is how theologies like Nazi Christianity, KKK Christianity, pro-slavery Christians, etc develop) because protestantism gives supreme authority to the will of the individual; whereas catholic/orthodox theology states that no individual (no, not even the pope) can be supreme in discerning the entirety of Divine Will - it is the will of GOD that is sought in catholicism not the will of MAN.
The Conservatives say “good riddance”, but I condemn her action based on her statement for these three reasons (1) it HELPS the conservative’s goals of a smaller and more ‘pure’ church, (2) the action only benefits herself, it does nothing to help the status of women’s ordination and actually works AGAINST both it and the good of the church as a whole, and (3) it is done purely out of selfish and political motives. I condemn ANY action that results in or is motivated by just ONE of those points, let alone all three of them. Olivia O’Leary has just joined the list of people who, despite sharing my progressive goals, needs to be silent and stay out of church discussions and affairs because they do nothing but hurt progressive goals, give ammo and credibility to the conservatives, and damage the unity of the church.