Empathy, feminism, and the church [women’s ordination]

[BNR32FAN]

Opinion sans argument or authority.

Not sure what your saying

 

[jas3]

No, not at all. Again, I would suggest that the people in this thread try reading the article or listening to at least the first few minutes of the video. Such is of course the prerequisite of discussion, even though it is so seldom managed on CF.

Probably over half of the indignant responses to the title of this thread could have been assuaged by reading the article or watching even part of the video, and even then should have been reconsidered given that this subforum is for discussion of traditional theology, not criticism of it. From the statement of purpose, posted in bold, highlighted text at the top of the subforum:

Its not meant to exclude those who don't practice traditional theology but it is meant to be topic restrictive and non combative to traditional ideas and structure. If you need to prove traditional theology as unbiblical or incomplete, we respect your right to do this in the General Theology forum and not in this topical forum. This is a place to explore with in the defined topic not debate against it.

That said, I watched the video and thought their example of Job was a good one. St. John Chrysostom would agree with them; from his Homily 33 on the Gospel of Matthew:

For so the blessed Job, if he had not exercised himself well before his conflicts, would not have shone so brightly in the same. Unless he had practised freedom from all despondency, he would have uttered some rash word, when his children died. But as it was he stood against all the assaults, against ruin of fortune, and destruction of so great affluence: against loss of children, against his wife's commiseration, against plagues in body, against reproaches of friends, against revilings of servants...

Why, though no one had spoken any of the other taunts, yet his wife's words alone were sufficient utterly to shake a very rock. Look, for example, at her craft. No mention of money, none of camels, and flocks, and herds, (for she was conscious of her husband's self command with regard to these), but of what was harder to bear than all these, I mean, their children; and she deepens the tragedy, and adds to it her own influence.

Now if when men were in wealth, and suffering no distress, in many things and oft have women prevailed on them: imagine how courageous was that soul, which repulsed her, assaulting him with such powerful weapons, and which trod under foot the two most tyrannical passions, desire and pity. And yet many having conquered desire, have yielded to pity. That noble Joseph, for instance, held in subjection the most tyrannical of pleasures, and repulsed that strange woman, plying him as she did with innumerable devices; but his tears he contained not, but when he saw his brethren that had wronged him, he was all on fire with that passion, and quickly cast off the mask, and discovered the part he had been playing. But when first of all she is his wife, and when her words are piteous, and the moment favorable for her, as well as his wounds and his stripes, and those countless waves of calamities; how can one otherwise than rightly pronounce the soul impassive to so great a storm to be firmer than any adamant?

He commends Job for having "trod under foot the two most tyrannical passions, desire and pity." I think the argument that the passion of pity, which is what empathy is, is sinful insofar as it is a passion that drives us to do something sinful (e.g. lie or compromise the faith) to avoid troubling someone else, is well-supported in other writings of the Church Fathers.

 

[prodromos]

And where, precisely, are women prohibited in the Bible from ever being leaders in the Church?

Women can be leaders in the Church, they just can't be clergy.

 

[The Liturgist]

Opinion sans argument or authority.

I have never encountered an argument that said St. Paul forbade women from teaching or exercising authority over other women and children, and I would note that Catholic nuns have done this, both in terms of running schools and in terms of the leadership of an abbess over her own convent. Some of this could arguably be considered preaching, although it is obviously not Eucharistic homiletics.

By the way, just to be clear, I would object to a change in the ordination policy of the Roman Catholic Church for various reasons including that obviously if the RCC changes its policy on the ordination of women, at least as presbyters and bishops, it will cause a schism. That said I don’t think deaconesses would be enough to cause a schism, and we do know the early church used deaconesses in the ministry of the font, as there were large numbers of men and women to be received into the church, and most baptisms were done au naturel since baptismal robes for everyone would have been prohibitively expensive, and it was deemed inappropriate for a male priest to go down into the water with a naked woman. It is my hope and prayer that with a return to the traditional Latin mass in its timeless beauty, which in my experience consistently obtains better attendance than the Novus Ordo Missae, and a reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, there will be enough demand for conversion so that the use of deaconesses in their original capacity would be required.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"The emphasis is on the misuse, the sinful use of empathy, it destroys when used to manipulate."

It ceases to be empathy. Or is too narrow. Jesus had empathy for the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery
Empathy is a good topic though. In fact a requirement for a Christian life. Let's start with a basic definition: The ability to identify, understand and share the feelings of another. Of course that is only the first step, next comes compassion, acting on it. "But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he had compassion for him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine." Luke 10:33

" The same impulse that leads a woman to move toward the hurting with comfort and welcome becomes a major liability when it comes to guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. " That is what Jesus in trouble also. Isn't it?

 

[The Liturgist]

I think the argument that the passion of pity, which is what empathy is, is sinful insofar as it is a passion that drives us to do something sinful

I would disagree that that is what empathy is, at least in the minds of most people. Rather, empathy is being able to be sympathetic towards the suffering of others, and from that basis, this enables Christian charity, which is loving our neighbors as ourselves and not doing to them what we would not want done to ourselves, which is a dominical command, and the chief characteristic of psychopaths is described as a lack of empathy.

Now if you are arguing from a Patristic perspective, and are arguing that the word empathy is being misused, and that instead we might rather use an alternative expression such as Christian charity, I could understand that. But I would argue that given the problems that high functioning psychopaths, narcissists and also sociopaths are causing in our society, there is a need for using the term empathy and not deprecating it to avoid causing a misunderstanding, since it is a shortage of Christian charity among major world leaders and in particular, an infection of psychopaths who are destroying the American free enterprise system, such as the leaders of certain large tech companies, and before them, the corporate raiders of the 1980s and subsequent decades who caused so much harm, and also those leaders of corporations who initiated job losses by offshoring, which required other companies to follow suit in order to remain competitive even if they did not want to, especially in cases where so much of the infrastructure for the manufacture of devices is abroad, for example, the supply chain for computers depends heavily on Asia, that it becomes impossible to conduct such manufacturing in the US.

And additionally, those leaders of corporations pursuing the woke agenda and promoting homosexuality based on a cynical calculation that one can literally find in the pages of the 2006 edition of Armstrong and Kotler’s definitive marketing textbook, which is the standard taught in courses on marketing in business school, and also if I recall in the 2004 undergraduate text on marketing by Armstrong and Kotler, which is that since gay men typically do not have children and are often employed in relatively good jobs, they tend to have larger disposable incomes than heterosexual men, who have less money to spend and who are also not likely to spend money on, for example, cosmetics, to the same extent as gay men, except for the small minority of “Metrosexuals” such as David Beckham, that is to say, men engaged in the vice of vanity, which exists comorbid with perverse lust in the case of homosexuals.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I recently moved to a community where its Episcopal Church is staffed with two female priests. It is vibrant, thriving, and growing. The sermons I hear from the pulpit are among the best I have ever heard, and I have heard many. I have no doubt St. Paul spoke what was needed in that time and place, but I don't think it holds up in this time and place 2,000 + years later.

 

[The Liturgist]

It ceases to be empathy. Or is too narrow. Jesus had empathy for the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery
Empathy is a good topic though. In fact a requirement for a Christian life. Let's start with a basic definition: The ability to identify, understand and share the feelings of another. Of course that is only the first step, next comes compassion, acting on it. "But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he had compassion for him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine." Luke 10:33

" The same impulse that leads a woman to move toward the hurting with comfort and welcome becomes a major liability when it comes to guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. " That is what Jesus in trouble also. Isn't it?

I do not believe our friends @jas3 and @JM are devoid of what you and I call empathy based on my interactions with them; I suspect rather this is a dispute over terminology.

I would also note that while I feel very sorry for homosexuals, I do not pity them, since this is a passion as St. John Chrysostom taught; and it also does not prevent me from discerning that their plight is self-inflicted, and thus I am absolutely unwilling to give an inch on the question of human sexuality. Rather the reason why I feel sympathy for homosexuals is because so many of them have experienced abuse by other homosexuals, or have become homosexual due to a fear of mistreatment by members of the opposite sex, or because their situation results in them not having access to members of the opposite sex, for example, due to incarceration, or because they have been enticed into it by our contemporary society, and as a result they experience genuine suffering.

Likewise, my empathy for women who feel called to serve in the priesthood or episcopate in churches where their ordination to those specific offices is an impossibility and would cause a schism is because of the obvious fact that they could serve in other churches or In other forms of ministry within the church they want to serve in, but this does not override the fact that if they were ordained to the positions they seek in the churches where they wish to be ordained it would cause a schism, and there have been too many schisms. And one early church father argued that schism is worse than heresy. And at this point the number of churches which ordain women is so numerous that I would be surprised if there are any major denominations that do not ordain women, where a majority of the women who are members of that denomination favor a change. I’ve never met a woman in the Orthodox churches, the Assyrian church, the Roman Catholic church or the LCMS who expressed a desire to be ordained to the priesthood or episcopate, but I know they exist; conversely I have met several who were spontaneously open about their opposition to a change of ordination policy. I would add that I did not bring up the issue in any case; I have never in my life asked a woman how she feels about the ordination of women or the lack thereof in her denomination. I have met Anglican and Methodist women seeking ordination, and I liked them.

 

[seeking.IAM]

if the RCC changes its policy on the ordination of women, at least as presbyters and bishops, it will cause a schism.

Perhaps that is the same dilemma St. Paul faced in the early church for the same reason: the prevailing culture in those bodies would not allow it without division.

 

[The Liturgist]

I recently moved to a community where its Episcopal Church is staffed with two female priests. It is vibrant, thriving, and growing. The sermons I hear from the pulpit are among the best I have ever heard, and I have heard many. I have no doubt St. Paul spoke what was needed in that time and place, but I don't think it holds up in this time and place 2,000 + years later.

And to be clear I have no problem with female clergy in that context as long as they are doctrinally orthodox. Of course some Episcopal parishes are growing by attracting Christians who subscribe to various forms of modernist and postmodernist theology, for example, a deviation from tradition concerning human sexuality, which is a problem because while it might arrest the decline of that parish, it will cause the Episcopal Church as a whole to continue to contract, since in my experience Episcopal churches in what some left wing people rather arrogantly call “the flyover states” tend to be theologically moderate or conservative.

 

[The Liturgist]

Perhaps that is the same dilemma St. Paul faced in the early church for the same reason: the prevailing culture in those bodies would not allow it without division.

I refuse to accept an exegesis of the Pauline epistles that states that St. Paul was either in error or that what he wrote no longer is applicable, and there are interpretations of the portions in question that do allow for the ordination of women that do not require such a view.

In reality, we don’t know why the preponderance of the evidence indicates the early church did not have female presbyters or bishops (or if they existed they were exceedingly rare) but the Pauline epistles did not prevent St. Nino (who despite the spelling of the Georgian version of her name seeming to suggest otherwise, was in fact a woman; I think her name in classical Armenian was something like St. Nuna) from evangelizing the entire country of Georgia and being made a saint venerated as Equal to the Apostles for her work. Although she did this without being ordained to any office. I cannot figure out any scenario in which she could have evangelized the Kingdom of Iberia and caused them to request clergy be sent from Constantinople without either teaching men or exercising authority over men. What we do know is that the early church did a very good job under extremely difficult conditions

Thus, I object to your suggestion for the same reason I object to criticism of the ministry of Paidiske; since Paidiske is committed to teaching Christological orthodoxy and the 39 Articles she is clearly doing a good job as an Anglican minister and I have always protested when people make unwarranted attacks on her.

My position is that women like Paidiske ought to be respected and at the same time churches which do not ordain women ought to be respected, and at the same time churches which do also ought to be respected, even if we do not agree with all aspects of their position.

After all, as Christians we are called to make ourselves an icon of the Holy Trinity, and this requires that we love one another.

It does not require, nor should it require, any denomination to dilute its doctrine for the sake of ecumenical reconciliation, and indeed it is the suggestion of that that causes many Eastern Orthodox Christians to regard ecumenism as being a heresy. I disagree, but I do not believe that churches should attempt unification where material doctrinal differences exist, especially through dilution to some kind of lowest common denominator.

 

[PloverWing]

what some left wing people rather arrogantly call “the flyover states”

A side issue, but I've only heard the term "flyover states" from people who are right-leaning and/or from the central states. I've never heard it from a left-leaning, Atlantic coast person. See, for example, The Surprising Origin of the Phrase 'Flyover Country'

 

[The Liturgist]

A side issue, but I've only heard the term "flyover states" from people who are right-leaning and/or from the central states. I've never heard it from a left-leaning, Atlantic coast person. See, for example, The Surprising Origin of the Phrase 'Flyover Country'

Interesting. I believe you; I myself have only heard it from the far left. That being said I wouldn’t be surprised given that many of the states in question have a tradition of self-deprecating humor (this is especially the case in the South) to hear someone from the regions in question describe themselves as from a “flyover state.” Indeed I myself have described my home town as a “hick town” in a joking manner.

 

[jas3]

It ceases to be empathy. Or is too narrow. Jesus had empathy for the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery
Empathy is a good topic though. In fact a requirement for a Christian life. Let's start with a basic definition: The ability to identify, understand and share the feelings of another. Of course that is only the first step, next comes compassion, acting on it. "But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he had compassion for him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine." Luke 10:33

" The same impulse that leads a woman to move toward the hurting with comfort and welcome becomes a major liability when it comes to guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. " That is what Jesus in trouble also. Isn't it?

In the first few minutes of the video the author distinguishes empathy from compassion. Compassion and sympathy have the same etymological origin, the former in Latin and the latter in Greek: "to suffer with." Empathy is a term invented in the 20th century to refer to an experiential sharing in another's suffering. Nothing in the parable of the good Samaritan or any of the gospels implies this experiential component.

I would disagree that that is what empathy is, at least in the minds of most people. Rather, empathy is being able to be sympathetic towards the suffering of others, and from that basis, this enables Christian charity, which is loving our neighbors as ourselves and not doing to them what we would not want done to ourselves, which is a dominical command, and the chief characteristic of psychopaths is described as a lack of empathy.

Well yes, in the minds of most people. Most people think of empathy as "sympathy, but better," but that is not what the word actually means. What you've described is sympathy or compassion, and while it may be what most people think of as empathy, it's not what the author was addressing.

Now if you are arguing from a Patristic perspective, and are arguing that the word empathy is being misused, and that instead we might rather use an alternative expression such as Christian charity, I could understand that.

Exactly.

But I would argue that given the problems that high functioning psychopaths, narcissists and also sociopaths are causing in our society, there is a need for using the term empathy and not deprecating it to avoid causing a misunderstanding

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with the word or concept of empathy, only with the abuse of the word as a synonym for sympathy when it was invented specifically to distinguish something from sympathy. It's like using "literally" to mean "figuratively."

 

[zippy2006]

The problem of empathy in our culture is really quite significant. Some years ago Patricia Snow penned an incisive article on the same topic: "Empathy is not Charity." Here is an excerpt:

Empathy, in this secular kingdom, does not mean simple kindness, consideration, or compassion. It means actually feeling what you believe someone else is feeling at any given moment. If I am sorry that you are suffering, I am compassionate, but if I am suffering what you are suffering, I am empathic, which means that presidential candidate Bill Clinton got empathy exactly right when, in a crystalizing moment at a 1992 fundraiser in New York City, he said to AIDS activist Bob Rafsky, “I feel your pain.”​

​

Many of us in the larger audience laughed at Clinton’s assertion at the time, but the joke turns out to have been on us. For many years now, we have been living in what Frans de Waal called an age of empathy, an age not of reason but of overflowing emotion, as if the sea, that great universal symbol of ungoverned passion and seething affective life, had burst the bounds God laid down for it in the beginning (“so far and no further”) and covered the whole earth with its waves.​

​

Empathy is Not Charity | Patricia Snow

Martin Scorsese’s recent film Silence, like the historical novel by Shūsaku Endō on which . . . .

www.firstthings.com

​

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I do not believe our friends @jas3 and @JM are devoid of what you and I call empathy based on my interactions with them; I suspect rather this is a dispute over terminology.

I would also note that while I feel very sorry for homosexuals, I do not pity them, since this is a passion as St. John Chrysostom taught; and it also does not prevent me from discerning that their plight is self-inflicted, and thus I am absolutely unwilling to give an inch on the question of human sexuality.

Yes, terminology.

I don't think Homosexuality is self inflicted in most cases. But their plight is like anyone who has a, dared say, disordered" passion. Is alcoholism an appropriate analogy? We can have empathy without approving of how they deal with their situation.

 

[Valletta]

I have never encountered an argument that said St. Paul forbade women from teaching or exercising authority over other women and children, and I would note that Catholic nuns have done this, both in terms of running schools and in terms of the leadership of an abbess over her own convent. Some of this could arguably be considered preaching, although it is obviously not Eucharistic homiletics.

By the way, just to be clear, I would object to a change in the ordination policy of the Roman Catholic Church for various reasons including that obviously if the RCC changes its policy on the ordination of women, at least as presbyters and bishops, it will cause a schism. That said I don’t think deaconesses would be enough to cause a schism, and we do know the early church used deaconesses in the ministry of the font, as there were large numbers of men and women to be received into the church, and most baptisms were done au naturel since baptismal robes for everyone would have been prohibitively expensive, and it was deemed inappropriate for a male priest to go down into the water with a naked woman. It is my hope and prayer that with a return to the traditional Latin mass in its timeless beauty, which in my experience consistently obtains better attendance than the Novus Ordo Missae, and a reconciliation between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, there will be enough demand for conversion so that the use of deaconesses in their original capacity would be required.

In response to a question about why he is “against female priesthood,” Francis told Argentine journalist Sergio Rubin and Italian journalist Francesca Ambrogetti, the authors of the book, that it is “a theological problem.”
“I think we would undermine the essence of the Church if we considered only the priestly ministry, that is, the ministerial way,” he said, pointing out that women mirror Jesus’ bride the Church.

Pope Francis on women deacons: ‘Holy orders is reserved for men’

Pope Francis reaffirmed the impossibility of women becoming priests, or even modern Church deacons, in an interview for a book released Tuesday in Italy.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

 

[The Liturgist]

In response to a question about why he is “against female priesthood,” Francis told Argentine journalist Sergio Rubin and Italian journalist Francesca Ambrogetti, the authors of the book, that it is “a theological problem.”
“I think we would undermine the essence of the Church if we considered only the priestly ministry, that is, the ministerial way,” he said, pointing out that women mirror Jesus’ bride the Church.

Pope Francis on women deacons: ‘Holy orders is reserved for men’

Pope Francis reaffirmed the impossibility of women becoming priests, or even modern Church deacons, in an interview for a book released Tuesday in Italy.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Once again, I do not think the RCC or the other denominations with an all male priesthood and episcopate should change their position.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, not at all. Again, I would suggest that the people in this thread try reading the article or listening to at least the first few minutes of the video. Such is of course the prerequisite of discussion, even though it is so seldom managed on CF.

One might question the way the authors distinguish sympathy or compassion from empathy, but their usage seems to be supported by Merriam-Webster:

What is the difference between empathy and compassion?​

​

Compassion and empathy both refer to a caring response to someone else’s distress. While empathy refers to an active sharing in the emotional experience of the other person, compassion adds to that emotional experience a desire to alleviate the person’s distress.​

That's a semantics game.

As Fr. Mychal Judge said, "Does the world have so much love, that we can afford to discriminate against particular kinds of love"? The some can be said about empathy. Empathy is a precious thing, and it reflects a carnal mind when somebody suggests that it is problematic. If everybody treated each other with empathy and respect, this world would be transformed into the Kingdom of God. But maybe that's the point. Some people speak to humanity's weakness, and not its strengths. This is dark, pharisaical religion.

 

[zippy2006]

That's a semantics game.

Merriam-Webster is engaged in “semantics games”?

If everybody treated each other with empathy and respect, this world would be transformed into the Kingdom of God.

Certainly not, and certainly not by Christianity’s lights.

But it is true that if everyone who opined on an article had read the article then the discussion about the article would be relevant and substantial. This thread is like a book club on Dune with those who have never read the book or even watched the movie. They merely saw the first minute of the trailer.