Eve's Pain in Childbirth

[wfr]

In Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve that because of her sin her “sorrow” in childbirth will be greatly multiplied. Because children are a joy, what is the significance of this “curse”? Any thoughts?
PAX CHRISTI
Bill

 

[smichhertz]

Hi wfr!

God intended for giving birth to not be a painful experience. Because of the fall, now childbirth is a painful experience for the mother.

Hope that helps!

 

[CB_Catholic]

Hi wfr!

God intended for giving birth to not be a painful experience. Because of the fall, now childbirth is a painful experience for the mother.

Hope that helps!

My translation (NAB) reads “I will intensify the pangs of your childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children”. Childbirth had some pangs attached to it before, (probably to compel the mother to stop and find a safe place for birth), now they were greatly intensified. But, ironically “Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.” Despite the fact that you will experience great pain in childbirth, you still will desire your husband and he will be your master. Sort of the opposite of what usually happens–we generally avoid those things which we know will cause us great pain. However, it does assure the perpetuation of the human race.

All of which is my own interpretation and could be quite wrong.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hi wfr!

God intended for giving birth to not be a painful experience. Because of the fall, now childbirth is a painful experience for the mother.

Hope that helps!

And men get, to me, an easy deal out of this. Women - pain in childbirth and subservience to husband. Men - have to farm for food (so food will just pop out of the ground for women then? It applies to women too!) and they have superiority over women.

Personally, I think childbirth hurts because its a big thing going through a small place.

Anyway, last time I checked we are not required to believe the creation story as a literal account.

 

[LumenGent]

The significance of the curse is that woman would suffer the loss of impassability that would have protected them from the pains of childbirth. Before the fall, Adam and Eve could not suffer physical pain.

 

[h2oplyer7]

Saying that man could not experience physical pain before the fall is going too far. As CS Lewis notes in the Problem of Pain, physical pain in itself is not evil. I still believe that Adam could have stubbed his toe, Eve could have bruised her arm. These things would have caused pain, but that didn’t mean their lives were lives of pain. I do feel that whatever the “Tree of Life” was, it did give some healing remedy so that disease was not experienced. Anyways, that is my two-cents.

 

[wfr]

And men get, to me, an easy deal out of this. Women - pain in childbirth and subservience to husband. Men - have to farm for food (so food will just pop out of the ground for women then? It applies to women too!) and they have superiority over women.

Personally, I think childbirth hurts because its a big thing going through a small place.

Anyway, last time I checked we are not required to believe the creation story as a literal account.

I beg to differ. One of the “senses” of Scripture as taught by the Church is the literal sense. Paragraphs 115-116 of the Catechism state:

According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

Note that “literal” must be understood differently than “literalistic ”. We must interpret Scripture with an eye to the culture and literary devices used by the author. Having said this we must also see Scripture as real history. It may be sometimes be expressed in a symbolic way, but it actually happened.

In his encyclical Humani Generis, the Holy Father, Pope Pius xii writes:

Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.

If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

The Church teaches as an article of faith that Adam and Eve were real historical people and the first parents of the human race. She also teaches that Original Sin was the result of Adam’s personal sin. Again I quote Pope Pius XII:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

I have met so many Catholics who tell me that the Church does not believe in a real Adam and Eve anymore. It is sad because to truly understand Scripture we must see it as a reliable witness to everything that the Holy Spirit wanted to consign to writing. To consign so much of the Scripture to the scrap heap of myth, as many Catholic do, does the Holy Spirit a great injustice and we all suffer because of it.

PAX CHRISTI
Bill
P.S. Hope I didn’t open up that ol’ stinky can-o-worms

 

[LumenGent]

No, Our first Parents could not suffer any pain whatsoever prior to the fall. Pain is natural for man, there is no question about that. However, man had the pretenatural gifts which among others things accounted for lack of pain and suffering.

 

[h2oplyer7]

Where does the Church teach that? Because if the Church teaches that I have never seen it. I believe you are mixing up the evil of pain, and the good of pain. God did not recreate us after the fall. What was there was already there. We have pain receptors, no? They were not created after the fall, were they?

 

[LumenGent]

Man was created in a state of original justice. Along with the supernatural gifts that God confered upon him, he also endowned man with the pretenatural gifts, which were there to perfect man’s human nature and this included:

Freedom from death
Freedom from suffering
Infused knowledge
Integrity (which included: freedom from concupiscence)

These gifts were naturally belonging to angels not men. God endowned man with all these gifts so that men might be perfected like angels.

Pain receptors and by extension, all organs and the anatomical/physiological makeup of human beings were always there, but they were protected through the pretenatural gifts. After the fall, the gifts were no longer there and thus man was subjected to all of the consequences that were protected by the pretenatural gifts.

Have a read of the following:

newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Hi wfr!

God intended for giving birth to not be a painful experience. Because of the fall, now childbirth is a painful experience for the mother.

Hope that helps!

This has always caused me to wonder why the Church allows anesthesia during childbirth, as this seems to both contravene the Natural Law (in the same sense that artificial birth control does), and go directly against God’s express direction in Scripture.

Please understandthat this in no way is to wish pain on women in childbirth; rather, I only intend to express honest puzzlement that medical intervention that thwarts a natural process and directly blocks a specific Biblical statement isn’t questioned in this case, but is specifically prohibited in the case of ABC.

 

[Mintaka]

Medicine that lengthens life doesn’t “thwart God’s plan”, and neither does anesthesia for childbirth.

Look, what was Jesus’ primary miracle on Earth, besides His own Incarnation? He died and came back to life, basically reversing the penalty of death that came on the human race after the Fall and beginning the return of eternal life to our entire species (or at least to those who chose to join the new human race, the Church). Before that, He raised people from the dead. Before that, a few of the great prophets also raised people from the dead.

None of this “thwarted” God’s punishment of the Fall. It was a sign, instead, that God was choosing to soften our punishment, and pointed forward to the day when there would be no more death, no more suffering, no more separation. The same was true of Jesus’ miracles of healing, the Prophets’ miracles of healing, and the miracles of healing that occur in various places today.

Ethical and effective medical advances, just like miracles of healing, are gifts from God that soften the effects of original sin and point toward the Resurrection, the glorification of our resurrected bodies, and life everlasting in everlasting joy. God can work through a scientist’s brain or a doctor’s skilled hands to do this, just as easily as through the prayers of a saint.

Don’t forget that Jesus did not scorn to call Himself the Good Physician. He honors doctors and surgeons.

 

[h2oplyer7]

I am not disagreeing with that. Again, I believe you are oversimplifying pain by assuming that all pain is suffering. This is not true. I suffer pain when I put my hand too close to a fire. The pain is there as a warning to me. I suffer pain if I stub my toe. Doing these things does not mean that one suffers. In fact, some pain feels good. I love the feeling of swimming 3000 meters or going on a long jog. I am sore after, sure, but I love the feeling.

I believe you are not fully understanding what suffering really is. Pain is not suffering. You risk taking the Fundamentalist’s point of view with that idea of suffering. Was there physical death of living organisms before the fall? I would say there is, especially since evolution depends on both mutation and death.

I understand what you are saying, but when you throw out blanket statements like that without realizing the physical limitations, or even metaphysical limitations of what you are saying you run the risk of reducing the faith to ridiculousness, as Christian Fundamentalists do.

Just saying. I am pretty sure there is no official teaching on what we are discussing, however. It is just something for you to think about.

Also, I should make it perfectly clear that I do not believe Adam and Eve suffered before the Fall. For I agree with everything you said above. They were given gifts before the fall, but what we are talking about, and what you suggested is not covered by those gifts.

Sorry for bad grammar. I am writing on a phone.

 

[LumenGent]

If you don’t disagree, what are you arguing about

It’s simple. There was no pain or suffering before the fall for human beings. Again, the gifts made them immune to physical pain. Period.

 

[laircy]

If you don’t disagree, what are you arguing about

It’s simple. There was no pain or suffering before the fall for human beings. Again, the gifts made them immune to physical pain. Period.

Pain isn’t necessarily a bad thing (suffering); imagine someone’s hand caught on fire, and they didn’t know it because they were immune to pain. Then they would have a burnt up, damaged hand, and would suffer forever from it. In that case, suffering can exist without pain! To say there was no suffering OR pain is to open a new door to many rather absurd exceptions (wood could burn for fire and warmth, but human flesh could not burn; gravity could pull things down but not let people fall down; etc.)
Which leads me to believe the idea that Genesis was not literal. I’m not saying Adam and Eve didn’t exist or original sin doesn’t exist; perhaps something similar happened in history, but not exactly how it was written. The word “myth” does not mean false. There are many types of truth, all which come from God. I believe in the religious truth of Genesis (God made all things and they were good… but sin entered the world at some point). Religious truth, however, does not mean it’s historical truth, or scientific truth.

 

[Mintaka]

Whether or not there was pain before the Fall (and yes, speculations differ among orthodox theologians on this point), the point is that however it might have been, it wasn’t like it is now.

And even now, there are some women who have natural childbirth without really any pain or disability. Not many women, and it may be a case of a small baby and a high pain threshold; but it shows that it was physically possible for childbirth not to have been meant originally to have been particularly painful or dangerous.

Re: myth, I see no particular reason for modern people to drag in myth when we have all sorts of multiple universe and pocket dimension theories to play with. Probably it pretty much did all happen like that. There may have been more to it than that, but it was probably stuff difficult to understand by sin-haunted humans living in a sin-haunted world. But I don’t need to know a play-by-play; the story seems pretty clear.

 

[LumenGent]

The question isn’t whether pain is a good or bad thing. It is more to do with whether or not our first parents suffered any form of pain prior to their fall. We know that impassability confers freedom from pain and suffering. God chose to endow our first parents with this gift and subsequently took it away on the account of sin. Our only way around this, is to accept that Adam and Eve did not have impassibility, but why would God punish man through suffering had he not protected him from it originally?

According to the principle established above, had Adam or Eve placed their hands in fire, they wouldn’t have burnt, since burning is a natural function, but they were endowned with a PRETERNATURAL gift which protects against it.

Anyway, this is all that I will add to the topic. For the sake of expediency, I’ll leave it at that.

 

[PeterK]

My take on the pain/no pain dilemma is that, yes, there was pain but it was negated by the perfect understanding possessed before the fall. Due to their prevailing relationship with God they knew how every little thing fit into Gods plan for them. The mystery of pain and suffering was not a mystery for them they understood it’s contribution to Gods will for all creation and were happy to endure it.
After the fall this understanding vanished and pain and suffering took on a different negative meaning. This why the birth pangs were multiplied, they were always there but now the negative force of pain comes to the fore. The same can be said for the man’s fate. It’s not so much that thorns did not exist before the fall as much as now the pain inflicted by them would be senseless and burdensome.
That pain and suffering would seem a gift in the service of Yahweh testifies to the power of that relationship - which was ultimately shunned.