Traditional Catholic response to Eve's sin and the resulting view of women

[candidcatholic]

In my medieval philosophy class today the topic of Eve’s sin and the traditional resulting view of women came up. My teacher presupposed, without citing specific examples, that the Fathers of the early and medieval Church tended to attribute the original sin to Eve. This resulted in their view of women as the weaker (and dare I say inferior) sex.

My instinctual Catholic response was to take issue with this being put forth as the view of traditional Christianity. Coming from the angle of a Catholic man with a deep love of women and a deep appreciation of the complementarity of the sexes (largely from my reading of John Paul’s Theology of the Body) it’s no surprise that I disagreed with her assessment. Certainly this is not the teaching of the Church today, and likely never has been to any formal degree. I began to argue from Genesis that woman was the final and crowning creation, to which my professor argued that she was still taken from man. I began of argue from the elevation of Mary, to which she argued that Mary was required to remain virginal to be pure and an exception from her very conception.

Anyway, I feel that I could have certainly presented an strong case for the equality of man and womans culpability in original sin (after all Adam was right there) and the equality of their created dignity. But this case largely comes from Scripture and from more modern theological developments such as JPII’s Theology of the body. The fact remains that I don’t know how the Father weighed in on the issue - both early (such as Augustine) and medieval (such as Aquinas). I’d like to believe that they didn’t consider women inferior to men or completely relieve Adam of any guilt of sin, but that doesn’t make it true.

Can anyone please provide references from the Father’s writings which either support or deny these claims?

 

[abucs]

hello Candidcatholic,

Not sure about Pope JP2’s writings but generally,

A few things. In the New Testament it was referred many times that man’s condition was because of ‘Adams sin’.
It talks about sin coming into the world by one man and being removed by one man. It talks of Christ as the new Adam.
There looks to be a strong theology at the time of Christ replacing Adam as far as sin is concerned.

It does in at least one place refer to Eve’s sin and it is thought that perhaps Paul was making a point at the time to a specific group of women reminding them of Eve’s part in the creation story.

Of course you can concentrate on one part but overall it seems a theme that original sin was at least as much (and probably much more) attributed to Adam, or at least mankind in general.

As far as Partriachal, the bible speaks of women preaching. Again it speaks of them remaining silent in church but this conflicts with a few paragraphs before with where it calls on them to preach which is why scholars suggest the ‘being silent’ and ‘Eve’s sin’ references from Paul (i think) refer probably to a telling off of a specific group of women that may have been causing problems at the time.

Back then as well it was shameful for men to be supported by women and women were not given equal weightings before the law with regards to being witnesses - especially in important things.

Yet when the Gospels are written they specifically sight that it was the women that financed Jesus and the disciples in Jesus’ ministries and the women were the first witnesses to the empty tomb, and the ressurrected Jesus and at the cross.

This makes the men (in Jewish eyes back then) mostly come over as weak and in no way superior and the claims of the ressurrection as not as strong if they came from women.

The reliability, independence and strength of the women portrayed in the gospels is at odds with what you would expect at the times and was at the heart of early Christianity. IMHO.

Contrast this to Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s denial, Thomas’ doubt, the High Priests condemnation, Herods dismissal and Pauls persecutions.

You cannot read the gospels and adhere to the new Christianity without missing the importance, fidelity, strength and the overall place of women in that Christianity.

Unless you want to of course …

Peace.

 

[candidcatholic]

Thanks to abucs for the response. However, as stated in the original post I’m more looking for the thoughts and writings of the Fathers of the Church. I already understand much of the Biblical defense of women’s equal dignity and Adam & Eve’s shared culpability, but what has been historically taught?

 

[HelenRose]

I have no idea how the debate on this would go in a class room. But, without any shadow of doubt we as Catholics can be thankful that the Church as honored a wonderful woman for 2000 years.

The teachings of the Church have given women more pride and strength than we can possibly know or understand.

 

[abucs]

OK, my apologies Candidcatholic.

At least today, I think it is always presented as humankinds sin. So much so that there hardly seems to be a reason to say ‘it was not Eve’s fault alone’. Which is i guess what you are after.

I guess it is up to the philosophy teacher to produce examples, since (s)he is making the claim. Perhaps there are examples.
I would be interested to hear them and how widespread they were.

Didn’t people like Augustine, who largely framed philosophy in the West, argue against the literal reading of Genesis anyway ?

It sounds like the philosophy teacher may be having a ‘free hit’ on Christianity. But if not, and he is correct then i would be interested in his examples.

Thanks for your post.

 

[LSK]

In my medieval philosophy class today the topic of Eve’s sin and the traditional resulting view of women came up. My teacher presupposed, without citing specific examples, that the Fathers of the early and medieval Church tended to attribute the original sin to Eve. This resulted in their view of women as the weaker (and dare I say inferior) sex.

My instinctual Catholic response was to take issue with this being put forth as the view of traditional Christianity. Coming from the angle of a Catholic man with a deep love of women and a deep appreciation of the complementarity of the sexes (largely from my reading of John Paul’s Theology of the Body) it’s no surprise that I disagreed with her assessment. Certainly this is not the teaching of the Church today, and likely never has been to any formal degree. I began to argue from Genesis that woman was the final and crowning creation, to which my professor argued that she was still taken from man. I began of argue from the elevation of Mary, to which she argued that Mary was required to remain virginal to be pure and an exception from her very conception.

Anyway, I feel that I could have certainly presented an strong case for the equality of man and womans culpability in original sin (after all Adam was right there) and the equality of their created dignity. But this case largely comes from Scripture and from more modern theological developments such as JPII’s Theology of the body. The fact remains that I don’t know how the Father weighed in on the issue - both early (such as Augustine) and medieval (such as Aquinas). I’d like to believe that they didn’t consider women inferior to men or completely relieve Adam of any guilt of sin, but that doesn’t make it true.

Can anyone please provide references from the Father’s writings which either support or deny these claims?

The first thing I would remember is to define what is meant by ‘equality’ - does it mean we are both the SAME or does it mean we are of equal importance to GOD, while different in our purpose, our emotions, our functions (so to speak).

For instance, the argument your professor made that she was ‘required’ to remain virginal presupposes Mary not having free will…Mary CHOSE to say ‘Yes’ to God. The question to ponder would be this: would Mary still be considered a valuable, lovable, creature of God if she had decided NOT to be the Mother of Jesus Christ.

I think it is a good argument that our understanding of the Fall has evolved and deepened over 2k years. HOWEVER, I can remember back in the 2nd grade being taught that if ADAM had refused to believe the lie, we’d still be in the Garden today…

so, if back in 1960, in a little suburban California town was taught that then…

 

[abucs]

Hi CandidCatholic.

Just reading Augustine’s ‘On The Literal Meaning of Genesis’ and your philosopher may have a point concerning at least Augustine when he wrote that essay.

Augustine talks of Eve’s sin and that she was made to be submissive and ruled over by her husband. He says that it was not by her nature but by her sin that she was made to be submissive.

By inference, it appears he was talking about original sin.

Not Augustine’s greatest paragraph from a Christian point of view but it appears your philosopher has at least some basis to make his point.

Regards.

 

[Solitude]

Anyway, I feel that I could have certainly presented an strong case for the equality of man and womans culpability in original sin (after all Adam was right there) and the equality of their created dignity. But this case largely comes from Scripture and from more modern theological developments such as JPII’s Theology of the body. The fact remains that I don’t know how the Father weighed in on the issue - both early (such as Augustine) and medieval (such as Aquinas). I’d like to believe that they didn’t consider women inferior to men or completely relieve Adam of any guilt of sin, but that doesn’t make it true.

Can anyone please provide references from the Father’s writings which either support or deny these claims?

I can’t cite you to patristic sources, but in traditional sermons, which presumably are based on patristic writings, I believe I’ve heard it explained something like this: God created Adam first and brought Eve to Adam. That means Adam was in charge from the beginning. When Eve took the fruit, it was Adam’s duty to protect her and intervene, therefore the fall was primarily Adam’s sin. This view does not deny the equal dignity of men and women but does see male headship (and the concomitant male duty to protect) as preceding the fall.

 

[kleary]

In my medieval philosophy class today the topic of Eve’s sin and the traditional resulting view of women came up. My teacher presupposed, without citing specific examples, that the Fathers of the early and medieval Church tended to attribute the original sin to Eve. This resulted in their view of women as the weaker (and dare I say inferior) sex.

My instinctual Catholic response was to take issue with this being put forth as the view of traditional Christianity. Coming from the angle of a Catholic man with a deep love of women and a deep appreciation of the complementarity of the sexes (largely from my reading of John Paul’s Theology of the Body) it’s no surprise that I disagreed with her assessment. Certainly this is not the teaching of the Church today, and likely never has been to any formal degree. I began to argue from Genesis that woman was the final and crowning creation, to which my professor argued that she was still taken from man. I began of argue from the elevation of Mary, to which she argued that Mary was required to remain virginal to be pure and an exception from her very conception.

Anyway, I feel that I could have certainly presented an strong case for the equality of man and womans culpability in original sin (after all Adam was right there) and the equality of their created dignity. But this case largely comes from Scripture and from more modern theological developments such as JPII’s Theology of the body. The fact remains that I don’t know how the Father weighed in on the issue - both early (such as Augustine) and medieval (such as Aquinas). I’d like to believe that they didn’t consider women inferior to men or completely relieve Adam of any guilt of sin, but that doesn’t make it true.

Can anyone please provide references from the Father’s writings which either support or deny these claims?

Not her taking the fruit and eating it first…but the FACT that she came from man - she was made out of Adam’s rib…to this day men have one less rib than women do.

In fact…I remember it told to me that Adam ate the fruit out of love for Eve- for he knew she would die because she ate it- he did the same in order to share the same fate-

Ken

 

[Solitude]

I remember it told to me that Adam ate the fruit out of love for Eve- for he knew she would die because she ate it- he did the same in order to share the same fate-

Ken

That’s a pretty strange kind of “love”. . . I recently heard a sermon that I thought helpful. To listen, go to www.audiosancto.org/ then scroll down to the sermon identified as: 2008-01-13 The-Holy-Family-compared-to -Adam-and-Eve.mp3