Man, Woman, and the Fall from Grace
By Deborah Savage, Ph.D.
Our topic here is the nature of man and woman, both in and of themselves and in relation to one another, both before and after the Fall. In two previous WWNN posts (The Genius of Woman and The Genius of Man), I provided a sketch of a fairly comprehensive theory concerning their identities, geniuses, and missions; my proposal is derived from Genesis 1-2 and represents an effort to build on Pope St. John Paul II’s work in the Theology of the Body.1 I do not plan to lay out that theory again here in full. But it is an attempt to fill what I perceive to be a noticeable lacuna in the Catholic intellectual tradition: what we need now is a robust account of the nature of man and woman, one grounded in science, philosophy, and Scripture. Such an account is an essential component in our efforts to bring an end to the utter confusion on the subject so pervasive in contemporary culture.
In this third and final essay in the series, we will take a further essential step, one that went unacknowledged in the first two essays. There the context for my analysis was man and woman in the state of Original Innocence, that is, before the Fall. In this essay, the context is man and woman after their fall from grace.2
As I hope I demonstrated in my earlier essays, man and woman, while unquestionably equally human and therefore equally endowed with intellect, will, and freedom, each possesses a kind of “genius,” a particular orientation to the world unique to them. I showed that the origin of this quality is illuminated by the order of creation as it unfolds in Genesis 1 and 2. But as we know, that is not the end of the story. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there also seems to be a lacuna in our understanding of the events in the Garden. And, as I will show here, it has prevented us from grasping the diagnostic power hidden in those passages.
Now, Catholic teaching on Original Sin has a long and enduring legacy, one grounded in both Scripture and Tradition, articulated and affirmed by the Church’s magisterium since St. Augustine’s dispute with the Pelagians.3 We know well the rupture it caused in man’s friendship with God. We know they both lost the gift of supernatural grace and the preternatural gifts it sustained.4 Our purpose here is not to provide a systematic analysis of the Church’s established teaching; that has been done quite well elsewhere.5 We are interested in something more personal. We need to account for the significance of something clearly indicated by the text of Genesis 3:16–19: that man and woman suffer distinct consequences as a result of their disobedience.
We are all familiar with the narrative. Woman will now be dominated by the man. She will endure greater pain in childbirth; nonetheless her yearning will be for her husband who will, in spite of her desire, lord it over her (Genesis 3:16). As for man, instead of occupying the place of secure and confident steward of God’s creation, he will now struggle with it; those things he named as his own in Genesis 2 will now only yield their fruits with suffering and toil (Genesis 3:17–19).
We need to ask what significance these passages have for our account of the fall of man and woman. That is, did the sacred author intend to indicate that Original Sin had an impact on their personal subjectivity? If so, what does that mean for man and woman in the world? And what bearing does it have on their redemption and sanctification?
Now, complicating our task here is the fact that if we are to understand the precise nature of the damage to man and woman in their fall from grace, we must also consider who they were in the moments before the fatal choice was made. This will require a return to Genesis 1 and 2 to grasp what they reveal about the creation of the human person, not as an abstraction, but as a rational soul embodied as male and female. The story of the Fall cannot be rightly interpreted without a reconsideration of the meaning to be discerned in the creation accounts that precede it. My earlier posts on this provide a broader picture: we will have to limit ourselves here to a summary of what I argue constitutes their particular “genius.”
Once we have that safely in mind, we will be ready to consider the deeper meaning of Genesis 3, to turn our attention to a sketch of a more complete diagnosis of our situation in the world, one that I hope illuminates the “logic of sin” at work in of the fall of Adam.6
I will argue that only by going more deeply into the significance of the distinct roles that man and woman played in the original act of human disobedience—and the equally distinct consequences it had on their own personal subjectivity, laid out so clearly in Genesis 3:16–19—will we be able to illuminate the impact of the Fall on the men and women of our time. And the possibility that the “uni-duality” that characterizes their relationship is precisely what prepares them to assume the mission given to them in the Garden.
Revisiting Genesis 1-2
First, a brief summary of what we can discover about man and woman in the state of original innocence, laid out in Genesis 1–2. I will only trace the elements essential to the interpretation of Genesis 3:16–19 that follows.
We turn to man first as he is first in the order of creation. My argument begins with Genesis 2:15, and the evidence the text recounts—that man is in the Garden alone with God for some period before the appearance of woman. But aside from this special relationship with the Creator, it can be said that man’s first contact with reality is of a horizon that otherwise contains only lower creatures, what we might call “things” (res); this is what leads God to conclude that the man is incomplete and alone, and ultimately leads to the building of woman.
Now man’s orientation toward things is clearly a part of God’s design. In fact, it may provide a point of departure in Scripture for the well-documented evidence that men seem more naturally oriented toward things than toward persons. Man is tasked with naming all the things God brings him (including woman); it is in naming them that he takes dominion over them.7 It can thus be said that man knows things in ways that woman simply does not. And it is here that we come to the core of what I propose is man’s genius: he learns that he excels at discovering what things are, how they are to be distinguished from one another, and what they are for. This is his gift.
I would argue that it is man’s capacity to name things, to determine what can be predicated of something and what cannot—and an ability to arrive at a systematic way of judging the matter—that constitutes the primordial gift that men bring to the tasks of human living.8 It is man who, at Genesis 2:15 and well before the Fall puts him at odds with creation, is put in the garden to “till it and to keep it.” Man is actually the only one who gets a specific job. This is his work, his mission. And it is not until woman appears that he grasps his purpose, the telos toward which his efforts are ordered. He is to exercise his strength, his work, his genius in service to her.
It is manifestly true that man creates outside of himself, he is oriented toward the external, he acts on the world. Indeed, he is made to build things. And his genius originates in his capacity to know and to use the goods of the earth in the service of authentic human flourishing. The masculine inclination toward things and their uses is an aspect of the charism of men and, in many ways, it accounts for the building up of human civilization, has led throughout history to human flourishing, and has made and still makes possible the preservation of families and of culture.
Now, in contrast to man and of special significance is the quite legitimate claim that, since woman comes into existence after man, her first contact with reality is of a horizon that, from the beginning, includes man, that is, it includes persons. One can imagine woman, a person also endowed with reason and free will, who, upon seeing man, would recognize another like her, an equal, while the other creatures and things around her appear only on the periphery of her gaze. This exegetical insight seems to provide a starting place in Scripture for the equally well documented phenomenon that women seem more naturally oriented toward persons.9
Woman’s place in the order of creation reveals that—from the beginning—the horizon of all womankind includes persons, includes the other. This may explain why girls and women seem to know—from the beginning—that they are meant for relationship—while it takes men a bit longer to look up and realize they are lonely for something they only just realized was missing—and to look for the one who can complete them.
The genius of woman is found here. While man’s first experience of his own existence is of loneliness, woman’s horizon is different, right from the start. From the first moment of her own reality, woman sees herself in relation to the other. And this capacity—to include the other—is not a lesser quality. Woman is fundamentally oriented toward the inner life and her most essential creative act takes place on the inside. Her genius is to keep constantly before us the fact that the existence of living persons, whether in the womb or walking around outside of it, cannot be forgotten while we frantically engage in the tasks of human living. She knows that the standard of excellence is not efficiency—but the well-being of persons. Woman is responsible for reminding us all that all human activity is to be ordered toward authentic human flourishing. This is her mission.
There is so much more to be said. I will offer just one more essential insight: It is clear from the original language that the Sacred Author of Genesis 2 means for us to understand that man is the first creature to appear. But this does not mean what is commonly assumed. The Hebraic account of the soul calls for us to understand that woman emerges out of the preexisting unity contained within man. She is not created second and therefore subservient. She is created last and on the way up. Woman, like the icon of womanhood, the Blessed Virgin Mary, is meant to serve as a vessel of the Divine Presence and carry it into the world. She is ezer, Divine Aid, sent to man to help him to live.
And so it is true that without man, woman would have no place. But without woman, man has no future. She is an eschatological sign of the joy that lies ahead. For it is only with the appearance of woman that human community is formed and enters into human history.
It is manifestly obvious that man and woman are equally human; they are both embodiments of the same rational soul, equally endowed with intellect, will, and freedom. But they are also distinct from one another. It is this very distinction that allows them to form the primary community of human society: the family. And it is this very distinction that, as John Paul II tells us, gives them their mission: to create, not only human families, but human history itself.
Thus is the tragedy of the Fall illuminated, its implications for life “on-the-ground” made more concrete. For as we will see, it is these very gifts that were turned upside-down in the Fall. And so we are ready to turn toward a more complete interpretation of Genesis 3:16–19, one that has deeply personal meaning for us all.
Revisiting Genesis 3
The account of the Fall at Genesis 3:16–19 makes clear that their sin results in very different consequences for man and woman. Those passages reveal that the results of the Fall are very real for both man and woman—they will affect them personally. Indeed, the specific consequences visited on each of them seems to support the hypothesis we are pursuing. The gifts, the genius they both possessed before the Fall, are now turned upside down.
Since it was her act that brought them disgrace, God turns to woman first at Genesis 3:16 and says: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Woman’s sin thus leads to a distortion of her own natural gifts. Her capacity to bear and nurture life will now be a source of physical anguish and suffering. Her capacity for relationship and her natural orientation toward persons will now be a source of confusion and torment. She is told that her desire will be for her husband, even in light of his tendency to dominate her. Woman’s desire will be for man, even when she knows he is using her, even when she understands that the result of their union could be the pain of childbirth. Even when she recognizes that man may elect to abandon her to raise the child alone.
Our contemporary context certainly reflects these factors. The ever-deepening confusion between men and women over the last fifty years is well documented.10 Certainly it can be said that women manifest a disordered inclination in those relationships. It is often the case for many women that their desire is for “the other” even when he treats her as an object, even when he dominates and uses her. The evidence is all around us; it takes shape in the widespread phenomenon of the unwed mother (though we now call them “single” mothers). It shows up in the form of meaningless sexual encounters, domestic abuse, prostitution, and sex trafficking.11 Instead of expressing the natural authority that belongs to woman as a birthright, she becomes anxious in her pursuit of relationships and love, clingy, needy, and fearful of abandonment.12
God turns to man next. And at Genesis 3:17–19, the man is told that, because he listened to his wife, “…cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.” The nature of man’s sin must be made clear; it is not precisely that he ate of the forbidden fruit. It was “because he listened to his wife.”
From this we are not to conclude that men err when they listen to their wives!13 Its subtext must be understood. God is saying to the man that, because you listened to your wife—and not to me—you have lost your place in the order I established. It is a clear indication of Augustine’s dictate that all authority comes from God. Man may seek to fulfill his role as the head of the family. He loses that place when he forgets that his first act must always be an act of obedience to that which is above him.
But it is clear that the man’s sin will now result in the need for struggle if he is to realize the specific feature that characterized him in his original innocence. His natural relationship to the things of creation will now be fraught with difficulty, forever after burdened by confusion and back-breaking work. That he is told, specifically, that as a result of his sin he will have to struggle with creation, only confirms the uniqueness of man’s relationship to creation itself. Original sin can be said to affect man in particular in his tendency to forget that all is gift, that his first obligation is toward his Creator. Instead of serving him, his capacity for analysis will now be used to serve only himself. Most devastating for human relationships, he will forget what he knew in the first instance of his encounter with the woman: that she is not an object. This forgetfulness leads to a disordered relationship to things—for now everything and everyone is an object, something to be dominated and used as he sees fit. This manifests for some men in a quest for power over people and nations—and their possessions—frequently leading to actual war, or to hostile corporate take overs, or to plain everyday Machiavellian manipulation in the workplace. It has led men in particular to forget that the created order is itself a gift, given to him to “till and to keep”; instead they seek to exploit it and the result has been environmental degradation. It leads to a compulsion for work and acquisition that leads them to forget themselves and the real purpose for which they were created—to serve, to protect, to defend—the good.
We must make an end. Here, again in these brief sketches, we can grasp the significance of this account for our understanding of man and woman and the path ahead for both. Scripture reveals that the very things that had been the natural charisms of man and woman are now the source of suffering and struggle. These gifts represent, at one and the same time, both our greatest weaknesses and our path to redemption. Christ’s saving act is meant to restore man and woman to the state of original innocence—a state in which they understood each other—and themselves—as a Gift, given for the future of mankind.
Deborah Savage is Professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville. She is a recognized scholar of the work of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and has written extensively on several aspects of his thought including his account of the person, his understanding of human work, and his writings on women. For most of the last decade, her primary area of research has been the pursuit of a robust, adequately grounded account of the nature of man and woman, their respective identities, their mission, and their genius—as they find expression in the family, the Church, and the world. The most recent iteration of her theory on man and woman can be found in The Complementarity of Women and Men, edited by Paul Vitz (CUA Press, 2021). Dr. Savage is currently at work on a book entitled Woman and Man.
For the full account, see Deborah Savage, “Woman and Man: Nature, Identity, Mission,” The Complementarity of Women and Men, ed. Dr. Paul Vitz (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2021), 89–131.
For a fuller account of this topic, see Deborah Savage, “Redeeming Masculinity: Original Sin and the Fall of Adam,” Healing Masculinity, Institute for Priestly Formation, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, October 2021. And also: “Redeeming Woman: A Response to the ‘Second Sex’ Issue from within the Catholic Exegetical Tradition,” Religions, Special Issue: “Feminism from the Perspective of Catholic Theology,” Ed., Dr. Tracey Rowlands, August, 2020.
See “Original Sin,” Catholic Encyclopedia.
See St. Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscence, II, xxvi, 43. (On Marriage and Concupiscence).
See especially Joseph F. Sagues, S.J., On God the Creator and Sanctifier, On Sins, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IIB (Madrid, Spain: Biblioteca de Autores Christianos), translated and published by Keep the Faith, Inc., 2014.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “The logic of sin needs to be broken and a way forward needs to be found that is capable of banishing it from the hearts of sinful humanity.” Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church: On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World, 8, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 13, 2004.
Though it is from an entirely different tradition, I find it so interesting to consider that one of Lao-Tze’s more famous aphorisms is: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”
Professor Anthony Esolen, in an interview with Zenit, admits he doesn’t exactly have a theory, but his thinking is very helpful. He adds: “Without this literal ‘discernment,’ I mean the clear separation of what may be predicated of a thing and what may not, with systematic means for judging the matter, there can be nothing so intricate as law, the government of a city, higher learning, a church — not to mention philosophy and theology.”
See Steven E. Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2004), 23–24.
See especially Mary Eberstadt, Adam and Eve after the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012).
For an extensive and well cited summary of the statistics on domestic violence and its frequency and impact on women, see “Statistics: Domestic Violence”; According to the United Nations “Global Report on Trafficking in Persons,” women and girls make up 70% of all victims of trafficking world-wide; And according to most recently available census figures (2013) 36% of those living below the poverty level in American are women. 31% of households headed by single women were living below the poverty line. This is more than five times the poverty rate for families headed by a married couple (5.8%). It also contrasts with the 15.9% of male headed households living in poverty during the same period. See: Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013 p. 16. For evidence that fatherlessness is a predictor of poverty, see Sara McLanahan “Family Structure and the Reproduction of Poverty,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol 90, No. 4 (Jan., 1985), pp. 873-901. For more recent data supporting this claim, see “The Consequences of Fatherlessness.”
See Carol Garhart Mooney, Theories of Attachment: An Introduction to Bowlby, Ainsworth, Gerber, Brazelton, Kennell, and Klause (St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press, 2010). An analysis of the particular personality disorders described by the DSM-5 and found more frequently in women include “instability in interpersonal relationships, seriously unstable affects, fear of abandonment” and others. For a more complete account, please see Dr. Paul Vitz “Men-Women Complementarity,” p.182-215.
One wonders if this has anything to do with the frequent report that, in general, men seem reluctant to listen to women, their wives in particular. It is funny, but sadly true. And it can be said to be the reason why women, we must admit, do tend to become rather shrill at times. Perhaps if men listened better, women would not feel they needed to raise their voices in order to be heard.