1. The analysis we made during the
preceding reflection was centered on the words which God-Yahweh
addressed to the first woman after original sin: "Your desire
shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gn
3:16). We concluded that these words contain an adequate
clarification and a deep interpretation of original shame (cf.
Gn 3:7), which became part of man and of woman together with
lust. The explanation of this shame is not to be sought in the
body itself, in the somatic sexuality of both. It goes back to
the deeper changes undergone by the human spirit. This spirit is
especially aware of how insatiable it is with regard to the
mutual unity between man and woman.
This awareness blames the body, so to
speak, and deprives it of the simplicity and purity of the
meaning connected with the original innocence of the human
being. In relation to this awareness, shame is a secondary
experience. If it reveals the moment of lust, at the same time
it can protect from the consequences of the three forms of lust.
It can even be said that man and woman, through shame, almost
remain in the state of original innocence. They continually
become aware of the nuptial meaning of the body and aim at
preserving it from lust. Similarly, they try to maintain the
value of communion, that is, of the union of persons in the
unity of the body.
Better understanding
2. Genesis 2:24 speaks with
discretion but also with clarity of the union of bodies in the
sense of the authentic union of persons: "A man...cleaves to his
wife, and they become one flesh." From the context it is seen
that this union comes from a choice, since the man leaves his
father and mother to unite with his wife. Such a union of
persons entails that they should become one flesh. Starting from
this "sacramental" expression, which corresponds to the
communion of persons—of the man and the woman—in their original
call to conjugal union, we can understand better the specific
message of Genesis 3:16: that is, we can establish and, as it
were, reconstruct what the imbalance, in fact the peculiar
distortion of the original interpersonal relationship of
communion, to which the "sacramental" words of Genesis 2:24
refer, consists of.
Impulse to dominate
3. It can therefore be
said—studying Genesis 3:16—that while on the one hand the
"body," constituted in the unity of the personal subject, does
not cease to stimulate the desires of personal union, precisely
because of masculinity and femininity ("your desire shall be for
your husband"), on the other hand and at the same time, lust
directs these desires in its own way. That is confirmed by the
expression, "he shall rule over you".
The lust of the flesh directs these
desires, however, to satisfaction of the body, often at the cost
of a real and full communion of persons. In this sense,
attention should be paid to the way in which semantic
accentuations are distributed in the verses of Genesis 3.
Although there are few of them, they reveal interior
consistency. The man seems to feel ashamed of his own body with
particular intensity: "I was afraid, because I was naked, and I
hid myself" (Gn 3:10). These words emphasize the metaphysical
character of shame. At the same time, for the man, shame united
with lust will become an impulse to "dominate" the woman. ("he
shall rule over you."
Subsequently, the experience of this
domination is manifested more directly in the woman as the
insatiable desire for a different union. From the moment when
the man "dominates" her, the communion of persons—made of the
full spiritual union of the two subjects giving themselves to
each other—is followed by a different mutual relationship. This
is the relationship of possession of the other as the object of
one's own desire. If this impulse prevails on the part of the
man, the instincts that the woman directs to him, according to
the expression of Genesis 3:16, can—and do—assume a similar
character. Sometimes, perhaps, they precede the man's "desire,"
or even aim at arousing it and giving it impetus.
And interior dimension
4. The text of Genesis 3:16 seems to
indicate the man especially as the one who "desires." This is
similar to the text of Matthew 5:27-28, the starting point of
these meditations. Nevertheless, both the man and the woman have
become a human being subject to lust. Therefore the lot of both
is shame. With its deep resonance, it touches the innermost
recesses both of the male and of the female personality, even
though in a different way. What we learn from Genesis 3 enables
us barely to outline this duality, but even the mere references
are very significant. Since it is a question of such an archaic
text, it is surprisingly eloquent and acute.
Similar experiences
5. An adequate analysis of Genesis 3 leads
to the conclusion that the three forms of lust, including that
of the body, bring with them a limitation of the nuptial meaning
of the body itself, in which man and woman participated in the
state of original innocence. When we speak of the meaning of the
body, we refer first to the full awareness of the human being.
But we also include all actual experience of the body in its
masculinity and femininity, and, in any case, the constant
predisposition to this experience.
The meaning of the body is not just
something conceptual. We have already drawn attention to this
sufficiently in the preceding analyses. The meaning of the body
is at the same time what determines the attitude—it is the way
of living the body. It is a measure which the interior man, that
is, that heart which Christ referred to in the Sermon on the
Mount, applies to the human body with regard to his
masculinity/femininity (therefore with regard to his sexuality).
That meaning does not change the reality
in itself, what the human body is and does not cease to be in
the sexuality that is characteristic of it, independently of the
states of our conscience and our experiences. However, this
purely objective significance of the body and of sex, outside
the system of real and concrete interpersonal relations between
man and woman, is, in a certain sense, "ahistorical." In the
present analysis, on the contrary—in conformity with the
biblical sources—we always take man's historicity into account
(also because we start from his theological prehistory).
Obviously it is a question here of an interior dimension, which
eludes the external criteria of historicity, but which, however,
can be considered historical. It is precisely at the basis of
all the facts which constitute the history of man—also the
history of sin and of salvation—and thus reveal the depth and
very root of his historicity.
Linked with Sermon on the
Mount
6. When, in this vast context, we speak of
lust as a limitation, infraction or even distortion of the
nuptial meaning of the body, we are referring above all to the
preceding analyses regarding the state of original innocence,
that is, the theological prehistory of man. At the same time, we
have in mind the measure that historical man, with his "heart,"
applies to his own body in relation to male/female sexuality.
This measure is not something exclusively conceptual. It
determines the attitudes and decides in general the way of
living the body.
Certainly, Christ refers to that in his
Sermon on the Mount. We are trying here to link the words taken
from Matthew 5:27-28 to the threshold of man's theological
history, considering them in the context of Genesis 3. Lust as a
limitation, infraction or even distortion of the nuptial meaning
of the body can be ascertained in an especially clear way in our
first progenitors, Adam and Eve (despite the concise nature of
the biblical narrative). Thanks to them we have been able to
find the nuptial meaning of the body and rediscover what it
consists of as a measure of the human heart, such as to mold the
original form of the communion of persons. In their personal
experience (which the biblical text enables us to follow) that
original form has undergone imbalance and distortion—as we have
sought to prove through the analysis of shame—also the nuptial
meaning of the body, which in the situation of original
innocence constituted the measure of the heart of both the man
and the woman, must have undergone a distortion. If we succeed
in reconstructing what this distortion consists of, we shall
also have the answer to our question. That is, what does lust of
the flesh consist of, and what constitutes its theological and
at the same time anthropological specific character? It seems
that an answer theologically and anthropologically
adequate—important as regards the meaning of Christ's words in
the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Mt 5:27-28)—can already be obtained
from the context of Genesis 3 and from the whole Yahwist
narrative, which previously enabled us to clarify the nuptial
meaning of the human body.
Taken
from: L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 30 June
1980, page 1