Updated on Uncategorized

The Sin of Onana – redux!

8 Comments on The Sin of Onana – redux!
Spread the love
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

“My thoughts on Laine’s Letter and the bible brought my old friend Onan into the spotlight again! I am thrilled and honored that Mr. John Kippley (yes, THAT John Kippley) left a comment in support of my exegesis and brought this article to my attention.


THE SIN OF ONAN: IS IT RELEVANT TO CONTRACEPTION:

In summary, the Onan account is an important part of the Christian Tradition against contraceptive behaviors. Claims that Onan was slain by God simply for his violation of the law of the Levirate are not sustained by the text itself and are further disproved by the text of Deuteronomy 25: 5-10. The anti-contraception interpretation of the text was reflected by St. Augustine and confirmed by Pius XI in Casti Connubii. Its absence in the documents of John Paul II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply reflects the efforts of those documents to transmit Catholic teaching about love and marriage in a positive way.

‘”

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

(Visited 25 times, 1 visits today)

Recommended Articles

8 Comments

  1. You made my point for me. Deuteronomy states what is expected of a brother-in-law. Onan married his sister-in-law, but failed to perform the second part of his duty, which was to provide her with a son to carry on her husband’s line. The sin was disobedience done through the use of the WD method. I think a case can be made through Catholic doctrine and ethics against WD, but not with Onan as a proof text.

    This idea that Onan’s sin begins and ends with his use of WD as birth control misses the deeper point of how we are to love, honor, and care for one another as God intended. I refuse to be robbed of the deeper meaning in an effort to further an agenda which does not need Onan to make it’s case.

    Reply

  2. Ann did you even read the link? let alone the part I highlighted?

    Claims that Onan was slain by God simply for his violation of the law of the Levirate are not sustained by the text itself and are further disproved by the text of Deuteronomy 25: 5-10.

    John Kippley’s article spells it out in great detail. You should take the time to read it. For that matter all of the other links I provided with other bible scholars on the issue are also well worth the read.

    The modern interpretation of this passage is post “spirit of vatican II” crapola as far as I’m concerned. It doesn’t stand up under scrutiny and it makes no sense in the context of the passage, let alone the rest of the biblical examples of the broken Leverite law.

    If you have an issue with the article you can take it up with John Kippley himself. He left a link to his blog. That would be an interesting discussion.

    Reply

  3. While your at it Anne, you can take your gripe to Pope Pius and St. Augustine as well.

    55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

    Casti Connubii 55Connubii 55

    Reply

  4. Elena, I did read the link, but think that you’re failing to miss my point. It wasn’t just that he wasn’t following the law, it was that by not following the law he was humiliating his sister-in-law, refusing her the child who would receive an inheritance and provide for her in her old age. The sin of Onan goes deeper than spilling his seed, or just not following the law. His act was deeply hurtful. But the spilling of the seed was the means he used to sin, and only a part of the sin itself.

    Reading another interpretation of Onan’s sin is interesting, but does not automatically mean that I will change my mind. And I do believe that disagreement is allowed on such matters within the church.

    I think a very good case against birth control can be made, and I even think that Onan is a good example of how birth control can be used as a way to hurt one another. But I still say that to only see the birth control issue is to limit the text, when the sin that Onan committed was so much deeper than just WD birth control.

    Somehow, I think St. Augustine and the Pope probably knew that also.

    Reply

  5. BTW, your quote doesn’t disagree with what I’ve stated. The Lord did kill Onan for preventing his sister-in-law from conceiving. The question you seem to be failing to ask yourself is why? I maintain that it is because of the reasons I mentioned previously. That is where the sin is. Just my opinion, of course.

    Reply

  6. Elena, I did read the link, but think that you’re failing to miss my point. It wasn’t just that he wasn’t following the law, it was that by not following the law he was humiliating his sister-in-law, refusing her the child who would receive an inheritance and provide for her in her old age. The sin of Onan goes deeper than spilling his seed, or just not following the law. His act was deeply hurtful.

    I get it Anne. The point you don’t seem to understand is that the penalty for not following the Leverite law was to have your sandal pulled off and being spit at. If Onan had lived, Tamar would have had the opportunity to accuse him, and then humiliate him in this very public way. There are other examples of men who have broken the Leverite law. They were not killed. They did not die. THAT is what makes Onan so significant.

    But the spilling of the seed was the means he used to sin, and only a part of the sin itself.

    Only part, but the main part. Again Anne, you’re entitled to your opinion. But it differs from some of the great thinkers in the church including St. Augustine. Yours is a contemporary interpretation.

    Reading another interpretation of Onan’s sin is interesting, but does not automatically mean that I will change my mind.

    Whether or not YOU change your mind is frankly irrelevant. Changing Anne Basso’s mind isn’t even the point of the post! Rather

    1. Which interpretation is more accurate? (the traditional one) and
    2. Can the traditional interpretation be critically defended. (Yes!)

    That was the point.

    And I do believe that disagreement is allowed on such matters within the church.

    LOL!!! You think every item you disagree with is “allowed ” by the church.

    The church has long interpreted that the sin of Onan was contraception. That is simply a fact.

    I think a very good case against birth control can be made, and I even think that Onan is a good example of how birth control can be used as a way to hurt one another. But I still say that to only see the birth control issue is to limit the text, when the sin that Onan committed was so much deeper than just WD birth control.

    Somehow, I think St. Augustine and the Pope probably knew that also.

    Anne, I’m not even arguing that there weren’t other issues at play here. That’s the strawman you seem to want to play with. I’m simply stating that contraception is a serious sin, and the church can back that with scripture. Onan is one of the scriptures. The one part of the sin that Augustine and Pious pointed to was the sin of contraception.

    Reply

  7. I get it Anne. The point you don’t seem to understand is that the penalty for not following the Leverite law was to have your sandal pulled off and being spit at. If Onan had lived, Tamar would have had the opportunity to accuse him, and then humiliate him in this very public way. There are other examples of men who have broken the Leverite law. They were not killed. They did not die. THAT is what makes Onan so significant.

    But, Elena, he had already married his sister-in-law, thus fulfilling what she could accuse him for. There was nothing in the law that said that she could go to them and say that he was using WD. Perhaps that’s why the Lord took such drastic action.

    Whether or not YOU change your mind is frankly irrelevant. Changing Anne Basso’s mind isn’t even the point of the post!

    *sigh* I never said it was, Elena. I was responding to your question about whether or not I’d read the link. Yes, I did, but it didn’t change my mind that there is a broader sin being commited by Onan through WD rather than the sin being only his WD.

    LOL!!! You think every item you disagree with is “allowed ” by the church.

    How would you know? But, yes, I think it’s pretty clear that people are allowed to disagree on things within the church. What would the Church be if we were all just mindless automatons being spoon fed theology? My ability to question, reason, and discuss was not washed away with the waters of baptism, and I firmly believe that such discussion, thought, and questioning ultimately serves to deepen our understanding and our faith. Again, just my opinion.

    Anne, I’m not even arguing that there weren’t other issues at play here. That’s the strawman you seem to want to play with. I’m simply stating that contraception is a serious sin, and the church can back that with scripture. Onan is one of the scriptures. The one part of the sin that Augustine and Pious pointed to was the sin of contraception.

    And that’s great. I’ll go along with the idea that the use of contraception by Onan was a grievous sin. But because of the deeper issues. I think it plays into the birth control issue, but is not, in and of itself, a proof text against artificial birth control, nor do we as Catholics need it to be.

    And, for the record, I’m still an NFP using Catholic expecting another baby in January. I certainly haven’t been limiting my family size. I simply object to the overly narrow use of the text. Especially since it is this view that leads people into using it as an argument against Natural Family Planning which is endorsed by the RCC.

    Reply

  8. nor do we as Catholics need it to be.

    which no doubt is why Pope Pius thought it necessary to put it into his encyclical.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *