Onan's Story in Genesis and Catholic View

[MT1]

Dear Friends,

Why did God kill Onan (Genesis 38:3-10)? Was it because he was not complying with the Levirate marriage rules or, because of his actions, he was preventing conception? How does birth control relate to all of this? Thanks in advance.

 

[bmullins]

We know that the penalty for not giving an heir was public humiliation, not death.

Deut. 25:7–10

But if he will not take his brother’s wife, who by law belongeth to him, the woman shall go to the gate of the city, and call upon the ancients, and say: My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up his brother’s name in Israel: and will not take me to wife.
And they shall cause him to be sent for forthwith, and shall ask him. If he answer: I will not take her to wife:
The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother’s house:

By that we can see that it wasn’t as simple as just not giving an heir. If he had simply not been complying with the marriage rules, he would have been humiliated not killed. So then we have to look at the verse in Genesis.

Genesis 38:9-10

He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.

And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

The verse tells us specifically that he did a detestable thing. What was the thing he did? He spilled his seed on the ground. Now I think it’s a double sin here. First off he sinned against the wife, by treating her with contempt. In effect he used her for sex while she was under the assumption that she was getting a child in the name of her dead spouse. He treated her much like a whore. Secondly, God says the act itself of spilling seed on the ground was ‘detestable’.

This is why the early church fathers deemed it to be a warning about the seed. Up until the 1930s all of Christendom was in agreement that this verse specifically applied to both masturbation and birth control. Even the major ‘Reformers’ were in agreement.

 

[Roy5]

It’s sad when any religion relies upon such a bizarre story to set sexual standards,

One of the sins of Christianity is that too often it has promoted an unhealthy, joyless attitude toward sex. Between husbands and wives sexual relations should be a source of bonding, intimacy, spontaneity, and joy. When the couple have decided that they prefer not to have another child for a reason they find compelling, using artificial birth control is fine. Not really that different from following the approved calendar system, which also is essentially artificial. How sad it is that some Catholic couples have normal sexual relations in an atmosphere of considerable anxiety, hoping against hope not to get pregnant.
The Church should let married couples have authority over their own sex lives as long as they are faithful to one another. There is something strange about single men telling married men and women what to do and not do while in the marriage bed. Of course, most married Catholics already decide for themselves in such matters and ignore the teaching of the Church. This has opened the door to ignoring other teachings as well. Condemning all artificial birth control was a serious error of the Church. It closed its eyes to reality.

 

[bmullins]

It’s sad when any religion relies upon such a bizarre story to set sexual standards,

You consider the Sacred Scriptures a ‘bizarre story’?

 

[TimothyH]

It’s sad when any religion relies upon such a bizarre story to set sexual standards,

One of the sins of Christianity is that too often it has promoted an unhealthy, joyless attitude toward sex. Between husbands and wives sexual relations should be a source of bonding, intimacy, spontaneity, and joy. When the couple have decided that they prefer not to have another child for a reason they find compelling, using artificial birth control is fine. Not really that different from following the approved calendar system, which also is essentially artificial. How sad it is that some Catholic couples have normal sexual relations in an atmosphere of considerable anxiety, hoping against hope not to get pregnant.

The Church should let married couples have authority over their own sex lives as long as they are faithful to one another. There is something strange about single men telling married men and women what to do and not do while in the marriage bed. Of course, most married Catholics already decide for themselves in such matters and ignore the teaching of the Church. This has opened the door to ignoring other teachings as well. Condemning all artificial birth control was a serious error of the Church. It closed its eyes to reality.

The Bible is the revealed word of God. It is hardly a bizarre story.

Does it matter that every single Protestant Church taught that contraception was a sin prior to 1930? Married Methodist ministers and married priests of the Anglican and Episcopal Church all taught that artificial contraception is a sin prior to 1930.

Were those Churches in error prior to 1930? What does that say about those Churches if they teach error?

-Tim-

 

[Newsy]

It’s sad when any religion relies upon such a bizarre story to set sexual standards,

One of the sins of Christianity is that too often it has promoted an unhealthy, joyless attitude toward sex. Between husbands and wives sexual relations should be a source of bonding, intimacy, spontaneity, and joy. When the couple have decided that they prefer not to have another child for a reason they find compelling, using artificial birth control is fine. Not really that different from following the approved calendar system, which also is essentially artificial. How sad it is that some Catholic couples have normal sexual relations in an atmosphere of considerable anxiety, hoping against hope not to get pregnant.

The Church should let married couples have authority over their own sex lives as long as they are faithful to one another. There is something strange about single men telling married men and women what to do and not do while in the marriage bed. Of course, most married Catholics already decide for themselves in such matters and ignore the teaching of the Church. This has opened the door to ignoring other teachings as well. Condemning all artificial birth control was a serious error of the Church. It closed its eyes to reality.

The Church has always taught that sex, inside marriage, is a source of joy and blessing. It has always taught that using another person for one’s own pleasure is wrong. That is the problem with contraception, it separates the person from the pleasure. One of the greatest gifts that God gave us is the opportunity to be co-creators with Him, yet many want to throw this gift away.

The historical teaching was that Artificial Birth Control, was a sin. It has not become “right” just because people don’t like it. It is sinful because the couple are no longer giving themselves to each other fully. If you are interrupting the sexual act, you are not fully giving yourself to your partner. It is a mentality that says, “I want all of the pleasure without any responsibility”. We have seen what this attitude has given us, abortion and a lot of broken people.(Basically a society of death)

I have yet to meet anyone practicing NFP, who " hoping against hope not to get pregnant.". If they are practicing NFP, then they believe that God will give them only what they need. To call NFP, " essentially artificial" is completely wrong. There is nothing artificial about the system. BTW, this is not the calender method, but the calender method is not artificial either.

You are welcome to defend your idea of “Contraception is good”, but you will have a hard time defending that position using historical teaching. Really, I don’t see how this position can be defended using history, facts or the Bible, the only defenses I have heard involve made up scenarios.

Please offer a verse that promotes contraception, because I have seen no such verses. I have seen scripture refer to children as blessings.

Your position has proven itself wrong. In 1930 the Episcopalian Church allowed limited use of contraception inside of a marriage. It starts people down a slippery slope, if it is ok in this situation then why not in another situation? If we disregard the teaching of the Church on one issue, then why not in all issues? This is just another instance of men thinking they know more than God.

Now, the Catholic Church is the only one still standing by the truth.

 

[Roy5]

I keep reading over the years how the Protestant churches all condemned artificial birth control before 1930 or so. I question that. My understanding is that many of the mainline denominations took no definitive position. To begin with, of course, there were very limited forms of articifial birth control back then, before the pill, so widely used today.

I seem to recall that Mass and CT banned the sale of birth control for many years. These two states had (and have) large Catholic populations, though I hear that Catholicism in both of these states (and others) has lost heavily if one judges by attendance at Mass. One priest in central Connecticut reported that records at his church indicated that attendance dropped from about 80% of communicants in 1950 to about 25% now.

 Ironically, both Massachusetts and Connecticut now permit gay marriage. That suggests that the hierarchy has lost much of its clout.

 

[bmullins]

I keep reading over the years how the Protestant churches all condemned artificial birth control before 1930 or so. I question that. My understanding is that many of the mainline denominations took no definitive position. To begin with, of course, there were very limited forms of articifial birth control back then, before the pill, so widely used today.

I seem to recall that Mass and CT banned the sale of birth control for many years. These two states had (and have) large Catholic populations, though I hear that Catholicism in both of these states (and others) has lost heavily if one judges by attendance at Mass. One priest in central Connecticut reported that records at his church indicated that attendance dropped from about 80% of communicants in 1950 to about 25% now.

 Ironically, both Massachusetts and Connecticut now permit gay marriage. That suggests that the hierarchy has lost much of its clout.

You can read for yourself about the different Protestant stances on birth control. It’s a historical record. Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all made statements about birth control. As to the claim that there were limited forms, birth control has been around for a very long time… it’s hardly new.

As to church attendance, that has nothing to do with the topic here. All churches have been having attendance drops over the past 50 years. It’s hardly an isolated Catholic phenomena. I also think the gay marriage reference has less to do with any particular denomination, but with the change of society and it’s cultural values.

 

[TarkanAttila]

arrogant blethering

Don’t bother with this fellow; he thinks what he wants to, even if it defies everything Christ taught - even if it defies common sense. He has no respect for authority, even though Christ Himself said “The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not).” (Matthew 23:2-3)

I think bmullins summed it up pretty well, though. It doesn’t logically follow that simply denying a woman her children would have gotten Onan killed, according to the Torah. Something else - perhaps what the writer observed - is what brought death upon him.

Luther, Calvin, and Wesley all made statements about birth control. As to the claim that there were limited forms, birth control has been around for a very long time… it’s hardly new.

Very good. You have done your homework, and I can verify that these things are true.

The Reformers did place a great emphasis on the family and NOT using birth control. Even Calvin opposed birth control!

Roy, you really think the Romans couldn’t find some way to abort children? There are all kinds of foods, herbs, and other things that can prevent and kill pregnancies like modern contraceptives. I recall there being a particular plant that was a famous contraceptive - so much so that it went extinct by Roman times.

 

[SonCatcher]

It’s sad when any religion relies upon such a bizarre story to set sexual standards,

One of the sins of Christianity is that too often it has promoted an unhealthy, joyless attitude toward sex. Between husbands and wives sexual relations should be a source of bonding, intimacy, spontaneity, and joy. When the couple have decided that they prefer not to have another child for a reason they find compelling, using artificial birth control is fine. Not really that different from following the approved calendar system, which also is essentially artificial. How sad it is that some Catholic couples have normal sexual relations in an atmosphere of considerable anxiety, hoping against hope not to get pregnant.

The Church should let married couples have authority over their own sex lives as long as they are faithful to one another. There is something strange about single men telling married men and women what to do and not do while in the marriage bed. Of course, most married Catholics already decide for themselves in such matters and ignore the teaching of the Church. This has opened the door to ignoring other teachings as well. Condemning all artificial birth control was a serious error of the Church. It closed its eyes to reality.

So it is your position that pastors should not teach morality to their flock? What good would they be, then?

Please note, BTW, that the Catholic Church does have married clergy. Converts of Anglican and Lutheran priests, Eastern Catholics and the Permanent Diaconate. The married Catholic clergy all do teach the same morality you condemn on the grounds that it comes from “single” men.

 

[Roy5]

I’m not sure most Protestants care all that much what Luther, Calvin or Wesley taught. Their words are not binding. How many Presbyterians or Congregationalists are serious Calvinists today? Perhaps 10%? Certainly this is true when such doctrines as predestination and double-predestination are concerned. Mainline Protestantism seems much less dependent upon tradition than Catholicism. I doubt if many Methodists have ever read much of Wesley apart from clergy.

Now as to preaching morality, I have never heard a priest preach on artificial birth control at a Mass. I watch EWTN and I hear complaints that priests avoid the subject as it is too sensitive, too many in their congregations practice artificial birth control.

** Along that line, one friend told me that he confessed birth control** to his priest and the priest scolded him. He went on vacation and confessed while there and that priest said in effect: “Don’t worry about it, follow your conscience.” That friend, by the way, doesn’t go to confession anymore at his church, and few others seem to.

** Yes, I’m well aware that there are married priests within the Church**. Just yesterday the NYTimes carried a major piece an Anglican priest and his congregation in Texas who have entered the Catholic Church. And I am acquainted with various churches in Eastern Europe and the Middle East - we once called them Uniate churches, as I recall - that follow the Orthodox tradition when it comes to the marriage of priests. I have met a few such priests, including one from the Ukraine when I was last at the Vatican. It still is true, however, that probably more than 97% of the Catholic clergy are unmarried. I think they should have the option of marrying. God’s first commandment in Genesis is “Be fruitful and multiply.”

 (Did I tell you that I have seen/heard four Popes? Yes, I am quite well acquainted with the 'Faith of my fathers, living still' despite differences I have with the Church. The first Archbishop of Quebec - Canada, actually - may be found on our family tree!)

** God bless everyone **- and a Happy 2012 and well beyond.

 

[zz912]

There is something strange about single men telling married men and women what to do and not do while in the marriage bed.

Jesus was a single man. He taught quite a bit about sex and marriage. Is that strange?

 

[bmullins]

Jesus was a single man. He taught quite a bit about sex and marriage. Is that strange?

For that matter so was the Apostle Paul, and he taught about it quite a bit. Even made statements that being single was preferred in service to God.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You consider the Sacred Scriptures a ‘bizarre story’?

If you look at it objectively, it is comparable to Zeus impregnating random women.

Note that the rest of the Onan story involves a woman tricking her stepfather into getting her pregnant by pretending to be a prostitute. She did this because the stepfather hadn’t let her marry his other son after the first one died. The lord strucketh no one down in this story, so perhaps prostitution is ok as long as you don’t spill your seed on the ground.

 

[Roy5]

Hey! I’ll make an exception for Jesus. Do you put him in with humankind in general? I thought the Church taught that he much more than a man, with special authority.

I am no woman libber - not a woman, even - but it does trouble me when I watch some special service on EWTN and in processes an endless line of men in their various vestments. I went to hear Benedict XVI at Yankee Stadium and there were - I recall - three (possibly four?) women who served as readers, sitting behind a whole phalanx of priests. Just seemed passe in the world of today. I understand why some Catholic women object.

Awhile back I was at a Catholic college dinner-fundraiser (run by an order of Sisters) and sat by a Nun. An interesting conversation that I report because she is anonymous. She was quite annoyed with 'the hierarchy'. A brilliant woman, a professor, but never could be a priest. I guess even the BVM could have never been a priest because she was a woman. Hm!  

But back to Jesus. I was always confused by his statement that if someone looks on a woman with lust in his heart he already has committed adultery. I somehow think that lust is a fairly normal and possible even healthy thing, especially for a young adult male perhaps, and it is natural to be tempted but noble to resist temptation. I presume scholars have fussed over that and come up with many different escape valves. Scholars do that quite well. 

Then, adultery. Hm! Somehow I thought that can be committed by a married person only. Fornication is committed by a single person. Maybe I'm wrong on that.

 Departing the thread a bit but very relevant today, especially in Iowa. I do hate to think that Gingrich and his former mistress could ever occupy the White House. That really would shock and upset me. And what a wild example for our young people. "Our president was divorced twice, had various affairs, then married a third time. But, alas, what a good Catholic!" Forgive me if I sound a bit cynical, but....  O, forget it. 

God bless everybody, even Newt!

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Please offer a verse that promotes contraception, because I have seen no such verses. I have seen scripture refer to children as blessings.

In that same Onan story, once the stepdaughter gets pregnant and the father in law finds out, he commands her to be burnt:
Genesis 38:24

And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.

That makes it seem like they are not very concerned with the life of the child.

 

[bmullins]

In that same Onan story, once the stepdaughter gets pregnant and the father in law finds out, he commands her to be burnt:
Genesis 38:24

That makes it seem like they are not very concerned with the life of the child.

You left out the entire part about how she tricked her Father in law into having sex with her and that it was an incestuous affair. You also left out the following verses where Judah realized he had sinned as well and spared her life. (Which by the way is a type or shadow of something we should think about.)

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You left out the entire part about how she tricked her Father in law into having sex with her and that it was an incestuous affair. You also left out the following verses where Judah realized he had sinned as well and spared her life. (Which by the way is a type or shadow of something we should think about.)

I gave a synopsis in post 14

The only sin the step-father realized was that he had broken the promise, he basically said: “I guess I deserve this for not letting her marry my other son.” He had no remorse for wanting to burn her (before he knew it was incest) or for hiring her as a prostitute.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Jesus was a single man. He taught quite a bit about sex and marriage. Is that strange?

You know what they say: “those that can’t do, teach”

 

[SonCatcher]

You left out the entire part about how she tricked her Father in law into having sex with her and that it was an incestuous affair. You also left out the following verses where Judah realized he had sinned as well and spared her life. (Which by the way is a type or shadow of something we should think about.)

Plus the fact that the particular child Judah conceived by Tamar was the ancestor of David and Jesus.

God alone has the ability to turn something good out of an otherwise terrible situation.