The Sin Of Onan and Contraception

[mom_of_ten]

Many people in the Old Testament Scriptures practiced deceit and disobedience to God…and He did not “immediately slay” them for it.

Therefore, the sin of Onan must be MORE specific than deceit or disobeying God…otherwise others who committed these sins would have also been slewn by God.

You will also notice that the Scripture tells us that Onan spilled his seed, and was IMMEDIATELY slewn by God. This implies that God slew Onan in direct relation to the spilling of the seed…otherwise it would tell us that he (Onan) was slewn for his deceit; or because he disobeyed the Lord…but instead, it mentions God striking him down in direct relation to the action of spilling the seed.

 

[garysibio]

Frankly sobino, I have a Jewish background and I find your over simplication about levirate marriage insulting to my faith. In fact, by making such an argument you will only push people like myself very far away from your faith because it is viewed as being based on extermely poor interpretation skills. And, if you try to give a prooper argument like “be fruitful and multiply”, then that disproves Mary being an ever virgin which is very contray to Judaism of all generations. Thus you place yourself in a lose lose situation. Even the Essenes grave yards had women and children in them.

ONAN: By : Emil G. Hirsch Schulim Ochser

A son of Judah; he refused to enter into a levirate marriage with his sister-in-law after the death of his elder brother Er, and it was for this reason that the Lord “slew him also” (Gen. xxxviii. 7-10).E. G

jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=71&letter=O&search=Onan

Genesis 38:7-10 (New International Version)

7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.

8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.

How do you have Levirite marriage years before Levi was born or the Mosaic Law, which introduced the idea, was given?

Your reference to Mary was irrelevant. Mary was ever-virgin. She never engaged in sexual activity so she never engaged in contraception.

Gary

 

[mom_of_ten]

I

t would also be problematic, following the strict logic of some here, if a husband and wife engaged in sexual stimulation that did not always end in sex with the male completing the act in the female. It would be impermissible pleasure/passion frustrating the procreative dimension. Again, this seems the furthest thing from “natural”, to the point of nonsense.

I believe that you have written Church Teaching…except it wouldn’t be “problematic”, it would be SINFUL…The Church Teaches that any act, whether leading to, during, or following the marital union, which, in and of itself renders procreation impossible, is sinful…so yes…if the act of stimulation of pleasure has occurred, then it must end in the proper completion of the marital union.

 

[steadfast7]

I appreciate your point, but the goal of sex is life. If we bypass that goal, then we cheapen sex. Cheapen sex and you cheapen marriage. You can say what you want about teens with over-active imaginations (and hands, for that matter), but their actions are detrimental to the marriage covenant that they later may enter.

I’m trying to think of authoritative source that tells us that sex is for procreation, and ONLY for procreation. I understand that it may follow for “natural” law and reasoning, but it is also natural for husband and wife to enjoy intercourse as an act of love and a sacramental sign of union. Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

There are some problems with the view that sex is only for conception

1. Every act of sex would have to be timed according to the woman’s fertile period.
2. A couple could never engage in sex during pregnancy
3. A couple could never engage in sex after menopause
4. We would have ignore much of Song of Solomon describing and celebrating sex as an act of romance.
5. It would be wrong to engage in any non-coital sexual activity, like kissing, and touch. These things stimulate the body and prepare it for coitus, thus it would be unnatural and against the body to “rev the engine, but not put it into gear”
6. A couple that has come to know our their infertility could never engage in sex.

Basically your above argument falls into a slippery slope fallacy: because of the possibility of the worse case scenario, we must ban everything leading up to it.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m trying to think of authoritative source that tells us that sex is for procreation, and ONLY for procreation.

I’m not aware that I made that claim when I said, “The goal of sex is life”.

I understand that it may follow for “natural” law and reasoning, but it is also natural for husband and wife to enjoy intercourse as an act of love and a sacramental sign of union. Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

There are some problems with the view that sex is only for conception

… a claim that I don’t believe I made…

1. Every act of sex would have to be timed according to the woman’s fertile period.
2. A couple could never engage in sex during pregnancy
3. A couple could never engage in sex after menopause
4. We would have ignore much of Song of Solomon describing and celebrating sex as an act of romance.
5. It would be wrong to engage in any non-coital sexual activity, like kissing, and touch. These things stimulate the body and prepare it for coitus, thus it would be unnatural and against the body to “rev the engine, but not put it into gear”
6. A couple that has come to know our their infertility could never engage in sex.

Basically your above argument falls into a slippery slope fallacy: because of the possibility of the worse case scenario, we must ban everything leading up to it.

The act of sex should leave open the possibility for pro-creation. That’s the whole justification for the rhythm method.

Onanism (and contraception) tries to put a barrier between God and procreation. Hence, the Church’s stance against it.

 

[mom_of_ten]

Wow…I have not been to this site in ages but received an email alert about this post.
So, I decided to reply.
The Catholic Church does NOT teach that “sex is only for conception”.
Therefore, the arguments listed by steadfast are moot.
The Church DOES teach, however, the each and every single marriage act of sex MUST REMAIN OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF NEW LIFE BEING CONCEIVED and must render itself toward that end…therefore, any act, leading up to, during, or following the sexual union of man and wife that, in and of itself, prohibits conception of new life from taking place…IS SINFUL.
That does NOT mean that “sex is only for conception”.

I’m trying to think of authoritative source that tells us that sex is for procreation, and ONLY for procreation. I understand that it may follow for “natural” law and reasoning, but it is also natural for husband and wife to enjoy intercourse as an act of love and a sacramental sign of union. Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

There are some problems with the view that sex is only for conception

1. Every act of sex would have to be timed according to the woman’s fertile period.
2. A couple could never engage in sex during pregnancy
3. A couple could never engage in sex after menopause
4. We would have ignore much of Song of Solomon describing and celebrating sex as an act of romance.
5. It would be wrong to engage in any non-coital sexual activity, like kissing, and touch. These things stimulate the body and prepare it for coitus, thus it would be unnatural and against the body to “rev the engine, but not put it into gear”
6. A couple that has come to know our their infertility could never engage in sex.

Basically your above argument falls into a slippery slope fallacy: because of the possibility of the worse case scenario, we must ban everything leading up to it.

 

[pdaoust]

Hi, mom of 10 and all others. Reopening this thread! I am trying very very hard to hang onto our Catholic thread of philosophy which culminates in the pronouncement that contraception is wrong… But to be honest, I’m finding it harder and harder to understand and be okay with it. It essentially says to me that, while sex must always be open to procreation, it need not always be open to procreation.

On the one hand, the church states that the language must always be open to procreation (i.e., coitus every time). But if we look at couples who are either using NFP for grave reasons (and it’s my understanding that the prudent spacing of children is a grave reason in some orthodox Catholics’ minds), or having sex during pregnancy or after menopause, we can see that there is a full knowledge that procreation is impossible, yet we engage in sex at that time anyway.

It seems to me that either we have to refrain from sex during Phase III, pregnancy, or retirement, or we accept that not every sexual act has to end in coitus.

I’m not talking about condoms, spermicides, or pills, and I really do want to give our doctrine a good run for its money before , but right now I’m struggling with a loving and lovely wife who feels like my avoiding ‘romantic stuff’ during our fertile period is a real slap in the face and, in practice, an affront to the other half of sex – i.e., unity (and that’s orthodox Catholicism).

So now I’m left with the possibility that we might’ve been wrong about things like coitus interruptus (still pretty uncomfortable with that) or just having some saucy fun without going all the way… which of course makes me question whether it’s even an infallible pronouncement, even though we assert that it is.

I’m very confused, so please be gentle and don’t just fire a barrage of arguments at me, folks. Please try to hear what I’m saying before responding.

Thanks!

 

[cho_pilo]

so what is the best verse from Bible against contraception?

You shall not murder" from the 10 commandments. Because contraceptive pills are abortifacient. An abortifacient is a substance that induces abortion.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

bbb