The sin of Onan

[Lorarose]

I recently read a debate about Church teaching on contraception on another forum.
One person cited Onan’s sin as scriptural basis.

Another person stated this in reply:
:Yes it does, so lets look at the “rest of the story”. The bible was written in a certain culture and assumed the reader accepted and knew the beliefs of that culture. The analysis above leaves out a very important part of this story which was known to the comtemporary readers.

Yes, Onan “spilled his seed” in defiance of the order to have a child with his brother’s wife…

and Yes, the penalty for not performing this service was only public humiliation…

So why was death justified in the mind of the storyteller?

In the ancient world, it was believed that the male carried the complete child in his semen. This child was placed within the woman to grow. Thus, destroying the seed was equivalent to destroying a living child - which is what Onan’s sin really was and why it “merited” death.

If only the study of biology was followed by those updating Church teachings. It is time to grow out of the old concept that this ancient story somehow is the basis for teachings against “artifical” birth control and I would like to hear whatever other references are used to justify this ban."​

Does this person have a valid point? Did the ancient jews really believe this about the “seed”

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Does this person have a valid point? Did the ancient jews really believe this about the “seed”

Who cares, since God, not some Jew, was the one who did the killing? Does your friend think that God was mistaken about the biology he created?

 

[Lorarose]

It would seem this person adheres to that “myth” or “legend” theory concerning the “stories” we read in the OT.

So…I find that more and more people think these stories were the workings of the jews themselves - and not of God.
Therefore (so the thinking goes I think) their “moral stories” would reflect mistaken understandings of certain things - biology in this case.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

In that case, the best reply is,

“Documentation, please?”

 

[Lorarose]

When that question was posed the answer was something like “oh - this is something I got from professor so&so”

So - I guess I’m throwing this out here to see if anyone has heard of this theory.
It is the first time I came across it - and seems to be a new clever twist in attacking the Church’s teaching.

 

[Mathetes007]

Lorarose:

In the ancient world, it was believed that the male carried the complete child in his semen. This child was placed within the woman to grow. Thus, destroying the seed was equivalent to destroying a living child - which is what Onan’s sin really was and why it “merited” death.

That doesn’t seem to fit certain OT passages. For example, Moses explains that if two men fight and hurt a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage, the man that caused the miscarriage shall be fined. If any harm follows the mother, then death [eye for eye] (Exodus 21:22-25). Why was death not warranted for the miscarriage of the unborn in this case if that was the mentality of the ‘ancient world’?

 

[Lorarose]

A very good point…

A hypothetical reply might go something like this…

The two men accidentally injured the pregnant woman.
Onan intentionally spilled the seed of the male child.

It could be argued there is an issue of intention.

 

[Dolly]

One explanation I have heard is that Onan was in the family line of the Messiah, the tribe of Judah. The death penalty from God was because of that fact.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Remember that the Church’s teaching on contraception does not stand or fall on this passage’s interpretation. Even if we grant what you quoted (and that’s a big if), it wouldn’t change the objective wrongness of the act of contraception.

Scott

 

[martino]

The Church’s ban on contraception is not based on the story of Onan. It is based on natural law. God designed our bodies to function a certain way for a certain reason, artificial contraception disrespects that design. Conversely, for those with a serious reason for not wanting children at a particular time, the use of abstinence during the fertile period of the woman’s cycle shows respect for God’s design.

 

[Mathetes007]

Lorarose:

A very good point…

A hypothetical reply might go something like this…

The two men accidentally injured the pregnant woman.
Onan intentionally spilled the seed of the male child.

It could be argued there is an issue of intention.

Argue the hypothetical reply this way:

Yet it calls for death, "eye for “eye,” if the mother is killed. It would still fall under “unintentional death” in that case, and yet it would still require the death penalty for the perpetrator.

 

[Ham1]

I agree with what a few others have stated…

Deflate their argument right off the bat…Onan? That’s not where the teaching on artificial contraception comes from at all!

So, whether the Onan story is fact, fiction, exaggerated, whatever, it has no bearing on the Church’s teaching on AC.

 

[vrummage]

martino:

The Church’s ban on contraception is not based on the story of Onan. It is based on natural law. God designed our bodies to function a certain way for a certain reason, artificial contraception disrespects that design.

Good point Martino. I would add that the story of Onan is a very helpful supplement to the Church’s teaching on contraception and is particularly helpful with those who seek to find “loopholes.” The CCC Defines in its glossary:

**CONTRACEPTION, ARTIFICIAL: **The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love (2370).

I have listened to arguments claiming that contraception by withdrawal is not against Catholic teaching since it does not involve any artificial agent. You can first refer your interlocutor to CCC 2370:

‘“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.’

If this still doesn’t convince them, the story of Onan should show beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not look favorably on withdrawal.

As for the sin of Onan, I think it was actually twofold. Onan acted out of disobedience to his Father Judah who wished for him to preserve the line of his brother Er, Judah’s first-born son. Er was killed by the Lord for his wickedness and died childless. The bible explains that it was Onan’s duty as the oldest remaining brother to raise up offspring for his older brother (Gen. 38:8). I believe that if Onan had simply refused this duty, he may have been punished by God in some way but would not have been killed. But Onan adds a malicious and defiant twist to his sin. He makes a mockery of this responsibility by engaging in the sexual act with his brother’s wife and then deliberately thwarting its ends. So Onan refuses to raise up Er’s line yet sleeps with his brother’s widow but in a frivolous, unfruitful, and spiteful manner.