Table talk
Sir: I am sorry to have offended Mr R. L. Travers (Letters, 4 October) by my use of the word 'disingenuous,' but to anyone un- acquainted with the Onan story his summary of it (Letters, 13 September) would suggest that the only element involved was that of coitus interruptus, which, by his own admission, is not SO.
As it stands of course, the story is designed to affirm the rule of the Levirate marriage (not now, I think, recommended by the Roman Catholic Church); I was guilty of attempting to interpret it in a humanitarian sense. I don't see much point in Mr Travers's remark (reproach?) that there is 'nothing new' in this interpretation, but that it is not the one adopted by the Catholic Church does not surprise me at all.
The Catholic position is, of course, intimately rooted in the traditional (Pauline) Christian teaching that sex is a basically evil thing, best avoided altogether and, if this is not possible, only justified by the purpose of procreation, not by the enjoyment alone. (At least one Catholic theologian of the same period as St Francois de Sales declared categorically that sex between married couples for the purpose of pleasure alone was sinful, in some cases a 'mortal' sin.) As I must reject this doctrine, I cannot accept Mr Travers's authorities.
Previous page
