Birth Control and Contraception - Revision history

Criostoir1971: added 2 links

2026-02-26T00:31:17Z

added 2 links

Fr Lev: added quote from new statement by Constantinople

2020-03-27T21:04:19Z

added quote from new statement by Constantinople

FrJohn: Disputed notice

2018-12-26T16:19:51Z

Disputed notice

Fr Lev: /* Bibliography */

2018-07-13T16:07:15Z

‎Bibliography

Fr Lev: /* Contraception */

2018-07-13T16:02:29Z

‎Contraception

Fr Lev: /* Contraception */

2018-07-13T16:00:19Z

‎Contraception

Fr Lev: /* Withdrawal */ added links

2018-07-12T15:36:31Z

‎Withdrawal: added links

Fr Lev: /* Contraception */ added internal link

2018-07-12T15:23:57Z

‎Contraception: added internal link

Fr Lev: /* Contraception */

2018-07-12T15:21:10Z

‎Contraception

Fr Lev: /* Bibliography */ added book

2018-07-12T14:56:07Z

‎Bibliography: added book

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, February 26, 2026
Line 78:		Line 78:

	==External links==		==External links==
		+	*[https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/02/1937-encyclical-from-church-of-greece.html 1937 Encyclical from the Church of Greece on Procreation and Contraception]
		+
		+	*[https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2026/02/1978-encyclical-from-church-of-greece.html 1978 Encyclical from the Church of Greece on Procreation and Contraception]

	===Organizations===		===Organizations===

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ==Contraception==
-The dominant view, represented by the Church of Moscow<ref>https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/</ref>, the Greek Archdiocese, the Orthodox Church in America<ref>[http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19]</ref>, and by the bioethicists Engelhardt and [[Stanley S. Harakas]], may be fairly described as the teaching that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons.
+The dominant view, represented by the [[Patriarchate of Constantinople]], the Church of Moscow<ref>https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/</ref>, the Orthodox Church in America<ref>[http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19]</ref>, and by the bioethicists Engelhardt and [[Stanley S. Harakas]], may be fairly described as the teaching that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons. Constantinople, in its 2020 document, ''For the Life of the World: Toward a Social Ethos of the Orthodox Church'', says: "The Orthodox Church has no dogmatic objection to the use of safe and non-abortifacient contraceptives within the context of married life, not as an ideal or as a permanent arrangement, but as a provisional concession to necessity" (§ 24).
 The position of the Greek Archdiocese of America was given by Harakas: "Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health."<ref>https://www.goarch.org/-/the-stand-of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issues</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, December 26, 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{Template:Disputed}}
		+
	A distinction is implicit here between birth control (or family planning) and contraception. The latter term is usually reserved for those methods which more directly inhibit or act against conception. Non-contraceptive methods of family planning (to limit the number and/or timing of children) include abstinence and Natural Family Planning.		A distinction is implicit here between birth control (or family planning) and contraception. The latter term is usually reserved for those methods which more directly inhibit or act against conception. Non-contraceptive methods of family planning (to limit the number and/or timing of children) include abstinence and Natural Family Planning.

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 *Noonan, John T., Jr. ''Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists''. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966.
 *[[Philip Sherrard|Sherrard, Philip.]] "''Humanae Vitae'': Notes on the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI," in ''Sobornost'' 5:8 (1969).
-*Zaphiris, Metropolitan Chrysostomos Gerasimos. "The Morality of Contraception: An Eastern Orthodox Opinion," in ''The Journal of Ecumenical Studies'' 11:4 (1974). ''Note:'' http://jonathanscorner.com/writing/contraception/ provides a commentary on Zaphiris 1974 and an "opposing views" piece to the "new concensus".
+*Zaphiris, Metropolitan Chrysostomos Gerasimos. "The Morality of Contraception: An Eastern Orthodox Opinion," in ''The Journal of Ecumenical Studies'' 11:4 (1974). ''Note:'' http://jonathanscorner.com/writing/contraception/ provides a commentary on Zaphiris 1974 and an opposing views.
 *Zion, William Basil. ''Eros and Transformation: Sexuality and Marriage: An Eastern Orthodox Perspective''. Lanham: University Press of America, 1992. Chapter Seven is entitled "Orthodoxy and Contraception."

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ==Contraception==
-The dominant view, represented by the Church of Moscow<ref>https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/</ref>, the Greek Archdiocese, the Orthodox Church in America<ref>[http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19]</ref>, and by the bioethicists Engelhardt and Harakas, may be fairly described as the teaching that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons.
+The dominant view, represented by the Church of Moscow<ref>https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/</ref>, the Greek Archdiocese, the Orthodox Church in America<ref>[http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19]</ref>, and by the bioethicists Engelhardt and [[Stanley S. Harakas]], may be fairly described as the teaching that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons.
-The position of the Greek Archdiocese of America was given by the Orthodox bioethicist, Father [[Stanley S. Harakas]]: "Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health."<ref>https://www.goarch.org/-/the-stand-of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issues</ref>
+The position of the Greek Archdiocese of America was given by Harakas: "Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health."<ref>https://www.goarch.org/-/the-stand-of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issues</ref>
 Some would follow the earlier position taken by the Church of Greece in her encyclical of October 14, 1937<ref> [www.ecclesia.gr/greek/holysynod/commitees/family/3.pdf]</ref>, which accepted birth control but not contraception, i.e., it accepted abstinence and NFP, but condemned any method of contraception.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 The dominant view, represented by the Church of Moscow<ref>https://mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/xii/</ref>, the Greek Archdiocese, the Orthodox Church in America<ref>[http://www.oca.org/DOCmarriage.asp?ID=19]</ref>, and by the bioethicists Engelhardt and Harakas, may be fairly described as the teaching that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one's spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons.
-The position of the Greek Archdiocese of America was given by the Orthodox bioethicist, Father Stanley S. Harakas: "Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health."<ref>https://www.goarch.org/-/the-stand-of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issues</ref>
+The position of the Greek Archdiocese of America was given by the Orthodox bioethicist, Father [[Stanley S. Harakas]]: "Because of the lack of a full understanding of the implications of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraception. However, of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing children, enhancing the expression of marital love, and protecting health."<ref>https://www.goarch.org/-/the-stand-of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issues</ref>
 Some would follow the earlier position taken by the Church of Greece in her encyclical of October 14, 1937<ref> [www.ecclesia.gr/greek/holysynod/commitees/family/3.pdf]</ref>, which accepted birth control but not contraception, i.e., it accepted abstinence and NFP, but condemned any method of contraception.
-Where some patristic writers speak of NFP and withdrawal (''coitus interruptu''s), they condemn it (St. Augustine <ref>Saint, Bishop of Hippo Augustine (1887). "Chapter 18.—Of the Symbol of the Breast, and of the Shameful Mysteries of the Manichæans". In Philip Schaff. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume IV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.</ref>, St Jerome <ref>Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:20, (AD 393) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm</ref>, Clement of Alexandria)<ref>Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (AD 191)</ref>. However, as John Noonan has shown, in each of these cases their position followed from their unbiblical idea, adopted from Stoic philosophy, that sexual desire was evil and thus marital intercourse was only permissible for procreation.<ref>Noonan, chapters III and IV.</ref>
+Where some patristic writers speak of NFP and withdrawal (''coitus interruptu''s), they condemn it (St. [[Augustine of Hippo | Augustine]] <ref>Saint, Bishop of Hippo (1887). "Chapter 18.—Of the Symbol of the Breast, and of the Shameful Mysteries of the Manichæans". In Philip Schaff. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume IV. Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.</ref>, St [[Jerome]] <ref>Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:20, (AD 393) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm</ref>, [[Clement of Alexandria]])<ref>Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (AD 191)</ref>. However, as John Noonan has shown, in each of these cases their position followed from their unbiblical idea, adopted from Stoic philosophy, that sexual desire was evil and thus marital intercourse was only permissible for procreation.<ref>Noonan, chapters III and IV.</ref>
-Although some patristic references to contraceptive herbs and potions refer to their destroying a child that is being formed in the womb after the sexual act that gave rise to it (abortion), others seem to also include the idea that these methods were also used to "sterilise" the womb to prevent this process from being initiated (St John Chrysostom in his 24th Homily on Romans<ref>St John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans</ref> and St. Caeserius of Arles<ref> in his first Sermon)St Caeserius of Arles, (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]). </ref>.
+Although some patristic references to contraceptive herbs and potions refer to their destroying a child that is being formed in the womb after the sexual act that gave rise to it (abortion), others seem to also include the idea that these methods were also used to "sterilise" the womb to prevent this process from being initiated (St [[John Chrysostom]] in his 24th Homily on Romans<ref>St John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans</ref> and St. [[Caesarius of Arles]]<ref> in his first Sermon)St Caeserius of Arles, (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]). </ref>.
 There are also individuals who would follow the Stoic view represented by St Augustine and others, that any form of birth control or contraception other than abstinence is sinful in that the only permissible act of marital intercourse is for the purpose of procreation.<ref> Sacred Seed, Sacred Chamber, https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/sacred-seed-sacred-chamber/</ref><ref>Orthodoxy, Contraception, and Spin Doctoring: A Look at an Influential but Disturbing Article, https://cjshayward.com/contraception/ </ref> Such individuals follow the typically Latin view that procreation is an essential feature of marriage, and which privilege the procreative end above the unitive. Eastern tradition typically follows St John Chrysostom in holding that procreation is a normal feature of marriage, but not essential to it.

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 ===Withdrawal===
-When opponents of contraception look for biblical support for their position, they inevitably point to the story of Onan in Genesis 38, claiming that the sin committed by Onan was his commission of ''coitus interruptus''. However, this is an almost exclusively Western reading of the text. The only Eastern Father to read the Onan account as a condemnation of contraception was St Epiphanius. Origen had not done so in his commentary on the passage, <ref>Selections on Genesis, PG 12.129</ref>, nor had St John Chrysostom <ref>''Homilies on Genesis'' 62.1, PG 54.533)</ref>, nor St Ephrem the Syrian<ref>''In Genesim et in Exodum commentarii'', 34.1</ref>. Moreover, according to Noonan, Epiphanius had taken this position “only in the context of his anti-Gnostic polemic.”<ref> Noonan, p. 101.</ref> It was his friend St Jerome who was to shape the Western (mis)reading of Onan through his Vulgate, which departed significantly from both the Hebrew and Old Latin he used as the basis of his translation. In addition to adding the word for semen which is not in the original, he slants the text to make it appear that ''coitus interruptus'' was the reason he was punished by God, saying “God slew him because he did a detestable thing". But the Hebrew has only “he did not please God,” and the Old Latin that “he appeared evil before the Lord,” neither of which focuses on the act.<ref>See Noonan, pp. 101-102.</ref>.
+When opponents of contraception look for biblical support for their position, they inevitably point to the story of Onan in Genesis 38, claiming that the sin committed by Onan was his commission of ''coitus interruptus''. However, this is an almost exclusively Western reading of the text. The only Eastern Father to read the Onan account as a condemnation of contraception was [[Epiphanius of Cyprus | St Epiphanius of Cyprus]]. [[Origen]] had not done so in his commentary on the passage, <ref>Selections on Genesis, PG 12.129</ref>, nor had [[John Chrysostom | St John Chrysostom]] <ref>''Homilies on Genesis'' 62.1, PG 54.533)</ref>, nor [[Ephrem the Syrian | St Ephrem the Syrian]]<ref>''In Genesim et in Exodum commentarii'', 34.1</ref>. Moreover, according to Noonan, Epiphanius had taken this position “only in the context of his anti-Gnostic polemic.”<ref> Noonan, p. 101.</ref> It was his friend [[Jerome | St Jerome]] who was to shape the Western (mis)reading of Onan through his [[Vulgate]], which departed significantly from both the Hebrew and Old Latin he used as the basis of his translation. In addition to adding the word for semen which is not in the original, he slants the text to make it appear that ''coitus interruptus'' was the reason he was punished by God, saying “God slew him because he did a detestable thing". But the Hebrew has only “he did not please God,” and the Old Latin that “he appeared evil before the Lord,” neither of which focuses on the act.<ref>See Noonan, pp. 101-102.</ref>.
 ===Barrier Contraceptives===

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 '''[the following needs citations and perhaps clarification as to whether each of these reject birth control, contraception, or both)'''
-Vocal opponents to the prevailing view of contraception in Orthodoxy today include: Metropolitan [[Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk|Hilarion of Vololamsk]] [ROC], Bp. Artemije of Kosovo [SOC], Fr. Josiah Trenham, Fr. [[Patrick Henry Reardon|Patrick Reardon]], Fr. John Schroedel, Fr. John A. Peck, and Fr. Patrick Danielson.
+Vocal opponents to the prevailing view of contraception in Orthodoxy today include: Metropolitan [[Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk|Hilarion of Vololamsk]] [ROC], Bp. Artemije of Kosovo [SOC], Fr. [[Josiah Trenham]], Fr. [[Patrick Henry Reardon|Patrick Reardon]], Fr. John Schroedel, Fr. John A. Peck, and Fr. Patrick Danielson.
 ==Methods of Contraception==

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :So there remains only one reason for marriage, to avoid fornication, and the remedy is offering for this purpose.<ref>Chrysostom, pp. 85-86.</ref>
-Vocal opponents to the prevailing view of contraception in Orthodoxy today include [incomplete]: Metropolitan [[Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Volokolamsk|Hilarion of Vololamsk]] [ROC], Bp. Artemije of Kosovo [SOC], Fr. Josiah Trenham, Fr. [[Patrick Henry Reardon|Patrick Reardon]], Fr. John Schroedel, Fr. John A. Peck and Fr. Patrick Danielson.
+'''[the following needs citations and perhaps clarification as to whether each of these reject birth control, contraception, or both)'''
 ==Methods of Contraception==

@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 ==Bibliography==
 *[[H. Tristram Engelhardt|Engelhardt, H. Tristram]], Jr. ''Foundations of Christian Bioethics''. Swets & Zeitlinger, 2000. See especially Chapter Five.
 *[[Paul Evdokimov|Evdokimov, Paul.]] ''The Sacrament of Love: The Nuptial Mystery in the Light of the Orthodox Tradition''. Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985. See especially pp. 174-180.