As [[Paul Evdokimov]] wrote, "In the age of the Church Fathers, the problem of birth control was never raised. There are no canons that deal with it."<ref>Evdokimov, p. 174.</ref> The Orthodox bioethicist [[H. Tristram Engelhardt]], Jr., agrees, writing, "Despite detailed considerations of sexual offenses by ecumenical councils, and by generally accepted local councils, and despite a recognition that marriage is oriented toward reproduction, there is no condemnation of limiting births, apart from the condemnation of abortion."<ref>Engelhardt, p. 265. </ref>
Opinions about While it is true that the issue of non-abortifacient contraception have varied in has not been raised at any ecumenical councils or generally accepted local councils, the Orthodox issue has been raised by some ChurchFathers. There is complete unanimity that no form Where the Church Fathers speak of contraception the only two methods known to be available that is we would recognise as purely non-abortifacient is acceptable (Natural Family Planning/rhymn method and coitus interruptus), they speak in condemnation (St. Augustine, St Jerome, Clement of Alexandria)<ref>Saint, Bishop of Hippo Augustine (1887). "Chapter 18.—Of the Symbol of the Breast, and there are definitive ecumenical canons that proscribe abortifacientsof the Shameful Mysteries of the Manichæans". In Philip Schaff. The A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, such as SsVolume IV. Athanasius the Great, John Chrysostom, EpiphaniosGrand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.</ref><ref>Jerome, AmbroseAgainst Jovinian 1:20, Augustine (AD 393) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm</ref><ref>Clement of HippoAlexandria, Caesarious, Gregory The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (AD 191)</ref>. The only other available method for preventing pregnancy (apart from violent measures such as tightly banding the pregnant abdomen or stabbing the Great, Augustine uterus) was chemical/herbal. While some of Canterbury and Maximos the ConfessorFathers' references to such chemical methods seem clearly to refer to their destroying a child that is being formed in the womb after the sexual act that gave rise to it (abortion), all explicitly condemned abortion as well as others seem to also include the idea that these methods were also used to "sterilise" the use womb to prevent this process from being initiated (St John Chrysostom in his 24th Homily on Romans and St. Caeserius of abortifacientsArles in his first Sermon)<ref>St John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]). Sshttp://www. Jerome and Clement newadvent.org/fathers/210224.htm</ref><ref>St Caeserius of Alexandria have also explicitly condemned coitus interruptus Arles, (withdrawalSermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]) . </ref>. We should also keep in their discussions mind that there was no single prevailing scientific model for how conception took place in the "Age of the sin of OnanFathers". The Fathers There were at least two scientific models of conception: the Church have not expressed opinions on the Hippocratic/Galenic "momenttwo semen" at which life beginsmodel (closer to our own), so that our clear distinctions between nonwhereby both male and female contributed components to the child-in-abortifacient formation, and abortifacient contraception may be anachronisticalso the Aristotelian "one semen model", in which the male semen was the only component of the early child-in-formation and may not have existed was planted in the minds fertile soil of the womb during sex (the problem of when "human personhood" began was a separate issue). No Church Fathersweigh into these scientific debates. Consequently these Fathers' condemnation may extend However, those that do mention chemical methods, condemn them, whether taken before sex to prevent pregnancy, or taken after sex to destroy the contents of the womb. Thus, all contraceptive three available methodsof preventing pregnancy (coitus interruptus, natural family planning, and herbal/chemical treatments) were condemned at some point by Church Fathers, and none were ever endorsed as acceptable. However there are a range of opinions in the present day on the issue of non-abortifacient contraception.
:1) There are those who hold the view that one of sex's natural purposes is the procreation of children (i.e. sex is naturally oriented towards or "for" procreation), and that to actively separate the procreative aspect of sex from its purpose of uniting husband and wife (by natural family planning or artificial contraceptive methods) is to distort it.