Changes

The dominant view, represented by the [[Patriarchate of Constantinople]], 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. 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> 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.

The position Where some patristic writers speak of the Greek Archdiocese NFP and withdrawal (''coitus interruptu''s), they condemn it (St. [[Augustine of America was given by the Orthodox bioethicistHippo | Augustine]] <ref>Saint, Father Stanley SBishop of Hippo (1887). Harakas: "Because Chapter 18.—Of the Symbol of the lack of a full understanding Breast, and of the implications Shameful Mysteries of the biology of reproduction, earlier writers tended to identify abortion with contraceptionManichæans". In Philip Schaff. However, A Select Library of late a new view has taken hold among Orthodox writers the Nicene and thinkers on this topic, which permits the use Post-Nicene Fathers of certain contraceptive practices within marriage for the purpose of spacing childrenChristian Church, enhancing the expression of marital loveVolume IV. Grand Rapids, and protecting healthMI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co."</ref>, St [[Jerome]] <ref>httpsJerome, Against Jovinian 1:20, (AD 393) http://www.goarchnewadvent.org/-fathers/30091.htm</ref>, [[Clement of Alexandria]])<ref>Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (AD 191)</the-stand-ref>. However, as John Noonan has shown, in each of-the-orthodox-church-on-controversial-issuesthese 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 Although some patristic writers speak of NFP references to contraceptive herbs and withdrawal (''coitus interruptu''s), they condemn potions refer to their destroying a child that is being formed in the womb after the sexual act that gave rise to it (St. Augustine <ref>Saint, Bishop of Hippo Augustine (1887abortion). "Chapter 18.—Of the Symbol of the Breast, and of others seem to also include the Shameful Mysteries of the Manichæansidea that these methods were also used to "sterilise". 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.womb to prevent this process from being initiated (St [[John Chrysostom]] in his 24th Homily on Romans</ref>, St Jerome <ref>Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:20John Chrysostom, (AD 393) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htmHomilies on Romans</ref>, Clement and St. [[Caesarius of Alexandria)Arles]]<ref>Clement in his first Sermon)St Caeserius of AlexandriaArles, The Instructor of Children 2(Sermons 1:10:91:2 (AD 191)</ref>12 [A. 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 procreationD.<ref>Noonan, chapters III and IV522]).</ref> .

While some of There are also individuals who would follow the Fathers' references to such chemical methods seem clearly to refer to their destroying a child Stoic view represented by St Augustine and others, that any form of birth control or contraception other than abstinence is being formed sinful in that the womb after the sexual only permissible act that gave rise to it (abortion), others seem to also include of marital intercourse is for 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 and Stpurpose of procreation. Caeserius of Arles in his first Sermon)<ref>St John ChrysostomSacred Seed, Sacred Chamber, Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]). httphttps://wwwtheorthodoxlife.newadventwordpress.orgcom/2015/05/fathers18/sacred-seed-sacred-chamber/210224.htm</ref><ref>St Caeserius of ArlesOrthodoxy, Contraception, (Sermons 1and Spin Doctoring:12 [ALook at an Influential but Disturbing Article, https://cjshayward.D. 522]). 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.

Two dissenting positions :Marriage does not always lead to child-bearing, although there is the word of God which says, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." We have as witnesses all those who are:married but childless. So the purpose of chastity takes precedence, especially now, when the whole world is filled with our kind. At the beginning, the procreation of children was desirable, so that each person might leave a memorial of his life.... But now that resurrection is at our gates, and we do not speak of death, but advance toward another life better than the present, the desire for posterity is superfluous. If you desire children, you can get much better children now, a nobler childbirth and a better help in your old age, if you give birth by spiritual labor.

:1) That So there remains only one of sex's natural purposes is the procreation of children (i.e. sex is naturally oriented towards or "reason for" procreation)marriage, to avoid fornication, and that to actively separate the procreative aspect of sex from its remedy is offering for this purpose of uniting husband and wife (by natural family planning or artificial contraceptive methods) is to distort it .<ref> Sacred Seed, Sacred ChamberChrysostom, https://theorthodoxlifepp.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/sacred85-seed-sacred-chamber/</ref><ref>Orthodoxy, Contraception, and Spin Doctoring: A Look at an Influential but Disturbing Article, https://cjshayward86.com/contraception/ </ref>. As a result, no methods of contraception (including natural family family), aside from abstinence, are acceptable.

:2) That natural family planning alone is an acceptable method '''[the following needs citations and perhaps clarification as to whether each of these reject birth control, contraception, because it simply involves abstinence from sex during times when fertility is likely. Such is the opinion expressed by the Church of Greece in her encyclical of October 14, 1937<ref>[www.ecclesia.gr/greek/holysynod/commitees/family/3.pdf]</ref>.or both)'''

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.

Besides being ineffectiveWhen opponents of contraception look for biblical support for their position, methods they inevitably point to the story of withdrawal have traditionally been opposed 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 Church text. The only Eastern Father to read the Onan account as overa 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-indulgence 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 fleshtext 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>.

*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".