1,942
edits
Changes
→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 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 of Hippo | 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>
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 [[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.
