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 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>

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>.

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.

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 Epiphaniusof 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>.

*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".