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. [[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.  :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.

While some of the Fathers' references to such chemical methods seem clearly to refer :So there remains only one reason for marriage, to their destroying a child that is being formed in the womb after the sexual act that gave rise to it (abortion)avoid fornication, others seem to also include and the idea that these methods were also used to "sterilise" the womb to prevent remedy is offering for this process from being initiated (St John Chrysostom in his 24th Homily on Romans and Stpurpose. Caeserius of Arles in his first Sermon)<ref>St John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 [App.D85-86. 391]). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210224.htm</ref><ref>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 following needs citations and others, that any form perhaps clarification as to whether each of these reject 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>. 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".