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>
While it is true that the issue of non-abortifacient contraception has not been raised at any ecumenical councils or generally accepted local councils, the issue has been raised by some Church Fathers. Where some Church Fathers patristic writers speak of the only two methods known to be available that we would recognise as purely non-abortifacient NFP and withdrawal (Natural Family Planning/rhymn method and ''coitus interruptusinterruptu''s), they speak in condemnation condemn it (St. Augustine, St Jerome, Clement of Alexandria)<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><ref>Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:20, (AD 393) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm</ref><ref>Clement of Alexandria, 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 uterus) was chemical/herbal. While some of the Fathers' 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), 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 and St. Caeserius of Arles in his first Sermon)<ref>St John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210224.htm</ref><ref>St Caeserius of Arles, (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]). </ref>. We should also keep in mind that there was no single prevailing scientific model for how conception took place in the "Age of the Fathers". There were at least two scientific models of conception: the Hippocratic/Galenic "two semen" model (closer to our own), whereby both male and female contributed components to the child-in-formation, and also the Aristotelian "one semen model", in which the male semen was the only component of the early child-in-formation and was planted in the fertile soil of the womb during sex (the problem of when "human personhood" began was a separate issue). No Church Fathers weigh into these scientific debates. 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 three available methods of 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.
Two dissenting positions are:
