The Church Fathers On Marital Sexuality
Reflections on Noonan's Oft-Quoted Text on Contraception
Anyone who has taken more than a cursory glace at the religious debate over contraception has no doubt heard of the book Contraception: A History of Its Treatment By the Catholic Theologians and Canonists by John T. Noonan. [1] Indeed, to read the contemporary literature on the subject of contraception produced by Catholics and Orthodox, this book by John Noonan seems like a necessary prerequisite for entering into discussion on the topic. But is this reputation deserved? This paper will attempt to critique this book and also provide some general reflections on sexuality and contraception, from a traditionalist Orthodox perspective.
Before we go into a discussion of the actual content of this book though, it would perhaps be beneficial to say a few words on the underlying premises and methodology of the author. The most important word that can be said is: Noonan's premises and methodology is very far from that with which an Orthodox Christian would approach the patristic witness. Noonan's words in the Introduction illustrate our point: "If one wants to see a providential pattern of development, nothing in my description precludes such a view; but such a task of theological interpretation is not my purpose. I prescind from the divine influence on the development and suppose at each stage that there were human choices to be made." [2] In other words, Noonan is approaching the text as a rationalist and not a Christian. [3]
Approaching the text from a rationalistic perspective, Noonan inevitably falls into many errors, not just in his conclusions but also in the other underlying premises that he works with. One of these premises is that it is ok to reject certain traditions even if they have been widely (and even universally) accepted during the entire history of the Church. And so, Noonan informs us that Moses was not responsible for the book of Genesis, but that Gen. 1:27-28 is actually "the post-exilic, priestly narration of the creation" [4] For some this would appear to be a small lapse--or no lapse at all. From a traditionalist perspective, it is most definatley a laspse.
Unfortunately, such lapses in affirming the Churches tradition can and do color the way in which Noonan paints his picture of the early Church. In another place, for example, we are told that First Timothy was not written by Paul, but was actually "a late effort," ie. by another author, "to correct a misunderstanding that Paul's earlier amphasis on virginity had fostered." [5 An Orthodox Christian can hardly be comfortable with such a handling of the Sacred Scriptural text.
Mr. Noonan also seems to have forgotten (or ignored) that there was an unwritten tradition in the Church, and that this oral tradition was of no small importance (cf Saint Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27). Making no mention of Holy Tradition, Noonan states: '"To answer the questions Gnosticism forced on the Christians, second-century intellectuals like Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus had three resources: the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the law of nature." [6]
Failing to take into account the place that Holy Tradition had, Noonan falls into errors that (weakly) support the very foundation upon which he later forms conclusions. For example, taking no thought as to what the faith might have taught via tradition about the subjects at hand, Noonan speculates that the "secular intellectual influences on the doctrine" had as real an influence on the early Fathers as Scripture had. Noonan says multiple times that it was Stoics who were responsible for giving Christianity there beliefs regarding sexuality.
According to Noonan, the Stoics "were profound influences on the Christian approach" and "the doctrine on contraception, as it was fashioned, depended upon them". [7] And lest anyone think that we are being unfair on Mr. Noonan, we will let him speak for himself: "If one asks, then, where the Christian Fathers derived their notions on marital intercourse--notions which have no express biblical basis--the answer must be, chiefly from the Stoics... It is a matter of a doctrine consciously appropriated. The descent is literary, the dependence substantial." [8] It is with all of this in mind that we approach this often-quoted book.
Sexuality
According to Saint John of Damascus, "In Paradise virginity held sway". Saint John here teaches what many of the Fathers of the Church teach: that there were no sexual relations before the fall of Adam and Eve. [9] Sexual relations, then, were not part of our original nature, but rather, sex was given to us after we fell from communion with God (there will also be no sexual relations in heaven--cf Matt. 22:23-30)
This is not to say that attraction and sexuality are "unnatural" to us in our current state, and we need not look upon sexual relations as a dirty or sinful thing. Indeed, Saint Gregory of Nyssa was able to say in his text On Virginity: "Let no one think however that herein we depreciate marriage as an institution. We are well aware that it is not a stranger to God's blessing. But since the common instincts of mankind can plead sufficiently on its behalf, instincts which prompt by a spontaneous bias to take the high road of marriage for the procreation of children". [10] (It must be noted that this one quote alone does not reflect what Saint Gregory thought of marriage--we do not wish to be misrepresenting him, for he was much stricter than this quote might lead one to believe. We quote him here merely to demonstrate that even some of the less-than-moderate Fathers admitted that "attraction" to the opposite sex was natural and permissable)
It must be noted here (at the outset) that most Fathers did not hold to the moderate view that most Orthodox Christians in the west have today. Though Blessed Augustine is normally nothing more than a beating post for modern-day moderate theologians, in reality most Fathers would not have found Augustine's teachings on the subject of sexuality at all unorthodox. For instance, according to Noonan, Augustine taught that "in the marital act there is satisfaction of sexual desire, a result which Augustine does not treat as good." Regardless of how much it might conflict with our modern sensibilities, this quote of Augustine is not something that most Church Fathers would have found unacceptable. [11] Indeed, some Saints of our Church, such as Pope Gregory the Great, went even further than Augustine [12]
While most Orthodox today--including the author of this paper--would not affirm such a strict position, we should always keep in mind that ours is not the only tenable position. Many modern theologians have unwittingly condemned multitudes of Church Fathers by their remarks about modern people (normally referred to perjoratively as "a few monks") who are perceived to be "too rigorist" or "too legalistic". Let us instead admit that there is not just one single position on this subject, and be especially careful not to fall into the error of wrongly judging our brothers (and the Church Fathers!).
As we said, most Church Fathers agreed, for the most part, with Augustine's basic position on the enjoyment of sexual relations (among other beliefs). So, on what basis can we say something to the contrary? On what basis can we go against the majority of early Fathers? The answer is that the moderate view is largely based on the great pastor, Saint John Chrysostom, who seems to see enjoyment as a natural (and even perhaps good) aspect of sexual relations.
Saint John said: "And how become they one flesh? As if thou shouldest take away the purest part of gold, and mingle it with other gold; so in truth here also the woman as it were receiving the richest part fused by pleasure, nourisheth it and cherisheth it, and withal contributing her own share, restoreth it back a Man." (Saint John is very quick to add that this "pleasure" is to be experienced in the proper context; ie. a sacramental marriage between a man and a woman).
Saint John continues: "Is it not possible both to enjoy pleasure, and to do so with safety? ... Nothing is more pleasurable than virtue, nothing sweeter than orderliness". [13] And in another place, Saint John says: 'I neither forbid to marry, nor hinder thy taking pleasure; but I would have this be done in modesty, not with shame, and reproach, and imputations without end." [14] Whether all of these passages speak of pleasure during sexual relations is unknown, and we must admit that it is possible that the last two do not speak of this type of pleasure at all. Nonetheless, there does appear to be at least a little support in the words of Saint John for the moderate position.
We must note at this point, however, that passages such as the ones we just quoted are sometimes taken out of context and used wrongfully over and against other Church Fathers. We can affirm that some Fathers disagreed with each other as to whether it was a sin to enjoy sex (or to enjoy sex "too much"). However, St. John Chrysostom is sometimes propped up as a supporter of beliefs which he in fact did not believe. Two of the main misrepresentations are: 1) the idea that St. John approved, or would today approve, the use of birth control; and 2) St. John did not limit the reasons for sexual relations, but was much more open than most other fathers.
We will be dealing with St. John's views on contraception in another section, so for now we can take a look at what Saint John believed concerning justifiable reasons for having sexual relations. Noonan quotes saint John as saying that "'there are two reasons why marriage was instituted, that we may live chastely and that we may become parents,'" and that now, "after the resurrection, a Christan may become a parent spiritually, 'so there is one occasion for marriage, that we may not commit fornication.'" [15] While Saint John does not confine himself to only this reason (ie. avoiding fornication) in his other--later--works, the above quote gives us reason to believe that Saint John was not as open as some today try to make him. This will be further evidenced later, though for now we must more thoroughly explore what the Fathers saw as justifiable reasons for having sexual relations.
One of the main reasons the early Church gave for sexual relations within marriage being a proper thing was, as Saint John said, avoiding fornication (cf 1 Cor. 7). Saint John of Damascus said: "good is marriage on account of fornications, for it does away with these, and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to he caromed into unlawful acts. Good is marriage for those who have no continence" [16] Most other Fathers more or less echo this sentiment. [17]
The second reason given by the early Church for having sexual relations was procreation, and this reason was supported by almost all the Fathers (though almost all of them also said that Celibacy was the better path). We see this doctrine already in the second century, as for example when Saint Justin Martyr says that Christians "marry only to produce children" [18] Noonan examines this pattern as it continues in various Fathers through the second to fifth centuries. [19] (Unfortunately, Noonan focuses on the Alexandrians of the 2nd-3rd centuries, such as Origen and Clement, which leaves us hesitant to quote anything from these sections)
We do not approve of the way that some theologians today treat the west and it's view of sexuality, wherein they erect various straw men and then knock them down while trimphalistically praising "the east". However, in fairness we must admit at this point that the west is generally stricter than the east regarding sexual matters, and this is especially apparent from the late fourth century on. (though if one examines the Slavic penitential literature, we can see the error in trying to make too much of the strictness of the west and a supposed moderation in the east).
As we said, though, generally speaking, the west did tend towards the stricter side of things. Saint Jerome, for instance, though crediting the great Eastern Father Saint Gregory the Theologian as his "teacher of exegesis," [20] took a stance that--from hindsight we can say--is a view much closer to the early western Fathers than the early Eastern ones. According to Noonan, Jerome taught that "the marital act... was lustful unless for procreation". [21] Noonan also informs us that "the version [of Tobit] as given by Jerome was an explicit endorsement of the procreative purpose as the sole proper purpose in intercourse." [22] As an aside, we can here see the most valuable aspect of Noonan's book: a provider or compiler of quotes. Whatever we may say negative about Noonan's work, it is without question of great value if only for the great amount of passages and references it brings to our attention.
Continuing with the Western Fathers, we must note that Augustine also had a stricter view of sexual relations (though he was certainly not the only one who had strict views, nor was he the first to express such views). Augustine believe that it was a sin, albeit a minor one, for a couple to have sexual relations without the express intention of having children. [23] And Augustine says elsewhere that: "...once married, one may not avoid children. It is lawless and shameful to lie with one's wife where the conception of offspring is avoided" [24]
Most others in the west affirmed roughly the same views that Augustine had, though some went even further than Augustine, such as Saint Gregory the Great. [25] We should emphaise here, however, that it was not merely western Fathers who held to this strict view. While we can speak of tendencies (of the west), we must be careful not to make it an "east vs. west" issue. As studies of other issues (e.g., clerical celibacy) sufficiently evidence, the west did indeed learn towards more strict views regarding sexuality: but these were nonetheless views that were tenable, and views that some eastern Fathers also held to.
Whatever else we might say, almost all the Fathers--both east and west--could agree that, at the very least, procreation was a justifiable reason for having sex (having even possibly salvific consequences--1 Tim. 2:15), and that avoidance of fornication was also a worthy reason. Finding other justifiable reasons, however, is not so easy. Many times, even when another reason is found, it is distorted out of context and viewed anachronistically. Saint John Chrysostom, for example, can easily be misunderstood if one were to combine the previously quoted passages (on "pleasure") and then to read texts such as Saint John's 20th Homily on Ephesians and 12th Homily on Colossians.
A selective reading of these texts would lead one to believe that Saint John sees sexual relations as a "bridge" that joins a couple. This may be true in some, rare, cases (e.g., with couples who are not able to have children). However, what most of the moderate theologians fail to point out in their discussions is that saint John did not see the sex itself as the bridge, but the child. Saint John is explicit on this point: the child is the bridge. (though perhaps, if we can read between the lines by taking into account the exceptions mentioned by Saint John, in rare cases the wanting after of children is the bridge; while for the general populace the receiving of children is the completion of the bridge). [26]
Some theologians believe that sexual relations is a spiritual experience (forms a spiritual connection), and that this in itself is a justifiable reason for having sexual relations. This concept, as the theologians would have to admit, has no patristic support for it whatsoever. In reading Noonan's book one discovers that the only groups that identified sexual relations with some type of "spiritual experience" were the various non-Christian (mostly Gnostic) sects [27] (we are not comparing those modern theologians who hold this idea to gnostics, but merely pointing out that nowhere in the early church was such a belief taught--we do not mean to be slapping "Gnostic!" labels onto anyone). If anything, the theanthropic body of Christ, the Church, saw sexual relations as interfering with spirituality, not facilitating it (cf Matt. 19:10-12; 1 Cor. 7).
One last subject that we might bring up before we move on to the main topic of Noonan's book is @nal and oral sex [word changed so that content blockers would not disallow viewing of this page]. Though it will not be acceptable to most westerners--and it would probably come as a shock to the majority--the canons make it clear what the Church thought on this subject: "@nal or oral intercourse is treated as a serious sin by everyone who mentions such behavior. Many writers prescribe a more serious penance for it than for homicide committed by a layman; without exception, such acts are treated as more serious than the abortion of a fetus under fourty days." [28] Obviously most Orthodox today do not treat these sins as severely as they were once treated; Fr. John Mack's neglect of these issues in his material on marriage, which for the most part is excellent material, is sobering and sadly insightful. The fact remains, though, that oral and @nal sex are still sins.
Contraception
An amazing amount of controvery has arisen over the issue of contraception in the past few decades. Perhaps it is amazing to some people that there are still those in Orthodoxy who hold to the "archaic" notion that contraception is wrong. It amazes others that Christians--and even Orthodox Christians--can support the use of contraceptives by couples; this latter group find it even more amazing that these couples are left to decide "as a private matter" (ie. with no spiritual guidance necessary) whether they want to use birth control or not, what kind of birth control to use, when to use it, etc.
A number of prominent converts to Catholicism (a couple of which are now published Catholic apologists) have pointed to the acceptance of contraceptives by some Eastern Orthodox as a major reason for them first turning away from Orthodoxy and towards Catholicism. Undoubtedly, a number of people feel the complete opposite, and believe that Catholicism is "too legalistic" and needs to "get with the times". It's all too easy to judge these as "converting [or not converting] for the wrong reasons," but it would be more beneficial (and Orthodox, for that matter) to look to our own sins and errors, rather than pointing them out in others.
One is at a loss how to explain this issue to those outside of Orthodoxy since it is difficult to get a grasp on what exactly is going on inside Orthodoxy! ROCOR has held to the traditional belief (which all jurisdictions held through at least the 1950's) that birth control is, generally speaking, not allowed. The GOA on the other hand essentially tells their people that the decision to use birth control or not is up to each individual, so long as they think and pray about it. Even among the moderate world Orthodox theologians there is a variety of positions; e.g., Fr. John Breck supports the use of contraceptives by married couples, Fr. Thomas Hopko is somewhat more conservative, but not as conservative as Fr. John Schroedel (who wrote his thesis on the issue of Contraception--and it's a paper worth checking out).
So what can we say? Well, first we can admit to something: a strict position disallowing contraceptives has rarely been popular with the entire populace of the Church. Popularity, of course, does not direct what the Church teaches, but this is important in understanding both the words of the Church Fathers and also in understanding our current context. For all of Augustine's words, for example, he still had to admit that: "Never in friendly conversations have I heard anyone who is or who has been married say that he never had intercourse with his wife except when hoping for conception". [29] Most people were apparently not willing to accept the strict teachings of the Church Fathers for their own lives.
We find a similar example in the reaction to the words of Saint Jerome, for when speaking of a letter by Jerome which denounces contraception, Noonan says: "The evidence of Christian practice offered by this letter to a teen-ager is mixed. Evidently contraception was known and practiced in fashionable Catholic circles... The inference to be drawn from the Catholic reaction of Jerome's little tract is also of some relevance. It made him generally unpopular. Some felt that he had confirmed what most respectable old pagan families felt about the morals of Catholics. Jerome himself described his book as one 'that was stoned' (Letters 52.17). But however malicious and exaggerated the Catholic society of Rome in 385 thought his gibes, his words were the ones which survived to posterity." [30]
Having taken this into account, we might be tempted to take a much less strict view--especially in societies as sex-crazed as the modern west. It could perhaps be argued that in our context, we should not expect too much, and that principles such as monogamy, faithfulness, purity, love, and so forth should be emphasised. We personally do not hold to this view, though we would not automatically dismiss it out of hand either. It is perhaps not agreeable to us, but they are words worth thinking about.
As to why we do not hold to this more moderate allowance of contraception, the main reason (though not the only one) is that we can find no such (general, Church-wide) allowance anywhere in Church history before the mid-20th century. It cannot be argued persuasively that the prominence of sexual immorality today necessitates a lower standard for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that the Church, in her divinely guided history, has already experienced similar periods of "sexual freedom," but the Fathers never saw this as a reason to soften the moral guidelines of the Church (even if the majority refused to follow those moral guidelines!).
Simply put, every single Church Father in the early Church (and in fact up throught he 20th century) believed that contraception was unacceptable. Hippolytus, Jerome, and Augustine all spoke against it, as did Saint John Chrysostom. [31] Caesarius of France condemned its use, as did Gregory the Great of Rome. [32] Early local Church Councils condemned its use, and there is even perhaps evidence from secular Roman documents that the early Church used the Christian teaching against contraceptives as a way of demonstrating Christianity's "reasonableness". [33] Later Slavic penitential literature made it quite clear that contraceptives were not allowed, and it's use was even stigmatized in Serbian epics. [34]
This issue is not an east versus west thing, [35] but all the Church Fathers agree on this: contraceptives, generally speaking are not allowed. All the Fathers could have said with Saint John Chrysostom, "Why sow where reaping is impossible?" [36] The context of this quote was women who had altered themselves so that they could not become pregnant. The direct context does not directly deal with the forms of contraception most often used today (though it does deal with some of them); however, regardless of the method mentioned, the essential point that Saint John is making is valid: it is sinful to take actions which will prvent the potential for having children, and then to have sex. For the Fathers, who saw procreation as one of the main reasons for having sexual relations, it was impossible to endorse the concept of trying to avoid having children while having sexual relations.
This would be like going to Church and saying that you don't want to be in communion with God, that you don't want to experience salvation, and that you don't want to go to heaven. The obvious question that arises is: then why are you in Church? In much the same way, if people were having sex while purposely trying to avoid having children, the question arose: "why? for what purpose? to what end?" There may have been other jusitifiable reasons for having sex, but no one could not decide that they would have sex because of these other reasons and try to avoid pregnancy. Saint John Chrysostom doesn't just call contraception sinful, but he says that having sex while trying to avoid children is "worse than murder". (Saint John the Chrysostom undoubtedly meant to equate contraception and murder here in the same way that Saint John the Theologian equated hatred of a brother with murder in his First Epistle--1 Jn. 3:15)
As was said previously, the entire Orthodox Church held to this position until the mid-20th century, contraceptives were simply (generally speaking) not allowed. Noonan's only mention of Orthodoxy after the early Church period is insightful, for writing in 1965 Noonan writes: "On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox Church, as far as can be judged, still opposes all contraception. A letter of the hierarchy of the Church of Greece in October 1937 condemned the 'unnatural evil' of 'escape from begetting children and nurturing them.' In 1956 Archbishop Michael of the American archdiocese also condemned contraception" [37]
The early Church also did not accept as valid many of the reasons now given by some to justify usage of contraceptives. Some will say, for example, that contraceptives must be used when a couple "cannot afford more children". While we would sympathise with this situation, and while we certainly would not judge a spiritual father for making an allowance for one of his spiritual children in such a difficulty, so long as we are speaking of general guidelines we cannot support such a justification.
It is admitted that most Orthodox Christians today would not find the reasoning of the Church Fathers for not allowing contraceptives (generally speaking) in the case of poverty to be persuasive. Nor would most Orthodox today think the guidance of the Fathers particularly wise; many, unfortunately, would probably make some rash remark about how "most saints are monastics and so they just don't understand" (such a remark in reality only showing how little the person understands epistemology and gnosiology from an Orthodox perspective. [38]
So, while perhaps we may not be comfortable with the suggestion of Caesarius that a poor couple in such a position make a "pact of continence," and while we may not particularly like the similar words of Lactantius, we must in the end follow the Fathers on even this--at least when speaking of general principles--for even the most moderate of Fathers, Saint John Chrysostom, agrees with the strict Fathers here. [39] Some of the other justifications currently employed for using contraceptives are normally also contradicted by the Fathers. This is not to say that the Church Fathers never made exceptsion--but they were always just that: exceptions, and not a general rule. We are not saying, then, that contraception can absolutely never be used, but only that as a general rule it cannot be used, and if it is used it is an allowance that should--if at all possible--be made by someone with some spiritual discernment.
The last issue having to do with contraception that we will touch on is an issue that adds to our confusion a great deal, but which others seem not to have a problem with. Natural Family Planning (NFP) is, essentially, a fancy, scientific version of the rythym or timing method. NFP is, in our view, a method whose main use it to avoid pregnanancy, and hence it is a method used to avoid conception: in short, a contraceptive. It is birth control of a very "passive," somewhat more "natural," type, but a birth control method nonetheless.
The Fathers were not against the methods of birth control, but the very intention of having sex while trying to avoid pregnancy. NFP does just that: allows people to have sexual relations knowing with an extremely high degree of accuracy that the female cannot become pregnant. Thus, NFP seems to us to be a contraceptive. This being said, we must question whether our thinking on this is somewhere wrong since so many of the Orthodox authors and people whom we have spoken with or read--even most who are generally against contraception--approve of this method. Why this is so has not yet been explained to us adequately, though we await an explanation in humility, and not arrogantly assuming that we are right and everyone else is wrong.
Still, it is worth noting the words of Noonan: "'Contraception is a term which could be applied to any behavior that prevents conception. Sexual continence is contraceptive in effect; sexual intercourse when an ovum will not be fertilized avoids procreation as much as intercourse where a physical barrier is used to prevent the meeting of spermatozoa and ovum." [40] If by "sexual continence" Noonan means to imply general celibacy, then we cannot agree with this part of what he is saying. Celibacy canot be "against contraception" when there is never a chance for contraception in the first place; that is, there must be sexual contact at some point to label actions taken by a couple as "contraceptive".
We do, however, agree with Noonan's point that having sexual intercourse knowing that a women cannot get pregnant is just as much a usage of a method of contraception as using a condom or other such device would be. Many disntinctions can be made to seperate NFP from other forms of birth control, such as differentiating between "natural" and "artificial" methods, or "passive" and "active" methods. However, two facts remain: 1) The Church Fathers did not, from what we can tell, make such distinctions, and 2) the Fathers spoke again the very intention of having sex while trying to not have children: the method used to avoid the children was for the most part irrelevant (unless the method aborted the baby after conception, then it was of great importance).
Noonan says that: "In addition to these three chemical or mechanical ways of blocking conception, there was belief in a sterile period for women... Indeed, the first of the several contraceptive measures which Soranos prescribes is avoidance of 'sexual intercourse at those periods which we said were suitable for conception' (Gynecology 1.19.61)" [41] Noonan also says, somewhat sadly, that: "The method of contraception practiced by these Manichees whom Augustine knew is the use of the sterile period as determined by Greek medicine... In the history of the thought of theologians on contraception, it is, no doubt, piquant that the first pronouncement on contraception by the most influential theologian teaching on such matters should be such a vigorous attack on the one method of avoiding procreation accepted by twentieth-century Catholic theologians as morally lawful." [42] We might change the word Catholic to Orthodox in his last sentence, but the point remains the same.
Marital Celibacy
The last topic that we will go over is the issue of celibacy within marriage. This is a little understood issue by today's Orthodox Christians, perhaps because there are so few modern examples around us which inform us of the proper Orthodox view. Indeed, we have been astounded by the way that most Orthodox Christians have reacted to the idea of celibacy wtihin marriage. Caution, of course, is to be expected; we have experienced a much greater negativity when this subject has come up, though, than merely people being cautious. The only explanation we can come up with is that people 1) are concerned for the safety of those talking of such a path, and 2) most of these people are totally unaware of what their Church teaches on the subject, or of the numerous saints who have followed this path, and have unknowingly had their beliefs colored by the secular culture's views of marriage and celibacy.
The main patristic figure brought up by those against the idea of celibacy within marriage is Saint John Chrysostom. What Saint John actually wrote against, however, was not a Christian couple living together as brother and sister, but rather he was against certain communities of celibates (=monastics) who claimed to live together as brother and sister. Saints Cyprian and Irenaeus knew of similar communities, and made similar comments as Saint John. [43] But always, it must be noted, against the idea of non-married, celibate people living together.
What the Church thought about married people living in a celibate state is a different story altogether: for not only did the Church Fathers not condemn such a situation, but they often times advised and commended this lifestyle (we have already, in fact, noted that some saints suggested this lifestyle for those who were unable to have children). Blessed Augustine, Saint Cyprian, and Tertullian counsel people to become celibate within marriage, [44] as do many other Fathers. Noonan mentions that "The holy wives Jerome knows have 'in the very relationship of marriage imitated the chastity of virgins,'" and Blessed Jerome mentions elsewhere that we can "even in the close bond of marriage, imitate virgin chastity." [45] It is also worthy of note that the Apostle Thomas counselled a newly married (pagan) couple to embrace the Gospel and to remain virgins [46].
Of course, we are not suggesting that it is ok to force someone into marital celibacy against their will. The Fathers see fidelity as a higher virtue than marital celibacy--and in fact view forcing a spouse to be celibate not as a virtue but as a sin. What's more, the Fathers teach that if you were to try and force someone into a celibate situation against their will, that you would have some fault and responsibility for any sin that they committed because of your selfish actions. Martial celibacy must always be something that is mutually agreed upon. [47]
Metropolitan Philaret sums up the Orthodox view on marital celibacy well: "Christian marriage is a single life lived by two in unification. With the years, marital life only strengthens, becomes deeper, more spiritual. Of course, passionate love, connected with each person's natural sexual inclination and purely physical attraction, also enters into Christian marital love. In a truly Christian marriage, however, such passionate love enters into the attachment only incidentally, and never has such a significance and strength as in non-Christian marital unions. In the lives of saints, we see a multitude of examples in which Christian spouses, through mutual agreement, renounced sexual life, either from the very beginning of the marriage or even after forty years. It is noteworthy that in such a marriage, when the ascetic-spouses live 'as brother and sister,' their mutual love is distinguished by a special strength of devotion, all-embracing fidelity and mutual respect. Thus does Christianity consecrate, elevate and transform a marriage union." [48]
For those who are interested in doing a bit more research in this area, though, it might be helpful to mention a few Saints from Church history who were celibate within marriage. Perhaps the best known of the contemporary Saints who remained celibate within marriage was Saint John of Kronstadt (with his wife Elizabeth Constantinovna). Saint Julianna of Lazarevo and her husband also decided to become celibate in marriage (after having several kids, and Saint Julianna wanting to devote her life to seeking God by becoming a sort of "monastic in the world"). Demetrius The Vinedresser (12th Patriarch of Alexandria), Venerable Theophanes the Confessor of Sygriane, and Malchus the Syrian are but a few more examples. Reading books on the lives of Saints, one cannot help but find all sorts of further examples of celibacy chosen within marriage.
Conclusion
In the end, we would not recommend this book by John Noonan to the normal, casual reader. There is just too much chance for being led astray by Noonan's seemingly scholarly opinions. On the other hand, for those who are very interested in the contraception issue, and who are willing to pick up a theological shovel and dig into a little dirt--and reading this book will indeed leave some dirt on you--you may just find a number of gems worth keeping. Indeed, I believe that there are many gems in this book: the problem is finding them and clearning the dirt off them.
Comments on this paper would be most welcome--both positive, but especially negative critiques. If it has been thought that I have gotten something wrong, or misunderstood something, or taken a quote out of context, then please say so. Most of all, please don't take this paper for something that it is not (as some people have done in the past). This is not a scholarly paper. It is not an authoritative source worthy of quoting. It is merely here to give some views and provide a short critique of Noonan's book, and maybe raise some questions for people to think and pray about. I, like everyone else, still await the person who will write a definitive work on this subject from an Orthodox perspective. May God send him soon!
Footnotes
[1] John T. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment By the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, (Harvard University Press, 1965)
[2] Ibid., p. 5
[3] Though Noonan would undoubtedly say that he is both of these (ie. a Christian writing from a rationalistic perspective), these two terms are, in reality, mutually exclusive. One cannot both be a Christian and a rationalist, and likewise, one cannot write as both a Christian and a rationalist. By choosing one, you condemn the other as being hopelessly flawed and unusable.
[4] Ibid., p. 31
[5] Ibid., p. 41
[6] Ibid., p. 72
[7] Ibid., pp. 49; see also p. 49
[8] Ibid., p. 48
[9] Saint John of Damascus, Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith, 4, 24; cf John Chrysostom, On Virginity, 14; John Chrysostom, On Genesis, 18, 4; Panayiotis Nellas, "Deification in Christ: The Nature of the Human Person," (Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1987), pp. 72-73
[10] Saint Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 8
[11] Noonan, Contracpetion, pp. 130-131
[12] Ibid., p. 150
[13] Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians
[14] Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 7 on Matthew
[15] Noonan, Contraception, p. 78; Quoting: Saint John Chrysostom, "On Those Words of the Apostle, 'On Account of Fornication'"
[16] Saint John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4, 24
[17] Regarding Augustine, see: Noonan, Contraception, pp. 126-139
[18] Saint Justin Martyr, Apology for Christians, 1, 29
[19] cf Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke 1:43-45; Apostolic Canons 6, 28; Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Adoration in Spirit and Truth, 15
[20] Blessed Jerome, Letter 50.1; In Isaiah, 3; cf John McGuckin, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography, (Saint Vladimir's Serminary Press, 2001), pp. 348-350
[21] Noonan, Contraception, p. 79
[22] Ibid., p. 81
[23] Ibid., pp. 129-130; Noonan quotes: Augustine, The Good of marriage, 6, 6; Augustine, Sermons 9, 11, 18
[24] Ibid., p. 137; Noonan quotes: Augustine, Adulterous Marriages, 2, 12, 12
[25] Ibid., pp. 145, 150
[26] Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians; Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians; cf Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 3.10.68; Stromata, 3.12.90
[27] Noonan, Contraception, pp. 64, 68, 95, 126
[28] Ibid., p. 163; cf Letter to Barnabas, 10, 8; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 5, 9, 17; Blessed Augustine, The Good of Marriage, 11, 12
[29] Ibid., p. 130
[30] Ibid., p. 101
[31] Hippolytus, Refutation, 9, 12, 25; Jerome, Letter 22.13; Augustine, Marriage and Concupisence, 1, 15, 17; Against Faustus, 15, 7; On the Good of Marriage, 1; John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on Romans; Homily 62 on Matthew; Homily 28 on Matthew, 5
[32] Noonan, Contraception, pp. 147, 151-152
[33] Ibid., pp. 149, 93
[34] Eve Levin, Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), pp. 175-176
[35] Ibid., pp. 138-139
[36] Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 24 on Romans
[37] Noonan, Contraception, p. 491, footnote 27; Used as a source by Noonan: Fagley, The Population Explosion, pp. 164-166
[38] This "you must literally experience things or you cannot possibly understand them" type of logic would indeed make for a very interesting exegesis of some biblical passages, such as Heb. 4:15, where it is said that Jesus was "tempted in all points like as we are". One wonders what sort of interpretation would be forced out of following such logic as mentioned above. Of course, in Orthodox belief, the cleansing of the nous and the sensory organs purifies ones soul and improves ones discernment. The saints are not just knowledgeable about "spiritual things," but compared with most people have a far superior knowledge of earthly things as well. Perhaps such a saint lacks a certain dynamic in his teaching, if he has never experienced what he is being taught about: this does not mean, however, that he has no right to speak on a subject just because he has never experienced it. In essence, when one is a saint their spiritual experience and communion with the all-knowing God helps to "fill in" the gaps that the Saints would ordinarily have regarding earthly matters. This is not always the case, but it is a firm general principle.
[39] Caesarius, Sermons 52.4; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 6.20.25; Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 28 on Matthew
[40] Noonan, Contraception, p. 1
[41] Ibid., p. 16
[42] Ibid., p. 120
[43] Ibid., pp. 66, 71
[44] Augustine, The Good of Marriage, 3.3, 8.9, 17.19; Saint Cyprian, On the Discipline and Advantage of Chastity, 3-4; Tertullian, On Exhortation to Chastity, 1
[45] Noonan, Contraception, p. 70; quoting: Jerome, Against Helvidius, 21; Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, 23
[46] The Lives of the Holy Apostles, (Holy Apostles Convent, 1988), pp. 189-190
[47] cf John Chrysostom, Homily 19 on 1 Corinthians; The Good of Marriage, 6.6
[48] Metropolitan Philaret (Trans. Hieromonk Varlaam Novakshonoff), On the Law of God
Sorry everyone! 
Believe it or not, I did try to limit the size (e.g., I only talked about the anthropological aspects briefly; I passed over giving quotes from most Fathers regarding what they thought of contraception; etc.)