I am sincerely wondering all of your opinions on Birth Control, and when it is ok, if it ever is.
I have spoken with several Orthodox priests on this issue, and all agreed Brith Control was ok, only under certain circumstances and permission from the couple's Spiritual Father. However, they differed on what these "certain circumstances" were.
I would be glad to see what all of you think!
I would say it can be used for medical reasons, but if the pill needs to be used for a while to control menstrual bleeding or such, the couple should refrain from marital relations while being used. Then it is not truly birth control.
Otherwise, from what I have read, I do not know of a case where I would support it. As often has been said, since married couples must fast from relations when they fast, and with the natural cycle, there is no need for birth control in Orthodoxy as there is less than 1/3 of the year when it is allowed! 
The controversial question becomes, is NFP birth control?
I gave some of my thoughts over at OC.net, but I did want to give a few other thoughts here. There is a difference between speaking generally and speaking personally. Often times, I don't think we make that distinction in moral discussions, and therefore come off sounding either rigoristic/puritan, or loose/lax. I think we must be careful to distinquish how we are speaking, whether we are giving a general rule to be followed, or discussing a particular (or the allowance for a particular) easing of the rule (economia/dispensation).
Generally speaking, the traditional Orthodox position on contraception is crystal clear. Theologians who are in favor of the widespread usage of contraception have to admit--if they are being honest--that they are not following the traditional Orthodox view. However, this is not to say that the Orthodox position was ever popular, or that it was ever widely followed. Based on what I've read, I'd say that the opposite is true. Put shortly, contraception has never been allowed, and people calling themselves Christian have never especially liked that restriction: but morality is not governed by democracy, so the non-allowance of contraception remains the orthodox position.
Personally speaking, exceptions can be made when a pastor believes that a situation requires an easing of the canons. However, these rare instances of economia should rarely, if ever, be known about. We ease the canons and traditions when there is a necessity: we do it because of human weakness and inability to reach the lofty goals given by the Church. However, this is nobody's business but those directly involved. In fact, sometimes great damage can be done if people tell others about the situation. Rumors begin to circulate, back-biting, ill-will or loss of respect towards (ie. judgement of) the priest or the people involved, and so forth.
Regarding what Mary said, at first I was confused. I talked with her about it last night, and we talked about how things like a condom don't really cause an abortion, in that no conception ever took place so there was no child to abort. I think the direction of her point is still very valid, though. St. John Chrysostom called contraception "worse than murder," (Homily 24 on Romans) though one would assume that he was speaking generally and not meaning to exclude the possibility of personal exceptions (much like the idea that war is evil and wrong, but still sometimes necessary). St. John was certainly not the "moderate" that some Orthodox want to make him out to be (as far as this subject goes); leastwise, he was far more rigorist than almost all Orthodox are today.
Regarding NFP, the point is to look at what the Fathers actually condemned. While they did condemn methods, their main point was to condemn the intention of having sex (barriers and chemicals) or arranging your sex lives (rhythm method, NFP) so that you could not conceive. In the end, what they were against was not a chemical or piece foreign material being in your body; rather, they condemned the idea that you could be a sexually active couple and take certain measures with the express purpose of avoiding children. This is why NFP is different than normal abstaining for things like fasting. The latter is endorsed by Scripture and Tradition; but more relevant to this thread, the latter is not abstaining in order to avoid conception, but is abstaining for a holy purpose (which is also the reason that celibacy within marriage is permissable in rare instances). The former (ie. using NFP) is abstaining in order to not conceive, therefore, it was not allowed by the Fathers. There's a good abstaining, and a bad abstaining: it all depends on the motive and intention.
FWIW, I voted "almost never".
Justin (aka Paradosis)
Thanks Justin...good points.
I voted "Sometimes".
First, I believe NFP is birth control. NFP apologist start splitting hairs trying to say it is not birth control. So, if you hold fast to the Fathers or at least claim to, then you cannot use any birth control at all...including NFP.
Using birth control (lets say condoms, no pill allowed) is obviously not the ideal. It should only be used with the consent of the couple's parish priest or confessor. Our Faith and the life of holiness does not change with the times, but times do change and we need to make adjustments in order to try to live a life of holiness.
For instance, with some Orthodox couples, both the husband and wife have to work in order to support the family (mostly because of today's economy). Back "in the day", the husband could go and work and his pay could support his whole family. That is not always the case today. This is not the ideal, but we must do what is best for our Christian lives.
If you are getting married, you must be open to children. But it doesn't mean you have to have twelve kids.
Why do some "traditional" Orthodox treat birth control as if it were such a destructive sin or if it were "dogma"?
Greg
Here are some quick thoughts.
To answer the question about birth control, I think you need to answer another question first: What is the purpose of marital sex? Is it's primary reason for procreation? Or, is it more for preventing one from fornicating or commiting adultery?
Now, obviously any type of birth control than can be abortive (ie, the pill), would normally be right out. But diaprhams and such, and NFP, I don't know quite what the answer is.
I'm reading an essay by George S. Gabreal called "You Call My Words Immodest: On the Undefiled Marital Bed" (it is in the book The Mystery of Gender and Human Sexuality from Synaxis Press). In one of the foot notes he say the church never wrote a canon condemning cotraception. He does extinsively quote St. John Chrysostom
Daniel wrote:To answer the question about birth control, I think you need to answer another question first: What is the purpose of marital sex? Is it's primary reason for procreation? Or, is it more for preventing one from fornicating or commiting adultery?
Really, no takers? 
I guess I'll take the first shot at answering.
NO, marital sex is not primarily for procreation. and, YES, is more for the prevention of fornication and adultery.
I'll even add that marital sex itself is fullfillment of the the two becoming one which is not lessened if no children are conceived.
