regardless of what the Fathers may have said at various times, The Holy Canons of the Ecumenical Councils themselves do not
forbid contraception. They forbid use of potions that kill the unborn, the usual form of contraception at the time, and are
very explicit. (a few canons go into details that some today would consider pornographic, being overly sensitive, when they
are merely necessarily informative.)
Now, in all the several canons, there is only one that does not go into the detail of preventing birth by killing the unborn,
and this is in the overall context of the other canons that do detail this, therefore must be read as merely affirming
these.
St. Augustine denounced a married woman kept for pleasure and affection not childbearing as merely a legal prostitute,
but he was evidently educated mostly in general doctrine not The Scriptures in detail because St. Paul NEVER ONCE
discusses marriage as for the purpose of childbearing, even once advocates marriage in order to avoid fornication.
Genesis chapter 2 even leaves this out, focussing on the need for a companion. Sex being a means of reproduction
obviously it is going to result in this. The focus should be on the relationship of the potential parents, which is a
legitimate matter in itself, and then the resulting children if any will be a godly context to grow up in.
A notion circulating among some Fathers apparently, was that sexual reproduction was post fall and if there had
been no fall, some other means of reproduction would have been provided. These men wrote before the Council
of Ephesus, at which Origen was anathematized. Origen had been of great influence mostly for good, since he
was one of those who fought in support of The Holy Trinity against its various deniers. But he also got too far
into allegory and gnostic like speculation.
Among his later anathematized ideas, were the apokatastasis (spelling?) the eventual salvation of all beings,
which St. Gregory of Nyssa taught (indeed, most of Origen's anathematized ideas are to be found in St. Gregory's
Philokalia of Origen) and the idea that the sun and stars and so forth were originally not so grossly, densely
physical, but themselves fell having left off contemplation of God, and became densely physical.
Now, a notion I ran into from a ROCOR priest before I came into the Orthodox Church, that Adam and Eve
were not originally so densely material as we are now, but became so after The Fall, and that the coats of
skins given them by God was the physical body we are used to now, is not on the list of Origen's ideas.
It is, however, identical in nature to the anathematized idea that the sun and stars etc. only became as
physical as they are now, because of their fall.
Someone once said you have to read The Fathers with caution.
Now as for trusting God and this not being practical, I agree that it is not very Orthodox to consider
this impractical. BUT what of the issue of presumption? there is a fine line between faith and
presumption when it comes to getting or avoiding something.
NFP leaves the door open for conception, yes. But so do condoms, since these have a 10-30% failure
rate. (latex safer and so called natural condoms are made from skin from sheep, strikes me as a tad perverted
to use these. Also more permeable, so more risk of failure whether to prevent conception or prevent disease
if one of the couple is infected with something.)
So it is better to not treat this dogmatically.