"There is an immense difference between adulterating the marital act with a barrier...and simply abstaining when she's fertile, on the other."
I guess like FL, I don't see the distinction. I doubt the Fathers, especially guys like +Jerome, would either, had they known somewhat more about the actual biology involved.
Rejecting abortifacients is a no brainer.
In any event, in my Orthodox opinion, dogmatic proclamations like Humanae Vitae, without the possibility of economia, just breed contempt for the teaching authority of The Church. This "dogma" has very clearly been rejected by the Catholic laity which uses ABC at rates slightly higher than the general population. Vatican II gets quite a rap when it comes to the rise of "cafeteria Catholicism", but to my mind, Humanae Vitae as presented played a major role in the collapse of the Latin Church's authority among the laity.
By the way, nothing in Humanae Vitae's ultimate holdings are dogma in Orthodoxy and never were. They are theologoumenna.
What do you object to? I think Humanae Vitae began some clarification of the Church's teachings, which could more clearly been seen in John Paul the Great's Theology of the Body. It is wrong to try to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of love. I saw a couple of quotes from the fathers that do not accurately represent the Church's teachings.
Not every act of love must result in pregnancy, but every act of love must mirror the life giving love of the Creator.
I don't know the Orthodox position on this.
What does this word mean? : "theologoumenna"
I disagree, I think Humanae Vitae is a remarkable work of prophecy and showed that in or out of season the Chair of Peter must speak Truth to the times. The fact that the laity just want to be a product of the times rather than eternity is nothing new.
Have some questions and observations, but to tired to right now.