Women who had miscarriages can't receive the Eucharist?

[HalupkiMonster]

Hi, all.

A few years ago, a woman in my former Orthodox parish who I would consider devout told me that if a woman has a miscarriage, it is because of her own sinfulness, and she is not supposed to receive the Eucharist for a certain number of time after doing so, and then go to confession to "repent".

Is this true?

Is this the kind of thing that is no longer adhered to because "economia", but is still in the canons?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Cappadocious]

Is this the kind of thing that is no longer adhered to because "economia", but is still in the canons?

"In the canons" is a bit confusing. There are a lot of canons floating around out there, some good, some bad; some legitimate, some illegitimate. Some ecumenical, some parochial.

I would not give canons that blame women for miscarriages much respect, if they do exist. I know that in ancient times it was the belief that women were responsible for their miscarriages, and so would be held accountable. This persists as a folk belief and ought to be stamped out.

Now, on the other hand, if a spiritually mature person is able to take responsibility in freedom and humility for those things which are not within their control or not fully within their control (like having a miscarriage, being hit by a car, accidentally hitting someone else with a car, etc.) that is a powerful witness of Christ's dominion. But that is high-level St. Porphyrios stuff, and if you make people do it out of shame and compulsion then it is meaningless.

Just my 2c

 

[gzt]

This is mostly folk belief.

 

[jckstraw72]

i haven't read the pertinent canons in a while, but it has nothing to do with punishing a woman, just as no penance is ever about punishment. such an event leaves scars that need to be healed, and sometimes abstention from the Eucharist is medicine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

indeed, if there is anything about abstaining from communion, it is for healing and not for punishment.

 

[Dewi Sant]

Though I can see the culural precedent for witholding communion for healing, I find it to be an unehlpful practice.

What is the Communion? It is not a reward for good behaviour.

I shall end now, this makes me angry.

Just saying.

 

[gzt]

The people at what once was called SCOBA recently had a set of meetings about appropriate modern pastoral responses to miscarriage, they're going to produce some pastoral guidelines and, if I recall correctly, a service that can be used for the occasion. Needless to say, it will be much more... pastoral... than this.

Here are a couple links with resources or discussion haphazardly assembled in a few minutes.

Lost Innocents

A note from the web-log: Lost Innocents: Review of "An Orthodox Pastoral Approach to Miscarriage" by Fr. Peter J. Gillquist

A note from the OCA about October: https://oca.org/parish-ministry/familylife/october-pregnancy-and-infant-loss-awareness-month

 

[All4Christ]

Though I can see the culural precedent for witholding communion for healing, I find it to be an unehlpful practice. What is the Communion? It is not a reward for good behaviour. I shall end now, this makes me angry. Just saying.

I have to say, I don't quite understand the withholding of communion in a case like this as healing. I know that communion can cause more harm than good if taken when someone is not prepared - and I know there are pastoral cases of withholding communion, but most of those times are in response to some serious problem someone has had (sin-wise). It's hard to understand that as a form of healing for someone in response to something that was not their fault. The Eucharist is spiritually regenerating, and healing by its very nature. Could any of you explain how it is healing in a case like this??

 

[Cappadocious]

Could any of you explain how it is healing in a case like this??

Remember what Jesus said about things outside not defiling us?

Well, first you substitute something else for that, like an account where you can be morally defiled by things outside of your control, and need to be purged of this moral defilement through penance.

Then when that account becomes unpopular due to the obvious problems with it for Christians, you replace "morally defiled" with "in need of healing" and "purging this moral defilement through penance" with "giving time to heal", and hope nobody notices that the prayers concerning this topic attribute a moral fault (murder) to the penitent.

I mean, one other solution is to throw out the tradition of blaming women for miscarriages as an antiquated error that contradicts the Gospel. But hey, who needs the simple solution?

 

[nutroll]

When my wife and I suffered a miscarriage with our first child, we received the Eucharist that very day. We lost our son on a Sunday morning and our priest brought the Eucharist to us. He heard our confessions and then communed us immediately. I must say that I used to think that the prayer for a woman who has had a miscarriage was very harsh in that it seems to imply that the woman committed a sin in miscarrying her child. Now I wonder if there is a wisdom to it that is deeper than I was prepared to understand. It appears to be a rare woman who does not blame herself for the loss of her child (which is not to say that they should, just that they most often do). I think the church offers prayers for forgiveness, not necessarily because they are needed, but because a mother might feel guilty. I think it would behoove a priest to warn a woman beforehand that there is such language in the prayers, and that they should not be scandalized by it, but comforted to know that no matter what they feel they may have done wrong it is most certainly forgiven.

 

[Damaris]

Women who have just given birth to a live infant also stay home from church for a while. Part of the churching of a mother when she returns is prayers for her forgiveness for any sins she may have committed in that time.

Instead of thinking the supposedly harsh prayers for a miscarriage mean that the mother is blamed for the miscarriage, we should instead remember two things:

1: The baby's life had value even though he or she was not yet born or baptized

2: The mother should bear no shame or scorn, because even if she did do something that caused the miscarriage by accident, she is forgiven for that and any other sin she may have committed. She gets a clean slate.

An intentional abortion, on the other hand, is a very serious sin, and is heavily penanced even today.

 

[Cappadocious]

Instead of thinking the supposedly harsh prayers for a miscarriage mean that the mother is blamed for the miscarriage

We still need some account of why, if it does not blame the mother, it so misleadingly seems to.

 

[prodromos]

One would need to look at the circumstances under which this canon was produced. If it was the case that it was not uncommon for people to deliberately cause miscarriage (eating a lot of peas apparently put pregnant women at high risk of miscarriage) then the reason for the canon is obvious.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I concur. The idea that every woman who has a miscarriage deserved it out of her own personal sin sends chills. It's awful. And the idea that staying AWAY from medicine makes us better, that's odd. My old priest, the one that screwed me over, WAS right when he told me one time that he thinks women who repent and confess that they had an abortion, who are aching and reeling from the loss and the murder they committed, NEED the Eucharist immediately for healing. He said most priests he knows require such women to wait many MONTHS before returning to the chalice. Sometimes I wonder about some of these priests. I'm at a point in my life where I seriously have problems placing my trust in clergy and the "spiritual father" stuff. In the end, I wonder how much these guys are really guided by the Spirit and given Godly wisdom, and how much is just plain ole humanity and individual prejudices, opinions, and slants. Lord have mercy on my cynicism lately.

I have to say, I don't quite understand the withholding of communion in a case like this as healing. I know that communion can cause more harm than good if taken when someone is not prepared - and I know there are pastoral cases of withholding communion, but most of those times are in response to some serious problem someone has had (sin-wise). It's hard to understand that as a form of healing for someone in response to something that was not their fault. The Eucharist is spiritually regenerating, and healing by its very nature. Could any of you explain how it is healing in a case like this??

 

[All4Christ]

I have been thinking about this concept...and as a clarification, I (eventually) have come to appreciate that at times, it is appropriate for a short time to abstain from communion in cases of willful continual sin. For me, it hasn't been often - and was of my own volition with consultation with my spiritual father. I had a sin that I kept falling back into over and over again - a fairly serious sin - and at times, I felt like without confession - I would be partaking of communion to my detriment rather than healing of soul and body. If I were to do this, I was instructed to confess as soon as possible so that I could partake of the healing sacrament of the Eucharist, even if it had to be in the middle of the week (I traveled many weekends). This mainly was due to a continual sinning with the same issue. The abstention of communion was in a sense a reminder of how sin can separate us from communion with God. On rare occasions I can see abstention from communion as healing (keyword rare!).

However, in cases such as this, where there is not an willful action severely tearing us from communion with God...I don't understand the reasoning...since it is preventing us from partaking of this healing sacrament.

 

[Dewi Sant]

I have to say, I don't quite understand the withholding of communion in a case like this as healing. I know that communion can cause more harm than good if taken when someone is not prepared - and I know there are pastoral cases of withholding communion, but most of those times are in response to some serious problem someone has had (sin-wise). It's hard to understand that as a form of healing for someone in response to something that was not their fault. The Eucharist is spiritually regenerating, and healing by its very nature. Could any of you explain how it is healing in a case like this??

thank you

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I concur. The idea that every woman who has a miscarriage deserved it out of her own personal sin sends chills. It's awful. And the idea that staying AWAY from medicine makes us better, that's odd. My old priest, the one that screwed me over, WAS right when he told me one time that he thinks women who repent and confess that they had an abortion, who are aching and reeling from the loss and the murder they committed, NEED the Eucharist immediately for healing. He said most priests he knows require such women to wait many MONTHS before returning to the chalice. Sometimes I wonder about some of these priests. I'm at a point in my life where I seriously have problems placing my trust in clergy and the "spiritual father" stuff. In the end, I wonder how much these guys are really guided by the Spirit and given Godly wisdom, and how much is just plain ole humanity and individual prejudices, opinions, and slants. Lord have mercy on my cynicism lately.

As I understand it, things like this that can happen to us because of the Fall, are not looked at as caused by *personal* sin, but rather for recognition that our sins in general have contributed to the Fall and its consequences. I still don't think she should be kept from the Eucharist.

Mary

 

[Wryetui]

There is no problem if the abortion was an unwanted accident, a medical loss and the mother didn't wanted that, but for willing abortion the penitence and the denying of communion are 20 years, at least here in my country.

 

[jckstraw72]

Could any of you explain how it is healing in a case like this??

to be honest, i don't know that i could explain it, or that i understand it myself. but these canons were written by illumined Saints who bear the mind of Christ, and they were Ecumenically ratified by other illumined Saints who bear the mind of Christ. i don't know how i could say that the closer someone is to Christ the less loving and pastoral he becomes. i think it's far more likely that we don't understand what it means to be pastoral. i wonder if any recent Elders have spoken on it. seems like the kind of thing St. Paisios would have a word or two about.

 

[All4Christ]

to be honest, i don't know that i could explain it, or that i understand it myself. but these canons were written by illumined Saints who bear the mind of Christ, and they were Ecumenically ratified by other illumined Saints who bear the mind of Christ. i don't know how i could say that the closer someone is to Christ the less loving and pastoral he becomes. i think it's far more likely that we don't understand what it means to be pastoral.

No offense intended with this...I may not be explaining my thoughts well.

To say that because they are illumined saints, the guidance they provided must be accurate or pastoral is not a guarantee. Someone can be the most pastoral priest or Saint and be extremely close to Christ - but still not be 100% accurate or right. If a saint gave the guideline in a time that they thought miscarriages were the fault of the woman, unintentionally or not, then that guideline may be pastoral in that light. A Christ-like illumined mind doesn't equal understanding science and medicine accurately. I do not know if that was the reasoning behind this canon law, but it is possible, unless someone knows the reasoning behind why it is considered the pastoral way of handling it. In fact, a writer of a canon law may be one of the most pastoral, Christ-like humans on this earth, but still not have the most pastoral way or handling one individual guidance.

Granted, we are not in the place of deciding whether this is or is not the case of this canon law, but no one (other than Christ and the Theotokos) - not even the saints - is perfect. The Church will guide us in knowing what we should do regarding the canons, but the writing of the canon laws by illumined saints does not necessarily mean that it is the most pastoral way to handle it, unless the Church guides us to continue that way.

EDIT: I do see your point about us not understanding how it was pastoral...I just don't think it is a guarantee that the reasonings behind the action were accurate just because they are saints - unless the Church continues to guide us to keep following it. Also, I want to keep my post here, but am concerned that it may be taken as not trusting the Church or respecting the saints. I'm not trying to say that at all, nor am I making a judgment that this is not pastoral (although I do not understand it).