I commented yesterday that there I have no problem with the idea that those who are actively and directly involved in activities that are in murderous violation of pro-life standards should be denied communion. But, I also commented that many pro-birth people do not fully carry out their own beliefs. That is, they are willing to impose a very strong and strict judgment on just some of the anti-life people, but not all of them. What do I mean?
Before I go to what I mean, let me take a small side trip to an uncomfortable subject. That subject is women who choose to have an abortion. The pro-birth movement has mostly gulped real hard on this subject, classified most of the women as victims and avoided most any mention of this uncomfortable subject. But, what has the Church said in the past? It is not a subject we Priests ought to either avoid, nor are we to come to our own conclusions independently of what the Church has previously said. Well, the Orthodox Great Book of Needs has a Prayer for a woman when she has miscarried/aborted an infant. In the rubrics for that prayer it says:
The Church strictly differentiates between the causes of unfortunate occurrences for which the above Prayer has been composed, whether the unfortunate occurrence took place according to the will of the woman who had become pregnant, or independently of her will. The first it calls voluntary murder . . .
The Church also treats with discernment the time “when a woman aborts”, viewing the case of abortion/miscarriage as not of the same significance if it took place during the first half of pregnancy (unless this was the fault of the woman who had become pregnant); the Church attaches greater importance to cases which took place during the second half of pregnancy, even when the miscarriage/abortion was not premeditated on the part of the one who was pregnant: “Since they that are five months pregnant are, by the laws and the canons, responsible for murder if it happen that by any shock they abort the infant.”
Prior to reading the Prayer, the Priest must examine the woman . . . to determine whether she caused it by inadvertence or on purpose. . . . In either case, he must lead her to repentance, and set a penance in conformity with the holy canons–for inadvertence, as the instrument of an involuntary death, and for premeditated abortion, as a voluntary murderess.
The Council of Ancyra puts harlots who have corrupted and destroyed their children under prohibition from the Holy Mysteries for ten years. It also commands that those persons who provide others with means of destroying or ejecting the fetus be subject to the same punishment.
When the woman casts out the fetus involuntarily, or if it happens manifestly “from the slander of the adversary (i.e., the devil),” the parents are considered as being not guilty of murder. . . .
That is, the woman who has chosen to abort is considered guilty of voluntary murder and the prayer may not be prayed for her. Anyone who aided her in the abortion is also guilty of voluntary murder. Notice that the penalty is 10 years without being allowed to receive ANY of the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) for both she who chooses to abort, and those who directly aid in the abortion or the procuring of it. She who chooses to abort is considered responsible and is not considered a victim.
Nevertheless, notice that the Priest is to inquire carefully. For the full penalty to be applied, the woman must have chosen fully and voluntarily. [Note that for a marriage to be valid, the woman and the man must have chosen fully and voluntarily. Fully and voluntarily is the common requirement for many Church matters.] I suspect that a hierarch would confirm a lesser penalty on a woman who had been coerced into an abortion, for instance the teenager whose parents had pressured her into one, or the unfaithful and immoral boyfriend who had insisted until the woman’s will was broken.
But, there is an additional line that makes most of us nowadays uncomfortable. Did you notice that it says that the Church casts much greater importance to a miscarriage in the second half of the pregnancy, “even when . . . [it] was not premeditated on the part of the one who was pregnant”? The Priest is also supposed to examine the woman to make sure that the miscarriage was not through inadvertence. What does that mean?
Have you noticed the growing concern over the last twenty years about what the mother does during her pregnancy and how it affects the fetus? The Orthodox Church has had that concern for centuries. If the Priest determines that some of the actions of the mother contributed to the miscarriage, then a lesser penalty is imposed, but nothing like the 10 year penalty. That is, the father and the mother (or the mother alone if there is no present father) have been responsible for centuries to ensure the health of the fetus and that their actions (or inactions) are not detrimental to the health of the fetus. If their behavior or lifestyle choices cause the miscarriage of the fetus, they are considered “responsible for murder if it happen that by any shock they abort the infant,” then the Prayer is not to be prayed for the mother and they are to be denied the Sacraments, but to a much lesser period of time. They also are not victims, but bear some responsibility for the death of the child. It is the difference between premeditated and not-premeditated murder.
But, here is a question for those who are pro-birth, particularly those who are Roman Catholic. Are you willing to apply the full extent of the canons? Are you willing to insist to your Priest that every time a woman miscarries in the second half of her pregnancy that the Priest must go and examine her concerning her lifestyle choices to decide whether they contributed to the miscarriage? And, if the fetus is found to have died through lifestyle choices or something as simple as a car accident that was the fault of the mother, are you willing to insist that the Prayer and the Sacraments must be denied to the mother (and father, depending on involvement) for a period of time?
Have you insisted that your Priest preach periodically on the responsibility of the mother to so conduct her lifestyle during her pregnancy so that the health of the fetus is taken into serious account? Are pregnant women warned that the Church may take action against them should their child die as a result of their lifestyle choices during pregnancy? Does your parish have pregnancy programs that help to train the pregnant mothers in your congregation so that their health is maximized?
You see, this brings us full circle back to what I said yesterday and which I will cover further tomorrow. There is too much of a tendency to pick and choose which canons we wish enforced and which punishments we wish applied. Tomorrow I will talk about a large category of people who could be considered to have committed murder but for whom I have yet to hear any pro-birth person demand that they be denied the Sacraments.
===MORE TO COME===
The loss of a wanted child is a traumatic event and for a woman who miscarries in the 2nd trimester or third trimester even more catastrophic. That someone would take her to task and probe into the loss seems like salt on the wound to me. I wonder how many women in the past who had Rh factor problems before we knew what they were or who had other issues were blamed for causing a death they had nothing to do with. Even today some SIDS parents are traumatised by insensitive probing into the child’s death.
I would hope that any probing into a late term miscarriage would be done in more of a comforting and consoling manner than a judgemental one. I have watched my daughter suffer miscarriages of two very much wanted babies. This is the girl who stopped drinking anything alcoholic or smoking cigarettes or even being in a room where other people were smoking cigarettes, started early on prenatal vitamins and a good diet). The emotional anguish she has gone through regarding these losses (especially poignant as she had been told at one time that she very probably could not get pregnant because of severe endometriosis) has rendered her terrified to even try again for fear that she might never recover emotionally if she should lose another baby. (I really think the Rh issue was a factor in the loss of the 2nd baby as after the first miscarriage she does not remember being blood typed or having Rhogam. It was so early in the pregnancy that she had not yet been to see an OB, so was treated or I might say mistreated in the ER in a backwoods country hospital.)
If she had been examined by someone to see if she had hurt the babies, I think she might have become suicidal her depression at the loss–especially the 2nd one which was 2nd trimester-was so severe. I would like to think that any priest would take these factors into account, but in my day I have met some pretty insensitive supposed men of God.
Just my thoughts on the matter…..
Good, you caught what I was driving at. When one looks at some of the pro-birth rhetoric, it is clear that there is a selective quoting of canons, etc., and an insistence on a purely legal approach to those whom are selectively targeted for that type of approach, while there is an insistence on a “graceful” approach to those who are not targeted by the pro-birth movement.
Frankly, my approach would be to assume innocence unless there were clear and visible evidence that the woman may have had some responsibility in the child’s death. And, it had better be very clear and very visible. Nevertheless, this points out clearly how seriously the Church Fathers took even a miscarriage, which is important when talking to those in favor of “choice.”
But, I did point out one case that would be extremely hard for the priest, but would actually fit within this canon. What about the woman who is driving and is involved in an accident which the police rule is her fault? She is in emotional agony over losing the fetus, but it is through her fault that the child has died. If that woman had left an already born child in a hot car and the child died, we would prosecute, right? Both would be deaths by inadvertence. In both cases, there would be emotional trauma, but in both cases, it is through the fault of a parent that the child is dead. So, should not the priest follow through in this case?
I suppose that if it were careless fault–ie driving while texting or running a red light…..but I have been in accidents where it was technically my “fault” but due to inadequate signage or other such issues, the “fault” was very unclear in reality. I was once in an accident due to someone grabbing the wheel away from me. It was my “fault” but not really my fault. I think it would have to be some egregious lawbreaking on the part of the woman for me to be comfortable with punishing her. However, it must be said that an accident of the severity to cause a miscarriage would also cause severe injury or death to the mother. Babies don’t dislodge themselves all that easily.
You are making my point rather well. Your instinctive reaction is to try to find some reason why the rubrics should not be applied. But, notice that when it comes to US Congressmen, even when they were not directly involved with abortion but were simply voting on a bill that supposedly impacted abortion, the pro-birth component will consistently insist that they must be punished with one of the strongest punishments known to the Church, the denial of the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments).
Recently, the pro-life representative from Michigan, Rep. Stupak has decided not to run again. What was his crime? He hung strong on being against abortion until he squeezed an agreement out of President Obama that an Executive Order would be issued that reinforced that the Hyde Amendment applied to the healthcare bill that was passed. (That is the amendment that prohibits the direct use of Federal funds for abortion.) What was the response of the pro-birth community? Well, one would think that he had personally approved abortions.
Yes, there were, and are, still people insisting that the Church should punish him. They were planning to harass him through every campaign stop that he would make on the basis of his being a supporter of abortion. What was his crime? That he did not hang on to try to force a full reconsideration and rewrite of the bill because he thought that the compromise he got was sufficient to ensure what was needed. Does he deserve that type of treatment? Well, he deserves it no more than the woman whose child died because she was at fault in an accident. It is this type of inappropriate discrepancy that I am trying to point out. [In passing, I am not sure he “deserves” anything; I am actually more sure that the woman in the accident does.]
But, we also need to be careful to not go too far in the other direction. Our modern tendency is to excuse people in such a way that rather than experiencing forgiveness they experience someone making an excuse for them. The strength of forgiveness is in clearly saying that a sin (or crime) was truly committed, but forgiving it anyway. What do I mean? Both the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery were forgiven by Jesus, but in each case they were called to account. The women at the well was bluntly told that Jesus knew she had no husband; she had had multiple husbands and was now shacked up, for instance.
We need to call sin as what it truly and clearly is at the same time that we need to be ready to clearly forgive. Nevertheless, it is a modern fallacy that forgiveness may not carry consequences. Think about how often a parent forgives a child but may “ground” them anyway or impose new restrictions as a consequence of their actions. The two are not contradictory.
I do not think that my reaction was one of attempting to find out reasons why the rubrics should not apply, but was instead seeking to understand the difference between a legalism that metes out punishment according to a letter of the law mentality and a situation where a spiritual counselor can assist in sorting out the complexity of human actions and reactions in a traumatic situation. One cannot simply stand in judgement–one must temper that judgement with mercy and help people to not only recognize the sin if there is one but also recognize where they might be punishing themselves with guilt where there was truly no sin. Then once a sin is recognized, the ideal is to guide someone into a more holy way of living.
Are there consequences to sin? Boy, you better believe it and often those consequences are the direct result of that sin–no one has to impose them from the outside. For people who are in the public eye such as politicians–it has been my experience that imposing consequences from the outside sadly does not work very well as they worship another god (of power or greed or some such) and don’t really care unless the negitive publicity that comes with it impacts them in their lifestyle, their power base or their wallet.
On the other hand, knowing that I am not without sin, perhaps I was thinking of my own horrible guilt if I were to accidently kill or cause injury to another human being. Even if such an occurance was caused by my own momentary inattention and thus my fault, the consequences would be jail or a lawsuit or both strictly from a legal point of view. If I were denied the Holy Mysteries on top of this, the overwhelming guilt would be unmitigated and then how could I even live? (This from a woman who felt intense guilt for the death of a bird that flew into her windshield with no fault to her at all. The taking of even such a small life that could not have been helped in any way that I could think of was still traumatic. Overly sensitive? Not I!!)
The interesting part is how often the Early Church Fathers would find reasons not to impose the full sanction. There is more than one letter from a bishop to either another bishop or to a priest, counseling them to not impose the full punishment lest the “delicate” condition of the person (must have meant psychological) would drive them away from the Church rather than toward the Church.
But, they did not lighten the sin, they lightened the discipline. We tend to make light of the sin or explain it psychologically. They would keep the full weight of the sin but lighten the discipline as an act of mercy. In fact, I think I hear a blog post coming up on the difference between the two approached to pastoral care.
Interesting thoughts. Not exactly on your topic, but I have always thought of communion as a means of grace rather than a reward for right behavior. Why cut someone desperately in need of grace off from its source?
More on your topic — where does it end? How about the justices who wrote Roe v. Wade? The Presidents who nominated them, the committees and Senators who confirmed them? And now that we will have federally funded abortion, maybe we should just eliminate communion all together, since we will all be culpable.
GRIN. You are catching part of the problem with any rule. At what point do you have limits? In fact, too many of the arguments have been more like the 600 rules of the Pharisees. For instance, you mentioned that we will now have federally funded abortion. However, if you look at what I have posted on other posts, this is an argument that if the law is implemented in a certain way then it means that we are funding abortion. The law itself says no such thing and the President has issued an Executive Order clarifying that nothing in the law is to be used as an excuse to fund abortion.
But, again, the argument is that if you do this, it will inevitably lead to that, which will open the door to the other, which will clearly land us in Federal funding of abortion. That type of argument is very dangerous because I can prove almost anything if you just let me specify the inevitable consequences. That is why in my first post I limited it to those clearly and actively involved in abortion. I wanted to stay away from that type of argumentation.
There are arguments among Christians about the Lord’s Supper and its role in the Body of Christ, and the place of discipline. There are many debates over that in Church History.
That type of argument is very dangerous because I can prove almost anything if you just let me specify the inevitable consequences.
Anyone remember that Focus on the Family “Letter from the Future” from the 2008 election?