Women, Menstruation, Childbirth and the Eucharist: Biblical, Patristic and Modern Orthodox Perspectives
Melangell Roe-Stevens Smith B.Th&Ethics, Hons. 1st Class; MA (Byzantine Studies); PGCE
Thyateira Midland Ecclesiastical Seminary, 2025
Abstract
This article examines whether menstruation or postpartum bleeding should restrict a woman’s participation in the sacramental life of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Drawing on Scripture, patristic texts, canonical materials, liturgical sources, social history and modern Orthodox theology, it argues that neither menstruation nor childbirth constitutes spiritual impurity. The essay also assesses cultural explanations—such as claims of ritual mourning, outdated medical ideas and misconceptions about British law—and offers a theological refutation of the argument that menstruation conflicts with the Eucharist as a “bloodless sacrifice”. The evidence suggests that significant strands within early Christian tradition permit women’s full participation in worship and Communion at all times.
1. Introduction
The question of women’s access to the Eucharist during menstruation and after childbirth remains a topic of pastoral debate within parts of the Orthodox Church. While some regional traditions maintain restrictive practices, a significant body of historical and theological evidence calls these customs into question. This study evaluates Scripture, the Church Fathers, ecclesiastical canons, sociocultural factors and contemporary theological reflection to offer a coherent Orthodox perspective.
2. Biblical Foundations
Old Testament purity laws related to menstruation and childbirth occur principally in Leviticus 12 and 15. These laws concern ritual impurity associated with Temple worship and are not indicators of moral failing. In the New Testament, Christ overturns ritual impurity as a barrier to grace. His response to the woman with the issue of blood—affirming her faith and healing her without rebuke (Mark 5:25–34)—demonstrates that bodily states do not exclude believers from divine encounter. The New Testament provides no teaching that menstruation or postpartum bleeding should restrict women from prayer, worship or Communion.
3. The Old Testament Laws as Protective of Women
Some biblical scholars argue that the Levitical regulations also served a protective social function within ancient Israel. In a patriarchal world without analgesics, sanitation or reproductive autonomy, the prohibition of sexual relations during menstruation (Lev. 15:24) effectively granted women a period of bodily inviolability and rest (Milgrom, 1991). These regulations safeguarded women from sexual approaches at a time of discomfort or vulnerability.
The narrative of Leah in Genesis 30:14–16 reflects this context. Leah strategically asserts her right to Jacob’s presence, appealing to existing social rules related to sexual access and purity. Scholars note that the scene presupposes a framework in which menstrual and post-menstrual periods regulated a woman’s availability, granting her a limited but real form of leverage in a household where she lacked structural power. Thus, ritual impurity in the Old Testament does not imply female inferiority but rather reflects a culturally embedded mechanism for protecting women’s autonomy.
Crucially, this protective function does not continue in Christianity. The early Church rejects ritual impurity as a barrier to worship while retaining the affirmation of women’s dignity inherent in Christ’s ministry.
4. Patristic Witness
4.1 The Inclusive Patristic Tradition
Early Christian tradition contains strong testimony against excluding menstruating women:
The Didascalia Apostolorum (3rd century) commands bishops not to separate women during menstruation, emphasising the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Connolly, 1929).
The Apostolic Constitutions (4th century) reiterate that menstruation does not defile a Christian (Funk, 1905).
St Gregory the Great, responding to Augustine of Canterbury (c. 601), states explicitly that menstruating women must not be forbidden from entering church or receiving Communion, as menstruation is involuntary and not sinful (Gregory the Great, 1887).
St Athanasius affirms that involuntary bodily functions are “necessities of nature” and cannot cause impurity (Athanasius, 1899).
These texts represent a significant and theologically developed strand within early Christian tradition of inclusion.
4.2 The Restrictive Canonical Tradition
In contrast, some later Fathers and regional canonical sources adopt a restrictive stance. Canon 2 of St Dionysius of Alexandria advises abstention from church and Communion during menstruation (Dionysius of Alexandria, 1857). The canons of St Timothy of Alexandria and the Canonical Answers of St John the Faster echo this view (Timothy of Alexandria, 1899; John the Faster, 1860). These were later codified in Byzantine collections such as the Nomocanon.
This restrictive tradition reflects a pastoral application shaped by inherited Levitical categories and the medical and social conditions of its time, and was received within particular ecclesial contexts.
5. Cultural and Practical Influences
For most of history, menstrual management posed significant challenges. With limited access to sanitation, absorbent materials or privacy, attending long liturgical services could lead to embarrassment and social discomfort. In many communities, women voluntarily refrained from church attendance during menstruation for these practical and social reasons, not because of theological barriers. Over centuries, these customs became entwined with scriptural language and took on a quasi-canonical appearance.
Modern hygiene renders these practical concerns obsolete.
6. Menstruation as “Mourning for Potential Life”
Classical Jewish halakhah contains no evidence that menstruation was understood as “mourning for potential life.” The major halakhic sources—the Mishnah (Tractate Niddah), the Talmud Bavli (Niddah), and the later codifications of the Shulchan Aruch—treat menstruation solely within the frameworks of ritual impurity, bodily regulation and marital separation, with no symbolic association with grief, death or lost potential.
Leading scholars affirm this absence: Cohen (2005), Hauptman (1998) and Frymer-Kensky (2006) all demonstrate that classical rabbinic texts conceive niddah entirely in legal-ritual terms, without emotional or symbolic overlay. Fonrobert’s comprehensive study (2002) confirms that rabbinic tradition does not construe menstruation as mourning, characterising such interpretations as modern constructions rather than ancient teachings. Although a rhetorical motif equating menstruation with “loss of potential life” appears in some modern writings—most notably in Rabbi Avram Reisner’s Conservative Movement responsum (2006)—this is a contemporary theological interpretation rather than a classical halakhic view. In short, the “mourning for potential life” idea is a modern symbolic reading, not present as a formal doctrinal motif in classical halakhic sources and unsupported by historic rabbinic sources.
7. The 40 Days After Childbirth
While Christian churching practices echo Leviticus 12, the 40-day rite developed as an act of thanksgiving and blessing rather than purification. Earlier liturgical texts contain purity language (Goar, 1730), but modern Euchologia increasingly frame the rite positively as the joyful presentation of mother and child (Ecumenical Patriarchate, various years). Orthodox theology affirms that childbirth does not render a woman spiritually impure.
8. The British Law Claim
A widespread folk belief maintains that British law automatically invalidates contracts signed by women within six weeks postpartum due to hormonal imbalance, yet this claim is without legal foundation. Because such legal claims are sometimes invoked to suggest that women are inherently unstable or temporarily incapacitated after childbirth, they can reinforce theological narratives of exclusion and must therefore be examined critically within a pastoral context.
English law has never presumed incapacity in postpartum women. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a person “must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity” (s.1(2)), meaning incapacity must be proven, not inferred from status. Case law confirms the same principle: in Imperial Loan Co v Stone [1892] 1 QB 599, the court held that a contract is voidable only where a party was actually incapable of understanding the transaction and the other party was, or ought to have been, aware of this; the House of Lords reaffirmed this in Hart v O’Connor [1985] AC 1000, emphasising that incapacity must be factual rather than presumed. Leading contract-law authorities list only minors, those with demonstrable mental incapacity, and intoxicated persons as categories potentially lacking contractual capacity—none include postpartum women (McKendrick, 2023; Furmston, 2021; Treitel, 2020). Although nineteenth-century medical literature occasionally described rare instances of “puerperal insanity”, such as those analysed by Marland (2004), this was never incorporated into statutory or common-law presumptions of incapacity. Accordingly, the notion that British law nullifies contracts signed by women in the early postpartum period is historically, medically and legally unfounded, and cannot serve as a basis for restrictions on Eucharistic participation.
9. Refuting the “Bloodless Sacrifice” Argument
Some have argued that women should not receive Communion during menstruation because the Divine Liturgy is described as a “bloodless sacrifice” (thysia anymaktos). This argument is theologically erroneous.
“Bloodless” refers to the sacramental mode of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, not to any prohibition of human blood. The Eucharist is bloodless because Christ does not die again (Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews).
The Eucharistic Body and Blood are spiritual and mystical, not biological substances subject to contamination.
Biological bleeding has not been consistently treated as an impediment to Eucharistic reception for other conditions (e.g., nosebleeds, wounds, chronic illnesses).
Early Christian texts explicitly reject menstrual exclusion, affirming the woman’s full participation in prayer and Communion (Connolly, 1929; Funk, 1905).
Patristic anthropology does not classify natural bodily processes as impure (Athanasius, 1899).
It should also be noted that, historically, concerns regarding the presence of menstrual blood in relation to the Eucharist—whether framed in terms of “impurity”, “unsealing”, or the misinterpretation of the Eucharist as a “bloodless sacrifice”—were, where they appeared at all, applied only to those serving within the altar during the Divine Liturgy and at the moment of consecration, rather than to the faithful approaching to receive Communion. This aligns with the broader liturgical pattern in which the sanctuary maintains stricter symbolic boundaries, often shaped by inherited priestly imagery from Temple practice (Milgrom, 1991; Fonrobert, 2002). Importantly, while certain Alexandrian canons advise abstention, these do not represent universal patristic consensus and stand alongside explicitly inclusive early texts: these inclusive texts—the Didascalia Apostolorum and Apostolic Constitutions—explicitly forbid excluding women from prayer or the Mysteries on account of menstruation (Connolly, 1929; Funk, 1905), while St Gregory the Great insists that menstruation is involuntary and not a barrier to Communion (Gregory the Great, 1887). Patristic anthropology also rejects the idea of impurity associated with involuntary bodily processes (Athanasius, 1899). Thus, even where restrictive customs developed in some regions, they pertained exclusively to liturgical service within the altar, not to participation in the Eucharist itself, which the earliest and most clearly articulated strands of Christian tradition consistently maintain as open to all baptised believers regardless of bodily state.
10. Modern Orthodox Theology and Pastoral Practice
In continuity with the inclusive patristic strand, modern Orthodox hierarchs and theologians increasingly articulate the inclusive tradition: menstruation and childbirth are not grounds for restricting women from Communion. Within Greek Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Nikolaos of Mesogaia teaches explicitly that menstruation is “not a spiritual impediment” and carries no theological basis for exclusion (Nikolaos, 2012), while Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos affirms that Old Testament purity regulations “do not apply to Christians” (Vlachos, 1994). Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos asserts that no canon forbids menstruating women from receiving Communion (Epiphanios, 1981), and Zizioulas likewise rejects any notion of biological impurity (Zizioulas, 1985). In the Romanian tradition, Patriarch Daniel confirms that a woman is not considered “unclean” during menstruation and is not barred from Communion (Patriarchate of Romania, 2010), with Metropolitan Bartolomeu Anania and Dumitru Stăniloae both affirming that purity laws no longer bind Christians (Anania, 2001; Stăniloae, 1994). This teaching is consistent with wider contemporary Orthodox reflection, which recognises that ritual impurity laws do not apply to Christians (Russian Orthodox Church, 2000) and that the churching rite is properly understood as a blessing, not a purification. Accordingly, women may, with appropriate spiritual preparation and in obedience to their spiritual father, participate fully in the Eucharistic life of the Church.
11. Conclusion
The cumulative evidence from Scripture, patristic sources, canonical history, Jewish Studies, legal analysis and contemporary Orthodox theology strongly suggests that menstruation and childbirth do not render a woman spiritually impure nor restrict her access to the Eucharist. Biblical purity laws relating to blood functioned in the Old Testament as ritual and often protective regulations, not as expressions of moral defilement, and the New Testament decisively abolishes ritual impurity as a barrier to communion with God. Early Christian tradition is divided, but theologically robust and earliest witnesses—including the Didascalia Apostolorum, Apostolic Constitutions, St Athanasius and St Gregory the Great—explicitly reject excluding menstruating women from worship. Later restrictive canons reflected pastoral caution, medical limitations and cultural conditions, including the absence of adequate sanitation, rather than doctrinal necessity. The existence of restrictive canons demonstrates that regional pastoral applications varied; however, such variation itself indicates that the issue was not dogmatically defined but pastorally regulated.
Modern Orthodox hierarchy and scholarship in Greece, Romania and across the Orthodox world affirm that ritual impurity laws do not apply to Christians and that women may receive Holy Communion at any time (Nikolaos, 2012; Vlachos, 1994; Epiphanios, 1981; Zizioulas, 1985; Patriarchate of Romania, 2010; Anania, 2001; Stăniloae, 1994; Russian Orthodox Church, 2000). Legal analysis confirms that British law has never presumed postpartum incapacity and cannot be used to justify spiritual exclusion. The widespread modern claim that menstruation symbolises mourning for “potential life” is likewise absent from classical Jewish halakhah and appears only in modern symbolic interpretations (Cohen, 2005; Hauptman, 1998; Frymer-Kensky, 2006; Fonrobert, 2002). Similarly, the argument that menstruation conflicts with the Eucharist as a “bloodless sacrifice” is theologically unfounded and historically applied only to those serving inside the altar, never to communicants.
The scriptural, patristic, canonical and theological sources surveyed here suggest that menstruation and childbirth, while historically surrounded by varying pastoral practices, do not in themselves constitute moral or ontological impediments to participation in the Eucharistic life of the Church. The diversity of historical applications reflects differing pastoral contexts rather than dogmatic definition. Within the Orthodox understanding of Holy Tradition as both faithful transmission and living discernment, the evidence points toward an interpretation grounded in the holiness of the human body, the redemptive character of Christ’s incarnation, and the universality of the Eucharistic gift. In every case, participation remains ordered to spiritual preparation, humility and obedience within the life of the Church, so that theological clarity may serve not controversy but communion.
Bibliography
PRIMARY SOURCES
Apostolic Constitutions. (1905) In: Funk, F.X. (ed.) Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Athanasius of Alexandria. (1899) Epistola ad Amunem. In: Migne, J.-P. (ed.) Patrologia Graeca 26. Paris: Garnier.
Connolly, R.H. (1929) Didascalia Apostolorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dionysius of Alexandria. (1857) Epistolae et Canones. In: Migne, J.-P. (ed.) Patrologia Graeca 10. Paris: Garnier.
Ecumenical Patriarchate. (Various years) Euchologion: Hagiai Akolouthiai. Istanbul: Patriarchal Press.
Goar, J. (1730) Euchologion sive Rituale Graecorum. Venice.
Gregory the Great. (1887) Registrum Epistolarum. In: Ewald, P. and Hartmann, L.M. (eds.) Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Berlin: Weidmann.
John Chrysostom. (1862) Homilies on Romans and Homilies on Hebrews. In: Migne, J.-P. (ed.) Patrologia Graeca 60–61. Paris: Garnier.
John the Faster. (1860) Canones. In: Migne, J.-P. (ed.) Patrologia Graeca 88. Paris: Garnier.
Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod. (2000) The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow: Department for External Church Relations.
Timothy of Alexandria. (1899) Canones. In: Migne, J.-P. (ed.) Patrologia Graeca 26. Paris: Garnier.
MODERN ORTHODOX SOURCES
Anania, B. (2001) Cartea Cerului: Liturgica Ortodoxă pentru Credincioşi. Cluj-Napoca: Renaşterea.
Epiphanios (Theodoropoulos). (1981) Ἀπαντήσεις εἰς Λειτουργικάς Ἀπορίας [Answers to Liturgical Questions]. Athens: Zoe.
Hierotheos (Vlachos). (1994) Orthodox Psychotherapy. Levadia: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery Press.
Nikolaos of Mesogaia. (2012) Ποιμαντικές Απαντήσεις σε Σύγχρονα Ερωτήματα [Pastoral Responses to Contemporary Questions]. Athens: En Plo.
Patriarchate of Romania. (2010) Îndrumări Pastorale privind Viaţa Liturgică. Bucharest: Basilica Publishing House.
Stăniloae, D. (1994) Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. II. Bucharest: Institutul Biblic.
Zizioulas, J. (1985) Being as Communion. London: Darton, Longman & Todd.
JEWISH STUDIES & BIBLICAL STUDIES
Boyarin, D. (1993) Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cohen, S.J.D. (2005) Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fonrobert, C.E. (2002) Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Frymer-Kensky, T. (2006) Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Hauptman, J. (1998) Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman’s Voice. Boulder: Westview Press.
Milgrom, J. (1991) Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Commentary. New York: Doubleday.
Reisner, A. (2006) Observing Niddah in Our Day. New York: Rabbinical Assembly.
LEGAL SOURCES
Cases
Imperial Loan Co v Stone [1892] 1 QB 599.
Hart v O’Connor [1985] AC 1000.
Statutes
Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Academic Legal Texts
Furmston, M.P. (2021) Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McKendrick, E. (2023) Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Treitel, G.H. (2020) The Law of Contract. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Medical-Legal History
Marland, H. (2004) Dangerous Motherhood: Insanity and Childbirth in Victorian Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.