Folia Canonica 11. (2008)
STUDIES - George D. Gallaro: Oikonomia and Marriage Dissolution in the Christian East
118 GEORGE D. GALLARO Council of Toledo in the year 400 sanctions: “If a believer, having a wife, takes another woman, he should not be admitted to Holy Communion; on the other hand, if one does not have a wife and takes a concubine as his wife, he should not be refused Holy Communion, but let him be satisfied with one woman, either a wife or a concubine, the one he prefers; otherwise he should be refused Holy Communion until he desists and repents through penance.”47 It is true that the word concubine in the Roman law did not have the meaning it has today. At any event, the Church did not recognize these marriages, it only tolerated them. The same was true in the East. This type of unions was forbidden to the ecclesiastics, but tolerated among lay people. In the East, first the marriage for the innocent party was allowed since he or she was separated by the adultery of the other party. This marriage was not blessed but it was tolerated. In the celebration of this union the two partners did not receive Holy Communion, but no disciplinary penalties were imposed on the wife or the bridegroom in as much as she or he was innocent.48 The guilty party, on the other hand, was treated as an adulterer and punished with canonical sanctions. However, when the time of the canonical penance was over (18 years, later 15 and then even 7 or 6 years) and the former partner had remarried, in the end even the marriage of the guilty party was tacitly allowed. As far as the ecclesiastics were concerned, the canonical law was obviously more severe. If the wife of an ecclesiastic committed adultery, he had to separate from her (canon 8 of Neocaesarea).49 Neither could enter a second Christian marriage. Economy could not be applied in this specific case. For a long time adultery was considered the only cause for dissolution of a marriage, even if no possibility of a second marriage was forthcoming. This was in conformity with the words of the Gospel of the Evangelist Matthew. With the Edict of Emperor Constantine, other cases began to be tolerated here and there, and many bishops were not satisfied by this possibility. Patriarch Timothy of Alexandria, around the year 380, was asked, “If one’s wife be possessed to such a degree, as that she be bond with irons, and the husband cannot keep chaste, may he marry another?” The answer was: “I can only say it would 47 K. Kirch, Enchiridion Fontium Historiae Ecclesiasticae Antiquae (n. 711), Freiburg 1923. 48 In addition to the refusal of Holy Communion, the penitential epitimia in the Christian East entailed many days of fast and the exclusion from the Divine Liturgy in total or in part. In the case of so-called minor violations, the penitent took part in the Divine Liturgy with the faithful but could not receive Holy Communion. 49 Joannou, op. cit. If the ecclesiastic opted to forgive the fault and continue to live together, he could do it, but he would be unable to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, although he could wear the clerical garb and receive Holy Communion together with those of his own rank since he was innocent. The reason for this norm was that, according to the Lord’s words in Matthew, adultery nullifies the sacramental marriage, while leaving still standing the juridical-social bond which is not sufficient for the marriage of an ecclesiastic since he is called to the supernatural level in virtue of the sacred order. The sacrament of orders goes together with the marriage-sacrament, not with a marriage bond of a juridical-social level.
