Folia Canonica 11. (2008)
STUDIES - George D. Gallaro: Oikonomia and Marriage Dissolution in the Christian East
OIKONOMIA AND MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION 121 The innocent party remains innocent as long as he or she does not take another spouse. However, if the innocent party takes another spouse, he or she is also guilty of adultery, in conformity with the Lord’s words. The use of economy, according to the Fathers of this Council, does not consist in leaving things unchanged as if it were lawful to take a second wife while the first is still living. On the contrary, it reaffirms the Christian teaching on indissolubility by applying the canonical discipline for the adulterous and by tolerating, after the period of required penances, a new marriage to avoid greater evils, such as fornication. The theological implication and the historical significance of this Council cannot be easily overlooked when, in spite of the Justinian Code abolishing divorce by mutual consent and the failure of Emperor Justin’s attempt to bring it back, the Church achieved a decisive victory in its effort to Christianize marriage. It was easy to understand that everything took place because of the influence of the Church upon the civil legislation. However, a danger could have being incurred as many thought that a compromise was reached between the intransigence of the Church against divorce and the freedom of divorce by mutual consent of the Greek-Roman law. Such compromise, if true, could have entailed the possibility of divorce and a new Christian marriage, albeit in limited cases. The intervention of the Council Fathers eliminated any illusion: there should be no confusion between civil law and the Gospel’s teaching. The State, on the one hand, admits divorce and new union because it operates only according to secular rules; the Church, on the other, has the duty to proclaim the spiritual values. Any derogation is only a matter of merciful tolerance, namely economy which entails canonical penances intended to restate the Christian ideal and remind all to observe such discipline. The teaching on indissolubility is clearly affirmed and the Christian ideal absolutely asserted. Thus, there is no confusion between akribeia and oikonomia. This being said, isn’t there a contradiction in the fact that a canonical penance is imposed on account of adultery and, after its expiation, a new cohabitation of the two is tolerated? The answer is that there is no contradiction because this stance belongs to the very nature of economy. Economy is based on the infinite leniency of God ever since the separation of man from Him. According to Eastern Patristic explanation, original sin consists in the choice of man, confronted by the possibility of freely choosing between supernatural and natural life, to having opted for the created world over the Creator. How did God react? He expelled man from paradise and punished him. The Church, by acting in a similar way, excludes the guilty from her communion and punishes him or her. But, God permits man to live in the material world he chose by ofPatriarch John the Faster; it is somewhat shorter than the one used earlier. The manner in which penance was observed has remained the same, namely a period of exclusion from the Church, exclusion from the offertory and exclusion from Holy Communion.
