Folia Canonica 11. (2008)
STUDIES - George D. Gallaro: Oikonomia and Marriage Dissolution in the Christian East
OIKONOMIA AND MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION 113 Fathers, the liturgical texts, and the Church’s tradition, that the need for indissolubility as well as unity is evident even to the uneducated.42 We may say that what led the religious history and culture of the West to inaccurately interpret the East were, and perhaps still are, the Orthodox theological and canonical manuals. Although Eastern Christians remain faithful to the ancient tradition in their practice, when they speak about it, they often use the mode of expression borrowed from the West.43 Thus they shift the problem from a purely theological level with some consequences of a socio-juridical nature to a socio-juridical level with consequences of a theological nature. The Orthodox Churches have preserved in their practice the old tradition of the Fathers in a very impressive manner, with such conservative tenacity as to appear incredible. However, when it comes to interpret these facts the terminology of the religious culture of the West, both Catholic and Protestant, is often borrowed. We may use a concrete example to prove our point. The Orthodox Churches substantially have remained faithful to the practice of dealing with the marriage indissolubility that goes back to the patristic era of the first millennium. If the question, ‘Do you hold the indissolubility of marriage?’ is asked, the answer is, ‘Yes, in a relative indissolubility, with divorce in some established cases.’ Further question, ‘Is the second marriage of divorced faithful a sacrament?’ The answer is, ‘We believe that marriage is a sacrament’. Another question: ‘Why then do you exclude such persons from Communion and why do you not bless such unions with the same liturgical blessing as the monogamous marriages?’ The answer is, ‘It is not in our tradition, and our canonical experts forbid this, and so on.’ We can submit a further question of another nature, but still on marriage, ‘What is the purpose of marriage?’ The answer will be, ‘It is procreation’. Then the question comes, ‘Why then do the Orthodox Churches accept the total validity of the marriage entered into by one or both partners who are physically impotent?’ And the answer is, ‘It is our ancient tradition’. We can see from this that the practice which is defended is the right one, but not its interpretation; hence the above answers to the questions. This fact depends on the formation of theologians, who have studied usually on texts borrowed from the West and not on texts of the Fathers. Indeed, in the writings of the Greek Fathers of the first millennium we find many passages which openly defend both the indissolubility and the unity of the sacrament of marriage, although we know from history that separations 42 A. Raes, II matrimonio, la sua celebrazione e spiritualita’ nelle Chiese di Oriente, Siena 2000; K. Stevenson, Nuptial Blessing, London 1982; K. Ritzer, Le marriage dans les Eglises chrétiennes du I" au X? siècle, Paris 1970. 43 P. Evdokimov, The Sacrament of Love, New York 1985, 181ff. J. Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, New York 1984, 44ff; N. Matsoukas, Teológia Dogmatica e Simbolica Ortodossa, Roma 1996, 2: 259ÍF.
