Folia Canonica 11. (2008)
STUDIES - George D. Gallaro: Oikonomia and Marriage Dissolution in the Christian East
OIKONOMIA AND MARRIAGE DISSOLUTION 117 riage, of bearing witness to his faith in the supernatural mystery of which the marital bond is icon. So the application of economy to the non-sacramental marriage of a believer is possible or not in proportion with the degree of his Christian witness which may be full or partial. Economy is not applicable if the failure is full since in such a case one ceases to be a Christian and falls into apostasy. In this case we would deal with a grave sin, namely the total losing of the state of grace. On the other hand, economy is applicable if the estrangement from grace is partial in as much as the discretionary judgment of the Church’s powers enter into the evaluation of the case since the Church appraises carefully the circumstances of time and place in which believers live. These circumstances may be of a general nature, both social and individual. The Church makes use of God’s love for man, as the Lord himself has always done. Such evaluation may differ from one local Church to another on account of different cultures and traditions, although we must make reference to the common pastoral sense of the great Churches in order that there may be basic uniformity to avoid scandals and to glorify the unity of God. It is also obvious that only the Church’s hierarchy can establish the orderly interpretation of economy, not the individual or the single group of believers, because the power of the keys was given to the Apostles alone. Economy is administered only by the hierarchs duly approved and acknowledged by the Christian faithful, as several Church Fathers affirm. Some aspects of the Christian ethics may evolve with the passing of time but others do not. In fact, it is impossible to let go of the faith to which the Christian ethics is closely bound. Evolution of Christian ethics is possible as long as it does not erase the witness and the manifestation of the faith revealed by God. To change the faith therefore is not within the power of the Church. The hierarchy has the duty of vigilance so that no evolution should exceed reasonable limits. Within these limits the use of economy is possible. Fornication, however, is well beyond reasonable limits and may not be tolerated by Christian faith because nothing is left in it of the supernatural mystery. Since sexual relationship was designed by God as part of witness to the mystery, when the divine-human icon is not represented, an idol is instead brought about. That is why many Church Fathers considered fornication as a sin of idolatry. Following the dissolution of a sacramental marriage, in a stable one-to-one sexual relationship some aspects of the supernatural mystery still remain, especially in the innocent party; and it may not be likened to an act of fornication or, even worse, of adultery. On the other hand, it cannot be fully considered as ideal Christian marriage. Consequently, many shepherds of souls were of the opinion that some elements of the mystery survived as to justify tolerance. Avoiding fornication, stability and mutuality survived. Fornication in fact was considered a far greater evil because it was a simultaneous polygamy. In the Christian West polygamy was also considered the greatest evil against which other evils could be tolerated. Thus the seventeenth canon of the
