Oikonomia: Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition by Kevin Schembri

Abstract

Reviewed by: Oikonomia: Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition by Kevin Schembri Patrick Viscuso Kevin Schembri. Oikonomia: Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Rome: Orientalia Christiana & Valore Italiano, 2017. 336 pp. This study, submitted as part of the requirements for a doctorate in canon law from the Gregorian University in Rome, purports "to offer a comprehensive and systematic presentation of the Eastern Orthodox position on marriage, the principle of oikonomia, ecclesiastical divorce, and successive marriages." The scope is "limited to the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Churches," which are compromised of the "autocephalous Patriarchates and Churches that are united in faith and order." They include "the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia, and the Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, and of the Czech lands and Slovakia." In general, the work is intended as a resource for the "Latin Catholic Church" in conducting ecumenical dialogue, dealing with mixed marriages, and conducting ministry to Catholic divorced and remarried (7). In addition to a general conclusion section, the work has four brief chapters entitled "the sacrament of marriage," "akribeia and oikonomia," "the indissolubility of marriage," and "ecclesiastical divorce and successive marriages." Unfortunately, this work has many shortcomings. The scope is left largely undefined, but appears to encompass the patristic period up to the present. The proposal to [End Page 116] offer a comprehensive presentation of the entire Eastern Orthodox tradition is unrealistic given the study's length and lack of depth. References to sources are mixed from various historical periods with little success in tracing institutions, concepts, and language within their historical and cultural contexts. While surveying a range of diverse secondary literature and modern Orthodox writers, the author tends to accept these sources, including encyclopedia entries and popular works, uncritically and without sufficient evaluation based on research in primary canonical texts. In fact, when not quoted in an English translation, most excerpts of Byzantine Greek primary source texts are cited in Latin. Such lack of engagement is made especially obvious when the major late Byzantine author, "Symeon" (Συμεών) of Thessalonike, is repeatedly and incorrectly referenced as "Simon." Also, few references can be found to canonical scholarship in Greek, Russian, or the languages used in the various local Orthodox churches listed above. Furthermore, large and complex issues are summarized in short paragraphs or in brief numbered points and based on only a few selected sources, at times including articles such as those by Nicon Patrinacos in his Dictionary of Greek Orthodoxy (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Department of Religious Education, 1984) and dated studies by Martin Jugie, whose scholarship was often influenced by his views of the Orthodox as dissidentes Orientales. The entire corpus of the Orthodox Church's writings on the indissolubility of marriage from the eleventh through seventeenth centuries is covered by three short paragraphs, one of which deals with a Byzantine military work (148–49). Also, wide generalizations are made, unsubstantiated beyond singular references to journal articles or particular pages in overall works. The author has a tendency to consider John Meyendorff's theological opinions on a supposed eternal nature of marriage to be reflective of the entire "Orthodox tradition." Moreover, the work also tends to anthropomorphize the church, thus ignoring historical causality and giving the false impression of an ecclesiastical center, whose decision-making is implemented by its parts in a consistent manner. For example, on the so-called separation of the Eucharist from the marriage rite, the following analysis is provided: "Finding herself at a crossroad, the church wanted neither to single out or embarrass those couples who were entering a prohibited marriage, nor to give them communion and offend the holiness of the Eucharist. Unable to maintain her longstanding practice, the church decided to develop a new rite of crowning that had a structural similarity to the Divine Liturgy, but was separate from the Eucharist" (23). At times, strange statements are made that reflect a lack of familiarity with current liturgical practices. For instance, "finally, the permanence of the matrimonial bond is highlighted by other liturgical actions such as the joining of the hands of the spouses by the priest during the first two prayers, and the covering of...