Rec. on the book: Marriage in Church and State by the Rev. T.A. Lacey (T.A. Lacey, Marriage in Church and State)

This extensive work (240 pages) represents a very valuable work and should be marked by a scientific recommendation both for the importance of the subject itself and for the vital and practical interests associated with the issues of marriage and divorce, which are now being particularly forcefully put forward in our country for systematic revision and a new solution. In all these respects, the book named, written with thoroughness and vividness of presentation, is all the more useful as it examines the matter both fundamentally and comprehensively. First, it is said about “marriage according to the order of nature,” then it is illuminated “according to the order of grace,” “in human law” (humanitarian) and “canonical law,” and finally it is depicted according to its legal-factual position “in the modern state.” This construction is somewhat artificial and echoes the archaic methods of scholastic sophistication, but it does not hinder either the completeness or depth of the study. Along with this, sufficient scientific fundamentality is also indisputable, since the author always tries to base the basis on accurate objective data regarding every point under discussion. But here, as a sad exception, there are some interpretations about Orthodox marriage institutions, where inaccuracies are allowed both in messages and in interpretations. Thus, it is stated (p. 104): “The Eastern churches for several centuries allowed some divorced persons to marry. This practice has been severely condemned by Western authorities, but perhaps on erroneous grounds, for it does not mean, as the Council of Trent seemed to believe, that the union of marriage is dissolved. If this were true, then both parties would ipso facto be free (legal capacity) for a new marriage, but in fact the latter is permitted for one party and forbidden for the other. And this combination can hardly be understood otherwise than in the sense of a dispensation for marriage, despite the obstacle to this that the previous marriage ties still continue (and remain in force). This means that this is a dispensation for a kind of polygamy; This is only a serious violation of the laws of nature, but not a denial of natural facts, or a falsification of the real nature of marriage.” And in another place it is expressed (p. 127) that in Orthodox divorces “there is no claim to a valid dissolution of marriage; its bonds are preserved, since the parties are completely unable to enter into new marriages of their own free will, and only church authority can give permission for marriage despite this obstacle, although such permission is apparently given too easily to all those who seek.” In these arguments, the conclusions are incorrect, and the information is inaccurate and scant for such fundamental generalizations. The author derives the idea that Orthodox divorce is fictitious from the fact that such a marriage is allowed for one member and prohibited for the other, but the latter is subject to this restriction not at all because of the burden of unabolished marriage ties over him, but solely because he is guilty and incompetent for a normal marriage, for marriage is honorable in all, and the bed is undefiled (Heb. 8:4). For this very reason, certified purity is required for newlyweds, without which they may be deprived of their ecclesiastical legal capacity to marry. This is the moral-disciplinary side, which relates entirely to the possible future, and not at all to the actual past, which it does not determine in any way. Then, the author’s basis for reconstruction is extremely shaky, since he wants to build his ponderous building on authority alone. The famous Bishop Nikodim Milash serves as such for him. But this is just a venerable compiler that has no independent significance. He cannot be considered an exponent of a general church tradition or a general scientific voice, and his judgments cannot be attributed to the exaggerated importance of exceptional competence, which is completely unusual for him. Informed people who specifically treat marriage issues should be well aware that the opinions of His Eminence Nicodemus on the second marriage of clergy almost everywhere in the Orthodox world aroused energetic protests. And on particular points, the views of Bishop Nikodim Milash are sometimes so peculiar and far from scientific solidity that the late academician E.E. Golubinsky did not hesitate to say decisively that he “talks nonsense about the colleges of presbyters under bishops, as if they began to be mentioned in the 3rd century” (On reform in the life of the Russian Church, Moscow 1913, p. 116 note). For scientific consistency, it was necessary to involve other authors, and then it would be revealed that they decisively refute both the premises and conclusions of Fr. Lacey. We will limit ourselves to a few excerpts from the latest works. On the pages of our magazine it was once formulated that 1) “according to the teaching of Christ the Savior, a fundamentally indissoluble marriage union can be broken by the husband due to the fault of his wife’s adultery; 2) the divorce is complete and leaves the spouse free to enter into a new marriage, since he commits adultery in it only if there is a previous marital relationship, which is therefore completely broken; 3) with the perfect equality of men and women in Christianity, this restriction applies equally to both spouses.” In this case, “ε͗πί πορνεία there is a complete cessation of the marriage bond, freeing the virgin for a new marriage. And the whole reason is that this crime completely strikes the most essential elements of marriage, shakes the very foundation of the marriage union, since it should be an absolute mysterious unity of those coupled - a small church of the two, where Christ dwells and where His mutual love with the believers is reproduced. Because of this, adultery undermines and destroys the very root of marriage,” when it is “the inveterate stubbornness of the adulterer, his entrenchment in vice and his reluctance to regain the disposition of the abused.” In this sense, “every πορνεύων thereby destroys the marriage union, dies for it and frees the innocent for a new marriage,” for “the marriage union necessarily disintegrates upon the admission of πορνεία,” and “adultery abolishes marriage” (see “Christian Reading” 1895, I issue, pp. 52, 53, 22, 24–25, 26). The same (undersigned) author in the “Special Meeting at the Holy Synod to discuss and develop a draft provision on the grounds for divorce” stated: “According to the unchanging Christian church consciousness, adultery is not a personal offense, but a sin before God through the transgression of the divine commandments. Therefore, he first of all demands not judgment and vengeance, but Christian condescension and fraternal correction. All patristic voices resolutely, persistently and invariably affirm and repeat that one bare fact - not even a single, but long-term - adultery, in itself, does not at all cause divorce and does not authorize the innocent spouse to do so; on the contrary, they authoritatively instruct the injured member to endure until the last opportunity and first exhaust all measures of personal influence to eliminate the gap. Only after this is it permissible to seek a divorce and, obviously, because now there is no reasonable hope of restoring normal family relations, because there is no fact itself that would need protection and fencing. It is clear that here the marriage is dissolved not by the claim of an innocent spouse, but by its actual abolition, when the sacrament of the grace-filled sanctification of the family union would be desecrated by the consent and concealment of vice. Termination is carried out here not for the sake of the claims of the offended person, for in a Christian way all-forgiveness would rather be required, but in the name of secret holiness, which should not be subject to desecration and serves as the only real beginning of normal life prosperity. For the Church, the innocent spouse is only a sad witness to the catastrophe that has taken place in the intimate, family sphere, but he does not at all oblige her to divorce, and the latter is arranged not at all because of his claims. There is simply no fact available to be sanctified, from which the legal and canonical certification of this naturally follows, i.e. divorce, and the sinning adulterer further submits to the penance correction of the Church itself - after the personal influences of the other spouse and the pastoral suggestions of the clergy have proven unsuccessful.” It must be added that at this “special meeting” there were voices only against expanding the grounds for divorce, but everyone agreed that adultery is not a dispensational ground, but rather a dissolution of marriage. Other Russian scientists also speak about adultery in this tone. According to † prof. A.S. Pavlov (Course of Church Law, St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra 1902, p. 381), this is “a crime as a result of which a marriage, which has ceased to be a union of two persons, is, as it were, destroyed by itself.” †Prof. N.S. Suvorov writes (Textbook of Church Law, 3rd ed., Moscow 1908, p. 348): “during the life of both spouses, a marriage can be terminated by divorce due to fornication of one or the other spouse.” Prof. M.E. Krasnozhen states (Old and new laws on divorce, Yuryev 1904, p. 10): “The indissolubility of the marriage union is the ideal to which humanity should strive according to the teachings of Christ... The Christian Church, whose own initiative was left to the discovery and clarification of this ideal, is trying to gradually implement the idea of ​​​​the indissolubility of marriage and to influence in this sense the secular (state) law, which is not in charge of the area of ​​ideals, but only formulating the relationship of reality to the ideal; At the same time, the Church of Christ, always attentive to the spiritual weaknesses of its children, found it expedient not to cut them off from its body with the strict requirement of the indissolubility of marriage, but tried to educate them in the true sense of the word, taking advantage of the existing conditions.” Hence, divorce, which is all the more legal in the case of adultery because “the marriage union is internally, so to speak, destroyed by itself due to the fact that the spouses did not keep the promise they made - to cohabit exclusively with each other for the rest of their lives” (On divorce in Russia, Moscow 1899, pp. 5–6). In his master's thesis N.N. Strakhov develops that “adultery is an event that irrevocably and irreparably breaks the unity that spouses should represent, and therefore significantly leads to the legal dissolution of marriage” (Christian teaching on marriage and opponents of this teaching, Kharkov 1895, p. 106). THEM. Gromoglasov testifies that “the majority of ancient fathers and teachers of the church agree in recognizing adultery as a sufficient reason for the actual or legal severance of marriage bonds, who usually, along with this, convince Christian spouses not to dissolve their marriage for any other, even “legal” reason,” and the current divorce law is “alien to the Catholic idea of the absolute indissolubility of marriage” (Definitions of marriage in Kormchay and their meaning when studying the question of the form of Christian marriage, issue I, Sergiev Posad 1908, pp. 123–124, 147–148). Berdnikov sets out the gospel teaching in such a way that “according to the original divine plan of the universe, husband and wife were created for inextricable unity with each other, for communication so sincere and close that they should represent one body or being in marital unity. With this understanding of the marital union, it is natural that it excludes the need for divorce as an anomaly, as a disease in a healthy body. And only when the marital union loses its natural property, when the married couple is subjected to an incurable illness, entailing its complete and irreversible disintegration into its component parts, only then does the marital union end and divorce becomes inevitable, as a natural external expression of the internal incurable disintegration. This thought is expressed in the words of the Lord: is the word adulterous” (On the question of reasons for marital divorce, St. Petersburg, 1909, pp. 3–4). According to the above information, there is no doubt that for the Orthodox consciousness, adultery is a moment of dissolution of marriage and serves as a kind of spiritual-organic death for a marriage, similar to the physical death of one of the members of a married couple. For this reason, it is the basis for a full and valid divorce, and not for a legal dispensation for the sake of the plausibility of allowing a new marriage to one of those separated. All other reasons are interpreted and accepted in this very sense. This is a fact. In understanding it, of course, there may be differences, and prof. V.N. Myshtsyn does not agree with the usual view that “the effect of the sacrament of marriage is destroyed by the crime of the spouses, namely adultery,” for “if the fact of adultery in itself destroyed the essence of marriage and stopped the action of grace, and the church authorities would only ascertain with their court both of them, then divorce due to adultery would be not only permissible, but also obligatory” (On the question of the principles of divorce church legislation, Yaroslavl 1911, p. 14 ff.). However, this conclusion is asserted in vain, since the author himself accepts (p. 15) that not every adultery is incurable and intolerable for the other party, which is why it cannot per se have marriage-breaking energy. But when the latter has manifested itself and retains its strength, its action will be inevitable. And prof. V.N. Myshtsyn argues against this rather due to a misunderstanding, speaking about the sacrament of marriage in general and without distinguishing the constitutive elements of this integral phenomenon, and in it a) sacramental sanctification extends to b) the union of natural human combination and has a point of application in it. And so adultery, despite its persistence, destroys this natural connection, without which there will be no actual basis for the application of the sacrament, and it ceases its sanctifying influence. Under such conditions, the crime, even if it is undoubted, does not yet directly give a complete break, for the grace-filled mystery was not contained in the naturalistic union itself and was communicated to it beyond this (“the hedgehog God combined”). Therefore, the mysterious effectiveness is resolved (terminated) by the mediators of its special spiritual court according to the totality of all moral and empirical data, of which the first are normalized by the idea of ​​​​marital indissolubility and incline towards restorative correction, and the second never have absoluteness. However, for our particular question this disagreement is not at all important, since it concerns only interpretation, but not a fact that is accepted by everyone. And prof. V.N. Myshtsyn least of all rejects it when he puts forward a not at all new – essentially – thesis that “the indissolubility of Christian marriage should be understood not dogmatically, not as a property of the sacrament of marriage itself, not as the action of grace bestowed in this sacrament and indelibly preserved in the spouses, but ethically, as a moral requirement, as a moral ideal, obligatory for everyone and especially for Christians.” It is clear that this “interpretation of the principle of indissolubility of Christian marriage” directly affirms and expands the dogmatic permissibility and factual certainty of divorce (p. 18), leaving no basis for explaining them in the Catholic dispensational spirit. This is not recognized in the Orthodox Church, since for it divorce is an abnormal and undesirable phenomenon, but in every admitted case it is real. As a result, we have a useful and serious book about. Lacey suffers from a huge defect in his treatment of Orthodox teaching and practice, portraying them inaccurately and illuminating them incorrectly.