Canon Law

¶ … marriage must always precede ordination and whether priests and widowhood may be allowed to remarry after widowhood or divorce was one of the topics of discussion at the revolutionary 1923 Pan-Orthodox Congress, which aimed to produce reform-oriented results that would allow the Orthodox Church to be better adapted to the new realities of the world in the period after World War I. On both issues, beyond any economic or social arguments, the discussion should always revert back to the Scriptures and to what the Scriptures say about these elements.

For example, the Congress agreed that the Scriptures allow for marriage after ordination (or, in fact, that there is nothing in the Scriptures that prohibits that, meaning, by extrapolation and law principle, that whatever is not prohibited, is considered to be in line with the canonical law). In his initial analysis, Viscuso also makes an important note on why that is: because there is no "doctrine of either sacrament's superiority" (p. xxxvii).

Successive doctrines have also not prohibited the marriage after ordination: the tenth canon of the Council of Ankyra, for example, allows this to happen in the case of deacons. With these arguments in mind, it rather seems that there is almost no discussion of whether marriage after ordination should be accepted or not. The original base of all canonical regulation, the Scriptures, has no adverse say on this topic.

It seems a logical deduction that successive additions and interpretation have, in fact, created this premise that marriage after ordination should not be permitted. There are several studies mentioned by Viscuso that make this case before the 1923 Congress. Milas, in 1907, for example, mentions that "the prohibition of clerical marriage is based on discipline, not dogma" (page xxxix). This is a clear recognition that the restriction did not come from the original base of learning, the Scriptures, but from discipline.

This is an interesting aspect, because it means that successive interpretations of the Scriptures by the Church hierarchy led to a different meaning of the words of the Scripture and initial, ancient norms, on the matter of marriage after ordination. It is an acceptance of the fact that, at a certain moment in the evolution of the Orthodox history, hierarchical decisions on these matters took over the true meaning and instructions of the words of the Scripture.

For remarriage of widowed priests and deacons, other arguments, outside the range of the canonical law, should also be taken into consideration and presented here. Gavril of Montenegro mentions both economical and psychological issues of a widowed priest who also has children. Other than the issue of temptation that he brings up, a priest that is widowed and not allowed to remarry will need to care for both the needs of his children (education, upbringing etc.) and the needs of the household.

This may lead to his incapacity of handling his priestly duties to the degree to which he would as a married priest. In the same context, it is interesting to note the observations some of the representatives made on these issues, namely by reflecting on national practices in the matter.

For example, one of the participants from Romania mentioned that, in his country, there was a policy of toleration regarding this issue: widowed priests are allowed to have mistress, something that was consciously ignored by the Church hierarchy, in line with the above-mentioned policy of toleration. Surprisingly, a practice that is clearly disallowed by the Scriptures and successive decrees, not only for priests, but for ordinary individuals as well, is tolerated in Romania (likely in other Orthodox countries as well, at the time).

At the same time, a practice that could have been more easily to accept, in a logical argumentation, namely to allow widowed priests to marry, was not allowed until 1923, when a Pan-Orthodox Congress had to convene in order to solve this issue. It seems like a logical argument that you would want to renounce a tolerated, but wrong practice and replace it with something that could actually have comparatively more acceptance for the Scriptures.

After all, the main argument against marriage of widowed priests and deacons is, mainly, that in the successive interpretations, starting with St. Paul's, this type of marriage is seen as a form of polygamy. It is difficult to decide where to start a proper argumentation against this fact, perhaps by pointing out that polygamy is a situation where the wives are alive. Nevertheless, the spiritual argument could be acceptable: in the eyes of God, the priests would be seen as still married.

The more rational argumentation in favor of widowed priests and deacons remarrying came from the participants who were rejecting this idea as being against canonical law, but being willing to accept it as a necessity in the new global environment. In a wider context, it seems a logical and wise step to try and adapt the Church to these changes. The world had produced incredible changes, including through the apparition of the Communist regime in Russia that threatened the Orthodox Church there. It made thus much more.