BISHOP SAYS FIRST OBJECT OF MARRIAGE IS PROCREATION

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 12, Issue 36, 9 April 1948, Page 3

BISHOP SAYS FIRST OBJECT OF MARRIAGE IS PROCREATION

(Contributed by the Ministers’ ■ Association) Rt. Rev. W. J. Simkin, Anglican Bishop of Auckland, writing in “Church and People” very definitely states the view that the first purpose of Christian marriage is the procreation of children. He has the following comments to make on a reported statement in the House of Commons by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General, to the effect that the Government would not modify British divorce laws because of a recent legal decision by the House of Lords. The Lords’ decision said “that procreation did not appear to be the principal end of marriage as understood in Christendom.” The use of the word “Christendom” is misleading. But it may be interpreted to mean people who think and live as Christians. As such it is a very serious misuse of the word.

“For those who profess and call themselves Christians and are members of the Holy Catholic Church there can be no doubt with regard to this most serious matter. The Form for the Solemnisation of Matrimony in the Prayer Book contains a very emphatic statement on the subject. In the opening Exhortation in which Holy Matrimony is likened to “the mystical union betwixt Christ and His Church” and in which it is stated that He adorned and beautified by His presence this “holy estate” at the marriage feast at Cana, and after making reference to the teaching of St. Paul, the bridegroom and bride are bidden to consider the causes for which matrimony was ordained. Three causes are then stated, beginning with the words, first, secondly and thirdly. The words used are direct and possibly blunt, but there is no doubt as to their meaning. “First, it was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.” No statement could be more direct or less ambiguous. Those who seek marriage in the Church must accept the Church’s teaching and there, at the very threshold of that holy rite, stands this clear and definite statement. What does it mean? It means that two persons, themselves created by God through their parents, are being brought into that relationship in which God will use them for the same holy purpose. The place given to this “cause” in the Form of Service can- leave no doubt in the minds of those who accept it as to its primary importance. The decision of the » House of Lords is also somewhat disconcerting when we remember that the Prayer Book, is the Manual of Cere- ( monies of the Established Church, which is as much a part of the constitution as the House of Lords itself. In that book is enshrined a “faith”' which it is the duty of the Government to defend. There is no mention in the report of any protest by the Bishops who are members of the House of Lords as to the decision, but it cannot be imagined that such a judgment could have been given without some protest by the Bishops.