MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 33, 3 November 1920, Page 8

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE EVIDENCE OF A "DOUBLE MARRIAGE" ATTITUDE OF THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS Tho official report of tho evidence taken by a special committee of the House of Representatives on the. Marriage Amendment, Bill has been issued. It shows that at a meeting of tho committee on Uctober IS, Mr. Howard Elliott produced a certificate issued on Juno 20, 1908, of a marriage between Neil' M'Lean and Ada Casey, celebrated before a registrar. Tho tamo parties wero married a month later by a priest in a Roman Catholic Church at Hamilton, and were described in tho certificate, a month after tho civil marriage, as bachelor and spinster. Mr. Elliott said that the documents wero practical confirmation tt' tho statement he had made before a committee) of the Legislative Council as to the'.non-recognition of legal marriages by tho Roman Catholic Church.

The committee received a letter from Archbishop O'Shea and Bishop Cleary, who had been invited to give brief evidence if they had any now points to elucidate. This letter, dated. October 11, stated that its writers were agreed that they should not, even if they could, Juffer any furtiier evidence under the conditions laid down by the committee. A very considerable mass of new evidence had been 'published in pamphlets written by Bishop Cleary, but apparently these pamphlets would be excluded by the conimittes because they had already beei* published, and because they were, not brief. The writers had in hand,a further extended uiatss of fresh evidence having an important bearing upon the Bill, and consisting mainly of detailed refutations of various statements, quotations and contentions already placed bo fore the Legislature by supporters of the Bill. But this must be excluded' "on. the ground of its unavoidable, lack of the required brevity." "Assertions wore made before tho Statutes Kevision Committee (of the Legislative Council)," added Archbishop O'Shcik "to the following effect:—That whatever wore Hie real marriage doctrines of tho Catholic Church, a main complaint of some of our opponents was this—that i-tntenients were made by some persons, represented as speaking the views of the Church, reflecting upon the character and legal validity of certain purely civil marriages ill this Dominion.. Wo were (and are) una'blo to adimt t',hat the statements so made (which referred exclusively to the sacrament of matrimony) rightly bear tho interpretations put upon them. Nevertheless, to meet this complaint in r a spirit of .charity, assurances wero given by us to.that committee that-long previously to, and quite independently of, the proceedings now boforo Parliament>-steps had boon taken by us to make certain verbal alterations in catechetical publications, which would preclude any reasonable inferences of tho kind alluded to "Tho amendment passed.by the Legislative Council, however, does not deal with irresponsible statements as to what are nho doctrines of the Catholic Church in regard to marriage. It goes much further: it makes a direct and .vehement attack on the real doctrines of that Church itself, and (as already silted) upon those of e\">ry religious denomination tliaj Htands bv the teachings of God's revealed Word on Christian marriage, lhe amendment in question is therefore an unequivocal attemp'i to repress and crush what nra admittedly religious doctrines pure and simple; This proposed drag-not legislation renders it doubly necessary for the Parliament of this Dominion to ex- . nn ino minutely at the pre sen;! juncture th- objective truth or otherwise of the. various statements, advanced in support nf this' Bill. Yew - commibee's rcsoUiLlhte the possibility of our do-m*-5i any really effective way-our MA i'ocoeU workf »«*{*; Hon. and illumination. In the niimms unceTwe n" lst wbm"" 11 ? nccepb *» n lion implicitly contained in your cqmniUtcK° ution-llmt of not appearing IXe it' t« offer -fur-bor evidence. regarding- the alleged double mar two days later, wrote in reply as follo%va: "I havo to thank vou an I your committee for your letteT of October 12, informing mo that twV marriage certificates were submitted to you at your meeting on that dnjono from the marriage registrar, at frimflto , and the other, concerning tho liC parties-M'Lean and Cnsey-dated J„?v 13 1908, and signed by the Rot. Jo pi Croke Darby, in both of winch the parties are described as 'bachelor' and 'spinster.' If this secondeertificato i" a gemnne one, the nse of the afore««irl words in it was, and is, absolutely fife regulations of the Catholic rhnrciTin New Zealand. The. archbishops and bishops hayo never approved of any sucu • designations being nut in the records of the sacramental validations of legal marriages. Se fRSTcTi in my letter-to the Statutes RevTsTon -Committee of the ■ Legislative Council, the Church requires merely the names of the parties, tho names of the witnesses, the place and date and tho name of the priest who ass.s s at ' the ceremony (Canon 1103. Code ot Cannon Law), Vatican Press. Rome, 1917). Moreover, if the certificate of July 13 is a- genuine one on a civ " om " cial form, then tho whole thing was 'irregular according to our regulations, which forbid the use of the civil official forms in these cases, and order tho uso of private ones similar to tho specimens submitted to the Statutes Revision Committee. It.may be that the priest copied' the registrar's certificate exactly as it stood; and out of inadvertence set down the words 'bachelor' and 'spinier' which would bo in the former. But in any case, such a proceeding was, and is. against our rules. I may state that the priest in question belonged at the time to the Auckland diocese, but hnn not been exorcising for some considerable time the work of the ministry in our Church." • The enmmiWw took evidence from tho Rev. Howard Elliott and the Rev. Robert Wood. "WASHING-UP" BILL SOME OF ITS PROVISIONS. , The "Washing-up" Bill, introduced in fft the House of Representatives last night, contains eighty clauses and deals with a very wide variety of subjects.

The H«n and Chicken Wands, cast of Bream Bay, arc declared a scenic refiorvn.

The Government takes power to appoint a commiesion of inquiry to adjust the ■ boundaries of the YVniron, Napier, Gisborne, and Whakatane harbour districts.

'Die Waipawa Borough Council is empowered to acquire certain land for cemetery /purposes. The Stratford Borough Council is empowered to borrow .65000 for the improvement of the Stratford Domain. Cortain lands formerly reserved as a defence training ground arc to bo added to■ Tongnriro National, Park. Tho area of land involved is 27.456 acres.

Tho Foxton Borough Council is authorised to contribute towards the acquisition of part of Section 332, Block I, Mount Robinson .Survey District., for scenic purposes. Authority is Riven to any local body in or partly in the Nelson provincial district to contribute towards the funds of tho Buller Progress League.

The Orchard and Garden Diseases Amendment Bill.'which makes a minor alteration in the law regarding orchard pests,'was. last night passed by' tho House without amendment.

In tho Rotorua Town Lands Bill division ■ on. night Sir. Hanan and Sir. Edward Newman paired, Sir. Haiian voting against, and Sir. Newman far Ao Bill.