CHURCH AND DIVORCE

Hokitika Guardian, 1 August 1931, Page 6

CHURCH AND DIVORCE

BISHOPS CONDEMN COLLUSION. ENQUIRY TO BE MADE. LIEN DON, June Id. Alter a debate on invoice ana marriage in the Upper House of Convocation ol Canterbury at Westminister last week, it was decided to appoint a committee to consider certain aspects ol' tile questions. The Bishop of Salisbury (Dr St. Clair U. Donaldson, who is l>B and a bachelor) opened the debate and rnoveo a resolution, which was agreed to, to conl'er with a Convocation of York committee on a resolution ol the Lambeth Conference, which recommended that “the marriage of one whose former partner is still living should not be celebrated according to Ibo rites of the Church.” “The demand for greater facilities for divorce becomes ever more insistent,” said the Bishop of Salisbury. “The main reason for this disturbed situation will be ifonnd in new views ot marriage and in a change in the fundamental assumptions with which English men have been accustomed to look on life. This change in mental and spiritual outlook has led to an increasing impatience with the thraldom of t ho marriage tie. “Over against the Christian idea ol marriage is the modern secular view, according to which it is a compact entered into with certain safeguards, if children are desired, but in any case with the understanding that the marriage tie is not necessarily a lifelong contract. “The ultimate wav out of the present distress may he to distinguish between the civil and the religions ceremony'. Let th(> bond he'tied by the civil authorities in the register office, and then let those who believe in the lifelong obligation of tile marrngc tie seek the blessing of their union in church. “I do press very earnestly that wo should establish a rule thoughout the Church in England time no marriage should, in any case, be celebrated in church of a person whose partner in marriage is still living. ‘•Some bishops and clergy are prepared to solemnise a second marriage in the case of what is called the innocent party. ‘ Till-: WOULD IS HEW I LOLLED.” “But who is the innocent party 'i It is always possible —indeed, we know that it frequently happens —that the .adultly which has brought about a divorce cannot ho laid altogether at the door of the adulterous partner, hut that a large part of the blame rests with the other partner, whose conduct has been the real cause of the sin. The law’s pronouncement with regard to the innocent party cannot always be assumed to coincide with the Divine Judgment. “It is really, not possible for the Church to distinguish in this public wav between the innocent and guilty, and the only true course is to n-tuse all marriages in church ol persons who have a partner still living. “If we do not think marriage is indissoluble wo ought to alter the marriage service', hut this w uld be a disaster, for we cannot afford to take risks in our safeguardig of the truth. “On the question of marriage, the world is bewildered, and has a right to look to the Church for a definite lead. We must face the matter at once. Demand for action is urgent in the extreme.” The Bislnp of Portsmouth pointed out that the most innocent of all parties in the disintegration of home life resulting from “these disordered or disorderly marriages” were the children No one .suffered as they did. The Bishop of ChicTiesfer said— The “present position of the State law is a direct encouragement to deception. “I should hope mvself that, while the Church makes its own law perfectly clear that marriage is a life-long bond ( nevertheless, for the sake of decency and for the sake of truthfulness, we should not feel hound to oppose legislation which would put an end to the practice of pretended adultery and perjury which is a blot upon our Courts and a blot upon society.” “It is absolutely intolerable,’ said tiie lii.sli. ji of St. Albans, “that we should go on accepting the marriage service in its present form and continue to use it in what I believe to be an absolutely blasphemous way.” Dr. Lang said:—“l am eon. i need we can no longer drift in this matter of marriage and fidelity to our own principle's and our relations to the law of tin' State without the gravest peril. The time has come and more than come when such an enquiry as is proposed should take place.” The Bishop of London (Dr Winning-ton-fngram) said that for 30 years they had had the greatest difficulty in administering the marriage law in London. Everybody came to London from all over the world expecting to got married. They did not marry in church any person whose husband or wife was still living. That rule was observed by the f)00 olergv in the London diof'so except three. Tint it lmd created the greatest possible grievance in the minds of the innocent party in a divorce. They did not excommunicate the innocent party if the clergy, har- :

ing 20110 into tlio question, considered that that party was fit to receive the Holy Communion. TTo did .not think they carried with them the great body of the Initv of the Church in the attitude they felt hound to take.