CATHOLIC MARRIAGE LAWS.

Shannon News, 10 June 1927, Page 1

CATHOLIC MARRIAGE LAWS.

DOCTOK LISTON EXPLAINS PAPAL DECISION AUCKLAND, Tuesday. The marriage laws of the Roman Catholic Church, with particular reference to the Marlborough case, was discussed by Bishop Liston in St. Benedict’s Church on Sunday. The marriage between the Duke of Marlborough and Miss Vanderbilt, both non-Catholics, in 1895, was followed by divorce, the speaker said. In 1926 the lady, for reasons of her own, saw fit to seek a declaration from the Matrimonial Court of the Catholic Bishop of Southwark about the validity ■of ■ her marriage. Not every vote cast at the recent Auckland elections was formal, for many, though in earnest, . failed to observe the legal formalities, -and not every marriage ceremony resulted in a true marriage. The evidence before the court was given wjiolly by non-Catholics, was sworn, varied, corroborative and overwhelming. It showed that the girl of 17, .deprived of a father’s protection through divorce, was coerced by an ambitious mother. Guards at:the bride’s door, letters to and from her favoured suitor intercepted, insistent warnings about the mother’s heartdisease and th e mother’s threats to shoot the daughter’s lover^—all told a tale of duress and fear. Holding with every decent man that a woman cannot be' driven, willy-nilly, into a marriage, the court declared that there was no true marriage in the case. “No Real Marriage.” This declaration was reviewed in the usual way by a higher court In Rome, and after sworn evidence from, and rigid cross-examination of the same witnesses, all non-Catholics, was confirmed. Coercion of a grave kind had been used, and coercion prevented contract. The decision of the court would have been just the same had both the Duke . and’ Miss Vanderbilt been Catholics and had the Pope officiated. And, of course, it was not a divorce, for that was the breaking of the real bond, nor making null and void but a simple declaration that no real marriage ever took place.

A declaration like this by a Matrimonial Court in Rome implied no interference with the laws of England or the United States, and made no reflection on the two officiating blsh-: opr. Th e Church took up this attitude: —“My sole concern with the laws of England and the United States is to tell Catholics to respect and obey them, because the State has authority from God to govern Its people in temporals, just as I have authority to govern my people in spirituals. If, in addition, I am asked to tell a petitioner what her matrimonial position is in face of my laws or of God’s natural law, I shall answer plainly. In this case I can only teU Miss Vanderbilt that, according to by principles, which are the principles of all civilised men, she was never really married to the Duke. Her children of course, are legitimate. It is now her own business to look after her own.interests insofar as the laws of her country go.’’ Wealth or Rank Unavailing.

“Is the Roman court influenced by wealth or rank? asked Bishop Liston. "Henry VIII and Napolean 1., both Catholics, powerful monarchs not above using threats, did not find it so when they asked the Pope to discover some radical defect .in .their marriage. Neither, more recently did a French Catholic of the very highest standing and honourable services for the Church, nor 15 years ago did the Italian nobleman who sought to have his marriage with the American, Miss Gould, a non-Catholic, declared invalid. The rich are often sent empty away and Rome takes as mucn care over the matrimonial troubles of an abducted peasant girl in China as over those of the millionairess.” Out of the 117 cases dealt with in th e period 1916-21 only 69 paid full costs (fees for advocates, typists, wit-; nesses), and of these 23 lost their; cases. The number of declarations; of nullity was very small, about 12 to

15 a year for some 300,000,000 Catholics. How did This compare with; 600 to 800 divorces a year in New Zealand?

“If anyone is disquieted by Rome’s rar e decisions,” the Bishop said in conclusion, “he must suffer agonies when he considers the matrimonial laxities and iniquities of the .Divorce Courts in our own Christian Country.”