Dean Inge on Marriage

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1075, 12 September 1930, Page 10

Dean Inge on Marriage

LATE CITY EDITION

AUCKLANDERS’ OPINIONS Doctors, Lawyers, Churchmen DEAN INGE'S proposals would reduce marriage to a commercial contract.”—Miss A. R. Quayle. “The subject is too dangerous—l would rather not discuss it.”—The Countess of Orford. ‘ The Church must surely continue to advocate the Chris tian standards of marriage and no other.”—The Rev. W Averill. “Anything Dean Inge says is worth considering.”— Professor R. M. Algie.

These were some of the opinions expressed this morning by Auckland citizens on Dean Inge’s latest cabled | statements concerning marriage and divorce. ; The London message said that the clean, in his latest book on Christian i ethics, proposes startling marriage re- ! forms. He suggested that marriage ; should be of two kinds—one a limited contract for persons who do not recognise lifelong vows of fidelity, this to ,be recognised by the State, and the 1 second a marriage for life, recognised by the Church. Dean Inge would allow the State to j grant divorce for desertion, brutal i cruelty, habitual drunkenness, con- | viction for felony, concealment of bodily defects, and misconduct. A VICAR’S OPINION “It is difficult, from a short newspaper report, to know the full gist. of. Dean Inge’s proposals,” said the Rev. ' Walter Averill, vicar of All Saints’, j Ponsonby. “It is, however, apparent i that (1) he does not propose in any j way lowering the Christian standard , of marriage, (2) he suggests that the 1 Church should countenance legisla- j tiou for the provision of a lower stan- j dard for non-Christians who wish to; mate on animal lines. The matter resolves itself into a. question as to whether the Christian • Church (1) should continue to en--1 deavour to exert an influence upon all men. Christians and non-Christians alike, or (2) should withdraw into a watertight compartment and say to | all outside it, ‘You are no concern of i ours; live as you like; we have no, | counsel to offer you/ i “Should the Church adopt the latter j course sh€> would undoubtedly be false ;to her principles. The primary duty 1 of the Christian Church is to uphold | i the standards of Christ, and to demon' ! strate that they can be put. into prac- j j tice with profit. If men refuse to live i ; by those standards, it does not prove j j that they need be relaxed.

“That there are men and women who find it impossible to conform to the standards of Christ we know. We also know that those standards are quite workable at the present day. a that Christian marriage is still the only system that, ensures the upbringing of children under healthy and happy conditions. Therefore the Church must surely continue to advocate the Christian standards of marriage, and no other.” BEHIND THE SCENES “It is a question of sociology and of great interest to medical men,” stated Dr. E. B. Gunson. “Dean Inge is eviden °*y referring to the marriage of ill-assorted couples—he has evidently seen behind the scenes. “Medical men frequently see things which laymen are not aware of. Tho i Dean is evidently referring to i 11- ; mated couples, but whether his solu- | tion will be a way out of the difficulty is another question altogether. It is | impossible to comment seriously on such a short newspaper report, but 1 think there is an appreciable argu- ; ment in favour of his proposals. “These ill-assorted marriages are based on a. physical incompatability. This is common medical knowledge and it is a question whether such a solution as the Dean offers is not worth considering. “I do not think that the Dean has

made an extremist statement —he is commenting on a very real thing in everyday life.”

“The difficulty would be with the children, which Dean Inge conveniently ignores,” commented Miss A. R. Quayle, secretary of the Auckland branch of the Overseas’ League. “I am afraid that his scheme is not workable,” she added. “When two people agree to marry they always think that the contract will be for their whole lives. Marriage, after all, is regarded by the majority of people as a sacrament, and judged by the ! tenets of Christianity, Dean Inge’s proposals would be most upsetting, i “The knowledge that marriage could | be broken at a certain .time would lead to temporary unions and encourage ! charlatans. The idea of limited con- ! f acts would cause an upheaval, and ido away with the sanctity of marriage. • “I am afraid the dean has not really j given much thought to the conse- i i quences of limited marriage contracts, j or he would never have propounded a ; thing like this.” Miss Quayle contin- ; ued. “It is an extraordinary pre--1 nouncement for a churchman to make j when millions of people are looking | to the Church for guidance and help.” Mr. Julius Hogben, solicitor, thinks I that this would be an appropriate time to quote Humbert. Wolfe’s epi- • taph in advance on Dean Inge. It j runs as follows: Hark, the herald angels sing. Timidly, because Dean Inge Has appeared and seems to be i Bored by immortality. Mr. Hogben considers the dean's ! statement quite illogical, and says j that it appears to be the utterance i of a journalist intended to excite a controversy rather than the utter- , ance of a churchman. ' From a Church point of view, he says, it seems quite absurd that the j Church should celebrate marriage bej tween people who are really casual jin their religious observances and j who do not think seriously of its l views. If the Church takes a strong view of marriage it should either see | that the people it is marrying agree ! with its principles or train them unj til they do.. The Church should not marry couples until it i£ satisfied I that they are really responsible j people. j “Personally the suggestion is an asj tonishing one, not only because of its | source, but because of what seems to | me its illogicality,” remarked Mr. R. ! A. Singer, solicitor. | “If trial marriages are to be i allowed why are they to be confined to j the first marriage only. If, for instance, Mr. Jones marries Miss Smith and then he is dissatisfied with her after marriage, according to the Dean’s suggestion, as I read it. Mr. Jones may divorce Miss Smith. Then supposing Mr. Jones marries Miss Brown, and ! she is dissatisfied with Mr. Jones after marriage has the second Mrs. Jones the right, to divorce her husband? ; “I still believe that for the sake of j personal and national sanity the only real solution of most matrimonial j problems is the widening of the facilij ties for divorce under the proper con- ; ditions of judical discretion. { “The merciful conditions of the New Zealand law regarding divorce, which I believe to be the most generous and : humane in the British Empire, are | hardly realised by those who do not j come into contact with them.”