SEXUAL MORALITY.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 May 1922, Page 5

SEXUAL MORALITY.

DISCUSSED AT ANGLICAN SYNOD. CHURCH'S ATTITUDE TO RE-MARRIAGE. Auckland, May 2. The Anglican Synod to-day discussed the resolution of the Lambeth Conference dealing with the problems of marriage and sexual morality. Bishop Averill moved that Synod associate itself with resolution 67 of the Lambeth Conference, 1920, as follows: “Conference affirms as our Lord’s principle and standard of marriage lifelong and indissoluble union, for better, for worse, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, and calls on all Christian people to maintain and bear witness to this standard. Conference, while fully recognising the extreme difficulty of Governments in framing marriage laws for citizens, many of whom do not accept the Christian standard, expresses the firm belief that in every country the Church should be free to bear witness to that standard through its powers of administration and discipline exercised in relation to its own members.”

At Bishop Averill’s request the following clause was added to the motion: “In view of the fact that the conference admits the right of a national or regional church within our Dominion to deal with cases whicli fall within the exception mentioned in the record of our Lord’s words in 'St. Matthew’s Gospel, under provisions which such church may lay down, the Primate be respectfully requested to appoint a recess committee to consider the matter fully, and to report to next session of Synod.” Bishop Averill said he moved for reference to a committee, because he thought that in two or three years scholars come to conclusions more definite than at present. The controversy resolved round the difficult position of tae so-called innocent party, and the churches’ attitude depended on the interpretation placed on the passage in the Gospel of St. Matthew, where fornication was mentioned as an exception to the Lord’s definition of adultery. The Lambeth Conference gave no advice as to the interpretation which should be placed on this important exception. Thus we could so amend our custom as to allow remarriage in our Church if, that is to say, we thought fit. He reviewed the theories of Christ’s teaching on divorce. Archdeacon Charles had maintained that it was the act of adultery itself, and not the Divorce Court, which broke the -bond of matrimony. “I am not ashamed to confess,” concluded Bishop Averill, “it would give me the greatest joy and comfort if we had permission to remarry an innocent party in our churches. This would not be done, however, until the truth was established that an act of adultery itself destroyed the bond. If this was proved it would be possible for the Church to issue a decree of annulment.”

Bishop Averill said that he was much afraid that the Government of the country would not legislate merely from the Christian point of view. “We have got to see that the State does not stop us from standing up for our ideal,” he concluded. “If the State makes us do what we believe to be against our conscience, we must resist the State. I believe it is our duty to do so.”

Bishop Sprott seconded the motion. He did not believe there was any original ambiguity in the Lord’s teaching. The ambiguity had arisen because of the forgetfulness arising through the ages. He was sorry he could not say that the State was a Christian State. Such a State did not exist in the world to-day. It was the Church’s function to hold up the moral idea of what the people ought to do and be, and to foster an inner reverence for the ideal.