MIXED MARRIAGES AND THE PAPAL ENCYCLICAL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 55, 4 March 1908, Page 6

MIXED MARRIAGES AND THE PAPAL ENCYCLICAL.

(By R. H. BAKEWELL, M.D.) The pastoral letter by Archbishop Redwood, addressed To his own archdiocese, on the subject of Catholic- betrothals and marriages, must have come like a bolt from the blue to most non-Catholics, and to not a few Catholics. It is true that the decree from Rome was issued some months ago. and it is curious that such a long delay toon, place here before it was communicated officially to Catholic congregations. Some of this delay may have been caused by the Roman officials; possibly some may have arisen from the bishops in these and other colonies having intiLiated respectfully to the Roman authorities the very grave objections that might be made to the issue of the decree, and the difficulties and dangers to the faith of many, if it is vigorously enforced. ln tits pastorals of the New Zealand Roman Catholic bishops, although the terms are intelligible to their own people, they can hardly be understood by nouCalholics without further explanation. Up to the present time the law of marriage, as regards Catholics, was in Great Britain, and in the Australasian and other British colonies where the population was originally Protestant, under the old laws of the Catholic Church as regards marriage. In .Scotland, the most ultra-Protestant country in the British Dominion, we find that there is a curious survival of the old marriage laws I which prevailed everywhere before the j Council of Trent. In Scotland, as is well known, there is no necessity for a I priest or minister, there is no restriction j as xo the place where the marriage may I taie place, there need be no publicity, a marriage may be validly celebrated on any day and at any hour, and even if . there were no formal ceremony, if a man j and woman lived together as man and i wit?, and allowed themselves to be called and considered as such, a marriage by ' ''habit and repute" might be established, j Briefly, before the decrees of the Coun- j cil of Trent were published, this was virtuaity the universal practice of Christendom. Marriage was land is) held to be j a sacrament, and this sacrament was made binding by the action of the parties themselves. According to tlu Roman doc- , triiifa valid marriage can never for any ! cause be dissolved. It is possible, however, that a marriage in due form may subsequently be declared null and void for various causes. Some of these were very trivial, such as a spiritual relationehip incurred by persons having become sponsors for the same cliild in baptism : j another cause was that one of t_K_ , spouses did not give a free con. ent. ) What with the looseness of practice as ; to the celebration of the marriage, and j the numerous suits for dissolution of an invalid marriage, there was very great | confusion and uncertainty produced. I It is said that at the present day many persons in Scotland do not know whether they are married or single. To put an end to this state of things the Council of Trent, which sat from 1545 to ldtio, with slight interruptions, | decreed that no marriage of Catholics j should be valid unless it were celebrated | aiter the publication of bairns in the pre- | sence of the parish priest, or some I other priest deputed by him, and tw. witnesses. But it was also decreed, in j view of the fact that several countries in Europe liad openly revolted from the I Roman Catholic Church, and established a Protestant faith as the religion of tlie I State, that this decree should not take | effect until it had been published in the j usual way in any country. . It was published in all the countries that remained j Catholic, including, I believe. Ireland, but it was never published in England, or j .Wales, or Scotland, nor in such parts of North America as were then settled by ! Protestants, it was published, and is the Catholic law of marriage to this day in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies oi both North aud .South America. In Great Britain and these Colonies, even when both parties were Catholics, ! they could, if they chose, be married I cither at the Registrar's Office, or in a i Protestant Church. I should suppose I this did not often occur; still the marriage, though irregular, would have been recognised as perfectly valid, unless there were impediments of _;he kind above-mentioned. When one of the par- j ties was a Catholic and the other a I Protestant, it was much more common I for them to be married by a Protestant | minister or the Registrar. Partly, no | doubt, this was caused by the enormous : fee charged by the Catholic priests for ix marriage, the minimum being five pounds, bat more perhaps, by the fact ! that before such a marriage could be | celebrated by the priest, the non-Cathol-1 it- was obliged to give a written pledge , that he or she would not interfere in any way with the religious obligations. of the Ca&bolic (such as attending Mass, fasting or abstinence) and would allow any children of the marriage to be brought up in the Catholic faith. This . last stipulation was the one that caused ] the most difficulty. Formerly, it used to be often arranged by allowing the. sons to be brought up in the fathers religion and the daughters in that of the \ mother. But of late years no such com- j promise as that was allowed. I As a rule priests set themselves against mixed marriages, even when these stipulations are complied with, although 1 am sure from my own obs'erva-: tion during the forty-six years I was a member of the Roman Catholic Church, that Home gained far more 'than she' lost by mixed marriages. The present decree by wltich no marriage of a Catholic is valid, unless celebrated before a priest, will take effect after Faster. Whether this means Easter-day, or whether it will be extended to the whole period for making the lltster of Paschal communion—that is to the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, June 2!>th, is uncertain. If Easter-day, April 19th, is the limit, then the notice ' i- too short, Of course you cannot ex-! pect a parcel of old bachelors, such as' the Cardinals and his Holiness the Pope,:' i" feel any sympathy for misguided, y..nn_- people, who have chosen to fall! in !uve contrary to the rules of the I Council of Trent, or they would surely 1 have given at lea.-t a year's notice. But i am Mire I am speaking the mind of. al! married men when 1 say that the very !._..i persons to legislate about mar-J ring, are old bachelors. I would rat!.it pick the first <l«>_. L . n men 1 met I in who had been married! ten .wars, and had had some personal experience uf matrimony, than any selec- \ lions from the College of Cardinals, how-! ever learned, or pious, or talented they' might be. I suppose the meekest mar-1 red man. who was ever henpecked, looks | upon himself as far superior to any old I bachelor. He' may not have been very & lucky in his choice, but at least he has ■fi persuaded one woman to take his name Wm and become his wife. And for this reaF, _oe, because they are, as old bachelors

- quite incapable of exercising a sound judgment about matters matrimonial, and not on any theological ground, I venture to prophesy that this step on the part of Rome is unwise, injudicious, and will be followed by consequences that will be disastrous to many private individuals, and ultimately to the ' Church herself. It will have to be re- '> pealed. If not in the life-time of the 3 present Pope, then by his successor. t! Of course the Pope ran grant a dispen- , I sation if he choose. And supposing a future Duke of Norfolk or Marquis of Bute - | wcr.' to fall in love with a strong-mind-sl ed Protestant lady, who would not con- ; { sent, to the children being all brought .! up as Catholics, it is not reasonable in I the light of past experience to suppose " ] that a dispensation would be witheld. Now, this is the most serious aspect of - I the case. The Roman authorities have, iI by this decree, set themselves in direct ; ! opposition to the laws of every civilised - country in the world, for every civilised ; countrj- recognises the validity of all , marriages contracted by the subjects of ; other countries in the land of their birth, .or of which they are subjects. -And this i is the case even when the marriage would ', be null and void, if performed under the same conditions in the foreign country. ' For example, in France a young man may not marry until lie is 25, without the • consent of his parents, or of one of them [if the other is dead, or if both are dead '■ of his grandparents. But a marriage per- j j formed in England under conditions that j ! would be valid there, between British i j subjects, even against the express wish 'I of the parents, would be held valid in j France, although if one or both of the j parties were French it would lie invalid. I Now. let us suppose a marriage cele- ! brated in the Church of England accordI ing to the usual form and perfectly regular. and valid throughout fhe civilised j world, yet, because one of the parties is, ior lias been, a Roman Catholic, the authI critics of that Church stigmatize it as ; invalid, and no marriage at all. and that i the parties to it are living in a state of I concubinage. i Now, it is probable that the old bache- ! lors in "Rome, having no experience of , family life, and especially of women's j little ways, have little or no idea of the | weapon this will put into the hands of j a spiteful or angry woman. Let us suppose that she has had a quarrel with a I neighbour, one of a couple whose mari riage, though valid by the law of the land, | is regarded as null and void by all Roman Catholics. In the course of the alterca- | lion something is said about a hnsband jor a wife, and immediately the spiteful woman can turn round and tell the other - that she has no husband, or that she is not a wife. | Certainly, in such a case, if the words I were spoken before witnesses, or if spok;en to others, an action for slander would j lie, and if anything of the kind were j stated in writing and published it would J constitute a libel, and damages might be : obtained. But. generally speaking, an acI tion at law would be no remedy at all. The usual course would be a light be- | tween the respective husbands. | Under this rule, priests will have to be ' particularly cautious about expressing | any opinion as to the invalidity of one j of these mixed marriages, as, if an action i at law were taken, the priest would have to pay heavy damages for merely upj holding the decision of his superiors. In these Australasian colonies, in the United ! States, in Canada, and in the British Isles I the result of this decree will be most disI astrous. It may certainly prevent a few : mixed marriages, but it will cause such a ! turmoiL, that it is not unlikely to lead Ito some very stringent legislation. Suppose a Protestant country were to retaliate by declaring a marriage by a Roman Catholic priest invalid, and punishing J him with fine or imprisonment for celej brating one—what would Rome do then? j 1 have always maintained that in the j immense majority of cases, when at first sight it might seem that the Roman Curia had taken a foolish step, it would i be found that there were ample grounds ! for what it had done. But there have been some procee_in_rs about the folly of which ! there can hardly be a dispute. One was ; the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth j and the release of her subjects from their I allegiance. This decree about mixed 1 marriages is just as unwise. j Arthur-street, Onehunga, Feb. 27th, 1908.