FACILITIES FOR DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 246, 14 October 1908, Page 4

FACILITIES FOR DIVORCE.

A BLOT CBS CH____-_-_____n_ The Anglican Synod y__t_____- after.' noon _isc_a__d the facilities for divor-e----afforu-e-l by the statutes of the -_k___-ii__-The Rev. H. Mason, moved, " That this Synod deplores the increase of f_-____t_ea for divojee afforded in recent years by the Honses of Legislature of this Dominion; stigmatises the same as a blot upon, our Christianity, and a direct incentive to immorality- and appeals to all Christian people by every means within their power to spare no effort to rouse a healthy public opinion upon this .natter." The subject, said the mover, was not very savoury. The divorce laws of the Dominion aimed a very heavy blow at the sanctity of the marriage tie, and the increasing facilities for divorce were deplorable. Some of the clergy out from Home must think that they had landed in some American state. First of all, a just cause, according to the State, for divorce, was adultery. Next there was desertion, and this portion of the Act! was very open to abuse. The cases of 1 desertion in New Zealand were numerically greater than in any other country he had heard of. New Zealand could expect a rush, which was beginning now, to petition for divorce. Then, certain cases of imprisonment were looked l upon as sufficient cause for divorce. Not many months ago a judge of the Dominion had j expressed his horror of the laws which permitted divorce. It was simply jug- I glery. For incurable insanity divorce couid be obtained. In these days of ad- : vanced science one could not safely say , that a ca_e was incurable, and what a ' j ghastly thing it was for a husband) j whose wife was in the asylum, and for whom he should be praying, to apply for a divorce. Some men drove their wives , to the asylum; he knew of a case of a ' woman in the Auckland Asylum, who : had been driven there by the treatment by her husband. The husband had gone iree and probably his name would appear at the Supreme Court attached to an application for divorce. There were men Of the world! who were fully alive to the possibilities of the Act. Divorce was directly opposed to Christianity, and it was a direct incentive to immorality. Some- i thing should be done by the Synod; some opinion be expressed. The. Church was deddedly acquiescing in the doings of the State when it stood by and did not express its horror and detestation; in per-, mitting this to go on without protest, \ i they were parties to it. In acquiescing, j for owing to their silence they had.aaiui- j | .seed, they were all equally guilty. It I : was incumbent upon them to do someI thing to declare their opinion op this 1 shocking state of things. He had been j j rather puzzled in read-jog the Marriage Act of 1884, to find that it was legal for j a man to marry his deceased sister, legal for a man to marry his de- j ceased wife's niece, legal for a woman to j ■marry her deceased husband's brother, and legal for a woman to marry her deceased husband's nephew*. Such things wera distinctly in opposition to the law of affinity laid) down in the prayer-book. (Applause.) The Rev. Mr. Buckland seconded the motion. He said that it was a lamentable thing that divorce should be made iso easy. The bottom of it was that the | people were losing the realisation of the i sinfulness of the sin. Immorality was bej ing practised quite openly, and nothing I thought of it. The misconduct of young people was too lightly overlooked. The Cturch could do .good and. assist in'the preservation of purity and innocence "by raising its voice to impress fts people of the sanctity of marraige. But it was a difficult matter to deal with in serJ mons. [ Archdeacon Willis gave the motion his hearty support. The Church had of late years been asleep to its duty to raise its j voice ag&inst the facilities which- year j I after year were being brought in to make divorce easy. . I The motion was carried unanimously.