CHURCH AND DIVORCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 250, 21 October 1924, Page 5

CHURCH AND DIVORCE.

"UNCHRISTIAN STATUTES." DECLINE IN PUBLIC MORALS. TIME FOR DEFINITE TEACHING. The prevalency of divorce in New Zealand was the subject of some straight speaking at the Diocesan Synod last evening. The debate was opened by Rev. F. Harty, who moved: "That this Synod of the Diocese views with concern the alarming increase in the number of divorces in New Zealand and urges on the clergy the vital necessity for constant and clear teaching regarding Christian marriage." Public morals were most successfully attacked by those who flooded the market with literature of a most objectionable kind, said Mr. Harty. Young people were allowed to read the newspapers with full details of divorce cases, and also soul-destroying sex novels. The latter type of book bade the reader interpret man's feelings and passions in the light of animals, and taught that a life of purity was absolutely impossible, or if not impossible, not even to be desired. The Catholic Church—of which the Anglican Church was a part—would not re-marry divorced people, but the Protestant denominations would. People would come to an Anglican clergyman, and when he refused to marry them because one of the parties had been divorced, they characterised the Anglican Church as "narrow minded," and went off to a Protestant minister who was thought very "broad minded." Yet the Church had spoken with no uncertain voice. To her credit the Church of England had definitely laid it down that divorced persons were not to be 1-e-married. The Lambeth Fathers were quite definite on that point. It was not considered any. matter for controversy. The Law Not ChristianRev. G. Gordon Bell reminded the Synod that when divorce was first introduced into England it was argued that many unhappy persons would be given relief from wicked bonds. But would anyone say to-day that the English people were better than they were 70 years ago? Right thinking people bemoaned the fact that English society was going to pieces rapidly on the rock of divorce. Every president of the English Divorce Court had, from time to time, passed strictures on the miserable business in which he found himself engaged. The Church talked much about, drunkenness, Bible in schools and such-like topics; but how could she possibly sit down quietly to the present state of the marriage law in New Zealand? Mr. Bell could not understand how the Church could allow such laws to be placed on the Statute Books. "I say that the divorce laws in New Zealand are a positive disgrace to any • country which calls itself Christian!" he declared. "I repeat that the laws, of New- Zealand on this point have departed from the plain teaching of:Jesus.Christ. The law of this coun'try'is, so rotten on the point that one cannot speak against the statutes without fear of .being prosecuted and cast into prison, but I do say that those divorced people who marry again are not married at all in God's sight!" (Hear, hear.) Why let so flagrant a departure from the teaching of Jesus Christ go by unremarked? The trouble was that many people indulged in dual thinking. They thought of "marriage" as apart from "Christian marriage." How could there be such a distinction, calling itself Christian? ; The Sacramental Aspect. Rev. F. H. Steele (Whangarei) deplored the fact that the Church was apparently inconsistent. While she refused divorced persons the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, she allowed them to approach the altar to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament of Holy Communion. The speaker thought the Church should make a pronouncement on this subject. Rev. C. H. Grant Cowen said it was all very well to talk about the evils of divorce, but what about the causes? The prevalency of boy and girl marriages, wretched housing conditions, lack of parental control, and false ideas of happiness were all contributory causes. His heart was full to overflowing at some of the sad cases he knew of in this city, and he did not think it was for the Church to cut these people off for ever. Problem of Sex Instruction. Rev. N. Robertshaw (Thames) wondered whether there w„ not some loophole for the Church, rather than to cut people off for ever. (Hear, hear.) The speaker (who for some years was chaplain at King's College) faced with a certain amount of terror his first confirmation class with girls. Certain Church women had advised him to say nothing whatever about sex. But he felt it his duty. Proper instruction was urgently wanted. (Applause.) Lack of it made for the present evils. He proposed to address tho girls preparing for confirmation •in the presence of their mothers. ; It seemed a pity that the Church did not" provide well-qualified women who could give addresses on this subject. Bishop Averill said Sister Hannah would always be glad to go anywhere and give the necessary instruction. Archdeacon Cowie drew attention to the fact that the sacrament of Holy Matrimony was administered in a way that the compilers of the Book of Common Prayer never intended. The Prayer Book took it for granted that persons coming to the Church for marriage were communicants, living proper Christian lives. The Church had allowed Holy Matrimony to become isolated from the other sacraments. Therein lay the whole trouble. "We must not get the reputation of hounding these people for the remainder of their lives.'' saiu Rev. Jasper t alder. None knew better than he the misery caused by unhappy marriage. He heard as many confessions as some of his Roman Catholic friends. (Applause). It should be a case of the one without sin casting the first stone. Lack of Public Opinion. The debate was commenced late in the session, and when Bishop Averill rose it was almost 10 p.m. He said he was not going to make a long speech at that hour. One thing he did deplore, and that was the lack uf strong public . opinion. Public opinion, more ar less, ruled the world. The subject of divorce was treated altogether too lightly. ( Applause). Christiana forgot that the Cross was the very centre of their lives. ! His Lordship ha*d the greatest possible sympathy for the really "innocent ' party." but he could not see that tinChurch could permit re-marnage. He ■ thou-ht the real evil was not so much divorce, as re-marriage. (Applause). „ tnis stace the Synod anjoiirncrfit" being understood that the debafiwould' be concluded to-day. Bishop Averill said he wanted time to think out his'address. -It was too big _ I subject to speak on hastily. , __