MARRYING DIVORCED PERSONS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 300, 15 September 1936, Page 13

MARRYING DIVORCED PERSONS

The Church’s Attitude The attitude of the Church of England to divorced persons was discussed recently by the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury at Westminster. Resolutions were adopted: Requesting the Primate to appoint a committee of the House to consider conditions underwhich divorced persons who remarry may be admitted to Holly Communion and to baptism. Urging that the church should be prepared to consider proposals for amendment of the State law on divorce. Calling for stronger safeguards against collusion and perjury. The Bishop of Chichester (Dr. Bell) moved the first resolution dealing with the question of admission to the sacraments of divorced persons who had contracted a second legal marriage. Bishop’s Discretion. The resolution gave the bishop discretion where he was satisfied that such a marriage was in the circumstances morally preferable to any other cause, to give directions that the husband and wife might be admitted to Holy Communion. The Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Garbett) moved an amendment that “with a view to framing the most salutary form of discipline,” the Primate be ask ed to appoint a joint committee “to consider and report upon the conditions under which the Bishop shall be free to give directions that either one or both of two persons who, under the present law governing divorce or remarriage, have contracted a legal marriage during the lifetime of a former partner, may be admitted to the Holy Communion.” Dr. Garbett said that he felt no difficulty about the proposals in the report as far as they concerned the innocent party of the divorce who remarried during the lifetime of the previous partner. ■ J ‘We are dealing,” he continued, “with the lives of a number of the middle classes and working people who, through no fault of their own, have had to divorce a previous partner for their own protection and the protection of their children. Perverted Chivalry. “It is said that you cannot to-day distinguish between the innocent and the guilty. It is true that in certain small circles with a perverted chivalry it is sometimes expected that the man, even though innocent,, should take all the blame. “I find it difficult to know which to condemn more strongly—the weakness of the man who adopts such a course, or the meanness of the woman who expects him to adopt it. “Generally speaking, I think we look upon those regarded by courts of law as the innocent parties as innocent in fact. They are as a rule people who have had sad and bitter experience, and if they marry again and live good Christian lives I think it is impossible for us with justice and charity to refuse to allow them to have the help of the Holy Communion.”

The submitted resolution, however. Dr. Garbett observed, did not cover only the innocent; it applied equally to those who had been found guilty of adultery, and who had married again.

“Here” (In the report) he added, ‘“we have an entirely new departure. I think most of your lordships have probably adopted the line I have taken in these eases. When I have been asked to allow the guilty party remarried to come to Holy Communion I have replied, ‘I have no power to do this.’

“Looking back on it, that line may have been too rigid, and I am not prepared now to say that in every kind of case we must exclude from communion those who, though guilty, have married again. “But if there is to be any admission of the guilty it must be safeguarded most carefully.

“There is special necessity for very great caution at the present time. I do not know whether there is an actual increase in adultery, though the divorce figures seem to point to that, though possibly other explanations can be given “The most dangerous thing, I think, is the way in which adultery is so often spoken of as a venal offence and regarded as such.”

There was very real danger to-day of adultery being regarded as a very light matter. It would be a disaster if through their resolutions it was considered that the church was weakening its witness on this matter.

The Bishop of St. Albans, Dr. Furse, opposed any relaxation of the attitude towards divorced persons. . The resolution, he said, made no reference to repentance- The conditions of reinstatement should be made public. It should be no private affair with the bishop, but a most solemn judicial case, the bishop acting with assessors

During the discussion, Dr. Garbett altered his amendment to one requesting the appointment of a committee of of the House (instead of a joint committee). At the request of the Bishop of Coventry, Dr. Haigh, he included for consideration the question of admission to baptism as well as Holy Communion. In this altered form the amendment was carried. Change in State Law. On the question of the amendment of the State law relating to divorce, the Bishop of Chichester moved a new resolution in substitution of two motions contained in the report. The resolution proposed:— “That this House, recognising that the full legal enactment of the Christian standard of marriage may not always be possible .in a State Which comprises all sorts and kinds of people, including many who do not accept the Christian way of life .... is of opinion that some amendment of the State law relating to grounds of divorce may be demanded by the circumstances of the day, and that the Church should be prepared to give consideration to proposals for such amendment does not tend to make marriage a temporary alliance or to undermine the foundations of family life.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury, DrLang, said that he had never gone beyond saying that “the circumstances of the time may make it impossible, for the State to refuse further legislation.” He agreed that anything that could be represented as a bargain between the Church and the State in this matter would be most unfortunate.

“1 have representations made to me from some of our most ardent churchmen that I should intimate that I would not oppose legislation of the kind proposed by Lord Buckmaster and Lord Birkenhead in the House of Lords, provided the church was left free to make its own arrangements as to marriage and discipline,” he added. “I have consistently said I will make no such bargain. “When matters come before Parliament I must be perfectly free to consider each case on its merits.”

The Bishop of Chichester's new resolution was carried.