DIVORCE LAWS

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 11, 13 July 1921, Page 7

DIVORCE LAWS

RELATIONS OF CHURCH

AND STATE

REVIEWED BY BISHOP SPROTT

INTERESTING SYNOD DISCUSSION,

An important discussion oh the divorce laws of the Dominion took place at yesterday's sitting o£ the Diocesan Synod, when the Rev. 0. M. Stent (Eastbourne) moved as follows: That this Synod views with strong disapproval the extension .of the grounds of divorce made by the 1920 amendment of the Divorce Act, as being more subversive of the Christian standard of marriage than any previous New Zealand legislation on. the subject. , ' ~ . .. MARRIAGE STANDARD IN PERIL. Sir. Stent said he brought forward the motion with a, great sense of responsibility. He would, first of all, ask the Synod to consider what the Christian standard of marriage was. God was.the Fountain and Source of all life. If they , admitted that, then they could go further and admit that God was the Author _and the Creator of all life. That led them to the third conclusion that God had a perfect right to lay down the laws and the conditions of human life.' God had done so in two ways. First of all; the marriage contract waß to be a lifelong one; secondly, no marriage should be recognised as marriage that came within certain degrees ot relationship. The amended marriage laws of.last year permitted a divorce to take place within three years of separation, no' ma-ttet whether the contracting parties had lived chastely or not. It seemed to him that | the startdard of marriage laid down in the Word of God was in very, .very grave peril, and, if that was so, it behoved every Christian priest and every Christian layman, with one voice and with one determination, to pass the resolution, and' do his best to bring about a return to the. paths of righteousness for the sake of Him who gave them life and powers of the pro-creation of life. God instituted marriage and Christ adorned and beautified it by the first miracle He performed in Cana of In the marriage, service, the priest declared that Hhose " whom God had joined together no man shall put asunder," and in the declaration which he made* of their marriage, he pronounced the parties man and wife, not according to the laws of this Dominiorl and Realm, but in the name of the 'Father, and^the Son, and the Holy Ghost. They said it should never be 'lawful to put ■ asunder those whom God, by matrimony, had made one. Now, they were face to face with a very critical and very serious problem, because a couple were now permitted—he. would not say encouraged—to part company after a space of three years if they mutually desired. Was that marriage, ov was it not? The amendment to the Marriage Act provided that every person was/liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of £100 who alleged expressly, or, by implication, that any persons lawfully married were not truly and sufficiently married. Did tlip law of this country override the law of God. or •'"' it- not? That was the question Synod must facf. He would ask any father and any mother .whether they would.allow their sons and daughters to be married under such conditions that they might be rust .adrift, in.the .space.,of ...three years. There was'not one that \Vould-do so. -"It is with very great sorrow, but with a stern sense of. duty, that I move 'the. .resolution" standing in my name," concluded' Mr. Stent.' ." ' '•' . "

A REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. In seconding the motion, Mr. H. E. Evans (Wellington) said the marriage amending legislation was passed in the dying hour bf the last session, and 'the effects were only now becoming apparent. He trusted that the Synod would give full consideration to the motion. The legislation wa-s not opening the doors a little wider, but it was a re-* volutionaiy change which bade fair to shake down the whole sanctuary in which the institution of Holy, Matrimony was enshrined.- There were differences between the divorce laws, ofEngland and New Zealand, and those Of the OH Country were superior because in England a divorce could not be.obtained at the instance of the really guilty party. The Act of 1920 provided that the Court (should have / certain discretionary powers. No one knew how the discretion was "going to be exercised in the Courts. Most people assumed that the moral conduct of the parties would have something' to do with the matter, but that had not proved to be the case. Even before the first important judgment came out, a close consideration, of the Act made it clear that that could not be the dominant consideration. The principle that the Court had iaid down—and it was not expected that it would be ovenuled by any higher authority—was that^so long as it was satisfied that the foundation of the marriage was irretrievably gone, and there was no chance of the parties coming together again, a decree would be pronounced. Mr. Evans cordially supported the motion. The Rev. \V. G. Williams, Maori Missioner, hoped, that Synod would sound' such a note of indignation ■ that the Legislature would be compelled to amend the Act that had been passed last year. (Applause.) The Rev. H. G. Blackburne (Palmers: ton North) thought it would be a public tragedy if the Synod did' not express a very strong opinion on the matter. Mr. E. H. Hadiield (Wellington) suggested that Bishop Sprott should make some pronouncement on the subject. (Applause.) The Legislature 'had to deal with people as they were, and the speaker could imagine the difficulties that sometimes wouid be presented to legislators in such a matter as divorce legislation. He wanted 'y some sort of guiding principle on the question. .They miist accept the fact that there was a law, and that there was ' depravedhuman nature. The Legislature had to do something to keep that human nature move or less on the, rail, and it had to employ the best means it could to do so. For a Christian, it was a question of one ideal or another. FUNCTIONS OF CHURCH AND STATE. Bishop Sprott said he was unable to satisfy the demand of Mr. Hadfield, because he did'not-think that anyone had succeeded in doing so yet. It might clear a mass of doubt on divorce and other questions, however, if they j tried to distinguish in their minds the' functions of the Church and of the State. Some people , said that there was no connection or relationship whatever between the Church and the State, and that the less they had to do with each other the better. That was manifestly absurd, for the simple reason that they both met on one point, namely, that they both claimed to, deal with human conduct. It was the function of the Church, as ho understood it, to hold dip before the minds and con-sciences.-of the' people the true ideal of human life and conduct, and to seek to obtain the acceptance find followingof that idea,!; not by any thought of External compunction, but by the awakening of inner reverence. As Mr. Hudfield said, the State dealt with people just en it found them. It had to

do that because it had no power by which' it could work that inner trans-^ formation of reverence to the ideal. That, of course, was where the tragic mistake had been made of the State taking over education. (Applause.) That, he supposed, was the most tragic mistake of modern times, because the State had no method'by which it could claim inner- reverence for moral law. The State dealt with people as they were, .and the State's sphere of operation was the failure of the Church. If the Church were universally successful in awakening the inner reverence for moral law, there would be no necessity for gaols. "Every policeman," remarked his Lordship, "is an evidence that the Church has not yet succeeded in its function in attaining the moral ideal." The Christian idea of marriage was its indissolubility. The. relations between Church and State had become greatly complicated in our times, and he did not think that they quite realised yet the revolution that had taken place.- There was a time when the idea of conduct which the Church upheld was "Recognised by the State as the ideal of conduct, and the ideal of marriage which the Church upheld was recognised Ky the State "as the ideal of marriage; the State accepted the Christian ideal of marriage as the true ideal of marriage. : NO CHRISTIAN STATE TO-DAY. "Now gentlemen," continued Dr, Sprott, "I don't think it is realised that that has gone. There is no Christian ■State to-day, New Zealand is not a -Christian State. ,It cannot be. I don't mean by that that the majority of people are not Christians—the vast majority may be the most devout Christians—but New Zealand as a Sta/te cannot be Christian. The moment the first Jew was admitted to full citizenship, the moment the first Mohammedan was admitted to tHe rights of citizenship, the State ceased to be Christian. Nevertheless, the majority of the people might be devout Christians." He. believed that Christianbecause it has to recognise the full rights of citizenship to persons who do not recognise the true Christian ideal—don't, want to recognise it —and no State can impose the Christian ideal on citizens as Christians. He believed that' Christianity had stated the true laws of social life. He did not think they realised the revolution that had taken place; the Christian ideal now was not necessary. The ideal recognised by the community was such that Christian people were now in the position of, being tolerated. There was a'sign last session that even tolerance might go. They had been allowed to hold up before their own people the Christian ideal of marriage, but, ac they knew, that was very nearly ended, and, indeed, if they took the strict letter of the law, that right had gone. And, who was to blame ? The laity. The laity was biased. How many of the laity, even in that Synod, if the clergy incurred a penalty of £100 for pronouncing the Christian view of ma<mage, woulcr stand by it? "I believe there are some who would say 'Serve them right!'" added Dr. Sprott. "That is the weak point. The Christian ideal is not accepted by us,.and we stand as voices crying in the wilderness. The Roman priesthood gets some support in these questions; we get hardly any. That is the honest 'truth of it. I say it, and you know it."

PERSECUTION WILL COME BACK.

Bishop Sprotfc went on to say thai he believed that ultimately tolerance would go, and a. few , Christians -would ihave to endure persecution. -No community, of course, would tolerate any individuals casting discredit upon its Jaws. In the false, delusive tolerance of the nineteenth century they imagined that the day of, persecution had gone. That was because in the nineteenth century the cleavage between the Church and the. State ( not on points of dogma,, .'but on. the points of conduct and' on the' idea of conduct, had not been perceived, ■hut it was becnrrlirtjj'clear now:that the 'Christian Church'stood for one ideal and that the modern communities did not accept ijt. The result 1 wottld *be,';he wa« perfectly convinced—and not lie alone— that a few earnest Christia.ns would ?oon find -themselves being persecuted. "I«do ■not believe any;of, those present in this j room ■wilt be persee-nted. because our Christianity is too' much of a. compromise." remarked His Lordship, "but there may be some amQugst our children who will find that the dkys of persecution have come back, for Vie sample reason that no community Will tolerate any practical resistance to its laws." ' Touching orKt-hfi present New Zealand divorce law. his Lordship said he' could imicrine nothing more terrible than that nersons could enter the etate of Foly Matrimony with >a sub-conscious notion that if it was not a success they could get out of it. \ ' A,WOMAN'S QUESTION. "What amazes me," declared Bishop Sprott emphatically, "is how the women of this country have not risen up, be-, cause it is the woman that suffers every ■time. (Applause.) I rejoice that I have no marriageable daughters now. I can imagine many innocent young girls being married for the deliberate purpose of being left after a time. That certainly is not going to increase the 1 happiness- of this country. (Voices: "No!") It is .the woman-who suffers every time, and thfe k a women's question." If they were going to raise the public standard, they should strike the compromise with evil as high in the moral scale as possible. (Applause.) j Christian people had to hold up the Christian ideal of conduct, but there could be no compulsion in Christianity, which sought to work by inner reverence and love. Were they going to stand by the higheet>ideal of love? Woe be the' fate of the' Church if it' was found wanting. Christ, had said : "Ye are the light of the world. Ye arc the salt of the_ earth. If the salt has lost its savour ' it is fit for nothing, but to be cast out and troddeu down, of men." "It has struck me," said the Bishop, in conclusion, "that that is >what is happening to the Christian Church this very daybeing cast out and trodden down of men. Remember St. Peter's words,; that judgment would begin in the House of God. I am not so sure this judgment is not beginning now."

The motion was carried unanimously.