STANDS TILL DEATH

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 152, 29 June 1935, Page 13

STANDS TILL DEATH

THE MARRIAGE BOND

DECISION OF THE BISHOPS GKOUNDS FOR NULLITY The Church's attitude to marriage and divorce formed the subject of a report, issued by a joint committee set up following the Lambeth Conference of 1930, says the "Daily Telegraph." The committee included Dr. A. F. Winnington-Ingram, Bishop of London; Dr. St. CJair G. A. Donaldson, Bishop of Salisbury; Dr. Barnes, Bishop of Birmingham; and Dr. B. Pollock, Bishop of Norwich. Several members, notably Dr. Barnes and Dr. Pollock, have not subscribed to the full views of the majority of the committee, and two minority reports have been, prepared. The majority report recommends four new grounds for annulling a marriage. The report states: — There is in. many quarters a revolt against any view of marriage which emphasises its social aspects and obligations, and an increasing tendency to regard it as a purely individual affair. There is also a growing impatience on the part of those who hold no allegiance to the Christian Church of the so-called or alleged predominance of the ecclesiastical influence in the marriage law, and there is a tendency to regard marriage as a purely human and civil contract which ought not to bev allowed to remain binding when its terms had become unwelcome. ; FRAILTY OF MANKIND. The pressure for the relaxation of the marriage law was due far more to an inarticulate revolt against the experience of unhappy marriage than to any reasoned thinking. But that inarticulate revolt was undoubtedly widespread. The institution of marriage was bound up with the very existence of the human race, and reflection seemed to suggest that social conditions of humanity at their best demanded not only a monogamous union, but a union which was also lifelong. It. took a lifetime to realise the full beauty of married love, and, if the union were not contemplated as permanent and the parties conceived themselves free to separate if they so wished, there was no chance of true wedded loVe ever coming into its own. . Nevertheless, in all ages and races the frailty of mankind had fallen short of the ideal, and men had everywhere pressed for some relief from, : the rigidity of its demand. We submit that a considered extension of the grounds for annulling a marriage would be consistent with principle and free from objection. For instance, a Court might be allowed to declare a marriage void: In proyed .cases of infantilism and similar abnormalities. (In. many of these cases the marriage is already voidable by law, but tt'e fact is not sufficiently recognised.) Where either party is, to his or her own knowledge and unknown to the other, .suffering from venereal disease, or certain other disorders to be specified. ■ :---' I '! ! '~-■■ Where a party Rno'ws of and has concealed from the other the existence of some notable hereditary mental or physical disorder in his or her family, likely to be detrimental to the happiness of. the marriage or the health of the children. Where the woman knows and conceals from the toko, that'she is at the time of the marriage pregnant by some other man. Where there has been wilful refusal to consummate the marriage. NOT A BAR. The question was now being raised as to whether sterilisation was a bar to Christian marriage, and they felt justified in saying that the mere physical fact that an operation had been performed need not in itself be regarded as a bar. If "church membership were to be real, those who were church members must accept the obligations of membership. The Church *had a law to declare and a discipline to exercise for its members. Under that law the marriage of a husband arid wife was "till death us do part". In the case of two church members who found it impossible ,to continue living together as man and wife, the Church would teach th* they might separate but that it was against God's will for either to remarry during the lifetime of the other. Similarly, in the case of a church member deserted or betrayed by an unworthy partner, the Church would counsel separation, and even in exceptional circumstances a legal dissolution; 'but without remarriage during the lifetime of the former spouse. ■ ■ ■ ' ' y They could not ignore the fact that there were many good church people face to face with grave problems created by adultery, desertion, or insanity who, after earnest consideration, were conscientiously convinced that the full rigour of the Christian code ought to bo relaxed even to members of the Church. DIVORCE LAW AMENDMENT.' The situation which confronted them in England was extraordinarily difficult. For various reasons large numbers of men and women no longer regarded marriage with the same deliberate seriousness as did men and women of previous generations. It could not be denied that many men and women did, in fact, contract a •'marriage" as little more than a temporary experiment. In the present condition of general society it must be conceded that, so^ far as secular legislation is concerned, some provision for dissolving the legal bond is inevitable. The grounds ought, we are convinced, to be severely limited, even in secular legislation. We wish to register our emphatic protest against the way in which |,t is now possible to arrange a divorce,, desired for quite different reasons, under the cover of an inferred act or series of acts of adultery. There is no doubt that the public mind.is becoming more and more disturbed by the present condition of the law of divorce. However reluctant we may be to see any increase in the tium-ber-of divorces, we are bound to recognise the fact that some alteration of ithe' law itself is requisite in the interests, of public, confidence. And we .should indeed hope that whatever alteration may be secured, one of its results would be to'make it practically impossible any longer to obtain a divorce on purely .fictitious grounds. The Church must-make it clear that if any relaxation of the divorce laws is to be sanctioned, not only should there be vno right given for a second marriage to take place in church in the lifetime of the former partner, but the Church should be free to forbid to its own members the use i of the marriage service, admission to the sacraments and other privileges of the Church. , : , WEDDING VOWS. The m'trriage service concludes with the solemn warning: "Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder." The Church cannot, therefore, formally bless the-second making o£ vows "till death us do part" while the former partner is still alive. Dealing with the admission of Church

people to Holy Communion after divorce and subsequent remarriage, the committee suggests the case should be! referred to the bishop. Only if the bishop were fully satisfied that the parties had acted in all good conscience, after mature reflection, and j that there was no other impediment, might Communion be given. On the subject of preparation for marriage, the committee states that the evidence of medical men and Magistrates presented a lurid picture of the vast amount of physical and mental suffering caused by ignorance. Much was easily preventable if wise information and advice were available, and there was an opportunity of real national importance in the hands of the clergy. CIVIL MARRIAGES. The committee gave careful consideration to the question of civil marriages, and it expresses the view that objections to universal civil marriage in this country were at present insuperable. It recommends an amendment of the law which now requires the whole marriage service to be read in cases where the parties to a register offic.e marriage desire a religious ceremony. "■■ Another authorised form' of church service should be provided allowing for the omission of those parts of the marriage service which were no^t appropriate for the religious.ceremony after the civil contract. Such a privilege should not, however, be extended to any person who had been a party to a divorce suit. "BLIGHTED LIVES." The Bishop of Birmingham, the Bishop of Barking, the Dean of Hereford, and Canon T. Guy Kogers, in a minority report, said that they disagreed with the view of the majority that the interpretation of Christ's pronouncements meant that whatever be the legislation of State, the legislation of the Church must be on the supreme level of the divine kind. "We do not think so. We think the Mind of Christ, as we know it, justifies, if not towards sinners, at least towards those who suffered from the sins of others, a more lenient legislation even on the part of the Church itself. Therefore, we cannot agree with the unqualified statement that the Church must regard marriage as an indissoluble union. "We beiieve that the State did right in providing by legislation for divorce under certain circumstances. We think it is a mistake' on the part of the Church to maintain the attitude, either that the State die? wrong or that while the State may fairly legislate for those, who do not claim to. be Christians, the Church must stand by the law of indissolubility for all its members. "We believe that there are cases of unhappy marriages in relation to which a minister of religion would be more true to the Mind of Christ in saying to the/aggrieved partner, 'For your sake and for the sake of your children you should seek a dissolution of your marriage' than in reminding him or her that he or she had vowed to be faithful to that bond, 'For better, for worse,' and in insisting that he or, she must suffer to the end. / "We are not convinced ■ that one whose first njarriage has been blighted by sin must necessarily be condemned to a life of celibacy and of barren misery.l We are not even prepared to deny to a genuinely innocent person the privilege, .if it be sought, of having his or her. second marriage blessed by being celebrated in church." DX. POLLOCK'S VIEW, ' Dr. Pollock, in a second minority report, states that a definite effort should be made.to discover whether the existing Divorce Court could be so far improved as to win the confidence of the citizens at large. He thought the Church should confer in regard to the civil aspects of niarrlage with the State authorities, and see whether legislation could be promoted to. substitute the civil preliminaries system, enjoyed by, the Roman Catholic and Nonconformist Churches, for the present system of ecclesiastical preliminaries. The Church of England should, he thought, be free to discriminate on religious as to those whom it would or would not marry. Both the minority reports expressed approval of the suggested four new grounds for nullity.