CHURCH AND DIVORCE

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 2 March 1935, Page 7

CHURCH AND DIVORCE

ANGLICAN PROPOSALS SPECIAL MARRIAGE VOW ATTITUDE EXPLAINED

The stand adopted by the Church of Eingland on the subject of divorce was explained to a reporter by the Rev. F. N. Taylor, vicar of St. Luke’s, Christchurch. He was speaking with reference to the cable message . from London on Monday stating that the smouldering quarrel on this subject between the Anglican Church and Parliament would be fought out as a result of the proposals framed by a powerful and representative committee of churchmen to exclude divorce from the Established Church. Mr Taylor said that the statement about excluding divorce suggested that this was not already done, whereas, in fact, nothing could be plainer. To some persons who did not know the true position, the proposals might suggest that Anglican clergy who had refused to marry divorced persons had up till now been acting in the trrong and that action was now being taken to put them in the right. That, however, was quite the wrong impression, because the Church had never countenanced divorce.

The marriage vow at present said: “I take thee to be my wedded husband (or wife) for better, for worse, till death us do part,” and repeatedly in the service the idea of the indissolubility of marriage was mentioned.

The Lambeth Conference of 192 Q defined “as Our Lord’s principle and standard of manriage, a life-long and indissoluble union, for better, for worse, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, and calls on all Christian people to maintain and bear witness to this standard.” This was reaffirmed at the last Lambeth Conference in 1930. “The proposal now would merely have the effect of making more explicit what is already implicit in the service,” said Mr Taylor. “It is a question whether anyone who ( now goes against his marriage vow—that is, by seeking divorce—would be more likely to be restrained if the vow were put into stronger terms.”

MARRIAGE BY REGISTRAR The proposal was that those refusing to take the suggested vow would have to be married by a registrar, without the Church’s blessing. Apart from the registrar, however, such persons would probably be able to find ministers of other denominations ready to marry fEbm. That was done constantly in New Zealand, said Mr Taylor.

He had never heard of a divorced person being remarried in an Anglican Church in New Zealand; but it was a question that often arose, and in such cases persons had been able to be married again by one of the other denominations.

“In this matter, as in all similar ones, people who go against the Church’s laws don’t need to be excommunicated they excommunicate themselves. If they abandon Christian principles they naturally, don’t, go to Communion. I don’t know of a- case where a person attending Communion has been repudiated under such circumstances, but that is because they just don’t present themselves. The term ‘excommunication’ merely means exclusion from Communion. There is no possibility here of any further penalties, nor is there even in England, in spite of whatever legal powers the Church may still have unrepealed. “But I think there is an even bigger thing behind this proposal. There is a growing desire in Church circles that people , should be married in Church only if they desire to enter into the spiritual and moral implications of such a service. There is a certain unreality when both parties to a marriage in church are entirely indifferent to all the other rites of the’ church, except burial.” It was pointed out that, under the Rubric at the beginning of the Communion Service, it was laid down that the priest must not admit anyone who was excommunicated or guilty of open or notorious sin, and that, true churchmen would say, included persons who had been divorced. For the Sacrament to be administered to one who had been divorced would be a scandal and an offence to true churchmen, said Mr Taylor.

FTGHT 'WITH I'ajxijlAMENT

The Church of England had fought Parliament on the question of divorce from the passing of the first Divorce Act in 1857. It had subsequently been enacted that no clergyman should be compelled to solemnise the marriage of any person who had been divorced; but the effect of this had been considerably weakened by the provision that he had to allow another clergyman, if willing to do so, to perform the marriage. If the English proposals were carried they would undoubtedly be discussed by the General Synod of New Zealand, it was stated, but it would not be necessary to put any decision arrived at here before Parliament in order to make it legal. In England, however, an alteration to the marriage service such as was proposed could not be made without the sanction of Parliament.