THE MARRIAGE TIE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22130, 8 June 1935, Page 14

THE MARRIAGE TIE

CHURCH AND DIVORCE t" * ANGLICANS' DECLARATION r SUBSEQUENT UNIONS BANNED BISHOP'S MINORITY REPORT By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright LONDON, Juno f> "Marriage is for life. Although provision for dissolving the legal bond is inevitable there cannot be a right to a second marriage in the - Church within the lifetime of a " former partner." This statement is contained in a majority report issued by the joint committee of the Convocations of - York and Canterbury after four Tears' discussions. The report says that the grounds for dissolving a marriage ought to be severely limited in secular legislation, and it protests against the possibility of arranging a divorce by inferrec misconduct. 1 The opinion is expressed that " Additional cause for nullity of marriage should include certain abnormalities, diseases and concealment of hereditary mental or physical disorder. " The Convocation of Canterbury j w accepted ihe report by 1> Dr. E. W. Barnes, Bishop oi. Birmingham, dissented. He and others submitted a minority report declaring thev - were not convinced that one whose first • marriage was blighted should be condemned to celibacy. "The important part of the report, to mv mind, is the passage relating to nullity of marriage," said Arch.bishop Averill, when asked to express iris views upon the above summary of the report of the committee of Convocations of Canterbury and York on marriage and divorce. . . "I am very strongly of opinion that , - the State should enlarge the grounds .on which a marriage can be declared '"null," the' Archbishop continued. '"'"What I have in mind particularly are cases in which on»* party has knowingly :' deceived the : other before marriage by concealing vitally important facts which, if disclosed, would have caused the marriage to be abandoned. Such a ""change in the law undoubtedly would a great deal of misery which -iriioiv leads to the Divorce Court. ■ - "It seems to mo that the Church would be quite justified in concurring in the annulment of such marriages by / the civil Courts, and in regarding them " --as no marriages at all in the sight of -■»- would be necessary for the Church to "f .set up some tribunal to inquire and re"""porfc before the re-marriage of the innocent party in church was authorised. Possibly the principle might be , - -extended by granting dispensation for the remarriage of innocent divorced persons who had divorces on grounds which would justify a decree of nullity/ However, I do not think 'this should be done unless some genferal legislation on such ljnes had been _ adopted by the whole Church. „ > Lambeth Conference Resolutions The statement at the beginning of • - the cablegram simply reaffirmed the common rule of the Anglican Church " on the re-marriage of divorced persons, '/"the Archbishop continued. The principle that marriage from the Christian point of view was a lifelong, indissoluble ■ union had been stated many times by bodies representing the Churches of the Anglican Communion. The Lambetn Conference, consisting of bishops from every part of the world, had passed such a resolution in 1920 and reaffirmed : it in 1830. ' _ The 1930 conference, which Dr. or. Averill had attended, had adopted the following resolutions regarding the re---'-marriage of divorced persons: — "(1) The conference, while passing judgment on the practice of regional iV< or. national Churches within our comc,,,' munion, recommends that the marriage . "of one whose former partner is still living shoiild not be celebrated accord- - ing to the rites of the Church. T-'" "(2) Where an innocent person has ---remarried under civil sanction, and desires to receive the Holy Communion, ft it recommends that the case should be ft, -preferred for consideration to the bishop, gubject to provincial regulations."

.'■i New Zealand Bishops' Declaration The practice of the- Church in New ~ Zealand was governed by a declaration V" issued in 1899 by the bishops of the ? province. This stated that when the 'Church of the Province of New Zealand received its constitution in 1857, the rule prevailing at that time in the Church of England, namely, that " J :, K divorced persons could not be remarried by the Church in the lifetime of their "T former partners, became the rule of the Church in New Zealand, and must continue so to be until such time as it was altered by act of the General f." Synod. . The bishops' statement included a " clause similar to the /Lambeth Con- . ference recommendation regarding admission to Holy Communion. The "'".clause, however, applied only to the innocent party to a divorce for ' adultery.