MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL

Otago Witness, Issue 3470, 14 September 1920, Page 5

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL

• r REPORT OF COMMITTEE. iFmiM Ouk Own Uorkesponpent.) WELLINGTON, September 8. The Marriage Amendment Bill was reported to the Legislative Council to-day irom the Statutes revision Committee vvita amendments, and on the motion of the chaarman the evidence was laid on the table and ordered to be printed. The clause proposed to be added to the Bill by the committee is as follows: —(1) Every person commits an offence against this Act, and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for one year, or a fine of £IOO, who (a) alleges expressly, or by implication that any persons lawfully married are not truly and sufficiently married; or' (b) alleges expressly, or 'by implication, that the issue of any lawful marriage is illegitimate or born out of true wedlock; (2) alleges in this section means making any verbal statement or publishing or issuing any printed or "written statement, or in any manner authorising the making of anv. verbal statement, 'or in any manner authorising or being party to the publication or issue of any printed or written statement; (31 a person shall not be deemed to make an allegation contrary to the provisions of. this section by reason only of using in the solemnisation of marriage, a form of marriage service which at the commencement of this Act was in use by the religious denomination to which such person or by reason only of the printing or issue of any book containing a copy of a form of marriage service in use at the commencement of this Act by any religious denomination. The committal of the Bill was made an order of the day for to-morrow. The report of the evidence is prefaced with the correspondence between the Attorney-General and the parties concerned. Sir Francis Bell informed Archbishop O'Shea that the points the committee desired to have cleared up were the publication by the Catholic Church of statements that certain marriages authorised by the law of New Zealand were not valid, with the addition of the words "That is to say, they are not married at all".; (2) the second and more important point, that there had been produced to the committee a photograph of a marriage certificate issued by Father O'Connell, of Brisbane, upon * the remarriage' of two persons, duly married according to the law of Queensland, showing the parties described in the remarriage . certificate as bachelor and spinster-. The committee had ho evidence before it as .to the practice of the Catholic Church in /New Zealand upon a remarriage of the kind 'referred to, and the committee consequently desired to know if it was the practice of the Church to describe the parties as bachelor and spinster. . Extracts of publications previous!- submitted to the committee by the Rev. Howard Elliott were forwarded. The extracts were from (1) "A catechism of Christian doctrine, No. 2. ap- - proved by the • archbishops and bishops of New Zealand ,and directed to be used in all other dioceses; (2) Austral Light, the official organ of the Roman Catholic Chtirch. in. Victoria, May, 1919 (under the direction of Archbishop Mannix) ; and. (3) Christian marriage and (the Ne Temere decree by Dean Phelan, V.G.

REGISTRAR-GENERAL A WITNESS. The first witness called was Mr W. W. Cook (Registrar-General'for the dominion), who said that acting under instructions he had searched back through . the marriage registers for the whole dominion for four years and a-half, and had not found recorded any cases in which there had been solemnised a second marriage between the same individuals in the Roman Catholic Church. He had found | a case where_ a registrar had issued a certificate authorising such a second marriage, but the marriage Was not solemnised. In the latter case both parties, were described as previously married. HOWARD ELLIOTT'S EVIDENCE.

• In his evidence Mr Howard* Elliott asked jn regard to the catechism of united doctrine No. 2, if Dr O'Shea stated it was merely a guide to the teacher as to the order of substance of the teachings of the Church to he given to children, why had the bishops' approved of it, and why had Dr Redwood signed it? He stated, plainly that- if two Catholics presumed to go through a form <-.f 'marriage before a non-Catholic minister, or civil registrar, they did not contract a valid marriage. The catechism, if of any value at all, must mean what it said that the "people were not married, arid not merely in a sacramental sense, they were not married, in the eyes of the Catholic Church. , Dr O'Shea, in his communication with Sir Francis Bell, had stated that the Roman Catholic Church recognised the validity of civil marriages, but that statement was contrary to the weight of evidence and facts. In referring to section 307 of the catechism, Dr O'Shea, had said: "Complete spirituality, which alone can assist the married persons, especially in a mixed marriage, to lead good lives and avoid sin." The implication was that those who were not married according to the laws of the Catholic Church did_ not live good lives,' arid were living in sin. Archbishop <y Shea' had said the-rule against mixed marriages was an "age-long established doctrine of the Church," but he could show it was established by the Council of Trent in 1563. He could also prove that contrary to the archbishop's statement it was forced upon people. Both Dr O'Shea and Dr Cleary said that to be of full effect, civil or legal marriages must be revalidated. Why did an effective marriage or legal marriage need revalidation. These revalidations were to be recorded in <he Church's books, but he could show that these statements'' were in conflict with the teaching and nractices of the Church throughout the British Empire. . He could also show that the statements in the catechism were ' jn conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church throughout the Empire, and that the explanations and modifications now given in those words, nnd other words were explanations only in the light of the inciuiry "now being made before the committee. NARROWING OF LEGAL MARRIAGE. Mr Elliott also quoted from a book which he said had been purchased from the Catholic Book Depot, the Catechism of Doctrine Explanations. It was, he said, published under the imprimatur of the Vicar-General of Westminster diocese, London, in 1912. On page 156 was given this question: "When only is there marriage?" and the answer was: " Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the parish priest or Bio ordinary priest ot the place, or a priest aeieg-ated by either of these, and at least

two witnesses." Question 427 was: "What is the sin of adultery?" The answer was: "Adultery is committed by living together as husband and wife, without having been validly married. This is a grievous sin. Valid marriage—a real marriage, one contracted under the conditions laid down by the Church." The answer to question 428 was: "Catholics render themselves guilty of adultery chiefly in the following way: If they go through no marriage ceremony at all,, or else Jthey go through it in a registry office, or in a non-Catholic church, or privately without witnesses." This was the statement of doctrine by the CatholicChurch. He said that the allegation of Archbishop O'Shea and Dr Cleary were con-tra-dieted by their own books, circulated throughout the Empire, and which any person could buy. Mr Elliott also quoted from the letters of Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII in support of the other evidence he had given. He claimed that when Archbishorp Redwood, the Superior of the Church in New Zealand, preaching m bt. Mary's Cathedral, Sydney, was reported to have said (on September- 10, 1900): " Prot.e3taJit.ism desecrated the .home; it lowered the dignity of womanhood, it devastated the schools and stopped the progress of science." Dr Cleary, m a book published in 1908, in Dunedin,, had said that the parties to a marriage knew before hand that the union they entered upon was a marriage which the supreme spiritual authority declared to be neither a contract nor a sacrament.'' The Rev. Robert "Wood also gave evidence. He said that he had been authorised to act in connection with. this matter by the Presbyterian Church. He read letters from ministers to bear out his statement, that the decree was operating disastrously in New Zealand. No other witnesses were called. THE CASE FOR THE CHURCH AUTHORITIES.

Sir John Findlay, in his address fo£ the Roman Catholic Church authorities, said it was obvious that Mr Elliott's charge went far beyond the contention that the Catholic Church discredited mixed marriages, and asserted their invalidity, and amounted to a declaration that the Church regarded no marriages at all as valid unless solemnised according to the procedure of the Catholic Church. Sir John Findlay referred to a number of specific questions he had asked Mr Elliott, end said thai one assurance had emerged from them, and that was that any attempt on the part of the Church to follow its age-long practices by conferring upon civil marriage what it assumed to be a sacramental character, that if this were attempted in the future it would be treated, if Mr Elliott had his way, as a penal offence. * This raised the question what were the doctrines regarding it, and what was the attitude of the Catholio Church towards a legally contracted "mixed" marriage? Sir John said he.was using? the words " legally contracted mixed marriage" in respect of its spiritual and sacramental completeness, and its legal validity. He primarily entered a protest that the domain of religious liberty lay outside the jurisdiction and right of interference by any Parliamentary Committee. Marriage was one of the most sacred sacraments of the Catholic Church. Was New Zealand to be an exception to the Christian world by proposing to punish for error in doctrine? Our liws conceded to Protestants and Catholics full religious liberty. Were the doctrines, or part of them,, to be swept from that protection by someone who came along and said: "Your doctrines of marriage are not your religious doctrine's, they are not part of your- religion. " MIXED MARRIAGES, DISCOURAGED.

The Church recognised, as everyone else .did, that mixed marriages were poor guarantees, for domestic happiness, and that they should be discountenanced to the fullest degree. The Church in no, way sought to promote an alliance between one of its own'faith and one who was not. It raissd bars to these unions, rigorous, severe, determined. It did not seek to trap people into them, and then achieve a forced conversion. He thought Mr Elliott had been guilty of a confusion ot idgas. He challenged Mr Elliott to show in wfi*at way the Catholic doctrines of rnarriage overrode the law,' or defied it. Was the committee familiar with the Scottish law of marriage? Sir John also referred to the Anglican Church's attitude towards the "deceased wife's sister" law, and asked if the same-argument were to apply to that. .Was it to be left to New Zealand to attack religious dogma of all the other portions of the Empire? The whole-doc-trines of the Catholic Church were interwoven in the oast. Sir John quoted various authorities to prove this was the case in regard to the marriage ceremony ''and its sacredness. The' Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of all the civil effects of. a marriage, solemnised in accordance with, the New Zealand law, even though it .benbn-sacramental. -It recognised the civilly bigamous nature of fresh unions entered into. While this bond remained in force the civil legitimacy of non- . sacramental civil marriages among Catholics and _ the right or title to the law of succession to propertv arid all other rights conferred upon legitimate children by civil law. Catholics were not so stupid as to denv such laws. The Church, lin the Catechism referred to, was considering mixed marriages, not from the point of view of civil law, but from the canon law, and this was made further clear by the use of the words: " The Church has always forbidden mixed marriages." OFFER TO REVIEW STATEMENTS. Sir John further said he was authorised to state that if the expression of the doctrines of the Church led to any reasonable inference that there was doubt cast upon the validity of a civil marriage, that doubt the Church would, by means of review, gladly remove, as it felt it was bound to do so under the greater obligation of fairness and wide Christian charity. He asserted that Archbishop O'Shea and Dr Cleary had both deolared the validity of civil, mixed, or non-Catholic marriages, and aH civil rights resulting therefrom. Beyond this the Church only asserted that if its members wanted the benefits or privileges of the sacramental marriage they must conform to its conditions. If these declarations were not to be' accepted then the Parliamentary Committee was to become the examiner and interpreter of Church doctrines. The Church desired in no way that inferences _ should be made from any of its publications, that a legal marriage was not a civil valid marrige, did not confer illegitimacy nor all the other consequences of the law. Sir Johjl read from a statement erf the Church authorities the authorisation referred io above on the points

mentioned. He asked the committee to ponder well the gravity of the step which jt was asked to take.

Subsequent meetings of the Select Committee were held, and the minutes show that the following resolution was passed:— " (1) That it is desirable that a clause should be inserted in the Marriage Amendment Bill providing that it be an offence against the law for any person by words published or written, or spoken, to deny or impugn otherwise than by proceedings in a court of law the validity of a marriage celebrated in accordance with the law of New Zealand, or with the law of Scotland or Ireland, or of any of the possessions of his Majesty, or in any manner to deny or impugn otherwise than by proceedings in a court of law the legitimacy of the issue of any such marriage; (2) that it be referred to the Attorney-general to have a clause drafted accordingly for the consideration of the committee." At a meeting subsequently the committee decided that the new clause be "added to the Bill, and that a report to the council be made in accordance with the resolution. CFrom Ouh Own, Cop.eespondent.) WELLINGTON, September 9. The Council adopted without discussion the amendments proposed by the Statutes Revision Committee. The Bill was accordingly reported with these amendments, was read a third time, and was passed.