NE TEMERE DECREE

Star (Christchurch), Issue 20057, 21 September 1920, Page 6

NE TEMERE DECREE

DIVORCE and re-mar-RIACE DISCUSSED. ATTITUDE OF XOX-EPISCOPAL CHURCHES, Divorce law and the Nc Tcmore decree discHssed last night hv the Council ot Clin relies, and the following 1110°n was earned unanimously, on the motion of D r Erwin, who presided Hie Council of Churches expresses p ensure at the determination of the Legislative Council to introduce legislation that will prevent abuses occasioned' by .the operation of the No lenieie decree in reference to mixed marriages. ” . P lO . Question, of the divorce law was introduced by the Rev R. M. Rylnirn, ulio referred to the nmendmont 'of the i arridgo Act now before Parliament, tils views on it were in accordance with Lie Rev Howard Elliott’s views. If the Roman Catholic Church had said that it recognised marriages by civil law and oy other churches as finite legal but nou according to ils sacramental views; it w-oiild be all right: but that was net all that was said, and it was leading to trouble and the breakiug-up of homes*i ls ™ssing divorce, Mr Ryhurn said that they should contend against legislation which gave too loose a view of the marriage tie. St Matthew’s Gospel, at the beginning of chapter 19. went to the |ery foundation of the divorce question. Love was a basis of ifiarriago. Love was made what it ought to be by tbe love of the two going out towards the child. Love coining from God. such a union was a union by God. Too often divorce and the consequences of adultery were regarded as between man mid wife without reckonmg the groat consequences to the cliilrh f , ph . raso “ exc cpt for fornication. had raised tho question, “Did Jesus really allow divorce on that ground? Two opposite sides were taken but the general view had been that the bond,was broken, and Christ Jilad allowed it to be broken, bv fornication. By adultery the physical bond uas broken, and tho spiritual bond could not bo maintained without it. n , .® V €T . T- Archer said that Jesus Chnst had not confined adultery to a physical act. Tho 'marriage laws had nothing to do. with Christianity and tho churches. Marriage was simply a legal contract, and all the rest was added bv tho churches. The Protestant churches i i-r 1 j GV , er claimed that the laws should be lilted to tho level of Scripture teaching. leople were'divorced when love between them had died out, and he did not think it was encouraging virtue or race purity, or anything olso, to insist that people wore still married although they had ceased to love and were separated. There were many cases ot incompatibility of temperament and cases where married people were never joined together by God. Some were joined by lust, and a great manv by Mammon. The Rev J. J. North said that Christians could never consent to the position that ministers wore merely cxecuof the law regard to marriage. Christian men were largely bound by the succinct .statement in Matthew’s Gospel; but a groat many questions arose around it. It was difficult to venture on tbe ground of spiritual separation. and it was arguable as to whether conditions such as gross drunkennesshad not become of similar importance with tho very grave causes that might bo regarded as grounds for iKvorcfo. I have no hesitation in marrying tho innocent party iu a divorce case, where adultery is tho cause,” Air North added. “I should not consent te marry a guilty person under any circumstances at -all, but when you get into further questions, I do not want to pronounce a judgment.” Tho Rev W. Ready said that Jesus Christ taught emphatically that fornication was a ground for divorce; but He did not tell all that was in His mind. Mr Ready added that if he could create happiness where now lb ere was misery he would be doing the uill of God. He would marry any divorced person, asking no questions, because the one considered guilty by the law might be innocent, Separation and insanity were grounds,of.divorce, and lie would go as far as incompatibility if he knew how to define, it, fqr he had gone' into homes, where there was no hope of husband and wife coming together, and he could not believe, that God had made .such a blunder as to unite them. At the request of the council. Mr Rvburn then moved. Tlie Council of Churches, having regard to the fact of tbe promulgation of the Ne Temere decree in the Dominion, which in its application in the case of mixed marriages travenses the law of the land and of nonLatholic Churches by declaring invalid a marriage duly solemnised according to these laws, and is so used as to disturb the peace of families and break up homes, and considering that the clause proposed in the Bill to amend the Marriage Act now before Parliament will prevent the declaration that marriages performed according to the laws of the land are not marriages at all, and will not restrain any denomination from promulgating its own special doctrine • regarding marriage, expresses its approval of the purpose of the clause and its hope that in whatever form may be doomed wisest the House of ‘ Representatives will pass it i .‘o law and so conserve the rights an..' liberties of all denominations.” Mr Ryhurn said that if Mr Archer for instance, married a Protestant and ?. ~o irH n Catholic, it was a serious thing if the Roman Catholic Church declared that it was no marriage especially if one party believed that allegation The Bill would not stop the Roman Catholic Church declaring that mixed marriages were not in accordance with its sacramental view of marriage*. The Rev J. J. North seconded the motion. Up till 1908 the Roman Catholic Church regarded any mixed marriage by a Protestant minister as valid, but in 1908 the decree was promulgated. Tbe ex-Kaiser declared that he would never allow it to operate in Germany and the Church therefore excluded Germany from its operations. It was perfectly obvious that a Church which could play one tune in one country and another in another was not operating on conscience, hut on diplomacy. Themisery worked by the decree came often to his notice. Latin countries had dealt drastically with the question. In Italy no priest, and not. even the Pope himself, could perform a marriage, which had to be performed by the local provost. After that the couple could go to church and receive any ecclesiastical benediction they could obtain. It was quite possible that the solution of the marriage problem in New Zealand would come in the same way. He hoped very much that Parliament would give security to the womenfolk of the country. The Presbyterian Assembly in 1911 and 1912 had sheeted home five severe findings against the decree, and every other church. Anglican included, had protested against it. The Rev J. K. Archer Said that flabby Protestants should count tho cost before getting married. He was impressed by some of the declarations of some of tho Roman Catholic Bishops and it would bo intolerable if tue clause did actually muzzle the whole Christian ministry on the subject of marriage. The Rev W. Ready said he was sorry that the question could not be discussed without having the charge of religious, intolerance thrown at him. The motive actuating the Bill was fair play to all and favour to none: hut it was regrettable that tho Protestant Political Association and not the Roman Catholic side was heard before tho

Bill was brought on. The Bill, however, gave fair play. Dr Erwin said that the No Temere decree did not admit that certain marriages were marriages at all. That decree was promulgated in New Zealand, anvi the only thing that would satisfy the community of the sincerity of the Roman Catholic Church would bo the withdrawal of the decree. The decree declared that it was no marriage, and the issue was illegitimate, first, if Roman Catholics were married by a Protestant minister or Ibetore a registrar; second, if mixed marriages were performed by a Protestant minister; and third, if persons who had left the Catholic Church were married by other than a parish priest. While he was strongly against the decree, ho was not satisfied with the wording of the clause. It might be that the divorce law would be stretched in a way which would not meet with the approval of his church, and if he refused to allow a person to come to the Sacrament was he not by implication saying that it was not a valid marriage? He would rather make it an offence to remarry anyone who already according to the law' had been married, or for any person to seek a certificate for a marriage after being already married, to remarry anybody. The Church of Rome sought remarriage because the Protestant had to enter the Roman Church in order to get the remarriage. He moved as an alternative the amendment already quoted. In reply to a suggestion, Mr North said that there was no hope of the New Zealand Parliament approaching too Vatican to secure the withdrawal of the decree. Mr North seconded Dr Erwin’s amendment, which was carried unanimously. WELLINGTON PRESBYTER'S’S VIEW. JPee Press Association, 1 WELLINGTON, September 10. The Presbytery of Wellington tonight passed a resolution-—" That the Presbytery, having carefully considered the Marriage Bill now before Parliament, _ and being advised that the clauses introduced in the ' Legislative Council are doubtful in effect, urges Parliament to preserve the right of every Church to hold and declare its religious doctrines, and at the same time adequately protect the rights of all persons who conform to the law of the land in, respect to marriage.”