THE DIVORCE EVIL.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXX, Issue 10, 6 March 1902, Page 2

THE DIVORCE EVIL.

The Lenten Pastoral issued by his Grace the Archbishop of Melbourne dealt with the question of divorce. In the course of the Pastoral his Grace writes : Thanks to the purity of English family life, and the conservative tendency of English national character, the attempt made by the early Reformers failed, and the ' Reformatio,' with its numerous causes for divorce, never received legislative sanction. Thus ' divorce a vinculo,' or from the marriage bond, continued, at least in theory, x,o be unknown to the English law, and thß law of divorce in England was in accord with the Canon Law of the Catholic Church up to so recent a date as 1857. The Ecclesiastical Courts did two things. They declared some marriages null on account of an invalidating impediment existing before the marriage was celebrated, or, in other word?, they declared that there never hid bten, in such cases, a valid marriage. Again, they granted divorce 'a mensaet thoro,'or judicial separation, which did not interfere with the bond of marriage, and gave no right to either party to re-marry. It is true that in particular capes, between the Reformation and the passing of the first English Divorce Act in 1857, marriages were dissolved by private Aots of Parliament. But these cases were exceptional, and foreign to the spirit of the common law in England. From the beginning of the century to 1830 thefe were 82 of theße private Bills, and from 1830 to 1836 there were 99. But in 1857 the whole theory of the law of England was changed by the abolition of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the introduction of the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Cause?. This Court undertook to annul valid marriages for certain well-defined and not numerous causes. Indeed, it may be said that even still the English is the most conservative of all laws that recognise divorce. Bat still the principle was established, human law triumphed over the divine ordinance, and the warning words of Leo XIII. have been verified : 'The greatness of the evils engendered fey divorce will be better understood when it is borne in mind that that the license of divorce once granted, no rein, however strong, can restrain it within bounds, not even within those which have been already fixed. The force of example is great, much greater still is the force of passion. Then it mußtoome to pass that, like to sicknegs propagated by contagion, or to a mass of water which has overflown its banks, and spreads everywhere, the rage of divorce shall increase from day to day and shall obtain influence over the majority of minds.' And so it has happened amongst ourselves. The colonies were not slow to follow the example of the mother country. They have done more ; they have outstripped their guide, and have already widened the breach so a 9 to give full room for ' that common sewer of the realm ' to flow with disastrous results over the land. The proceedings of our Divorce Courts arouse the just indignation of the very judges who preside over them, and the records of these Courts prove the utter demoralisation of society of which they are the springs and sources. Nor can we be at all sure that the evils of divorce and divorce laws have reached their utmost limit. On the contrary, there are manifest signs that concerted attacks on the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage will be more aggressive and hostile in the future than in the past. 'Materialism,' pays Mr. Lilly, ' dibguised and undisguised, is the fashionable philosophy of the day. It is fatal to the idea of human personality, and, consequently, to the spiritual prerogatives of woman. It means for her, as Dean Merivale has well observed, " a fall from the consideration she now holds amongst us." It means that she must •• descend again to be the mere plaything of man, the transient companion of his lrinure hours, to be held loosely aa the chance gift of a capricious fortune." '

In conclusion, he asks what are the religions of the world doing to meet the passionate attacks on the indissolubility of marriage ? ' In the Anglican communion,' he proceeds, ' no doubt there are many men of good will who view with dismay the contemporary assault upon Christian wedlock, the growing derogation from its strictness, the increasing decline of the moral tone of women, and consequently of society. But what can they effect in a Church divided against itself, where bishop differs from bishop, and provincial synod contradiots provincial synod upon this grave subject ? ' The only real witness in the world,' he adds, ' for the absolute character of holy Matrimony ia the Catholic Church. And whether men will hear, or whether — as it seems more likely — they will forbear, she warns them that to degrade indissoluble marriage to a mere dissoluble contract, to a mere regulation of social policy, to a mere material fact governed by the animal, not the rational nature, will be to throw back modern civilisation to that wallowing in the mire from which she rescued it. ' This question, as was observed at the outset, has at the present time, and for the people of the Commonwealth of Australia, a special practical importance. In a little time our Federal legislators will be asked to vote on the Commonwealth Divorce Bill, which will soon be submitted for their consideration. In connection with that Bill and all such Bills, two preliminary questions have to be decided. First, has Parliament the power of abrogating the Divine law regarding the indiseolubility of marriage? Secondly, even if it had the power, should it, in the public interest, exeroise that power, and if so with what safeguards and limitations should it be exeroised ? Sufficient proof has been advanced, and much more might have been given, from the primitive institution of marriage, from the emphatic declaration of Christ, from the testimony of St. Paul, as well as from the history and practice of the early Church , to show that it is not in the power of man to put asunder what God has joined. But second, even if man, in his individual or legislative capacity, possessed the power of breaking the marriage bond, it is certain that, in the public interest, such power should not be used, or be used only most sparingly.