CATHOLIC MARRIAGES

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXVI, Issue 13, 2 April 1908, Page 23

CATHOLIC MARRIAGES

- Th^Jollowing. is -the- concluding portion of. the letteron ' Catholic , Marriages,' which . appeared in tiie vhristrchuroh' ' Press ' of ' Tuesday,' The first part "appears .'on pages 11 and 12 of -this ' issue! 1 ' ' ' ' " ' Sir, I—ln.his1 — In. his attack 'on the "papal decree on marriage'i the Revr- Mr. Carrington'hdsed'.wilrr £ good deal of highpressure assertion the rather innocent-looking propositions that a form, ofc marriage whicu js valid before- God at one time may belnvalid-at-a-nother, and that a wnlarriage which is null and_ void before the Church \s likewise null and void ' in;" the sight- of God.', ,. 'lhis, accord-,-ing to the reverend gentleman, is ' a -new mpral law, 1 'an immoral, piece of teaching ' (not ' unnatural,' as appeared in. my last letter), and subversive pf ' the very foundation of . social morality.' • -- ■ While he is getting together evidence to sustain this terrible indictment,' 1 wish to show your readers that' both in' -theory and practice, his! own Church accepts the very claim -for which he (figuratively) - dooms the CtiuToliof RomeMo the Pit of Tdphet. ' 7 , .*~ - In your issue of March 23rd, the Rev. Mr. Carrington says-: ' What the English State may have made in the laws, has notching to" do with the' question ' here under discussion. "Yet it has a vast deal"' to -do with it. For '*n the Church of England', as by law established, the supremacy of the. Crown arid jfaf-' liament— proclaimed* as ' by the Word of God ' — is a very reajl thing, 'lhe 17th -section of the Statute I. Eliz.,C. 1., claims '-for ever ' for the Crown, "the supreme ecclesiastical and spiritual ■ power "in that Church.- And ' thatt section (says. Tomlinson) .is 'still unrepealed" - ('The Prayer Book, Articles, and Homilies,' London, 1897, p. 35). In" his 'Constitutional History of Eng-v land ' (vol. Ill; 'p. 226) another Anglican writer," Sir 'l.honms Erskine May,-" 'states the' well-known fact that" it is the .Legislature whiiclv 'directs the -government dis- < cipline, revenues — nay, even the doctrines -of the Church I ,' aii'd has 'attained a dominant authority' over her. , The Gotham, case and 'the, Bishop of Lincoln case are instances'in point. (See also Gairdner's ' jeaiglish Cliurch : in the Sixteenth Century,' p. 396). In ".fact, the ' main, sources ' of the ecclesiastical' law of England are (a) the common law; '(b) the.cancri law — but only so -far as it is ' not contrarian t or repugnant ' to tne common and statute law and the" royal prerogative; and (c) the', statute law, which' includes, the Book of Common Prayer' (' kncyclo'p&edia of the Laws of j_<ngland,' .vol. iv.,. p.. 338). Dr. Maitland; Professor of the; Laws of England at Cambridge University, says of ' one spiritual courts' ' of the English Church) ' that, since the Reformation, / their sphere of action is. limited by the secular power'; that *■ their decisions, are dictated to them by Acts of Parliament'; and that, 'from 1540 .onwards, the marriage law that they, administer is in great measure law' dictated by ' the statute 32 Henry Vlll., c. 38 ('Roman" Canon Law in the. Church of England,' pp. 90-1). ..I, state these- facts- without comment and merely to snow that the laws of ' the English \State"' in regard " to~ , marriage have a very great deal to' do' with the ques-' tion here under discussion. • - It does not, of course; matter ' in principle whether the Anglican. Church has ■ received with a good or badgrace laws passed in regard to- marriage by^the ~ power , which, \,by. the,. Word of ,God,' holds the 'dominant authority ' over Tier." The fact is "that she has received ' them, and that ■ she "administered tSienv in matrimonial ' causes till {he Matrimonial Causes- Act- came into opera--tion on January 1, 1858. .. •„ , ,"•-, 1. The Marriage Act of. 1540, prohibited wedlock f witihi'oi. the degrees set forth '• in 'Leviticus. ' These' Le\itical prohibitions we're then taken' as an integral part of " God's law."' The Act allowed all other marriages - l > not - proMbited- -by '. God's law.' Archbishop Cranmer wasr asked for an interpretation of these, words, of. .the Act, 'God's law!' ..He drew the inference that several other ' - classes" of related persons " were • also prohibited from intermarrying, although -'not mentioned in the Book-, of Leviticus. And- this interpretation (says I)ean VLuckoc'O ' has bren accepted in the. courts ever since';- 1 , (•History of- Marriage,' ..pp. ,297-8) C Before that .tinjie,- , the marriar-es, here - referred to w.ere (under- conditions) valid-"and binding. After. Cranmerls interpretation . ..or. inference, they -suddenly 'became and remained; null and; void, or voidable ■by the spiritual- courts,- as a&ainst/ ■' ' God's law.' The same remark applies in part,to-Arch-bishop Parker's Table of Prohibitions of 1563., "Was all ' this the introduction: of - a wow moral law,' and' an upsetting of '#the' very 1 foundation of " social' morality '? ■ And if not, why not V. , " „ . . 1 2. From the Act of 154.0' till the Act of- 1907, rcarriage with a deceased wife's 1 sister was held by the Anglican Church and its spiritual courts to be null" and

void and agaircrt ' God 5s law- —nu ll: and voidJ from the beginning,' _ says-No: W\oi> the-Qanons of 1603. But the, •dominant authority' spoke.- again in.-1.9i07,- in the shape- " of an Act of. Parliament.- And now, throughout Jus great See, the Archbishop of Canterbury? permits Tils clergy to solemnise, im.the churches, marriages witn a deceased wife's sister, and to admit thi wedded couples ~ to Communion. I pass no judgment ' on these facts, beyond expressing my conviotion that the learned. Prelate acted, in Jbhese -difficult and delicate" circumstances in accordance with the principles of his faith and tile ~ dictate of Ms conscience.' But here we "have the converse of the puzzle which-^ias got the Rev. Mr. Larnngton down and worried him— yesterday, marriage^ with a deceased wife's sister was "null and void-rand against ' God's law ' \ to-day, an ordained representative of the same Church solemnly blesses such a union-, seals it with the Communion,' and pronounces it a true marriage ' after the .ordinance of God,' Moaned togethef ' by "God, ' sanctified ' and ' consecrated 'by God— in other words a lriarriage 'in the sight of. God. O Will the Rev. Mr. Carrington. find something .'immoral' and subversive of 1 social morality ' in all this ? And if not, why njgft' ? 3. Till a certain day in 1753,^ marriages in. England were valid before the Church and the spiritual courts, even though celebrated without banns and not ini_ church. They were marriages ' after the ordinance of God ' (as the Prayer Book says), and therefore marriages 'in the sight of God.' Even the objectionable ' Fleet marriages,' solemnised by ' coupl-e-beggar ' clergymen, were true marriages ' before God.' Then Lord - Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 was passed. And thereafter from a certain, .Wednesday) marriages celebrated in the manner described above were treated by the spiritual courts a s null and, void, as not ' after God's ordinance, 1 and thereafter not true wedded' unions in conscience and 'in the sight of God.' And the'eontracting parties were deemed to be free and unmarried. Is this ' immoral : and subversive teaching ? And if not, why not ? 4. The 19 George 11., c. 13 (Ireland) rendered null and void any marriage celebrated by a ' Popish priest ' 1 between 'a Pap'isfc .and any person who hath been or hath professed himself or" herself to be, a Protestant at any time within twelve months before such celebration of marriage ;or between two Protestants.' This ivct remained in full force fill 1870. Several cases under this Act are before me— The Queen v. Taggart, and Kirwan v. Kirwan (in Hodges, Smith and Co.'s 'Digest,' pp. 539 and 1115), and the Queen v. Thomas Fanning ' (in ' Irish Law Reports,' vol. x\*>i.). In the last-men-tioned case (tried in 1"866) Baron Deasy, in giving, judgment, expres-ly stated (pp. 313-4). that a" marriage .such as is described in this paragraph would, as a matter cf course, be held to be null and. vcM both by the civil and the spiritual court— the spiritual court being at the time that of the Anglican Established Church in Irejond. Here again we have a form of marriage, which was perfectly valid ' before God ' one day, suddenly becoming null and void ' in the^sight. of God ' the following day. Is this alsx> ' a new moral law ' and a • subversion of ' the very foundation of social morality? ' And if not, why not ? And what becomes, in this connection, of the Rev. Mr. Carr ing-ton's ""' principle, ' that 'consent m a Kes matrimony,' and that 'a man's pledged word has a sacramental value of its own, which cannot be made null and vo'ld ' ? I must .draw this letter to a close, birt with much relevant information in ri?y possession untouched.; I may, • however, refer in briefest terms to two further invalidating impediments accepted by the Anglican Church and . its spiritual courts. (5) One of these was the rendering . of all- marriages of Catholics^nd o4.her Dissenters null and void, as from a given date till 1835,; unless solemnised by a Church of England clergyman in holy 'orders. Tto other (6) is the Royal Marriage Act of .1772, still in force. By its provisions, since a, given' day in that year, the mere refusal of the Sovereign's consent renders^the marriage* of- a memter of „ the Royal Family (with pom© exemptions) null and void, and no 'marriage ' "before God ' and '-.after God's ordinance.' And the royalties, so contracting are deemed- to be unmarried: before the Church and 'before God.' In one ' historic ' case this freedom was accepted, when the rrince of Wales (afterwards' George IV.) too^ to himself a second, bride 'be---, fore the Church,' while his first bride (Mrs. Fiteherbert) was sfill living. Do these two - impediments annulling rra-rriage destroy ' the very foundation of social morality '? And' if not, why not '!r—\ ours, etc.," EDITOR ' N.Z. TABLET.'