The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1921. DIVORCE

New Zealand Tablet, 21 July 1921, Page 25

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1921. DIVORCE

ijll

—— . '.. ■ 3 men who have been failures in politics ifl imagine they can during thjbir holidays |H become experts in theology, and Canon Law. Instead of making their souls and preparing for death they make a parade of spurious learning and strive by sheer g dint of assertion to split the ears of ground* I lings, or of people ignorant enough to bo :fl | deceived by their sophistry. To one such I ancient, with strange and fantastic theories concerning $1 the “Romanist” innovation of indissolubility, Ave re- J commend the following words from Justin Martyr, an’ Apostolic Father, who thus voiced the belief of the Christian Church in Apostolic ages: i “Whoever marries a woman that has'been put by another, commits adultery.” (Apol., c. 1. n. 15.) S And in this he but makes it evident that the early ;: l faithful interpreted then as we do now the words of M Christ: “What God hath joined let no man put ,;|i That is the only Christian view. Departure front .fel it means ruin, spiritual and temporal for individuals ■|l and communities. Led by a clique of bigots who are * ignorant of their first duties as human beings created If by God New Zealand has advanced far on the broad- Xv road of corruption and dissolution along which Greece and Rome sped to ruin eighteen hundred years ago. ® t * . / •; - /jS'M The other day in Wellington the Anglican Dio* sll cesan Synod discussed at length the recent anti-Chris- I ; tian and scandalous marriage legislation of the New;

Zealand Parliament.. The doctrine of divorce, and incidentally ' the • relations between Church and State were dealt with more or less satisfactorily by • various speakers, including the Bishop. The report of the proceedings being lengthy we shall try to give the gist of the more important statements to our readers, as clearly as we can. First, Rev. O. M. Stent moved a resolution expressing the Synod’s strong disapproval of the amendment of the Divorce Act, as being more subversive of the Christian standard of marriage than any previous .legislation on the subject. Several speakers having supported Rev. Mr. Stent’s resolution, Dr. Sprott said, during the course of his address, that it was the function of the Church to hold up the true ideal of human life and conduct by awakening inner reverence for moral law, while the State dealt with people just as it found them. That was where the tragic mistake had been made in taking over education by the State —the most tragic mistake, he supposed, of modern times, because the State had no method by which it could awaken reverence for modern law. The Christian ideal of marriage, said Dr. Sprott, was indissolubility. There had been a time when the State upheld the ideal of the Church regarding marriage, but that time was gone. There was no Christian State today. The Christians were in a position of being tolerated, and the laity were to blame. “The Roman clergy get a certain amount of support in these matters, we get hardly any. That is the honest truth, and I say it, and you know it.” Modern legislators thought they avoided greater evils by permitting divorce, but he was sure that the greater evils were caused by divorce. Divorce might bring relief to a couple of individuals who were unhappy, but it debased the moral currency, and he could imagine nothing more terrible than two -persons entering into the state of matrimony with the sub-conscious notion: “If this is not a success, I can get out of it.” “What amazes me,” he continued, “is that the women of this country have not risen up, because it is the woman who suffers every time. . . We Christian people’ are here to hold up the Christian ideal of conduct, . . . Are we going to stand by the highest ideal ? ” The Bishop is right in saying that the true ideal of marriage is indissolubility. The words of St. Justin which we quoted above prove that this has from the'beginning been the ideal. He is also right when he blames the State for taking over and trying to monopolise education. But he is not right wheii he blames the laity. The laity are not to blame. The Churchesthe Protestant and Anglican Churches —are to blame. They it was that first subverted the Christian ideal of marriage and made divorce possible and easy. The Law said, “What God hath joined let no man put asunder”; the. Protestant Churches said “We will make an exception; we will, undo what Christ did and do as Moses did, although Christ revoked the concession made on account of depravity in the Old Law.” And once the gate was opened thus the followers of Cranmer and Luther and Calvin and Zwingli broke through in their strength and, carried away with them, as far as Protestants are concerned, the respect and reverence due to the sacrament of marriage. The people are not therefore primarily to blame; if the people now support Catholic and do not support Protestant clergymen it is because they follow as they have been led in the past. The Catholic Church says now and said.always “What God hath joined let no man put asunder”; the Protestant Churches said : “We will make one exception” ; and the Protestant people said; “If you destroy the law in one regard where is the reverence for it, and what is going to prevent you or us from making other exceptions?” Again, the people are not to blame in the . matter of education. Here again, the Catholic people, support the Catholic clergy, because the Catholic clergy have been consistent and faithful to their ideals ; ■ arid" the Protestant people are apathetic or worse when, now awake to their danger, the Protestant clergy are making a belated fight to save the children by establishing schools that will inculcate what the Bishop describes* as reverence for moral law. We Catholics fought

alone; in many cases the. Protestant clergy fought on the side of atheism and unbelief against us: they are paying, the penalty to-day. Dr. Sprott’s whole address is. an admission, that he recognises how dearly they are paying.

Talking about our grievances will do no good. Addresses in Synods are all very well, but they ar© not effective. What we want is a union of all who retain respect for high ideals, who deplore the corruption and decadence that our politicians have brought on the country, who are weary of being governed by the whims of bigots and not by true laws, who are shocked and pained by the awful depravity of the people, especially by the rottenness of the- youth of both sexes, as revealed by the records of the police courts. There is no doubt as to the loyalty of our Catholic people, and we are sure that if given a lead the mass of non-Cath-olics would arise and undertake eagerly a holy war against the infidel schools and the infidel politicians responsible for the low ideals, the political dishonesty, and the public and private corruption of the Dominion of New Zealand. Hope for nothing from the press. The press is the tool of the capitalists who want to keep things as they are, and for that end finance a parson who is doing his best to prevent such union as is needful ; the war has exposed the press and proved its total corruption to every man who uses his reason the press as it is at present is an actual cause of our ruin. There remain the pulpit and the platform and personal private and social activity—and, above all, schools which ■will teach children that the laws that determine right and wrong were made by God and not by MacGregors and Bells and Nosworthys.