THE BISHOPS AND DIVORCE
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our " News of the Week " paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and -the -latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.] ITo the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—The above article, published in your last issue, with much of which I am in sympathy, contains a statement in these terms—" Marriage for the Church is a Sacrament." This is true of the Roman Catholic Church, but surely not of the Church of England. The 25th Article of the :39 Article" which I assume still embody the creed of that Church, is in these terms—" Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penitence, Orders, Matrimony and Extreme Unction are not to be accounted for sacraments of the Gospel." It is also stated "There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." On this matter the creed of the Church of Scotland and of most, if not all, Protes- tant Churches is precisely the same. That the writer of the article in question has fallen into this error shows how widely it prevails.
The words of Christ, on which so much stress is laid by clerical opponents of divorce, " What God has joined let not man put asunder are not easy to interpret. The interpreta- tion, however, that is accepted by such opponents is that a marriage legally entered into is indissoluble, and that whether the ceremony was per,formed in church or before a Registrar, or in Scotland by simple interchange of consent as in the notorious Gretna Green marriages. I, for one (and I think that most lay opinion is on my side), repudiate the notion that the Deity is responsible for every ill-assorted marriage. The remedy of divorce for dissolving such marriages, when they have become mutually intolerable to the contracting parties, is rendered for the most part necessary by the un- Christian conduct of one or other of them, and permits the innocent spouse to be free from the contamination of the guilty one and to start life again in different circumstances.
For a true understanding of Christ's word, one must consider the historical background. He was protesting against a practice favoured by one school of Jewish lawyers, under which a husband could secure a divorce from his wife at any time by presenting her with a Bill of Divorcement. This is still the Mohammedan law, except that under that law no form of writing is required ; it is sufficient that the husband repeats the words " I divorce you " three separate times before witnesses. This monstrous law was one that Christ was protesting against when he uttered the words founded on. There can be no doubt that to Him we owe the ideal of marriage for which the Churches rightly contend as a per- manent union unaffected by sickness or poverty and ter- minable only by death. That this view pervades the vast bulk of the community may be gathered from the fact that in Scotland, where divorce may be granted both for infidelity and desertion, the number of divorces on an average of years has never exceeded 24 per cent, of the marriages.
But the idea that Christ in the words previously quoted propounded the indissolubility of marriage as taught in the Roman Church cannot be supported. There are at least two passages in the Gospels in which, when the Disciples protested against the generality of his statement, he admitted an exception in the case of infidelity, and the Scottish Divorce Law was based on these texts. But under the Canon Law numerous other exceptions were devised under the cover of the doctrine of nullity. Some of these are recognised in English law, but others, such as the marriage of cousins german, and even more distant relations, whether by blood or affinity, were prohibited by the Canon Law, although these could be validated by Papal dispensation either before or after marriage. Persons who had married without a dispensation could at any time have the marriage, however long it had continued, declared null as being within the prohibited decrees. Prior to the Reformation in Scotland this means of dissolving a marriage was so largely resorted to amongnoble and wealthy families who could afford the expense that five-sixths of the cases coming before the Consistorial Courts were actions of
nullity, based on relationship. A decree of nullity does as completely dissolve a marriage as a decree of divorce, with the disadvantage in many cases of bastardising the issue.
Again, all the Churches recognise the propriety- of actions of judicial separation on the score of cruelty. A decree of Court of this nature sunders completely the relationship of husband and wife, but leaves them separate, yet unable to con- tract a legal union. Lord Gorell's Commission pointed out how frequently this state of matters leads to immorality which would not have taken place if the parties had been free to marry.
As regards the proposal in Mr. Herbert's Bill to make a divorce illegal until a period of five years has elapsed from the date of the marriage, this provision is obviously one of expediency and with a view to conciliating possible opponents. To the legal mind it seems indefensible. Is a woman to be compelled to cohabit for so long a period with a husband who is flagrantly immoral, or vice versa ? It would be interesting to know what proportion of marriages are dissolved by divorce within five years of marriage.
I will only conclude by saying that to the lay mind it is inexplicable that the refusal to give a remedy to persons whose spouses have become incurably insane, incurably drunken or frequently convicted of crime, should be defended on Christian principles. No conscience will be outraged, for those who hold these views need never avail themselves of the remedy
of divorce.—I am, &e., EDWARD T. SALVESEN. Dean Park House, Edinburgh.
Previous page
