The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-06 00:00:00

IRE LAND.

DUBLCIV, THURSDAY MORNING.
MIXED MARRIAGES.
The Tablet and .Everting Mail are engaged in a warm
controversy on the subject of mixed marriages. The dispute
originated in the denial by the Ultramontane ergan of
several statements made by the Mail in reference to the
recent union of a Protestant nobleman with a Roman
Catholic Lady of high family. It will be recollected, as the
affair was noticed in these columns at the time, that the
lady married in defiance of the laws of the Romish Chutch,
one of whose clergy had refased to perform the ceremony
which was afterwards executed, however, by a minister
of her noble husband's faith. As there are some
new points brought out in the following article from
the lu ail, it may be profitably introduced here :
‘, We have been gently reprimanded by the Tablet for
supposing that in a recent case of intermarriage between a
Protestant and a Roman Catholic of high degree, without
the intervention of a priest of Mine, Ultramontane auda-
cry would dtny Via, the parties were married at all, and
brand their union with a very odious name.' This our con-
temporary states tote an error,' inasmuch as the decree
of the Council of Treat, which requires for the validity of
marriage that it be' celebrated in presence of the parish
priest, applies to marriages between Catholics, and not to
marriages where one or both of the parties are members of
another confession.' We would bow to this correction if it
were not accanipanit d by the somewhat insolent reservation
that there is still a '.family disgrace' involved in the trans-
action alluded to. That is a strong and daring assertion
which makes the concession of the mere legality of the mar-
riage oflittle worth. We shall offer no amende, therefore,
to Ultramontane audacity,' nor qualify our words in any
manner, till we receive an explanation, not only of that
term disgrace,' hut also of a rebuke which has lately
been adminiteered by a Romish dignitary to a lady of his
confession,' who had contracted such a marriage as
that to which this discussion refers. He told her, in
direct terms, that she was her husband's concubine, not
his wife ! If that was said without ecclesiastical authority,
it is scarcely possible to imagine a grosser instance of ruitrid
ruffianism. But if, on the other hand, double-tongued
casuistry *can furnish up an excuse for such an outrage,
doubtless it will do so. Tberefore,,for_the present at least,
we shallataod to what we have. mails no mistake. The
Tridentine eecree may not formally condemn, and yet the
Pope, whose interdict has been set at naught, may, through
his vassals, revile and calumniate. We shall wait to see
how that will be be fi re we retract anything. The condition,
sine qua non, on which, in private life, the Pontiff can
be mollified to license the marriage of a Protestant with
ever so distant a relative, or even no relative at all,
is frankly acknewledged by the Tablet. It cannot
be too well known to all of that denomination wbo
are consciewieusly attached to their lath, and who
,desire
that, when they are passed away, ti.eir children may occupy
the same seats in the parish church, and kneel before the
same table where they have themselves partaken of the
mysteries and heard the pure Word of the Gospel. Let
Protestants, who respect their religion enough to wish that
it may be that of their household after them, pause before
bestowing their affections irrevocably upon any subject of
the Papacy. It is no small price which they are required
to pay for a licence under that seal:—' It is sufficiently no-
torious (sals the Tablet), that not in Ireland only, but in
England too, marriages between Catholics and Protestants
are forbidden by the Church, and only permitted when there
is an agreement that all the offspring of such unions shall be
brought up Catholics. To the ideas of modern Protestant-
ism it may seem more grievous to enforce this law in the
case of a marquis than in the case of a cobbler; but, except
upon this theory, it is clear that our unternporaries have
felt toe little 'repugnance to intrude upon the sanctuary
of private life,' and have been too eager to publish the
history of a private family disgrace."