The Democratic advocate., 1882-05-13

Last wcrk tie Maine Methodist Conference
uasssd rrsolass0ns against the granting and
oAiaininx of divorces ''foF sny other canse
than that specified b. our Lord. They de-
clarea THAT Il is wruHg fer q minister - marry
4 raaple when shsrv Is sasPiesoR nf esther Ut
,he pargie. hAvIaE he.n sliveFeed Tor any fiheF
reason than hrvach uf the seventh command
anrns and rhey arSra ministers 20 preach on
the subject NJ least unee 5 year. Finally they
apf,asafra ihe shFcu MssbedisF pastors sta
TONED at Portland As a committee % further
endraver 10 bring about chang IN 'he state
laws touching EaaTrisge and divorce IN acsuFd-
ancn with their views.
Similar semsiHaeuss have bcra expressed by
othrr selixions denominations Of Mes knE-
land tast a. the Roman Catholic Church has
alWaVs stoaiiy Amd even hererly opposed ihe
treatment Of marriage as a mere legal con
tract. whick may b. SET aside for various
caasgs, a. The state shall specify. Though
they tiat their directions 10 the divorce laws
gf most of the states in different language aad
Fcsi them on different grounds, in the mann
the Protestant eummuninns Rgrrc with the
sRd reached by the recent pastoral letter ol
the Western Roman Catholic bishops iR ia
discussion Of marriage and divorce. They
wanld have divorce granted only for the Gauss
which the Founder Of Christianity specifically
Iai1 down
urthtdex Psotessan,s aud Catholics arr se-
enrdlaglg in hErsenaent in thesF upposIttyn 10
the laws touching divorce which prevail ia
very many of the States OF the tui0n- and
which are general IN New England especially.
Yet i cannot h. denied that the prejudice
against divorce and divorced persons has be-
come much softened of late years Formerly
the mere dread Of public opinion would pre-
vent mest married people from resorting 10 a
Wnsa.ss Y.arrffsssiar feared
the han which would be pat on them II they
we're divorced. no matter ii they themselves
had been blameiess. And where there we're
children the evil consequences 10 them de
tered both husbands and wives from making
their disagreements public, and from seeking
the aid Of the Law 20 part them.
But OF late. especially in New England and
some Of the Western States, the community
has grown SO accustomed 10 divorces anu
marriages after divorce that they tall 10 pro
duee more than short lived impression.
The causes of divorce have been multiplied,
tbs opportunities for obtaining i are greater,
and the methods are easier Accordingly II
Is more frequently resorted to, and has ceased
10 be so exceptional as il once was.
This. of course, Is why Protestant denoml-
nations and the Roman Catholic priesthood
are now SO urgent in their opposition TO mod
ern divorce laws. They tend to impair the
sanctity the Church has always thrown about
/ the marriage relation, and point to the day
when marriage shall be treated as only legal
/ contract to be treated by the law like other
contracts entered into between individuals.
/ The Church would then loose its control OF
marriages. and the teachings of Christianity
/ touching the relation would be more and more
/ disregarded by those who contracted them.
1t IS easy to understand, therefore, why
the churches view with so great alarm the
present laxity of divorce. Ii is frs. step
/ toward undermining the religious ideas which
have surrounded the relation. The opposi-
ton OF the Church has already had its effect
in bringing about the restriction of the causes
of divorce and the lessening OF the opportunI
ties for obtaining divorce in some States where
the laws regarding it were especially loose.
But there is another side TO the question
Here in New York our divorce laws are az
strict as the Church can require, but our mar
riage laws are very loose. In Massachusetts,,
for instance, it is the other way. Is it not jus
as necessary TO have well-de6ned laws regu
lating marriages and their record as it is t'
protect marriage against subversion by freedom
Of diyorce?-N. \. Sun.