Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-02-08
ANNULLrNG A MARRIAGE.
The Wedding of Elmer RiYest, Divorc-
ed Man, to Miss La Fronier, In syria
c,rrn nnnInrnd Nnid


The Wedding of Elmer RiYest, DlVofe-
ed Man. to Miss La FrOnier, In syria
cuse, Declared Void.
At st. Johns Catholic Church, IN LOCK
street, Syracuse, on the morning OF the
Sd, SAYS a special to the New York Times,
the pastor. the Rev. Father Moriarty, an
nounced the decision of Bishop McNler-
ney annulling the marriage OF Elmer
Rivest and Miss Anna La Fronier, whlch
was performed on December " by Mgr.
Quay. Father Moriarity said that the
sincerest sympathy is felt with the unfor-
tunate Young lady and that no blame
rests upon her, she being the victim OIL pad
advice.
In conversation Father Moriarity SAID :;
sThis is an extremely sad case, but the
laws of the church are rigid. Nothing is
stricter than our laws regulating mar
riage. and the church has never made an
exception to them in favor of any person.
Henry VIII. pleaded with the Pope IN
vain to have his marriage with Queen
Katherine annulled. Had the rope
granted his request England might have
been saved to the church and be a Cath
Ollie country to-day. The church prefer
red to lose a kingdom rather than alter
one iota of its laws. So, too, Napoleon /.
labored earnestly and almost savagely to
get the Pope to annul the marriage OF his
brother jerome BOnaparte to Miss Patter-
son. After a person is once married ac-
cording to ecclesiastical law, such per-
son can never marry again so long as the
partner lives. A subsequent marriage
may be legal in civil law, but the con-
tracing parties, in the eyes of the church,
are living in fornicatiOn."
"Have MIR. Rivest and Miss La FrOnier
been ordered to separator asked the re-
| porter.
eve have so advised them"
"In case they continue to live together
will they cease to be members of the
| church?''
Gin that case they will be living to-
| gether in sin and cannot receive the So GA
ment. But in view of the eXtenuating
| circumstances, as they have been led into
| the step by man representing the
| church, do not think they will be for
mallY communicated. What do you
think, Father RileyY
81 agree with you" said that gentleman.
81 have the deepest sympathy for Miss
! La FrOnier," continued Father M0riarity
! 81 do not know Mr.. Rivest, but his course
does not recommend HIM as a gentleman
or a Christian. By his maintaining that
! his first marriage was null, he willingly
makes out his own son, lad Of twelve
| years or so, to be illegitimate. The Mon
/ signOr says that RiYest told him that he
| was married when he was drunk, and
| married, too, by Protestant minister.
! have learned that he was married by
| Father Smith, the pastor of the Catholic
| church at Fulton. Whether the state
ment that he was drunk be true or not,
! Mgr. Quay exceeded his authority and de-
! fed the Bishop by cOnsenting to marry the
! couple until the Bishop had investi-
| gated the facts. 1t has been said we Irish
| priests did not affiliate with the MOnsig-
nor. That is not true. We had nothing
| against him on account of his nationality,
! but when we found he was disObeying the
| laws of the church we were obliged to
! call him to account. Either he is a very
| poor theolOgian or he is something else.
! When this marriage was performed it
! created a great scandal among the people.
| ! told the M0nsignOr he must report it
! to the Bishop without delay. l gave him
! every chance to present his cause before
| any of us interfered. The idea of his as
! Stunning to decide so important a case
almost passes the bounds of reason"
"When he came here" said Father
| Riley, she told our Irish people that he
| was higher than any of us priests, and in
| fact gave them to understand that he was
a Bishop. He did this, IsuppOse, to draw
! the people away from us and collect the
fees for marriages, etc. He had the title
| of domestic prelate, but that gives him no
more power than one of US priests. The
fact that Riyest got a divorce from his
wife establishes the fact that he was mar
| ried to her."
81 have nothing to say" said Mr.. Riyest
to the reporter, except that Miss La
! Fronier and l were legally married by
| Mgr. Quay. The bans were published on
the two preceding Sundays, and the we'd
| ding ceremony was performed in the
| church with a mass"
"Will you continue to live with your
| wifeY'
Il am married according to law, and
why shouldn't l live with my wife? Idon't
wish to defy the church, but you may say
we will probably continue to live to-
! gether."
| Mr.. Rivest declined to say anything re-
| garding his first marriage and his first
! wife. Rivest was married TO his first wife
in 1870. He afterward got divorce. He
| then married Miss La FrOnier, the cere-
mony being performed by Mgr. Quay, the
rector of the French church here. Since
| the decision of the Bishop, Quay has re-
| signed and gone to Rome. The Bishops
| decision will be laid before the Pope, and
| an appeal will be taken.