The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1899-10-07
BISHOP POTTER ON DIVORCE.


Bishop Potter of the Protestant
Episcopal Diocese of New York. de-
livered an address a few days ago
(which attracted considerable attention
because the Bishop ventured to utter a
rather mild protest against the re-
marriage of Divorces. Just why the
address in question should have at
tracted so much attention is difficult
to understand. 1t is certain that the
Bishop took no pronounced stand
against divorce itself. The mere fact
that he uttered protest against the
4 re- marriage Of divorces should hardly
have attracted attention, because the
/ custom among Bishop POtter's own
people has become notorfously scandal
Gus.
The Reverend DR.. Morgan Dix who
has been more pronounced in. con-
demning divorce per Sc than any of
his brethren in the Episcopal Church,
in speaking Of the condition which was
the occasion of Bishop Peters re-
marks says: The immediate occasion
of the Bishops address as far as it
applied to divorce was due to a horri-
! BILE and scandalous affair that recently
developed where a woman belonging to
our best society. our so-called 40G. was
divorced by her husband on the ground
I Of adultery. and the same afternoon
/ was married to another man OF the
same clique as the husband who
divorced her, by a Congregational
] y-r,-.-~,-.,,,,, g., Csn,,,,oo+;o,,4
This woman was received by. society
even after her husband began divorce
/ proceedings. and now society is wait
ing to decide how it shall receive her
again. and she herself is waiting the
decision. In fact, we are all looking on
and wondering what ne outcome win
be.
is it not a horrible state of affairs
that there should be any doubt what
ever on this point? There was a time
when Mrs. Jacob Astor and Mrs.
Hamilton Fish were social leaders when
such a spectacle would have been i'm
possible. They were good, noble and
pure women who would not have
tolerated within their doors a person
to whom the stain Of scandal attached
itself, but unfortunately they have both
passed away"
Viewing. therefore, the horrible con-
dition which Dr. Dix depicts. is it any
wonder or should people marvel in the
least that the Bishop Of such a flock
should utter a protest against such
scandalous conduct?
-
bottom of the evil. If he has convic-
tions, he did not have courage for
them, and uttered not word of pro-
test against divorce itself. Indeed it is
difficult after reading the Bishops ad-
dress to come to any but one eonclu-
sion and that is that he temporizsed and
diny- -dallied with his subject SO as to
give as little offense as possible.
Speaking on this subject, the New
York Sun takes a similar view and
says:
The references of Bishop Potter to
the subject Of marriage and divorce in
his diocesan address on Wednesday
We're somewhat ambiguous. He was
by no means sure" that the absolute
prohibition Of the re-marriage Of the
divorced Is not the WlSeSL conclusion"
the Episcopal Church may reach at
present" yet afterward he pointed out
"a wider view of the whole subject"
which discloses the fact that it is not
the only remedy though he said also
that lit would be wei that the Church
should meet such legislation" (civil
legislation) by making divorce in
creasingly difficult. if not impossible" Z" |
Exactly where Bishop Potter stands |
as to the question, accordingly, is not |
easily discoVerable. 1t is plain, how
ever, from his omissions and from the |
general lone Of his remarks, that he |