The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1901-12-28
The Church and Divorce.


The Rev. L. A. Lambert, LIZ D.,
gave recently the subjoined answer to
a correspondent, who asked: 'Did
Clement VIII. grant divorce to Hen
~ Nv. of France from Margaret Of
Valois?"
Not in the sense in which the term
divorce" is commonly used at pres
ent. The church recognizes certain
impediments which render a marriage
null and void from the beginning.
Whore an impeachment of this kind
exists at the time of the marriage
contract there is no marriage, and,
consequently, no need of divorce. But
when question is raised as to the
existence of such an impeachment at
the time of the contract, investigation
must be had and an authoritative de-
cision given.
| Now, a decision affirming that such
an impeachment existed is equivalent
to declaration that the parties were
never married. A decision of this kind
would be called, in common parlance,
a divorce. But it is not; divorce,
as now understood in our courts and
among non-Catholics, is Il sundering
of the marriage bond, To break the
bond is to admit it's existence up to the
time of breaking it. But a decision rec
ognizing the existence Of detrimenting
impeachment declares that the bond
never existed, and, consequently, cannot
be sundered. 1t declares that the par
ties were not married.
Let us look at some Of these i'm
pediments. so that we may under
stand the case of Henry ". The
first "error" Thus, if man goes
through the form of marriage with
one woman installing her for another,
he marries neither. Suppose he in
tends to marry Amanda Doe, but by
some trickery Rebecca Roe takes
Amanda's place. there is no marriage
The man is not husband; he is mere
ly the victim of a fraud. If he ap,
pcaled to the ecclesiastical court the
decision would be no marriage by
reason Of the impeachment "error,
and he would be told that he was free
to marry some other woman, il he
could and one that would consider
him worth having.
Another impeachment is "crime.'
Suppose single man and married
woman conspired and kiled her hus
band, so that they could marry. a
contract of marriage between these
conspirators would be null and void
in the eyes of the church.
Another of these impediments is
"force." Any force OF compulsion
that creates a grave fear in the mind
of either of the contracting parties
invalidates the marriage contract. A
contract supposes liberty in the con
tracing parties. A woman, for i'll
stance, who consents through fear OF
life or honor to the marriage ceremo
ny is not married. Fear has deprived
her of that liberty which is necessary
to make a valid contract. Any de
cision, civil or religious, declaring Jhel
free from such n contract, would moi
be divorce. 1t would he declara
ton that Il divorce was not necessary
because she was not married.
Now we come to the case of Henri
Nv. In his appeal to Clement VIII
his plea was that his consent to til,
marriage with Margaret of Valoi
was the result of force. When h,
established this plea to the satisfac
ton Of the court to which he appealed
the result was not Il decree of divorce
but a decision that there had neve
been a marriage. He was therefor
free to marry, and did marry, Mary d
Metlici, daughter of the Grand Duk
, of Tuscany. There was no question
here Of dissolving d legitimate an,