The sun., 1901-06-02
The Episcopal Church and Marriage and
Divorce.

To THE EDITOR OF THE SUS-Sir: ] read
with deep interest your editorial on Mar
rage and Divorce" 1t Is a comfort always
to read an honest and fearless editorial.
Yours on the above subject. in to- days paper.
Is Just 10 the point
Many of US are hoping to see -the proposed
amendment to the marriage and divorce
canons, which forbid the marriage Of a di-
vorced person during the life Of the other
party 70 the divorce We have now, and
always have had, this prohibition In the
marriage service. so that really it has been
a violation of the teaching Of the Protestant
Episcopal Church at any umo to marry a
divorced person during the life OF the other
party.
But you see. Sir. We have Bishops who
practice what they preach on this subject,
while, again. there are those who preach.
but do not practice. IL depends largely
upon the backbone OF the Blshop-and. too
frequently, the length Of the divorced party 5
pocketbook.
There Is a most sin guar case In illustra-
ton OF this point at present, We have
bishop who even memoriau1ed tho last Gem
eral convention with nearly sixteen hundred
priests and some other Bishops to make
the most stringent amendments 70 the canons
on marriage and divorce. He paraded him
self as a great champion Of the cause. vet
We now know all was theory and sentiment.
lie could not have meant It. or he feared
the strength OF wealth, for the first chance
lie had to practice what he had preached he
actually consplrcd against that priest Of his
diocese who had read his excOmmunication
against a divorced woman. person who had
been a double offender, for she had even
married another party who had only been
divorced from his wife for the cause Of deser;;
tlon The Bshops weakness manifested
itself - terrible extent. While he was
advising his priest what to do with the eK-
communicated party he was secretly writing
10 her TO conCoCt a scheme TO drive away
the rector and telling her that y sho Would
only get up charge " hich would hold water
I'm "Court OF Record he would "unirotk
tho priest for her. The sad part OF II al is
this that the Bishops letter was read PUBLICLY
by the divorced narty's lawyer, though the
Bishop had marked 1t as confidential and
begged that II be returned to him.
The uufortunate W",aan ana h'r u hTSsnahu Sra.l
H-hop and divorced pHrties-aro 10 be tried
for COZ spiraCy IN clvu court. | wonder
viii the House Of Bishops ta"e notice OF the
This case has been kept very quiet. The
priest has been prosecuted Tor dong duty
and on false charge deposod, While ne
L
ing, but never practising. Yes, conspiTator
In the light of the state, yet what IN the hsle
OF the Protest Episcopal church,
II priest Of the, Protestant Episcopal
church had conspired against party and
rad lpen summoned to court To answer 10
IN. charge. his Bishop would have him pre-
sented and tried on the grounds Of public
rmnor." but. strange 20 say, the Bishops
are so Jealous Of their Episcopal lawn that
thew DO not Ike 20 unfold It, for fear the
stains should he seen by q naughty WORLD
IL would hurt the church 20 try Bishop.
But 1t matters not how many priests are
hurt by a Bishop, II is all well for tho church
10 be purged Of men who practice what they
preach.
IL will help wonderfully II the amend
meuts to the canops on marriage and divorce
are PASSED, but II would bo better far II the
church would only 60 step farther and
give us an appellate court. for at present a
Bishop IL evil-miuded enough. eau, Hs IN
the case Just meptioncd, concoct false
charge, have his priest tried 10y a packed
couri, dcposed. and thcro Is no appeal for
the unfortunate, though Innocent
II reminds man Of the sharp but appro-
pirate saving OF the Irish: 1T is useless 10
court with tho Devil whom the Court IA his
own lSGRAM n. ". IRVINE.
PHILADELPHIA, May 81