Waterbury Democrat., 1901-10-04
EPISCOPAL BISHOPS.
Consider Attitude of Church on Marry
 ing Divorced Persons.

ing Divorced Persons.
 San Francisco, Oct 1.-The house of bishops of the Episcopal triennial con- vention has by a vote of 1T to 21 de- cided to accept the report of the com- mittee appointed at the last convention to report on marginal readings of the Scripture. With the concurrence of the house of deputies the action of the bishops will become a canon of the church of America.
 The resolution in full reads: Re solved the house of deputies concur ring. that the marginal readings for the English version of the old and new testaments, reported to this house by the joint commission appointed in 1895 and re-appointed in 1898 to make such report, be published under the direction of said commission and are hereby allowed to be used by ministers of this church in reading the lessons from the holy scriptures in morning and evening" prayer
 From the attitude of the bishops on this matter, it is supposed that a ma- Jor1ty of the higher house is inclined to be liberal and less ortnodox as op- posed to the desires of those church. men of both clergy and laity, who de- sire high church forms and observ- ances and the changing of the name from Protestant Episcopal church to the Catholic church of America The Right Rev Dr Clarke of Rhode Island. who on account of seniority of conse- cration and ordination is the presiding bishop of the Protestant Episcopal church, has in his triennial report Sug- gested that it would be to the pest i1l- tereStS of the church if there were some other mode of selecting a pre- siding bishop. Under the present law the senior bishop presides, and in this | instance the bishop is 90 years old. His age prevents him from giving the best attention to the duties of his ex- tened office, and appreciating his ina bility he suggests the appointment of younger or more extensive e1ate His suggestion will be acted on with the present session of the house of bish- | ops.
 | The attitude of the Protestant Epis- copal church of America toward di- vorce and remarriage of divorced per | sons is sure to give rise to much de- | bate during the present general con vention. A majority report, prepared | by some of the most learned bishops, l clerical and lay deputies, will come up l for action, recommending that the church adopt canon IA, preventing a minister of the church from solemn | izing marriage between any two per l sons unless, or until by inquiry, he shall have satisfied himself thal nei- | ther person has been, or is, husband or 1 the wife of any other person then liv- | ing. This is a sweeping law, not rec l ogniZing even infdeliity as cause for | divorce, and not permitting Episcopal | clergymen to solemnize the marriage of an innocent party in a divorce. The action taken by the "rigorists,'' as those taking this extreme stand are called, is based on the ground that the church is called upon to register it's protest against the laxity on the sub ject of divorce that prevails in the United States. As stated by one of the ] signers of the reports, there seems no way in which the church can avoid eomplicity in divorces of the most l scandalous character except in so far as it may refuse to assume any color of responsibility for any divorced per- son in any case whatever.
 One of the ullemmaS in which the l church legislators find themselves say the rigorists, is that they must put the ban on all divorces, innocent and gull ty, without distinction, as there is no | judicial system, civil or ecclesiastical, that will enable us to discover the in- nocent parties in divorce cases. There fore, they argue, they must forbid the | clergy to solemnize the marriage of any divorced person.
 This extreme stand is departure from the precedent established by the church in 1908, when a resolution was adopted authorizing the solemhization of marriage of an innocent party to a divorce when the cause was infidelity. The opponents of the radical idea as sert that their position is based on the words of Christ as given in Matthew, xix. They oppose the rigorists on the further grounds that such refusal to solemnize marriage would put a stig-
 ma on marriages which are honorable
 and lawful; that it would create two
 kinds of matrimony, holy and unhoIy
 in the sight of the church; that if
 would alienate church members who
 have been taught to believe that inno-
 cent parties in divorce are entitled to remarry; that it will weaken the infiu
 ence of the church with the American
 people, who may conclude that the
 church is welded to medfaeval ideas
 and attempting to be stricter than Ine
 head of the church himself and that
 such church legislation would be in eff
 feet repudiation of the teachings oi
 the Master.
 rx- rro170n rxrN nr,rxT17r rxe