The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-10-15
The Episcopal Divorce Canon.

The debate in the Episcopal Conven-
ton at san Francisco over the divorce
canon has attracted a great deal of
attention throughout the country The
adoption Of the resolution prohibiting
the marriage Of divorced persons, ex-
cept where the separation was granted
for a cause existing prior to the mar
riage, Will doubtless increase the inter
est, and be made the subject Of even
more extended comment quite gener-
ally the press has taken the position
that it is both unwise and unjust to
prohibit the innocent party from con
tracing another marriage.
The reports Of the debate in the con
vention have been meagTe. and we are
not in a position to weigh carefully the
arguments Of those who favored the
resolution in its extreme form. We
may infer, though, that the ecclesiasti-
cal idea of d marriage being a saCTa-
ment, was the prevailing one. But
there was considerable difference Of
opinion even upon this point, especially
in the House Of Deputies and among
the lay members. There can be no
doubt that, taking the country as
whole, there is an overwhelming pre-
ponderance Of sentiment in favor Of al
lowing the innocent party to marry
again. A divorced person unable 70
form an honorable alliance occupies q
very unfortunate pOsitiOn-OnG which
presents many possibilities for harmful
and even deplorable consequences
- ha b.
wrong is thus rendered poverless to
form a lawful and happy union there is
an added sense Of injustice being done
that weighs heavily with most people.
The fact must be recognized that the
world is far less rigid on such matters
than it formerly was. and that the de-
crees Of churches have lost much Of
their potent force. 1t is safe TO say
that very few divorced persons really
DESTROYS Of marrying again would be
deferred by any church canon. Many
OF them are not connected with any
denomination, and most Of those who
are, would join some other church rath-
er than forego an act upon which they
believe their LIES happiness depends.
There are even wide differences OF
opinion as to the wisdom Of the rule
prohibiting the guilty party from u.5i-
rying. II nothing were involved but
the rights Of the individual there would
be no question about it. But such per
sons are generally not disposed TO live
single, and it is difficult to prevent
them from rcmarrying. When they do.
the rights and the status Of others at
once become matters Of public concern.
If their marriage is invalid, the offspring
are, Of course, Legitimate, and this is
always a subject Of the keenest morti-
ficatiOn to those affected, saying moth
ing Of the complex questions Of inner
itance which sometimes arise.
But whatever differences OF opinion
may exist upon this point it seems clear
that an innocent person ought not 10
be placed under a disability which par
takes Of the nature Of a penalty. The
| division in the Episcopal Convention
shows that as mere matter Of the
oloEy the point is by no means certain.
while IL is absolutely sure that the
| great lay public is strongly opposed to
50 stringent a rule. There is much
/ room for reform IN the laws Of divorce.
| If these laws were systematiZed an
made uniform, as to causes, methods OF
procedure, and legal effect. II is quite
| likely that il would go a long way to-
| ward rectifying abuses and satisfying
/ the Christian conscience Of the world.