The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-10-06
BISHOP ON DIVORCE
The Rt. Rev. S. G. Edsall Discusses
the Recent Pastoral Letter Of
Bishop Morrison.
The Minnesota Bishop Would Even
Prevent ANY Divorced Persons
From Marrying Again.

Bishop s. C. Edsall of the Episcopal
diocese of Minnesota, holds views similar
to those of Bishop Morrison of Iowa. who
has just issued a pastoral letter on the
marriage Of divorced persons. Bishop
Edsan said to-day:
Eyes, l have seen the mention In the
papers of Bishop Morrison's recent pas
toral on the subject Of marriage and d.
vorce. The three sections of the canon Of
our church upon this subject are as fol-
lows:
First-No minister knowingly, after due in
quiry, shall solemnize the marriage Of any per
son who has a divorced husband or wife still
living, If such husband or wife has been put
away for any cause arising after marriage; but
this canon shall not be held to apply to the
innocent party in divorce for the cause Of
adultery, to parties once divorced seeking to
be united again.
Second-lf any minister Of this church shall
have reasonable cause to doubt whether a per-
son DESTROYS of being admitted to holy baptism
or to confirmation. or to holy communion, has
| been married otherwise than the word Of
God and discipline Of this church allow, such
minister, before receiving such person to these
| ordinances, shall refer the case to the bishop
| for his godly Judgment thereon.
| Third-Questlons of fact arising under section
l of this canon shall be referred to the bishop
| of the diocese in which the same may occur.
| Bishop EdsaIi on Record.
II understand that Bishop Morrison
says that in licensing any Of his clergy
|
having divorced or wife living, and who
asks to be married by an Episcopal cler-
| gyman on the ground of being the inno-
cent party in divorce for adultery, he
will not go behind the decree of the civil
court which granted the divorce. This is
precisely my own position. Two years
ago in North Dakota I issued a pastoral
letter announcing this position, and pro-
pose to adhere to the same ruling in Min
nesota. Occasionally it may seem to work
hardship, where some innocent party
has been divorced from the other because
of the latter's adultery, but for the sake
; Of avoiding scandal, preserving the gooc
name Of the children or other similar rea'
son has failed to allege or prove adultery
or to have it entered In the decree. One
may sympathize with such generou:
motives; but If person wishes to pre-
serve the right of being remarked, he o.
she must openly allege and establish by
decree Of the civil court the fact of thu
adultery of the other party The neces
Sity for this ruling seems to me to b.
plain. A bishop has no power of summon
ing and compelling the attendance o
{ witnesses. Consequently any investiga
ton and decision of his, not based upon
, decree of civil court must be ex parte
He may be virtually deciding that tn
absent party, who has no opportunity o
. defense, has been guilty OF adultery. A
ii
. ''Experience has convinced me that les
, injustice will be done by adhering to thi
rule, than by attempting to go behind tn
decree of the civil court. One ma
regret the apparent hardsip in indi
vidual cases; but if people are 50 self-sac
rificing as to refrain from alleging adul
terry In their divorce proceedings, the
had better go a little further in thei
self-sacrifice, and give up all idea Of mar
rying again. ~:
Would Prevent Second Marriage.
1.-THE divorce evil is serious menace
The preservation Of american home life
and so far as I am personally concerned
/ should be glad to- see our presen
S canon changed by making it impossibl
for our clergy to perform the marriage
!. any person who had a divorced husban
e or wife still living, no matter what tn
causeof the divorce. At our last ger
r eral convention, majority Of the bishop
and clergy voted for such a. change, bv
r the proposition was defeated by the lait,
n The question of admitting to holy bar
g tism, confirmation or, holy communion
e stands upon a different basis from thu
r of permitting our clergy to solemnize sue
= marriages. We believe those sacrament
e to be generally necessary to salvation
S and hence there would be reason II
straining point in favor of a presume
e bly, innocent party,-gfving the benefit
a a doubt. But it can hardly be said thu
being united in marriage by an Episcop
II clergyman is necessary to the salvatiC
Of anybody; hence in this respect v
g should keep rigidly to the strictest intel
probation Of the law Of holy Scripture an
" the church, we should keep chiefly
d mind the moral welfare of society ar
a fair name of the church,