The Irish standard., 1902-01-11
The Popes Endured Personal Suffering in
Upholding the Laws Of God
on This Question.
No Priest, Bishop or Pope Has the Power
to Dispense With or Dissolve
the Marriage Tie.

the wife depart not from her husband,
and if she depart, that she remain un-
married or be reconciled to her hus-
band. And let not the husband put
away his wife," Hence, we see that
the testimony of Scripture is against
this lax Interpretation of the words
in st. Matthew.
Moreover, the argument itself is
faulty, as we shall see by a parallel
case. 1t is argued whosoever shall
put way his wife, except for this one
cause, and marries another, commits
sin. Therefore, they say, he who re-
pudiates his wife for this cause and
marries another does not sin. Now,
let us take the example of similar
argument given by st. Augustine. He
who breaks his fast except with dis
pensation, and becomes intoxicated,
commits sin. Therefore, he who
breaks his fast with the dispensation,
and becomes intoxicated, does not sin.
The arguments are precisely alike.
The conclusion is as faulty in the one
as in the other. While it is evident
from this text that the man who sep
arates from his wife, except for the
one cause, commits a crime, it is
scarcely less clear that the text does
not Justify such a one in marrying
again.
| Right here we must meet a ques-
tion that naturally suggests itself. If
Christ permitted separation for this
crime alone, why does the Church per-
NIT separation for other causes? We
reply that there is but one crime
against marriage itself, and for that
cause alone a permanent separation
is justiiable. Even in case the guilty
party were to repent, the innocent
party would not be bound to renew
the married life If that one crime was
the cause of the separation. But in
all other cases where separation
might be permissible the innocent
party would scarcely be justified in
refusing reconciliation after the guilty
party has given full and satisfactory
evidence Of repentance.
The teaching of the Church has
never varied on this doctrine. Ever
has she stood firmly as she stands
to-day. Though nations have been
severed from her, though her Pontiff
has been exiled, yet while her children
were torn from the mothers side,
while the venerable Father was
dragged from his home that mother
has ever said with all the strength
that was in her, "What God has
Joined together, let no man put as
sunder." No general council nor, in
deed, any council approved by the
Pope has ever spoken on this subject
but in condemnation of the pernicious
doctrine of divorce.
The Church is justly proud of her
record. Let US turn back the pages
of history. In the ninth century Pope
Nicholas I. took upon himself the de-
fense of Thietberga, whom Lothaire
Ill, King Of Lorraine, sought to repu-
diate. Though the King bribed the
council and the legates of the Pope,
yet did the Pontiff stand firm. He de-
graded the leading Archbishops and
his own legates from the ecclesiasti-
cal state and communicated the
King.
Urban II. in the eleventh century
communicated Philip I. of France,
who had put aside his wife, Bertha.
Yoes, Bishop of Chartres, wrote to the
King to this effect: "The King may
do with me as he sees fit, whether he
cast me into prison or put me beyond
the protection of the law; in any
event, I am determined to endure all
things in defense of this law of God"
Let us remember in passing that these
were the so-called Dark Ages.
| We cannot help admiring the cour-
age which entailed such personal suf-
fering exhibited by Celestine III. and
Innocent III. against Philip II. of
France, by Clement VII. and Paul III.
against Henry Will, and, finally, by