The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1905-01-28
NO COMPROMISE ON DIVORCE.
DR.. McKim Writes Open Letter to
Cardinal Gibbons.

: pal church OF the Epiphany. ana a
l-prominent clergyman, has written the
, following open letter to Cardinal Glib
bons:
To His Eminence. Cardinal Gibbons:
Most Reverend Sir-My attention has
recently been called to an utterance of
yours, reported in the Baltimore Sun
of Nov. IA, i'll these words:
The recent convention in Boston ap-
parently made an endeavor to compro-
mise on the subpect. There is no COM
promise on divorce. The only effective
remedy is to go back to the Gospel.
which prohibits all divorced men and
women who are validly married from
entering into second nuptials.'
May / venture to point out that your
eminence has inadvertently mistaken
TIE significance of the action of the
convention of the Protestant Episcopal
church to which you allude? There is
70 compromise The distinct issue was
this: Shall the church reverse the at
titude which it has occupied on this
subject of marriage and divorce since
1903 and graft upon her canon law a
modified recognition of the principle
OF the absolute indissolubility of mar
lriage? The battle of debate was fought
out on that issue and the result was
not a compromise, but the distinct re-
assertion of the right of an innocent
PARTY in a divorce for the cause of
adultery to marry again.
| The restrictive amendments to our
canon law. adopted by an overwhelm-
! ing majority, covered no compromise
on the above issue, but were provisions
| intending to prevent the abuse of the
existing canon-to make it as sure as
! human laws can that only the really
innocent party should be permitted to
marry.
l am, of course, aware that these
authorities will have no weight with
Roman theologian. / only mention
! them TO show that the action of the
recent convention of the Protestant
Episcopal church was in loyal obedi-
eEce to the principle which your emil
nence affirms, namely: That the only
effective way to deal with the problem
Of marriage and divorce is Ito go back
to the Gospel" This action, you will
permit me to say, is, in their opinion,
based upon an Interpretation of the
Gospel which may fairly claim the
greatest antiquity and the highest &C.
clesiastical authority. Some of the best
equipped partisan scholars of our gen
Grafton hold that there was no author
tative rule in the primitive church
based on the principle of the absolute
and invaTiable indissolubility of mar
riIge. Although the ancient fathers
were not in complete agreement on the |
subject nor always consistent with |
themselvese. it is certain that utter |
ances in plain support Of the position |
that such remarriage is lawful are to |
be found in the writings of Tertullian, |
ST. Ambrose, st. ChrySostom. Origen, |
Epiphanius and st. Basil. Lactantius |
Is emphatic in the same sense. Peta- |
vlus, one of your own great scholars,
the aquila JuSuitorum. was of the opin-
ion that the great Council of Arbs, A.
y. 314, consisting of nearly 900 bishops, |
permitted remarriage after div prCe."
Some writer's also affirm that the lpos-
tClic constitutions did plainly al
lowed the right of remarriage, and
Pope Gregory III "a. d. 7Sl-74D and
Pope Zacharias "a. D. 741-752) allowed
to the innocent.
Perhaps your eminenCe will permit
ne to say further that, without wish
il e to detract from the service which
the Roman church is doing to the cause
of good morals i'm the United States, 1t |
appears to us that the number of an
Eulling impediments, which without
Special dispensation make marriage |
null and void from the beginning, very
compromise it's oft asserted
claim to be the one and only church
which under no circumstances allows
a marriage to be dissolved. II a Man
uaI of Prayer for the Use of the Cath
oic Laity, set forth by the order of
the Third Plenary Council of Balti-
more, under the certificate of your en-
inence. l find that the following alli-
aEces (unless special dispensation. is
obtained) are forbidden:
First-Marriag ge between third cous-
ins or any nearer degree of relation
ship.
Second-Marriage with the third cous-
in or any nearer relation OF. d deceased ,
husband or wife
Third-Sponsors may not marry their !
r
Fourth-Parepts cannot marry the
of their child or the person
who baptized il. ;
F'ive-Marriage with the parent. !
child, brother or sister of a person to
whom the party has been validly en- :
gagged !
1t appears to follow from this that +
any marriage contracted in violation /
Of any of these five groups of i1npedi- In
ments. without special dispensatiOn Ii
may be set aside as null and void, and
in that case the parties would then be
free to marry again. If this be the cor =
rect Interpretation, it appears to us thai t
here are great number of cases in /
which marriage. though it has existed 6
Tor years. may be set aside as null and n
void and the parties set free to marry | +
others. To our mind it appears that |
he distinction between these numerous c
,ases Of annulment of marriage and the +
dissolution of marriage is theoretical l
-ather than practical. 1t appears to Us @
also that in relation to the sacredness q
IF the family and the purity of the Y
lome and the happiness of the children, | +
hese various annulments are 10 better
han so many divorces. To assert that c
marriage is indissoluble except by death y
md yet to stand ready to annul mar {
'iage on all these various grounds, ap | 1
)ears to us to place the church which ! +
-ou so worthily represent in a rather | t
quivocal position. r
Nor is this all. 4 nom Christian mar h
iage may be dissolved even after con- q
OF this we have had a a
ecent example in the case Of a lady n
Tho though divorced from her hus- II
and was married to another in st. L
'atricks cathedral. New York. 1t was
aid in the public -press that Archbish- 4
r Farley submitted the case to the O
ecclesiastical court of the archdiocese, V
.hich decided that Mr. -, the for q
ler husband. had never been baptised. Id
he contract with him was void, and r
Irs was in the eyes OF the y
'hurch. a woman who had never con- Il
racted marriage. Such. principle as a
his seems TO strike at the very heart d
f the family since it renders ille- T
ithnate the children of the marriage Z
nus declared null by the Church, and | t.
ats their mother i'm the position of q,
ne who has lived all those years i'm an 4
iicit relation with one who was not h
er husband. fl
There were not few in the recent Is
onvention of the Protestant Episco- Lti
al church who urged the body to Il
'lange it's ground and adopt at least
] modified form. the Roman princi- n
le of absolute indissolubility This, q
ptxayar tha convention reft1sad to do q.