The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-08
NO COMPROMISE ON DIVORCE.
DR.. MRIM WRITES OPEN LETTER
TO CARDINAL GIBBONS.
Takes Issue With the Cardinals Utterance
That the Episcopal Convention En-
deavOred 60 Compromise on the Sub
1ect--GNes Authorities for Its Action.

Church OF the Epiphany, and a prominent
clergyman has written the following open
letter to Cardinal Gibbons;
To his Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons.
Mosr REVEREND SIR: My attention has
recently been called to an utteranoe of yours
reported In the Baltimore Sun Of Nov.
in these words
Tho recent convention in Boston ar
parently made an endeavor TO conpr mise
on the subject. There Is no COMPROMISE
on divorce. The only effective remedy
"a to 60 back TO the Gospel. which prohibits
all divorced men and women who are validly
married from entering into second nup-
tails
May | venture to point out that your
Eminenoe has inadvertently mistaken the
sgnlfcance Of the action Of the Convention
Of the Protestant Episcopal Church to which
you allude2 There is no compromise.
The distinct issue was this: Shall the Church
reverse the atttudo which 1t has Occur pied
on this sui ] 1ct OF marriage and divorce
since 1908 and graft upon her canon law
amodihed recognition of the prinoipls Of the
absolute indssollublity OF marriage7 The
battle Of debate was fought out on that issue.
and the result w&s-not a compromise. but
the distinct reassertion of the right of an
innocent party in a divorce for tho cause OF
adultery 10 marry again.
The restrictive amendments 10 our canon
law, adopted by an overwhelming ma oritv.
covered no compromise on the above iesie,
nut we're provisions INTENDED, e 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.
Having had. as president Of the con-
vention. exceptional opportunities of know
ing the mind Of its members, can say
with some confidence that those who sup
ported the views which finally prevailed in
that body would find themselves in sincere
agreement with your Eminence when you
say There is no compromise on divorce
They would also be in hearty agreement
with your further statement that the only
effective remedy is to go back to the Cos
pei. The issue TO their mind appears clear.
It Is simply this: Shall we accept the teach
ing of our Lord Jesus Christ as sufficient
end supreme upon this vital question, in
volging as IL does. the purity Of the home
and the stability Of tho family! But when
your Eminenoe goes on 20 say that me Cos
pc! prohibits III divorced men and yemen
who are validity married from catering into
Hhcond nuptials they would find them
selves unable TO follow you, because on two
of the three occasions when our Lord spoke
on this subject recorded in the fifth and
nineteenth chapters OF st. Matthew's Cos
peO it appears that He laid down an ex-
ception to the rule OF indiasolubility. When
he said "Whosoever shall put away his
wife and shall marry another oommittcth
adultery, he added, they urge this excep-
tion, except for fornicaHon" This inter-
probation of the Masters teaching is sus-
tanned, in their opinion. by a great array
Of most learned divines of ancient and mod
ern times They point 10 the fact that that
great body Of Bishops tof the Anglican COM
munion) which met in conference at Lam
beth Palace in July 1885 held the same
that this one exception to the indissolubility
Of marriage has been held 10 be has ed upon
the teaching of our Lord. not onl y by all
Protestant communions, but also by the
Greek Church, from the earliest times.
| am, of course. aware that these authori-
ties will have no weight with a Roman
theologian. / only mention them 10 show
that the action Of the recent convention of
the Protestant Episcopal Church was in
loyal obedience TO the principle which
your Eminence afiirms. namely: That the
only effective way TO deal with the problem
Of marriage and divorce Is TO go back TO
the Gospel This action, you will permit
me TO say, ia in their opinion, based upon
an Interpretation OF the Gospel which may
fairly claim the greatest antiquity and the
highest ecclesiastical authority. Some OF
tho best equipped patristio scholars OF our
generation hold that there no authorita-
tive rule in the primitive Church based on
the principle of the absolute and nvariable
indissoluhitv of marriage. Although the
ancient fathers were not in complete agree
meut on this subject, nor always consistent
with themselves. IL is certain that uttcrances
in pain support Of the position that such
remaIrage is lawful are to be found in the
wUtngs Of IeTtuilian, st, Ambrose, st.
Chrysostom. Origen, Epiphanius and st.
Basil. Lactantius is emphatic in the same
sense. PetaVus, one Of your own great
scholars. the dquiil JcsiHtorurn was Of
opinion that the great Council OF Arbs,
A. D., 3l4, consisting of nearly COO Bishops,
permitted remarriage after divorce
Some writer's also affirm that the Apostolic
Constitutions did plainly allowed the
night of remarrage, and Pope Gregory
Ill "a. D. 73l-7ID and Pope Zacharias
"a. D. 7u-7j2) allowed remarriage 10 the
innocent.
Perhaps your Eminence viii permit mo
10 say further that, without wishing 10
detract from the service which the Roman
church is doing 70 the cause OF good morals
m the United States. it appesIs to us that
me numerous annulling inpediments,
which without special dispensation make
a marriage null and void from the be-
ginning, very seriously compromise its
Oft asserted claim 10 be the one and only
church which under no circumstances
allows a marriage TO be dissolved. In a
Manual Of Prayer for the Use OF the Catholic
l.aity, set forth by tho order Of the Third
Plenary Council of Baltimore. under the
certificate Of your Eminence, l find that
the following alliances Olnless special
dl'pensation IL obtained) are forbidden
First Marriage between third cousins or
an rnnrer degree OF relationship
Second Marriage with tho third cousin or /
ny ueager relation Of deceased husband or |
WIG.
=, T1l-d-sponsors may not marry their god
children.
tourth-parentS cannot marry the sponsors 1
q y rir clild or The person who baptized II, |
fiye-Marriage with the parent, child |
nfufl er or sister OF person 10 whom the |
iariy as been yaldly engaged.
IL appears TO follow from this that any |
marriage contracted in violation OF any |
al these five groups Of impedinents, with
out special dispensation, may be set aside
as null and void and in that case the parties
would then be free 10 marry again. IL this
be the correct Interpretation, it appears
70 US that here are a great number Of cases
IN which marriage, though IL has existed
Tor years, may be set aside as null and
void and the parties setfree 10 marry others.
10 our mind 1t appears that the distinction
between these numerous cases OF annui-