The Washington herald., 1911-10-29
Editor Ths Washington HeraId:

your Columns, IN I4SI sundays 5 issue,
from the Rev. DR.. Randolph H. McKim,
OF your city. May ask you for some
small space for a word Of reply? The
doctor in his letter very severely ar
raigns the discipline Of the Catholic
Church in the matter Of marriage and
divorce. and that In face Of the indis-
putable fact that the civilized world looks
upon that church as the one great force
which consistently defends the integrity
Of the marriage tie, and refuses to dis
solve 1t for any cause whatsoever. To
take the points Of DR.. McKlm's letter In
their order, he begins with the celebrated
Is claimed that Jesus Christ permitted
divorce for one cause, marital infidelity.
Why did DR.. McKim not flnish the pas
sage: q" and who so marrieth her
which is put away doth commit adul-
terry" which is said without any qualifica-
ton? If DR.. McKim should reply that
It carries with II the qualification of
the preceding clause, the answer would
be that It does not necessarily do so,
and that he has the voice Of great doc
tors OF the church against him. But
why. furthermore, does he make no men,
tion whatever OF St. Mark and st. Luke.
who, dealing with the same words OF
their Master, have no qualifying clause
at all? Why, again, does he pass over
st. Paul writing to the Corinthians: Let
not the wife depart from her husband:
But and IL she depart. let her remain
unmarried. or be reconciled to her hus-
band: and let not the husband put away
HI
OF DR.. McKim's acknowledged scholar
ship that the weight Of opinion upon the
passage from st. Matthews Gospel,
viewed in the light Of these other Scrip
lures, regards the words, "Whosoever
shall put away his wife" as referring
only to separation from bed and board.
This, I make bold to say, is the opinion
Of Christendom. / cannot understand
why DR.. McKim should have so COM
pletely ignored these other passages OF
the Scripture. and have given but one
half OF that upon which he relies.
The doctors next arguments are drawn
from some OF the early fathers Of the
church. but unfortunately again we are
not supplied with references. The writer
OF this communication cannot lay claim
TO any profound acquaintance with the
writings OF the fathers. but he has long
been familiar with this style of con-
troversy, and has learned that nothing
is more hazardous than to accept such
quotations without examination of their
context. Much depends upon the matter
they had in hand. and much upon the
meaning which they attached to words.
Quite often one discovers, upon close
study of these worthless, that they are
using words in a sense quite other than
that which the modern world attributes
to them. OF two of the fathers II may
be said that they turned out badly. al
though that does not imply that they
had not otherwise written in an ortho-
doX sense. On the other hand. some OF
the strongest things ever written for
the absolute indIssolubility OF marriage
are on record in the writings OF st.
John Chrysostom. st. Jerome. and st.
Before accepting DR.. Nc
Kim's passages from the fathers whom
he quotes one has a right to ask for
references. Before leaving this part of
the doctors argument, II is Of Importance
to point out that in not one single pas
sage is there anything to prove the doc
tors thesis. namely. the permissibility OF
after the divorce. st. Paul
says: No" DR.. McKim says: Yes"
but his authorities, as quoted, do not
bear him out.
The next argument is one from eccle-
siastical history. or rather one from a
certain DR.. /. Elliott Howard's account
OF the Victory of Matrimonial Institu
tlons." I ought, l suppose, to be ashamed
that never before heard of DR.. I.
Elliott Howard, but that Is the melan-
choly fact. Judging however, from the
elegant extract from his history which
DR.. McKim fathers. console myself
with the reflection that have not lost
much I find II odd, II / may say so
without offense, that DR.. McKim. who !
has been heretofore so shy in the matter |
Of references, takes pains to point us to !
Vol. II, page, 56, of this monumental
work I shall dismiss DR.. l. Elliott How |
ards History" with the last passage |
quoted by Dr. McKim: a case is men
pronounced null because the husband had |
stood godfather for the cousin of his |
wife" We cannot learn whether Coke !
knew of the case personally or had de-
rived II from his studies. A priori, !
should say that the marriage in COkes .
citation was null for some other cause |
han the one he alleges. as It Is in
credible that at any time the impedi-
nent OF what Is technically called |
spiritual kinship'r extended 10 the col |
ateral relatives. To-day nothing Is more
common than for a husband and wife to
Itand sponsors for blood relatives.
What follows in DR.. McKim's COM
is unworthy OF a gentleman
II his standing. 1t is the kind of thing
md consists largely OF the startling
hings the doctor could tell US, II he
we're so minded: Il could air, IL would"
I could NIL four columns" Il could tell
II a case in Ireland" &C. &C There
5 a maxim of logic that what is asserted
Without proof may be 1atly denied.
AXE my stand upon that dictum and re-
use TO credit DR.. McKIm's Irish case
lntil It is .irrefragably established.
want all the facts Of the case. I could
lot I'LL columns OF your paper. but could
'ut OF my own experience cite cases In
which Rome's proverbiaI tardness In
a marriage null has been to
he last degree eXasperating. / can men
lon the case OF a marriage at which
officiAted. the validity Of which l had
10 slightest reason to doubt. Within
hree days. one party left the other. and.
mt hain0 rnInded n dara sIo-, |