The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-03-07
SLIPPING THE YOKE.
An Episcopallan's Views in Opposi-
tIon 10 the Church's Attitude.

To THE EDiroR or THE SUN-Sir: The
Protestant Episcopal Church has always
held strict views in regard to the renar-
riage of divorced persons. The Church
has never permitted its ministers 10
marry any one who has been divorced
unless he or she was the innocent party
In a divorce granted on the statutory
grounds recognized by the laws of New
York state. The Catholic Church does
not allow the remarriage Of any person
who has been divorced, no matter what
the grounds were.
The attitude OF these churches is ha sed
on high grounds. and II is doubtful
whether they will ever relax their rules.
1t might be noted, however. that there
have been instances in each church
where remarriage has beer allowed al
though one Of the contracting parties
had been divorced on grounds other than
inidelity to the marriage VOWS. These,
of course. have been special cases. nut
in view OF their general attitude any
exception seems TO be Inconsistent
No doubt Bishop Greer and DR.. Man
ming are correct from their viewpoint in
opposing the Rev. Mr.. Grants advocacy
OF easier divorces. The grave question
20 he settled IL, after all, the matter of
morals and not OF church rules. Those
opposed TO divorce and remarriage gem
orally have in mind the many fragrant
Instances where a divorce obtained on
insufficient grounds has been followed
by a hasty remarriage. In such "a ses
and in many cases where divorce has
been obtained on statutory grounds there
has been mutual willingness and collu-
sion. Such divorces should he barred
by both Church and State.
II is a grave question:. however.
whether an u~nbending attitude in re-
gard 20 Iiynrra and roma rriape ic al
ways IN the interests OF morality. Nell
ther Church nor State recognizes causes
which often arise and which are much
more serious than the grounds on which
divorces are generally granted. There
are but few of us who do not know of
cases whore n continuation OF the mari
tai relations is impossible, and where
one of the parties is Justly entitled to
relief.
Many a has found after mar
rage that she has been utterly deceived
In the character and resources of her
husband. Instead OF being endowed with
his worldly goods, she has found him
cSher incapable or unwilling TO support
her and the children who 100 often come
from such a union. To the average lay
man II would seem that IL a continue
ton OF marital relations is made i'm
possible by the action OF either party.
suCn ACTIONS DelnS OF "A character Una
cannot possibly be condoned and which
are certain to be continued. some relief
should be granted by both Church and
State. II IL unjust and unfair TO require
OF the man or woman 10 continue under
such conditions.
II Ia equally unjust and unfair 10 de-
prive man or woman OF a right 10 happi-
ness because Of a mistake made through
faith in false p%renuptial statements. I
certainly do not advocate easy divorce
or easy remarriage. bu I do advocate
equity in the treatment OF fragrant cases
by both Church and state. II a man
will not live decently nor support his
wife and family TO the best OF his abil-
ity. his wife IL certainly entitled to re-
lief. II a woman will not make a home
for her husband and live decently in Il
with him, he is certainly entitled to re-
does not give the innocent party the
right 20 remarry. the best interests OF
the State and morality will not be rom
served.
II Is natural that good people 20 whom
. full realization of the horrible posi-
biiities OF an unfortunate marriage has
never been fully brought home by per
sonal experience should oppose divorce
on any grounds. The laxity in regard
20 marriage which has too often been
permitted confirms their opposition. but
justice should be done to those who are
the sufferers. and their viewpoint should
receive careful thought and considers-
ton. E~PiscoPALiAS.
Syw YORK. March 6