The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1915-08-21

unbeliever may continue to dwell with
the convert, without putting let or
hindrance to the practice of his or her
religion, abstaining meanwhile from
expressions that are injurious to
Christ. Under these conditions the
marriage bond remains inviolate and
inviolable. Or the unbeliever may de-
sert the convert; or while not going
to the length of actual desertion, may
refuse to dwell in peace, may force the
convert to listen to language that is
insulting to Christ, and in one way or.
another so act, as to a menace to the
converts faith or morals. In this sec
ond case the convert may take advan-
tage of the Pauline privilege, that is,
may remarry and thus dissolve the
bond of the former marriage.
The expressions, remarry and thus
dissolve the bond of the former mar
riage, is used advised1y, for it accu-
rately describes the curious working
of the privilege enunciated by the
Apostle. When the unbeliever has
manifested the intention of not dwell
| ing in peace with the convert, the con-
vert may leave the unbeliever. This
separation does not in itself constitute
the Pauline privilege; for any Chris
/ tian might do the same whenever con-
! jugal life became dangerous or intol-
cradle, provided only ecclesiastical
sanction had been obtained. Before
the Pauline privilege is acted upon, an
official inquiry is instituted by the
] Church. If, as the result of this in
! quiry, it becomes clear that the I'M
! believer does not intend to dwell in
peace with the convert and with
out insult to the Creator tit should
be carefully noted that the con-
verts statement to this effect is
not sufficient, but must be supple
mented by the statement of the
church,, then the way is smoothed
for the application of the privilege,
which consists precisely in this, that
the convert may contract a second
marriage; this second marriage, with
out further formality, of itself, and
automatically, dissolves the former
marriage once and for all. and sewers
the conjugal bond forever. Up to the
moment that the second marriage act
ually takes place, the marriage con-
tracted in infdelity continues, and
both convert and unbeliever are under
the bond of matrimony; so that should
the unbeliever try to remarry before
the convert, the attempt would be
fruitless, and the marriage null and
void; on the other hand, should the
baptized before the convert contracts
a second marriage, the privilege an
nounced by Saint Paul would no longer
have place, and neither husband nor
wife could again remarry, unless it
were possible to obtain an annulment
of the bond on the grounds of a Chris
tian marriage ratified but not consum-
mated. From this it is evident that
the privilege is given not SO much in
favor of the Individual, although it
has the converts interests in view, as
for the safeguarding of the Faith.
Some may think that the Pauline
privilege is something new in the dis
trary is true. In the early ages of the
Church it's application was of frequent
occurrence. Indeed, it was not until
the middle of the eighteenth century
that it was called into question, when
the Bishop of Scissors, Fitz-James, be-
ing infected with Jansenism, forbade
Borach Levi, a convert from Judaism,
to contract a second marriage, al
though his wife, a Jewess, refused to
dwell with him. The case is interest
ing, because it stands out as a strik-
ing exception to the uniform practice
of the Church. The Church has al
ways recognized and admitted the
Pauline privilege, she recognizes it
and admits it today. The Church is
not more Catholic than Saint Paul.
Where he allows divorce, she does not
presume to forbid it. Where he per-
mits remarriage, she puts no impedi-
ment. Where he declares that the
. bond is severed she echoes his words