The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1916-01-01
THE PAULINE PRIVILEGE

Sometimes the faithful and those
outside the Church are puzzled when
they see two persons who have been
living together in the relation of hus-
band and wife permitted by ecclesi-
astical authority not only to separate,
but even to remarry. There is really
no cause for mystification. Usually
the Church does nothing more wonder
full than to pronounce judicially on a
matter of fact. What ordinarily hap
pens in perplexing marriage cases is
this: The validity of marriage is
called into question; testimony for
and against it is laid before the
Church; witnesses are examined; evil
dence is sifted, and the conclusion is
reached that at the time of the mar
riage some impeachment acted as bar
to the validity of the matrimonial con-
tract. Then the Church declares that
what seemed to be marriage was in
reality no marriage at all. Clearly in
so doing she is not granting divorce
Divorce means the severance of the
marriage bond, which is quite a diff
ferent thing from declaring that the
bond, Notwithstanding appearances,
never existed. Divorce in the case of
a valid, cOnsummated Christian mar
riage the Church cannot grant. The
most she can do in such case, and
only the gravest reasons will move
her to so act, is to give permission
for husband and wife to live apart,
and if necessary to secure before the
courts legal separation; but in nei-
Their instance has she any thought Of
dissolving the bond of consummated
Christian marriage. This she knows
must endure until death.
Thus the general attitude of the
fined. Her very name is synonymous
with uncompromising defense of the
marriage bond. She has always stood
out not only for it's unity, but also
for its indissolubility, and she has
consistently extended her doctrine no
only to Catholics, but to the whole
human race. Basing her position boil
on reason and on revelation, she has
maintained, in spite Of the fiercest op
position and in face of great losses
both temporal and spiritual, that mar
riage, whether it be contracted in TIL.
Church or outside of it, before a priest
a minister, magistrate or withou
witnesses of any kind, provided it b.
a true marriage, creates bond tina
no merely human power can undo.
1t would be mistake, however, tt
think that the Church is of the opin
ion that the dissolving of the mar
riage bond is an absolute impossible
ity. From the fact that no merel,
human power can grant a divorce,
does not follow that God cannot gran
it. There is a broad distinction be
tween holding that no mere man, ever
though he be regularly constituted
judge, has authority to put asundel
what God has joined together and as
sorting that God Himself cannot undo
the bond that He Himself has tied
Nothing is further from the mind OF
fhor To
not make exceptions to His genera
prohibition against divorce, ever
though His general prohibition is
voiced insistently by nature, by Scrip
ture and by the Church. He who
made the law may also make excep
lions to it, His rights take proceed
ence over all other rights. Who viii
dare gainsay Him if He, the Lord ant
Master of all, chooses to determine
that under certain conditions a bono
of marriage, hitherto binding befor,
God and man, shall simply cease t,
exist? Certainly not the Church. TO
her commission is to teach Christ
doctrine.
Has God made any exceptions ii
the matter Of divorce? The teachin,
of unaided reason does not show an,
exception. but revelation does. Mar
riages may be divided into Christian
marriages, in which one or both per
sons have been baptized, and non
Christian marriages, in which neithe
person has been baptized In the cas-,
Of Christian marriages no divorce ma,
be obtained if the marriage has beer
cnnslln m a cd. hut II IL hna l,oon m II