New-York tribune., 1922-11-19
Bishops Rebuke to MarIborou,I
Causes Clash Over Divorce v;ass'.
Can Man Who Is Lawfully Married BE Treat,
Pariah by the Chuneh Because Of
His Marriages Asks Duke

| Thss question befls down !. x.
bishop, IS an Official - 4 'a q
iished Church. tho right i ss - lsa
other official Of the crown s.. s.sseas
something which tie law dss.Ipes,ss g
he can dor Or can q man So ~ = y
fully married bs tressea J, isa
by the Church bscause 81 4. p'ss
fiage5 M "
While the law Of England -, ].
the Duke Of Marlborough !, g, lss.. Q
married man, fit 70 hold sn, ss'.. sssss'
she stats. the Bishop Of os,..s ~
is also a paid public seYysps ~ ~ n'
he is an open and unrepeuss,s = y
who cannot be allowed to ,,..ss '.a,s
gathering Of county and sss.s..s s
clergy.
If the duke had simply bssa s,,,,..
he need not, according 10 s.s
Burgess own doctrins, hags ea...,
be a full Church member. n,.ts
marriage which constitutes d. 80 80
astical crime. The effect II gi,s.
Burgess action is TO rsiss, !s.s.. .ss
both In regard TO dlgorcs cad i !.
conflict between the ecelssiastiesy j,
and the law Of the land.
Issue Raised In Form
Which Cannot Be Ignored
This particular question hita,r.. i.
been brought forward only II .,u,,.
parishes where the incumbent h. ].
MED the Sacrament to divorced ,a,ts.
and these cases have besn obsearr !.
Issue, however, has now been rsjs.a &
form IN which 1t cannot BE- tvar.s
The ecclesiastical position i s,,.sI
frankly upon refusal TO recasnis. j.
divorce laws Of the land whers D.,
conflict With the views Of the CsrrI
Consequently divorced persen III
rnarries again Is considered 10 bsm
ing In sin, and, therefore, AZ uss
pentant sinner who cannot Be admits
60 the Sacrament. Soms eierry ts
applied this equally to che guiltv !
innocent party In a divorce action All
have refused 20 remarry an lsHsesat
divorcee. The majority, hoxtrsr, VIII
admit ths right Of the iansesnt 10
remarry.
Opponents Of Bishop Burgess stass
hold that this distinction betweea u.
innocent and guilty party is a pestis,
larry absurd one. in view Of the exc
ing state Of public opinion and Of i
divorce laws. In the present stats )
the law, which the bishops In 81
House Of Lords have steadily prcna|
against reform, a man is often ta
PEELED TO pretend to commit h
nical offenss in order to get hsas
divorced. It does not in reality aGa
that he has committed the es.ss
st all.
Due TO these conditions alszsa2
and perjury both aerioA casrs.see
under the law - are notoriouaI I'D
and widespread IN the English diss,ts
court, Divorce judges recently hiFs
had hard things TO say about 4, Il.
the existing tangle is conceded on d
hands 60 put premium ca br.sfs
one law "a the sole means of getti,s
relief under another.
The divorce situation In England sts|
getting pretty well tied up sishou. I'D
fiinging OF the ecclesiastical gauntsi
into the arena by Bishop Burgs q o.
ford. After this It looks a. thcrgs
something had 30 break some plsti
Lord Birksnhead, the ex-Lord Chs1a
lor. strong advocate Of divorce hs9
reform, has described ths Bishop
action as "un- Christian SIS Il was ans
giant, and Of doubtful legality 0ae
thing the clash of views eersaisF viii
do and that is to strengthen The move
ment, az powerful ALREADY inside we
Church as outside, for divorces haESss'
Church and State themselves.