Evening star., 1949-11-12
Pope's Talk on Ruling.
Of Divorce Clarified
Bye. U. Professor

Catholic University professor
OF moral theology explained las
night that there is nothing in.
trinsically wrong" for a Catholic
judge In a divorce case to declars
thSt, as far as the civil law is con.
cesned, a husband and wife art
no longer to be regarded as mar.
ricd.
N a statement on main point.
Of an address by Pope Plus XII tx
a convention of Catholic jurists
and legal authorities last Mon.
day, the Very Rev. Francis J
Connell, C.SS.R., said American
faith in the administration oil
their official duties.
DR.. Connell emphasized that the
Pope was not proposing new prin-
ciples but merely restating and
applying tenets which have been
presented for many years in man.
uals of Catholic moral teaching. u
-Four main principles were enunci-
ated by the Pope. mainly ito fur
nish Catholic judges with norms
which they may safely follow" +"
Dr. sConnell said.
GOOD Reason" Required.
As for the handling of divorce
cases, DR.. Connell stated:
"a Catholic judge believes in
conscience that the marriage bond
is permanent according to the law
OF. God. Hence, when a couple
who are validly married seek a
diYQrce from him, he is convinced
that he cannot separate them in
such wise that in the sight Of God
they are no longer husband and
wife and have a right to contract
new marriages.
However, it is not intrinsically
WRONG for him to declare that as
far as the civil law is concerned,
they are no longer to be regarded
asohusband and wife. Hence, for
a good reason, he is allowed to
make such a declaration"
Partial Text Of Statement.
The text of DR.. Connell's state
meht follows, in part:
The first principle is concerned
with the part which the Judge
plays in the administration Of JUS
tice. The Pope asserts that the
judge may not lay the entire re-
sponsibility for the injustice Of q
sentence which he passes on the
laN and the lawmakers. In other
words when he passes sentence
in accordance with q law which
he. is convinced is unjust he may
not salve his conscience by say
ing that he Is merely the mouth
piece of the law. -
"The second principle concerns
q sentence which would oblige
person to perform an action that
is intrinsically immoral. The Pope
states that under no condition
may a judge pass such a sentence.
For example, If law were passed
prescribing that all imbeciles be
put to death, a judge would never
be justified-even though his Office
we're. at stakes-in commanding a
physician to kill a person because
Of his mental disability. -
Appreciation Barred.
.The third principle concerns
the appreciation Of an unjust law.
The Pope states that q judge may
meyer expressly acknowledge or
approve an immoral law (which.
he says. would not be q valid law
in the eyes Of God. It should be
noted, in view of what is stated In
the fourth principle. that the ap-
plication Of a law does not neces-
sarily mean its approval. In this
third principle the Pope is con-
cefned only with the latter pro-
cedure. Thus. in a Communist
dominated land where the law for
bids any protest against the tenets
Of ofCommunism . Judge who would
not only send a person to jail for
rejecting the principles Of Com
mpnism but would also deliver q
speech upholding Communism,
would fail against this principle.
''The fourth principle empha-
sizes the distinction just made
between the appreciation and the
application Of an unjust law. The
Pope states that at times a Judge
may apply an unjust law to a
particular case in order to avoid
greater evils. Thus, in the case
just proposed, the judge might be
juAtified in sending the anti Com
mpnist to jail, in accordance with
the unjust law, though he could
not manifest approval Of the
law. '''
sHowever. Pope Plus XII adds,
the Judge may never go to the
extent Of inflicting q death SEN
teffce on an innocent person as
the application of an unjust
ldW.
I'm the United States the chief
interest in. the Pope's message re-
wolves about the granting Of a
divorce by a Catholic Judge. = . .
at was said that the Catholic
Judge may follow this procedure
for q good reason. Certainly there
are evil consequences to divorce:
the lightness with which the mar
riage bond is accepted by many
at the present day is gravely
harmful to the welfare of the
home and society. Consequently,
the granting Of a divorce, when 1t
Is permissible for him to grant 1t,
may not be taken lightly by the
judge.
Should Avoid Divorce Cases.
There must be q good reason
fos his action. For example, If
the reasons alleged for divorce by
both parties or by one Of them are
evidently flimsy or false, so that
they do not satisfy even the re-
qrIirements of the civil law, he
must refuse their petition. He