fCRUPLET

OF
JOHN BROWN gets his domestic supply of electricity at three separate rates: (1) light; (2) heat and power; (3) heating bath water. Brown Junior, unknown to his worthy sire, connects the lamps in his own study with (3). Brown Senior discovers this after a year, and consults his parish priest as to what he should do: (a) in the matter of restitution; (b) as Brown himself is a principal shareholder in the electric company is he justified in charging three rates for the same quantity of " juice."
CONDITIONS.—John Brown Scruples correspondence must reach the " Catholic Herald," 67, Fleet Street, E.C.4, not later than Tuesday morning each week, and must be earmarked " John Brown Scruple."
A BOOK (to the value of 7s. 6d.), to be selected from those reviewed on the Book Page (Page 4) of the " Catholic Herald," will be sent to the reader who, in the Editor's judgment, sends in the most thoughtful and interesting solution in not more than 250 words. The book will not be awarded it no solution reaches a sufficient standard, and the Editor's judgment is final.
This week the book has been awarded to Tomkins (N.4.), who will kindly advise us as io his choice.
LAST WEEK'S SCRUPLE A Catholic youth becomes the father of the unborn child of a Catholic girl; they are not married to one another nor to any other parties, neither are they suited to one another as partners. The girl thinks she should marry for the sake of appearances; the boy does not want to marry her although he might be prevailed upon to do so. Are the two morally bound to marry? (Case neatly summarised thus by Kelly, S.W.15)•
THIS scruple has provided a very I interesting revelation of Catholic opinion about one of the stock dilemmas in fiction and on the stage.
It provides, by the way, the main element in the plot of the popular play, Robert's Wife, where the Anglican clergy feel themselves obliged to insist on marriage.
I am glad to see that the majority of Catholic correspondents take the right view, namely, that marriage is not only . not obligatory but may very well be 'wrong.
About one in three correspondents, however, take the wrong, but popular, view that there is a moral obligation to put things right by marriage, the chief alleged reason being the legitimacy of the child.
A good statement of the false view comes from Thorpe (Clitheroe), who tries to get out of the dilemma by adding that " he should be convinced of his obligation but should not marry under force, one of the essentials of a true marriage being free consent." But that is trying to have it both ways. You cannot be morally forced to do A, when it is the essence of the moral validity of A that it should be a free act of choice as between doing A or B.
A very curious bit of moral theology comes from M. K. (S.W.5), who says: " By their action they have committed a mortal sin and will be eut off from the Sacraments until they put the matter right by marriage." This is entirely wrong; the Sacrament of Penance and the resolution to fulfil one's obligation to the child restore one to a state of grace. " There is a moral obligation on the part of the man to marry the girl on the ground of restitution," writes Curley (Manchester) and others. To which one answer at least is given by Swendell (Ramsgate): "It must be remembered that the girl is not the one sinned against, but is the partner of another who has committed sin."
A number of correspondents more or less compromised by suggesting that all reasonable pressure should be brought to bear on the couple to marry for their own good and the good of the child. Evidently it would be a good thing if the couple were to agree freely to marry, having decided for themselves that they really want to marry after all, and can expect a happy marriage. But the conditions of the scruple seem to rule this solution out as highly improbable.
Among the many who gave the correct solution, a number — MacCreanor (Dublin), Delepine (N.W.6) and others— suggest that the child be adopted. It surely would be better for it to be brought up by its own mother in most cases.
An argument well emphasised by Earley Marley Abbey) was the danger of the marriage being null and void through lack of consent, and it is nice to know that Catholic teaching on this matter is so well understood.
The best solutions came from Simmonds (Khigston-on-Thames) and Tomkins (N.4). I think the latter emphasises more clearly the duties of the father towards the child, so the book goes to him.
Our Theologian gives the following solution:
"John Brown should say that the young man is not morally bound to marry the girl, because, in the case given, such a marriage would not be a satisfactory remedy for the harm done, but would, on the contrary, lead to even further harm.
"But the young man is bound to do whatever he can do to repair the damage, in which he has been a partner—e.g., to contribute to the medical expenses, to share in the upkeep of the child, and to do what he can to improve the girl's chances of marriage, etc., etc.
"It may be added that if the girl should get a legal maintenance order against him he would be bound in strict conscience to carry it out.
" Note.—The fact that the girl thinks it the ' proper ' thing to marry the young man, or even demands the marriage, makes no difference, as It is obvious from the statement of the case that such a marriage would not he a satisfactory remedy for the harm done."