[Footnote 167: In general see CIGOI, _Unauflösbarkeit_, 149 ff.; PERRONE, _De mat. christ._, III, 376 ff., 389 ff., 398 ff.; GODOLPHIN, _Repartorium canonicum_, 61, 62, 492-512; ESMEIN, _Le mariage en droit canonique_, II, 295 ff., 308 ff.; SCHULTE, _Lehrbuch_, 359-61; LECKY, _Democracy and Liberty_, II, 193, 196, 197; GLASSON, _Le mariage civil et le divorce_, 216, 217; SCHEURL, _Das gem. deut. Eherecht_, 275, 276, where the canons adopted at the twenty-fourth session are given.]
[Footnote 168: By the bishop of Barcelona, who proposed the word _separatio_ for divorce _quoad torum_: ESMEIN, _op. cit._, II, 309. On the misleading names for the two kinds of separation see POLLOCK AND MAITLAND, _Hist. of Eng. Law_, II, 392 n. 5. However, a "modern distinction of some Catholic writers between _anullatio_ and _separatio_ removes all ambiguity."--WOOLSEY, _Divorce_, 124.]
[Footnote 169: "viii. Si quis dixerit ... vel Ecclesiam errare, dum ob alias causas, praeter adulterium, facit divortium quoad thorum seu cohabitationem, ad tempus vel perpetuo: anathema sit."--THEINER, _Acta_, II, 313: ESMEIN, _op. cit._, II, 309 n. 1.]
[Footnote 170: Distinction is made between _dispensatio super matrimonio_, that is, for dissolving an unconsummate marriage; and _dispensatio matrimonialis_, that is, to remove an impediment which otherwise would invalidate a proposed contract. In all cases of dispensation careful judicial inquiry as to the grounds of application is made: GEARY, _Marriage and Family Relations_, 510-14. _Cf._ WOOLSEY, _op. cit._, 122, 123; and especially the convenient manual of POMPEN, _De dispensationibus_, 122-68. For a full discussion of the intricate law and custom as to dispensation see ESMEIN, _op. cit._, II, 315-68; FREISEN, _Geschichte des can. Eherechts_, 891-906; SCHEURL, _Das gem. deut. Eherecht_, 281 ff. In the oriental church dispensation from the forbidden degrees is in general not allowed, ZHISHMAN: _Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche_, 709-17.]
_a_) _Opinions of Luther and the continental reformers._--With the rejection of the sacramental theory of marriage at the Reformation it was inevitable that more liberal ideas respecting divorce should arise. The mother-church was accused of fostering vice by professing a doctrine too severe;[171] while at the same time she was bitterly reproached with a scandalous abuse of her own jurisdiction through which in effect the forbidden degrees had become an open door to divorce for the use of the rich and powerful. Accordingly, the leaders of Protestantism took intermediate ground. On the one hand, while Luther and some other reformers sanctioned temporary separations[172] of husband and wife, there was a strong tendency to reject entirely perpetual divorce _a mensa et thoro_ as being a "relatively modern invention" unknown to the ancient church; and a condition of life incompatible with the true ideal of wedlock.[173] On the other hand, they generally favored complete divorce _a vinculo_, admitting two or more grounds according as they interpreted strictly or more liberally the scriptural texts. For they still appealed to authority rather than to reason and experience in their attempts to solve a great social problem. They were thus often sorely embarrassed. Their writings, indeed, reveal not a little of the casuistry and self-deception which so often vitiate the reasoning of the canonists and their predecessors.[174]