[Footnote 149: ESMEIN, _op. cit._, II, 93, 94. Earlier divorce _a mensa et thoro_ was not granted on this ground unless there was real danger to the life of one of the parties; but at last it was decided that _nimia saevitia_ would suffice, but the term is not defined: _idem_, _loc. cit._ In general on this species of divorce see FREISEN, _op. cit._, 830-47; GEARY, _Marriage and Family Relations_, 238, 239, 350; SCHEURL, _Das gem. deut. Eherecht_, 286-91.]
It thus appears that theological subtlety, partly under stress of the needs of actual life, has found a way to pass far beyond the limits which any reasonable interpretation of the scriptural precepts will permit. In dealing with the question of divorce _a vinculo_ an inconsistency even greater is shown, and the results are far more disastrous; for the door is thereby opened for manifold hardships and corruption. In the first place, two exceptions to the rule that a genuine marriage cannot be dissolved are sanctioned by the law and practice of the Church. The _privilegium Paulinum_ is thus freely admitted.[150] If the Christian convert is abandoned by his infidel spouse, he is allowed to contract a new marriage. Only by an ingenious assumption can this liberty be harmonized with the prevailing dogma. The case is no exception, we are told, for it is the infidel, not the believer, who dissolves the marriage; and the rule of the church does not apply when the unbeliever "renounces his right" to maintain that relation, in order to "make use of his own heathen law."[151] In England, where the canon law of divorce was in full force, the _casus apostoli_ had a practical application to the advantage of the faithful in their dealings with the Jews. "In 1234 a Jewish widow was refused her dower on the ground that her husband had been converted and that she had refused to adhere to him and be converted with him. An Essex jury even doubted whether if two Jews married under the 'Lex Judaica' but afterwards turned to the 'Lex Christiana' and then had a son, that son could be legitimate;"[152] but this finding is not in harmony with the teaching of the canon law. Moreover, in modern times, with the spread of Catholic missions into many new lands, this privilege has been of increasing importance.[153]