Part 3
Up until now, the arguments against divorce have been based on empirical scientific findings. There has been no reference to religious doctrine or beliefs. On non-religious grounds alone, we can show that absolute divorce is bad for society as a whole, whatever the predominant religion. In fact, some polls show that the No to Divorce is even higher among Filipino Muslims. It does not mean, however, that practicing Catholics cannot bring up to their fellow faithful in the Catholic Church arguments that are based on doctrinal principles, especially as they are enumerated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This part of a series of articles on the undesirability of the Absolute Divorce law is addressed to my fellow Catholics who want to be consistent with the teachings of their faith, especially considering that the vast majority of the members of Congress, both the lower and upper chambers, are known to be baptized Roman Catholics. I do not discount, however, the possibility that some of them are following the bad example of President Biden of the U.S., who declares himself to be a practicing Catholic but unashamedly and publicly supports abortion, which is clearly condemned by the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church. Neither do I discount the possibility that there are those from other faiths who also believe in the indissolubility of marriage, as we members of the Constitutional Commission learned, to our pleasant surprise from one of the Muslim members of the Concom.
I found it tragic-comic to hear the main sponsor of the Divorce Bill in the Lower House claim in a public debate with such self-assurance that there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits divorce. In fact, it was providential that on the very day that the bill was passed by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives, the Gospel for the Mass of the day was taken from Mark 10, 1 – 12. In the Viber message that former Chief Justice Hilario Davide disseminated in which he categorically stated that the Divorce Bill is unconstitutional, he first referred to this very passage of the New Testament: “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ Therefore now they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder….Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if a wife puts away her husband , and marries another, she commits adultery.” These are the words of the Man-God Jesus Christ. They couldn’t be clearer in declaring that absolute divorce is against the teachings of Christ.
Just in case the practicing Roman Catholics among members of Congress need to refresh their memories about what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches concerning the institution of marriage, let me quote here the relevant passages. In Paragraph 1603 of the Catechism, we read: “The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed with its own proper laws… God himself is the author of marriage. The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the institution's dignity is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. The wellbeing of the individual person of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.” It is striking how the validity of the last statement, which is a theological declaration and must be believed in by Catholics based on the virtue of faith, is backed up by solid empirical evidence from various human sciences, as we have seen in the first two articles in this series. It is also clear from this paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that those who advocate “redefining the sanctity of marriage” to take into account changes in social and cultural practices (as appeared in an editorial of a leading Philippine daily) are either not Roman Catholics and do not have to follow the teachings found the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or declare themselves to be Catholics but are selective in what to believe among the teachings of their faith.
In par. 1614, we read: “In his preaching, Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning. …The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”…This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy…By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to ‘receive’ the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ. This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.” It is obvious that these truths we derive from Revelation would make sense only to a practicing Catholic and, therefore, would not convince those who do not have the same faith. That is why, as we did in the first two articles, we only used reason and the evidences of empirical sciences to demonstrate that divorce is harmful especially to children and to the whole society at large. To be continued.
For comments, my email address is [email protected]