It is interesting to compare two documents, both reactions to a House Bill on divorce. One comes from the Archdiocese of Cebu, the second is from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. The former takes the genre of a primer, the latter is a pastoral statement. What you are reading simply contains my initial and tentative observations. For the sake of transparency, I am introducing myself as a presbyter of the Archdiocese of Cebu.
The two both rightly affirm the inviolability of marriage as an ideal. The two also warn us about the dangers of legalizing absolute divorce. But after these basic similarities, there are obvious differences in tone, and possibly even partly in substance. Maybe because of its genre as a primer, the archdiocesan document is polemical and argumentative with a tone of certainty in its position. In its very introduction, the primer states that it intends to present both religious objections to and secular arguments against the legalization of divorce. The primer can be likened to some notes on how to argue against absolute divorce. Empathy is sadly absent, taking a day off when the primer was written. In contrast, the pastoral letter grapples with the issue of divorce. In reading the pastoral letter, one can feel the existential angst of the author(s).
Initially, we can illustrate the above point by comparing the types of sentences found in the two documents. Because the authors of the archdiocesan document have decided to write in the form of a primer, they use declarative sentences more than 99% of the time. In contrast, there are plenty of interrogative sentences in the pastoral statement. The questions are too numerous to be all quoted. Instead, a few examples would suffice: “Do we really want to make it easy for civilly married couples to have their marriages civilly dissolved …?” “Should we not ask ourselves on the basis of research and statistics, if the legalization of divorce all over the world has indeed helped in protecting the common good and the welfare of the family?” The pastoral letter also asks whether we should not listen to stories of couples who, after experiencing crisis moments in their marriage, have returned to each other’s arms and have realized that “the bond has not been shattered, and that in fact “it has been strengthened by the crisis.” Another question is, “…isn’t it just as true that going through times of marital crisis is almost a normal thing for all married couples and need not end too quickly in a parting of ways?
A clear contrast can further illustrate this point. The pastoral statement points out that the Philippines is the “last country… that has not yet legalized civil divorce.” The primer stresses substantially the same point that “divorce is widely accepted in many non-Christian cultures.” But after substantially agreeing on this statement of fact, the primer then categorically adds, “but that doesn’t make it right for the Philippines” whereas the Catholic bishops ask, “Should we therefore join the bandwagon?”
Again, these are just a few examples of the questions. But one may argue that the questions are rhetorical, with expected answers that favor the position already taken by the Church. This argument may well be true but in principle, any question can have an unexpected answer. Moreover, the rhetorical nature does not detract from the observation that the style makes a lot of difference between pontification and the empathic and compassionate exercise of the church’s role as a teacher. At this point, I want to quote Avery Dulles, who was considered a conservative among theologians, “Human beings do not commonly like to face important issues that call their previous convictions into question. Many people never come to faith because they ask too few questions, not too many. When the mind is full of certitudes, it has no room for God. But one who has accustomed oneself to radical questioning, and who realizes the utter insecurity of every human answer, has one of the main prerequisites of faith.”
But it is not just a question of the feeling that the reader gets in comparing the two documents. The pastoral statement is conscious of the complexity of the issue and it tries to also see the point of the opposite position. Thus, there may be statements that may appear conflicting at first glance, but which, upon closer investigation, simply reflect a recognition of the validity of some points raised by an imagined interlocutor. Thus, while it states in the form of a question whether marital crisis is almost normal for couples, it also states that some marriages are beyond repair. On the one hand, it labels as ad hominem the argument that priests and bishops should not be arguing about divorce since they are celibates. On the other hand, it calls the question valid and appreciates that the laity is taking the lead in the debates. While it objects to the legalization of divorce, the pastoral statement says that the bishops can only propose and not impose and that the church is in no position to set the rules on civil marriage. While it engages the state on this moral issue, the pastoral letter also acknowledges that “the Church is in no position to dictate the State on what is best for Filipino families.” And while it presents the Catholic position on divorce, it also reminds the readers that there is religious freedom.
In comparison, the various words used by the primer to describe the arguments of those who espouse the legalization of divorce include: false (used several times), without evidence, redundant, and unnecessary.
In other words, the pastoral letter in effect says that the Church does not have the monopoly of valid reasons (and good intentions for that matter) while the primer is practically asserting that any fair-minded person cannot but agree that divorce is wrong.
There are other differences beyond the style. The pastoral letter proudly affirms the witnessing value of the pro-family provisions in the 1987 Constitution. But primer goes beyond affirmation when it states that if civil divorce is allowed, the uncertainty cast in all marriage is contrary to the Constitution.
Because of the polemical intentions, the primer may have missed quoting an important line from the Gospels. It completely quotes Mk. 10: 7-12. In this passage, Jesus proclaims that what God has joined together let no one separate. He then adds, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” Note here the absolute prohibition of divorce. The primer also quotes Matthew’s version of the teaching of divorce. But this time, it stops at that passage prohibiting us from separating what God has joined. It conveniently omits the next line, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, (parektos logou porneias) and marries another, commits adultery.” Note that the Matthean Jesus allows for one exception, which is porneia in Greek and translated by the New Revised Standard Version as “unchastity.” But why quote completely the Markan text and omit an important line from the Matthean text? In the interest of intellectual honesty, it is best to quote completely both versions.
It may be correct that the absolute prohibition found in the Gospel of Mark may come closer to the mouth of the historical Jesus and the exception found in Matthew’s Gospel can be a Matthean addition. Yet, the addition is part of the revealed word of God.
But to give credit where credit is due, the primer also enumerates concrete actions taken by the local church that are meant to prevent crisis situations and to deal with them if they happen. Beyond the documents, the local Church of Cebu is to be commended for its programs designed to help couples prepare for and live married life.
Where do we proceed from here? Lately, the Archdiocese has listened to stories of couples who, after experiencing crisis moments in the relationship, decided to iron things out and stick to their marital vows. This is a better approach rather than pure argumentation.
But in the spirit of synodality, should we not also be listening to those who have failed marriages, those who are de facto divorced from their spouses, (since there is no de jure divorce), those victims of abusive relationships? For now, we are simply telling them that there is a solution to their problems, but we have not listened to their stories. After all, it is the nature of the Church to be synodal. She has to listen to everyone, without exception.
We can ask questions like, “Did they consider other options and was the de facto divorce the last resort?” “Did the relationship become so toxic that it was no longer beneficial to their children?”
To engage in a dialogue does not mean that we leave behind our convictions. Yet, we can be enriched by the experiences of others and become more effective teachers.
(Thoughts on the recent CBCP pastoral statement and the Primer on Divorce by the Archdiocese of Cebu)
Fr. Ramon D. Echica is the Dean of Studies of the San Carlos Major Seminary. He obtained his doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Catholic University of Leuven (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven) in 1998.
