Despite the majority of Roman Catholic Christians in the Philippines, Christianity alone has proven incapable of unifying in certain issues the minds of the Filipinos. Our recent elections alone stood as a stark testimony on the incompatibility of what most of the citizenry prefer their next president to be and what the Roman Catholic clergy, as far as their official positions were concerned, chose the "preferred" candidate. While the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) favored the candidacy of Olongapo City Councilor JC De Los Reyes, the Filipinos gave Liberal Party standard-bearer Benigno S. Aquino III an overwhelming mandate, better than any presidential candidate of the country in history.
One issue that created such opposing convictions was divorce in the Philippines. Well, the official position of the leadership in the Christian community is against putting into law any semblance of divorce in the country. But if you will ask Filipinos, you can hear at worst an uncertain view about the benefits of not having divorce available to couples who lost the verve of romance and warmth in their relationships. And if you mention those who had to suffer physical and mental anguish from abusive spouses, the opinion simply moves towards agreeing for a divorce at least as an escape route when pushes turn to shoves and even punches.
Certain fundamentalist Christians would surely oblige to provide the biblical passage that will support the anti-divorce Christian teaching. And yet the issue is obviously more than quoting the Scriptures. To those in the middle of a punishing marriage, reading the Scriptures might not be the best thing they wanted to do. Angry fists of a husband drunk the whole time, or the chattering wife that made each minute miserable, reading some writings, even from the Scriptures, would not be lifting to the mood or the misery, at least until the suffering lifted somehow.
The central aim in divorce remained the provision of an escape route when things turned sour, or even too sick for either spouse to go on in the marriage. The Philippine laws created legal separation to address this need, rare or common as that need might be, but with the inherent limitation towards remarriage.
What appeared confused in the desire for divorce, towards the dissolution of marriage, and the desire for remarriage was the presumption that a second marriage could guarantee that it would not end up like the first. That's a statistical impossibility. In this world where certainty towards the change that a person may become cannot be obtained, even divorce cannot guarantee a good marriage. So if that is so, why remarriage itself becomes something to look forward to after a divorce? If wedding vows cannot guarantee spousal commitment to sweat it out in changing self and becoming better to make the other happy, what was the point of making that vow in the first place.
In my view, divorce is an unnecessary law that only confuse people on what good things they can do in marriage and what wise choices they can make before entering marriage.
The better option for people who cannot commit their whole lives to the happiness of their spouse at the cost of becoming better as a person, excruciating change might be, would be to keep off from the Sacrament of Matrimony, or from legally signing a Contract of Marriage. Staying remains wiser for them. They can do what they want to do whenever they want it to. But this choice too does not have a cost. The cost of staying single is not having yourself a child of your own blood. If a person wants a child, a serious soul-searching and a painful choice between personal comfort zone and a child might have to be made because one cannot exist very well with the other. Raising a child alone is not a big joke that you can tell at your convenience. A child is a responsibility that goes beyong what we sometimes define as personal happiness simply because a child is a human being who have rights similar to their parents. And parents are responsible to protect those rights.
In the same vein, a child has the right to have a home with her father and mother living with her. And divorce will simply crush that right, although the state may provide a band-aid solution to make the situation legal.
The issue in divorce is life--the life of the children of divorcing parents. And it will be irresponsible for a parent to leave a child because the spouse made a mistake in choose who to marry at the time when the choice was made.
Another option that people can do without necessarily getting divorce into law is choosing a prospective spouse wisely before the vow of marriage is made. The person who decides in the choice had the full responsibility on the consequences of that choice. And it is cowardice and irresponsible to make the children suffer for their parents' wrong decisions in spouse selection. In this respect, the presence of divorce makes this decision something to be taken more lightly as their will be no need to make the right selection as divorce allows an escape route from any mistakes in the choice of a spouse.
Divorce, in short, is not necessary for responsible people who made better use of their freedom to choose wisely, and encourages lopsided attitude towards the responsibility of a person's choice of spouse. Simply said, if you cannot be sure that your prospective spouse will not go against you later on in marriage, then do not get married. If you are strong enough to weather the worst scenarios in the relationship, then you have the right to take the chance in marriage but you must stand by that decision as a life-long choice. That's what responsible people do. If your marriage turn out to be good, then thank God for the gift of a happy marriage. If the fortune reverses, thank God for allowing you to share His pain in Calvary. Either way is a Christian way to pursue.
Comments