The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) recently issued its pastoral statement on divorce. But unlike its previous statements, especially those that were issued decades ago or more, reactions to the present one are close to none. It is not that no politician would like to pick up a fight with the bishops. On the contrary, it seems that the CBCP is losing influence. 

I have read the statement myself. Unhesitatingly, I must say that it lacks appeal. It is a downgrade in terms of intensity compared to past hierarchical statements. In trying to be pastoral, the authors view the situation through different prisms. Sadly, this for me is a factor in why something is lacking and unclear in the message. I can sense that the bishops have said “something,” but they have not truly said “everything.”

After all, what should the bishops’ statement accomplish in its bare minimum? Foremost, it should send a clear message on where the Church stands on an issue. Second, for Catholics who seriously abide by the Church’s moral teaching, it must reawaken their moral energy and deepen their understanding on the issue. Third, for Catholics and non-Catholics who do not agree with the Church, it must put forward a reasoned discourse, engaging enough to be “taken seriously” even by critics. Some, if not many, pastoral letters and statements in the 80s and 90s enjoy this. Now, no more.     

There are many points in the statement that may be explored and discussed to validate my contention.  But let me highlight two items: first, on Church and state relations, and second, on what the letter says that “not all marriages are joined by God.”

Let me begin with the letter’s take on Church and state relations. 

The bishops are correct in highlighting that “we do have religious freedom in this country, and we uphold the principle of separation of church and state.” This statement may be valid, but its repetition is unnecessary. That the Church is advancing its steps on legislation, is enough of an assertion that the issue of “separation” is immaterial in this whole enterprise. 

As a Catholic, I may not agree with my Church in some of its views on moral issues.  But I would rather have a Church that is passionate about taking responsibility for its actions and positions. In the context of a pluralistic society like the Philippines, there is no need for the Church to be apologetic in its political participation. Following John Rawls’ position, I’d rather have a Church participate in the democratic process on the condition that its propositions are stated in a manner that is understandable within the context of public reason. 

By saying that “the Church is in no position to dictate on the state what is best for Filipino families,” the bishops appear defensive and ambivalent. The disclaimers weaken that statement. Although it is not the first time that the bishops used a disclaimer in a pastoral statement or letter, the bishops would mostly justify or qualify its pastoral and moral competence in the sociopolitical sphere. 

In the area of marriage and sexuality, the CBCP was, in the past, more assertive of its political role. The 2011 letter titled “Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill” speaks with conviction of the Church’s place and role in the country’s political life.  Its opening statement is even a citation from the Constitution, justifying the same by arguing that the bishops are not just asserting based on Catholic religious teachings but because they “intend to write… on the basis of the fundamental ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people.”

Compared to the current letter on divorce, the bishops took a more aggressive stand on its political role in its 1997 “Pastoral Statement on Charter Change” and the 2004 “Pastoral Letter on Philippine Elections.” The 2012 letter of Archbishop Socrates Villegas was politically strategic in calling Filipinos to pray for their congressmen and women to be faithful to their call to serve the true interests of the Filipino people. The title in fact of the letter was a political statement: “Contraception is corruption.”

An earlier letter on divorce was issued in 2018. It wasn’t apologetic for the Church’s participation in the political and legal discussion. It justified its discourse by resorting to the idea of public reason as essential in a democracy. 

As it stated: “No doubt, those who associate divorce with being progressive would laud our legislators who are currently raring to pass a divorce bill in Congress. With due respect to them, we beg them to make room for more reasoned debates on the issue.”

The bishops need not say “that they are in no position….” They also need not mention the worn-out issue of separation. All they need to say is that “they want to say something loud, clear, and categorical…” But what is it? This brings us to my second point.

The statement does not tell the faithful what the bishops (or the Magisterium) teach on marriage and divorce. Is it still the case that only Church marriage is what is considered “blessed by God”? Is the Church through the bishops therefore saying that Catholic marriage is superior (ontologically so to speak) to civil weddings? There is a line in the letter which says that “We know that our stubborn assertion that a genuine marriage cannot be dissolved, is not necessarily shared by all religions; and we respect that.” But before the bishops talk about respect, they must first tell us the official position of the Church on non-Catholic marriages. In trying to be polite, the hierarchy talks vaguely. 

Sadly, despite its statement on respect for the position of other religions, the slip shows with the statement “Not all marriages are joined by God.” This should raise eyebrows, and more so with the line “we also believe that not all couples who are married have been ‘joined together by God.'”

Here, both Catholics and non-Catholics can question the bishops, who are we to say that non-Catholic marriages are not joined by God? For a statement that is “pastoral,” the claim runs the risk of at least implicitly categorizing marriages contracted in other religions or Christian sects as without divine blessing. It sounds presumptuous. No one knows for certain the extent or limit of God’s blessing. Grace after all abounds wherever human goodness abounds.  Goodness, sincerity, and love are not “exclusively” Christian more so Catholic. 

For Catholics who prefer that their Church stand up for its convictions, the letter lacks force and clarity.  For those who remember how the bishops fought the RH bill in the past, the current discourse does not exhibit the same fighting spirit. For Catholics who are convinced that divorce is needed, what we got from the bishops is a lukewarm conciliatory piece. In other words, the bishops are not taking a stand, and, as the tone of the letter suggests, they are as confused or as divided as their people. 

At the onset, I said that reactions to the present letter are close to “none.” The bishops may perhaps consider giving us another letter. – Rappler.com

Rhoderick John S. Abellanosa is a founding member of the Cebu Theological Forum. He is currently a graduate student of the Department of Philosophy of the University of San Carlos where he is enrolled in its doctoral program.