WOULD IT BE TOO IDEALISTIC AND THEREFORE UNREALISTIC TO HAVE MARRIAGE VOWS FOR “BETTER OR FOR WORSE,” FOR “RICHER OR FOR POORER,” IN “SICKNESS AND IN HEALTH.” UNTIL “DEATH” DO THE SPOUSES PART?
To say “yes!” to this question is contrary to the salient fact of millions of successful marriages that were entered into with these indivisible and indissoluble vows across the centuries—compared to the number of “broken marriages.”
To say “yes!” to this question is to ultimately get married for convenience, viz., marrying only for the “better”, for “richer”, in “health”. Otherwise, marriage becomes inconvenient and the couple concerned should get rid of it.
To say “yes!” to this question is to openly and clearly explain to every child born of the marital union that he/she has but temporary parents, has but also temporary family.
IS IT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE PROPOSED ABSOLUTE DIVORCE LEGISLATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHURCH, AND THAT THE CHURCH SHOULD THEREFORE NOT INTERVENE IN THE MATTER?
Since when did the Church concern herself only with “churchy” matters, simply with Catholics, merely with Church marriage? The obligations of parents, the rights of children, the stability of society are valuable realities irrespective of race, color and creed.
When couples would violate their marriage commitment, when parents would renounce their care for the family they brought into being, when children would grow in a confused and confusing domestic environ—which absolute divorce infallible causes—the Church may not pretend to see nothing, say nothing and do nothing, whether those concerned are Catholics or not. The Church is obliged to say and uphold the truth that marriages are sacred and inviolable, irrespective of the religion of those concerned.
WOULD IT BE INCONGRUOUS TO ASK WHY SO MUCH IS BEING OPTED AND PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY ON HOW TO REMEDY “BROKEN MARRIAGES” WHICH PRACTICALLY NOTHING IS SAID AND PROPOSED TO STRENGHTEN MARRIAGES AND PREVENT MARRIAGE FAILURES?
Should very young people be allowed to marry and thus commit themselves to a very adult, serious and permanent way of life such as marriage? Physiologically tender, psychologically unprepared, emotionally unstable and usually financially incapable, are they ready for marriage?
Should people—specially men—even if they be advanced in age, be allowed to get married if they have no regular jobs, no viable means of livelihood, and in fact unable even to support themselves?
Should physical and especially mental health, psychological stability and emotional maturity be simply left to presumption when people want to get married? Should there not be even but a minimum of check on these very basic personality features, upon which the success or failure of marriage by and large depends?
4. Post Marriage
Should those already married be simply left to themselves to live their conjugal life, to raise their children, to maintain their means of living, and the like? Would there be no legislation on family guidance and counseling, on family housing, family wages?
5. Broken Marriages
Is absolute divorce the one and only answer to broken marriages? And if it is claimed that absolute divorce after all is not compulsory but only for those who want it, then the argument can be said that the legalization of bigamy and/or polygamy is all right, after all it is not mandatory and only for those desirous of practicing it.
To date the Philippines is already beset with many serious social liabilities such as wide-spread poverty, proliferation of crimes, apparently futile search for peace and order—not to mention the loosing fight against drugs, gambling, prostitution and AIDS, to mention but a few. There are also broken families where the ultimate victims are the children who are either abandoned, made pawns and/or made the origin of fights between the spouses, particularly so when these already go to the Civil Court for redress that usually proves very unpleasant if not even actually very traumatic for the little ones.
The approval of the divorce legislation in the country will simply add more socio-moral problems and legal difficulties to our already seriously problematic situation. It is not enough to say that the legislature approves it even by an “overwhelming majority”. What is intrinsically moral or immoral is never simply subject to majority rule—as if what is fundamentally wrong ipso facto becomes basically right by the voice of the majority.
Would our legislators then subject to debate—for legislation purposes—if there is or there is no God, if the Commandments should be made more or less, if the Gospel and/or the Koran is right or wrong?!
10 June 2011