Divorce bill in the offing? You wish, says Philippine Catholic Church

After the contentious Reproductive Health bill, here comes another suggestion---the Divorce bill. House speaker Sonny Belmonte and Senator Pia Cayetano are leading the charge, while Malacanang clarified that the divorce bill is simply "out of their radar".

Why the two? Belmonte is a widower, and continues to be very loyal to his deceased partner while Cayetano is a "divorcee" or in our parlance, " a beneficiary of an annulment." These two probably have their own reasons why they favor a divorce law, and I hope it is not because of religious belief. Belmonte and Cayetano must have realized that divorce is a solution to the ever-growing social phenomenon that is "living in" or "conjugal living" or the ever increasing incidence of un-happy marriages.

Should these two pursue such a bill, then, it would be the beginning of the end of Catholic influence in this country. With the passage of the RH bill, it countermanded a pillar of Catholic dogma which is respect and protection of the unborn. Now, with the divorce bill, the sanctity of marriage according to Roman Catholic religious dogma would be put at risk.

And to think that Bishop Tagle is purportedly a very strong contender to replace Pope Pius and the Philippines as one of the staunchest defenders of the Catholic faith. Outside of Rome, the Philippines stands as the only country with majority of their population as Catholic believers. How would these civil laws be interpreted by the Church?

In some Latin American countries, the Catholic church is considered a strong political force. Sometimes, the Church took part in destabilizing moves against governments which diametrically oppose Catholic doctrine. In countries such as Argentina, Venezuela, Brazil and Ecuador, the Church even went so far as supporting coups and in some instances, supporting dictators.

The CBCP call for its believers not to follow the RH bill is a veritable insurrectionist call. Had it been that a political group issued such a statement, it would have been interpreted as "destabilizing" and "revolutionary".