34-75-77. The number brings to mind São Paulo telephone numbers or car license plates from ten years ago. That’s not what it’s about. These are three significant dates in the parliamentary history of the indissolubility of marriage: 1934, a resounding success; 1975, a defense secured by a feat of bravery; 1977, divorce! For my part, I would dare to add another stage to these three: in 1978, is divorce still a possibility?
The precept of the indissolubility of the marital bond was introduced into the Brazilian Constitution in 1934. I had the joy and honor of being among the most enthusiastic fighters for this great Catholic victory as a representative of the Catholic Electoral League in the “Single Ticket for a United São Paulo.” The late Cardinal Sebastião Leme fought for it with sagacity and commitment, supported by many congressmen elected by the LEC throughout Brazil. He led us all to success by coordinating and encouraging us.
This was in 1934… Cardinal Leme was at the head of the national episcopate. In Brazil, LEC was bursting with vitality. There is no longer a Cardinal Leme. Nor is there a LEC. The glorious conquest of indissolubility has fallen to the ground like a ring slipping from a withered finger. A wound has opened where the ring once was: divorce.
That being the case, is divorce inevitable? In theory, no. Although the constitutional amendment on divorce has been approved, it cannot be enforced without one or more ordinary laws governing the matter. In turn, the application of these laws will likely be ineffective without executive branch regulation. Thus, President Ernesto Geisel can leave divorce unenforced until the 1978 elections through a majority vote of the Arena party, over which he has natural influence, or by exercising powers inherent in the presidency.
His Excellency has insisted on remaining neutral in the debate on this issue. It seems to me that he would demonstrate a desirable level of refinement in his neutrality by suspending this measure’s implementation to listen to the Brazilian people and leave the final verdict to them.
In a telegram to all archbishops and bishops in Brazil, the great bishop of Campos, Antônio de Castro Mayer, noted that the issue of divorce was not included in the programs or electoral promises of almost all current members of Congress. When electing them, the people did not know whether they were sending a pro-divorce or an anti-divorce advocate to the legislature. It is therefore difficult to argue that Congress’s opinion accurately reflects the people’s in this particular case.
That said, why not wait for the 1978 elections, already looming on the political horizon?
If the President does not wish to exercise his powers, there remains one recourse to prevent the divorce from becoming effective. It consists of Congress refraining from passing one or more ordinary laws to regulate the matter. The drafting of the relevant ordinary legislation is not subject to any deadline. If the members of the legislature wish to submit their decision, as representatives of the people, to the people’s judgment, they need only let time pass until the next elections. It would be a beau geste, in the force of the expression, one that would become famous in the world history of representative government.
This noble gesture would be particularly appropriate, given that the battle over divorce has been full of surprises. This has prevented public opinion from freely expressing itself on the subject.
Two characteristics effectively distinguish the debates on divorce in 1975 and 1977.
In 1975, the pro-divorce offensive was clear, boisterous, and effervescent. It thus prompted a similar reaction from those opposed to divorce. In 1977, by contrast, the divorce bill progressed quietly through almost all its stages, leading one to expect its defeat. The parliamentary quorum was modest in view of the approaching mid-year recess. It seemed likely that the bill would fail for lack of numbers. But suddenly, almost at the last minute, unexpected congressmen flocked in from all corners of the country. The majority were pro-divorce. And the certainty that many had that divorce would not pass turned into cruel disappointment.
I never had that certainty. In a statement published by the TFP in the open section of Folha and in the daily press throughout Brazil, urging pro-divorce congressmen to spare our country the trauma of such a major change precisely at this difficult time we are going through, I made this prudent reservation about the prospects for the future:
“What is political news today will be history tomorrow. The most celebrated historians agree that the role of unforeseen events and chance occurrences—so often independent of the will of those who participate in the great struggles of public life—frequently alters the predictable course of events.
“Paradoxically, it sometimes changes with particular ease precisely because it was expected. In other words, since everyone trusted that events would unfold in a certain way, many measures necessary to ensure that outcome are omitted or carried out half-heartedly, precisely because they are considered superfluous. This allows the unexpected to enter the fray and change the outcome of the fight.”
That is what happened.
But it is worth noting another difference—so characteristic of the times we live in—between the struggle of 1975 and that of 1977. In 1975, although the risk of approving divorce legislation was clear, the CNBB acted with discretion bordering on apathy. In the leaderless anti-divorce ranks, Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer issued his famous Pastoral Letter “For Indissoluble Marriage,” which was eagerly received by the public. TFP members and volunteers sold 100,000 copies of it in public squares over a two-month period. It was a ray of light, a ray of life, not death, that electrified and revived the discouraged anti-divorce opinion. The divorce amendment failed to obtain the required number of votes under the Constitution.
In 1977, by contrast, the CNBB entered the fray, but only half-heartedly. It wielded the anti-divorce banner with one arm while the other hung comfortably by its side. Was this due to a desire not to ignite the fight and thereby avoid an influx of pro-divorce congressmen to Brasilia? Many people in the anti-divorce ranks who rendered many services to the cause of indissolubility felt this way about the situation, presumably in agreement with figures in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
What to do then? How could we, outsiders, take a high-impact initiative in unfamiliar territory, assuming responsibility for the eventual influx of absent congressmen to Brasilia? From what has happened, it is now clear that this influx would have occurred anyway, so no action would have caused or prevented it. In any case, those who carried it out would have been blamed for the defeat of marital indissolubility. In fact, in the roll call vote, the pro-divorce congressmen made it clear they were determined to face the risk of electoral damage as long as divorce was approved.
Was this risk really so great in the 1978 elections? Since the CNBB had only half-heartedly entered the fray in 1977, when indissolubility could still be saved, would it have been reasonable to expect it to fight harder in 1978?
The CNBB has the means to mobilize the Catholic electorate to vote only for anti-divorce candidates in the upcoming elections. Do the congressmen who oppose divorce have many reasons to expect this? Given this background, I doubt it. Do pro-divorce congressmen have many reasons to fear it? I doubt it, too.
These questions would not have escaped the sagacity of the congressmen even before the divorce bill was approved.
* * *
These were the predictions and the climate that CNBB’s apathy had already produced by the time of the divorce vote. In 1977, in such a climate, what “silver bullet” could prevent divorce? Reissuing Bishop Mayer’s Pastoral Letter, which had become well known to the general public, would inevitably give the impression of “déjà vu.” Coming out with another publication saying the same thing? With what impact on the public?
Indeed, circumstances had changed, and with them the environment. More specifically, in 1975, the banner was on the ground, and it was time to pick it up and carry it forward with vigor. That’s what was done. In 1977, it was in CNBB’s weak hands…
At any rate, these musings are part of historical reflection. Let us look to the future.
What will happen? Can we, anti-divorce advocates, count on the beau geste I mentioned? Time will tell.
* * *
In addition to the divorce issue, today I was to address Mexico’s closure of its doors to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and rumors, later denied, of a similar event in Argentina. However, divorce has consumed all my time and space, filling my heart with sadness. So, in the next article, I will analyze the Mexican government’s gesture, which I would in no way describe as a beau geste.
