• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Pope Pat Robertson decrees: divorcing spouse with Alzheimer's is justifiable

As much as it pains me to agree with him, I think he's right (at least in the case of severe/late term Alzheimer's). Since he stipulated that a person should continue to care for their spouse, he's not advocating abandonment. He's saying that a person shouldn't have to go through a sort of socially forced celibacy because their spouse is, if we're being brutally honest here, dead in the way that really made them human. It's a remarkably enlightened view for him, which I can only imagine he came by completely by accident.
 
As much as it pains me to agree with him, I think he's right (at least in the case of severe/late term Alzheimer's). Since he stipulated that a person should continue to care for their spouse, he's not advocating abandonment. He's saying that a person shouldn't have to go through a sort of socially forced celibacy because their spouse is, if we're being brutally honest here, dead in the way that really made them human. It's a remarkably enlightened view for him, which I can only imagine he came by completely by accident.
Except that his belief that "Life begins at conception" is totally at odds with that...
 
In admitting that the spouse, due to a degenerative illness of the nervous system, is no longer remotely the spouse who was married. . . Isn't Robertson admitting that any sort of identity or "soul" is merely a product of the physics and chemistry of the human brain?
And if not, if Robertson still preaches that the only important "you" is defined by the soul, at what point in the process of dementia does the good preacher suggest that one no longer posesses a soul?
 
Except that his belief that "Life begins at conception" is totally at odds with that...

It's also totally at odds with the notion of a soul and the current Christian notion of marriage. In fact it's a startlingly non-Christian moral stance.

The only reasonable explanation is that he's been replaced by aliens.
 
Except that his belief that "Life begins at conception" is totally at odds with that...

Isn't it at odds with the concept of marriage as far as the church is concerned? I thought marriage was about saying your vows to God. We're going to take the bible literally but not what we say when it comes to "for better or for worse"?

Zero internal consistency when it comes to religion.
 
It's also totally at odds with the notion of a soul and the current Christian notion of marriage. In fact it's a startlingly non-Christian moral stance.

The only reasonable explanation is that he's been replaced by aliens.

Granted he's a hypocrite and often says horrible wrong things, but I guess we all agree that on the particular issue in the OP he's pretty reasonable?

I view it as him showing the compassion and humanity that almost all people have.
 
It's also totally at odds with the notion of a soul and the current Christian notion of marriage. In fact it's a startlingly non-Christian moral stance.

Considering how frequently Jesus urged his followers to give up all their possessions, I have to wonder how someone can amass wealth while claiming to spread the word of Jesus. He didn't amass wealth, in fact he spoke plainly against it. If I were a deity, I'd be pretty irritated about people claiming to speak for me and living the exact opposite of my express commands.
 
ravdin, Pope is Catholic, Robertson is Protestant. I read his view, and since I am more aligned with euthanasia for terminal diseases (Dr Jack K was right, it is a mercy) I find his position ... an attempt at compassion that was bound to rub some people the wrong way.
 
ravdin, Pope is Catholic, Robertson is Protestant. I read his view, and since I am more aligned with euthanasia for terminal diseases (Dr Jack K was right, it is a mercy) I find his position ... an attempt at compassion that was bound to rub some people the wrong way.

Well, I don't know why you said "attempt." It was compassionate.

Proposing euthanasia for alzheimer's is much more likely to rub people the wrong way, for what it is worth. Overall the disease isn't a easy issue to deal with. It's hard to figure out how to manage what amounts to more or less the slow erasure of much of what constitutes a person.
 
William Saletan at Slate has a good article discussing this, which includes the text (and context) of what Robertson said:

William Saletan said:
Here's what Robertson actually said. At the tail end of Tuesday's show, his co-host, Terry Meeuwsen, read a chat-room question from a man seeking advice. The message said:

I have a friend whose wife suffers from Alzheimer's. She doesn't even recognize him anymore, and, as you can imagine, the marriage has been rough. My friend has gotten bitter at God for allowing his wife to be in that condition, and now he's started seeing another woman. He says that he should be allowed to see other people because his wife as he knows her is gone … I'm not quite sure what to tell him.​

Meeuwsen turned to Robertson for an answer. In the video (50th minute), you can see him struggling:

That is a terribly hard thing. I hate Alzheimer's. It is one of the most awful things, because here's the loved one—this is the woman or man that you have loved for 20, 30, 40 years, and suddenly that person is gone. They're gone. They are gone. So what he says basically is correct, but—I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again. But to make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her—​

Meeuwsen interjected: "But isn't that the vow that we take when we marry someone, that it's for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer?" To this, Robertson replied,

Yeah, I know, if you respect that vow, but you say "till death do us part," this is a kind of death. So that's what he's saying, is that she's like—but this is an ethical question that is beyond my ken to tell you. But I certainly wouldn't put a guilt trip on you if you decided that you had to have companionship. You're lonely, and you're asking for some companionship, as opposed to—but what a grief. I know one man who went to see his wife every single day, and she didn't recognize him one single day, and she would complain that he never came to see her. And it's really hurtful, because they say crazy things. … It is a terribly difficult thing for somebody, and I can't fault them for wanting some kind of companionship. And if he says in a sense she is gone, he's right. It's like a walking death. But get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer, because I recognize the dilemma and the last thing I'd do is condemn you for taking that kind of action.​


After posting the text of Robertson's remarks, Saletan then discusses what Robertson said and people's reactions to it. I think Saletan's analysis of what Robertson said is quite good, and well worth reading.
 
He's saying that a person shouldn't have to go through a sort of socially forced celibacy because their spouse is, if we're being brutally honest here, dead in the way that really made them human.


A marriage is more than an agreement for sexual consort. It is a life-long commitment despite the fact that circumstances will eventually rob nearly everybody of that intimacy.

It begs the question ...

If your spouse were injured in an accident and became a quadriplegic, or suffered a stroke, or were in a coma, or encountered a number of other devastating conditions that would possibly force a state of celibacy in the marriage, would that also qualify for divorce?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom