In Arthur Miller’s 1949 play, Death of a Salesman, protagonist Willy Loman famously declares:
“You can’t eat the orange and throw the peel away — a man is not a piece of fruit.”
Perhaps Christian Broadcasting Network’s Rev. Pat Robertson should carefully consider those words in light of his recent advice that a man whose wife has Alzheimer’s disease should divorce her and remarry, ensuring that he provide custodial care for the useless wife. Here’s Robertson in his own words, as reported by CBS News:
(AP) Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson told his “700 Club” viewers that divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer’s is justifiable because the disease is “a kind of death.”
During the portion of the show where the one-time Republican presidential candidate takes questions from viewers, Robertson was asked what advice a man should give to a friend who began seeing another woman after his wife started suffering from the incurable neurological disorder.“I know it sounds cruel, but if he’s going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her,” Robertson said.
The chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, which airs the “700 Club,” said he wouldn’t “put a guilt trip” on anyone who divorces a spouse who suffers from the illness, but added, “Get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer.”
Most Christian denominations at least discourage divorce, citing Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Mark that equate divorce and remarriage with adultery.
Terry Meeuwsen, Robertson’s co-host, asked him about couples’ marriage vows to take care of each other “for better or for worse” and “in sickness and in health.”
“If you respect that vow, you say `til death do us part,”‘ Robertson said during the Tuesday broadcast. “This is a kind of death.”
A network spokesman said Wednesday that Robertson had no further statement.
Stunning!
But not all that surprising.
We have embraced narcissism, hedonism, and utilitarianism with an ever-tightening embrace here in the West. To be fair, I understand well the pain and suffering of people watching loved ones succumbing to this dread disease. It is a long and terrible ordeal. I simply cannot imagine going through it as a spouse after a lifetime together. That said, there is another dimension of fairness to this husband that needs to be addressed.
Having spent a lifetime together, he must have some reserves within him to honor his vows, when honoring those vows matters most. Willy Loman said it beautifully.
My dear friend and life’s mentor, Father Luke McCann, also sits in a nursing home with advanced Alzheimer’s. When I told him that I was going to propose to Regina, Luke reminded me of Loman’s quote. He cautioned against doing in mid-life what many men slide into:
“You’re getting Regina at age 23, in all of her youthful beauty and promise. You’re getting her best years of industry and energy, and she’ll bear and raise your children. When you get into your fifties, you don’t dump her for a younger model.”
Luke went on,
“Look, Gerry, nobody ever thinks on their wedding day they’re going to get divorced, and it doesn’t just happen. When it does, it’s the result of a thousand missed course corrections along the way.”
I remember that talk like it happened this morning. In a chapter that I wrote in an upcoming book, A Special Mother is Born, I discuss the toxic wasteland that became our marriage when Joseph was as yet undiagnosed with his autism and Regina and I were at one another’s throats over our differences about him. We came right to the brink of divorce, but Luke’s words screamed loud and clear in my mind, as did the vows I made on my wedding day.
Indeed, there were a thousand missed course corrections along the way, and the reconciliation for our mutual failures was a painful process.
What Robertson proposes is something orders of magnitude more ghastly than walking out on a fully functional spouse. He proposes throwing away the peel after having savored the succulence of the fruit. It’s worse than abandonment. I’m not sure there is even a word to describe it.
The vow is until death, and the meaning is clear. Death. Rigor Mortis. Burial.
Not a ‘kind’ of death.
In the Catholic Church, we have evolved a theology of suffering that many of our Protestant brethren have rejected, or don’t fully understand. Saint Paul, in Colossians 1:24 states:
“Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
Properly understood, we join our sufferings to those of Christ on the Cross to complete His suffering for the sake of the body of the Church. That extends to the body of Christ undergoing their period of purification in Purgatory, as well as for those here on earth.
Suffering perfects us as humans. It calls forth reserves of love, and helps cast our relationships in new models of understanding. It often fosters reconciliation between God and man, as well as between humans. It all depends on how we are pre-disposed to understanding and managing suffering.
When I visit Luke, there are days when he is more lucid than others. There are times when he doesn’t recognize me. I get it, regarding the pain.
None of that justifies a Minister condoning the warehousing of the old model and divorcing her to run off with the next pretty face to come along. The old man’s wife may be leading him to his perfection as a human being. To be certain it is a terrible cross to bear, but Rev. Robertson the supposed scriptural wizzard forgot this little gem from 1 Corinthians 10:13
“No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.”
We’re supposed to strengthen one another through prayer and fellowship, not confirm one another in our weakness and despair. In marriage, self-fulfillment takes a back seat to self-sacrifice. My only question for this poor fellow is this:
After a lifetime together, isn’t she worth sacrificing for?
To Reverend Robertson:
You have squandered your moral authority by making a sacred vow fungible. It’s time you left the stage. On your way out, contemplate Loman’s rebuke to you:
“You can’t eat the orange and throw the peel away — a man is not a piece of fruit.”
Sad that so many who have done so much for the Lord and people are now falling for deception. The bible says that in the end times there would be a great falling away and I’ve seen many falling horribly for the lies of the devil without any remorse. God is merciful not wanting any to perish and He is giving people time to come to His truth. But there will come a day when He will demand accountability. I pray for Pat and anyone else who is turning from truth for convenience and to follow their own way.
Truly a beautiful post Dr. Nadal. Wonderful that you and Regina made the choice to honour your vows. That is what marriage is about. It is an act of the will to live your life with someone when all the glow has worn off. I can appreciate that a child with an illness or a disability can throw a marriage off the track. Who among us can anticipate this sort of thing?
As someone who’s been thrown away, I can truly say that being discarded like a orange peel is a most humiliating, degrading experience.
When I saw this story a few days ago, I too was appalled. What is even more shocking is that Robertson didn’t seem to know the answer because he offered, ““Get some ethicist besides me to give you the answer.”
For the love of God, he needs an ethicist to tell him what in his heart he knows is wrong?
As my mama use to say, “There’s no fool like an old fool.”
I am most certainly glad Mr. Robertson that I am NOT married to you sir, and I can honestly say that I feel sorry for the woman who is.
I almost fell off my chair when I read what Robertson proposes. After all, why stop with Alzheimer’s. Makes me wonder what other diseases or physical disabilities will be added to his list as “a kind of death”. To divorce ones spouse when they are in most need is incredibly selfish and cruel. The “somebody looking after her”, should be YOU!
I know of several women whose husbands left when they had breast cancer. And in fact one of the most pitiable situations I ever sat through in a court room was when my lawyer in case before mine represented the husband in such a situation. The woman’s husband had an affair with her best friend while she was being treated for breast cancer and left her at age 58 to fend for herself. The argument in court that day saw three men arguing about whether this woman should be forced to go out to work now that she had survived the cancer and the betrayal. It was heart-rending to watch. My lawyer presented arguments for the husband but you could see his heart just wasn’t in it. He told me later he had tried so hard to reason with her husband to be more compassionate and even to return to the marriage, all to no avail.
I have to agree with Juda. It does almost feel like end times are coming sometimes.
“oh how the mighty have fallen'” seems to be such a part of it. From politicians to celebrities and even people of the Lord’s House.
I don’t want to just turn inwards but the world seems to become darker day by day.
Dr. Nadal you have quite correctly pinpointed several causes of thinking like Pat Robertson -narcissism AND the intense desire by people today to avoid any suffering at any cost even if that means abandoning family members etc.
While I always knew my parents loved each other, the greatest act of love by my father occurred when my Mom was diagnosed with Alzheimers. My dad kept her at home until he could no longer take care of her. While she was still relatively aware, she gave him permission to place her in a nursing home. When he had to take that step, he visited her every day, despite the fact that the home was 45 minutes away. He visited despite the weather, when he was sick, in all types of trying circumstances for close to two years until she passed. I will never forget his devotion. It would have been so easy not to do this but he truly felt that his vows meant something, as he told us on many occasions. Pat Robertson could have learned a lot from him.
This is more than over the top: this is preaching the anti-gospel.
Is there nobody near Robertson who can tell him he ruined his reputation already years ago with silly talk about natural disasters being divine punishment?
Might there be something different going on here? I think perhaps so.
I understand Mr. Robertson told the Alzheimer’s victim’s husband something a little different than what the Associated Press offered. My understanding of the story is that Mr. Robertson was reacting to an action against the Alzheimer’s victim. Her husband told a friend that he wanted to start dating while his wife suffered and needed his emotional companionship.
Divorce, in such a situation, might only be morally considered to protect the life of the Alzheimer’s victim from a husband already perpetuating grave sin. The motivation for an unfaithful husband to promote a hasty death so that he can ‘get on with his life’ would be strong and would offer a clear and present danger for the wife he swore to love until death.
The same news agency that gets abortion stories typically wrong may have done the same thing here.
Jim,
I saw the video, and I didn’t pick up that angle. The issue was this man’s dating for companionship. That’s the checkpoint. How ’bout fishing with a buddy?