The Inconsistency of Pat Robertson
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Those are the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9. This is what I was taught as a Catholic, that as far as life choices go, you have three paths: marriage, celibacy, or the Church. It makes sense where Christianity is concerned; fornication is a sin, therefore it’s better to stay celibate than to screw around. Robertson here thinks that the wife of the man’s friend is effectively dead, therefore he should re-marry. I personally disagree since I’m not a fan of marriage as a social norm, but within the realm of Christianity, that’s not what he should do.
Paul continues in verses 27:34:
Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this… I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
I’m not sure what Bible Pat Robertson is reading, but that’s very clear cut. Paul argues that it is better to remain celibate than to remarry, even though remarrying is technically not sinful. The problem here, though, is that the man wouldn’t be able to marry without divorcing his wife first. She is not dead, at all; her mind is deteriorating but she is not dead.
Robertson is inconsistent in what he’s saying, here. Is he suffering from Alzheimer’s? Isn’t this the same Robertson who said Michael Schiavo may have murdered his wife, arguing that pulling the feeding tube would have been “juducial murder”? Schiavo was in a much worse condition than someone with Alzheimer’s Disease. Schiavo’s mind was completely gone to the point she couldn’t communicate at all. Which is it going to be, then: should we have considered Schiavo dead as well?
I personally believe I wouldn’t want to be a mindless body. I wouldn’t want to be a living corpse as Schiavo was nor someone with Alzheimer’s. I wouldn’t want to be kept alive. At the same time, though, I know other people are different and they wouldn’t want to be euthanized. If your wife is that type of person, and you’re the husband, it’s your obligation to take care of that wife you chose to live the rest of your life with, until death – real death – parted you. You don’t sleep around, you don’t divorce her, you take care of her because even though she’s a changed woman, she is still the woman whom you chose to marry. That is the Christian thing to do.Advertisements