# Pat Robertson and Alzheimer's. Is this a GD or a Pit? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 16, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466 "2011-09-16T02:36:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2011, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/41 "2011-09-19T14:14:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The “this saying” refers to the same thing the disciples meant when they said “such”. It refers to the teaching that divorce is always wrong. You are correct that Jesus starts talking about a celibate life, but He does so to explain the reason why the prohibition on divorce is not absolute - because not everyone is called to a celibate life. > > Since not everyone is capable of life-long celibacy, marriage is the alternative. And “this saying” - the teaching that divorce is always wrong - is not given to everyone either. Gotta admit, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone come up with this interpretation of this passage. And I think it’s quite a stretch from the text. The Roman Catholic Church, which doesn’t hold with divorce, would certainly disagree with that interpretation. Not that I’m a big fan of the RCC, but they did define orthodox interpretation of Scripture during Christianity’s first 14 centuries. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2011, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/42 "2011-09-19T14:47:01Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Here’s a question for the legal-minded among us: _How can the husband obtain a divorce from the Alzheimer’s inflicted wife?_ Doesn’t a court require that both parties be mentally capable? The court can appoint a guardian to represent the afflicted spouse. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/43 "2011-09-19T16:26:19Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Well, he IS damned either way, isn’t he? He can either respond to this dilemma by thundering, “THIS IS THE WORD OF THE LORD!!” or he can respond like a human being. The problem is, responding like a human being ought, is in direct conflict with his decades of being a “this is the Word of the Lord!!” thunderer. > > The only way out for Pat is to acknowledge the conflict, and repudiate his past. Or vanish in a puff of logic. That would be nice, too. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/44 "2011-09-19T16:35:08Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Or vanish in a puff of logic. That would be nice, too. Pat apparently took a lifetime vow to stay far away from logic at all times, so chances of his encountering a puff of logic are vanishingly 😉 small. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2011, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/45 "2011-09-19T22:32:15Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The court can appoint a guardian to represent the afflicted spouse. In a divorce? Sorry, but I’d have to see some citation to the law before I’d believe that. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/46 "2011-09-20T01:45:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The “this saying” refers to the same thing the disciples meant when they said “such”. It refers to the teaching that divorce is always wrong. You are correct that Jesus starts talking about a celibate life, but He does so to explain the reason why the prohibition on divorce is not absolute - because not everyone is called to a celibate life. > > Since not everyone is capable of life-long celibacy, marriage is the alternative. And “this saying” - the teaching that divorce is always wrong - is not given to everyone either. > > So life-long celibacy is not for everyone, and neither is life-long marriage. Life-long celibacy is the ideal, and everyone who can should aspire to it, but some won’t make it. I think I agree with the other **RT**. My reading of the point is that, certainly, Jesus is saying that a celibate life isn’t for everyone (I seem to recall someone else citing me a similar statement from Paul as far as celibacy being the ideal and marriage a “because it’s not in everyone” sentiment). But I don’t agree with your reading on divorce. For one thing, I think it’s a bit of a torturous reading simply in text terms. But also, it means that divorce is allowable in some cases because there are people who simply aren’t called to lifelong matrimony - which seems essentially equivalent to saying that some people are, by nature, adulterers, or (to use the passage’s phrasing) comitters of sexual immorality, and what’s more that some leeway should be given for such people, which seems surprising. Perhaps it’s just a misunderstanding on my part of Christian attitudes, but I wouldn’t expect someone to get an inbuilt out (other than, of course, repentance) from a situation they got themselves into. If nothing else, are there any other examples of a situation where people simply aren’t “built” for something and so get an out when they enter into it anyway? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2011, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/47 "2011-09-20T06:30:59Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > In a divorce? Sorry, but I’d have to see some citation to the law before I’d believe that. Most jurisdictions allow the court to appoint a guardian for mentally incapacitated individuals. This [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_guardian) article cites to a section of the Virginia code: > [@](#): > > Guardians ad litem can be appointed by the court to represent the interests of mentally ill or disabled persons. The Code of Virginia requires that the court appoint a “discreet and competent attorney-at-law” or “some other discreet and proper person” to serve as Guardian ad litem to protect the interests of a person under a disability. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2011, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/48 "2011-09-20T07:21:38Z")
I understand that a court can appoint someone to act for a mentally incompetent person. What I’m questioning is does the law extend that interest to a divorce case? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2011, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/49 "2011-09-20T08:31:42Z")
It’s not my area of law, but it appears that it extends to divorce cases in California at least: California Family Code Section [2332(b)](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=50750813876+3+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve): > [@](#): > > If the insane spouse has no guardian or conservator, or if the > spouse filing the petition is the guardian or conservator of the > insane spouse, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem, who may > be the district attorney or the county counsel, if any, to defend and > protect the interests of the insane spouse. If a district attorney > or county counsel is appointed guardian ad litem pursuant to this > subdivision, the successor in the office of district attorney or > county counsel, as the case may be, succeeds as guardian ad litem, > without further action by the court or parties. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2011, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/50 "2011-09-20T12:00:41Z")
Say, anyone remember Pat’s position on the Terry Schaivo case? She _was_ really gone, but many folks criticised her husband for his outside relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2011, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466/51 "2011-09-20T12:27:18Z")
> [@Typo\_Knig](#): > > Say, anyone remember Pat’s position on the Terry Schaivo case? She _was_ really gone, but many folks criticised her husband for his outside relationship. All I remember is that Robertson was strongly opposed to Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube being removed. But if he did criticize her husband Michael for taking up with another woman while still legally married to Terri, that would be perfectly consistent with his position here. He said “if he’s going to do something [with other women], he should divorce her [wife with Alzheimer’s] and start all over again”. Michael Schiavo didn’t divorce Terri. Robertson probably would have been happier if he had, if only because Michael Schiavo would have had no legal right to call for the feeding tube to be removed from his _ex_-wife. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-and-alzheimers-is-this-a-gd-or-a-pit/596466.md?page=2)