Restructuring Marriage in the Age of Relativism
July 1, 2010 by Elizabeth Scalia
As it brings into focus a personal drama whose choices have previously been discreetly private–-and perhaps filtered through the shifting sands of social thought and a general preference to keep it that way–-a recent feature on CBS’ Sunday Morning is raising questions in the public square which were formerly unthinkable: if a vowed relationship changes in character due to illness, may one of the partners redefine the scope of those vows, in order to fully–-as the partner describes it–-”embrace life” and “go on,” within it.
That is the question correspondent Barry Petersen poses to society, as he files his own wrenching and personal story.
That video was posted without comment at First Things. As my blog readers are a mostly Catholic or Evangelical Christian, with a smattering of practicing Jews, agnostics, non-religious atheists (as opposed to the proselytizing fundamentalist sorts) and a pagan or two, I was very curious as to how they would respond.
The answer is: thoughtfully and with a great deal of compassion. Almost to a person, the reactions to this piece were empathetic; people who are themselves in loving relationships identified deeply with Barry Petersen’s pain. Some immediately endorsed his choice, others–while sympathetic to his plight–suggested that if the marriage vows, “for better, for worse; in sickness and in health” were meaningful, they should preclude Petersen from seeking out another companion (and inserting her as a sort of third partner to the marriage in this “very peculiar new American family”) or they meant nothing at all.
Between the lines of combox chatter, however one reads an undercurrent of anxiety: many people seemed to understand why Petersen made his choice–and they sensed that he did not do so lightly–but wished he had not done it, just the same. These comments seemed almost depressed, as though the writers had hoped to be inspired and challenged by a heroic tale of self-sacrifice, and thereby reassured that post-modern humans are still capable of transcending their own needs for the sake of a vow, or for an ideal, or for idyllic love. Many of them shared stories of family members or friends who had faced a trial similar to Petersen’s and had chosen differently.
Because social norms, once adopted, rarely evolve upward, some wondered if a too-ready acceptance of Petersen’s choice might encourage others to abandon not just mentally “absent” spouses, but those dealing with chronic illnesses, as well, thereby further unraveling an already strained institution.
Petersen’s report has clearly stirred waters we might prefer be stilled. His wife’s early-onset Alzheimer’s may be unusual, but Petersen makes the point that our longer modern lifespans mean more of us will be facing the possibility of our physically present spouses mentally “going away.”
What will that mean for marriage? Does a woman’s being what one commenter described as a “mentally dead to [her husband]” create a sort of post-modern widower, free to pursue other relationships as long as he sees to his afflicted partner’s well-being?
PAGES:»
Patheos Site Admin
Fr. Emile "Mike" Boutin
Zalmoxis
K. Mulhern
From the Pews in the Back
Kathy Coffey
Blog Admin
Guest
Tim Muldoon
Elizabeth Scalia
Shu-Fy
rjs
Pat Gohn
For reasons I never understood, my sister never married her life-long companion. Their level of commitment, however, was something to behold. When he came down with Legionaires disease, she was at his side throughout the ordeal, mostly fighting with the people who were supposed to be caring for him to get them to do their jobs. When she came down with Alzheimer’s, he did the same for her. They were in it for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, as long as they both should live. She’s gone now, and every time I see him he tells me how much he misses her. She may have been absent mentally for a time, but she was his and he was hers until the Lord saw fit to release her. I pray I can do as well.
I have had time to think about it. I feel compassion for Jan and for Barry, but I can’t help but wonder if producing that video was a plea asking that we accept his decision as much as it was (or possibly more) an effort to raise awareness of the cruelties of early onset Alzheimer’s. It’s hard to bear a burden alone. But is it necessary to go beyond a platonic friendship?
Does romance become more important where once there was a place in more hearts and minds for God?
It is depressing.
Barry didn’t ask for hero status and he doesn’t owe that to anyone. But he does owe his wife fidelity to their marriage vows.
There are a lot of people in this world who live similar lives and just quietly go about their business.
The very public nature of this story seems more of an attempt to assuage guilt than anything.
I hope and pray to remain faithful to my marriage vows until death. And I trust God’s grace will support and strengthen me.
Mr. Peterson’s choice was not the right one, because, as you point out, it is self-centered. Love is about “us” not “me.”
When your spouse has Alzheimers, does marriage deserve an “individual” idea of what it all means?
Do you mean, a unique idea of what constitutes a marriage?
I don’t think so.
Just change the words: When your spouse has cancer/paraplegia/nasty relatives/blond hair/, does marriage deserve…
Maybe that’s not what you meant.
My only point here is that the worst thing in the world is not having to look after your spouse when things go south. There are many worse things.
Like Billy Joel says – “I took the good times, I’ll take the bad times. I love you just the way you are.”
Being a member of the LDS faith, I believe that marriage and family are ordained by God. You can no more restructure or redefine marriage than you can change the eternal truths that have been since before the world was.
What I see so often is people looking at the changed times we live in and trying to make up values that fit to what they want all in the name of the old stuff not applying anymore. If that were true, then there would be no reason to read the bible or history books. But it is not true. Facts and circumstances may change, but truths and values don’t. (That’s why we have a Supreme Court to INTERPRET the Constitution for our day. Not change it.)
My father suffered from Alzheimers and though it was not early onset, it was early enough that if affected his practice of law and at the time (70s-80s) not readily diagnosable. My mother “could” have, I suppose, chosen Peterson’s path, but such a thought would never have entered her mind. She loved him and that’s all there was to it. She took most of his care single-handedly and wouldn’t even consider outside help until she ended up with pneumonia and had to agree to have someone in to give her a hand and the ability to leave the house without worrying about my dad. She, like most of her generation, believed that one plays the hand one is dealt and gets on with it and that vows taken are more important than our definition of self and our needs. I sympathize with anyone in such a situation, but, unfortunately, the other person involved can’t tell us what her “choice” is.
I just joined Patheos, and wanted to stop by and place my first post here. I think this is going to be an awesome place to learn more about my faith, as well as many other things. Good luck on being the Patheos “gate-keeper”!
Perhaps, whether we like it or not, there will be two forms of marriage in the U.S.: secular and sacramental. While I reject Peterson’s decision for myself, it’s hard for me to think I could hold someone without Christian faith and understanding to the standard to which I hope and pray I could follow in similar circumstances.
Let’s face it. Many couples write their own “vows”. So, I suppose, in a sense they are marrying themselves rather than being married by the Church. So, from the beginning it’s a “marriage as I define it.”
Judith (Comment #9) We already have “civil” and “sacramental” marriages in the US but my emphasis on the sacramental understanding is due to the Catholic identity of this portal. There are valid arguments in favor further specifying the sacramental or secular nature of a marriage, (and I have made them for years) and taking the churches out of the business of legalizing marriages. They don’t issue birth certificates or death certificates; let’s let the civil authorities keep to the civil matters, and the church officiate at the sacramentals.
And yes, in truth, couples bestow their vows (and the sacrament) upon each other. Not the priest, or minister or whatever.
That does not, however, automatically mean that the couples may determine what a marriage is in “their” eyes, unless the unless relativism really has taken over, completely. When marriage reaches the point that it can be “individually defined” it will no longer have any definition at all, don’t you think?
The really ugly side of this situation, which has not appeared yet but certainly may in the future, will be when the new girl friend objects to the cost of the care for the wife, either in money or in time commitment. As shown in the video, that does not appear to be a problem, but after some length of time, months, years, whatever, the husband is likely to hear, “we deserve more money/time for ourselves” and then what will he do? The three way arrangement is already morally wrong, and that is where it becomes impossible on the practical side.
I wish he hadn’t done it.
And, I think it is objectively against the moral law.
Indeed, I think the fact that I (and so many others) “wish he hadn’t done it” is instructive. As the video proceeds, one is shocked to find that he has taken up with another woman. I think that shock comes from a moral intuition which is both provided by the Holy Spirit and yet natural to man.
Likewise, a Catholic blogger — I think it was the Anchoress, but I don’t recall for certain — once spoke of the reaction of her son when she had, finally, to explain what abortion was. The boy burst into tears of disbelief and outrage and grief and said something like, “What IDIOT thought THAT up?”
A correct moral intuition, that. I takes a lot of societal propaganda, to erase those natural reactions from a healthy human heart.
So too with the current parade of publicized homosexuality (plus alternative perversions). The healthy human person has a natural aversion to such things. So the world, the flesh, and the devil conspire to propagandize against this moral intuition, to wipe it out, to anesthetize it, to kill it. Yet Chesterton says: “Let any lad who has had the luck to grow up sane and simple in his day-dreams of love hear for the first time of the cult of the Ganymede; he will not be merely shocked, but sickened. And that first impression, as has been said here so often about first impressions, will be right.”
So, moral intuitions can help us identify the objective truths of the moral law. But this is difficult when our society propagandizes against the moral law, and thus confuses and clouds and drowns out these intuitions.
It is for this reason that Barry Petersen was largely morally guiltless in doing it. Although it is objectively against the moral law, our society has done an excellent job propagandizing the populace against the contents of the moral law with regards to sexuality and marriage and duty and fidelity and the notion that life is not, after all, solely about our personal temporal gratification. And that kind of pervasive propaganda is difficult to disregard when one never or rarely hears alternative voices.
Thus, while Petersen probably had distant stirrings of unease in his soul about the choice, they were quite likely drowned out in a confident understanding, shared by all balanced and sensible persons, that his actions were acceptable.
Lacking, then, any clear mandate to do otherwise, he began a romantic relationship with someone other than his wife. He was doing something entirely morally permissible, according to the light he was given — once that light had filtered its way through the smog of Western Civilization’s decay into moral relativism.
One of the benefits of churchgoing is that when we “lift up our hearts,” we lift them above the general level of that smog. (Mostly. Sometimes, sadly, a lot of fog emanates from pulpits and ambos and lecterns.) C.S.Lewis said that Christians in this fallen world are living in occupied territory, but that we go to church to “listen to secret wireless messages from our friends outside” …as we wait in joyful hope for the True King to come in, armies in tow and banners aflying, to destroy the usurper and rid the place up.
Anyway, whether it is by increased altitude or encoded radio messages, we get beyond the propaganda through contact with the truth.
Has Petersen had any such contact? Maybe, maybe not. But if he hasn’t, then I can’t hold him very much at fault. He doesn’t know; he can’t know. It’s like being raised in Orwell’s 1984 under Big Brother. If you never meet anyone who doesn’t think 2+2=5, then over time, it’s hard to maintain the stubborn belief that it’s 4. If Petersen has never heard of sacramental marriage, explained by people who can articulate it well and take it seriously, what then?
“If I had not spoken to them, they would have no guilt; I have spoken to them: Their guilt remains” said Jesus. The principle seems pretty clear.
When your spouse has Alzheimers, does marriage deserve an "individual" idea of what it all means? http://bit.ly/cXaurZ
RT @patheos: Restructuring Marriage in the Age of Relativism #patheos #Catholic http://bit.ly/cXaurZ
RT @TheAnchoress: When your spouse has Alzheimers, does marriage deserve an "individual" idea of what it all means? http://bit.ly/cXaurZ
I keep thinking of the book/movie “The Notebook.”
Elizabeth:
Pity is such a powerful means of deception that the “appeal to pity” is enumerated in most compilations of logical fallacies.
For instance, pity of women pregnant with kids outside of marriage (unwanted) or the children of rape or incest was used to legalize abortion.
Generally speaking, when someone says “pity me!”, they have an agenda.
Marriage in an age of relativism? You’re a bit late to the party. Google Marriage 2.0, or better yet, read this small complaint from a feminist and then the comments schooling her in the way the world really works:
http://divorcesupport.about.com/b/2009/07/10/marriage-2-0.htm
Relativism is a way of looking at the world. But the source of all sin is the same: pride, lust, selfishness, envy, greed, gluttony, and wrath. What has destroyed marriage is a loosening of the ability to engage in those sins in the confines of legal structure of marriage, in order to systematically destroy people and specifically men.
Outside of a traditionalist culture like Catholicism, in which there is a HOPE and a PRAYER (but not a guarantee) for Marriage 1.0, no well informed American man is going to get married anymore.
Must read. Redefining marriage, is changing the vows ok if a spouse gets sick? http://bit.ly/ca1k0d #catholic
» Restructuring Marriage in the Age of Relativism Summa This …: For the Catholic, Sacramental Marriage is both a… http://bit.ly/ddAFq5
RT @patheos: Restructuring Marriage in the Age of Relativism #patheos #Catholic http://bit.ly/ca1k0d
A couple items…
First and foremost, congratulations to you, Elizabeth on your appointment here at Patheos. This is my first time here, but I’ve been a big fan of yours over at First Things for over a year now and feel blessed in having stumbled across you and your writings. (Big h/t to Hot Air, Ace and Jim Hoft for pointing me in your direction.) The Catholic section here is in good hands.
To be honest, reading some of the comments over there,(and here as well) is a bit intimidating. The turns-of-phrase and overall grasp of such transcendental issues are impressive and enviable. So much to learn…but I have faith that the pursuit is a blessed experience in and of itself.
A big +100 to RC. His comments lend much to the discussion overall, as I see it. The overarching issue is the moral relativism that feeds the decision making process of Mr. Petersen, giving him a perceived mandate to usurp his vows. While there is certainly room for mercy, as Alzheimers is a terrible fate, re-defining your commitment to your spouse based on illness seems to be directly addressed in the vows. This sounds like the same argument being used by leftists to re-interpret the “living,breathing Constitution”. I can only imagine the shock (and disgust?) if Mrs. Petersen were to have a few lucid moments and realize the new reality of her “marriage”.
Mr.Petersen presents a compelling case for our consumption, but I believe he needs to be more concerned about what has already been decided by a Higher Authority. Alas, his decision appears to have been made based on his “needs” and with disregard to what comes after. We can only pray for him and hope he reconsiders.
Count me as one of the “wouldn’t have done it” types.
Just because he is breaking the rules, (and I’m sorry for his sad situation) are ‘we’ all forced now to redefine what marriage is? Huh? There are lots of sad stories out there, but we shouldn’t be revamping social norms just to accommodate those who give in to their weaknesses. Standards are important, and vows should be kept, or else the words are reduced to noble-sounding drivel.
Sorry, I don’t buy this. Don’t forget, it is a lot easier to get people to accept something that might otherwise seem repugnant to them, if it is presented in the context of a sad story, than if the same thing were suddenly shoved on society by fiat.
I suspect there is an irony somewhere in you who speculate on the self concept of Others and whether They are too fixated on Self to have a proper moral compass.
Jesus wasn’t all that focused on marriage and sexuality and he tended to dismiss it.
We are all married in heaven and committing adultery is no worse than thinking about it, along with don’t kill women for fornication were his only real comments on the issue.
You need to realize that your fixation on who is doing who has nothing to do with the Kingdom of heaven.
RT @patheos: Restructuring Marriage in the Age of Relativism #patheos #Catholic http://bit.ly/ca1k0d
» Restructuring Marriage in the Age of Relativism Summa This, Summa That: http://bit.ly/8Xv3tz via @addthis
What would Jesus do?
I suspect is would be a very short and very stern answer….
That the question itself could ever receive this much attention is clearly the result of Catechesis by popular culture.
» Restructuring Marriage in the Age of Relativism Summa This, Summa That: http://bit.ly/8Xv3tz via @addthis
As someone who was raised Catholic (I sometimes describe myself as a “recovering Catholic” – no offense meant), and who is going through something similar to Barry’s situation with a loved one, I feel that most of the people commenting need to have a little more empathy for Barry.
Knowing someone with Alzheimers is like watching them die, one brain cell at a time. The person you know dies a slow, agonizing death, and is replaced by an irrational, often hostile stranger, perhaps in relatively good health, but a stranger nonetheless. I doubt anyone envisions that when they take their marriage vows.
If you live long enough, you have a 50% chance of getting some form of dementia. There is nothing crueler – it would be easier to lose a limb than to lose your mind, your essential “self.”
Indeed, a professor of my acquaintance refers to “po-mos” (meaning post-modernists) with the utmost disgust. It is precisely because they justify things such as that described by this story.
You ask what Barry Petersen’s wife thought marriage vows meant? I ask what did he think they meant when he made them. Somehow I doubt that he thought then that he would be free to have an affair if his wife was stricken with Alzheimers. Instead of thinking about what he believes and then adjusting his actions to fit those beliefs, he has considered what he wants to do, and then adjusted his beliefs to match his desires.
You will not condemn Barry Petersen? I will. He is an oath-breaker, and an adulterer. Worse he has done so publicly and dared us to condemn him. Which is why we must condemn him.
Jesus taught us to be slow to judge, but if we must judge, judge righteously. By making it public, Mr Petersen has forced us to judge, and thus we must judge him righteously. Righteous judgment is clear. Mr. Peterson made an oath that clearly covered this situation. Now that the oath has become painful and difficult he wishes to break his oath.
What good is an oath if it only counts when it is easy and pleasant to keep? Is not the purpose of an oath to bind ourselves to act a certain way even when it is difficult and painful?
I may feel empathy for Mr. Peterson’s pain. To live is to know pain. Yet if we allow avoidance of pain to become our goal we are nothing more than dumb beasts.
We must condemn Mr. Peterson despite our empathy. If we do not, we signal acceptance to others, who then will also sin in the same manner. It is a sad truth that men are weak are prone to sin if the public refuses to condemn an evil act.
I see Mr. Petersen’s central claim as, “I don’t deserve to suffer this way.” Therefore, the rest his piece is an argument in support of that central claim, with his ultimate conclusion becoming a demand that we accept his redefinition of marriage under the circumstances and accord him the full status of ‘faithful husband’.
Understand this: Mr. Petersen’s demand is served on us. To reject it, we must hold him to his literal marriage vows and deny him the relief he seeks despite his tragic circumstances. In other words, we must deny him normalcy even though he suffers under abnormal circumstances.
To uphold our denial of Mr. Petersen’s demand, we must reaffirm the following: (1) Suffering is normal, even unjust suffering; and (2) marriage vows must be kept inviolate because we must hold marriage to the highest practicable standard, even when doing so compounds unjust suffering. When the marriage standard is high, men must attain the virtues requisite to normalcy. If, on the other hand, the marriage standard is low or plastic, virtues and normalcy become relative and unenforceable.
In humility I reaffirm (1) and (2) above and deny Mr. Petersen’s demand, not only in his case but in the case of same-sex marriage as well. The good Lord willing, I’ll never have to walk a mile in Mr. Petersen’s shoes, but if I do, I pray that our Lord will grant me the courage and perseverance to dignify the resulting suffering.
This seems so sad, not just because of the tragedy involved, but because the husband and his mistress are choosing such a small, ultimately joyless path. Relativistic arguments always strike me as juvenile, even when dealing with such a devastating topic as the early loss of one’s spouse. Relativism, and the husband’s defining of marriage as he sees it, speaks to an immaturity of thought which sees the world as a tool for their own comfort and pleasure. And it’s tragic because he will never know the hard-won joy of having been faithful. He’ll never know the true freedom that obedience brings. I don’t say this as someone who is perfectly obedient…far, far from it. But the areas where I’ve had the grace to bring myself in line with what Christ asks of me, I’ve found tremendous freedom, freedom that I would not have foreseen and freedom and joy that was only evident with the passage of time. Many commentators have mentioned this, but it is difficult to explain the fruits of faith, however meager that faith may be, because so much just needs to be experienced. As RC said, if he has never been exposed to Christian thought and Christian action in the world after we believe, then he isn’t going to know any different. Trying to make people see the difference can be difficult. Sometimes, it’s like trying to explain color to a blind person.
"…mercy without judgement is not mercy at all, but only sloppy sentimentality." http://bit.ly/aiZW2y
I seem to recall that the purpose of marriage is the sanctification of the couple: husbands and wives are to make each other holy.
Peterson apparently sees the purpose of marriage as personal happiness. Not that happiness is a bad thing — it can be the result of a successful marriage, but I don’t think it is the purpose of marriage.
And of course, now that he is betraying his wife, does he pray for her recovery? for a cure to be found?
What a sad story.
“with no sense of irony, and evidencing how common divorce has become for Christians)”
There is no irony. A Christian who divorces is still a perjurer. OK?
A vow is a vow. Period. If he wished to have an ability to “reinterpret” his vows he should have at least made a contract to that effect with his wife, then he would only have been guilty of unchastity instead of bad faith as well.
That is a ridiculous idea. It is not accepted in commerce; someone who breaks a contract gets sued. It is not accepted in law; someone who lies in court goes to prison.
It is not a matter of “judging”. If it was claimed “I should be merciful on the weakness of a fellow sinner knowing I too am weak”, that would be fine. Saying someone has a “right” to break their word is different. He made a promise and if he finds that promise difficult, well frankly, tough luck on him.
[...] Scalia has an excellent essay addressing nearly every thought I had when I listened to the story: What Pope Benedict XVI has [...]
Putting aside the discusssion about marriage and vows made here, the most distressing aspect of this to me is the dreadful invasion of this woman’s privacy. She appears to have neither the capacity nor legal compos to provide consent for her her caregivers and “husband” to show pictures of her and her home, or to provide such personal details of her life to others. I doubt she could be found competent to file a suit for invasion of privacy, so how can she be competent to permit such a public presentation of her personal and medical history to others?
Are we at the point when, in addition to “living wills” we must also specify to what extent others may exploit us in the interests of getting excused for their decisions or seeking additional “funding” (taxes) to support some particular cause? Will I need to provide written directions that no one I don’t know can come into my home and take pictures of me sleeping, or having dementia or whatever, without my legal consent? Do I need to have a legal document to say that pictures of me unconscious on my deathbed cannot be made or used to get funding for more hospital bed research? My reaction is: How dare these people use this woman to make a point, whatever it is.
If you have to preface a comment by “Now before you judge me,” you know you’re doing something wrong. I have empathy for the man – I watched my brilliant grandmother die for several years of Alzheimer’s back in the late seventies before they knew much about the disease, so, in a sense, I have walked in his shoes. I would love to say that I treated her as well as Jan has been treated in terms of her care, but I was an immature self-centered young lady. Having empathy, however, is not the same as saying that what he’s doing is right. As other posters have said, marriage is not about *his* happiness, it’s about *them*. If we know little about Alzheimer’s, who are we to treat her as if she’s dead?
Such pieces of writing are always able to bump up my mood. I simply love reading stuff like this. You’ve gotta keep it up like this. It would be a grave pity if you don’t.