Some of you have probably already seen this at either Deacon Greg’s blog or Elizabeth Scalia’s:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

There’s so much going on in this story. So much that could be discussed. For example, the woman who said that she would not want her grandchildren to visit her when she can no longer recognize them. But the thing that obviously sticks out the most here is Mr. Peterson’s big, controversial decision at the end and, as one blogger put it, the question: What value do you place in a vow? Some may ask, well what is this man supposed to do just give up his happiness for a woman who doesn’t even recognize him?? I’m reminded of an observation I had a few years ago at one of the nursing home I visit every week:

Among the participants in Mass yesterday was two old men, probably in their 80’s, visiting their wives who are residents at the nursing home. I believe the women are both from the Alzheimer’s unit. Neither appeared very in tune to their surroundings. They sat with very blank expressions on their faces, unmoving, just staring at the floor, if they were awake at all. And here were the men in their lives as loving and attentive as ever. One man sat in total silence with his wife’s hand in his for well over an hour. The look of utter contentment on his face proving that whether or not she returned his loving gazes was completely irrelevant.
….

Seeing the devotion of these two men I thought, truly this is the love Paul speaks of (1 Corinth 12:31-13:7). No doubt these men have found the paradox that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, but only more love. This is the patient love that calls us to search outside ourselves, to seek not our own interests and bear all things for the sake of the other – to give until it hurts. In other words, this is the love of the Cross, the love of He Who is love itself.

Elizabeth Scalia has an excellent essay addressing nearly every thought I had when I listened to the story:

What Pope Benedict XVI has called “the dictatorship of relativism” plays a part in all of this. Petersen writes of “the marriage, as I defined it…” [emphasis mine], suggesting that an individual may set his own limits to the scope of vows. Given this logic, one is then permitted to ask, what of Jan, his wife; how had she defined marriage? Is every adult permitted to define marriage in ways that give precedence to one’s immediate needs?

Do, do, do read the rest!

And, what about his wife and her views on marriage? Did anyone else notice in the video that, although she does not recognize him as he stands right in front of her, it sounds like Mr. Peterson’s wife still has a very vivid memory of him and remains madly in love with him, totally devoted to him in her own mind? I have no doubt that it was not an easy choice for him to make and, like most people who have commented on this heartbreaking story, I have nothing but sympathy and compassion for Mr. Peterson and the impossible situation he finds himself in. But his wife’s devotion, as distant as it may be, makes his decision to “go on” seem that much more heartbreaking, and even somewhat cruel, to me. Even if he does still visit her and claim to love her in some capacity.

Of course we are all human and weak to the temptation to seek our own comfort when situations like this test our fidelity and endurance. Thankfully we have Christ and the Cross – to show us that selfless, self-giving love is possible and to have mercy on us when we do not always follow the example He set before us.