OK, pretend you're in the confessional with your collar on. Next up is Eliot Spitzer, and on deck is Mark Sanford. To whom do you assign the heavier penance?
One the one hand, Spitzer has completely debased the sex act by turning it into a good or service that can be had for money. On the other hand, Sanford, who apparently was in love with this Argentine woman, has not only committed a physical act of infidelity, but an emotional, intellectual and even spiritual act of infidelity as well.
Which is worse?
I used to wonder why men who say to their scorned wives, "She means nothing to me," thought that statement was helping their situation. It seems like the obvious comeback would be, "Sex means nothing to you?" On the other hand, the scorned spouse would surely hate it as much, if not more so, if it meant something rather than nothing.
So I ask again, Which is worse? (And I'm speaking strictly in moral, not political terms. Politically, it seems like Spitzer had to go because he'd committed a crime, and Sanford needs to go because he went AWOL for four days, and while grad students like me can get away with that, governors who do that are being terribly irresponsible.)
Bonus points for a real, live Roman Catholic priest who can actually say something authoritative about the Sacrament of Reconciliation...
Posted by: |