As a commentator of global affairs, I watch quite a few American media, including various hearings of legislature committees and so on. There is much to learn, much to hear, but given the corruption of the present time – the fact as specified is heard alternatively between words. So how amazed I was erstwhile during the harsh grilling of a candidate for the fresh American Secretary of Defense, individual abruptly dared to say something normal, true, and obvious: an adulterer cannot make a credible vow to the state office. Yeah! That's right!
Is it not amazing and refreshing to hear specified words of fact erstwhile manifest? That a man has only 1 word and breaks 1 oath, no substance in what sphere of life, will have an impact on the credibility of another oaths, even if they concern a completely different sphere? In another words – that just as a political believer may not prove to be a faithful husband, just as a unfaithful husband does not naturally deserve to be trusted by making a political vow?
The pots are talking
Of course, the minute of normality was virtually a minute and in itself was absurd. Yes, interviewed Pete Hegseth, deserved any barbecue in the moral sphere. Not referring to his professional qualifications – in fact, the deficiency of a "traditional career path" is an asset alternatively than a disadvantage, given the depth of the problems that be in the U.S. Department of Defense, which Hegseth himself wrote quite a few about, and it makes sense – but it must be pointed out that he is 1 of the most suspicious morally candidates for high-ranking authoritative in the fresh American hand, beating even Trump himself.
A double divorcee who cheated on his first wife 5 times, then betrayed his second wife with a 3rd candidate... and cheating on the second with a fresh bride, at the same time betrayed both of them with a random female met at a organization party. Never head – due to the fact that for deficiency of evidence the police closed the case – that this random female accused him of drugging her, and that their "meeting" could be considered rape. Evidence or not, Hegseth yet paid her off, requiring in return a contract not to disclose anything. Of course, according to Hegseth, he paid due to the fact that he felt blackmailed and was afraid for his career – and for the record, there is no way to regulation it out. This does not change the fact that based on his actions until 2018, it would be hard to respect Hegseth as a decent man, and that at least at that time, he was absolutely incapable to take any credible oath...
But who cares these days? That is absurd: the charge came out of the mouth democratic Senator, where it is easy to imagine the nervousness of his organization colleagues, given that even those of them who have a order in individual life (as the same Senator Caine, for 3 decades a faithful husband of 1 wife), but defends any of the public full lewdness and depravity. After all, Republican politicians are no better. For a reason, years ago a satirical portal The Onion He released a video pretending to be a tv report, where a fictional politician, with a very afraid face, announces that he is going to commit a marital betrayal and already apologizes in advance for his "lapsus" – a gag so accurate that reports where real politicians with equally fake sadness apologized after time for the detected betrayal was more than enough...
In fact: President-elect Donald Trump nominated Hegsetha as Secretary of the Department of Defence, whose credibility in matters of matrimony vows is... I won't say lightly that it's debatable, due to the fact that the thing is that it's undisputedly zero.
Am I asking besides much?
Well, but! any little demanding, sympathetic reader with Republicans will tell me – after all, Hegseth is simply a Protestant. After all, for them matrimony is not a sacrament, their wives are not wives in the sacramental sense, so it is impossible to justice it the same. Well, yes, their matrimony is not sacramental. But they swear, don't they? And that oath is simply a commitment, right? And the lapsus in this oath tells us something about the reliability of taking another vows, doesn't it?
Well, but, but! After all, political matters are completely different from individual matters, says our little demanding reader – many would say, simply normal, unlike the Catholic author who picks on. After all, just due to the fact that individual is unfaithful to a matrimony does not mean that they will betray their Homeland, that they will accept a bribe from a large corp or whatever. Yet, even cheating on 1 wife does not mean that after divorce and another marriage, he will no longer be polite and faithful. After all, possibly it was not meant for him, and all this – I am sorry that I am rubbing against blasphemy – God's own responsibility that he put the incorrect 1 in his way.
Doubtless, if we had talked to our politicians, including those who are considered conservative or even right-wing, we would have heard akin translations. After all, many of them are divorced in a fresh “union” – the worse in the case of Catholics, due to the fact that erstwhile the first wedding was sacramental, the second bride could no longer be married, even though a favorable priest “settled” wrongful declaration of invalidity (the Lord knows his own). Only that many believe absolutely that private and public life has no connection. That, for example, a politician after a divorce who has just abandoned his second "wife" – yes, I am reasoning of a peculiar case here, but we will not get active in individual affairs, but only 1 of many examples – despite all this, he believes that he can decently represent Catholic voters and believes that he is completely credible that they can trust him.
But that is the worst problem: how am I to believe a man so depraved that he managed to lie to himself, deny his own fall, and convince himself that he is pure as a tear? How can I know that this man will not now betray his beliefs, his constituents, his public vows, uncovering another way to explain it “reasonably” and prove that it was not his fault, that it was essential that it was nothing at all?
Is it truly besides much to say that a man whose own wife could not trust deserves my trust in politics or in business?
But people change, don't they?
At this point yet comes the 3rd argument, the only authentically factual 1 – that people change. After all, this Hegseth, from whom we started, has been surviving an exemplary life since 2018, converted and all. Well, that's beautiful! Good! This happens, and even conversion in Protestantism brings man closer to God. It's actual he hasn't been the hero of any more scandal since he got married. If so – if after many downfalls, now it seems to be individual the wife trusts, can voters too?
This is right reasoning – everyone has the right to change their lives for the better and to become a better, little sinful man. Anyone who makes specified an effort – even if he is simply a politician – deserves a credit. However, there are 2 reservations. First of all – in specified a case, and I am not talking about Hegseth here, but about all man who, somewhere in his life, broke his oath of allegiance, it is understandable that not everyone will believe in the transformation immediately, and that any will want to verify it – how Senator Kaine tried to do it in the case of Hegseth, even though as a Democrat, he simply tried to “whack” a Republican candidate.
There is simply a second reservation – if the man asked about his fall keys, he clearly avoids the answer, repeating the same phrases about the deficiency of evidence and the closure of a police investigation again and again, alternatively of simply admitting that he sinned – why should anyone believe him? Why would he be a credible secretary of defense, or a president, or a judge, or a MP, or a senator, making an oath, or yet a businessman signing a contract?
Well, but, but, but, dear Catholic author, why are you fooling around? due to the fact that – and here is the last argument that can no longer be discussed – nobody cares today. Today, we, too, Catholics who profess conservative values, choose "minor evil". present we choose liars and infidels, i.e., in another words – villains and traitors, explaining to ourselves that there may be specified and different in private life, but in public life they will not disappoint us. And then erstwhile they neglect us, we neglect ourselves, and we blame them. The scorpion turned out to be a scorpion again – who would have thought?
Well. That's why I was so amazed for a short while erstwhile I met something normal, real and apparent in politics – and American! due to the fact that I fear that even among Catholics, fewer would only consider this issue normal, as real, and especially obvious. And that's why it is what it is.
Jakub Majewski
