Marriage and the End of Moral Outrage

Marriage and the End of Moral Outrage May 6, 2016

More news about Joe Paterno and his involvement in covering up Jerry Sandusky’s sexual molestation of children has forced me once again to challenge the easy moral outrage of our time. I have an annoying habit that increases my wife’s sanctification of live streaming (via HER Ipad) a Philadelphia morning sports talk radio show while I go through my daily ablutions. My excuse is that this allows me to follow Philadelphia sports without having to subscribe to cable. My wife’s complaint is that the talk-show host, Angelo Cataldi, is a loud mouth and a jackbleep. My response: it is what it is.

Anyway, today’s conversation starter was the news about Paterno and Angelo’s ongoing quest to understand how people can continue to like someone who is so patently evil. On one level, my immediate response is to point to the Bible where Old Testament saints seemed to have both Judah and David on fairly high pedestals even despite some pretty despicable behavior. If Americans viewed their heroes the way the Israelites did, then maybe we’d suffer through fewer news cycles of outrage porn.

On another level, I wonder what Angelo thinks about his wife. Has he not had to come to terms not simply with annoyances (like my audio choices) but also with basic differences of opinion on the right and wrong of people, relationships, political candidates, purchases? The phrase “picking your battles” had to have come from a spouse since at some point in a marriage you learn to let some matters go. How much more so do fans of iconic figures (with whom they don’t have to share a bathroom) overlook all sorts of foibles and misdeeds? This is basic human psychology.

This should not be read as an attempt to excuse Paterno or to make light of molesting children. I was a big fan of Paterno, admired so many parts of his work that seemed to separate him from the average college football coach, and so was inclined to grant him some rope for not being up to speed on what Sandusky did or how wicked those deeds were. I still think it possible for Paterno to have acted foolishly and if given another chance, and knowing what we now know, would act differently. I admit that I am biased.

But I don’t understand how a radio personality whose job includes interviewing dancers at gentlemen’s clubs or scheduling strippers for sporting events somehow forgets his Roman Catholic upbringing, says pornography is fine, but then gets on his soapbox and rules that merely knowing about a child molester is a sin worthy of eternal condemnation.

Image


Browse Our Archives