only way to analyze Hillary's dysfunctional relationship with her husband
is to recognize the obvious: she married politics, not Bill.
Hillary goes on and on relating how her Christian theology explains Bill's
infidelities. In her interview with Barbara Walters, Hillary stated that
a friend, "a theologian," helped her to understand her husband's promiscuous
habits as being a "sin of weakness rather than sin of malice."
"Sins of weakness" evidently are not as heinous as "sins of malice." Bill
committed repeatedly sins of sexual license whereas Hussein committed repeatedly
sins of malice by having innocents thrown into cage prisons.
In other words, by defining sin in two definitions, there appears to be more
compassion toward "sins of weakness" than "sins of malice." The former seems
to be something out of control in the repetition department whereas the latter
seems to be something harmful intended.
The "sins of weakness," in furthering the definition explanation, would be
Bill's inability to keep his pants zipped, so he has to give in to his sexual
urges because that's his weak libido (?) working strongly. Therefore, one
can reach the conclusion -- when thinking long enough and tenderly enough
-- that he is to be pitied more than pounced upon.
In the interview between two women, Barbara, instead of nailing her interviewee
to the wall with question after question unveiling hard truths, proceeded
as a sympathetic counselor, seeking to get to the depths of pain. Therefore,
both Hillary and Barbara wove for us an understanding composure toward Bill's
waywardness rather than an intense dismay ready to press him to justice.
What obviously came to mind for us who have lived through the Clinton scandals
was why Hillary did not delineate the almost daily dalliances her husband
enjoyed, using his own staff to cover for him, engaging females for his pleasure
and so forth. The focus was on Monica. It had to be at least that focus for
that we all know about. However, there were others, more than we will ever
But by remaining fixed on one particular well-known dalliance detail, both
Hillary and Barbara were able to see through the sympathetic dialogue with
the umbrella definition of sin being his "sin of weakness" rather than "sin
Of course, what is evident to even a weak thinker is that by repeatedly committing
his "sin of weakness" -- betraying his marital vows, lying to both wife and
daughter, living a lie, feeding the public constant untruths, harboring his
own secrets against morality -- Bill moved his "sin of weakness" into "sins
There are those husbands who have a one-night stand, then are found out.
That has been it for their entire marital existence: a one-night stand. That
is sin, possibly regarded as a "sin of weakness." However, if that husband
continues to create a lifestyle of infidelity, then that sin tallies up as
"sins of malice." In other words, the man is continuing, consciously, to
betray wife and children, other members of his clan, and his own conscience
of morality. He is consciously hurting others — malicious.
Bill committed sins of weakness. Yes. Bill committed sins of malice. Yes.
But Bill was married to his own sexual desires as well as his own presidential
ambitions. For years it seemed to work, particularly when governor. When
he persisted and then moved into the Big Picture of politics--focused on
his infamous Oval Office dalliances -- then he was found out. That frequently
occurs when a person simply cannot cover up over an extended time frame a
Hillary knew this. She is so street smart and savvy as to sense vibes in
the air wherever she is. She surely is no pushover and has the gall to weather
any storm. Therefore, the question has to be asked: Why would the woman stay
with a man who was so purposefully and continually unfaithful? Why didn't
she dump him as other women have dumped their husbands in like infidelity?
Particularly a woman of her nature, how could she keep on keeping on -- such
shame, such a blow to her esteem, such a madness in the marriage, such a
pain surfacing daily, knowing that not only she but her daughter were both
being maliciously victimized?
She could live with such a cad because first and foremost, Hillary was married
to politics, not Bill. Legally she was married to Bill. Politically she was
married to her own political ambitions. She would rise. She would be elected,
perhaps to being the first woman President of the United States. She would
succeed in her own right. She would wiggle and waggle through the most dangerous
Consequently, when he moved to their private residence and she moved into
quarters near her Congressional office, she could pursue even more grandly
her political ambitions with little or no interference from her husband.
If he got caught in another sexual escapade, then he would pay for it major.
She could then look on from the sidelines and decide to dump him to grand
applause or continue with her amateur, flawed "psychiatric" / theological
conclusions that her mate was but the victim of "sins of weakness."
Grant Swank, Jr., is the Pastor of New Hope Church in
Windham, ME. He is a a graduate of an accredited
college (BA) and seminary (M Div) with graduate work at
Harvard Divinity School. Pastor Swank has been married
for 41 years and he has 3 adult children. He is
the author of 5 books and over 2000 articles in various
Protestant and Catholic magazines, journals and newspapers.
He writes a weekly religion column for PORTLAND PRESS HERALD
newspaper, Portland ME. His columns have appeared on IntellectualConservative.com,
VIOdaily.com, AmericanDaily.com, MensNewsDaily.com, BushCountry.org, Chalcedon.com,
ConservativeTruth.com, FreeRepublic.com, WoundedShepherds.com, among others.
this Article to a Friend