Rep versus Rev

Donohue asks the question "What if Rep. Weiner were Rev. Weiner?" Excerpts:

Priests who engage in lewd conversations with teenagers are suspended from ministry for committing a "boundary violation," and are charged with sexual abuse. But Rep. Anthony Weiner can send pornographic images of himself to young girls and he is free as a bird. Indeed, the majority of New Yorkers say he should not resign.

Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle says Weiner's "biggest sin may not have been sexual"—it was "lying." Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine says that "Lying is unforgivable," but has no comment on his sexual offenses. Joan Walsh of Salon confesses that "The lying is what disturbs me." S.E. Cupp's article in the New York Daily News is flagged, "The disgraced congressman should resign, but immorality has nothing to do with it." Similarly, Leslie Savan of the Nation wonders, "How can you be so stupid?"

...

In other words, if the guilty party were Rev. Weiner, he would be sanctioned by the Catholic Church's "zero tolerance" policy. But because he is Rep. Weiner, there are no penalties. As usual, it's not the offense that matters—it's the status of the offender.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... William Donohue is always going on like this. Only... he's absolutely right. We'll call the policy in effect for House and Senate Democrats the "infinite-tolerance policy", infinity being the opposite of zero.

The only insight I have on the Weiner apology is that the line "In addition, over the past few years, I have engaged in several inappropriate conversations conducted over Twitter, Facebook, email and occasionally on the phone with women I had met online," is meant to alert all the cool people that he can do better than Gennette Cordova.