All it takes to remove a priest from active ministry, is a credible accusation of sexual abuse (whatever that means and it can be against a dead priest who can't defend himself).
Thus if a high school boy who is stumbling drunk and does what the accuser of Supreme Court Justice candidate Brett Kavanaugh says happened to her when she was stumbling drunk too, the adult priest could be removed from active ministry for that kind of accusation even prior to entering the seminary.
Thus, by logical extension Brett Kavanaugh should be denied as a new Supreme Court Justice.
DISCUSS!
40 comments:
Not to mention the fact that Kavanaugh (the justice) has been untruthful/less than truthful/less than candid about almost every issue on the table so far. A privileged frat boy who's about to learn that his privilege does not extend to a Supreme Court seat.
RBG - You are too insightful . . . (Pssst, loved the opera.)
Nice try at changing the topic, but please comment on two high school peers, both stumbling drunk and possibly both flirtatious because of it and indiscretions taking place and in a period of time of the sexual revolution where men and women were being told "just do it!"
If he tried to rape her, then he should not become a supreme court justice. And, no, a teenage rapist should not later be ordained a priest. Finally, while drunkenness is a good excuse for slurred speech and slow reflexes, it is not a good excuse for rape.
Something that allegedly happened over 35 years ago is now just coming to light? If this indeed happened, why was it not reported to the school administration? Or to the police? Or his parents (who are still living)?
Not that politics (and the fact the accuser is a Democrat who lives in far-left California) has anything to do with it............
Lets be real, high school students don't always conform to the highest moral standards---back then (as now), even at Catholic and other religious schools, there was drinking, drugs and sexual activity (not necessarily on campus). "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" as the "Good Book" says....
But Rood, there is a witness, another stumbling drunk teenage boy peer, who says an attempted rape did not happen.
So if this went to a court of law and the only three eyewitnesses to the alleged crime of rape are the three in the rooming, all stumbling drunk at the time, who do you believe in a court of law?
Of course politically correct Catholicism today says to believe the accuser despite the legal requirements for an actual conviction of guilt. Thus dead priests are guilty when a modern day accusation is brought forward. No need for a trial for the living or dead.
Another angle to this is: if Kavanaugh is indeed guilty by virtue of an accusation that he and a witness dispute, does Kananaugh's wife, because she did not know about this situation prior to and at the time of the wedding, have grounds for a Catholic annulment?
The culture is becoming absurd and hysterical.
There are other possible avenues of either corroborating or discrediting the accusation.
According to the story, other kids were in the house. Who? What did they see?
The accuser seems rather vague about the whole thing. She should be interviewed closely by a professional investigator. The results of that interview may well strengthen or torpedo her credibility.
Did Kavanaugh actually go to parties in that year of school? Who else was with him? Did he tend to get drunk? Believe it or not, not all high school boys go to parties, and they don't all get drunk. Who did he tend to hang out with? Who did she hang out with?
The accuser says she had a bathing suit on under her clothes, but is foggy about the events of that day. This needs to be filled in.
Finally, if Kavanaugh was this sort of guy, this wouldn't have been the only incident.
OMG! If true, the man belongs in the secure of prisons holding the most vile of serial rapists of puppies and kittens.
Kudos to this brave woman who has somehow managed to recover from this awkward moment in her life.
Would you believe that Kavaunaugh's mother was a judge in a foreclosure case against the accuser's parents back in 1996? And the judge ruled against them? Maybe a motive?
And even if this so-called encounter took place---over 35 years ago---why should he be denied a seat on the court when Democrats tolerated for decades the escapades of Teddy Kennedy? Were there Democrats calling for him to resign from the Senate after that "bridge out" incident nearly 50 years ago? Teddy was well past his high-school years by then? And, uh, I don't recall Democrats asking for Bill Clinton to resign in 1998---by which time he was in his 50s---after his "activity" with Monica...oh, it was just sex, right?!?!?
This is Anita Hill all over again. Diane Feinstein should be investigated for her role in this, and if it is what I think it is, she should be removed from the Judiciary Committee (and maybe investigated for the Chinese spy in her entourage and the millions she and her husband have made off of her office). FYI, Judge Kavanaugh's mother presided over the accuser's parents mortgage foreclosure many years ago, and according to the accuser's student reviews of her teaching, she is a real loon (but she's a Dem, so nuff said on that point). This is the Dem's desperate attempt to protect its highest sacrament: Abortion on Demand. The Dem Party is intrinsically evil and no Catholic should vote Dem if they value their immortal soul.
Sounds like the Anita Hill and judge Clarence Thomas event all over again, only with a more serious accusation. That made for great prime time TV, but serious doubts arose about the accusation, as there are now with Kavanaugh. How far will the Dems/libs go to soil their adversary?
Anonymous Kavanaugh at 9:51,
Did you feel that way about Horndog Clintoon? Or do you give him a pass because he's pro abortion?
If the Democrats drug a $100 bill around the Palo Alto University campus, the wonder would be that they came up with only tale like this.
TJM: Thanks for the student review idea. Here is more:
'Overall, she scores 2.3 out of 5 (a failing grade if the roles were reversed). The reviews span from 2010 - 2014, which rules out students tampering with her reviews as part of the current Kavanaugh controversy.'
"Christine ford is the worst educator I have ever experienced," one student wrote. "Avoid taking her class and avoid any interaction with this person. I feel like she has something wrong with her and I am surprised no one has caught this. Also avoid fullerton's MSW program as long as she is there."
https://news.grabien.com/story-somethings-wrong-her-christine-fords-students-savage-her-rev
also
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/professor_accusing_kavanaugh_is_radical_sjw_with_some_damning_student_reviews.html
Of course, we are dealing with modern psychology and their psychologists. For the APA, one day homosexuality is an illness, the next day it is normal. So who really belongs in the asylum? Unfortunately, whom would Americans believe more by virtue of the indoctrination through the media and much of the education system, a Catholic or a psychologist, that is, one who believes in doctors of the soul (priests), or doctors of the brain who are promoted for their hatred of traditional views of man? Modern psychology has caused great damage to the Church, particularly with this whole clerical homosexuality business, by the way.
TJM, my comment was pure sarcasm.
Anonymous,
Hard to detect sarcasm because it sounded like a typical Dem response. Methinks Feinstein may regret the day she brought this loon out of the closet
"...if Kavanaugh is indeed guilty by virtue of an accusation that he and a witness dispute, does Kananaugh's wife, because she did not know about this situation prior to and at the time of the wedding, have grounds for a Catholic annulment?"
Not necessarily, but I thought we were supposed to comment on two high school peers. Oh well.
We know that victims of sexual abuse may not report the incident for decades, so in this case that should come as no surprise.
We know thaf the victim has, over the years, spoken to family members and a therapist about the incident.
And we know that referring to what is said to be an attempted rape as being "flirtacious" and/or "indiscrete" is unconscionable.
"Just do it" is the Nike motto, I believe. I lived through the sexual revolution & came out unscathed & I don't remember anyone saying it was OK to get girls drunk & rape them at house parties. That's wrong & so is priests raping teenagers. You don't have to choose one or the other.
"Of course politically correct Catholicism today says to believe the accuser despite the legal requirements for an actual conviction of guilt."
Fortunately, the Church teaches that we are to presume a person's innocence. Catholicism is opposed to lynch-mob "justice."
Unfortunately, certain Catholics attacked His Holiness Pope Francis for his having applied the Church's teaching in question to claims leveled against Bishop Barros and Monsignor Ricca.
Pope Francis noted that he had ordered investigations in regard to claims against Bishop Barros and Monsignor Ricca. Said investigations cleared each man in question.
Pope Francis said, "nemo malus nisi probetur, no one is guilty until proven otherwise."
Pope Francis obeyed Church teaching in regard to the above. Nevertheless, lynch-mob folks bashed Pope Francis for his having refused to apply lynch-mob "justice" to Bishop Bishop and Monsignor Ricca.
In regard to Brett Kavanaugh, the Church teaches that he has the right to his good name. The Catholic way is presume Mr. Kavanaugh's innocence.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Those "student reviews" have already been debunked. That's the wrong Christine Ford.
Nice try at trying to intimidate over a legally non proven allegation! If he is found guilty then all you say is correct. Then it is up to the courts to determine what degree the sexual assault was. But right now it is she said, he said and the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Is that unconscionable? Silly!!!
Bee here:
I am just sitting here shaking my head at how absurd and ridiculous this all is. I didn't hang out with the "cool kids" in high school (read: the ones who drank and smoked dope) but I did sometimes hear of the wild escapades that went on. One guy they nicknamed "Mooner." I, being naive, kept asking, 'Why do you call him Mooner?' and the guys would just bust out in hysterical laughter. Finally someone broke down and told me that at a party where they were all drinking, some of the guys decided to take a dip in someone's backyard above ground pool, and this kid's shorts came down in back when he went to get out of the pool, hence he shot everyone "the moon."
High school boys are not exactly the most mature people on the planet. For that matter, neither are college aged guys.
But I have to laugh. Suddenly the Left are highly moral people who are outraged at an underage kid making an awkward drunken pass at a girl his own age over 35 years ago, who was also drunk. And they aren't mad at the illegality of the drunkenness, or the fact the party was obviously unsupervised, but that this teenage boy "groped" her!
Yeah, like this isn't common behavior on any given Friday or Saturday night. If you're a woman and never experienced it you have lived a very sheltered life. Even today, just go to any lively bar where young people gather and wait until about 1:30 AM to see all kinds of "sexual assaults."
And as TJM mentioned, obviously the Left didn't think the actual sexual assaults of several women by Bill Clinton while he was Governor of Arkansas disqualified him to be President.
The epitome of dirty politics. The Left are scum.
God bless.
Bee
I'm pretty sure that nobody in this discussion hung out with "the cool kids"
I was president of my college fraternity. Somehow I managed to get through without attempting to rape anyone. But who knows what might come out of the woodwork when I’m nominated for the Supreme Court.
Even if the accusation proves to be untrue, Kavanaugh's "originalism" is an unworkable and unhistorical approach to interpreting and applying the Constitution.
Now if he had "accidentally " drowned her, well you know
SGB
The liberal everything is relative interpretation of the Constitution is the reason this country is going to the dogs. Kavanaugh will be confirmed and in time you will thank Trump for nominating him.
On the other hand, if the Republicans blink say good-by to the republic, unless they can confirm another, equally suitable nominee before the next Congress in January.
There is a lot of politics behind that woman’s accusation. Did she come forward with this information by herself, or did someone seek her out, convince and coach her to make a statement. It does not make him ineligible, but his character is something that has to be considered.
SGB,
Really, do tell? Any more unworkable and unhistorical than making up a right to murder your baby?
Bee,
Bravo. By the way the scum includes some Catholic priests and prelates who are leftists first and Catholics as a mere afterthought.
Since Marbury v Madison (1803) the principle of Judicial Review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and executive actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution, has served our nation well - not perfectly, but well.
The notion of Originalism is neither historical, in terms of American jurisprudence, not workable, in terms of the on-going need for an interpretation and application of laws enacted by Congress.
SBG.
I know Marbury v Madison better than you and it does not contradict, at all, the notion of originalism. I noticed you conveniently dodged my question to you on how the Constitution vests you with the right to murder your child? Answer that or go away
"Those "student reviews" have already been debunked. That's the wrong Christine Ford."
Thank you. Mea culpa.
I wonder if there was another Brett Kavanaugh in that area, though.
But seriously, I would still rather trust a Protestant used car dealer than anything a modern psychologist would say in his role. Modern psychology and psychiatry do not have a solid foundation. They are best described as fake sciences.
It is really all or nothing now---if Kavanaugh is not confirmed, there is no time to get another confirmed in time for November 6 election---and who knows how that will turn out? No guarantee GOP will keep the Senate (though right now it is more likely than not). You get a Democratic Senate majority, and all or most Trump judicial nominees in future will be DOA, per edict of the maestro himself, Chuck Schumer. That means a 4-4 deadlocked Supreme Court, which would have to uphold lower court rulings (at least some of them liberal) because of the tie. A lower court rules against abortion restrictions? Supreme Court would unfortunately uphold them.
TJM - I will answer what I choose to answer - as you do. So get off your high horse and quite pretending that you run the world.
Every disagreement is not reducible to the question of abortion. To think such and/or to expect others to agree with such is absurd.
Marbury v Madison established the principle of Judicial Review.
"Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each." (Cornell Law School Legal Information Network)
Judicial Review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, the decision itself contradicts the notion of Originalism.
SBG, hey you're Kavanaugh, the inartful dodger. Speaking of high horses!! No wonder you don't want to touch abortion.
Judges review statutes all of the time and sometimes they find them legally defective and hence unenforceable. That is part of the Common Law, smarty pants. So EPIC Fail.
The connection of "Judicial review" to Originalism has to do with the Justices deciding matters before them. Are they using original intent in their opinions?
Sure, "Judicial Review" is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. So? The Trinity is
mentioned nowhere in Scripture either.
There is no contradiction with Originalism. None.
SBG,
Dead wrong. Judicial review existed in the Common Law long before the US evan became a country. Still working on your disengenous response regarding Abortion?
Post a Comment