For those of us who lead or are associated with all-male Jesuit secondary schools in the United States, the saga of Brett Kavanaugh has been a roller coaster ride. His nomination to the Supreme Court was a high point; Judge Kavanaugh was expected to join Neil Gorsuch as one of two justices who graduated from the same all-male Jesuit high school, Georgetown Preparatory School in North Bethesda, Md.
“The motto of my Jesuit high school was ‘men for others,’” Mr. Kavanaugh said when his nomination was announced on July 9. “I have tried to live that creed.”
From that high, we have descended considerably, as Judge Kavanaugh now stands accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford. That this alleged crime took place while he was a student at a Jesuit high school makes us uncomfortable if not embarrassed and horrified. Understandably, questions remain about the allegation, which Mr. Kavanaugh has denied. Yet our feelings about the nomination and our perspective about it can’t help but change in light of these revelations.
I have been privileged to witness the mission of all-male Jesuit education as a powerful and transforming force.
I am the president of Fordham Prep, a 177-year-old all-male Jesuit secondary school in the Bronx, N.Y., with nearly 1,000 current students and almost 12,000 living alumni. I have seen our students and graduates at their best and, unfortunately, at their worst. Still, I have been privileged to witness the mission of all-male Jesuit education—to develop men for others, who dedicate their lives to God’s greater glory—as a powerful and transforming force. I believe this force can challenge the prevailing cultural forces that pressure young men to adopt values that reflect a vastly different posture toward the more vulnerable members of our society and those who are different than themselves.
Each spring, members of our freshman class participate in a retreat, the final step in their formal initiation as Fordham Prep students. On the last night of the retreat, I celebrate a Mass that begins at 9 p.m. and usually does not end until after 10:30 p.m. It is such a long celebration because at the time of the homily I invite members of the class to come forward and share with everyone—approximately 250 of their classmates, faculty mentors and upper-class retreat leaders—a memory, image, relationship or story in which they find God’s presence. This invitation is at the heart of Ignatian spirituality, which teaches us to seek and find God in all things.
In the wake of the #MeToo movement, the term “toxic masculinity” has entered the popular lexicon.
For our freshmen, this is frequently an exhilarating concept. Up to this point in their lives, they may have experienced their faith as confined to formal prayers or within a church building, a religion class or some other explicitly religious ritual. The insight that God draws near to them in their ordinary experience—that God’s grace is as close to them as their parents’ love, their friends’ acceptance, their growing confidence in learning a new skill or discovering a new talent—is attractive, even as it may be new and exotic.
During the time allotted for the homily, I listen. I listen as the freshmen come up, one by one, and speak briefly about encountering God’s presence. In some cases, they tell their stories with tentative trepidation and vulnerability. They are frequently humorous and self-deprecating. Most often, they are eloquent, inspiring and moving as they talk to their classmates about finding God in the close bonds of family upon the death of a relative; or in the gratitude and love they have for their mothers or fathers; in the joy of a sibling returning home after military service; in the courage of a parent who left her home country to immigrate to the United States; in their triumph in overcoming a personal challenge; in their wonder in finding God in sickness or healing or in an encounter with the beauty of nature.
God’s Spirit helps our students see and know the dignity that resides within each person.
In the wake of the #MeToo movement, the term “toxic masculinity” has entered the popular lexicon. Toxic masculinity, we are told, springs from a society that inculcates young men with a “bro mentality,” leaving them devoid of empathy, sensitivity and compassion and leading them—especially when they are together—to objectify and disrespect girls and women. Some have seen—rightly or wrongly—traces of this toxic mentality in Judge Kavanaugh’s quip in a 2015 speech that “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.”
I leave to the experts whether toxic masculinity or a “bro culture” is pervasive and at the root cause of young men’s disregard for the dignity of others. But I can tell you that the freshman retreat experience gives our students a powerful opportunity to experience and model virtues and values directly opposed to this phenomenon. As they listen to each other, I believe they grow in their capacity to enter into another’s pain and joy. In taking the risk to share their stories, they articulate their deepest emotions and identify their most cherished values. God’s Spirit truly animates the whole church. And, I believe, God’s Spirit helps our students see and know the dignity that resides within each person. What a powerful way to inoculate young men against the poison of toxic masculinity.
What happens at the freshman retreat, does not stay at freshman retreat. Our students’ vulnerability and openness to others with backgrounds and experiences vastly different from their own is something we administrators and teachers see every day in the classroom. And what happens during their four years at Fordham Prep, should not stay at Fordham Prep. That, in fact, is the whole point.
This article seems premature and highly toxic to Judge Kavanaugh, particularly since this allegation has all the hallmarks of a political hit-job, or an attempted high-tech lynching of another conservative candidate for the Supreme Court, at the last minute. On the face of the allegation, we have a 15-year who was drinking beer (!) at a pool party, who was horsing around for seconds or minutes with a 17-year old. No suggestion of any actual sexual activity. No successful disrobing.
Says it was unwelcome, was traumatic and fear-inducing. But, didn’t tell her girlfriends, her parents, anyone else. Doesn’t remember the house, how she got there or got home, even the month or year. All three boys mentioned, of 4 in the 2012 therapy (BK, MJ, PJ) have no recollection of the party and vehemently deny the event (MJ “it’s absolutely nuts”).
Kavanaugh has led a life that appears highly noble and Christian to all who know him. He is eager to testify and clear his name. She is not (after she was told it would be under oath), and her call for a FBI fishing expedition (of who, of what? No evidence, no crime even) is transparently to delay the vote. It is established she is a Democratic activist. Case closed.
As to Justice Thomas, that was never physical, and never proven, and no one else ever came forward all these decades. This lack of repeated abuse is against the pattern of all the real #MeToo perpetrators. Yet, Anita Hill is a hero to progressives. Unsubstantiated accusations do real damage to the #MeToo movement. Isn’t there such a thing as toxic femininism?
Tim O'Leary, you are 100% right. However, you miss a key point, which is that every feminist and male groupie of the feminists knows as well as you do that the woman is either lying or the victim of memory-confusion, but every one of them also knows that this is irrelevant. They share a fundamental feminist principle, which is that a woman when speaking against a male has a right to lie, no matter how blatantly, and to have her lie treated as truth. This is because they hold that a feminist lie against a male is a proxy truth, in that it is an expression of an underlying truth which she cannot otherwise express, the truth that, on the one hand, she shares in the oppression of females by males, as an innocent victim; and, on the other hand, the male against whom she lies shares in the same, but as a culpable perpetrator.
Utter nonsense. It's Kavanaugh who feels free to lie on behalf of a person so fondly nominated by a President who is a pathological liar and a molester.
So much for civility in comments. Headline yesterday on this
So America, the magazine, and commenters follows suit. Somehow, I doubt Fr Devron wants a discussion of masculinity and femininity or male/female interaction and especially facts on all this.
Appropriate quote -
"They are desperately struggling to maintain their grip on power." Are you serious? Which Party controls most State Houses? The U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, Presidency,
Apparently amoral thuggery is fine with you.
So much for Catholicism.
No I’m very serious and your reply confirms my statement. Power is of many forms and the Courts are one of the ways liberals have exerted control. Academia, the arts and the media are the three others. The behavior of the Democrats has been atrocious since losing the election. Have you followed the hearings? The best description of the Democrats’.behavior is “anything goes.”
Kavenaugh exonerated by deputy chair of Democratic Party
Prove it.
@Jory
Perhaps less of the accusations and more education about sexual abuse, the frequency, the impact, the delay in reporting
Surely some of this is clearly evident from the ivestigations in the Catholic Church
Discounting the abused children as liars because of lack of detail or getting details mixed up under repeated questioning allowed the abuse to continue unhindered
Your comment supports these abhorrent tactics
I agree. Statistics show that people (adults and children) who report a sexual assault very rarely are lying. The vast majority are truly victims and all should be heard with respect and consideration.
I do not know what country you are claiming has reliable statistics about the truth or falsehood of claims of victim-hood but here in Australia it is quite the contrary.
It is standard operating procedure here, where there is no-fault divorce, for the woman to make claims about the man abusing the children so that they get most or all of the property and wealth and manipulate the court to forbid access of the fathers to their children. The lawyers advise it and the online community coaches it.
The tactic was used in New Jersey on a friend of mine. It was very effective but he managed to clear his name. In court. Nothing should be taken at face value but followed up by investigation. I wish there was some way to stop plutocratic extremist Kavanaugh. I don't think this is the way.
I agree. Statistics show that people (adults and children) who report a sexual assault very rarely are lying. The vast majority are truly victims and all should be heard with respect and consideration.
Amen ! Accusing or defending political parties over getting to the truth is a cancer that has spread even into the Catholic Church. The Republican leaning US Catholic Church is now caught between a Rock and a Hard Place in supporting the Republican Party. Besides the sex scandals, it now has to deal with Catholic Spanish Immigration and Women Rights. These are Democratic issues, it will be a disaster if the American Conference of Bishops continue to put all their eggs in the Abortion issue and support Republican President Trump.
Really? Here we go again. The stupid "boys will be boys" defense and the slurring of a doctor who knew she was putting herself at grave risk by stepping forward cuts only with the big boys in the bro culture. The woman you slur in defense of this man who has been caught in lying testimopny is now in hiding from the vicious and real threats made against her by fellow members of your bro culture.
Tim,
I totally agree. Suddenly after 36 years this women chooses to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of attempted rape. Yet at the time of this event, she never reported this incident to law enforcement, to school authorities, to her parents or to her best friend. She has no evidence, no corroborating witnesses, no recollection of place and time and no memory of the person or persons she went to the party with. No wonder she does not want to testify under oath. Frankly, she would look like a fool under questioning.
On the other hand, all of the Democrats believe her. The joke is that before these accusations became known, all or most of the Democrat Senators have said they will not vote for him. At this point, all they want to do is turn this into another political circus.
I believe that the accuser should be given the opportunity to be respectfully heard in a public or private Senate Judicial Committee session. After all, she said she wanted to testify on Monday. Now she does not want to testify unless the FBI investigates her accusation. This is not going to happen for good reasons. If the Democrats continue to push their irresponsible and disengenous narrative, it will backfire on them.
There's a second accuser from the next stage in Kavanaugh's life, Yale. Now we're starting to develop a time line. Next, they need to get someone from his early law career. We already know he comes from a group of self entitled little preppie hot shots. So there's hope. If they can get accusations spanning his career, they got 'im. If you're out there, ladies, come forth! The more the merrier.
@O'Leary
I'm guessing that view was learned at a Catholic prep school
Certainly isn't a view of compassion as exemplified by Jesus
Tim O'Leary, I don't know whether Judge Kavanaugh acted inappropriately or not. Neither do you. The fact that Dr. Ford didn't come forward until now is not the point. As is evidence in our current RC Church news, many victims, male and female, sometimes hide their story for decades for many reasons: fear, shame, guilt, embarrassment. Cardinal McCarrick, "Uncle Ted", also "led a life that appears highly noble and Christian." See the connection? Let's just sit tight and ask some questions. Let's not shame Dr. Ford OR give Kavanaugh a job for life until our questions are answered.
The difference is that people knew what +TEM was up to and kept their mouths shout. There was contemporaneous corroboration. In the Ford claims, there appears to be no sharing of the memories until at least three decades after the alleged events.
By ending with an absolute critique of the Me Too movement we encapsulated the entire tone of your masculine philosophy. Please, be more sensitive when judging what is difficult to feel and understand if have not been a victim at any age in your life. Studies on sexual abuse show it is pattern the long time that victims need before they can speak about their experience. The price the victims pay is so high that many never do it. In this case, Mrs. Ford has been threatened, and have to move with her family from her residence. Do you believe that an educated person does not know this possible consequence?
Please, let the investigation take place without condemning in advance any of the parties involved. Do not prejudge the intentions that led Mrs. Ford letter.
Wow! what a bubble you live in. It is not harassment only if it is physical assault. Anita Hill should be a hero because Justice Thomas was known harasser of other women too. Sexual harassment is very difficult to prove and so is sexual assault. Many victims are too traumatized to come forward after an attack. How Catholic of you to care so for these victims.
This is further proof that one should ever send their son or daughter to any all boy or all girl school since the result is always some kind of sexist mindset, especially from all boy schools. No thanks - get rid of all these privileged gender bias schools now please.
Nora
Yet another of your indignant "WOW" comments......and yet again a series of non sequiturs.
You write:
"This is further Proof one should never send their son or daughter to any ALL boy or all girl school".........
At this point there is in fact no proof of anything in the Kavanaugh matter .....just allegations and denials ....nonetheless less your final absurd conclusion/admonition that "it is further proof" that where Kavanaugh was educated had anything to do with the alleged conduct.
What is your argument now Stuart? That where we are educated does not at all effect our lives or behaviors? Then why send anyone to a private school? or Catholic School? The whole purpose is to effect the students behavior and mind set. It obviously did help this judge to be a sexist monster, who, as we keep on seeing the build up of women he has abused, he is more than happy to do what it takes to impregnate women, he is not married to (he is such a good Catholic) just as long as he can leave the burden of dealing with those pregnancies solely with the women he abused. Nope no proof yet but where there is smoke there is usually fire and who can see through the black cloud of smoke this guy is throwing up in the air with his rich and proper past.
Nora
My argument is quite simple.....you cavalierly throw around the word "PROOF" when there has only been an "Allegation"....You then proceed to denigrate all "boys Schools" as though you had presented some "PROOF"
This utter nonsense and your subsequent rejoinder illustrates my point. ....you have reached a conclusion prior to any evidence has been presented beyond an allegation.You demonstrate a "closed mind" and I will wager that you opposed Kavanaugh's nomination long before these allegations were made.
You are in need of a severe tutorial on the basis of American Jurisprudence as it pertains to allegations, the requirement for corroboration at the outset and the burden of proof . Senator Chris Coons(Dem Delaware) has just asserted the Democratic position :"Judge Kavanaugh must prove he is not guilty"(MSNBC Interview at 12 noon today). This is beyond political nonsense ....it is a repudiation of our entire system of justice and a rejection of the tenets of the Bill of rights.
Well Stuart, I never said that this is proof that Kavanaugh is guilty. What I said or insinuated is this is further proof that same gender schools seem to continuously lead to adults who have problems dealing with the opposite gender. As for my obvious spelling error you chose to have a cow about in my first comment, you can calm down now, I fixed it.
You are correct in that I did not want this man to become a justice because in other areas he has already proven himself to be anti-women's rights and health. I also don't like at all the way the entire GOP has made a joke out of the picking process for him as a Jurist and also of Neil Gorsuch. The GOP did not even try to be moderate, as Obama tried to be, and then the GOP stalled Obama's choice for a year which is well beyond normal time and an abuse of their congressional powers in my belief. So this whole hurrry up and pick any jerk who will free Trump no matter how many women he may have harassed or molested in the past is all a political scam and you know it!
Also you are correct about him having to basically prove that the now various allegations against him from different women are all lies because he is not on trial to go to jail but presenting himself to congress as an excellent, upstanding person of above average morals and intelligence and legal knowledge. A person suitable to be a Justice on our nation's Supreme Court - of course he is or should be held up to the highest standards and without likely any scandals surrounding him, especially of an assault or criminal nature.
Nora
Thank you for proving my point in every respect...you simply do not comprehend or intentionally disregard every basic precept of justice as established by the Constitution. You boldly state that this bare allegation is proof that same gender schools lead to problems in dealing with the opposite sex. Utter slanderous BS of the first order. An allegation proves absolutely nothing.
Nope. No BS unlike your rhetoric here.
You completely ignore what I have said in my comment rather than try to answer to its legitimate concerns because you clearly have no legitimate answer to those concerns.
Kavanaugh, like any other Supreme Court Nominee must be an individual above reproach. He must definitely be able to assert complete innocence in areas regarding criminal behavior or even possible borderline criminal behavior and this is extremely important - that he be a person who clearly has never committed any violent or sexual assault or committed any sexual or other aggressive criminal behavior in his past or borderline behavior in these areas.
Again, a Justice should be above the standard and this does not break with anything stated in the U.S. Constitution.
Again, he is not on trial where he merely needs to be proven guilty. He is in a public interview for the job of Supreme Court Justice and where there are many other equally, and better qualified candidates who have no one accusing them of criminal and/or predatory sexual behaviors now or in the past, he has already proven himself a bad or unworthy choice. You continue to pretend that there has been only one accusation and that is not correct. There are now two, and a possible third, and witnesses, other than the victim, to the second account, are the ones who have been publicly speaking about the event not just the victim, as to what they remember his doing and they are in agreement with each other's recollections.
It is time to realize this guy does not pass the test already. Again Stuart, where there is smoke there is fire. Multiple accusations are evidence there is a fire at the bottom of this smoldering pile. If you are such a great Catholic why does this not bother you? Why wouldn't you seek another, even conservative, candidate who does not have this atmosphere of scandal developing around them?
Single gender schools are sexist by the mere fact that they exclude the other gender and promote gender segregation in the world. If one is educated within gender excluded environs it is difficult not to be effected by that experience, especially, if one is young. All forms of sexism have been proven to cause unbalance and injustice between genders in both religion and society. Some examples of this proof or evidence are these:
1. Yale and Princeton Universities both genders can attend, however, within both of these Universities exist all male fraternities. As of only a few years ago, their all-male fraternities publicly and proudly proclaimed the following mantra regarding dating their co-eds "When she says No, No means Yes, and When she says Yes, Yes means Anal!" Does this sound like gender respect to you? It doesn't to me, and these mantras were not proclaimed by non-fraternity males, unless invited to join in with the fraternities antics by its members.
2. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh went to a the same all-male prep school and both have bad records regarding defending women's equal and same rights as citizens. This is especially true when considering their stand on women's health care rights and needs.
3. Even though Jesus Christ himself commanded All Christians treat All people the same as they wish to be treated (or they risk damnation if they don't), our all- male hierarchy, without permission from either Jesus or the 12 Apostles, excludes all women from an entire sacrament, relegating women to a place of complete subservience, voicelessness, and servitude to men in our church and to an understanding women are less sacred and lesser human than men. These types of sexist religious beliefs have already been proven to lead to women into low self esteem, and often lead women into poverty, slavery, and places of violence around the globe.
4. All- male exclusive college clubs like "Skull and Bones", etc. seek to make sure their male co-members are reserved places of high employment at their prestigious and wealthy corporations after graduation, and often work together to keep women in lower positions in their companies than men overall.
5. our all male permanent deaconate consists of men who tells us how they are such a plus to our church because they are leaders who know how the laity feel and since they are often married men they have real empathy for the women of our church. Yet, this group of deacons, in the U.S. at any rate, refuses to support women being ordained to even the permanent deaconate. This is true even though history definitely has shown women were deacons in the early church (not to mention women were also presbyters which is the only kind of ministry that includes the works that an ordained priest does today).
I could go on endlessly with examples of misogyny stemming from all male schools, groups, religious organizations but I think you get the jist. Or if not you Stuart, because you have stuck your head in the ground on this issue, others who read this I think will find my examples and point quite accurate and apt.
Nora
A big Nora Bolcon" WOW" back to you. You have simply presented " NO PROOF" whatsoever for any of your " expressed theses" concerning single gender schools. I remind you that your initial statement was that the Allegations against Kavanaugh were "PROOF" that single gender schools generate students unable to deal correctly with the opposite sex. ("I quote: "This is further proof that no one should send their son or daughter to a[ single gender school.]...")
Your further riff/exegesis set forth above demonstrates simply that you find endemic misogyny wherever you go......in fact .you seemingly claim a special radar for this trait.
And as you threaten , I am quite sure you could "go on endlessly with examples". It is also quite clear that you are willing to condemn Judge Kavanaugh just because he went to Georgetown Prep...for you it is after all a presumptively mysogynist den of toxic frat boys.
I remind you that the principles of American Jurisprudence respecting "justice" are not suspended or modified based on the gender, the status, the race or the religion of the accused or the accuser. You need a basic lesson in "the presumption of innocence" in the case of ALL allegations of wrongdoing ....it is the golden thread of over 800 years AngloAmerican Jurisprudence. If that principle is suspended, beware your seeking any employment or public position for it can be upended by a mere allegation of misconduct on your part with no defense allowed. That, Nora, is what led to the the grand scale abuses of the French Directorate where a simple "J'accuse" was sufficient.
Hi Stuart,
You seem now to be going round in circles about yourself.
First of all, No one, who does not have their head in the sand, needs to look very hard to find examples of misogyny, and the fact that examples of its existence are everywhere in the world is accurate, sad but true. I didn't make the facts what they are but they are what they are, and I will let them speak for themselves.
The examples I gave to you displaying misogyny within all-male groups are suitable proof or evidence which you asked for in your last comment. I don't recall stating I have any special radars whatsoever.
As for, "It is also quite clear that you are willing to condemn Judge Kavanaugh just because he went to Georgetown Prep...for you it is after all a presumptively mysogynist den of toxic frat boys." - I don't need to condemn him, his own behavior seems to be doing that all by itself, as more and more allegations are arising and appear to be quite credible. I did not state the one allegation was proof of his guilt but instead that it showed me further evidence that my already present belief all gender exclusive schools tend to lead their students into a sexist mind set which is not healthy for them or the world around them is accurate, and I do still agree that is a correct statement. Others definitely believe that statement is true too. Neither your argument here, or Georgetown Prep's reputation, or Kavanaugh's purported behavior have helped to evidence my statement is false in any way. Georgetown Prep seems to be proving itself indeed a den of misogynistic toxic frat boys without any help from me. The last accusation on Kavanaugh has him present at a Gang Rape and not there to help the woman. This kind of violent sexual crime allegation needs to be investigated which means there should be no discussion of continuing with the hearings for this man to be a Jurist. Wait and investigate and clear him completely or pick someone else.
You still have not answered any of the issues I brought up to you in earlier comments. Obviously, because you have no legitimate responses to them and still have not offered a reasonable answer to why you do not just demand, yourself, for Trump to pick someone else for a prospective Jurist who is not currently drowning in a deluge of sexual misconduct allegations, if not criminal misconduct allegations.
ALSO - THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I HAVE HAD TO WRITE THIS SAME RESPONSE, SO I AM PUTTING IT IN CAPS, IN CASE YOU HAVE VISION PROBLEMS.
TO ANSWER YOUR RIDICULOUS STATEMENT ABOUT KAVANAUGH BEING DUE THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE - HE ACTUALLY HAS NO GROUNDS TO EXPECT A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WHEN SEEKING TO BECOME A JURIST FOR THE SUPREME COURT. HE OR ANY CANDIDATE NEEDS TO SHOW THEMSELVES ABOVE REPROACH AND ABSENT OF POSSIBLE SCANDAL IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL OR PERSONAL LIFE AT THE TIME THEY ARE BEING INTERVIEWED AND QUESTIONED BY CONGRESS. THIS IS ALSO TRUE WHEN APPLYING FOR ANY REGULAR JOB IN THE REAL WORLD. IF I HAD AN ACCUSATION MADE AGAINST ME BY A PREVIOUS EMPLOYER WHO TOLD IT TO A PROSPECTIVE NEW EMPLOYER, WHEN I WAS SEEKING A NEW JOB, THAT PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE ME GUILTY IN ORDER TO REFRAIN FROM HIRING ME. THE PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER IS GOING TO GO WITH THE MOST EXPERIENCED AND TRAINED WORKER WITH A CLEAR REPUTATION WHEN DECIDING WHO TO PICK. JURISTS SHOULD NOT EXPECT GREATER TOLERATION THAN A REGULAR BLUE OR WHITE COLLAR WORKER. IN FACT A JURIST SHOULD EXPECT TO BE HELD TO A MUCH STRICTER AND HIGHER STANDARD, ESPECIALLY, IN THE AREAS OF BEHAVIOR, LEGAL SKILL, AND ETHICS.
AS FOR YOUR COMMENT: beware your seeking any employment or public position for it can be upended by a mere allegation of misconduct on your part with no defense allowed.
KAVANAUGH DOES HAVE RECOURSE IF ALL THESE ACCUSERS ARE LYING SINCE THESE ACCUSERS COULD ALL BE PUT ON TRIAL FOR SLANDER IF FOUND GUILTY OF SLANDERING HIM. THIS IS ALSO WHY THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE ACCUSATIONS ARE GENUINE.
SEXISM IS MERELY THE EXCLUSION OF ONE SEX BASED ON THEIR GENDER FROM A GROUP OR BENEFIT OR OPPORTUNITY. ALL GENDER EXCLUSIVE SCHOOLS MEET THAT DEFINITION. ALL SEXISM HAS PROVEN TO LEAD ONLY TO NEGATIVE RATHER THAN POSITIVE FRUITS IN OUR CHURCH, AS I HAVE ALREADY LISTED THE NEGATIVES, AND IN OUR SOCIETY, AND I HAVE LISTED SOME OF THOSE AS WELL. I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN EXPLAIN THESE CONCEPTS MORE THOROUGHLY THAN I ALREADY HAVE SO I AM AT THE POINT THAT YOU PROBABLY JUST DON'T CARE WHAT A THUG THIS KAVANAUGH IS, YOU WANT HIM BECAUSE HE WILL ATTACK WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND FREE TRUMP IF HE IS ACTUALLY PROVEN GUILTY OF TREASON WITH RUSSIA. OTHERWISE, YOU WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HAVING CONGRESS SIMPLY INTERVIEW ANOTHER TRUMP CHOSEN CANDIDATE.
Nora
YOUR ALL CAPS RESPONSE DEMONSTRATES UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST INKLING OF WHAT AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE IS BASED UPON AND WHAT IT APPLIES TO. It is utter nonsense for you to suggest that "the principles of justice" only apply to criminal prosecutions .
I think most folks reading our dialogue will judge I have a pretty good understanding of Jurisprudence and I think that I have explained my stand more than adequately.
Your continuing to repeat the same nonsense over and over again does not make it any more correct that last time than the first time you stated it. This is why I stated the original comment source was living in a bubble, and your last comment definitely proves this is rather true of you as well. So when they dump Kavanaugh as a nominee even though he has not been fully proven in court to have committed what he has been accused of, that will be the Proof you need that he is not legally due a presumption of innocence in his current situation. Meanwhile, please feel free to send your next comment by unicorn over a rainbow since that seems to be how you discern reality as a whole-more fantasy than reality. Or better yet Stuart, decide you actually want to have a constructive dialogue, even with someone who disagrees with you, and I will be happy to have that. At this point, you seem to lack such an honest desire for constructive dialogue.
Nora
"constructive dialogue" requires your understanding at least the basic legal concepts...
Your final notation that "when they dump Kavanaugh as a nominee [without proof of guilt] that it will be the Proof that he is not legally due the presumption of innocence" is the ultimate demonstration on your part that you have no absolutely understanding whatsoever ever of basic legal principles.
Wow! what a bubble you live in. Anita Hill admitted to having lied about Thomas and admitted that her intention was to sabotage a potential pro-life judicial appointment. Leave it to a pro-abort pseudo-Catholic to get everything wrong.
Hi James,
If you are going to respond to me, please check your facts. Anita Hill never admitted to lying about Thomas and there were other women who claimed similar harassment from Thomas. So unless you can offer evidence Anita Hill claimed she lied, please do not write like you have such evidence. You don't because she never made that claim. There is no such thing as a Pseudo Catholic or a Pseudo Christian. Anita Hill is Pro-Choice not Pro-Abortion and since criminalizing abortion in any country has only resulted in greater amounts of abortions and maternal deaths happening in every one of those countries, you should be singing her praises for the lives of both the unborn and born she has helped to save in this country by not supporting its criminalization here.
I highly agree. Nothing has been established and we do not even know if the accuser intends to testify. The article strikes me instead as the usual effort of the Society of Jesus in the United States to be au courant with the toxicity of PC culture: I would welcome the Society and its preps going back to the production of masculinity, rather than the androgyny in vogue.
I guess you don't see the double standard that your statements about Dr Ford? Isn't it premature & highly toxic to say that the allegation has the "hallmarks of a political hit job" when there hasn't been an investigation as she has requested? She (like most women) is a democrat so "case closed".
The FBI investigated the Anita Hill allegations in THREE days. The committee can't take one week for the FBI to look into it? Just because Brett Kavanaugh lied during his hearing, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't lie about what he did when he was 17, am I right? As a matter of fact, she did tell her marriage therapist. The notes still exist. If you are so confident - because he's a man so he must be honest & upstanding - what are you worried about?
It is untrue that no one else (or no evidence) has ever come forward about Thomas. At least one woman came forward in 2016 and three other women with experiences similar to Hill's who had also worked at the EEOC were identified after his confirmation. A brief on impeaching Thomas was prepared for the Clinton campaign during the 2008 election and contained substantial evidence that Thomas had lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Your outright dismissal of Ford and excusing of Kavanaugh and Thomas are, however, entirely consistent with your worldview.
@ Tim- Get off your pulpit. If it were your daughter, and she carried the trauma for the last 40 years, you might not be so cavalier. Your comments embody male toxicity.
Frank - I am outlining the evidence, not preaching. Is there some part of the evidence you deny? I have a daughter, and contrary to some chauvinists like yourself, I hold my daughter to the same level of honesty as my sons. If she came home after a party and recounted such an event, I would be all over it right away. I would also want to know who was at a party my daughter was at at age 15. So, I wonder about the parents of Ms. Ford in all this? She admits to drinking at a party at age 15? An investigator would need to know if this was the only alleged assault Prof. Ford has claimed?
You seem to think that anyone cares about your depiction of this event. Maybe you should consider that others have similar access to media and the various depictions of the facts. We don't need your lecture. Ever heard of "preaching to the choir." So maybe you lessen your lofty opinion of yourself because nobody wants to read your mindless rambling. There are plenty of skilled journalists covering this already and I didn't come to the comments section of America The Jesuit Review to get the latest on what's happening and especially not some pathetic, whining commentary that nobody asked for.
I went to a less prestigious, private Catholic all-boys school called Saint John's High School in D.C., not far from Georgetown Prep.
For some of my classmates and I am sure it's true for some at Georgetown Prep, a freshman retreat or even four years of Jesuit education may not be able to stand up to a life of privilege, country clubs, and connections with powerful people. Students' characters are formed by all kinds of sources. Many students know how to put on a good show at school but laugh at their teachers behind their backs. I don't know if Judge Kavanaugh is one of these people, but it is possible.
Quite insightful.
Great Jim! Pete Hamill in one of his books has one of his Brooklyn characters say to his buddies in an Irish bar: “Never marry a woman you can’t knock out with one punch.” This kind of pernicious/violent domination ( with deep male insecurities) has been passed on to new generations- this time it’s about sexual domination. Trump has given the whole world permission to verbally and sexually ( grabbing p——) abuse women. This is all frightening. ——-Kyrie Eleison!
It’s so much easier to just demean others isn’t it.
It’s so much easier to just demean others isn’t it. While I agree with you that a certain education doesn’t dictate the most favorable outcome for everyone you perceive that Kavanaugh has lived a life of “prestige, etc.” and therefore moral failure was inevitable for him. Flawed reasoning on your part.
On the contrary, scientific studies have shown that wealth, power and prestige make people less empathetic. Your "reasoning" is merely an assumption.
It will be hard in our tribal culture to see this situation as it is. The good news is America has grown up since the Clarence Thomas debacle. . I remember how I chastised Anita Hill and blamed her for attempting to prevent an able Afro-American from the Highest Court. But it did not escape women who got it right away that knew that they better start running for office. Now that we have the most toxic male in the White House women will run for office more than ever. Men like me learned from Anita Hill. I started to listen to women. I had to shed the stereotypes and understand how patriarchal I was. Hopefully, more males will grow up almost thirty years after Anita Hill jolted us.
The only "jolt" I had from Anita Hill was how we could conduct a high tech lynching on TV. Nothing of her claims was ever proven, and the canons of evidence cast plenty of doubt on the current accusations. But I guess Jesuits have abandoned rigorous thinking for "starting to listen" regardless of corroboration and engaging in a Maoist-like PC self-criticism of one's so-called/unconscious/maybe anonymous (like Rahner's Christians) "patriarchy." I, for one, am not going to the Laogai quietly.