Tuesday, 2 October 2018

Such a brave millennial piece of shite kicking a young woman - JORDAN HUNT HAS HIS WORLDWIDE ATTENTION AS A COWARDLY WOMAN-HATING ABUSIVE THUG




Peter Lamb said...

This is OT, but I think Readers might be interested in Bishop Sanborn's appraisal of the liberal Kavanagh circus:

The recent weeks have been dominated ad nauseam by the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. Here I will give my reflections on this case and provide some moral principles.

In the first place, I have no knowledge of the judge’s political views, and am quite indifferent regarding his approval. Although he comes highly recommended in conservative circles, the fact that liberal neocon George W. Bush supports his nomination is disquieting. On the other hand, the hatred that the Leftists have for him is reassuring .

What is of particular concern is the manner in which he is being accused.

In the first place, I found Dr. Ford’s testimony against him to be very unreliable and inconsistent. The prosecutor who interrogated her published these inconsistencies in a report to the Senate.

Secondly, I find it hard to believe that she would have said nothing about the incident to anyone for thirty-six years.

Be these things as they may, what should we think about Judge Kavanaugh?

Moral theology — indeed the law of God — requires us to not think any evil of him beyond what is evident. If there is insufficient evidence to make a certain judgement of guilt, then we must hold him guiltless. If there is sufficient evidence to cause suspicion of guilt, then we may lawfully suspect him. To think evil of someone without sufficient evidence is a sin of rash judgement, and it is a mortal sin if the matter is serious. This matter is certainly serious.

In this case, however, it is Judge Kavanaugh’s word against Dr. Ford’s word. Moral law requires us, in that parity of contradictory testimony, to take the word of the superior, which in this case would be that of Judge Kavanaugh.

Furthermore, the testimony of Dr. Ford is weakened severely by the fact that she was not cross-examined. The purpose of cross-examination is precisely to test the truthfulness of the witness. Cross-examination by a good lawyer would have demonstrated the many contradictions in Dr. Ford’s testimony, as reported by the prosecutor who questioned her.

Peter Lamb said...

As well, it is a general principle in both civil law and moral law that the accused has the right to face his accuser. This right was denied to Judge Kavanaugh.

The fact that the Leftist senators kept the information secret until the last minute also seriously taints the integrity and honesty of the senators who oppose Judge Kavanaugh. For if they had really believed the information to be true, it is of a such a nature that it should have been brought forth immediately.

I therefore conclude that Dr. Ford’s testimony should be discounted for all of the reasons I have stated above.

Even if, however, one should accept Dr. Ford’s testimony as true, I do not believe that the qualifications of any human being should include actions which he or she performed when seventeen years old. Teenagers do many imprudent, foolish, stupid, and sinful things, but in many or even most cases they recover from these bad actions or habits and act like responsible adults. Furthermore, what the judge is accused of is not even a complete act. It was not a rape. Even as it is reported, the prosecutor said that it is not actionable even from the point of view of prosecution as a crime. Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh is supposed to have performed this act while drunk, according to his accuser, which would reduce culpability, if the incident did indeed occur.

If Judge Kavanaugh had done something like this in more mature years, then I would say that there would be reason to block his nomination.

I would like to find out from both the accuser and from the senators some of their activities during their teenage years.

What is most lamentable about the whole matter is the absolutely deplorable manner in which there hearings took place, with no regard for even the most fundamental rules of evidence, or even of human decency.

Bp. Sanborn | October 2, 2018 at 1:54 pm | Tags: Moral Theology, Politics | Categories: Family, Moral Theology, Politics | URL: https://wp.me/p4WbaC-7u

Dorota Mosiewicz-Patalas said...

I have serious doubts about the following statement:

"Moral law requires us, in that parity of contradictory testimony, to take the word of the superior..."

More than once in my life my superior (higher up in the organization, but not necessarily morally) contradicted my truthful statements with what I knew to have been lies.

Bergoglio is known for using this dubious requirement to destroy his honest opponents. Then he accuses others of clericalism.

No, I have no doubt. Moral law does not require that the word of our superior in the hierarchy of the organization be held as truer than ours. Such a law is - morally speaking - unlawful.

Similarly, a law attributing more weight to the testimony of a man than to that of a woman is morally indefensible.

In the case of Kavanaugh versus Ford, however, I believe the accusations against Kavanaugh are completely unsubstantiated. There is no case against him. There might be a cause against him in the case of Vince Foster's death investigation. Naturally, the dem rats are not very interested in looking into that Clinton era issue.

Tom A. said...

Just because your superiors were dishonest, does not invalidate the principal. An organization promotes some over others and gives them authority and responsibility. Naturally their testimony should carry more weight. Of course, there will always be dishonest superiors but unless there is additional collaborating testimony, the subordinates testimony by itself should never be enough to destroy a man and his career. This is exactly the ploy the dems have been using for years, hurl any accusation and make it stick. This is why it must be part of the moral law that a subordinate cannot simply accuse a superior, else no organization or society could survive. This is also why it is so disheartening when a superior is caught being dishonest. They were given authority to govern and they broke that special trust that civil society needs to operate. I have not been following this current circus too much so I am confused why Bp Sanborn mentioned this principal. Did the accused and accuser have a hierarchal relationship? I thought they just went to school together.

Jack said...

The pro-life woman is also a millennial.

Melanie said...

Since we’re OT, did you guys see Ann Barnhardt’s article about the Stang? She is right. Two minute search and she is right. Bergoglio is Satanic and is leading a fake Satanic church. I can’t believe this. Schism is bad and heresy and error, all real bad. But this is, literally, Satanism. That thing is not Catholic, people. I can’t believe people can’t see this. Deacon Donnelly got a Twitter warning for saying “gay mafia.” I left Twitter last yr bc I got a warning for the same and I wouldn’t play that game. Can’t say truth on Facebook, Twitter, 1P5, Rorate Caeli, the Remnant, AKACatholic, Novus Ordo Watch, coffee room of any TLM Chapel, trad-Cath forums. I’m in bizarro world. Saw someone on Twitter remark he hated sedevacantism bc it was so isolated. Buddy, you’d better adjust, holy cow, yeah we’re isolated. We’ll be isolated at our individual judgment, no matter what. If you let me say this Vox Cantoris, I thank you and God bless you and I’m so sorry you lost your dog, Roxy

Vox Cantoris said...

You are correct Jack. Not all millennials are as he and sadly, not as her.

Vox Cantoris said...

Melanie, you can always say truth here and I don’t censor sedevacantists.

I lost my best friend, my heart is broken, I am so very sad. I was blest by God to have His little creature. She was 17 years and 8 months. Thank you.

c matt said...

I would like to find out from both the accuser and from the senators some of their activities during their teenage years.

Heck, I'd like to find out what they've been doing since in Congress, no need to go back to teenage years (remember the Congressional "slush fund" for harassment payoffs?).

As for credibility issues - at least in law (also depending on civil vs criminal) a he said/she said goes to credibility. If both are equally credible, then the tie goes to the defense, not because of superior vs subordinate, but because of burden of proof (civil must be more probable than not, criminal, beyond reasonable doubt). So if both are equally credible, the plaintiff/accuser (the one with the burden of proof) has not met the burden.

As for the On Topic, would it be morally permissible to have beaten the tar out of that guy?

Peter Lamb said...

I have been off line for a few days - electricity cables in our street were stolen at night. Seeing I started this OT, please let me post Bishop Sanborn's response to critics:

As a result of my recent blog posting, entitled “Judging the Judge,” I received a good deal of complimentary comments, but was inundated by very critical comments.

I would like to answer those who criticized what I said. First I will give some explanations of things that may have been unclear.

In moral theology there are certain reflex principles which are used in order to resolve a doubt. In the case of two testimonies which are contradictory, i.e., “he said, she said,” the doubt is resolved, all things being equal, by taking the word of the superior. Judge Kavanaugh is the superior in this case, not because he is a man, but because he is a federal judge, and a very renowned one at that. He has stronger credibility, according to this moral principle, than his opponent.

I say “all things being equal,” since it is possible that the word of an inferior could be more credible than that of a superior, for various reasons. But when both seem credible, presumption must be made in favor of the superior. Perhaps my critics disagree with this principle, but nonetheless it is Catholic moral theology.

By saying that the immoral actions of a seventeen year old, especially while drunk, should not affect his qualifications later in life, should not be taken as an absolution or a condonation of the immoral behavior of teenagers. It is simply to say: if he repents of his immoral actions, and if this repentance is accompanied by the amendment of his moral habits, these actions should not disqualify him in the future from responsible and honorable positions in society. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux said “Penance is second innocence.” There is the outstanding example, as well, of Saint Augustine, who led a morally dissolute life as a young man, but who converted from it and went on to become a great saint and one of the greatest doctors of the Church.

It is a mortal sin to get drunk. Inebriation, however, does reduce the culpability of a sin, inasmuch as the excessive alcohol impairs the use of reason, as well as moral inhibitions, with the result that people do and say things while drunk that they would never do or say while sober. This is Catholic moral theology. If you do not accept this, your argument is with both Catholic moral theology and even common sense, because everyone knows that this is true.

Peter Lamb said...

I do not believe, however, that Judge Kavanaugh is guilty of the aggressive behavior of which he is accused, because I do not find the testimony of Dr. Ford to be credible, owing especially to the many memory lapses concerning the circumstances of the event.

This is my conclusion. It was also the conclusion of the FBI. Others may find her credible. I do not impose my conclusion on them, and they should not impose their conclusion on me.

But this is exactly what my critics did. I received about thirty hate emails, many of them interspersed with vulgar and filthy language, such as the S-word and the F-word, but nearly all of them accusing me of condoning sin, of being a child abuser, of being non-Catholic, and of other horrid things. One of them said, “You are a pig, Bishop.” Another said, “How many young boys have you f****d?” These were not isolated cases. Only two of the thirty emails that I received were civil and balanced, although they expressed disagreement.

First, let me say that attacking your opponent with anger, hate, insult, and filth does much to detract from your credibility. People who are confident of their positions are able to defend them with rational arguments, not F-words.

Second, to express my opinion about the credibility of Dr. Ford’s testimony, or that of any witness, is entirely my right, and I should not be harassed or preyed upon by Leftists who disagree with me. Abusive language and false accusations are themselves a form of violence.

The Leftists have turned their political views into religious dogma, and they are ready to burn at the stake anyone who disagrees with them.

Bp. Sanborn | October 5, 2018 at 12:08 pm | Tags: Catholic Church, Family, Moral Theology, Politics, Religion, Roman Catholic Church | Categories: Moral Theology, Politics | URL: https://wp.me/p4WbaC-7B

Anonymous said...

There is a sex abuse case against Opus Dei going on right now in Spain in which a young boy was abused for YEARS by a member of opus dei who regularly removed him from class in an opus dei owned school to abuse him.
NO ONE is covering it and while George Neumayer , Michael Voris and even Frank Walker bemoans the cow towing bishop pr outlets like NCR and EWTN,and World Over Live and George Wiegel , none of them will say these outlets are either owned or funded by Opus Dei. Contact Randy Engel on her New Engel Publishing site to request coverage of the trial that is happening now.

Irenaeus said...

Mr. Hunt turned himself last night - at least he admitted he did wrong! Faced multiple charges.

Lynda said...

Credibility is an objective judgment as to the likelihood of a given assertion of fact being objectively true; it involves the application of objective or right reason to the information presented in the light of all relevant known facts. It is not a subjective opinion.