…when he wouldn’t answer the question: “How many beers is too many?”
A hostile Democratic Senator had not asked him this question. Rather, the Arizona prosecutor deputized by the Republicans asked, “How many beers is too many?”
The appropriate answer is a number. Three. Maybe four–for a big guy.
Judge Kavanaugh said: ” I don’t know. You know, we — whatever the chart says, a blood-alcohol chart.”
Every young person on earth needs to hear a clear and decisive answer to such a question. Three is too many. We need to hear it especially from someone sitting where Brett Kavanaugh sat at that moment.
…I have prayed for the end of Roe v. Wade every day for twenty-five years. This has nothing to do with politics. I am simply imagining myself in Twelve Angry Men. We just finished listening to the witnesses. And we now find ourselves in the jury room.
She told the truth.
He lives in terror–that he might actually have done it. He can’t remember, because he drank way too much in those days.
The irony is, both of these following sentences are true:
1. Brett Kavanaugh is a basically decent man who doesn’t deserve what he is going through right now.
2. He is guilty of the charge.
When I say that he doesn’t deserve what he is going through right now, I mean:
He deserved a long talk with a police officer and at least one night in jail. He deserved to sit beside his dad in the car, as they drove over to the young lady’s house, for him to apologize personally. Then ask her what he could do to make it up to her. Then give her time to think about it. Then do whatever she asked.
He deserved to have his father tell him that he could not play football that fall, that he was grounded for a year. And that if caught with a beer in his hands, he was going to rehab.
(And of course: Confession and penance at Little Flower.)
Then, by February, the whole thing might have been behind them all. Not that I am blaming her for not saying anything at the time. God knows it took guts for her to say it now.
If he would just admit: It might very well be true. And I’m sorry, and that isn’t really me–redemption is close at hand. And he can join in praying for the next pro-life nominee. And find some peace.
…Let’s not forget that dudette nailed this “#MeToo” thing back in ’02, long before there were such things as hashtags.
Father Mark White Blog 
He replied whatever the blood alcohol chart said because it wouldn’t matter what figure he gave, it would somehow be turned against him.
Judy Rogers
I have not been watching this trial, but I am tired of the way your political views are supposed to include assuming all accusations against your party are false. I also know from my studies this goes all the way back to at least ancient Athens. Highly unlikely to change but just another flaw of humanity.
I agree one hundred percent with you padre.
Many thoughts – I stopped believing her
1. Can’t remember where it happened, even what year.,
2. Nobody can substantiate her claim.
3. Can’t fly although she flies all over the world.
4. From anonymous to taking the world stage and seemingly enjoying it.
5. Never mentioned his name in any medical record.
Many thoughts – I believed him
1. An only child, working hard at studies and sports.
2. A calendar dispelling her claim for time and place.
3. What is too many beers? Tough question – ask a few high school students.
4. Admiited he was a virgin long after college – pretty remarkable statement in itself.
5. Not one allegation or event throughout his career. Pretty remarkable.
6. The amount of high school friends that signed a pledge for him after all these years.
If we went into the politics of this issue and the repercussions, you would lose, Father.
Let’s pray for a good Catholic on the Supreme Court.
Oh yes, let’s look at the real statistics of memories from rape victims. I am one – I remember, the date, the place and the time and that was 49 years ago. And by the way, his name – his last name was DiLorenzo and I shivered every time I heard that name at every Mass. She was unbelievable in my eyes – can’t compare to a not so good answer about beers.
Thank you Nancy and God bless you. None of us know what others have been through and lived with for years.
Judy Rogers
How exactly did you determine that he is guilty? I know you’re good but I didn’t know that you were omniscient .
Joe
If the Fearsome Three that visited Sodom and Gomorrah were sent to Washington DC to seek 5ooo righteous souls, or else, …, they might just squeak it and I am certain Judge Kavanaugh would be in the number!!! President Trump is keeping his promise to the Christian Community to put forth Judges that adhere to the US Constitution and love the unborn. He has the T___ fortitude to go against the political grain and media to do so, but then he is not a careerist politician, but an Alpha that knows how to fight to win! Young David was not a candy ass either. You have prayed daily for 25 years and here is a prospect that will tip the balance in the Supreme Court to return it to some semblance of Constitutional Sanity, and you infer this man, nay, these MEN, Kavanaugh and Trump are unworthy? (see various Blogs summer and fall of 2016). The reading I have done leads me to think we have had Three US Presidents in my 63 years with manly honor that actually loved the Country and it’s Citizens viewing the High Office a very Great Responsibility: Kennedy, Reagan, Trump! Carter disqualified for supporting legal murder of the unborn, eg, lack of love for our fellow Citizens. How sincere can anyone’s claim to love Jesus be if they support in any way the murder of the unborn/being born?
Not a drinking man, but after viewing the confirmation hearing I am knocking back as many brewskis as I can before I black out tonight.
I love all of the Responses.The people out There are Piss Off.
Terry – you gave me a good laugh tonight. Needed it after reading Father White’s blog. I don’t have any beer in the house but I do have a bottle of wine. I think I’ll go down to the PD after drinking my wine to see if I meet the criteria for sexual assault.
And Father White – I hope and pray nobody accuses you of a crime someday that you did not commit.
She was calm, cool, and collected. He was not. She answered questions carefully. He did not.
There is no real evidence, other than one person’s word against another. He deserves the presumption of innocence and of credibility.
But, like I said, I stopped believing what he was saying when he wouldn’t give a simple, straightforward answer to a sympathetic question about how many beers is too many.
He may have feared that if he gave a straight answer, the next question would have been: How often did you drink more than that number during the summer of 1982? Which would have compelled him to give an answer which would have bolstered her account.
Maybe the moral of the story is: Don’t drink to excess.
I have a 17 year old. (And have had 4 other 17 year olds) If he is out with four friends at someone’s house, then it will be the home of one of the 4 friends. It shouldn’t be hard to figure out where you were.
Blood alcohol level depends on weight, time consumed and percent of alcohol in what you are drinking. There isn’t one answer.
Why is it that her story is not corraborated my one of her named witnesses. How many beers was too
Many for you when at St. Albans. He was engaged in an inane discussion of a Higj School yearbook in an obvious gotcha session, whatever he answered he would have been pilloried. One would assume that Kavanaugh is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as catholic priest wrongly accused. My guess the FBI will not find anything that is not already known
Joe.
Suzanne and Joe – I agree with you. An alcoholic may say one beer is too many. Judge K was put into a corner. No matter what he said, he would have been cornered.
Maybe the moral of the story is that you need some corroboration or evidence if you want to accuse somebody.
Dreams can seem real sometimes as well.
I would have said three beers. I was definitely at parties that I can remember things from, but I couldn’t tell you who’s house it was now, and it’s likely that other people there, if asked now, would say they have no memory of it at all.
I believed him when he denied that the yearbook references had to do with sex. But he beggared belief when he denied that the references having to do w heavy drinking meant what they clearly mean.
I agree that he shouldn’t have to deal with questions about his yearbook at this point in his life. But that fact doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.
If I were in his shoes, and I knew for a fact I don’t do it, I wouldn’t get belligerent with questions. I would know that doing so would make me look defensive. I would answer them all calmy and honestly.
The fact that he didn’t do that makes me think that he’s afraid he might have actually done what she said he did, and he knows that it’s reasonable to imagine that he could have done it without remembering that he did it. So he reacts emotionally instead of calmly.
I was thankful to see him displaying emotion. This man is being destroyed for political reasons only. He was criticized earlier for being too calm when he did the interview with Martha. Can any of us imagine being asked about our sexual past on national TV! It is possible something terrible did happen to the accuser, but I do not believe it was Kavanaugh. He has every right to be upset and angry. And I was pleased when he produced his calendars. I also am a calendar saver. I have the past 15 years in a file in the garage. I had more but threw them out last year. I have seen the damage caused by mistaken “memories” to people I knew. We live in a sick society. And back to the beer, I was watching the questioning at that point and remember thinking, “Be careful…don’t give her a number.” You do not have to be a lawyer to recognize when someone is being set up. I pray for Judge Kavanaugh, and if I/we are proved wrong, then I will continue to pray for him, that a life devoted to doing good was destroyed because of a past sin in his youth. And what judge would want to go through this in the future? A person destroyed by an accusation with no evidence!
Judy R.
She says: “I am certain it was him.”
He says, “I dispute none of the facts she narrates, other than the assailant. It wasn’t me.”
So far, he deserves the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence.
He could then introduce the calendar as evidence that he kept some record of his doings that summer. Not that the calendar proves anything on this disputed point. But it does add to his credibility about his certainty that it wasn’t him. If that is what he had done, I would have continued to believe him.
But he asserted to Sen. Feinstein that the calendars demonstrated things that they do not demonstrate. He said that they show that he has a solid alibi for every night the entire summer. Not a credible assertion.
He ruled out the weekends in pretty convincing way. Fine. But the events Dr. Ford narrated could very well have happened on a summer weekday. He insisted that on the weekdays he was at Blair high school exercising. But then he admitted that the calendar contains cross-outs for workouts he didn’t do. That’s an inner-contradiction in his own testimony, testimony he offered to bolster his claim that he is certain that it wasn’t him. Which makes his claim that he’s certain seem less certain.
Listen, I wept myself when Kavanaugh talked about his father’s way with the calendars. I think Judge Kavanaugh is an all-around pretty beautiful man. But the vehemence with which he insisted that the calendars supported his counter-claim against her certainty: that was defensive and unconvincing and undermined his credibility on this point.
Let me just add one more thing, to be as clear as I can about what I am actually saying.
I think there are plenty of young women who would not have taken the episode as hard as Dr. Ford has taken it. She acknowledged that she is a naturally anxious person. Another young woman might have taken the episode as a highly objectionable joke. She says she thought Kavanaugh intended to rape her. I believe that she thinks that. But I don’t think that he actually did intend to rape her.
But Dr. Ford has the right to take the episode as she has taken it. She has a right to be the anxious person that she is. And to object to the idea of this same young man sitting on the Supreme Court.
I don’t even necessarily agree with her there. If he had stayed calm, not lashed out at anyone, and simply admitted that what she says could have happened, but he certainly didn’t mean to hurt her as much as she obviously was hurt, and he was sorry, then we would be at a different place.
Beers, calanders, he said- she said, 36 years later, anxiety, fear of flying?, …what will history say about this?….believe or not to believe…..examples of false identities by victims….governmental manipulation…no proof, no crime….for the good of the people or for the good of the politicians…for justice sake or for power sake?…holding onto her potential evidence until the 11th hour when it could have been investigated much sooner…leaking her information that violated her anonymity…
Our church and our politics – see some similarities?
What is he supposed to say he is sorry for? Why would he say he was sorry for something he didn’t do? In the hope that if he admits to doing something he didn’t do and says he is sorry, everything will be okay? He has already said he was sorry for what happened to her but that he wasn’t the one who did it. And how much beer did she have to drink that evening? I think the FBI should investigate the accuser’s background/history also (and yes I realize there are protocols for an FBI investigation). I also wonder why Feinstein held the letter for so long, and my guess is that she herself was uncertain about its validity and used it only as a last resort when she realized Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed. And, on another note, if we want to criticize Kavanaugh for being too emotional (after having been criticized for not being emotional enough on the TV interview) then perhaps we should criticize Ford for her performance, which I personally found to be very suspect. I cannot push away the feeling she enjoyed all of the attention.
Judy R.
According to what I just heard on the TV, Dr. Ford will also be questioned by the FBI. Hope I heard correctly. Only fair way to do it.
Judy R.
Well, even trump is reportedly saying saying she is is very credible…. certainly different than his tune before, he still wants kavenaugh, but, he seems to believe a lot of what she said too.
Hey father mark, does a couple of your comments go back to the old me thinks he doth protest too much? I agree that,getting all defensive, and sorry but throwing in many ways a temper tantrum put him in a pretty bad light, did it sway my vote, no, I’d read enough, but it didn’t turn it in the other direction either……IF his family has so truly been destroyed, if this has really done such horrible things to the country, sorry, but the best thing to do would be to withdraw simply to save everyone involved….
As I prepare to leave for evening Mass, I thought about the opinion by another person that “the best thing to do would be to withdraw simply to save everyone involved…” I would not blame Judge Kavanaugh if he made such a decision, although I hope he does not do so, but it is too late actually to “save everyone involved.” The damage has been done. If he were to withdraw, it would immediately be seen by those against him as an admission of guilt. It would not matter that he did it for the sake of his family. If I am wrong, and if his memory is wrong and he has to live with learning that he did something he does not remember (which I do not expect to be the case), then we will all have to live with that, and it will be terribly sad for everyone. BUT until such time, I pray that he holds fast and stays strong and I pray for God’s protection for him and his family.
Judy R.
Thank you Judy R, I am with you. Let us pray for the Judge and his family who have been decimated through this whole process as well as The Dr.. What a sad state our Country and Church are in. May God have Mercy on us all. Let the one without Sin cast the first stone.
Jerry
I hope I never have to bear up to such scrutiny, particularly by people determined to find flaws!
In the blog, Fr. Mark brings up an interesting issue… the question of how many drinks is too much deserves some attention I think. I am not intending to comment on Judge Kavanaugh, just to consider the question of alcohol consumption. I will however say this about the political antics… I have heard both arguments for being calm versus being emotional… Ford is calm, admirable, yet victims of abuse are generally very emotional when they face their accuser and/or talk about their trauma, so what might that say about her? Judge K is emotional, ok, some would say that points to his anger at being unjustly accused, that a calm response would be a “cold” and “calculated” defense. Whatever, who really can assess, certainly not me. Back to the alcohol…
The fact that JK did not answer the question could be a political defense, a cop-out, or any number of other possibilities. What came to my mind is that most reasonable people know that the alcohol charts suggest that one drink per hour is fine, even two drinks per hour might be ok, though not sustained for any length of time. Many people would argue, stating that their body has a higher tolerance for processing alcohol, or that they are larger, so they can “handle” more. The point is that people will justify their drinking however they want, including… “we were just having a good time.” So here is one guideline:
NIAAA’s Definition of Drinking at Low Risk for Developing Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD):
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/moderate-binge-drinking
For women, low-risk drinking is defined as no more than 3 drinks on any single day and no more than 7 drinks per week. For men, it is defined as no more than 4 drinks on any single day and no more than 14 drinks per week. NIAAA research shows that only about 2 in 100 people who drink within these limits have AUD.
The fact that society at large seems to accept excessive alcohol consumption as a socially acceptable behavior in certain environments is a significant problem. The 5th commandment, “Thou shall not kill” and the cardinal sin of gluttony both point to our responsibility to NOT abuse our bodies nor the bodies of others. It is irresponsible for us to compromise our liver much less impair our judgement and yet the behavior is common. How many of us have found ourselves in a compromising situation (PCI) because we had been drinking irresponsibly? So why are we not stronger advocates for responsible drinking? Why do we not correct our kids when we see them falling into these seemingly socially acceptable patterns? Maybe because we have drunk the kool-aid and think it’s a rite of passage? Maybe because we aren’t paying enough attention, or assume that they’re fine and would NEVER do x, y, or z. Maybe because we have abdicated our parental responsibility because we don’t want to fight with our kids when everyone else thinks it’s ok? Maybe because they start the habit after moving out and we are no longer supposed to “parent” them, not to mention they are not as accessible…
The trivialization of sin… it’s a problem. I don’t have an answer. I tried to do my part with my family. I am sure many would say the same.
I meant assailant, not accuser, in my comment about calm versus emotional.