The Senate Judicial Committee's hearings on the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court were painful enough to watch. Yet they captured social pressure points throughout society. The elephant in the room was the Roe v. Wade decision that unborn children lack personhood and may be put to death at any time up to birth. That dividing issue in the USA led to all the tricks and theatrics in the hearings. Yet the presenting issue had to be something else since the ‘Ginsburg Rule’ says that candidates will not reveal how they would vote on particular issues.
What better way, then, to bring the candidate down in the #MeToo era than to make a claim of sexual abuse? As a real Catholic, unlike lip-serving Catholics in high governmental positions who regularly advocate for abortion and homosexuality, Kavanaugh surely personally opposes abortion. While we do not know how, as a judge, he would vote on the matter (for his role is to interpret laws, not make them), he would be a dangerous addition to the court from a pro-abortion position. So, some issue other than how one might vote on abortion had to be found. That issue somehow emerged in July and has been artfully and carefully played by the Democrats on the committee to delay any confirmation. It falls to every viewer to decide what they will about these murky matters, yet it seems obvious that the game-plan has been about delaying the vote and nothing else.
It is, furthermore, politically correct to believe allegations of sexual abuse—and people seem to believe accusers rather than defendants on this issue. The accuser no longer has to prove the accusation; the accused has to prove innocence: one is assumed guilty until proven innocent. Such is the legacy of the #MeToo movement. Men, white men, in particular, are the group to malign and disparage. And how better to make a claim of sexual abuse than to lodge it in an obscure past with no corroborating witnesses to ensure that the courts will not touch it? Proof is unnecessary for slander to stick, and slander, not proof, will bring down a nominee. As I have often said to students, a well-articulated thesis is still not an argument, no matter how much it may sound as such to some. Similarly, a well-presented story, which has surely happened to many in similar ways, is still not a legitimate claim, no matter how much it may sound as such to some.
So, why call for an FBI investigation? Because the goal is not to get to the truth for the accuser but to delay a vote long enough to change—it is hoped—the majority in the Senate from Republicans to Democrats, the pro-abortion party. A delay, moreover, offers the possibility that other baseless claims may be put forward, with the potential of further investigations and further delays. Indeed, the call for an FBI investigation is a worthwhile gamble if it provides the extra time for further allegations to arise or further issues to pursue. The primary game is to delay the vote on Kavanaugh until after the next elections. Another possibility that any investigation might afford is that uncertain conclusions will be reached, which will pressure some senators to vote 'safely' against the accused--a political vote with great, personal harm and without regard to the presumption of innocence until proving someone guilty.
The historic hearings of Judge Kavanaugh make painful viewing. One has deep sympathy for girls and women who experience this kind of sexual abuse, whether or not the accuser in this case ever was abused by someone in her past. Her testimony rings true not because she has substantiated any of it but because it surely has happened to someone and has happened all too often. Human depravity reaches every aspect of our existence, and sexual depravity and violence are the two most obvious examples.
One also has deep sympathy for the nominee, who has been accused of horrific things long ago for which there is no proof whatsoever. One fears being so accused by someone in this #MeToo era—like the early Christians, who were hauled before magistrates and put to death in large numbers by their neighbours. Who will be fingered next by shrill voices for a crime he did not commit and dragged before judges eager to condemn?
Furthermore, one gasps at the inequity of it all, with selective attacks on some but not others. One groans, knowing that the previous hearings of Bork and Thomas were nothing but public character assassinations.
Yet the painful viewing also has to do with how this whole matter lacks key practices that make human flourishing possible in a fallen world—things that we do not find in our political system but are present in the Church. The viewing begs for both justice and pastoral care, but neither are on offer. The hearing is nothing more than an exercise in public slander. What we watch is life without the elements of Christian faith—a living hell. (Jean-Paul Sartre, of all people!, captured this in his No Exit.) Fear of God, truth-telling, confession, forgiveness, and restoration are all part of the Church’s practices in regard to human sin, and none of these are on offer in such hearings. The point is that we watch the hearings needing something more than what the hearings intend to give. We watch the exposure of sin without belief in sin, the search for truth by persons who do not believe in truth, and the care of sinners by persons with only political motives. We watch hell in operation.
Someone in these hearings is lying—and I have a strong belief that I know who. Yet, that is not the point of this essay. The focus is on what is so painfully lacking in the hearing for witnesses across the nation and even world. Fear of God is almost totally lacking, apart from a line of questioning from Rep. John Kennedy of Louisana. Truth-telling falls flat in a room charged with political motivations. Instead, who is more rhetorically believable to the viewers wins the day. Some sin, whether unjust accusation or sexual abuse, is involved. Yet viewers watch without any movement of the situation through confession, forgiveness, and restoration. All the things we associate with God Himself—truth, mercy, sacrificial love—are shut out the door of this hellish hearing.
The Law, it is often said, is an ass. It is stubborn and unmovable, and it is painfully stupid in the sense that it is all about application, not reason, let alone redemption. Yet, a quasi-legal, Judicial Committee hearing (it is far from a court case, to be sure) of the sort we have witnessed in Washington this week is the Law in the hands of (certain) devious law-makers interested in politics rather than justice. And what drives this to the lowest level of filthy dealing is to hear the accusing law-makers disparage the ethics of Kavanaugh when they themselves are guilty of similar things.
Yet, one more piece is missing in all this. Kavanaugh is accused of sexual misconduct in a day and age when sexuality has been redefined. It is agonizing to watch senators who have no sexual morality of their own, who accept pre-marital and extra-marital sex, who applaud same-sex intercourse and so-called ‘marriage’ attack Kavanaugh. Themselves proponents of things disgraceful, they seek to disgrace others. While the story of the woman caught in adultery was added later to John’s Gospel (John 7.53-8.11), it is an early story about Jesus and probably historical, albeit not canonical. Even so, from it, one hears the words of Jesus ringing in one’s ears, ‘Let him who has no sin cast the first stone,’ during this merciless take-down of Kavanaugh on the basis of some allegation (and nothing more) about one instance thirty-six years ago.
These hearings would be more bearable if the accusation against Kavanaugh were true and he admitted it. At least then we might witness some Godly confession, although we would certainly not witness forgiveness and redemption as the opposition is politically motivated. Scripture gives us King David, murderer and adulterer and ruler that he was, as a man after God’s own heart. Why? Despite his great sin, his life was lived in the pursuit of holiness and righteousness. He prayed for forgiveness to our merciful God,
Psalm 51:1-4 Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. 2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! 3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.
Even this possibility—of witnessing confession—is removed from the Kavanaugh hearing: he denies the accusation.
We can only expect so much from committee hearings, and what we have come to expect is nothing good whatsoever. But when the nation watches such a process as we have seen play out, it is the absence of a just and merciful Judge who will forgive the penitent of the vilest of transgressions that stands out. Or, it is the absence of truth-telling and a sincere pursuit of justice that stands out. To watch such hearings leaves us longing for God. Indeed, this leaves us with a single word to capture these hearings: merciless. Thank God that, sinners though we are, our hearing before Him will be nothing of the sort. As John wrote, ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1.9). As Paul says, God is just ‘and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus,’ (Romans 3.26), for Jesus came to save sinners (1 Timothy 1.15). In these hearings, we confront our own need for God.
Comments