What the Investigators said.

Dear Mr. French,

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter Mr. French, but obviously I disagree. Your Editor’s note said the Investigators dismissed the claim, but investigators are not the defense lawyers, nor are they the media, investigators are the Police, Detectives, and Prosecution, and these investigators not only never brought up any reference to hate crimes at trial, they refuted the hate crime theory after the trial.

If “the prosecution was not alone in characterizing Shepherd's murder as an anti-gay hate crime” then;

1. Why did the Judge prevent the Defense from using the “gay panic” strategy, but remain silent on a Prosecution based on a gay hate crime? http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/mckinney/gay_panic

_ruling_ctv.html

Can you cite one quote or reference to back up your claim that the Investigators, or the Prosecution team, at any point considered this a gay hate crime. I have cited two from the ABC 20/20 story, here’s more:

2. “Prosecutors never characterized Shepard's slaying as a hate crime; they portrayed the killing as a robbery-gone-bad. However, McKinney's defense claimed that he did not intend to kill Shepard.” http://www.courttv.com/archive/trials/mckinney/110399

_verdict_ctv.html

3. “Prosecutor Cal Rerucha told potential jurors this week that they must look at the evidence and not the backgrounds of the victim or the defendant.” http://www.billingsgazette.com/wyoming/990331_wyo002.html

4. “Prosecutor Cal Rerucha also said to the 71 members of the jury pool that although slain student Matthew Shepard was "different, a victim that was not the same as you and I," that the Constitution requires all people to be treated fairly under the law.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/302286.stm

You’ve presented no evidence that indicates the Investigators thought this murder was motivated by hatred of gays, because the investigators never brought this up, the media and gay rights activists did. You’ve taken a media impression of events and given it an imprimatur from the Prosecution.

Again, thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Jay G

"gay-panic" offense

Mr. G:
I may have accidentally sent an incomplete response, or perhaps the e-mail I was working on disappeared into cyberspace.
The shortened version is this:
I have reviewed your letter, the note and the 20/20 link. I also have reviewed news coverage of the court trial.
One defendant, Russell Henderson, pleaded guilty.
However, Aaron McKinney had a full trial. The trial coverage indicates that the prosecution was not alone in characterizing Shepherd's murder as an anti-gay hate crime. McKinney and his defense team used a "gay-panic" defense, arguing that McKinney had been homosexually abused as a child and snapped when Shepherd allegedly made sexual advances.
McKinney's former girlfriend's testimony also suggested the murder was an anti-gay hate crime. She said McKinney and Henderson plotted to lure Shepherd into their truck by pretending to be gay themselves. She said he later admitted to killing someone.
You no doubt correctly interpreted the thrust of the 20/20 segment, which offered a new version of the motive for the murder. Based on the preponderance of evidence presented under oath at the trial, however, the T&G reporter's characterization of the crime and the editor's note both were on target.
Thanks for your interest,
George R. French
P.S.: If your care to expand on your views on the subject, you might consider logging on to the new "Speakeasy" readers' forum at telegram.com.
Regards,
grf

Hate vs. misinformation

Dear Mr. French,
Now that you are back from your time off I was wondering if you could take a look into the issue I had with the Editor’s Note on my Letter to the Editor. To summarize, my original Letter was published on Mon. 4/3, and it concerned a point in a Taryn Plume article published 3/23, entitled ‘Fighting Hate’. Taryn asserted that Matthew Shepard was murdered because he was gay – my argument was that he was murdered by two crazed methamphetamine addicts who wanted money and could not have cared less that Shepard was gay. I cited the following ABC 20/20 story, the Editor’s note also referred to the same article; http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=3

The key quotes from the ABC 20/20 story are the following:
Former Laramie Police Detective Ben Fritzen, one of the lead investigators in the case, also believed robbery was the primary motive. "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide," he said.

[Prosecutor Cal] Rerucha attributes McKinney's rage and his savage beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. "The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs," Rerucha said.
Read the story for yourself, and there is nothing to support the urban legend that the Investigators believed that Shepard was killed because he was gay. In light of these facts, the Editor’s Note that Investigators dismissed the killer’s claims was clearly wrong, and should be corrected.

For what it is worth, the mistake made by the person writing the Editor’s Note was that they did not read the original 20/20 story, and quite possibly used an unreliable secondary online source, Wikipedia, as the source for this erroneous verification. That’s why the Editor’s Note that claimed “Investigators dismissed the claims” has no basis in fact. This Editor’s Note has underscored the point of my original Letter to the Editor, that you cannot fight hate with misinformation – at least it will when it is corrected.

Thank you for your time and effort in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jay G.

Note: Mr. George French of the T&G Editorial Dept. is looking into this. I'll report on it.

Editor dismissed claims

April 4, 2006 - Not published - waiting for correction.
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Yesterday, the T&G published my letter to the Editor on the article ‘Fighting Hate’ by Taryn Plumb (T&G 03/23/2006) with an Editor’s Note that read “In a November 2004 interview on ABC’s ‘20/20’ program the convicted killers of Matthew Shepard told the robbery and drug addiction story as their third account of the crime. Investigators dismissed the claims.”

The problem with this Editor’s Note is it contradicts the actual story. Investigators actually supported this claim, as the online story said:

‘Former Laramie Police Detective Ben Fritzen, one of the lead investigators in the case, also believed robbery was the primary motive. "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide," he said.’

The Prosecutor agreed with this version of the robbery gone wrong.

“[Prosecutor Cal] Rerucha attributes McKinney's rage and his savage beating of Shepard to his drug abuse. "The methamphetamine just fueled to this point where there was no control. It was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. It was a murder that was once again driven by drugs," Rerucha said.”

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=3

The Editor’s Note that claimed “Investigators dismissed the claims” has not basis in fact. The Telegram should issue a correction to their error.

Jay G

Note: George French is currently looking into this matter:

Mr. Guillette:
Thanks for the update. I'll try to untangle the issue from this end and get back to you.
Regards,
George French

gfrench@telegram.com

Sad truth about Matthew Shepard

March 24, 2006
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

The article ‘Fighting Hate’ by Taryn Plumb (T&G 03/23/2006), about the ‘No Place for Hate’ campaign at Holy Cross, could have had unintended consequences. True hate, such as racism, is an infection that grows in the filth of lies and misinformation, which is why it is disconcerting that Plumb misrepresented Matthew Shepard as being killed in a gay hate crime in 1998. All major news outlets, including ABC, now report that Shepard was actually killed by Crystal Meth addicts who only wanted money and could not have cared less about his sexual orientation. The ABC report is over a year and a half old, Plumb should have been aware of it.

While the reported dorm incident involving the slur on sexual orientation is a regrettable one, we must be extremely careful to accurately identify true hate, and not confuse it with what might have been the foolish, drunken, or inconsiderate behavior of college students. Hopefully if the case is inconsiderate college behavior, the ‘No Place for Hate’ campaign will serve as a manners lesson to these uncouth youth. If the case is serious, especially if it involved physical violence, then I trust Fr. McFarland will handle the situation appropriately.

You cannot fight hate with misinformation; but misinformation could provide a breeding ground where a stupid college prank metastases into real hate.

Jay G.

What Seperation?

December 29, 2005
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

On December 14, 2005, with the passage of Chap. 91 of the Acts of 2005, the Massachusetts State government has legally conscripted Catholic hospitals and pharmacists as State agents to dispense the Plan B emergency contraception and abortion pill. Such is the state of religious freedom and the separation of Church and State in Massachusetts.

Catholics are now faced with this choice; obey the beliefs of our Church, or obey the law of Massachusetts. Catholics must betray their Religion by State order or be prosecuted. Wouldn’t it have been fairer to order our State Senators and Judges who supported this action to dispense these emergency contraception and abortion pills from their own homes? Perhaps our esteemed Plan B State Senators could ‘promptly offer’ fruit flavored pills for the underage girls, ‘upon request’ - of the girl, not her parents, who’s input is not required.

What’s next? Can we expect the State to mandate that Catholic priests must now perform same-sex marriages because Massachusetts has declared this a civil right?

Making it legal does not make it right.
Jay G

Speaking of Rights: Let us vote!

October 10, 2005
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

It has become clear that the Massachusetts court in 2003 redefined marriage in an attempt to manufacture a new specific right for gays to same-sex marriage. As homosexual activist and author Michelangelo Signorile conceded in a 1993 article in Out! magazine, same-sex marriage should “redefine the institution of marriage” and gays should “transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether.” The 1-3% of the population who are gay, our family and friends, already reap the benefits of all of the individual rights we Americans hold dear – but marriage is a social and cultural institution that recognizes the social benefits of the procreation and raising of children; marriage is not an individual or group right.

If we as a free and democratic people so choose to redefine marriage, then gays would naturally lay claim to same-sex marriage, but what the state Supreme Judicial Court did in November 2003 usurped legislative authority and redefined marriage by judicial fiat. This would not have happened if in 2002, then Senate President Tom Birmingham had not unconstitutionally blocked the first citizens' initiative petition protecting marriage.

Please do not insult us as homophobes simply because we want to exercise our individual rights – the same individual rights all citizens, including gays, have – to a ballot petition to maintain the basic and historical understanding of marriage as only between one man and one woman – a right that was denied us twice; first by Birmingham, then by Justice Marshall.

Jay G

Implant This!

July 20, 2005

letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Since Plan B is the morning after contraception pill that proponents claim prevents implantation, the T&G, (“Go to Plan B” In Our Opinion, July 17, 2005), should have done us the service of answering the question; “Implantation of what?” The answer; the fertilized egg or zygote, would have proved an enigma to this editorial. This single cell, the combination of the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg, has its own unique genetic code. Nine months later that particular and unique baby is billions of cells all descended from that single cell.

“When did you become you?” might be considered an enigma or a philosophical question, but those scientists who look at the facts and conclude that you became you at fertilization have a strong case in the genetic argument. Those scientists, (and senators on Beacon Hill), who disagree with this scientific conclusion only disagree; they never posit their own conclusion as to when you became you, when your life began. If they did they would have to defend that position and it’s relation to abortion.

There are people in Massachusetts, including pharmacists and hospital workers, who are morally and religiously opposed to abortion, as well as those morally and religiously opposed to contraception, and those opposed to both. Plan B clearly is contraception. Some Lawmakers want to debate whether it is abortion. Yet the T&G editorializes there should be no conscientious objector status to this law? Isn’t that State mandated morality?

Jay G

Schiavo's List

May 19, 2005
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Some 'facts' in Terri Schiavo’s death by court ordered de-hydration bear noting. It was 8 years after Terri’s brain damage, flush with money from Terri’s malpractice award, that the man who never bothered to divorce his injured wife hires the best assisted suicide lawyer in the country, George Felos.

It was at this first trial that the facts of the case were determined. Lawyer Felos gets Michael Schiavo and his siblings to testify that Terri would not have wanted to be kept alive on a respirator. The Schindler’s, with no idea what they are up against, have difficulty even finding a lawyer since there is no money in their case. The Schindler’s sympathetic but inexperienced lawyer does not even depose Michael Schiavo’s siblings before the trial. Felos steamrolls this lawyer.

The Schindler’s were out-lawyered by Felos at the original trial where the so-called 'fact' that Terri wanted to die was set in stone. President’s Bush’s signing of the Congressional bill asking for a new trial was the only attempt to re-examine the facts of the original trial, but the 11th Circuit Court refused. A wife should not be killed because her husband in name only has a high priced lawyer. The original facts in the Terri Schiavo case should have been reviewed; we do as much, and more, for convicted murderers.

Jay G

2 out of 3 Stems Cells agree

March 7, 2005
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

I “2/3rd’s” agree with Representatives James Leary and Vincent Pedone (commentary: Massachusetts should pursue stem-cell research, Jan.20, 2005); Yes for adult and umbilical stem-cell research, which already cures people, but No to unethical embryonic stem-cell research.

According to these State Reps, and Marjorie Clay, an alleged medical ethicist at UMass, ‘There’s no place like womb’ because it’s not until the product of conception (aka embryo), is implanted into a womb that it becomes a human. Clay adds that the ‘host’ of the womb (aka woman) must be willing, apparently because willingness is an objective scientific term in human embryology, as well as in ethics.

Mr. Pedone and Leary promise that this research will only use the thousands of left over embryos from in-vitro fertilization clinics (aka frozen siblings). But that will not be enough for Dr. Robert Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology, who in the May 24 Scientific American said that millions of embryos will be needed to cultivate the stem cells lines needed to bypass the tissue rejection problem. Did anyone mention the tissue rejection problem? Perhaps that’s why venture capital money is going to adult and not embryonic stem cell research.

It’s biologically true that each of us exists in a direct continuity with our humble embryonic origins. Before our State rushes to give millions in corporate welfare for Dr. Lanza’s million embryo march, we need to ask ourselves the hard ethical questions; must science kill in order to cure?

Jay G

The Democrat's Lament

January 4, 2005
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

By now the Democrats should have reflected on how much their uncompromising abortion stance cost them this past election. 16% of Americans, myself included, consider abortion always wrong because it denies the unborn person their civil rights. While Democrats could ignore we 16%, they cannot entertain national political aspirations and continue to ignore the vast majority of Americans who believe that abortion is morally wrong, and that there should be some legal limits placed upon it.

Since the Democratic platform is absolutely, in their words, “Pro-Choice”, I’d suggest they offer a compromise in support of choice, call it, “Informed-Choice.” Before a woman “chooses” her abortion, she should be informed, first by viewing an ultrasound of her baby/fetus, and second by hearing a 3-5 minute presentation from Pro-Life supporters offering to adopt her baby after he or she is born. “Informed-Choice” would allow women to make a truly informed choice, a choice with real options, a choice Democrats should be comfortable with. “Informed Choice” would also put us Pro-Lifers in the position of putting up or shutting up in regards to adoption.

I believe that our God-given, inalienable right to life began at conception, but I would still have to apply my prudential judgment in the voting booth when given the choice of an “Informed-Choice” Democrat, and a compromise where the mother endows, or doesn’t, the child’s right to life.

Jay G

adelphopoiesis or the "creation of a brother"

July 13, 2004
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

William Lemeshevsky’s patently false claim that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches married homosexuals in the Middle Ages (T&G 7/1/04); underscores the dictum, alleged to have come from Hitler's minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, that if a lie is big enough and is repeated enough times it would become widely accepted as truth.

Lemeshevsky refers to discredited academic John Boswell, whose misleading and vague research into ‘adelphopoiesis’ or, in simple English, the "creation of a brother" has been co-opted into the big lie of medieval homosexual marriage. Closer examination of this research shows adelphopoiesis was in no way a sexual union, because the word ‘agape’ or Christian love (charity) is used, not the word ‘eros’ which is the love of a husband and wife that typically results in children. The ritual states that the brothers, “joined together not by the bond of nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit, granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape] and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.”

Lemeshevsky’s gullibility has been exploited by those who would rather confuse the debate on homosexual marriage with lies than argue the case on its merits, or lack thereof.

Jay G

Theology of Garofoli's good books

May 10, 2004

letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Denise Boucher Garofoli gets Catholic theology wrong when she asks in her letter to the editor, “who would dare to contradict the teachings of Jesus by withholding the Eucharist from anyone?” (T&G 5/8/04) Garofoli is correct that Jesus did not come to condemn, but individuals still condemn themselves, as Jesus also said, “by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”

Withholding the Eucharist to an obstinate and public sinner is not a judgment by a priest, bishop or the pope, condemning the man, for the man has already condemned himself by his own words. Withholding the Eucharist is an act of tough-love, to get the attention of the obstinate sinner and help him to save himself. This act of tough-love also prevents scandal amongst the other faithful, something critically necessary today.

Catholic theology treats the Eucharist as the actual, physical body and blood of Jesus, not some symbol or sign, which is why St. Paul reminded the Corinthians that anyone who eats the Eucharist unworthily, eats judgment unto himself. The catechism refers to this as sacrilege. Withholding the Eucharist is not a condemnation or judgment, it is an act of mercy and charity.

Jay G

Same-Sex Marriage - no exceptions

February 25, 2004
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Another problem with homosexual marriage is the impossibility of exemption for Churches whose Religious beliefs are against these marriages. The SJC has declared that homosexual marriage is a civil right, if this logic prevails, then refusing to keep a married homosexual in your employ for Religious reasons would be the same as refusing to keep an African-American in your employ.

The SJC ruling means that a Church cannot fire an openly, married, homosexual who works in their school or hospital, even though this person publicly contradicts Church teaching. Either the Church will forfeit its right to Religious freedom by being quiet, or the Church will exercise its right not to employ a person who contradicts it's Religious faith, and that person will sue. It’s inevitable, and only a matter of time before the Church is stripped of its tax-exempt status, and more.

This chilling scenario is further disturbing in light of the false claims that homosexuality is genetic, which is not supported by any scientific studies. Identical twin studies show that only 38% of identical twin males are both homosexual, less for women, not the 99-100% correlation that would show a genetic link or ‘homosexual gene’ as portrayed in the media. Do a Google Internet search for keywords; twin, studies, gay and NARTH, you’ll see.

Jay G

Gumbleton and VOTF

Jan 6,2003
I never did get a reply from RomeoMarquis nor from an 'official spokesperson' about the use of 'diocese' in their name. I guess they just ignore questions they can't or don't want to answer. I did notice this on their website tonight which I believe is a new addition. Anyone care to interpret?

VOTF is a voluntary association of concerned Catholics with chapters in many places and a national office in Newton, Massachusetts. Worcester Diocese VOTF is affiliated with the national office and makes its own the mission statement and purposes of VOTF available on its website. It is called diocesan because it welcomes Catholics who live within the diocese of Worcester and it devotes particular attention to questions of diocesan policy while supporting and assisting parish chapters of the VOTFwithin the Worcester diocese. It has no canonical status. The national office is considering available options for lay organizations within canon law but at this moment VOTF remains a non-canonical voluntary association.

Comment (1)
Sounds like they are following the letter of canon law with this small print disclaimer. It may actually be a sign that they are at least concerned about the appearance of flouting the Church, or a sign that they are exercising marketing savvy. We can point out to people that while they use the name of the Worcester Diocese, the small print tells the truth that they have no status as part of the Diocese. When you emphasize "read the fine print", most people will see this as the manipulation it is.

The VOTF/Worcester web site quotes Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton as urging Bishops to start thinking about "reform". This is the same Bishop Gumbleton who in the September 30 issue of the Jesuits' magazine America, defended ordaining gay priests. Bishop Gumbleton spoke at New Ways Ministry's National Symposium Conference held in Louisville, KY on March 8 -10, and quoted the questionable Pastoral Letter, "Always our Children" and defended homosexual activity as long as one followed their conscience. Bishop Gumbleton forgot to mention that only the bishops on the committ ee that wrote the letter, not the entire bishop's Conference, endorsed this letter. Nor did he mention that the Vatican recalled the document.

Gumbleton also said that because the Catechism (2357) says that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered", then he incorrectly interprete this to mean we are all evil and unworthy of Christ - leaving the impression the Catechism and Scripture are wrong. He went on to say, "Somewhat surprisingly, they (homosexuals) make love more humanely, largely because they are better able empathetically to feel what their partner is feeling." In response to a question from the audience concerning when the church will accept homosexual "marriage' Bishop Gumbleton answered, "My hope is within 2 years."

And yet they claim they have no agenda.
Jay G.

Chittister's dissent

Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister, who willfully defies Catholic Church teaching on abortion, women priests, homosexual marriage, inclusive pronouns in scripture, and obedience and authority, has this to say about Voice of the Faithful and their supposed independence from an agenda. Basically Chittister is saying VOTF is helping to de-clericalize the Roman Catholic Church. The following is from National Catholic Reporter, January 31, 2003:

But, admire them [VOTF] as I do, that's exactly where they confuse me.
Do they really believe that they are agenda-free? Do they really think that they are independent of issues? Or is such a statement simply a kind of ecclesiastical guarantee of quality: We don't stand for any particular issue -- like those other people do -- so you don't need to be afraid that joining us will compromise your faith.

I can't help asking myself if these people are this disingenuous or this holy? How can anyone possibly think that what Voice of the Faithful asserts they are about to do -- give a voice to the faithful in the machinations of the Roman Catholic Church -- is not the single major determining issue in thechurch today?

The truth is that to aspire to give lay people a "voice" in the ongoing development and direction of the church stands for the biggest issue of them all: It stands for declericalization. And declericalization is the foundation for the renewal of the church. If the church is declericalized -- if the laity really begins to be included in the theological debates, the canonical processes, the synodal decisions of the Roman Catholic Church -- every issue on the planet will become grist for its mill.

Do they not realize that by concentrating on lay participation rather than on specific theological issues, they are really striking at the core of church development and power? They are targeting the biggest issue of them all, authority.

Clearly, whether they know it or not, Voice of the Faithful is definitely not issue-free. And, whether they realize it or not, their audacity is shaking the foundations of an imperial church that, until this time, has seldom felt the need to explain anything, let alone ask questions of anyone other than those in their own inner circles. Sensus fidelium or no sensus fidelium.

Before this is over, thanks to Voice of the Faithful, issues like a married priesthood, the ordination of women, the use of inclusive pronouns in scripture and the choice of postures during the canon of the Mass will seem to be exactly what they are -- very, very minor. That's why I admire them: They are into the biggest issue of them all.

"In 1985, she rejected the Church's strictures against the 23 nuns who in an advertisement in the New York Times, together with 5,000 other Catholics, had attacked the Church's teaching against abortion, on the grounds that this was taking away their freedom. It was, she thought, a false use of authority, contrary to the ‘theology of tolerance'." - Fr. Alphonse de Valk, c.s.b, Catholic Insight, January/February 2002

Sam Marcellus' Separation of Church.

December 19, 2003
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Sam Marcellus of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is wrong on three points (Telegram & Gazette 12/14). The Establishment Clause of the Constitution; 1) Never mentions the Separation of Church and State. 2) Prohibits the establishment of a State religion, not the endorsement of religion, and 3) Guarantees the free expression of religion, not just its private expression.

America was founded as a Nation under God, with the deity as the guarantor of our rights, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court wants to remove God from the public square. Due to this Court action, Christians, Jews, and Muslims will have their belief that marriage is between one man and one woman further mocked and undermined by the public schools and other agents of the State. Eventually the State will force Catholic and other religious schools to hire and retain married homosexual teachers, in contravention to our belief in God’s law and Natural law.

While all affirm that homosexuals have God-given rights to liberty and freedom, by design their unions contradict the Bible and never produce children, so by design they have neither a God-given nor Natural Law right to marry. In a Democracy, one would have at least expected the chance to exercise our God-given right to vote on any alleged man-made right to homosexual marriage.

Jay G

The Church, stem cells, marriage & Dianne

December 5, 2003
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Rejected – too soon.

Dianne Williamson’s Catholic bashing of Church teachings on stem cells, gay marriage and liturgy (T&G 11/30) is a weak attempt to declare morality by so-called expert opinion.

The Catholic Church teaches that adult and umbilical stem cells are fine for medical research. These stem cells have provided relief from suffering for years. But the Church condemns the unproven technology of embryonic stem cells because it is immoral to create a baby only to abort that life to harvest embryonic stem cells. The Church also teaches, based on the Bible and Natural law, that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Finally, Catholics do not receive bread and wine at Mass, as Dianne said, we receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus is God, one might want to consider bowing before God.

Faith is complex, involving both intellect and will, but for the sake of argument let’s compare the experts. Dianne has a Biotechnology company Vice President and the President of the United Church of Christ in Massachusetts. The Catholics have Pope John Paul II, the 264^th successor to Peter, the primary Apostle of Jesus Christ. Massachusetts’ citizens may want to further investigate which experts more accurately reflect God’s teaching, especially before they exercise their God-given rights in the voting booth.

Jay G

Arakelian, Hitler, and the Pope

October 14, 2003
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Arthur Arakelian slandered the Catholic Church in his People’s Forum letter, (Telegram & Gazette, Oct.13). His false memory syndrome contradicts historical fact; Hitler excommunicated himself by publicly embracing paganism. William Shirer documented this in, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” on pp.332-333. Hitler’s Reich Church “determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in …800” and “will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of saints.”

At the end of WW2, all Jewish leaders thanked the Church for saving Jewish lives. The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, wrote his thanks in the Jewish Yearbook 1944-1945: "What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. . . . Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism." Albert Einstein wrote in 1947, "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty." Even The New York Times of March 14, 1940 said the Pope defended the rights of Jews.

Whether Arakelian’s knowledge about abuse at the Cathedral in the 40s is true or not, I cannot say, but his credibility is severely damaged when he posts other obvious falsehoods that are contradicted by historical facts; facts which also diminish Arakelian’s reason for not practicing his faith. Arakelian has much to reconsider.

Jay G

The Passion, and Resurrection

August 5, 2003
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

I recently saw a trailer for the new Mel Gibson movie on the death of Jesus Christ, “The Passion”, and I believe this movie will have a profound effect on all. I am fearful that some, notably the New York Times, and some academics at Boston College, want to censure this movie before they or the public have even seen it. These academics are holding Gibson to a double standard, because they themselves are first to claim academic and first amendment freedoms when bringing any controversial topic to the public.

The Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus both confirm that Jesus was ordered crucified by the Roman Pontius Pilate, while the Gospels confirm that Jesus had Jewish followers who ultimately died following his teachings, and Jewish detractors who called for his Crucifixion. This is history not anti-Semitism.

Ultimately this movie should bring all Christians, especially Catholics, to a deeper and moving understanding of the words of our Nicean Creed, which we’ve been praying since at least 325 AD; “He suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died and was buried.” As one meditates on these sorrowful mysteries of Jesus, don’t forget that “on the third day, He rose again.”

Jay G

ALan Keyes on Terrorists and War

April 14, 2003
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Since the T&G cut it, here’s the full Alan Keyes quote from the April 5 Catholic Men’s Conference at the Centrum, “War is a curse and an obscenity – even when you’ve got to do it.” According to Dr. Keyes, what separates us from the 9/11 terrorists is that we don’t “disregard the fundamental premise that even in war we do not have the right to consciously target civilian non-combatants.”

But consider targeting innocent civilians in the womb. Stephen Evans has conducted research that shows how babies who hear particular pieces of music while in their mother's womb will remember that music after birth. Evans had mothers play unique musical selections for their baby in utero for 16 minutes a day over seven days, during the 20th week of pregnancy. Then he took the music back so it would not be heard by the child until after birth. After birth, he played the music for the child and likewise for a control group of children who had never heard the music. The results surpassed his highest expectations. While babies normally calm down upon hearing music, the babies who had heard the music at 20 weeks were dramatically calmer than the babies hearing it for the first time.

Dr. Keyes’ summary of the war on Saddam and the war on the unborn; “The evil that we rightly fight is but a shadow of the evil that we wrongly do.”

Jay G

Payson's Spiritual Malpractice

February 13, 2003
letters@telegram.com

fax: 508 793-9313

The Rev. Aaron R. Payson appears to be guilty of Spiritual malpractice in his ‘As I See It’ editorial, (Telegram and Gazette, Jan.27). Pro “Abortion-Choice” advocates like Payson, who is a man of the cloth, cannot on the one-hand proclaim that women are moral agents capable of making difficult choices, yet on the other-hand obscure, ignore and deny the facts necessary in order to make those informed moral choices.

Payson ignores these fetal facts; The unique genetic code forms at conception, immediately the embryonic cells orient in a head to toe fashion, at three weeks a heart beat, brain waves at 40 days with fingers, toes, eyes and face visible to those who will look, all before the earliest abortions are performed.
Consider one more fact. On January 26, 1980, the British Medical Journal published an article entitled “What the Fetus Feels” by Volman & Pearson. A pertinent quote, “Try sticking an 8 week old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away.”

Rev. Payson says these difficult choices can be constructive, though certainly not for the child or fetus that is aborted. Isn’t Rev. Payson guilty of spiritual malpractice for counseling women to follow their unformed conscience while he withholds these facts of when life begins? A man of the cloth must be held to a higher standard. 43,358,592 abortions, or opportunities to feel constructive in Payson’s parlance, begs the question; what were we as a Nation thinking when Roe vs. Wade allowed unrestricted abortions, anytime, anywhere, for anyone, for any reason?

Jay G

Prof. O'Brien's VOTF club

December 3, 2002
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Prof. David O’Brien took an awful long time to declare that his idea of Catholic Church reform is to change doctrinal beliefs that are 2000 years old and older (My Turn, Telegram and Gazette, Dec.2, 2002). He wants the Church to say that all of a sudden lots of things are OK. The Church has always taught that homosexual sex is just like extra-marital sex, just like bearing false witness, just like stealing, just like taking God’s name in vain, just like covetousness, etc… - a sin that needs to be confessed and repented of! Active homosexuals need to join the rest of us sinners in repentance. Join the club.

Groups like Voice of the Faithful also want to “reform” the Church, but they say one thing and do another. VOTF claims fidelity to the teachings of the Pope and the Church, yet they host speakers who want to change Catholic doctrine to allow homosexual marriages, female priests, homosexual priests, and abortion (the ban on Priestly heterosexual marriage is discipline, not doctrine, and could change, but most likely won’t).

You will not find evidence of this agenda of dissent on the VOTF web site, but follow the links to their July 20 conference at the Hynes Auditorium and it will become all too clear. I urge all Catholic faithful to exercise caution before committing any treasure or talent to VOTF.
Sincerely,

JayG

Denise Lacroix errors

May 21, 2002
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Denise Lacroix made a number of erroneous statements about the Catholic Church (Telegram & Gazette, May 18). Un-baptized babies do not go to hell, nor has the Church ever taught this, though in the Middle-ages there was some private, theological speculation about a place called limbo. Those pre-Vatican II Friday meat-eaters aren’t sent to hell either, that was a discipline, never a dogma, designed to promote holiness through denial. Catholics are required to keep the third commandment by going to Mass on Sundays and Holy days, though they are only required to receive Communion once a year.

The only unforgivable sin is to attribute the works of God the Holy Spirit to the Devil. Neither is everything a sin, though sin is present in human history and any attempt to ignore it or give it other names is futile. Man is a spiritual creature, created in God’s image, and Man can only live God’s friendship in free submission to God. As far as the so-called greed, control and money, check out the 103,000 Church-run health and social institutions, 5,853 Church-run hospitals, and all the Saints. As for the Crusades, ask yourself who attempted to conquer all of Europe, only to be stopped, first at Pointiers, finally at Lopanto, and who blockaded the Jewish and Christian city of Jerusalem that was the motivation for the first Crusade. While full of sinners, the Church does strive to do God’s will on earth.

However, Denise did make one valid point, those convicted of aiding in, abetting in, or engaging in pedophilia should go to jail.
Sincerely,

Jay G

February 2, 2002
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

I can empathize with William Storie and his concern about what is harmful to children (T&G Jan.31) but I wonder if there is also a risk here. If the scientific facts show that conception gives form to unique human individuals, with beating hearts at 3 weeks, brain waves at 6 weeks, hands, feet, eyes, mouth, and face, isn’t there a risk in not calling them children?

Individuals who also respond to pain. Inside our mothers, yet with different DNA, therefore we were individuals, not appendages, not tumors, not property.

To say that the obviously human, unborn individuals are not “persons” is the same legalistic dodge that slave owners took. You cannot “choose” to own slaves. We all should peacefully carry that same sign for our unborn sisters and brothers who die from abortions at Planned Parenthood.

Sincerely,
Jay G

Conception gives form to individuals

December 27, 2001
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Conception gives form to individuals. The design of our DNA double-helix spiral is magnificent, and could be described as beyond natural – supernatural. In the natural world things fall apart and entropy reigns, but the double-helix defies the natural order. You could say that God “knits” the two separate half-sets of our parents DNA to form each of us in the womb. Conception manifests creation.

Consider these scientific facts: these uniquely human individuals, in the womb, have beating hearts at 3 weeks, brain waves at 6 weeks, as well as hands, feet, eyes, mouth, face and head. They also respond to pain. Inside our mothers, yet with different DNA, therefore we were individuals, not appendages, not tumors.

To say that these obviously human, unborn individuals are not “persons” is the same legalistic dodge that slave owners took. You cannot “choose” to own slaves. One of the signs carried by African Americans who peacefully marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, simply, “I am a Man.” We all should peacefully carry that same sign for our unborn sisters and brothers.

Sincerely,

Jay G

November 7, 2001
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

Time was when the slavery and ownership of African Americans was protected and upheld by the Supreme Court, to the point where a slave’s life could be taken with impunity. Fortunately Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) is no longer the Law of the Land. Neither is Child labor protected since Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) was overturned. Many Blacks and Children died, were killed in fact, because they were not considered “persons” by the Supreme Court. The “Separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) sanctioning segregation was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, indicating again that the Supreme Court eventually does the right thing.

When you believe in Human Rights, and not just “Person” Rights, you see the lack of Constitutional precedent for Roe v. Wade. The 40 Million abortions done in the US since Roe v. Wade should prompt us to wonder why we allow people to hide behind a false right in order to kill an infant, simply because that infant is an inconvenience. Perhaps there would be less demand if we all read the study by Janet Daling, who is Pro-Choice, showing the large increased risk of breast cancer as a result of induced abortions.

Many reversals of Supreme Court decisions came about when new evidence was brought forward that made it clear that someone’s rights, not previously recognized, were being violated. It is time to reassess abortion.

Sincerely,

Jay G

October 30, 2001
letters@telegram.com
fax: 508 793-9313

I am rather surprised, and dismayed, at the number of letters suggesting that the US do nothing in terms of War in response to the acts of atrocity perpetrated against the innocent civilians on 9/11/01. While I respect all American’s right to free speech, anyone who claims that there may be any justification for these acts of war is either blind, foolish, or evil.

Because the evil done by Al Qaida has been certain, grave and permanent, and all indications are that Al Qaida will not stop its attacks, it is imperative that we conduct a Just War against this nation of murderers. A Just War seeks justice, not revenge, and seeks to absolutely minimize any loss of innocent life. The US cannot stand by while these identified, organized and harbored killers continue their slaughter of innocent life. The thought of how close these thugs are to obtaining nuclear weapons should cause a cold shiver in all peace-loving and freedom-loving people.

I suggest examining our priorities; Pray more, as we need God to guide us, consider using less oil as oil props up the corrupt Saudi Kingdom, and if you want to save innocent lives, come pray outside of Planned Parenthood, and encourage everyone to seek alternatives to abortion.

Sincerely,

Jay G

James Gratton's distortion

October 28, 2002

letters@telegram.com

fax: 508 793-9313

Not Published

James S. Gratton continues his epic of distortion and slander in his letter, “Domestic terrorists are fanatical bigots” (Telegram, October 26). The real discredited falsehood is that abortion is safer than childbirth. The Truth: 27 out of 35 studies in the USA showed increased risk of breast cancer after abortion, Dr. Janet Daling, who is Pro-Choice, showed average increased risk of breast cancer as a result of induced abortions at 50%, increased risk of breast cancer for induced abortions of first pregnancy for under 18 year old girls at 800%, and if those same girls had a history of breast cancer in their families, the increased risk was infinite, meaning every girl in this category in her study got breast cancer! The Stakes study in Finland, backed up by the California Medicaid study, (1989-1998), both found significantly higher death rates associated with abortion than with childbirth.

Gratton also misconstrues the findings of former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop, who actually concluded that all the studies done up to that point (1987) were so methodologically flawed that no firm conclusions could be drawn about abortion's risks or benefits.

Considering that almost without exception, 800 Planned Parenthood clinics were caught on tape for failure to report statutory rape of a 13 year old girl by a 22 year old male, indeed advising that girl not to report her age when she came in for an abortion - one really has to wonder who are the fanatical bigots. Planned Parenthood and Gratton stand alone against the overwhelming scientific evidence. Shame on them, and shame on any of us who still believe this crap.

Sincerely,

TGLetter20021002 Dr. R. Lanza ACT

October 2, 2002

letters@telegram.com

fax: 508 793-9313

Dr. Robert P. Lanza of Advanced Cell Technology does not believe the Church is versed in the facts of human embryology, but his statements in Dianne Williamson’s column (Telegram & Gazette, May 18) indicate he believes that creating your own twin is OK as long as it is done in a petri dish and not in a womb. This ethical relativism based on the location of creation indicates that Lanza needs to answer the question of when life begins, and not dance around the issue with unscientific and contradictory assertions as to when life does not begin. Lanza also needs to clearly answer why Glenn McGee and Arthur Caplan resigned from his ethics advisory board last year.

Dianne is correct that the Catholic Church is consumed by a crisis of credibility – and by skewed priorities; just not the ones she imagines. It should be a priority to teach on the value and sanctity of all life, all year long, not only at the annual Pro-Life Mass. Since the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, it must pronounce on matters of faith and morals, even though some priests and bishops have squandered that authority through their actions and inactions. Confidence in the Church, and in the credibility of the successors of the Apostles might be restored with a visual and public act of penance.

Sincerely,

JayG

TGLetter20020802 David Broder against unborn rights

August 2, 2002

letters@telegram.com

fax: 508 793-9313

Columnist David Broder’s conclusion that Pro-Life interests are costing lives (Sunday Telegram July 28, 2002) is based on the invalid premise that abortion is morally permissible and therefore a right. Broder then backs up his ‘facts’ with the statement, “even if those estimates cannot be proved”.

The Pro-Abortion arguments against any rights for pre-born children, called fetuses to deny their humanity, simply do not add up. The baby (fetus) is alive, is human and is an individual with its own genetic code. If left unmolested, this child will thrive and grow into someone whose face we can stare into. Abortion minded mothers would do well to stare into their child’s face with an ultrasound.

Justice Harry Blackmun’s refusal to address the moral status of the tiny humans whose elimination he ensured 30 years ago has conceived the current state where any and all unborn, almost born, and even just born infants are fair game for death simply because they are an inconvenience. That’s just not right, and none of the flimsy pro-abortion arguments will ever change that.

Sincerely,

JayG