A federal court heard arguments on Tuesday in the case of Jack Denton, the Catholic student ousted from Florida State University’s student senate in June.
On Tuesday, at the Northern District of Florida federal court, lawyers for Denton and for university administrators and student representatives presented their arguments.
“Jack cannot be deprived of an educational benefit, the right to participate in the student senate on the same grounds as everybody else, simply because his beliefs are not popular on campus,” his attorney Tyson Langhofer, with the group Alliance Defending Freedom, told CNA after the hearing.
“No student should ever feel forced to silence their deepest convictions” in order to keep a student government position, he said. “He [Jack] may not have popular beliefs. That doesn’t mean he can be excluded from participation and they can impose a religious test on him.”
Denton, a rising senior at the university, was removed from his position as head of the university’s student senate in early June over remarks he made in a GroupMe chat forum of the school’s Catholic student union in late May.
As students discussed racial justice and financially supporting various organizations, Denton outlined concerns with policy positions of the groups ACLU, BlackLivesMatter.com, and Reclaim the Block which he said conflicted with Church teaching.
Denton said that “BlackLivesMatter.com fosters ‘a queer-affirming network’ and defends transgenderism,” while the ACLU “defends laws protecting abortion facilities and sued states that restrict access to abortion.” The Black Lives Matter Global Network in September removed a page from its website which had previously promoted the positions Denton challenged in May.
The group Reclaim the Block, Denton said, “claims less police will make our communities safer and advocates for cutting PD’s budgets.” The claim “is a little less explicit,” he said, “but I think it’s contrary to the Church’s teaching on the common good.”
Later, in an interview with CNA, Denton said that he intervened in the GroupMe chat because he felt a “responsibility to point out this discrepancy, to make sure that my fellow Catholics knew what they were partaking in.”
One of the students in the forum took a screenshot of Denton’s comments and sent them to a member of the student senate. A student senate motion of no-confidence in Denton failed on June 3, but on June 5 the senate held another vote and removed Denton from office.
Langhofer told CNA on Tuesday that Denton’s removal was unlawful; the FSU student senate is a state actor by virtue of both its incorporation at a public university and its creation by a state statute. Denton could not be removed from this position simply for taking an unpopular policy stance, he said.
“There is very, very strong law with a lot of precedent saying very clearly that students don’t forfeit their religious freedom when they step on to a public university campus,” he said.
The defendants in the case—FSU president John Thrasher and two other officials, as well as the president and president pro tempore of the student senate—“don’t dispute that Jack was removed unconstitutionally because of his religious beliefs,” Langhofer told CNA. They did, however, dispute that they were personally liable in Jack’s case, he said.
Denton is pushing for a preliminary injunction on his removal, which the judge did not indicate when he would rule on it, Langhofer said.
In the seven-hour hearing which resulted in Denton’s removal, he showed “incredible courage and incredible resilience,” Langhofer said.
“Jack listened to every one of those students saying bad things about him simply because of his religious beliefs, and when he was given the opportunity to respond, what he said was, he said that every one of you are created in the image of God and you are loved, and you’re valued more than the entire universe,” Langhofer recounted.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
In 1887, the following report appeared in the The Times:
Paris: March 17th
A triple murder was discovered this morning in the Rue Montaigne. A courtesan named Monty, or Regnault, lay dead at the foot of her bed, with two gashes on her throat, while her servant-maid and her daughter, a girl of 12, had been murdered in their bed. The supposed murderer is a man who mounted the stair just as the concierge was putting out the gas. He had vainly attempted to force a safe containing jewels worth 200,000f., and is presumed to have taken the money from the victim’s pocket. She was about 30 years of age. There are no traces of any struggle, but the occupants of the flat below heard a slight noise at 10 o’clock this morning. The concierge appears to have been accustomed to pull the checkstring about sunrise to let out the woman’s visitors.
A mysterious figure mounting the stairs as the gaslight was dimmed, a multiple murder, with one of the victims a courtesan, a theft, and, later, with nothing unusual in the room but a “cuff and belt” with the name “Geissler” inscribed upon them. These facts proved sensational enough to excite the press of the day as the hunt got underway for a thief and a killer, with the only clue being the name inked upon letters found at the scene.
Four days after the murder, a report came out of nowhere that seemed to give the police the breakthrough they needed. An “Italian” had been picked up by police many miles away at Marseilles. The man’s name was Henri Pranzini, and he appeared linked to the murders. The reasons for his arrest were quite simple. Having arrived on a night train at the port city, he proceeded to stay with a prostitute. It was she to whom he gave a locket, and, later, to another woman a watch was sold—both items aroused suspicions given the publicity then circulating about the Paris theft and murders, and police were duly alerted. Pranzini, having been apprehended at a theater in the city, admitted knowing Marie Regnault, but claimed that he had fled the capital for fear of being implicated in the events that had taken place—he denied any wrongdoing. His lodgings were searched by police, however, and therein were found bloodstained clothing. Unexpectedly, a case against this mysterious foreigner had started to form.
By March 23, Paris detectives had returned to Rue Montaigne, and in so doing had noticed that the apartment below that of the murder victims belonged to a watchmaker. Armed with the watch linked to Pranzini at Marseilles, they presented it to the neighbor, who not only recognized it but was able to show evidence of his work upon it; he had repaired it a few days prior to the murder, and, in so doing, had written a serial number on the watchcase before entering this in his work log. The watch found at Marseilles had the exact same numbers. The case against Pranzini began to build.
On March 25, at Marseilles, further circumstantial evidence appeared when missing jewels belonging to the dead woman were discovered at a park Pranzini had visited. And so, the next day, on a train bound for Paris, the detectives surrounding their charge were not sure whether they had the killer, the thief, or merely an accomplice of the mysterious “Geissler.”
The prisoner denied everything: he had not stolen anything nor had he killed anyone; the Marseilles women were liars and, in any event, he had an alibi, alleging that on the night of the murder he was with his mistress, Madame Sabatier. On March 28, when questioned, the woman confirmed this. If this was true, had the police got the wrong man?
Two days later, the other “suspect” came forward. The man in question was Arthur Geissler. In 1881, he had worked with the accused at a Naples hotel, and whilst there was to witness Pranzini’s dismissal for dishonesty. The Paris police now suspected that Pranzini had simply used the name “Geissler” as an alias. Handwriting experts were called upon to analysis the suspect’s writing and that upon the dead woman’s letters from “Geissler”—in their opinion, the samples matched.
Soon after, the examining magistrate was to receive something unforeseen in his morning post. A letter from Mme. Sabatier arrived, and with it came a retraction of her earlier statement: Pranzini had not been with her on the night of the murders. The letter also detailed his movements the day after the murders, one she had spent with him. They dined together before going to the circus, then his mood changed noticeably when they returned to her house. Pranzini sat down and began to weep, recounting a tale of his paying a visit to a “lady,” during which someone came to see her, forcing him to hide in a nearby closet. Twenty minutes later, when he emerged, he viewed a scene of terrible carnage, and, panicking, rushed out into the city streets, where he was to wonder for the rest of the night. Fearing he would be arrested for the murders, Pranzini begged Mme. Sabatier for the funds to leave Paris. These she gave him, later escorting him to a train station where he left for Marseilles.
The alibi had disappeared, and, in its place had come yet more incriminating evidence. On hearing of the retraction, Pranzini protested that his former mistress was out to “ruin” him, and that his innocence would soon be proved.
Police investigations were moving faster, however. Inquires about the murder weapon soon turned up a positive lead. A Paris shopkeeper had come forward to recount a curious tale of a well-dressed man with a foreign accent buying a knife, and soon after returning to buy a much larger butcher’s knife. It was clear to the vendor that the man purchasing the implement was not a butcher, and, furthermore, his description matched Pranzini.
On April 14, 1887, a macabre pilgrimage took place. To avoid crowds, in the dead of night, police escorted Pranzini to the scene of the murders. On these occasions, and in such circumstances, a guilty party was sometimes known to have broken down and confessed all. This was not to be the case with Pranzini, however. Unable to deny having visited the apartment, he denied knowing anything about it other than its sitting room. When reminded of his confession to Mme. Sabatier, he admitted hiding in the bedroom closet when “a man had visited,” and remaining there while the brutal slayings took place. Disbelieving this, the police proceeded to place him in the closet. After only a few minutes, it was clear how untenable such an arrangement would have been in such a confined space. Regardless, Pranzini still maintained his innocence.
Newspapers, as much as the police, now began to seek information on Henri Pranzini. The little they did uncover was that he was of Italian stock, but born at Alexandria in 1856. His career, such as it was, had been everything by turns, and nothing for long. Joining the Egyptian Post Office, he was dismissed for theft. Serving as an interpreter with the Russian Army, he was later to serve in the same capacity to the British Army then in the Sudan. There were claims he had travelled as far as Afghanistan and even to Burma; other more sinister claims of crimes committed elsewhere were alluded to, but, in the end, it seemed he belonged nowhere and to no one. By the time he came to Paris, in 1886, he was penniless, but it wasn’t long before that changed on making the acquaintance of a number of women, one of whom was known as “Madame de Montille,” but who would later come to the attention of the world as Marie Regnault.
A trial date was set for early July. The prosecution’s case was as follows: Marie Regnault, her servant Annette Gremeret, and her child were all murdered in the early hours of March 17, 1887. Although money and jewels to the value of 200,000f. were stolen, an attempt to force the safe with a much larger amount had failed. One weapon, a butcher’s knife, had been used in all the murders, the servant having been killed while trying to aid her mistress, the child killed asleep in her bed.
The authorities believed that a man known to Regnault had arrived at approximately 11 pm that night. Items left at the scene of the crime—cuffs and a strap with the name “Geissler” marked on them—were there simply to leave a false scent, which initially they did. The accused, Pranzini, was arrested three days later with items belonging to the principal victim. In addition, he knew the victims, and even admitted having been at the apartment on the night of the murders, but claimed to have been concealed in a closet throughout. Needless to say, all France awaited the trial’s opening.
At this time, 200 kilometers to the north of Paris, in the town of Lisieux, there lived a 14-year-old girl called Thérèse Martin. One Sunday, at the end of Mass, a religious picture fell from her missal. On it was an image of the wounded and pierced Divine Hands. It seemed to her as if the Precious Blood had fallen to the ground without notice. There and then, she later recounted, Thérèse resolved to place herself at the foot of the Cross, and to “thirst” there for the good of souls, especially desiring to “snatch sinners from the everlasting flames of Hell.”
The trial opened on July 9, 1887. In a densely packed courtroom, the evidence mounted while the defendant continued to assert his innocence. A tale of courtesans and criminals was paraded for all to hear. The Times’ Paris correspondent observed, with disdain, that the trial had revealed to the world a cruel and depraved aspect of that city’s life.
Finally, on July 13, with all the witnesses examined, and after an attempt at a defense from Pranzini’s advocate, the defendant was asked if he had anything further to say. “I am innocent,” was the only reply. And, with that, the jury retired at 4:45 pm. They returned three-quarters of an hour later: the verdict was guilty. The sentence quickly followed, and was one of death.
Before this was to be concluded, however, there were to be two avenues of appeal, one legal, and a final one for clemency. The first was quickly dismissed, and the president of France rejected the second. By the middle of August, it was clear Pranzini was to die.
That summer, press reports of the murders on the Rue Montaigne and the subsequent trial had gripped all France; Lisieux was no different. By the end of August, even the youthful Thérèse Martin had heard of the “notorious criminal Pranzini” and the sentence passed upon him. She also knew of his impenitence and, as a result, feared his being lost for all eternity. To avert that “irreparable calamity” she decided to employ “all the spiritual means” she could think of, she later wrote in The Story of a Soul. And so, as the condemned man awaited his fate, Thérèse began to offer the “infinite merits of Our Savior and the treasures of the Holy Church” for his salvation. Battle had commenced for the soul of a murderer.
At 4:30 am on August 31, 1887, the cell door was gently opened to reveal two prison guards and a chaplain. It is said, at this, the prisoner turned pale. Walking through the prison as a single bell began to toll, Pranzini’s step became noticeably less firm as the gates of La Roquette opened to reveal a public square with, at its center, a scaffold, and waiting by it, his executioner.
“My God, I am quite sure that Thou wilt pardon this unhappy Pranzini. I should still think so if he did not confess his sins or give any sign of sorrow, because I have such confidence in Thy unbounded Mercy; but this is my first sinner, and therefore I beg for just one sign of repentance to reassure me.”
Declining assistance, and feigning bravado, Pranzini started to walk forwards, and, as he did so, the gendarmes there to escort him drew their swords.
At the foot of the scaffold, he began to totter before turning to the chaplain and asking for the crucifix, which he took and kissed. The bell continued to toll as, mounting the scaffold, he broke down and a pathetic struggle ensued, before, finally, he was forced down upon the machine. At two minutes past five, the blade was pressed into action, and, at first descending slowly, its pace soon quickened…and, with that, the bell fell silent.
“The day after his execution I hastily opened the paper…and what did I see? Tears betrayed my emotion; I was obliged to run out of the room. Pranzini had mounted the scaffold without confessing or receiving absolution, and…turned round, seized the crucifix which the Priest was offering to him, and kissed Our Lord’s Sacred Wounds three times. …I had obtained the sign I asked for, and to me it was especially sweet. Was it not when I saw the Precious Blood flowing from the Wounds of Jesus that the thirst for souls first took possession of me?
…My prayer was granted to the letter.”
[Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on CWR on October 1, 2014.]
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
CNA Staff, Sep 30, 2020 / 03:28 pm (CNA).- Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles will lead a ‘virtual rosary’ Oct. 7, the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, to seek Mary’s intercession for the United States.
“Our hope is to unite Catholic people from across the country in a moment of prayer for our nation, at a time when there is so much unrest and uncertainty,” Gomez said in a Sept. 30 column.
Gomez said Mary offers Catholics maternal care, and Catholics should seek to understand “her way of seeing and her way of living.”
“Everything that Mary does points us to her Son — to his commandments, to the mysteries of his life, to giving up our own will to follow him and share in his mission,” he wrote.
“As we seek our Blessed Mother’s intercession for our nation, I hope that we will also make this a moment to deepen our own commitments to Mary — to dedicate ourselves to her and to let her teach us how to offer our hearts to serve Christ and his beautiful plan of salvation history. Let us live all for Jesus through the heart of Mary!”
Gomez noted that the Franciscan missionaries who evangelized California— including St. Junipero Serra— were deeply devoted to Mary, particularly to Our Lady of Guadalupe, who since 1999 has been formally recognized as Patroness of all America.
“[Our Lady of Guadalupe] was sent by God to the people of Mexico at a time of great uncertainty and political unrest. Plague and earthquakes were devastating the population, and there was violence and racial conflict, and widespread suffering and injustice,” Gomez said.
“Into this historical and cultural moment, Our Lady came as a mother bearing a message of hope.”
Gomez earlier this year led the bishops of the United States in reconsecrating the nation to Mary.
Reconsecrating the country, the US bishops said in an April 23 announcement, is meant to serve as a reminder to the faithful of Mary’s witness to the Gospel, and as a way of asking for Mary’s intercession before Christ on behalf of those in need.
The act of consecration to Mary, Archbishop Gomez said at the time, “will give the Church the occasion to pray for Our Lady’s continued protection of the vulnerable, healing of the unwell, and wisdom for those who work to cure this terrible virus.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
CNA Staff, Sep 30, 2020 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- Michigan attorney general Dana Nessel told local news this week that she plans to announce new charges against “a dozen or more” priests in the state, as part of a now two-year long investigation into abuse by Catholic clergy.
Nessel had most recently announced on Sept. 29 charges against a 78-year-old laicized priest of the Archdiocese of Detroit, Gary Berthiaume, who is accused of abusing a 14-year-old victim.
Nessel announced one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct against Berthiaume, which could lead to a 15-year prison sentence if he’s convicted, the Detroit News reported.
Spurred by the release of a grand jury report out of Pennsylvania in 2018, which documented hundreds of cases of clergy sex abuse that took place over several decades in almost every diocese in the state, Michigan’s then-Attorney General Bill Schuette launched the state’s own investigation in August that year.
So far, the state’s investigation has led to charges against 11 people, and Nessel says she hopes to complete the investigation within the next six months, WoodTV reports. Nessel has in the past suggested the investigation could uncover as many as 1,000 sex abuse victims, though she has not discussed how her office estimated that number.
In May 2019, Nessel announced that five priests would be charged with 21 counts of sex abuse for abusing a total of five victims. None of the priests were in active ministry and one had already been removed from the clerical state.
After the announcement of the state’s investigation, Michigan’s dioceses said they welcomed the investigation and pledged their full cooperation. In Oct. 2018, police executed search warrants at all seven of the state’s dioceses.
To date, the Michigan investigation team has reviewed hundreds of tips, as well as 1.5 million paper documents and 3.5 million electronic documents seized the raids. Most of the tips have come through a hotline established specifically for abuse.
Early in 2019, Nessel claimed that the state’s dioceses are “self-policing,” using non-disclosure agreements to quiet allegations, and “failing to deliver” on their promises to cooperate with law enforcement authorities.
In response, the Archdiocese of Detroit reaffirmed its commitment to reporting sex abuse allegations to authorities.
In 2018 Michigan extended the statue of limitations in sexual assault cases to 15 years in criminal cases, and 10 in civil. Indictments for abuse of minor victims can be filed within 15 years of the crime or by the victim’s 28th birthday.
In March of last year, Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer asked the state’s legislature for an additional $2 million in funding for the abuse investigation, which is expected to last two years.
Similar clergy sex abuse investigations have been launched in multiple states throughout the country, including in Georgia, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Nebraska.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Posts
