MONTREAL — A libel and defamation lawsuit against LifeSiteNews.com, filed by Canadian priest Father Raymond Gravel, who describes himself as “pro-choice,” will go to trial.
Father Gravel claims that LifeSiteNews’ depiction of him in the agency’s news articles as “pro-abortion” is libelous, because he says he is “pro-choice” but does not support abortion per se.
“This case represents a danger to free speech of pro-life Canadians in terms of their being able to refer to stances embracing ‘choice’ as ‘pro-abortion’ rather than the nomenclature of their opposition,” John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews' editor in chief, told Catholic News Agency Feb. 21.
Western said the suit is a “very significant attack” on religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
“It is being argued that we are not media, and should that argument be accepted in court, would that not challenge all the other new online media outlets, even those of the left?”
Father Gravel served as a member of Parliament in Canada from 2006 to 2008, after reportedly being granted “special permission by the Vatican to run for federal office,” according to the CBC.
While serving as a member of Parliament, Father Gravel supported the nomination of an abortionist who was once detained in Dachau to the Order of Canada and opposed a bill which would have acknowledged injury of a fetus during commission of a crime as a separate offense from injury to the child’s mother.
“I’ve never gone against the Church doctrine,” he told the CBC in 2008.
In 2008, the Vatican “forced him to choose between Parliament and the Catholic Church,” the CBC reported. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had received complaints from Catholics who noticed his positions as a parliamentarian that were at odds with the faith.
Father Gravel claims that LifeSiteNews’ reporting about him ruined his reputation as a politician and priest. He seeks damages of 500,000 Canadian dollars, or about $492,000, as well as costs.
On Jan. 11, a Quebec judge ruled that the lawsuit can advance to trial, dismissing the claims of LifeSiteNews that Father Gravel is merely intending to gag them.
The damages sought by Father Gravel are identical to a full year’s budget for the site, according to its editors. It has already spent some $170,000 on the suit.
The Diocese of Joliette, to which Father Gravel belongs, did not reply to press inquiries in time for publication.
The site has run some 41 articles about Father Gravel in 11 years and maintains that it merely reported his public statements and media commentaries airing his disagreement with Church doctrine and the teaching authority of Canadian prelates.
“In our reporting on Gravel, we were very careful only to repeat exactly what he said. There was no animosity toward him; in fact, we stated our concern for the Church, but also for Father Gravel himself,” Weston told The Wanderer.
“If this case were outside the issues of abortion and homosexuality and were just about a politician upset that a media organization pointed out his radical views to a wider audience, it would be laughed out of court. But because it is dealing with issues deemed sacred in the new morality, it is being given credence,” he added.
“This is about our freedom as a news service to report news on controversial subjects. We are defending this case to ensure those rights.”
Comments
Post a Comment
is the priest doing this for the money?
Christ weeps for the state of the world, especially in places like Canada. I pray whomever our next Pope shall be, will come in with a fiery disposition and be ready to kick some “a”. We need unwavering and unapologetic orthodoxy. It is far past the time to abandon ecumenism and return to our God given mission of evangelization. We have to clean house and bring the hammer down on our own if we will ever be able to convert others. It’s time to start handing excommunications out like candy.
...and he calls himself a “Catholic Priest”? What happen to forgiveness, (if there is anything here to forgive) and humbleness, and love thy neighbor “father” Gravel? Also, I wonder how difficult it is to ask one to leave the priesthood if his main objective is no longer “priestly”? Further, what is the difference between Pro-choice and Pro-Abortion anyway? Not much, if not the same things to me. I hope LifeSiteNews.com will prevail.
Why aren’t the Canadian bishop trying to stop this? Lifesite News is a good source of pro-life information and a watch dog for so called Catholics who support abortion.
In the United States, a cleric cannot be a politician. How can that priest in Canada be a politician? Also, why didn’t his bishop do anything about it? He cannot be a priest in good standing when he goes against Church teaching.
I have to wonder if his bishop has ordered him to drop the suit and, if not, why not?
What utter nonsense! Where on earth is this, and I use the term lightly, Priest’s Bishop? Actually, where are any Bishops? Is not this “choice” the Priest is referring to “abortion”? Is there not one Bishop that will step in and stop this disgraceful behavior on behalf of this Priest who is obviously endangering his soul and any other souls he pastors? Dear God, where are our Bishops?
More to the point, who is funding this suit on the priest’s side?
Fr. Gravel is pro abortion rights. His position could not be more opposed to Catholic orthodoxy.
Father apparently has turned a deaf ear to what the CC teaches! One CANNOT be ’ choice’ but not abortion per se! Thats lime being ‘kinda’ pregnant. Geesh THIS is persisly the ‘Filth’ to which our Holy Father speaks! Holy Hour would cure this dissident priest. You can always tell the ones who don’t cling to Christ. Guess its up to the lay religious to pray since THIS Religious obviously doesn’t!
Unfortunately our Catholic Church is rife with non-Catholics; many who “serve” as religious. Sad how it seems the lay have to constantly help our priests remain Catholic. This priest needs our prayers, but he also needs to be removed from the priesthood.
George Pierson, you are correct. He was “suspended” while he was a politician (although he listed priest as his occupation on his MP website), and then chose not to run again.
It is indeed hard to see in what way his reputation has been harmed.
As a Canadian from the province of Quebec now living in the US (married an American) I shuddered when I saw who the above headline was refering to. Fr. Gravel has been in the news there for quite some years. I don’t think he’s quite clear on what his role as a priest is, to say the least. If anybody has been following the story of Cardinal Ouellet’s “chances” of becoming the next pope, this sheds some light on what he was up against when he was Cardinal in Quebec City. He was perceived as being so retrograde and unenlightened compared to Quebecers! Pray for the Church in Quebec and the people of Quebec - it’s a jungle!
This priest should be excommunicated as well as the rest of the Catholics who are pro-choice. You cannot be a Catholic a be pro choice.
Amen, St. Patrick, ecumenism is a big factor of the ruination of the church.
Taking the position as “Pro-Choice” is the sames as saying that either being Pro-Abortion or Pro-Life is morally immaterial. How can one logically come to such a conclusion when these positions are diametrically opposite? I for one will follow God’s teaching about the sanctity of His gift of human life.
I have heard that Fr. Gravel’s bishop is sympathetic to him (hence not opposing his actions/statements), but that he (the bishop) is nearing retirement, with a predictably more vigilant bishop likely to replace him (hence Fr. Gravel’s concern to secure his retirement). Concerning choice/abortion, Fr. Gravel’s position seems to oppose the demonization of women in distressing circumstances (criminalization of abortion, hence pro-choice), while providing pastoral support to such individuals which favours their choosing life for themselves and their unborn children (hence not pro-abortion). Fr. Gravel publicly acknowledges having worked as a male prostitute at some point before entering seminary. This gives him a sensitivity to the distress experienced by people in desperate situations, which leads him to claim that such persons are best served by support rather than by condemnation. I think his background should have disqualified him for ordination, as it interferes with one’s ability to grasp and organize a larger appreciation of truth, goodness and beauty, but within his limited and distorted understanding, we need not suppose him to be consciously deceitful on life issues. Self-interest above other things is also legitimate within bounds, and fear in an ageing man who derives his living in a position which might be stripped from him is a powerful motivator. Fr. Gravel is a living argument for reform and vigilance in seminaries.
All of the Bishops that associate themselves with the CCCB have an aversion to LSN ever since the Development & Peace wake up call by LSN.
So they are not likely to repramand anybody on this case.
To be pro-choice means that their should be a choice betwen choosing to carry out to term then putting it up for adoption or keeping it;or having an abortion. It is about time a peiest admitted to being pro-choice,we need more like him so that the Church will be more forgiving of women. What happened in Canada cannot happen in the USA,that is be a politician because (Thanks to the recent election!)a separation of church and state!
To Ann…you are confused about pro-choice…it refers only to being pro-abortion. Pro-life means choosing to not murder the baby…therefore, carrying it to term and either raising the baby or placing the baby in the hands of a couple desiring to adopt. It is more forgiving of women to help them see their responsibility and to live up to what they are called to do. Canadians are never called to murder the baby in the womb. Neither are Americans, nor any other person of any nation. Compassion is helping people to grow and mature. But as you said, thanks to the recent election, that will rarely happen in these United States—growing and maturing for far too many seem to desire a free ride and far to many (beginning with our President) desire to give it to them with taxpayer money.
@Greg: regarding your comment: “Concerning choice/abortion, Fr. Gravel’s position seems to oppose the demonization of women in distressing circumstances (criminalization of abortion, hence pro-choice)” Making abortion illegal does not demonize women in distressing circumstances. Abortion is an act of desperation and not all desperate acts should be legal. If I loose my job, and out of desperation, rob a bank to feed my family - does criminalizing bank robbery demonize the unemployed who find themselves in distressing circumstances? NO - outlawing robbery merely implies that even though I am in distressing circumstances, some responses are not appropriate and I must find a solution in another way. Making a dreadful action illegal does not demonize the person contemplated said action. In fact, it may be an act of charity by preventing them from doing something awful in a moment of desperation.
@Ann: You put a nice spin on the “pro-choice” label. By giving the range of choices, you imply that pro-choice and pro-abortion are different things. However, you would never apply this logic to any other moral choice. For instance: A plantation owner from 200 years ago might say, “I am not pro-slavery. I merely support the choice of the property owner to come to his own conclusion about what is right in his circumstances. Pro-choice means that there should be a choice between choosing to free my slaves, keeping my slaves but freeing their children or keeping my slaves and keeping their children”. When substituting any other moral issue (from pollution to insider trading to human trafficking to robbery to rape) you see how ridiculous that line of reasoning is.
Lincoln, talking about slavery, said you can’t give a person the right to do a wrong. It is illogical. Lincoln was talking about those people who said that they were against slavery, but gave the right to people to have slaves. It is the same with people who are pro-choice. They say that they are against abortion but they give the women the choice. That is illogical.
First of all, priests and other religious should not be allowed to hold political office. Secondly, this particular priest has legislated some gravely sinful things. I’d reommend laiization if he persists in this nonsense. He’s done things we laymen shouldn’t be able to do as Catholics.
Anyone who sues LifeSiteNews can safely be called pro-abortion. Maybe LSN has lots of insurance and its efforts couldn’t possibly be hampered by a monetary judgement against it. What true pro-lifer would want to take that chance?
As for pro-choice not equating to pro-abortion, that’s semantic nonsense. The bottom line is the bottom line.
For his own good he should be excommunicated!
By your standards, at least 60% of people who call themselves Catholic should be excommunicated!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.