Fr. Raymond Gravel Suing LifeSiteNews
February 16, 2011
I’m not typically a fan of LifeSiteNews or of calling abortion rights advocates “pro-abortion,” but this lawsuit seems rather fatuous.
49 Comments
Comments are closed.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
This is gonna be interesting. My guess is it either breaks them, or bankrolls them. I just got the fund raising e-mail this morning.
It’s a standard tactic of the pro-choice side. Bankrupt your opponent in the courts.
As well as a standard tactic of right-wing political groups like LifeSite (someone below, on purpose or not, more adequately describes them as LieSite) to play the victim when they are called out for their inappropriate behavior, like libel–painting with broad condemning brush strokes Catholics in canonical good standing (like Father Gravel) who don’t agree with their political solution to the abortion problem.
How has LifeSiteNews committed libel against Fr. Gravel? Do tell.
That would be a question for the Canadian courts.
**who don’t agree with their political solution to the abortion problem.**
Killing children does not bring to mind “political solutions”. The priest is a grotesque heretic who damaged his own reputation as a priest by being a prochoice activist. How on earth can he be in “canonical good standing”? That’s nonsense.
Will Lifesite news be as quick to expose the background of the darling of the theocons, Robert Sirico aka Fr. Sirico of The Alban Institute?
Yep this is the latest thing to hit the Catholic Blogosphere. At So Con or Bust, Pacheco has some things to say about this:
http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=12840
This does concern me. It’s usually these kinds of cases that makes or breaks a practice in society. E.g. Roe Vs Wade started the big legalization of abortion in the 70s. We pro-lifers lost.
If as the author states that Fr. Gravel gets his suit and he wins (and heaven forbid the MSM takes note of this case as it loves to be left wing anti-Catholic), this will further erode the public’s confidence in the Church Clergy and he also thinks this will do something to the Canadian bishops.
On the other hand his suggestion at the end is nuclear and extreme. “Folks, we need to re-orient our giving too. Give less to the institutional church, less to the bishops, and more to the Faithful and their efforts.” It sounds extreme in that if parish X has a priest who is soft or doesn’t speak about pro-life issues (which they should), this will close many a parish and put many a priest with no home to go to.
Seriously the more things that keep happening and the more Catholic blog stuff I read daily, the more I feel like maybe our Church is done for or will be reduced to handfuls of people praying in bunkers for the 2nd coming.
Father Gravel is an intelligent man.
Perhaps our Canadian friends can comment, but I’m pretty sure defamation is not as difficult a burden to establish in Canada as it is here.
My guess is that it bankrolls them.
I’m not sure it is fatuous. Defamation is taken far too lightly in the US. I was very pleased to see the courts slap down some pseudo-pro-lifers for running ads accusing American politicians of supporting taxpayer funded abortion (that would be the vote to expand health care to 32 million additional people). This cavalier attitude to truth and bearing false witness is a stain on American culture.
All that said, how was this priest a member of parliament? I thought that, post-Drinan, the Vatican took a hard line on this?
His lawsuit seems to be a natural consequence of the violence of cultural warfare rhetoric.
LSN said that he was “pro-abortion,” but according to to Fr. Gravel, he isn’t pro-abortion, he’s pro-choice! And he wants five hundred thousand dollars because LSN said the contrary. I am certain that this is fatuous.
Did it state that in the article that was linked? I didnt see that.
According to LSN’s news article,
The problem is, I don’t think that LSN has said anything at all dishonest about him. They called him “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice” and that apparently set him off.
My take on this is that he has no chance of winning, knows he has no chance of winning, and is only suing them so as to deplete their financial resources as much as possible.
Also, what Thales said.
I really don’t have any idea of what it would cost to defend yourself in a libel case. Couldnt they make him pay if they are proven innocent? Does it work that way in Candada? Would it really bankrupt them? I really am curious as to a figure on how much it would really cost them. I would bet they could raise $20k just from their supporters and readers alone. Maybe that wouldnt be enough though. I dont know.
“Fr. Gravel, are you in favor of women having the legal option to choose abortion?”
“Yes.”
“Case dismissed.”
Legal is not the same as moral. That right is now the law of the land, like it or not.
It may also have to do with lifesite’s revelations about his past as a male prostitute — which can also be found in secular sources. Pro-choicers have deep pockets, pro-lifers not so deep. The most effective tactic to silence the pro-life movement has been to cripple their finances. The more they have to pay in legal fees, the less they can do the important work to which they are called, such as disseminating information, establishing crisis pregnancy centers and financially supporting women who need help.
I don’t see how this isn’t fatuous. He says he’s “pro-life” but that he’s against the criminalization of abortion. According to publically accessible documents provided by the Church itself, being pro-life entails, at a minimum, being against the legalization of abortion (and, of course, a whole list of other things that are conveniently left out of the equation). So he’s not, from the perspective of the Church, “pro-life.” And, insofar as *not* being against the legality of abortion can be said to entail being *for* its legality, then he’s pro-abortion. Not that he’s rah rah! Abortion!, but that he’s opposed to its criminalization. These is how people commonly use and understand these phrases, so I fail to see how he’s been maligned.
Canadian law is goofy. So is Minion: “I was very pleased to see the courts slap down some pseudo-pro-lifers for running ads accusing American politicians of supporting taxpayer funded abortion.” Too bad that never happened.
Well, he didn’t even say he was pro-choice. He said that he opposed abortion but believed that means other than criminalization should be used to defend life.
I don’t agree with him nor am I sure that Liesite’s committed a crime (though they are a horrid and dishonest organization). I do wish they would stop claiming to speak for the Church.
“Liesite”–was that a deliberate, or an accidental, (felix) typo?
Given the history of inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims on LifeSiteNews, it doesn’t surprise me that someone is finally suing them for defamation.
God Bless
Yes. I don’t think Father Gravel is in the right here, but this is not surprising at all.
For someone to actively oppose legal protection of a group of innocent human beings targeted for killing is for him to be pro their killing.
As it is to actively oppose effective protection to a group of human beings targeted for killing is for him to be pro their killing.
So you two are in agreement on something.
Quick, someone push The Second Coming warning system activation switch!
But let’s take “Obamacare.” Conservatives claim they want everyone to have health care, but this is just not the way to do it. Some people who are opposed to abortion feel that criminalizing abortion is not an effective solution. If we can accuse Father Gravel of being pro-abortion because he is against criminalization, why can’t we accuse conservatives of being opposed to health care for the currently uninsured if they oppose “Obamacare,” particularly if they claim the free market and private charity should be the mechanism for extending health care to the millions who don’t have it?
Whoa everybody, there was no evidence in the article to prove either side’s case. Wait and see. If he was slandered well then he should win, if not he will lose. Just not near enough data there to reach any conclusion.
Is the argument here that it is not possible to be both a priest and a citizen who respects constitutional law in a pluralistic society?
Nope.
The argument, as I see it, is whether it is defamation to call someone who is in favor the legal option to choose abortion, “pro-abortion.” I say, not defamation.
Thales, God is against abortion. He gives us the freedom to choose, which is pro-choice. Does that mean that God is pro-abortion?
God is perfectly willing to both make and enforce laws against abortion.
This priest does not seem to be willing to make such a law, and thus lets many go off to judgement.
smf, You do not know what is in the priest’s heart nor what he does. Everyone chooses life or death at every moment for ourselves and others whether we know it or not with each thought, word or action.
The priest does not make the law he only states that each of us has the right to choose under that law and that he is against abortion.
God is perfectly willing to both make and enforce laws against abortion? Why does he talk to you so openly like that? What else has he told you?
Heh. By that logic, God is pro-child-molesting and pro-ethnic-cleansing and pro-gas-chambers-for-undesirables too.
Here is the error in your logic:
God giving us free will =/= politician supporting abortion legislation
Thales, There is no free will unless we love God and His creation.
The logic I presented above is based on the faulty logic of LSN.
Ronald,
Maybe you’re not getting the point. God giving us free will means that God allows us to choose the sin of child molesting. This is a very different situation from a politician in favor of laws that support the choice of citizens to molest children.
Politicians should seek to work for laws that encourage virtue and discourage vice.
That is why the “God is pro-abortion too!” gotcha doesn’t work here. They are two different scenarios: God is “pro” child molesting in a different way that the politician is “pro” child molesting.
Ah Thales, politicians represent people of many different faiths and points of view so they should not and frequently do not feel required to say for example, tote the Catholic doctrine around like a club looking for baby seals. The Constitution does not call for that here or in Canada. You need to separate this guy from his job as a priest and his job as an elected official.
My hope would be that faced with the risk of going financially bankrupt, Lifesite would recognize that credibility-wise they are already bankrupt. Perhaps a reflection about their current state might motivate greater accuracy in their reporting.
Whenever I read an exceptionally good article from LSN I write them and say something like, “If there was more stuff like this and less garbage I would be happy to give you money and encourage my friends to do the same.”
A friend of mine here in TO knows them quite well. He says that a couple years back they made a deliberate editorial decision to be more sensationalist and editorializing. He advised them against it, but they were so frustrated at getting nowhere against the MSM juggernaut that they changed tack.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: once you decide to fight the devil with his own weapons, you’ve already lost.
“once you decide to fight the devil with his own weapons, you’ve already lost”
You should just run around VN and cut and paste that on any active thread. That is brilliant and really sums the bigger picture and the larger battle right up.
I think I will steal that line from you. Hopefully God will forgive me.
I am the managing director of LifeSiteNews. There are a number of items in this discussion that are very inaccurate and totally unsubstantiated. If persons in this blog wish to make charges against LifeSiteNews I suggest you make at least a reasonable effort to provide real evidence to substantiate your claims.
As for the claim immediately above it is false. There is not a shred of truth to it. Whoever this “friend” is, he or she did not accurately convey whatever discussions he might have been part of or the hearer greatly exaggerated what was told to him or took them very much out of context. If you want to believe bad things about people with whom you have disagreements, there tends to be a strong temptation towards bias and misrepresentation. LSN has strict policies on accuracy in reporting and avoidance of personal attacks on individuals or the use of strong language. Professionalism and truthfulness are overwhelmingly stressed. If you disagree with us – that is another thing. But it does not reflect upon our professionalism.
As for “false readings” and overly sensitive early warnings coming from LifeSiteNews (comment below) I suggest that yes, we sometimes are a little off, but the vast majority of times we have been proven to be way ahead of the curve, sometimes by years. If anything, we have often downplayed things that turn out to be even much worse than we have warned or reported.
LifeSiteNews consults widely with experts and leaders and among ourselves. We have a large network of contacts and a number of our staff have many years of experience on the issues we cover. We meet very regularly with most of the pro-life leaders in North America and also a good number from other nations.
LifeSiteNews is certainly not perfect, but it is considered by most pro-life and pro-family leaders of being one of the more reliable and useful news sources on the Internet. It is not me that says this. They frequently tell us this themselves and often. If you do not believe this then contact these leaders yourself and ask them about LifeSiteNews.
I use LSN sort of like a canary in a coal mine or an overly sensitive early warning system.
Sometimes it gives false readings, but it tends to give warning about things many other outlets don’t.
I would prefer they tone it down at times and do a bit more fact checking.
Thales, I am sorry that I am not getting it. I see your point, I think. I am talking about the priest who is accused of being pro-abortion when he is not. The politician is evolving just as other humans, I hope, towards a more virtuous political agenda. The laws against child abuse have evolved out of our freedom to evolve naturally as we have gotten more virtuous. The child in the womb is not seen as a child as yet for many reasons.
I believe that the only way for others to see that unborn child as a developing human being is for us to use our freedom to create a loving and virtuous world through the sacrifice of our comfort and safety in an obvious display of solidarity for mothers and their children.
The politicians will follow our example. The law changes when hearts change.
Ronald is saying that God, by giving us free will, is ipso facto “pro-choice.” This does not equate to being “pro-abortion.” An argument based soley on semantics is not going to be very productive. The priest in question states unequivocally that he is against anyone using her ability to choose freely to opt for abortion. The priest is not “pro-abortion.” The priest is anti-abortion, but pro-choice. That is, in fact, the inescapable human condition, regardless of any statute law formulated and enacted.
Ronald,
The whole topic is simply a debate about how the term “pro-abortion” is defined. Fr. Gravel apparently thinks that even though he is in favor of women having the legal right to choose abortion and though apparently he would actively work to preserve that right through work as a legislator, since he is not in favor of women choosing abortion, then he is not pro-abortion. Okay, that’s fine. That’s his definition and I can see that he doesn’t think he is “pro-abortion.” I’ll even concede that in a way, it is reasonable to think that Fr. Gravel is not “pro-abortion.”
But, if you think about it another way, it’s reasonable to call Fr. Gravel “pro-abortion”, if I define “pro-abortion” as “being in favor of women having the legal right to choose abortion including actively working to preserve that right through his work as a legislator.”
Suppose I’m a legislator who doesn’t think anyone should smoke because it is dirty and unhealthy, and that I personally am opposed to it, and I even encourage people not to smoke in my day-to-day life. But suppose that I think that people should have a legal right to smoke, and I work to create and preserve this legal right through my actions as a legislator. In a way, I’m “anti-smoking”, since I’m against people smoking. In another way, I’m “pro-smoking”, since I think that even though I personally oppose it, I think that people should have the legal right to smoke. If someone calls me a “pro-smoking” politician, can I sue for defamation. Of course not, even though I disagree with the characterization, since the characterization is a reasonable one.
So, it’s a matter of definition. And that’s why I think Fr. Gravel’s case has no basis. As I said above, I think the court just has to say “Fr. Gravel, even though you think you are not pro-abortion because you are against abortion personally, it is not unreasonable to say that you are pro-abortion since you are pro-women-having-the-legal-right-to-choose-abortion. Case dismissed.”
Finally, I objected to the God analogy, because I thought it was a red herring argument — because God creating free will to do action X is not analagous to a legislator working to create or preserve a legal right to do action X.
I was thinking about this topic some more, and another reason why Fr. Gravel’s suit would fail came to mind:
Even if it is completely false to say that Fr. Gravel is “pro-abortion”, legally, it’s not a bad or embarrassing or objection thing to be pro-abortion, and so a defamation claim would fail on its face.
(Of course, I don’t know the specifics of Canadian defamation law, and I don’t know the specifics of Fr. Gravel’s lawsuit besides the fact that he objects to being called “pro-abortion”. There might be more to his case than that, but if that’s it, it’s a weak one.)