See Part 1
* Disclaimer: The letters published below are the opinions of the individual authors only and do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.com.
Not a sign of malice
The article “Two Solitudes” by Graeme Hamilton (Saturday, March 5th) quotes Fr. Raymond Gravel as saying that “a 2008 warning from the Vatican that he would be defrocked if he sought re-election was a direct result of LifeSiteNews’s coverage.” The fact that LifeSiteNews brought to the attention of the Vatican (and others) Fr. Gravel’s history of supporting same-sex marriage and the non-criminalization of abortion, positions in opposition to the teachings of the Church, is not a sign of malice on the part of LifeSiteNews. The function of LifeSiteNews is precisely to report on such matters; it would be failing to perform its duty if it did not. I thank LifeSiteNews for having the courage to write honestly and accurately about unpleasant topics that nevertheless need to be noted and acted on by those with the proper authority to do so.
Barry’s Bay, Ontario
LifeSiteNews operates in the open
I have always found the editor and staff of LifeSiteNews to adhere to the highest journalistic standards, presenting every story they have covered with integrity and impartiality. It is true that many people may find their views to be extreme, but that is only because they typically cover stories that the mainstream media and their supporters would prefer to ignore.
As far as Fr. Gravel claiming to be pro-life in his views, he himself has said otherwise in a radio interview in 2004, when he stated very clearly that “I am pro-choice and there in not a bishop on earth that will prevent me from receiving Communion.” His voting record while a member of the vehemently pro-abortion Bloc Quebecois, clearly shows that he was consistently in favor of legalized abortion. If Fr. Gravel believes that pro-choice is not pro-abortion, he is certainly very confused on the issue. Furthermore, for Hamilton to say that Gravel’s views are ‘too nuanced for the pro-life movement’s liking’ is nonsense. There is nothing ‘nuanced’ about his views: they are completely transparent for all to see.
As far as claiming that Fr. Thomas Rosica has ‘himself come under attack’ by LifesiteNews in the past, Hamilton conveniently disregards the fact that it was Rosica who attacked LifeSiteNews, in a very un-Christian manner at that, claiming that there were ‘doing the work of Satan’. All that LifeSiteNews did was report on Fr. Rosica’s attack, nothing more, and very charitably too, I might add. To say that LifeSiteNews inflicted their ‘fury’ on Fr. Rosica is a ludicrous fabrication. It was completely the other way around, plain and simple.
Fr. Gravel lastly states that he wants “[LifeSiteNews] to change the way they operate. It is not in scorning and condemning others that they will succeed.” LifeSiteNews operates in the open, and their articles are available for anyone to read. I defy Fr. Gravel to produce an article from their website where they are ‘scorning or condemning’ anybody.
Reporting quite helpful
I am a regular subscriber to Life Site News and find it’s reporting quite helpful. It provides more in-depth coverage on family and life issues than seems to normally be available in the mainstream media.
I haven’t found it extreme or fanatical at all. I have an advanced degree in Catholic theology and find it to be completely consistent with the official teaching of the Catholic church (unless that is considered “extreme” or “fanatical” which I suppose by some folks it is).
Whole picture not presented
Although I am grateful to the Post for bringing the Gravel/LifeSiteNews lawsuit into the light for all to see, there are many parts in darkness because the whole picture was not presented.
LifeSiteNews has been a welcome research arm for millions of Christians who have watched some liberal-minded leaders of our faith bend to the politically correct will of the day, while turning their back on the moral teaching of the Church.
Is it extreme to ask General Motors to put all the parts in a car when they’re making them? No more extreme than asking our Catholic Church leaders to include the moral issues in their decisions.
In the ten years I have been receiving LifeSiteNews I haven’t seen anything they reported that was mean-spirited. It’s factual, well-researched, balanced, professional reporting of local and world events. The only thing it doesn’t have is the liberal spin to it and that has certain people worried.
Reliable, forthright and honest
Life Site News is reliable, forthright and honest.
You quote Father Gravel: “The plaintiff sincerely believes that human life begins with conception.” Unfortunately, there are many who believe this and still advocate for abortion of those already conceived human beings. Is it merely the knowledge that a baby not yet born is human that is at issue here? Those who take the life of already born people know they are killing human beings. (we call those people murderers if they have done so deliberately).
Those who commit abortions also know they are killing human beings. (if a conceived person is not human, then is this person a dog? a cat perhaps? If the unborn person is not alive, then why must we kill him/her to do an abortion?)
P. Marrocco M.D.
Well researched and well documented reporting
I was concerned to read about LifeSiteNews being referred to as “pro-life fanaticism” and “unthinking activism,” and involved in “character assassination and destruction of reputations of good people.”
Though not a Catholic, I am pro-life and subscribe to LifeSiteNews, which I have read daily for 2 1/2 years. I have greatly appreciated what I would consider it’s well researched and well documented reporting. If anything, I have found their articles tend to err on the side of compassion, respect and fair-mindedness. In such a controversial arena one would expect strong disagreements, and if anyone is troubled by being called a thief, perhaps they should stop stealing.
Red Deer, Alberta
Details on Wikipedia
Regarding “Two Solitudes” (March 5, 2011), I find information conspicuously lacking on one of the “Solitudes” in question, i.e., LifeSiteNews.com.
I believe Father Raymond Gravel’s libel suit against LSN is essentially the scorpion’s sting against an organization that has merely published the known truth. Father Gravel’s past personal life and support of abortion rights and same-sex marriage are no secret. You can find the details on wikipedia.org. (I don’t see the Wikimedia Foundation taking a hit for false, malicious statements.)
Whatever it is that rankles Fr. Gravel, he’s doing a great disservice to the Catholic faithful by attempting to crush a news agency that has only published the known truth. If the truth causes the reader to see the great dissonance between the man’s vocation as a priest, and his expression (couched as “personal opinion,” though it may be) of a moral stance antithetical to that of the Catholic Church, that is not the fault of LifeSiteNews.com. Father Raymond ultimately bears responsibility for his own assertions and choices.
Veronica Marie Rochford
Miramichi, New Brunswick