Pro-Choice Priest Sues Lifesite for Libel
(02-16-2011, 03:10 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(02-15-2011, 11:21 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: "Gravel had an eventful youth during which he worked in bars in Montreal's Gay Village; he has been open about the fact that he was a sex-trade [prostitute] worker during that time.[1]"

How did this guy even get past the screening to become a priest?

This is why the VII Church is a new religion.

Oh, yeah. He was also an MP for the separatist party which tells you how 'Catholic' they are!
The NO Church...

Are you a homo? Pro abortion? Muslim? Not sure about the Real Presence? Don't believe in sin? Do you believe that everyone except trads are saved? Then come to our seminaries and become a Priest!

Are you a trad? You believe in sin? You actually believe people go to Hell? You believe sinners must repent and not be comforted in their sins? Then let you be anathema and consider yourselves excommunicated just like the SSPX!!!

(02-15-2011, 10:32 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: INPEFESS,
Even if he is merely pro-choice, he's still in support of the state's legislation of an intrinsically evil act. 

Yes, of course.

Quote: He's already been censured (somewhat) by the Vatican, and later removed as a chief catechist.  The Church could come to the defense of LSN and reason why his pro-choice stance made him unfit to fulfill the duties of his position.  That might make his case untenable.

Okay, I must have been unclear. I'm not saying that it changes anything about the fact that he is likely guilty of heresy; I'm just saying that perhaps he's guilty of a different heresy than denying the Church's teaching on murder.
Did someone change the title to pro-choice?

I never use that term for baby murdering, sodomitical scum like Gravel.
good freaking grief, evil is as evil does.  "pro-choice" DOES equal pro-baby murder :realmad:
(02-16-2011, 10:18 PM)TraceG Wrote: good freaking grief, evil is as evil does.  "pro-choice" DOES equal pro-baby murder :realmad:

I'm not using their terminology.  I don't accept their premises, so why should I use their terms?
On the most recent episode of The Vortex, Michael Voris reports that this Fr. Gravel was also a homosexual male prostitute prior to becoming a priest:

So maybe Voris uses Wikipedia as a source
(02-17-2011, 09:32 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: So maybe Voris uses Wikipedia as a source

A simple Google search will show tons of newspaper articles on the subject. He has admitted it himself. This guy is pro-choice, pro-homosexuality.

Here's an article that EWTN posted about him in 2006...
(02-16-2011, 07:28 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Did someone change the title to pro-choice?

Yes, many people identify with "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion" because they say that, while they are opposed to abortion themselves and would never personally have one, they have no right imposing their own personal views on the lives of others. They liken it to watching TV: 'I don't like TV and personally don't choose to watch it; I think it's morally dangerous, addictive, and maybe even evil. But that doesn't mean that my view of watching TV should be imposed on all Americans or that it should be bound in state or federal law.' It's similar to the libertarian approach: I'm against it myself for moral reasons, but people should legally be allowed to do whatever they want.

I want to make it clear that I do not support this in any way, but that is where "pro-choice" idea originated: "though I personally think it's evil and would never have one, it is the woman's decision whether to have an abortion."

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)