Gravel claims that LifeSite has portrayed him as an abortion supporter while the priest maintains that he is pro-life and believes that life begins at conception.
“It’s unbelievable. I cannot believe it. They say the exact opposite of what I have done,” Gravel told QMI Agency. (Source)
Really? Below you will see a transcript of Fr. Gravel’s public statements in Parliament on Dec.13, 2007 when he was a Member of Parliament. In the part of the transcript that follows, he is sharing with us his views on abortion in the context of the Unborn Victim’s of Crime bill which was originally introduced in 2007.
Mr. Raymond Gravel (Repentigny, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat uncomfortable with this bill. I was listening before to the speech by the NDP member for Halifax and I agree with what she said. As a Catholic priest, I find it somewhat difficult to relate to this bill quite simply because the member who tabled it belongs to a pro-life group, the Campaign Life Coalition, which, in my humble opinion, is a fairly extremist and fanatical group. I am pro-life, but I do not belong to that group. In my opinion, this bill will open the door to recriminalizing women who have an abortion, and that is not a good thing. I am against abortion, but I do not believe that is how we will deal with the problem of abortion. I have always stated that we need education, support and assistance for women dealing with unwanted pregnancy. In my opinion, the problem of abortion will be solved with these types of measures and not by recriminalizing abortion. I absolutely do not want that. When a pregnant woman is assaulted or killed and her fetus is killed at the same time, I agree completely that it is an abominable crime. It is revolting, but at the same time I believe that when the fetus is in its mother’s womb, they are one being. Only when it leaves her womb does it become a child. I believe that is the Supreme Court definition of 1969.
I know that killing a pregnant woman, like any murder, is a serious matter. However, I believe it is dangerous to establish a new law that would treat the murder of the fetus and of the mother as a double murder. I believe that it is dangerous and that is not how we will put an end to abortion. Not in this way. As I just said, it is more through education, support, love and understanding. There are any numbers of things we can do to reduce the abortion rate in this country. As long as we fail to take control of the situation and we fail to be there to help these pregnant women, who are often facing financial difficulties or problems in their relationship, until we resolve those problems, there will always be abortions. That is what is needed, rather than—through new legislation, that is Bill C-484—recriminalizing the murder of a pregnant woman. I also mentioned that pro-life group, Campaign Life Coalition. I know that the president of the Quebec group is Luc Gagnon. That group’s journal is always full of condemnations and rejections, and there is never any love or compassion in their journal. In my view, what is needed is compassion when a woman is dealing with a pregnancy caused by rape or any unwanted pregnancy. I do not feel there is any compassion within that group. I therefore oppose that pro-life group, just I oppose the pro-choice group, whose views are, in my opinion, too exaggerated, too unrealistic. As I was saying, I think a moderate approach is needed. It is not by creating new legislation that we will successfully reduce the number of abortions and creating new committees, if we can say— (Source)
The “pro-life view ” necessarily prohibits the possibility of morally taking the life of another human being. Gravel has consistently maintained that he is “pro-choice” which necessarily permits the option of killing an unborn child:
In 2004, Gravel boasted to a radio interviewer, “I am pro-choice and there is not a bishop on earth that will prevent me from receiving Communion, not even the Pope.” (Source)
Anyone who is for the option of killing an unborn child is not pro-life, but pro-abortion; that is to say, for the legal use of abortion. Everyone knows this.
You’ll also notice what Gravel says above concerning “the fetus” and the mother, and how “they are one being” which only becomes a child, according to Gravel, when it leaves the mother’s womb. Not only is this biologically false, it’s theological heresy (from a Catholic point of view).
Now that he has launched his lawsuit, Gravel is now claiming that life begins at conception in order to bolster his legal case that LifeSite got him all wrong, but in his Parliamentary speech, he said that the fetus and the mother are “one being” in order to deemphasize the unique personality of the unborn child and therefore weaken the Bill’s chance of passage. But if the mother and child are “one being”, as Gravel says, then there can’t be – by definition – new life.
The man needs to be corrected. And yet, what do we hear from the CCCB or from any bishop? Crickets.
Is there not one bishop in this vast country who will stand up and defend the unborn against this man?