ATLANTA, Georgia, November 20, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Atlanta’s former fire chief is suing the city and mayor for firing him two years ago after he wrote and self-published a book on his own time that defended real marriage while describing homosexual behavior as one of the perversions listed in the Bible.

Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran had his day in Federal court last week after he filed a civil rights suit, saying he was discriminated against for his religious beliefs. He has asked to be reinstated as fire chief and to receive back pay.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot argued that the city unjustly fired Cochran, denying him his First Amendment freedoms.

“It’s ironic that the city points to tolerance and inclusion as part of its reasoning,” Cochran said in an ADF press release. “What could be more intolerant and exclusionary than ending a public servant’s 30 years of distinguished service for his religious beliefs?”

During the hearing, U.S. District Judge Leigh May asked attorneys representing the city if the fire chief would have been fired had he penned a book about golf instead of marriage.

Kathryn Hinton, an attorney representing the city, replied with a straight face that “there would have been discipline imposed,” adding, “I believe the content itself was not the ultimate reason.”

The Federal judge said that a jury trial may be called in the spring on whatever issues she cannot resolve.

The lawsuit, which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia determined had merit to go forward, charges that Cochran was subjected to retaliation and discrimination based on his viewpoint, and the violation of his freedoms of religion, association, and due process (firing without following proper procedure).

“A religious or ideological test can’t be used to fire a public servant, but that’s what the city did, as the facts of this case clearly demonstrate,” Theriot explained. “Chief Cochran is one of the most accomplished fire chiefs in the nation, but the city’s actions place every city employee in jeopardy who may hold to a belief that city officials don’t like.”

Cochran had a distinguished career of service.  The first black fire chief in Shreveport, Louisiana, he helped the New Orleans Fire Department through Hurricane Katrina.  He served as Atlanta’s fire chief until he was named FEMA’s U.S. Fire Administrator by President Barack Obama.  In 2010, the city of Atlanta lured him back to head the Atlanta Fire Department.

“I got on a plane and I went and I begged Chief Cochran to leave a presidential appointment confirmed by the Senate to come back to the city of Atlanta,” Mayor Kasim Reed said.  Cochran came back and continued to serve with distinction, being named 2012 Fire Chief of the Year.

Cochran attends Elizabeth Baptist Church, where he is a deacon and Bible study leader.  On his own personal time, he wrote a study guide exhorting Christian men to faithfulness, entitled, “Who Told You You Were Naked?”  Cochran says he got permission from the city’s ethics director to publish it, and to include his position as fire chief in its bio.

In the book, Cochran wrote against “sexual acts pursued for purposes other than procreation and marital pleasure in holy matrimony.”  Specifically, he condemned “multiple partners, with the opposite sex, same sex and sex outside of marriage and many other vile, vulgar and inappropriate ways which defile their body-temple and dishonor God.”

Elsewhere, Cochran’s book defines “uncleanness” as “whatever is opposite of purity; including sodomy, homosexuality, lesbianism, pederasty, bestiality, and, all other forms of sexual perversion.”

Cochran gave a copy of his book to friends in the fire department.  He also gave a copy to Mayor Reed in January 2014, and the mayor told Cochran he planned to read it. The book eventually found its way to Alex Wan, an openly homosexual Atlanta Councilman.

After reading the book, Wan pushed for Cochran’s firing. “When you’re a city employee and (have) thoughts, beliefs and opinions different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door,” the councilman said.

Mayor Reed bowed to the pressure and on November 24, 2014, placed Cochran under suspension without pay, causing him to lose over $14,000.  Mayor Reed also ordered him to take “sensitivity training.”

Despite being cleared of any wrongdoing by investigators, upon completion of his unpaid suspension in January 2015, Cochran was fired.

The mayor made it “clear” that the reason he fired Cochran was because “the material in Chief Cochran’s book is not representative of my personal beliefs and is inconsistent with the administration’s work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city.”

“After an investigation… found Cochran did not discriminate against anyone, the mayor fired him anyway –citing as his basis, ironically, the need to tolerate diverse views,” an ADF statement relayed.

“It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians,” the New York Times opined in support of Cochran’s ouster.

“This is appalling… It’s a frightening day in the United States when a person cannot express their faith without fears of persecution,” Georgia Baptist Convention President Robert White lashed.  “It’s persecution when a godly fire chief loses his job over expressing his Christian faith.”

“When someone is disciplined and ultimately terminated because of personal views expressed, that’s the definition of a First Amendment issue,” Faith and Freedom Coalition Executive Director Timothy Head confirmed.

“This is true discrimination.  The LGBT community wants us to be afraid of expressing our Christian beliefs,” Rev. Franklin Graham commented. “They want us to cower in the face of their threats to the livelihoods of believers. But we shouldn’t back down!”

“Just because you sign my paycheck,” Elizabeth Baptist Church Pastor Dr. Craig Oliver told the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “doesn’t mean you can control what I think or say.”

A rally for Cochran delivered over 28,000 signatures to the mayor’s office to support religious freedom legislation before the Georgia House.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins agreed.  “The naked truth is that the actions taken against the chief are designed to send a message that will silence Christians and in effect force them to ‘check their faith at the door’ of public service,” Perkins said, citing the city councilman’s own words.

Dr. Michael Youseff wrote in Charisma News that Christians “hold no hatred toward homosexuals” or anyone, “and yet, if you believe in biblical truth, the thought police will brandish you as a ‘hater.’“

The American Conservative columnist Rod Dreher wrote that Cochran’s real offense was believing the wrong things.  He took issue with the New York Times’ saying it doesn’t matter that the Atlanta investigation found Cochran did not discriminate against anyone.  “The New York Times believes in thought-crime,” he concluded.

“The LGBT members of our community have a right to be able to express their views and convictions about sexuality and deserve to be respected for their position without hate or discrimination,” Cochran told Fox News. “But Christians also have a right to express our belief regarding our faith and be respected for our position without hate and without discrimination.”

“In the United States, no one should be vilified, hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” Cochran summarized.

“This is a warning to every American that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are hanging by a thread, which will snap if we don’t fight to preserve these cherished protections,” Cochran admonished.

Reed says Cochran was fired for poor judgment and insubordination, not his religious beliefs.  He adds the charge that Cochran gave unsolicited copies of his book to subordinates.  The mayor also disputes that he was given a copy of the book, and that the city’s ethics director approved its publication.

ADF’s Jeremy Tedesco states the other side.  “Despite being completely exonerated over concerns related to his conduct and how he treats people, the city fired him anyway,” Tedesco said.  “That really goes to show that they fired him for one thing, and that is, he held the wrong beliefs, according to the city.”

“God is going to do great things,” Cochran said, “and He will vindicate me publicly.”

For a summary from Cochran’s viewpoint, click here.

Priest poses ‘dubium’ on Pope Francis’ novel teaching on the death penalty.

Editor’s Note: Last month, LifeSite’s Rome correspondent, Diane Montagna, published an indepth interview with Father Brian Harrison, O.S. entitled: “It’s not ‘dissent’ to criticize ‘confusing cascade of papal novelties’.”

In the interview, the Australian-born Roman Catholic priest and theologian responded to critics of the recent Filial Correction who accuse the Correction’s authors and signatories of transgressing the requirements of the 1990 document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — Donum Veritatis.

Donum Veritatis lays down the circumstances in which scholars might legitimately draw the attention of the Holy See to “deficiencies” in an official teaching document. The CDF document discourages loyal theologians from pursuing such dialogue though the media. On this basis, these critics accused the authors and signatories of the Filial Correction of being ‘dissenters.’

The chief critic, Mr. Emmett O’Regan, responded to the interview with a further essay published on Vatican Insider, in which he expounds upon a claim he made in his original article that Catholics can never in principle be justified in charging the Pope with heresy or doctrinal error in the exercise of his ordinary magisterium.

Now Fr. Harrison responds by proposing to Mr. O’Regan a single ‘dubium’ —  a simple “yes” or “no” question – that confronts him with a stark dilemma. Fr. Harrison’s question is both timely and perennial. We print it in full below.

Is the Non-Infallible Papal Magisterium Always Protected from Doctrinal Error?

by Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.

In response to criticism of his initial denunciation of the Filial Correction (FC) that was submitted recently to Pope Francis by 62 Catholic scholars, expressing their concerns about heresies effectively being spread as a result of the 2016 exhortation Amoris Laetitia, Mr. Emmett O’Regan has posted a new and longer article on the Vatican Insider website.

Here he renews and expounds more fully his claim that Catholics can never in principle be justified in charging the Roman Pontiff with heresy or doctrinal error in the exercise of his ordinary magisterium.  According to Mr. O’Regan, even this non-infallible magisterium authenticum of Peter’s Successor is always protected from doctrinal error by the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit. And he claims that those who think otherwise, like the FC authors and others including myself, are implicitly denying the dogma of the Catholic Church’s indefectibility. I find many defects in Mr. O’Regan’s new article, beginning with the unduly restrictive understanding of the word “infallible” that he implicitly resorts to in attempting to defend his contention that teaching guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be free from doctrinal error can still truly be called “non-infallible.”

However, rather than weary LifeSiteNews readers with a long and detailed analysis and critique of Mr. O’Regan’s arguments over that and other issues, I would prefer to cut to the chase by posing a simple question to him – one that requires the application of these general doctrinal principles to a specific issue that is currently in the news. You could call my question a dubium if you like, since it can be answered with a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. First, however, a brief introduction to the question:

If everything taught in the non-infallible ordinary magisterium of Peter’s Successor is guaranteed to be divinely protected from error in faith and morals, then presumably Mr. O’Regan has held that for about 2,000 years the Popes, and virtually all the Fathers, Doctors, and Bishops in union with them, were protected from error in teaching, on the basis of Scripture (e.g., Gn. 9: 5-6, Rom. 13: 3-4) and Tradition that the State has the moral right under some circumstances to impose the death penalty. Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette give exhaustive documentation and explanations of this teaching in a long section, pp. 97-211, of their new book, By Man Shall His Blood be Shed, published by Ignatius Press early in 2017. (Actually, the authors argue persuasively that the legitimacy in principle of the death penalty is so strongly and consistently taught in Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium, including the official Catechisms of both Trent and Vatican II, that it constitutes infallibleordinary magisterium. But let’s make things easier for Mr. O’Regan here and assume for the sake of argument that it’s only non-infallible or ‘authentic’ ordinary magisterium.) Presumably Mr. O’Regan himself has in the past, on the basis of his own theological principles, understood this teaching to be divinely protected from error, and has considered himself required (and indeed, “bound”) to give it the religious assent of his mind and will.

However, within the last six months (a little after Feser and Bessette completed their book), a Successor of Peter has for the first time in history asserted repeatedly and unambiguously the contrary of the above doctrine regarding capital punishment. On May 11, 2017, His Holiness Pope Francis preached a homily in which he classified the death penalty, along with slavery and “wars of religion,” as something that’s not only morally wrong under modern circumstances, but morally wrong under allcircumstances, past, present and future. He asserted that the death penalty is “something that formerly seemed normal and ‘not sinful’ [but] is today considered sinful: in reality, ‘it was a sin, but that historical period did not allow it to be perceived as such’ (in realtá era peccato, ma il momento storico non permetteva che lo percepisse come tale)”. (Readers can see here my comments on this astonishing papal homily in The Wanderer of 6/1/17.)

As if to banish any possible doubt about the Holy Father’s meaning and intentions regarding the death penalty, he delivered another important allocution several months later (October 11, 2017) commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the 55th of the opening of Vatican Council II.  In this discourse he bluntly declared that the death penalty is “in itself contrary to the Gospel (in sé stessa contraria al Vangelo)”, and announced his intention to have the Catechism itself revised accordingly. (My commentary on this more recent speech can be read here.)

So here is the dubium I’d like to put to Mr. O’Regan: Does he now feel bound to give his religious assent of mind and will to the non-infallible, ordinary magisterial teaching of Pope Francis that capital punishment in itself is and always has been – or at least since the coming of Christ – mortally sinful, since it is “in itself contrary to the Gospel”?

If he answers “No”, then how does he reconcile that answer with his own thesis that the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit always protects even the non-infallible, ordinary magisterial teaching of Peter’s Successors from error, so that such teaching always requires our religious assent of mind and will?

If he answers “Yes”, then how does he escape the conclusion that his aforesaid thesis regarding the non-infallible ordinary papal magisterium is false? For if Pope Francis is right about the death penalty, the Holy Spirit did not preserve his predecessors in Peter’s See from the grave error – an error resulting in the immoral killing, century after century, of innumerable criminals – of requiring the faithful to believe the false doctrine that capital punishment is in principle allowed by the Gospel?

Finally, if Mr. O’Regan’s answer is “Yes”, then why does he give that answer? I mean, why does he still feel obliged to trust that Francis’s teaching on capital punishment has been protected from error by the Holy Spirit, when he must admit that the same Holy Spirit undeniably failed to protect Francis’ predecessors from imposing the opposite teaching on all the faithful for two millennia?