St. Pat Msgr. Hits Gays On Scandal / Blames woes on 'disorder,' U.S. immorality

New York Daily News ^ | 4/22/02 | NICOLE BODE and GREG GITTRICH

[kattracks]

Edward Cardinal Egan's stand-in at St. Patrick's Cathedral pointedly blamed the priest sex abuse scandal yesterday on homosexuality, a "sex-saturated" society and a constant assault on celibacy by liberals.

In a 15-minute homily from the most prominent Roman Catholic pulpit in the city, Msgr. Eugene Clark labeled the United States "probably the most immoral country" in the Western hemisphere. He also called homosexuality "a disorder" and said gay men shouldn't be allowed to become priests.

Clark, 76, a longtime key player and conservative voice in the Archdiocese of New York, delivered his stinging homily as Egan and other U.S. cardinals left for Rome to meet with the Pope about priestly pedophilia.

After preaching about forgiveness, Clark detailed reasons he believes some priests victimized children. He appeared to place most of the blame on homosexuality, saying the theory that people are born gay "is not true."

"The tendency to homosexuality is a disorder, not a sin," he said. "But the practice of homosexuality is truly sinful."

Some parishioners in the packed pews shifted uneasily, others nodded in agreement and a few walked out. But Clark continued, arguing that it was a "grave mistake" to allow gays in the priesthood. He blamed American society for being "very protective" of homosexuality.

"Homosexuality became in the American exchange of views a protected area," he said. "And unfortunately ... homosexual students were allowed to pass through seminaries. Grave mistake. Not because homosexuals in anyway tend to criminality, but because it is a disorder."

'The Most Immoral Country'

Clark also criticized what he called "the campaign of liberal America against celibacy."

He theorized that priests who have a tendency toward sexually abusing children — a group he pegged at 3% of the nation's clergy — were affected by a barrage of sinful images in society.

"Liberated sex is offered to people all day long, all evening long," he said. "There is nothing quite like it."

"We know — we won't mention it outside the cathedral — we are probably the most immoral country certainly in the Western hemisphere and maybe the larger circle because of the entertainment we suffer and what it's done to our [country's] morals ...," Clark said.

Christine Schubert of St. Paul dashed out of the cathedral midway through the homily. "I left because I realized I have no desire to be connected with the institution of the Catholic Church," said Schubert, 27. "I thought, wouldn't it be great if the entire church walked out?"

But few did. Most parishioners stayed, and many applauded Clark after his sermon.

Marianne Duddy, executive director of Dignity/USA, the nation's largest organization of gay Catholics, called Clark's comments linking the sex scandal with homosexuality "incredibly horrifying and irresponsible."

"This is a poor attempt to deflect attention away from the church's culpability for the sexual abuse of minors by priests and its attempt to cover it up for decades," she added.

But Catholic League President William Donohue praised Clark. "He makes a great deal of sense and to have this said so articulately by one of the brighter priests in the New York area is very encouraging," Donohue said.

"The internal problem in the church is a lack of governance and due to diligence," he added. "But there is no question about it — this is a societywide problem that goes way beyond the Catholic Church."

With Gretchen E. Weber

[Almondjoy]

Bah you assume I can make the social jump because of some scientific advancements you mentioned through your varied comments? Hopefully you aren't a teacher. I'm going to assume I ended up with the same result you have. But why not suggest that as an option? This conversation would of ended hours ago.

[helmsman]

But why not suggest that as an option? This conversation would of ended hours ago.

Almond, please try to remember that Lucius brought up the artificial womb angle. I simply felt I could help further understanding by posting the thread link. Now, I am pleased that you might like the idea as a solution to abortion. But you worry me by bringing up "social cost" questions. I thought your argument was that what dooms the unborn is their lack of viability, not their burden on society. Is that a goal post I see you pushing behind your back?

[elfman2]

"Should teachers never be alone with children? Should we post cameras in our homes to watch our babysitters? Should we start looking at our spouses with suspicion? "

Only if they are expected to deny their sexuality as a condition of their position, and as a group they have a history of being disproportionately full of child abusers.

Look, Americans and the Church have known of this problem for decades, but it still seems to exist. The Church is free to deny that a homosexual priesthood culture exists and just make little changes around the edges as long as you're willing to believe it. They can make the changes that are needed now or after a billion dollars of their money is redirected to sports cars and summer homes for trial lawyers. This is not my battle.

[katnip]

The classic ending statement for someone who doesn't want to face what's going on right under their nose.

Still waiting to find out what's going on right under my nose!!! I have a long drive home now. Am anticipating your illumination.

[Almondjoy]

Maybe so Maybe so. Maybe I should loop around to the beginning real quick. My feelings on abortion is that until the baby is viable outside the woom it is for all intenstive puroposes the mother's right to do as she fits for her and her baby. That is my position. Now you suggested the idea that a fetus at whatever stage of growth could (now or in the future) be extracted and kept alive by artifical means in order to go outside the mother's woom. This poses a new interesting question to all of us. Because now abortion should technically disappear.. I mean if a mother doesn't have to have ties to something she can't take care.. at the same time can remove herself of the burden of carrying the child for 9 months, think about what impact this may have on society.

You wanna talk about birth control? Hell i'm imagineing that espically during the early part of pregancy that this is not a very intrustive operation(I could be wrong here) this would make it even less painful(I bet you will find women who have refused to have an abortion based on friend's experiences, however how prevelant that is i do not know). What this could lead to is more women seeking this extraction method more than abortion was ever used.

You asked my opinion on the social cost invovled? I'm afraid to really jump into this since i haven't thought about it yet. Think of it this way though. On one side we could have continued abortion(which I think just about everyone on here agrees is wrong). On the other hand we may a crisis on our child welfare system by a huge surge of normally aborted babies and due to my point above possibly even more babies due to an increased use of the extraction method as birth control. Do I think that's acceptable social cost? I do not know. What I want to know is... who the hell is going to take care of all these kids and what price might they pay.. will we raise an extra abudance of people hating bitter kids.. or will we find some way to raise them properly?

[helmsman]

I think that most of your concerns will be prevented by external factors. We should realize that the artificial womb will not be the only advance in reproductive technology over the next couple of decades. There will certainly be advances in contraception, like the contraceptive vaccine for example, that will probably reduce the unexpected pregnancy rate quite dramatically, and thereby reduce the number of embryo/fetus transfers that will be sought. Now contraception is somewhat controversial within the pro-life movement, of course. However, there is no reason to believe that those who are not morally opposed to these new methods will not use them. And, of course, these are also the very people who seek abortions.

I think that, in the end, it will come down to the question of why abortion is legal in this country. Is it legal out of respect for a woman's supposed right to not be pregnant, or is it legal because we wish to enjoy the benefits of ridding our society of those who would burden it financially and socially? I don't know why you and other pro-choicers believe abortion should be legal, but according to the Supreme Court, it is legal to serve the bodily integrity rights of the woman. A transplant procedure utilizing an artificial womb would allow a woman to exercise those rights without harming the baby. That should be the end of the debate. Whatever problems we may encounter as a result of not exterminating our children, we'll just have to deal with.

[Almondjoy]

Interesting... I take it you are so hardline on this as some of your fellow prolifers shall we say. It seems to me you belief as I do that abortion as wrong but you aren't so hardcore as to, shall we say, rake people over the coals? If you want me to take a position... I would agree with you that I think our society should deal with the problems of removing abortion of society and filling that with the burden of these parentless kids. I like to present this from angles.. in the sense that regardless of the moral highroad God instilled in us a choice.. to be sinners or not to be sinners.. to believe in him or not to believe in him.. that's the of beauty creation.. God doesn't need us to force people to be rightous. I think it's funny to listen some people talk and act like it's their duty to instill their morals into other people. God wants you to help him to help me understand him. If he wanted force God has more power than obviously any of us can imagine. I go on this tangent to mean only one thing. As far as abortion goes, if society can come with a solution(arfitfical womb) to prevent abortion there is no reason not to use it.. but until that is in place it is a God given right for man to sin and that's the way God wanted it.

[Almondjoy]

Sorry for the typo. I meant to say that you ARENT as hardcore.

[helmsman]

Well, I don't come at this issue from a religious angle, if that's what you mean. I don't have a problem with those who do, it's just that I can't confidently say that I know what God wants us to do about abortion or anything else. I would like to think he would want us to stop abortion, but that's because I like to think he is a good God. Regardless, abortion offends me because the concept of killing offends me and strikes me as intrinsically wrong unless done for an extremely good reason. All the more so when it's done to children. Am I about to launch a jihad on those who have or provide abortions? No. I would just simply like them to stop. I don't really care how that happens.

[Almondjoy]

And that final agreement I couldn't agree with you more on.

[Almondjoy]

And if I send more post with taking another look at it I'm going to fire myself. Maybe it's the beer. In any case it should be "In that final statement I couldnt' agree with you more on."

[helmsman]

Not to worry, I figured it out anyway... :) Good talk Almond, see you around.

[Alissa]

I have a gay brother, the only homosexual in 4 children, 3 boys and myself. He says he has been gay his entire life. A freeper once said to me that maybe this sibling was molested in his youth.

The dichotomy is the Church may be blaming homosexuals on their problems, but this is their own creation! Of course this can't be a blanket statement but it gives me cause to wonder.

[Jeff Chandler]

If a priest is celibate, what difference does his orientation make?

If a priest with same-sex attraction has remained celibate for the duration of his priesthood, that's one thing. The homosexuals and feminists must be cleared out of the seminaries, though. And, the entire Church should institute the standards held by the Diocese of Phoenix, which WILL NOT accept as a candidate for the priesthood a man who has had recent struggles with same-sex attraction, because that in itself is evidence of stunted emotional development. You are aware of the fact that homosexuality is an emotional disorder, aren't you?

[Jeff Chandler]

Clarke scapegoats the "immorality of the US" as a factor

Doesn't sound like scapegoating to me. Sounds like he is identifying an aggravating phenomenon: the hypersexualization of our culture. Do you deny that our culture is saturated with erotic imagery, or that this super-sexual atmosphere is gasoline poured on the fire of perversion?

[Proud2BAmerican]

Well, millions of people live in this sexed-up society and don't molest young people or commit sexual crimes of any kind.

That hardly disputes what the priest was saying. By your own admission, many young couples that you personally shepherd in marriage ministry are immoral.

[Proud2BAmerican]

The Church is not the victim. The innocent children are.

Aren't the children a part of the Church?

[saradippity]

Are you from Phoenix? I would be very interested in when the diocese adopted this policy concerning candidates for the priesthood. Do you know where the document is located? Thanks.

[Proud2BAmerican]

The notion that sin is the fault of everything and everybody except the sinner is hardly the sort of moral teaching one expects from a respectable church.

Well, sin is at the fault of all the things not of God. THough that sin is committed by the free will of individuals. And homosexuality is most certainly to blame -- it was a preponderance of homosexuals who have committed these atrocities, therefore, you can say that homosexuality is to blame. Remove homosexuality from the equation we're currently discussing, and the entire landscape would be different.