Naughty? Naughty? At his age?
Posted on 09/19/2005 3:59:03 PM PDT by Murtyo
In New York City, and the greater environs of the city -- which reach to Rome going east and to Los Angeles going west -- Catholic men and women are up against a wrenching problem. It has to do with Monsignor Eugene Clark. How to deal with him?
Monsignor Clark has had a big tabloid hour. The husband of the monsignor's secretary engaged a private eye to follow them around. The detective made a videotape that showed the monsignor and the secretary entering a motel on Long Island and leaving five hours later, wearing different clothes. The husband turned the tape over as supporting data in a lawsuit asking the court to end his marriage, and to assign to him ownership of their house and custody over their two children.
It is lurid stuff, especially because Monsignor Clark is a singular figure. When in August the explosion came, he was doing duty as rector of St. Patrick's Cathedral, the single most exalted rectorship in America. Add to this, Clark's long career as intimate of three New York cardinals. And as a priest of great eloquence who has thoughtfully, in ways quiet and unquiet, sought to extend the faith and enhance the best ideals of his country.
His eloquence resulted in a regular television program. Attention has focused on a talk he gave in 1999 under the title "Falling, Being, and Staying in Love." It was a tough statement striking out at the popular culture. "Hollywood is not a Christian place at all, at all, at all. Most of the writers, the creative people, are homosexually inclined or homosexually recruited." These folk are "the enemy of Christian marriage and Christian falling in love and all the tenderness that goes with that. They are saying, 'Don't pay attention to that business of permanence and fidelity.'"
Such tongues as could be expected to wag under the circumstances lost no time in doing so. But what was the cardinal to do? In a matter of days, Monsignor Clark resigned his exalted post at St. Patrick's. And admitted his lapse?
Oh no. He said that he had been up to nothing more venal than letting his secretary, tired after a full morning of sorting books and a full lunch, have a nap on the beach before driving the 80 miles back to New York City. He hardly made it a point to draw attention to other factors one would think relevant, but others did. Namely, the monsignor is 79 years old, has had prostate cancer, and is presumably past the age of frolic.
Sometime, somewhere, a court will listen to the divorce suit against the secretary, and one prays for exoneration. But the problems of Monsignor Clark don't get adjourned until then. He lives under a very black cloud. It is one that presents extraordinary problems to his friends, who include this writer.
Specific questions arise. Should an invitation be sent to the monsignor for a celebration that, by long tradition, he had attended? He is probably better known to the American conservative community than any cardinal. It is legendary, the lengths to which people who trust his judgment and learning and disposition to sacrifice have asked him to go.
Decades ago the American Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell, in a furious letter to me, intimated condescendingly that he would consent to visit with a priest, if only to prove his invincibility to Christian argumentation against racism. Would Monsignor agree to see him? I asked; he did. Rockwell's assassin ended that story, but those who have had experience of the priest could not possibly enumerate the instances of care he has taken in looking after others.
But what is the obligation of friends, Christian and non-Christian, at such a juncture? It is not as easy as declaiming his innocence. To begin with, he is clearly not innocent of violating such circumspections as are reasonably expected of ministers of the gospel. Even if it is established, down the road, that the detective fabricated the videotape, no one is denying that the monsignor and the secretary were at the motel and registered as guests. The cardinal has not sounded a clarion call to right an injustice.
Those associated with the monsignor and aware of the commands of his calling can't act as if indifferent to accusations of infidelity. If one finds oneself seated next to the monsignor at dinner, how does one skirt the subject? It is an affront to the principles the monsignor preaches to proceed as though social indifference to them was the higher good.
An unfortunate choice of words . . .
This is the thing that disturbs me about Mr. Buckley. If he is truly a friend, he would have no second thoughts about Monsignor Clark.
If he is 79 and has prostate problems, I'll go with Clark.
'intimate' like 'passion' has be redefined by an hypersexed culture.
I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean that if someone is your friend, you can never doubt their actions/words?
Will you not agree that he was certainly imprudent in spending five hours in a motel room with his secretary, who also happened to be going through a divorce? There would be no basis for suspicion had he not done this.
"This is the thing that disturbs me about Mr. Buckley. If he is truly a friend, he would have no second thoughts about Monsignor Clark."
I don't get it.
If I was a friend of Monsignor, I'd certainly still be his friend, with no second thoughts about the friendship.
As former clergy myself I knew some who had various moral lapses that, if/when caught, ended their service as clergy. Most were likable people. Most did good, if not great work before their fall.
Sadly enough, the penalties that most suffered were tied to how many people knew of the shortcoming, and how much of a scandal that it caused. If few knew about the situation then the clergy was allowed to continue their service, albeit (hopefully) with much corrective actions. This is the very thing that allowed 60+ years of pedophile priests to continue in service, with many sinning again.
Even more sadly, many more clergy are driven out in digrace after they are caught in a situation that simply looks bad. The damage for clergy isn't in the deed, but rather the accusation. Once the bell is rung, you're done.
The demands of the position say that we excuse them from ordained service, but that doesn't mean that we stop befriending, supporting, and loving them. Does that your church covered that point, of loving people after their sin has caused them disgrace and ended their role in the church?
Maybe he was hearing her confession. Maybe its just private and they needed a place to talk. I doubt a man 79 and having had prostate problems is that interested in sex..
If I were the husband no way I would admit my wife would rather stay in a motel with a neutered 79 year old man than stay with me. I would shut the hell up and silently slink away.
You are allowed to be a married priest in the Catholic Church, provided you are Eastern Rite. You are not allowed if it is Roman rite. Most American Catholic churches do, however, are Roman Rite.
"You are allowed to be a married priest in the Catholic Church, provided you are Eastern Rite. You are not allowed if it is Roman rite. Most American Catholic churches do, however, are Roman Rite"
A married Anglican priest can indeed transfer into the Roman Rite priesthood, and stay married. The poster was correct, although incomplete.
There's a lot more to this situation. The woman is a rather attractive 46 year old who has worked for this monsignor for 20 years. The husband has accused her of working late, of taking trips with the monsignor, and got this little episode on videotape. It was rather stupid of the woman to do this, since her estranged husband is a private investigator himself. He wants custody of the kids, and will likely get it after this.
Billy Graham would never be alone in a room with a woman without leaving the door open, no matter what was being discussed. Nor would he accept a ride from a woman with no one else in the car.
Unfortunately, Clark capped his priestly service with questionable judgment.
Nonsense.
Episcopal priests who convert to Catholicism are allowed to remain married and serve as Catholic priests.
Only those who receive permission from their bishop and complete the vetting/qualifications process are eligible to be ordained under Pope John Paul IIs Pastoral Provision. It remains to be seen if Pope Benedict XVI will continue this practice. Not all Protestant ministers who convert to the Latin Rite of Catholicism and who seek the Sacrament of Holy Orders receive it. Those who qualify and are married must agree prior to ordination that if their spouse precedes them in death that they will then adopt the discipline of celibacy. No agreement, no ordination.
It's not automatic. It's a very lengthy and involved process to receive Pope John Paul IIs Pastoral Provision.A very limited number of married convert ministers have been ordained worldwide in the Latin Rite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.