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]

Just so you have my opinion straight... I don't think we should make abortion illegal for the same reason I don't think we should force the church to change. Forcing the church to change is basically telling them their religion is invalid and unacceptable in today's society. By denying people's right to an abortion it basically saying to people "our religion is right we are good and no matter what you belief we are going to force our belief's on you." Both are hostile actions and both would cause nothing but resentment from the "pro" crowd.

[Aquinasfan]

In the days of yore,three magic words sent the entire congregation heading for the doors. "Ita missa est".

Ha, ha, ha. I'm post Vatican II so I had to go to Google to look it up.

[Almondjoy]

I'm not so sure that had to do anything with lefist ideals invading the priesthood though. These people were in the wrong for sure but they were acting on the basis that it wasn't good publicity for the church if they came out with every single accusation. They played the politicians game... they figured that it was better to hide even just one infraction because the American public and the media would blow even one case as a huge scandal... People are only human and priests aren't immune to doing wrong just because they are priests. I think the church would have been better off being straight forward about everything.. but then again how many sexual abuse cases could you bare and still have faith in the church? I think this is what tormented many of the bishops into believing they could handle this on their own...

[concerned about politics]

ROMANS CHAPTER 1 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21) For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24) Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[uncbob]

I think the church would have been better off being straight forward about everything.. but then again how many sexual abuse cases could you bare and still have faith in the church? I think this is what tormented many of the bishops into believing they could handle this on their own...

And the fact that is was a crime ??

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The fact that it happened and the Archbishops covered it up instead of taking steps to remove the men involved is unforgivable.

'It' did not 'happen', 'Sin' was 'committed'. If the sins were not committed they would not have been covered up. The coverup was also a sin. Forgiveness of sin is up to a higher authority than you.

[ThomasMore]

The best article I've read yet!

There is only one thing he neglects to say. The percentage of priests that have committed sexual abuse, which he states as 3%, may be accurate as far as pedophilia and ephebophilia are concerned. But to be more accurate in assessing this problem, one needs to equate things to the overall homosexual population in the priesthood, which is estimated to be anywhere from 20 to 40% of total priests. The Msgr. blamed "American society for being "very protective" of homosexuality." This in turn has given "closet space" to homosexuals in seminaries and in diocese and orders.

He said, "Homosexuality became in the American exchange of views a protected area," ... "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." IMO, it is more than a grave mistake. Because so many homosexual priests are active; we now have very influential clergy in chanceries and orders and seminaries protecting, or in the least remaining silent about, ALL of the homosexuals including, unfortunately, those who would abuse children.

[Almondjoy]

Well it is a crime.. and shame on them for holding it back... I'm just saying that issue is what tormented them more than any left/right wing politics.

[uncbob]

I don't think we should make abortion illegal for the same reason I don't think we should force the church to change.

Well Abortion was UNIVERSALLY ILLEGAL in all 50 states unitil the leftists started with their attacks ROE vs WADE negated those laws

And those laws weren't in effect because of the Catholic Church. They were passed because at one time it was universally recognized that abortion was the taking of human life

[ventana]

I am currently leading a fight in my daughter's Roman Catholic grammar school to keep a "queer" (my words) pro-homosexual agenda sex ed program out of my school. You wouldn't believe what the program contains, and it is one recommended by the NCCB. It is called "Growing In Love' doesn't it sound sick? It Is!!! It normalizes deviancy--as sexual orientation, though terminology such as that exists nowhere in the Catechism.

The program ostensibly is about sacramental preparation. It is about subversion. One of the groups promoted on page nine of the seventh grade schoolchildren's text is "Always Our Children". Get a load of some of the dirt I dug up on them:

"Speakers —mostly Church employees— at last year’s NACDLGM conference in Rochester, New York, betrayed in the most obvious ways their dissent from and distaste for Catholic teaching on sexual morality. They spoke of their efforts to promote homosexuality in parishes, schools, diocesan offices, and in state legislatures. They ridiculed Catholic Church teaching on sexual morality, and boasted how they have achieved power in many important dioceses (such as Los Angeles, St. Paul-Minneapolis, Rochester and Richmond, Va.).

They explained their methodologies: how they intimidate and mislead opponents (especially parents of children in Catholic schools), how they recruit fellow homosexual activists for Church positions, and how they incorporate homosexual propaganda in liturgies.

NACDLGM (National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries) speakers and listeners alike tossed out hundreds of ideas and techniques for promoting homosexuality in Church structures, from how to win approval from reluctant bishops for promoting Always Our Children, to sensitizing parishioners to the "gay ideology" during Sunday homilies, to brainwashing "right-wing fundamentalist" Catholics who believe that homosexual activity is condemned in the Bible.

Some speakers, such as Bill Kummer, an employee of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, detailed how to homosexualize the Catholic schools, to promote "the kind of climate that can be affirming, inclusive, and so forth regardless of anybody’s sexual orientation or sexual identity."

Kummer explained how he presented his archdiocese with a plan to implement the gay education agenda in the Catholic high schools. His agenda, he said, had three objectives:

1. To "present the accurate and full teaching of the Catholic Church because many people reduce that to three paragraphs in the Catechism and we all know there’s much more than that."

2. To "provide a respectful and faithful position that unites the archdiocese through the archbishop, the Catholic Education and Formation in Ministry office, and community groups," i.e., homosexual activist groups.

3. To develop a "strategy to respond to express needs, i.e., kids presenting themselves [as gay and lesbian]."

Kummer explained that the best way to accomplish these three objectives is through faculty in-service programs designed to sensitize teachers to homosexual issues and then developing and implementing an "inclusive curriculum"—taking "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered experience and finding ways to write that into the curriculum" in every subject..

There is so much more...We have to fight this stuff from the pews to the chanceries, and into the Vatican if need be. V's wife.

[uncbob]

I'm just saying that issue is what tormented them more than any left/right wing politics.

Could be but the fact remains that the Hierarchy in the USA is to the left if not socialistic

[pgkdan]

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.

Excellent!!! Wonderful! Praise God...now the Church needs to get this message out to every pulpit in the country and Priests who don't want to say it can leave and those in the pews who don't want to hear it can leave! Good Riddance to them. Thanks be to God for sending a Priest brave enough to speak this very unpopular truth from the most influential pulpit in the Catholic Church in America.

[Aquinasfan]

Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.

Jesus could have meant Heaven. Or he could have meant the place where Moses, Elijah and all the other saints were prior to Jesus' opening the gates of Heaven.

Regardless, baptism is normative as can be seen from the Acts of the Apostles:

Acts 19

1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when[1] you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. 4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[2] the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues[3] and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.

Romans 6

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[1] that we should no longer be slaves to sin-- 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Outrage to this priest's message rang loud and far throughout the media. "Free Barabas" they cried...

[pgkdan]

now IF all the assaults, as some have asserted, happened in the 60s,70's, etc.. I don't recall any huge assault by the liberals on celibacy then.

He's a priest...talking about liberals in the Church. There has been a constant attack against celibacy and the all male Priesthood ever since Vatican II.

[Campion]

Of course the "new" Catholic Church was a beaconing haven to a gaggle of queers who sought to cloak themselves somehow in "respectibility" while they sought young souls to soil and bugger. Seminary was easy to slide through.....after all no scholastic dedication to latin and history.

I hate to destroy your little SSPX tirade with some cold, hard historical facts, but here they are. The perverts you've been hearing about in the news for the most part ... were ordained to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.

Yes, it's true. Geoghan was ordained before Vatican II even convened. I believe Shanley was about the same time as well. You can blame the post-conciliar church for tolerating these creeps, but the pre-conciliar church has to answer for ordaining them.

[uncbob]

There is so much more...We have to fight this stuff from the pews to the chanceries, and into the Vatican if need be. V's wife.

Problem is most parents work hard and at the end of the day are tired and looking for relaxation.
The homosexuals unencumbered with a family and family resposibilities can use their time to further their agenda. An additional problem is that some of these outfits can get government funds

And Bush having advisers like Rove who is pushing this out reach to the homosexuals ain't helping

[Aquinasfan]

James Akin's better answer:

Q: In Luke 23:43, Jesus tells the good thief: "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise." Does this mean he went to heaven on Good Friday?

A: No. There are a couple of ways of taking this verse. How it is taken depends on whether the temporal clause "today" (Greek, semeron) modifies what comes before it or what comes after it in the sentence. There is no punctuation in the original Greek--all of that is added by the translators--and the sentence can be punctuated one of two basic ways with regard to the word "today," depending on which part of the sentence "today" is supposed to modify. The two basic ways of punctuating it are:

1. Truly, I say to you, "Today you will be with me in paradise."

2. Truly, I say to you today, "You will be with me in paradise."

I have added quotation marks to the promise Jesus is making in order to make the distinction of meaning clearer, but the important thing is the position of the comma. If the comma comes before "today" then Jesus is promising the thief he will be in paradise that day. If the comma comes after today then Jesus is emphatically calling attention to when the promise is made ("today"), but what he is promising is that the thief will end up in paradise and not saying anything about when the thief will end up there. Either one of these is possible given the Greek grammar.

If the first is taken then we must conclude that paradise was where Jesus went when he died. Since he did not go to heaven when he died, but rather he descended to the dead (1 Peter 4:6), paradise at that time would have been in the place of the righteous dead, which at that time was not in heaven but was a place Jesus' described as "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22). The righteous dead only began going to heaven itself after Jesus opened the gate of heaven to them with his resurrection (CCC 632-635, 1026). For the same reason, we can infer paradise was in "Abraham's bosom" rather than heaven at the time since the good thief would not have gone toheaven as Jesus had not yet opened heaven to the righteous dead.

This speculation is unnecessary, however, if the second interpretation of the sentence is taken and Jesus is simply using the word "today" to emphatically call attention to the promise rather than as a part of the promise.

[afraidfortherepublic]

It's about time. In addition to the degradation our entertainment has brought to this society, I wish the Msgr. had mentioned abortion as a symbol of our declining morality. Perhaps he did, and this article didn't mention it. It's certainly right up there on the list.