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]

Well let's see... marriage.. that's a tough question. If you defined marriage as a scared union under the watchful eyes of the church. I would have to say no. Just as homosexual marriage should be allowed in a church because it is against everything that the Church holds as values.. why should they accept that.. should they accept murder as well? NO NO NO.. but if you base marriage as a union of two people in the eyes of the state.. hmm interesting.. for tax purposes? or to just snub the state into accepting the practice... Hmmm I'd have to say the state can view a union by law any way they wish.. if the people in that state vote to changes the rules of marriage well so be it(i'd be really scared for this country if incest got 50% of the vote). Regardless that puts the state in a position of basically facing the will of the people and it should be that way.

[eastsider]

[I]t is my opinion that life doesn't begin if the fetus cannot survive outside the womb during a abortion/birth.

I guess we'll have to leave it at that, and give thanks that we could communicate with each other in a more edifying manner than simply voiding our waste products. : )

Have a good evening, Almondjoy! : )

[Almondjoy]

Yeah I'm not trying to take away from your opinion at all... I could go in circles all day but there are so many other threads I need to provide with my bad spelling. :)

[history_matters]

I walked out of a "clown mass". Rolling over and playing dead is not an option for any of us. We must speak up and let our priests and bishops know what we think and feel.

[eastsider]

The idea that being able to marry ends the sexual psychodrama for most men and women (or for clergy)just doesn't square with the facts.

Faced with the facts of modern marriage and family life, celibacy for laity and clergy alike begins to look quite attractive! : )

[jackd]

Absolutely and right on the mark! The good pastor only posed HALF of the problem. Homosexuality is a psychological disorder (fact; no argument), but the problem within the Catholic Church IS NOT homosexuality. The problem (read, crisis) is one of leadership. Fault (sin) lies with the perpetrators and as significantly with those who covered up the crime in the very first instance. Those individuals need to either resign in disgrace or be replaced.

Homosexuals are an abomination and need to be removed from the priesthood granted, but the simple fact is that more criminal actions are done by religious against young girls and women than they are against young boys.

It is the predatory animal that calls himself a priest that needs to be removed from the priesthood. Whatever form his criminal dementia takes and those that attmpt to cover it up are just as culpable. It is a matter of ACCOUNTABILITY!

[WriteOn]

amen

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

life is when the fetus inside the womb is able to function outside of the body(medically assisted or not since babies born pre-mature can be given a full life thorough help).

With technology now available, though not yet licensed for use with humans, a child can be brought from conception through birth without any 'mother' at all. Using your definition of 'able to function outside of the [mother's] body' even if 'medically assisted', life begins at conception, and no abortions should be allowed at any time. I guess we are in agreement.

[It's me]

I personally suspect Cardinal Mahoney, and think the brouhaha about the woman was a sham to cover his real past.

Oooooh! Interesting. I could see that. Good catch!

[Almondjoy]

But you are talking artifical growth.. I won't continue to go circles with you either as it is fruitless... You are concluding an artifical situation in which your exactly right.. no mother or father(well to speak of anyways). Which brings a different element into the equation.

[ElkGroveDan]

ummagumma bump

[Clint N. Suhks]

if the people in that state vote to changes the rules of marriage well so be it

So morality by vote hmm? We don’t need to worry about the 50% that vote for the incest marriage, it all starts with the perversion enablers like you Mr. Slippery Slope, the rest happens over time. Consensual pedophilia, if affirmed by the state, would be next.

[katnip]

Hmm let me try it another way... Let's consider life one's ability to communicate to the outside world(and yes babies communicate.. they scream don't they? they respond to getting food don't they? Alright then.

Your argument here is really weak.
Babies in the womb most certainly communicate to the outside world.
You probably have never had a baby and don't know any better, but once you get all that kicking from inside in the middle of the night, you'll never doubt that a baby in the womb is a person.
The "communicating" by the infant in the womb is most certainly visible to others also.
Try again.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

re: #305

Unhappily married, divorced, or philandering clergy (and that could realistically be about 50%) would certainly not be ideal either. Just imagine a priest in a custody battle.

[Almondjoy]

I guess.. I didn't know you possesed a crystal ball to see the slippery slope into damnation.. isn't that what we are going to go through before christ arrives again and sinners shall be damned.. so I guess inevitable.. say.. can i see that crystal ball.. i gotta few things I wanna know too.

[Almondjoy]

You really should read all my posts.. I know I'm not a good job of communicating myself.. but it doesn't matter.. it's all opinion anyways as to where it should be considered a human being afforded all the rights of the constitution anyways.

[Clint N. Suhks]

can i see that crystal ball.. i gotta few things I wanna know too.

Nope, sorry. It’s called common sense and it only works for those who choose to see right and wrong.

[Irene Adler]

"...the simple fact is that more criminal actions are done by religious against young girls and women than they are against young boys...

I very, very much doubt this is true in the case of young girls. Women are another issue, but such activity is at least between two consenting adults so it is far less serious than abusing adolescent young men.

[Irene Adler]

"Women are another issue, but such activity is at least between two consenting adults so it is far less serious than abusing adolescent young men."

And in that case, it's not criminal.