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

[Alas]

Yes, but can you show me anything in SCRIPTURE, any Christian bible, including the RC Vulgate, that implies baptism by sprinkling water on a baby assures salvation?

Only Scripture please.

Bettere yet, can you show me anywhere in Sripture where anything other than being Born Again assures salvation?

[ArGee]

elfman2: There have probably always been about the same number of homosexuals in the world. Priest have been diddling little boys for a thousand years. Homosexuals are naturally attracted to the Church. The Church knows this, but they keep the celibacy thing for power reasons.

argee: Each of these statements needs some support before they can be accepted.

elfman2: If only I had that kind of time...

I can save you a little time. There is no good statistical information on how many people suffer Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD) now, and there certainly isn't good information for all of history, so you probably will never be able to support the first assertion. You can stand on the current statement that SAD is genetic and occurs in a proportion that hasn't changed, but there is not even support for the idea that it is genetic and plenty of support for the counter idea.

As far as priests diddling little boys, I doubt there are any records at all. There may have been a very small number, but it has not been a crisis for thousands of years or it would be recorded. You may be asserting that other cultures would never have outed the Catholic Church the way we have, but that's a tad arrogant an more than a little myopic. The Church has always had enemies and they have always been looking for fodder to harm her.

"Homosexuals are naturally attracted to the church." You may be able to support that one, and I'd like to see it. Since the Church is by its nature anti-SAD, it would be sort of like moths being attracted to a fire, wouldn't it?

Finally, I am very interested in what kind of power you think the celebacy thing gives the Church.

There, I've taken your workload from four assertions down to two. I am very interested in your support for those two.

Shalom.

[Gophack]

Catholics are not the only Christian religion that believes that baptism is necessary for salvation. Anglicans, Episcopalians and Lutherans are other examples of religions who hold to infant baptizing.

Below is scriptural evidence for baptism.

Acts 2:38-39
Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call."

To the Colossians, Paul paralleled baptism and circumcision. Circumcision was normally administered to children eight days after birth.
Col 2:11-12
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Romans 6:3-4
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We 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.

Titus 3:3-7
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Acts 22:14-16
"Then he said: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

Acts 10:44-48
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.

1 Cor 12:12-13
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.

Matthew 3:16-17
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I would be pleased to find you additional evidence, but this took me about 40 minutes to compile even though I have many reference books and (of course) my Bible. The above scripture is from KJV, NIV and RSE, but it's pretty easy to tell which from which because of the old English!

As a Catholic, I strongly believe in baptism of water and spirit. My son was baptized last year and it was a powerful experience. Catholics, and many other Christian religions, baptize in water, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. For 2,000 years, Catholics have baptized infants, and converts. I have quotes from early church fathers (even as early as the 1st and 2nd centuries!) that show that the teaching of Jesus Christ were not vague or disputed, but taken on His word. Christians must be baptized for forgiveness of sins.

I believe it is important that Catholics and other Christians focus on what binds us together and not what divides us. We agree on so much more than we disagree on. We agree on the essential truths of Christianity: that Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary; was crucified, died and was buried; on the third day rose from the dead in fulfillment of the Scriptures, and is now seated at the right hand of Our Father. We agree that God is one-in-three, the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We agree that Jesus Christ died for our sins and our salvation, and that salvation is a gift from God in his mercy, because we did nothing to earn it.

God bless.

[Almondjoy]

I'm not moving the goal posts it's just i'm not a scientist and your asking for scientific terms. You know what i'm saying you just want to play your little word games. If a fetus is in the womb and had to give birth to it at that very moment and the child had no possible way of survival outside the womb(again I don't have a month for this.. 4 5 6 is the earliest a baby has been born and lived?) it is up to the mother decide the fate of her child.

[Almondjoy]

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

[katnip]

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

And that is?????

[Almondjoy]

I'm not sure.. since you have expressed any counter opinions in a while I forgot what we were talking about.. refresh my memory?

[katnip]

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

I don't know. You said it.. So what's going on under my nose that I don't want to face?

[elfman2]

" I have two parish priests and I know both of them well. I would have absolutely no qualms about leaving my children with them. "

I have two very good male neighbors who I'd have absolutely no qualms about leaving my children with them. But if I made policy for an institution employing these two and a hundred thousand other men and I lost tens of millions of dollars each time my policies continued to enable molestation by one of them, I'd change the policy.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

I don't have a month for this.. 4 5 6 is the earliest a baby has been born and lived?)

But this year that number will be reduced to 1 second, does this mean that your position will be no future abortions.

[Gophack]

My point is that those who abuse children in the church are a small number. Now that we are more than aware that there is a problem, we (as parents and parishioners) need to be diligent. I know my priests like I know many of my friends. My point was not that I would drop my kids off at the rectory to be babysat while my husband and I went to the movies, but that I would not fear that they would be molested if they were alone with my priests.

There are teachers who have sex with minor students -- men and women; babysitters; neighbors; family members. It is sick and sinful to have sex with children, but this is a problem across society, not isolated to 2% of the Catholic priesthood. 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?

We need to be responsible and diligent in addressing these crimes; we need to stop them. But we can't assume that everyone is out to abuse children. If we do that, we should isolate ourselves as hermits in the mountains, waiting for our death.

[Almondjoy]

Wait so your saying.. I can have sex and the moment the sperm hits the egg a baby is gonna pop out? Damn your right I really need to read up on this.. what scientific invention does this?

[helmsman]

Read this thread on the development of an Artificial Womb.

While reading, you should remember that Roe V. Wade guarantees the right to abort only unborn children who are not "viable" -- able to survive outside of the mother. The court made it clear that the state has a right to regulate and ban abortion after that point. In theory, therefore, all unborn children could be considered viable under Roe V Wade when this technology is applied to humans.

[Almondjoy]

Well then... so what your saying is that if a woman gets pregnant and they are able to (we'll say extract) the fetus from the mother's womb in say the first month. So if they could do that and it was viable they couldn't abort it... interesting situation because if they could do that then you might have a situation where mother's wouldn't have to abort kids at all.. I like that idea... the situation then arises.. if the mother doesn't want the child.. and it's not able to be on it's own(medically unassisted) for several more months.. we might have to start colonies of baby farms.. maybe places attached to foster care or adoption agencies.

In that case it might even become a market(quickly struck down in a law by congress, we of course can't be selling babies for a profit). Nevertheless a woman who doesn't want the child might benefit in two ways.. one not going through the pain of abortion and causing the death to child.. and two the benefit of not having to provide for the child. Very interesting indeed.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Very interesting indeed.

'I think he's got it! By George, he's got it!'

[Almondjoy]

HA HA... They are really going to be able to come up with a way to do that this year? Safely extract?

[Almondjoy]

Ok, if this is true, the fact that you can safetly extract a baby here. Even if it isn't this year why aren't people focused on this? Because now it's not so much whether or not to support abortion, it's a matter in which does this country will have to decide if it wants to pay to bring up a flood of kids through the child welfare system? I mean certainly we do this to an extent already but with the numbers from abortions? I don't know the numbers but it seems that would be quite taxing on the system.

[helmsman]

'I think he's got it! By George, he's got it!'

Yes, we have achieved understanding at last. I would like to thank the academy, Pokey78 for posting the womb thread, my dog "Sparky" for all his encouragement, and of course the indomitable General Sulla for his fine work.

[elfman2]

" There may have been a very small number, but it has not been a crisis for thousands of years or it would be recorded. "

I used to have a book called, "An Underground History" that, among hundreds of shocking stories, had a section that listed dozens of incidents of sexual and homosexual abuse and criminality by early popes. I presume all that didn't just exist at the top.

I think you're being naive if you claim that homosexual molestation would be reported if it had occurred 1000 years ago. Even today, people are reluctant to speak of it, yet unlike 1000 years ago, they now know that they won't be killed. Today they have a moderate society reassuring them that it's not their fault, that it doesn't mean they're gay, and that they're not ruined as a man. They also have a legal system that's more or less stronger than the Church, lawyers promising them millions and a media that's more bold than even a few decades ago when presidential and celebrity dalliances were ignored. 1000 years ago I'm sure there was the routine equivalent of lying under oath, trading arms for hostages and bugging political opposition, and I'm sure it exists around the world today, but in few places beyond America today does it threaten presidencies.

I recall at least one study that linked a smaller hypothalamus to homosexuality, and at least one separated-at-birth twin study that showed a very significant pattern of genetic homosexuality. And just from my personal experience, I've seen a tendency for lesbians to have faces that look like they were built with a little more testosterone than those of most women (beyond the makeup, clothing and behavior effect in my judgement), but that's just incidental.

Until 40 years ago, most of our society was anti-gay (or anti-SAD as you say). But the Church promoted a culture of forgiveness where all the brotherhood's sexual desires were something to be repressed. It may have been like a moth's flame as you suggest, but with the numerous enemies of the Catholic Church, a culture of protection and cover up was probably already in place to keep them from being burned.

In response to your question, I understand the celibacy rules were initially put in place to keep wealth in the Church. The clergy were willing their personal/Church property to descendants. Also, I heard that the Church sometimes found itself responsible for widows and children of a dead priest, but that doesn't seem to be so significant to me.

But more in line with what I'm sure you're interested in hearing from me, you know that their's without question something to be said for stripping distractions out of the lives of people to get the most from them and to redirect their focus. (i.e. military boot camp?) If the Church can make that work for a lifetime, more power to them. But if their sexually frustrated and frequently homosexual inclined priests are going to allowed to be alone with innocent, nubile little teenage boys, it's going to be a very expensive policy in a free and litigious society.

"There, I've taken your workload from four assertions down to two"

{smile} uh-huh.

Shalom.