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

[sinkspur]

By your own admission, many young couples that you personally shepherd in marriage ministry are immoral.

You and the Monsignor seem to draw an equivalency between personal immorality and criminality.

You both know better.

[sinkspur]

You are aware of the fact that homosexuality is an emotional disorder, aren't you?

Yes. I've met, in my life, many priests who were emotionally immature. I don't know what their sexual orientation was.

[PGalt]

Agreed...that is discriminating crucial differences. Well stated.

[rebapiper]

When they want to get to children what better way to do it, get the jobs were the children will come to you, the church, the schools and the scouts. WHAT ABOUT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. BARNEY FRANK The ethics commitee says Frank's child prostitution is not enough to remove him from office, but remove the Cardinal. A Constitutional duty of each elected official is to remove the corruption from our goverment or they also must resign. Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle are ILLEGALLY HOLDING ON TO THE SENATE SEATS. When Edward Kennedy, Barney Frank and Gary Condit were not remove from office than it was the duty of each member to call for Gephardt and Daschale to be removed from office. HIllary Clinton had ties to terrorist groups, they gave her money during her campaign. Why does she remain in office and where is the investigation into her ties with terrorist groups. WOULD 9/11 HAPPEN IF THE FBI ACTED ON HILLARY'S TIES TO TERRORIST GROUPS AND THE DEATH THREATS AGAINST RICK LAZIO AND HIS FAMILY? LAZIO EXPOSED HILLARY AND NOBODY ACTED ON IT. What about Hillary's visit to the Arab world? The only thing the news media was interrested in was her PHONEY camel rides.

[Jeff Chandler]

You are aware of the fact that homosexuality is an emotional disorder, aren't you?

Yes. I've met, in my life, many priests who were emotionally immature. I don't know what their sexual orientation was.

The fact that other, probably non-homosexual priests were emotionally immature is beside the point. Of course they also should not have been ordained. Why would you bring them up, if not to cloud the issue?

[Jeff Chandler]

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.

I believe about 10 years ago or so. My source is impeccable. I'll try to document it.

[ArGee]

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.

You were doing pretty good until you stuck in that "I presume".

I think you're being naive if you claim that homosexual molestation would be reported if it had occurred 1000 years ago.

Perhaps, but suggesting that I'm naive isn't the same as offering proof that you are right. It's easy to say smugly, "Oh, you can't be so naive." Try finding some support other than your own personal wish that it be true.

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.

So far the only studies that have even suggested a genetic component have been performed by homosexuals and none of them have stood up under scrutiny. There is no repeatable study that supports a genetic "homosexuality." There is verified evidence that it is not genetic, including thousans of people who no longer suffer from the syndrome.

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.

At least this is a promising thesis. Can you provide any citation that this may be true?

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.

I didn't want to hear anything but your support for your assertions. Again, this is only supposition on your part. The idea of celibacy actually comes from something Paul wrote long before the Church was established. It is true that people who are married and have children are distracted from the job of shepherding the flock. The family can, and frequently does, cause some difficult choices to be made in those called by God to any purpose, whether clergy or lay. But that doesn't support the concept of a power trip as much as it does a concept of freeing an individual to answer God's call.

I've known a lot of Priests, even though I am not a Catholic. But I've never known a sexually frustrated one. Most adult men can live without sex and quite happily. The inability to live without sex would suggest a personality that was arrested in its development. Sex is a wonderful garnish in life, as long as it is maintained within the context of a heterosexual, monagomous marriage. But it is only a garnish. It is not a staple.

Shalom.

[Proud2BAmerican]

From Msgnr: "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 ...,"

Where does Father mention anything about criminality in this statement (which you dispute)? Further, when did I bring up the subject of criminality?

There is rampant immorality in this nation, and I would have thought it would be clear to you, judging by what you've said before regarding your involvement in a marriage ministry of your church (many of whom you yourself admitted were actively participating in an immoral lifestyle).

Forget criminality -- I didn't bring it up, you did -- and try to focus on what the Monsignor actually said.

[elfman2]

"Perhaps, but suggesting that I'm naive isn't the same as offering proof that you are right. It's easy to say smugly,"

Smugly? You're the one who added a pinch of "smugly" with the little, "There, I've taken your workload from four assertions down to two" remark. And by making that claim, you took the burden of proof on yourself. Hey, I even led off by saying that I don’t have time for proving these things.

"There is verified evidence that it is not genetic, including thousands of people who no longer suffer from the syndrome."

So you say…

Thousand of people no longer suffer from the alcoholism "syndrome", but there's plenty of evidence to show that there's a genetic predisposition. Intelligence, athleticism, and all kinds of personality and aptitudes are somewhat genetic. It's just folk wisdom. But you're so certain that the predisposition to homosexuality is different. I find it interesting that people who otherwise seem fairly reasonable pull that "all or nothing argument" out with this one issue. (I'm good at math but one of my children isn't, so it must not be genitic, right?) It's as if the presence of genetically influenced homosexuality is inconsistent with their morality model, so the means (compromising their intellectual integrity ) justifies defeating whatever threatens it. It's no big deal though - most people are just like that. BTW, this isn't proof, but it's a reference to the evidence, and I bookmarked it a couple of days ago.

The source of the inheritance justification for celibacy in the Church was a guest of a substitute host to the Ollie North show 3-4 days ago who had been investigating sexual abuse in the Church for years. I was working and didn't catch her name.

" But I've never known a sexually frustrated one. "

Really, how would you know? I've only known one or two well behaved men in my life well enough to claim that I know if they're sexually frustrated or not, but I've known many wild men boys who wore their sexual frustration on their sleeve. The vast majority of healthy men have a sexual predator side to them if left on their desires, but they're civilized by reason, faith, various institutions, society and/or by women. I don’t think sexual desire just goes away any more than anger goes away when people are told not to express it. You can sense the effects of anger in people who don't release it. It just gets redirected. But I'm not prepared to prove that any more than I'm sure you're prepared to prove the half dozen assertions in your last post.

Shalom

[ArGee]

Since Saint Paul wrote about it in his letter to the Church at Corinth, the Church was already well established.

You are correct. I did not say that the Apostle Paul commanded a celibate priesthood. I did say that this is where the idea came from.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Thousand of people no longer suffer from the alcoholism "syndrome", but there's plenty of evidence to show that there's a genetic predisposition. Intelligence, athleticism, and all kinds of personality and aptitudes are somewhat genetic. It's just folk wisdom. But you're so certain that the predisposition to homosexuality is different.

Actually, presuming that there might be a genetic predisposition, I am claiming that a genetic predisposition to SAD should be treated exactly the same. We aren't required to "tolerate" alcoholics, we are required to help them to seek treatment. Even things like a hot temper may be genetically predisposed. I certainly have some anecdotal evidence to support that. Obesity? Cancer? Do we just tell people, "It's in your genes so we're not going to do anything."?

If SAD is a birth defect, as you suggest, let's stop tolerating it and start helping SADs get the help they need. This includes not giving them a hiding place in the priesthood.

Shalom.

[elfman2]

" Actually, presuming that there might be a genetic predisposition, I am claiming that a genetic predisposition to SAD should be treated exactly the same. We aren't required to "tolerate" alcoholics, we are required to help them to seek treatment."

Principled conservative would agree that we shouldn't be "required" to do anything to them, but if people choose to promote, fund or seek treatment, more power to them. I don't know the sexual redirection success rate, but I assume it begins with the best candidates. I've always figured that the entire population is on some kind of curve regarding their sexuality. Many, probably even most, wouldn't choose to engage in homosexuality under any conditions, many would be tempted at some time in their lives under the right wrong circumstances, and on and on until there's a tiny group that wouldn't enjoy heterosexual sex under any conditions.

Several times here I've asked if anyone would be enthusiastic about having their daughter marry and start a family with a "reforming" homosexual. At the very least, I think they would have two strikes against them. Why would a good woman choose that kind of man with all the risks involved? So with that in mind, homosexuals must realize that they're going to have a hard time finding women up their standards (i.e equal intellect, personality, wealth, education, attractiveness, etc…). So some of them must recognize that the alternatives are to have a man on their level, a woman below their level or to be celibate. And being that homosexuals tend to be hypersexed anyway, the first option's going to have a big advantage.

I don't have a problem with the Church expelling homosexuals. It's their organization, and they have a right to set the standards. I simply don't like them blaming anyone but themselves for creating the circumstances that attracts so many and then gives them solitary access to boys.

[ArGee]

Principled conservative would agree that we shouldn't be "required" to do anything to them,

That's a principled libertarian. Conservatives are not libertarians.

I don't know the sexual redirection success rate, but I assume it begins with the best candidates.

Our knowledge of mental illness is not perfect. Outside of spiritual issues, the success rate is about the same as for other disorders such as schizophrenia.

I've always figured that the entire population is on some kind of curve regarding their sexuality.

Principled conservatives don't base their policies on what they've always figured. Ex-gays always, (OK, to be fair I know of no exceptions but I don't know of a study) cite recruitment or sexual abuse as the thing that started them down that path.

Several times here I've asked if anyone would be enthusiastic about having their daughter marry and start a family with a "reforming" homosexual.

Having known some outstanding husbands who are ex-gay, I would. It depends on him, of course, just as it depends on him if he were never SAD.

So with that in mind, homosexuals must realize that they're going to have a hard time finding women up their standards

Actually, the biggest problem they have, from what they have told me, is being accepted in the non-SAD society. The SAD community has a strong emotional support system and when they leave their SAD lifestyle behind they lose that. When they walk into places where they should expect support, such as a church, for instance, they often feel like lepers. That, as much as anything, drives them back to their SAD lifestyle.

Not every church is bad about this, you understand, but a lot of them have been and are only just waking up.

I don't have a problem with the Church expelling homosexuals. It's their organization, and they have a right to set the standards. I simply don't like them blaming anyone but themselves for creating the circumstances that attracts so many and then gives them solitary access to boys.

First you tell me that SADs don't like to be celibate because they tend to be oversexed. Then you tell me they are attracted to a field that requires celibacy?

No, the only thing the church did to attract them was to promise to look the other way from their SAD condition. They don't need to end the celibacy requirement to keep SADs out, they just need to refuse them entry, like the Boy Scouts.

Shalom.

[Eva]

Hooray! I whole heartedly agree. It's about time someone stood up to the liberal politically correct group and spoke the truth. The liberal Emperor has no clothes.

[elfman2]

" That's a principled libertarian. Conservatives are not libertarians."

They share many similarities. This is one. Demanding that taxpayers support new social programs with questionable goals without even providing overwhelming evidence of their success is not conservative. It's a form of statism that's frequently practiced by progressives, socialist and totalitarians.

" Principled conservatives don't base their policies on what they've always figured. "

Uh-huh, If you're going to go out of your way to be contentious over semantics, that doesn’t say much for the validity of your argument.

" First you tell me that SADs don't like to be celibate because they tend to be oversexed. Then you tell me they are attracted to a field that requires celibacy?"

Yes, but one that provides them great authority, lots of private time with boys and protection and forgiveness afterwards.

" They don't need to end the celibacy requirement to keep SADs out, they just need to refuse them entry, like the Boy Scouts."

Many people obviously disagree. It's not my battle. If it works, fine. If it works like I think, the trial lawyers will bleed them into fixing it for real.

Shalom

[ArGee]

Demanding that taxpayers support new social programs with questionable goals without even providing overwhelming evidence of their success is not conservative.

Maintaining the sexual roles and mores that have been foundational for millennia against new experiments is a questionable goal?

Obviously I disagree. Just like I disagree with you that the phrase "I've always figured" is just a semantic oddity.

Celibacy isn't a problem for the priesthood. Pretending a mental disorder is normal and acceptable for priests is the problem. Easy to fix, like the Boy Scouts.

Shalom.

[elfman2]

"Maintaining the sexual roles and mores that have been foundational for millennia against new experiments is a questionable goal?"

I could come up with a dozen hypothetical programs off the top of my head that various people would say fit your statement that you'd agree are a questionable. Hell, half the dictators that ever existed probably fell back on something like that (absent the "sexual roles" comment). One guy posting here wanted to send gays to some kind of camps until they recovered. What do you think? (I have to delay a reply until late tonight or tomorrow. Things to do...)

[ArGee]

I could come up with a dozen hypothetical programs off the top of my head

Thanks, but no thanks. This whole thing began when you said four things off the top of your head that I asked you to support. Knowing that no data exist for two of them, I only asked you to support the other two. I'd rather not get back to information off the top of your head.

We know that holding sexual relations only within heterosexual monagomous marriage has worked for millennia. We can never prove that other sexual mores cause the failures of society, but we can prove that no society that has drifted away from that sexual approach has lasted long enough to give heterosexual monagomous marriage a real run for its money.

There is no reason to believe America's current sexual experiment will do anything other than fail.

Shalom.

[elfman2]

It looks like your juvenile remarks about ideas off the top of my head stem from your poor performace supporting your disagreement with those 4 issue. I understand, it's a common human reaction.

I'm not too concerned with any homosexual experiments that may or may not be going on. I think that in a free society over time, reason will prevail, what's destructive will be identified and rejected while what's benign will be tolerated. I presume you're referring to Rome and Greek examples. They don’t apply because their constitutional separation of powers and protections of liberties were not as strong as ours, and they didn't have the technical means to objectively evaluate the results of any "experiments".

This whole conversation started from Msgr. Eugene Clark labeling the United States as "probably the most immoral country" in the Western hemisphere. I'm not going to tolerate that kind of projections of his own problems on us. I'm not going to pretend that homosexuality is a new phenomena and its nature is something that the evidence doesn’t support in order to be part of a crusade against it. His Church is about to be severely bleed by trial lawyers for its short sighted policies, not for the "extraordinary immorality" of the United States of America.

Shalom