GAY-BASH HOMILY DIDN'T HAVE EGAN BLESSING

New York Post ^ | 4/23/02 | DAN MANGAN

[kattracks]

A St. Patrick's Cathedral priest who is under fire for a sermon bashing homosexuality as the prime cause of priest child-molestation said yesterday he did not clear Sunday's homily with his boss, Edward Cardinal Egan, even as the archdiocese distanced itself from his remarks.

[BlackElk]

While you and CAP are busy congratulating yourselves for being Christians unlike us apostate Catholics, did you pause to consider that the painting you posted is not from the ceiling of the church attended by either of you but from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, painted by Michelangelo and commissioned by Pope Julius II or III during the first decade of the sixteenth century before your spiritual ancestor became dissatisfied with life as an Augustinian monk (ordained priest of the RC Church)? Just trying to be helpful!

[Romulus]

when your house is burning down around your ears, you put out the fire rather than having a scholarly debate about how fire codes might be improved.

BTTT

[chatham]

Maybe Monsignor Clark wasn't speaking for Egan but he can sure speak for me.

The problem is definetly a Homosexual one protected by Homosexuals and enabled by people afraid to call it a Homosexual Problem.

If "cardinal" egan doesn't like it, Tough Darts.

He is one of the enablers who have let our church down and allowed our Churches reputation to be destroyed.

Enough of the P.C. crap it's time for a reality check, these Homosexual whacko's will ruin the Church if they are not excised completely.

[SkyPilot]

While you and CAP are busy congratulating yourselves for being Christians unlike us apostate Catholics,

Well, nothing like placing a few words in my mouth to satisfy some self-rightousness on your part, eh?

Yes, thank you for the basic history and art lesson. I was aware of both. This is not about "bashing" catholics. In fact, anyone who thinks that is selfish. There IS a crisis in the church, and I would gather that you agree there is a problem. What do you think will happen to it if it runs away and tries to cover this all in manure in the hopes that something beautiful will grow?

This is about homosexuals in the church who raped boys, and the clerics who aided them.

[Quila]

AND, we are hardly in need of lessons in how to reform our Church (conform it to modern evils and the moral pollution of the world at large) from one who does not believe in God.

It doesn't take a genius to tell that they should get their house in order in a systemic manner, which is what I've been suggesting. And according to what I heard on the news this morning, Pope John Paul II agrees with on this matter.

So if you have a problem with my suggestion, I suggest you take it up with him. :)

[AmericanInTokyo]

Say, how about a mass mailing from the grassroots ranks to the good Monsignor Clark, in the form of a simple postcard, with one side that says in big letters:

"Thank You! You Speak for Me!"

Signed on the back with name and address and parish.

That way these suppport cards would also be observed pouring into the rectory over at St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC....

I'll be the secular humanist supporters of institutionalized buggery in the RCC are probably slamming him right now with a letter writing campaign to his superior(s).

[AmericanInTokyo]

Correction: "I'll be(t)"

[Quila]

I suspect your friends don't tell you everything they do. Every 'gay' friend I ever had turned out in the end to be worlds scummier than I ever imagined.

I'd have to say that in general, the gays were less scummy than the straights.

[Quila]

I understand your point, but the fact is that Fr. Clark has no authority to "clean out his own house." The house belongs to his bishop, and it is the bishop's job to clean it out. It's the bishop's job to KEEP it clean, not stand by and let it be defiled. Fr. Clark is doing all he can by making his opinions known in a homily before a LARGE congregation.

Then it's even worse. He's airing the dirty laundry of an internal gripe he has with his boss in front of the world. Not too smart.

And when did this become all about homosexuality and pedophilia in the church? There are countless cases of priests taking advantage of grown women too. Forget all the labels and get to the core of this: You have a group of people in trusted positions who have an abnormally high incidence of taking advantage of those in their care. It's got to stop.

[Always Right]

That's funny, I thought sex with kids was pedophilia. And these priests didn't just do boys.

Actually, it was almost entirely boys, with only a few exceptions.

[Quila]

By all menas , balme the institution for the conscious misdeeds of the criminals.

No, blame the institution for fostering an environment where these people knew they were safe from any real accountability for their crimes.

[Quila]

This is not and never has been anything but a homosexual scandal.

As I said in the other post. This problem really isn't about any kind of sex at all, those are only peripheral results. This is purely about abuse of power by trusted people.

[Aquinasfan]

Ordinarily the liberal media such as THE NEW YORK TIMES has no problem with this arrangement.If the public is allowed to know this,we will see the liberal media drop this scandal like a hot potatoe.

They're already in over their heads. It's a delightfully ironic situation.

Now if word only gets out about Michael Rose' new book...

[AmericanInTokyo]

The problem in the increasing diaspora of homosexuality in the American seminaries and priestly ranks (by now sufficiently referenced but hitherto hidden yet suspected) is that by logical deduction one can see that this places young boys at the biggest risk to same-sex predators. If I am not mistaken, the large proportion of the victims that have come to light were teenage boys, usually altar boys and kids in youth groups, with a minority of exceptions of heterosexual abuse. Sodomy (penetration) and fondling were the particular crimes highlight here, but dealt with in hushed tones.

Quite clearly, then, this rationally and objectively points to an entrenched 'pederasty' problem in the Church, and this is quite frankly called as such in the non-US, European and Latin American press in through news articles on the current damage control/policy making conference of Cardinals in the Vatican. It seems to be only the domestic USA press, with their strongly P.C. leanings and propensity for euphemismstic twisting, that is intimidated to succintly call the problem for what it is. An organization dedicated in all of its Judeo-Christian 2000 year teachings and Canon Laws to upholding Right and Light and opposing Wrong and Darkness, is, afterall, composed of only mortal human beings who administrate it's affairs. If anything, it is an intrinisically good concept (Christendom) that is infected with an intrinisically evil concept (homosexuality and child abuse and cover up) that infiltrates and poisons and not vice versa that is the problem. I do not believe I am alone in these observations.

[RobbyS]

You assume that "institution" was wholly involvedand that its behavior is singular.. The same pattern could be found in the public schools. The "perp" simply moves on. I know of one case, forty years ago, of a teacher who was permitted to "move on" because neither district nor family wanted the bad publicity. I know another case, very recent in which an employee of the Overseas Dependents Schools,accused by foreign police, was permitted to resign and "escape" to the USA. Last time I heard, he was teaching elsewhere. The difference is that in the case of the priests is that the criminal holds a sacred office, and that it maybe that there was a criminal conspiracy to conceal, attended by blackmail. So in many case, these slimeballs are doubly guilty: first of the crime and then in concealment of their crime.

[eastsider]

Yes, the gay movement opposes sex between adult men and minor boys.

The dissembling continues. I specifically included boys up to 18 years as minors, yet all I get in response is "minor boys." It's common knowledge that the "gay movement" has been pushing to lower the age of minority.

But all the priests who abused minors were men. So if you want to aim wide, and still hit all the targets, you should be aiming at clearing men.

Yes, we should aim at clearing all men responsible for abusing minors, irrespective of the sex of their sexual prey, because the sexual abuse of minors is contrary to the moral teaching of the Church. What is being conveniently avoided, however, is that startling fact that the vast majority of the cases involve minor boys -- not children -- which abominations are perpetrated by actively homosexual priests who have so infiltrated the clergy that they even emboldened to prey upon seminarians. To the extent that all homosexual acts are instrinsically disordered and evil, these predators have a double strike against them -- one, for engaging in homosexual acts, and two, for engaging in homosexual abuse of minors. There's absolutely no place in the Church for these perverts.

[gumbo]

I believe the monsignor was referring to personal, not political morality. I.e., abortion, divorce, sexual perversion.

So nyet. As I said, I love this country, and I'm staying here, spasibo.

[mountainfolk]

Before we cluck over grown women being gotten to by priests, we need to consider that there are priest groupies among parish women and they find ways to insinuate themselves into sexual adventures with the available priest. It is a sex for sex situation and I have no sympathy for either party. The priest may be letting down God and his parish but the woman is in many cases violating her wedding vows and hurting husband and children.

[Fethiye]

What is being conveniently avoided, however, is that startling fact that the vast majority of the cases involve minor boys -- not children -- which abominations are perpetrated by actively homosexual priests who have so infiltrated the clergy that they even emboldened to prey upon seminarians. To the extent that all homosexual acts are instrinsically disordered and evil, these predators have a double strike against them -- one, for engaging in homosexual acts, and two, for engaging in homosexual abuse of minors. There's absolutely no place in the Church for these perverts.

I agree that, under the Church's rules, there is no place in the Catholic clergy for priests who violate their oath of celibacy -- no matter the sex of the person with whom they violate that oath.

I do not agree that, under the Church's rules, there is any grounds for removing priests -- homosexual or otherwise oriented -- who have not violated their oath of celibacy (or who have not facilitated others in doing so).

This scandal was "caused" by the Church failing to face it's responsibility to discipline its own members. Scapegoating innocent homosexual priests just deflects attention from that truth (and, perhaps as an added "bonus," slanders homosexuals who have no connection with the Church, this scandal, or abuse of minors).

[eastsider]

I do not agree that, under the Church's rules, there is any grounds for removing priests -- homosexual or otherwise oriented -- who have not violated their oath of celibacy (or who have not facilitated others in doing so).

Since it is the homosexual act, in thought or deed, that is sinful and not the mere temptation (for a thought or deed to be sinful, there must be an inclination of the will toward the sin), I see no reason to single out men who are plagued with one kind of temptation as opposed to another or who do not facilitate, by word or deed, anyone else's committing a sin. So to that extent, I think we are in agreement.

This scandal was "caused" by the Church failing to face it's responsibility to discipline its own members. Scapegoating innocent homosexual priests just deflects attention from that truth (and, perhaps as an added "bonus," slanders homosexuals who have no connection with the Church, this scandal, or abuse of minors).

The bishops' failure to discipline the priests guilty of abusing minors is certainly scandalous, and the irony of the hush money and shuttling these priests to other parishes is that it was ostensibly intended to avoid scandal. Go figure.

Having said that, the inescapable truth that is emerging from the scandal involving priests who prey on minors is that actively homosexual priests are much more likely to prey on minors than actively heterosexual priests. To me, acknowledging this truth is no more slanderous of men who are merely tempted to homosexual acts than acknowledging the truth that the men who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were predominantly Muslim is slanderous of all Muslims.