Bishop Matthew Clark: Homosexual priests welcome in Rochester!
Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester rolls out the red carpet for homosexuals who would like to become priests. Sadly, they are the only men, and even they are very few, who are becoming priests in the Diocese of Rochester these days.Bishop Clark writes:
"The fundamental concern of formation for a life of celibate chastity is for sexual maturity, not sexual orientation. Good seminary formation needs to provide an environment in which both heterosexual and homosexual candidates can grow . . . ."
You can read Bishop Clark's piece in the diocesan newspaper here.
Not surprisingly, Bishop Clark failed to explain that the homosexual orientation is gravely disordered and that, according to current Vatican legislation, homosexuals are to be excluded from ordination.
The dissent continues. And who can wonder that heterosexual men, committed to the teaching of the Church, loyal to the Holy Father, would not wish to enter the diocesan priesthood in Rochester? What heterosexual man desires homosexuals to be the majority of his coworkers and colleagues? Or again, what heterosexual can feel comfortable following the leadership, spiritual or otherwise, of a homosexual man?
Would you live with a family with children in the Diocese of Rochester, with these sodomites running around? And if they have no scruple about blatant disobedience to Rome, do you think that they'd quibble about a little fondling?
go to main page
by Iosephus @ 11/14/2005 11:15:00 AM
49 comments
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, ora pro nobis
St. Joseph, ora pro nobis
St. Ambrose of Milan, ora pro nobis
St. Dominic, ora pro nobis
St. Francis (and St. Clare), orate pro nobis
St. Catherine of Siena, ora pro nobis
St. Alphonsus Ligouri, ora pro nobis
St. John Chrysostom, ora pro nobis
49 Comments:
What, pray tell, does your bishop mean by "sexual maturity"?
You know Iosephus, I wish you wouldn't use the blog to give vent to your homophobia.
Why can't we just all get along--with some guys just happening to get along a bit more than others. Don't be so judgmental, as our wonderful Cornell chaplains would say--that's terribly uncharitable. And besides, everybody knows Bp. Clark is a prophet of the new golden age of bath houses and sexual liberation from you wacko orthodox (such an ugly work) nutjobs.
That you somehow feel homosexuals are less men than hetersexuals is appauling, as though sexual orientation has something to do with "manhood." As a man who has given his life entirely to God and the Church, despite having homosexual tendencies, your comments make me absolutely sick. If you're so concerned with the personal struggles of men of God, why don't you get up off of your lazy condescending hypocritical ass and go lead the Church yourself.
I understand what you're saying, anonymous. My comments were meant to be inciteful, to be sure, but the problem I see are not homosexual tendenices, but Bishop Clark's open arms welcoming homosexuals as homosexuals. This is deeply problematic. I don't think that you would deny that Bishop Clark considers homosexuality to be a perfectly natural, perfectly normal part of God's creation. This is the modern view; everything in Clark's career in Rochester indicates his endorsement of it.
I think that if men are seriously struggling with homosexual attraction, they should not enter seminary and they should not be made priests. Does not current Vatican policy reflect this view (though the policy goes unenforced)?
"seriously struggling" is a judgment which the man himself will have to make with his director, right? Let him make it.
But let there doubts nowhere, in no one's mind about its objectively disordered nature and the misguided acceptance which it has found in our society today.
Comments on Bishop Clark's column at Angel Queen.
If he is indeed a priest, and a man of God, perhaps he might deign to converse with a little more priestly dignity whilst a visitor on this fair blog.
May I ask people who wish to remain "anonymous" to assume a particular pseudonym and then stick to it, please? Otherwise, I do not know which "anonymous" is responding to what. There are either two or three anonymous' here, and it is confusing. Thanks.
As someone who, as it happens, is not homophobic, I very much understand the frustration that our anonymous guest and others feel over this issue. It is fine to say that homosexual tendencies are disordered and a source of temptation, and in those respects no different from any number of other disordered desires or sources of temptation. But this particular disordered desire has, potentially, very deep effects on the lives of those who are inflicted with it. If they are unable to enter into Christian marriage and raise a family, and are likewise unable to enter the priesthood, then what sort of lives might they live? I find this a troubling question.
I have no desire whatsoever to express opinions on the way in which individual seminarians, or their directors, should go about exploring this issue. I very much wish that homosexuals (celibate, of course) could be admitted to the priesthood, since this is one obvious avenue that a faithful Catholic man might pursue if he is not called to marriage. Nonetheless, the Vatican's position on this is more than understandable. The temptations placed on a homosexual man in a seminary together with many other homosexual men will inevitably be heavy. Would you send a heterosexual seminarian to pursue a degree in a girl's college, where he would be surrounded by and intimately interacting with attractive young women? Of course not. The situation for homosexual seminarians is similar to that, and the problem will inevitably get worse as those who have yielded to temptation rise and become priests and religious superiors. Abuses are bound to follow, as, in fact, they have.
So, while the individual struggles of particular priests or seminarians may indeed be none of our business -- as our guest's post reasonably suggests -- the issue as a whole is every Catholic's business. In a world where diocesan funds are used to pay blackmail and court fees for wayward priests, and where children become prey to the very men who are responsible for the welfare of their souls, it would be sheer negligence for any Catholic *not* to be concerned about this issue. No one is asking for reports about what happens inside the confessional, but open communication from the bishop, actively soliciting homosexual seminarians, seems like something that should legitimately arouse concern.
I would add that it is homosexuals themselves who are most hurt by the sort of rhetoric that Bishop Clark is distributing supposedly on their behalf. I am the first person to agree that the Church should do more by way of reaching out to and assisting those individuals who are struggling to find a way to live as faithful Catholics with homosexual tendencies. Homosexuality is a heavy cross to bear, and if the Church is to embrace all of her children, she must do everything she can to help homosexuals find a place and a way to contribute. But progress in this regard is stymied by the continual battle even among high-ranking Church officials over whether homosexuality is really disordered. We must draw a bright line between helping homosexuals and normalizing an actively homosexual lifestyle before we can effectively help anyone. But in the current climate, that is an almost impossible task.
Nonetheless, I do think we should all take care not to allow our language regarding homosexuals to become hateful or scornful. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just offering that as an opinion and a general piece of advice.
Ambrosius,
I added a post to my 'blog concerning the bishop's column. Thanks -- though I suspect that's not quite the right word -- for the tip.
Wonderful, reasonable words from Clara.
Yes. The anonymous one is seriously miffed.
Yet what of men struggling with heterosexual attractions? Should they not seek the higher calling too? But wait. They can't be priests either, can they?
While homosexuality is unnatural and a sin like other sins (remember, only one sin is unforgivable, blaspheming the Holy Spirit), isn't the notion of celebacy unnatural? If, as you say, the traditional church is what you strive for, how can you ignore the fact that traditional church leaders from inception were married and it was only many centuries later that Rome required celebacy for priesthood? We know Peter was married, as the Lord healed his mother-in law. Why did the holy see find it necessary to require men to do what was unnatural in order to serve our Lord?
Then again, if celebacy is truly the way the priesthood was meant to be (which I doubt), what difference would homosexuality make? A wholly committed priest would have no desire in any sexual direction.
Isn't it possible that some of those in seminary that are unnaturally forced to live in celebacy might find some need for natural emotional and sexual companionship? We were, after all, created to not be alone?
Being a different anonymous author than any of the above, I have the following to say:
I enjoyed your post, Iosephus, but I felt that the last two paragraphs were somewhat insensitive, not because of their criticism of the Bishop, but because of the implication that homosexual tendencies most likely entailed that someone would give in to sinful behavior. I am against homosexuals in the priesthood; I believe homosexual acts to be sinful, but your commentary can be hurtful to homosexuals. I know a man who is a devout Catholic, a homosexual committed to celibacy, who feels abandoned by the Church which is so eager to reach out to groups like "Dignity" that it does nothing to support homosexuals who are earnestly striving to be celibate in the single life for the Kingdom of God. However, this man is equally hurt by statements such as yours, which could leave one with the implication that homosexuals--whether in or out of the priesthood--are necessarily into a bid of the ol' fondling when nobody's looking.
I reiterate that I understand your comments to be directed against a laxness of discipline implicit in Bishop Clark's statements, but I still think your comments inflammatory and hurtful to those who, homosexual, are striving to be celibate for Christ and to remain free from sin.
Leonard,
Although some of the apostles were undoubtedly married, the tradition of celibacy developed early in the Church.
Some historians believe that Paul was a widow who chose not to remarry out of service to the Church. In any event, he extolls the virtues of celibacy in 1 Cor 7:32-35. Indeed, Christ himself speaks favorably of it in Mat 19:10-12.
St. Augustine popularized the practice even more by instituting celibacy in his diocese in the fourth century.
So the idea didn't simply fall from the sky "many centuries later."
Anonymous, undoubtedly fair remarks which you make. Perhaps the use of the term "sodomite" disambiguates things a bit: let's say that a sodomite is one who performs homosexual acts or is bent on doing them or would do them if only given the chance.
Does this man of whom you speak style himself as a homosexual? If I were in his shoes, I don't think that I would. What is the point? Who's to say about all the tendencies, desires, perversions, inclinations, thoughts, and illicit fantasies which run around in our heads from time to time?
If I felt a consistent and strong tendency to fornication, should I therefore style myself a fornicator? Probably not. So why would someone with homosexual temptations need to style himself a homosexual?
Indeed, for those of us outside of marriage, we're in the same boat, more or less: the flesh is often luring us to illicit sexual actions. I think that only in some cases, namely in regard to seminaries, the military, or the need to exercise spiritual fatherhood should the specific nature of those temptations come up.
In the mean time, let's all help each other to lead Christian lives, regardless of the ways in which we are tempted.
But I think I stand by the point that we ought worry about homosexuals, who have been welcomed as such into the diocese, both during their time for formation in seminary and later in the parish. A person who has homosexual attractions which cannot be put to rest might just be unfit for such service because of this disorder: this is where the parallel between heterosexual attractions and homosexual attractions ends, the former is at least natural.
I'm suggesting that there may be a qualitative difference in the disorder and not just a quantitative one. I put that forward tentatively, as a thought.
The post should read "roll out the pink carpet" or maybe "roll out the rainbow carpet."
The same anonymous who was (and is) appauled:
Reading this post and its responses just reminds me of why so many homosexuals never come to know Christ, because so many Christians are too busy insulting, degrading, and making them into lepers.
The problem everyone here seems to be overlooking is that unlike alcoholics or drug addicts or most other sins, homosexuality is just what it implies--a disorder of the sexuality, a very real, very personal part of a person. Because of this, most of us feel as though, when comments like this and others are made, they are attacking us. You can go around quoting all of the Catholic medical journals and testamonies of psychologists you want, we all know that this affliction is not something we choose--acting upon it is, but the orientation is more often than not a product of forces outside of our control. People (almost always heterosexual) going about talking about "curing" this seem as ludicrous to us as people who claim to be able to cure "blonde." Dye your hair all you want, you're not a brunette; marry, have heterosexual sex, live a perfectly normal, Christian life--chances are, you'll still deal with homosexual tendencies at times.
The implication that, if God has called us to a vocation, that He will not equip us to effectively fulfill that vocation, provided we remain faithful to Him... well, it makes God a lier, who tells us we can do all things through Him.
I do not, nor have I, or will I ever support the ordination of active homosexuals, or even those who identify themselves as "gay," rather than someone who struggles with same-sex attraction--but to say that those individuals are incapable of excercising self-control, that they are less than men, or that they are any less covered by the grace of God than yourself, makes you a far worse Christian than this man who said ass in a moment of utter indignation.
I hope my last post made clear that I sympathize with much of what you're saying, and especially with your comment that homosexual tendencies are deeply personal in a way that many other temptations are not. Homosexuals (and perhaps at least for the purposes of this discussion we should take "homosexuals" to be simply those with homosexual inclinations) thus have heavier burdens, probably, than most of us, and should receive that much more compassion and assistance in their efforts to live Christian lives.
Insofar as certain men have been ordained as priests, and have shown themselves able to live chastely despite temptations, I certainly do not think these individuals should be persecuted on account of desires that should in any case be kept between themselves and their confessors.
However, it is perfectly clear that there have been many individuals who, regrettably, have not been so strong. The effects of this have been devastating to the Church and all of its members. It is in everyone's interests, and especially in the interests of homosexuals themselves, for our leaders to be more careful in discerning who would be better off not being placed in such a difficult situation. Letters like Bishop Clark's, implying that homosexuality is not a problem at all, make it difficult to believe that our local authorities are being appropriately cautious about this.
I think the part of your last post that most gives me pause is this:
"The implication that, if God has called us to a vocation, that He will not equip us to effectively fulfill that vocation, provided we remain faithful to Him... well, it makes God a lier, who tells us we can do all things through Him."
No one wants to imply that God will desert those who He has called to serve Him. But, you see, you are missing the central question: *does* a homosexual man have a vocation? Each and every man who aspires to the priesthood must determine, with the help of his superiors, whether he does have a vocation, and what I and many of us are suggesting is that his sexual orientation needs to be taken into account in answering this question. As difficult as it may be, the fact is that not everyone can have a vocation to the priesthood, no matter how much they want to serve. I can say this without hypocrisy since I, as a woman, am also automatically excluded. I hope that I am capable of loving the Lord as much as an aspiring seminarian, but evidently He wants me to serve Him in another way.
I do hope that we haven't hurt or offended you too much -- that was not anyone's intention, but of course these are very difficult issues and all of us should try to grow in charity and meekness. Thank you, therefore, for your comments, and I pray that God will bless you in your ministry.
Cornell Catholic Community would serve its students better if priests and chaplains focused more on the sacraments and less on left wing political agendas (homosexuality, anti-war recruiting efforts, etc.).
The "leaders" in that community set a poor example.
After reading these posts (again), I am struck at how the people who "objected" to Iosephus' post did not address what he actually wrote. Where did he say, or even imply, that people with homosexual desires are less "manly" than heterosexuals on that count alone? He criticized a bishop's immorally lax action that will (almost inevitably, I think) lead to active sodomites getting into the priesthood. Then some anonymous people claimed that he was calling into question the "manhood" of people who struggle with homosexual temptations. After Josephus' rejoinder, the objector again objected to what some people might feel if they MISinterpreted Josephus' post. Some have expressed "compassion" for the feelings of the objector. Well, I just wonder just how "manly" it is to attribute a strawman to someone else and then go into a tizzy over it. St. Paul warns against effeminacy as well as sodomy.
Oh, and as the son of a recovering alcoholic (RIP), let me say that I am offended by the statement that, "unlike alcoholics or drug addicts or most other sins, homosexuality is just what it implies--a disorder of the sexuality, a very real, very personal part of a person." And my father's alcoholism was not a "very real, very personal part of a person"? And on the topic of the English language, what part of a person isn't personal? . . .
Oh, that las "anonymous" post was mine.
Again, the appauled:
The original post has been edited, as it, at the time of my reading, said something to the effect of, "if you can even call them 'men.'" This appeared in the opening paragraph. I appreciate that Iosephus was conscientious enough to delete that particular comment, and I understand the apparent lack of reasoning in my comments from the standpoint of having not read the original post in its entirety.
As for the "personal" parts of a person, perhaps "core" or "integral" would have been a better term. I am not in any way suggesting that the battles of alcoholics or any other sinners are inferior to those of the person with SSA, what I am suggesting is that the sex drive and identity is (as far as I have observed) universal and ingrained, whereas the "alcohol-drive" is much less. I am reasonably confident in the assumption that a 21 year old male daydreams much less about Budweiser than he does about sex. My point is not that these battles are easier or harder, but that people with SSA feel much more as though their identity is being attacked with comments to the effect of Iosephus' original. I think this is the product of people associating their identity with their sexuality ("I'm gay," rather than "I have SSA"), as opposed to very few people outside of recovery programs referring to themselves as "drunks" or "alcoholics." To draw on my earlier analogy, I am not brown hair, I HAVE brown hair. I am not homosexual, I have SSA (or, if you prefer, homosexual tendencies). Attack my (and others')concupiscence all you want, but do not attack us because of it; doing so will only drive men further from the truth.
Clara and Iosephus both make excellent points. I would like to make some small points:
1. Homosexuals (employing Clara's usage) are not in any way less "manly" than the rest of us.
2. It seems to me very, very unwise of homosexuals to announce their struggles to anyone but their directors and confessors.
3. No one has said that all homosexuals consciously choose their "orientation", though some pleasure-seekers obviously do.
4. Homosexuals need to understand how perilous their situation is, especially if they are ecclesiastics, and what absolutely unimaginable evil those in their same position have done in the last 50 years.
Thanks for the clarification, Anonymous. Without having seen Iosephus' comment about "real men" (or whatever he said), your first few posts seemed both off the mark and over-wrought. Now I see what you objected to (not to say that I criticize Iosephus).
I'm not as chary of calling a spade a spade as some here would imply we ought to be. I think the homosexual "rights" movement has so poisoned our language that some "insensitivity" is not only justified but called for as a corrective towards re-establishing what Leon Kass has in other circumstances called the wisdom of repugnance. That said, I can't quite understand what argument the "appauled" [sic] one is trying to make. He seems to want to say that having homosexual tendencies both is and is not central to his identity. Well which is it? From what I can tell he's so sensitive to this supposed contumely precisely because he is in some ways identifying himself with such tendencies. If he does not identify himself with those tendencies then why is he taking such umbrage at whatever characterizations Iosephus is accused of making (btw, Iosephus did you in fact edit the original post?).
All of that said, I would like to thank our anonymous for his comments. I think it's rather more interesting to have something like him drop by. However, I would like him to clarify himself.
Bono Doctori: yes, I did edit my original post, removing the unmanly remark. This comment of mine seemed to have people so incensed that they couldn't reach the end of my post without going red in the face long before.
I have kept the strong language in the other places because, like the Doctor, I think that we need to target and draw attention to the evil gay subculture (or maybe its the dominant culture by now, at least in some dioceses) which has wrought so much damage for many years now.
Everyone who cares about these issues knows that there is a Lavender Mafia in the American Church. That there should be such a thing is so evil, so perverse that I'm surprised they have not yet spontaneously gone out of existence.
To anyone struggling with homosexual attractions, we support you, but to those who would parade such tendencies in the priesthood and episcopate, we will be ruthless in opposing you.
Tobias already mentioned this, but it would be lovely if people would post under names. It makes things so much less confusing, and also, it's nice to have some way to refer to people's posts and answer them without too much circumlocution. "The Appauled One" is really not such a pleasant title (though I guess you can post under that if you want to.) Of course everyone is quite welcome to choose a pseudonym; you can even pick a different pseudonym for every different thread you post to, if for some reason you prefer not to have us connect all of your different contributions together. But it would be much easier and nicer all around to have lists of names instead of "anonymous" all down the page.
But is it a good thing for the priesthood to be populated by homosexual men? The Lord calls this an "abomination."
While some people say that it is just another sin, they are overlooking something special with this sin: it is one of the few sins where the individual's personhood is defined by his sin.
Now, more than ever, we need strong men in the priesthood.
Forgive my poor spelling earlier.
The reason I took umbrage at Iosephus' remark was not because I define myself by my SSA, but because so many others do--not in the sense that the last in a string of anonymoi stated, but that the person chooses to define themselves by it--and that those people, who may very well be seeking faith and truth, might be turned off by such comments. "Strong langauge," I think, must be used sparingly; but nor should we coddle and act as though homosexual actions are not a sin, and a grevious one. I am confident that we will very much be held accountable for those times when we stood at the front of the synagogue, loudly proclaiming our vitrue, while a poor slob was huddled in the back, head hung low. If we, as Christians, should go about insulting and degrading people who have unfortunately chosen to define themselves by their struggle, we will continue to turn them away from the truth.
Again, I am not appalled for my own sake, but for the sake of those who may have had a chance to learn some truth by this generally noble blog, and instead turned away in an unnecessary attack (as they understood) toward them.
1. What does SSA stand for?
2. I think that more people "seeking seeking faith and truth" would be turned of by openly gay priests than would be turned off by people discussing what God and the saints say about homosexuality.
Here is some truth from St. Augistine: "[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way" (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
SSA = Same Sex Attraction
A report about the seminar of Clark's role model in Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahoney:
"Yehling and others noted that engaging in consensual sex at the seminary and molesting minors were hugely different things, and said no link between them should be inferred."
Oh, really?
The link is here.
Shameful news out of the Archdiocese of St. Louis. The archdiocese posts a $500,000 bond so that a priest convicted of a crime of abominable perversion can walk around for awhile longer.
Why are you suprised? I'm sure he has several gay friends near the top in the St. Louis diocese. Of course they are going to help him out.
Sure, by now, why should I be surprised? But this kind of thing had to happen with the approval of Archbishop Burke, whom many regard as one of the best and most conservative in the country. Did this sodomite's friends have enough clout to see that he got $500,000 bond anyway? I don't know. We don't know so many things. We don't know why JPII let so many bad bishops go unchecked and unremoved. But I had hoped for better from Archbishop Burke.
This is in response to a post made earlier. It it not important which post this was, but it concerned the idea of illness. Homosexuality is not a sin in itself but it is an unhealthy desire, and like any unhealthy desire we can call it an illness. As far as curing the illness is concerned, we have no reason to believe that this illness cannot be cured. All we do know is that our society refuses to see it as an illness so most would not dare look for a cure. They're are many other sexual illness other than homosexuality, however, when talking about the priesthood these illness are not of great concern, as people suffering from them are not likely to become priests. So the question comes up if someone who is “ill”, in a way that could impair him from preforming his duties as a priest, should be allowed to become a priest. If the person is willing to admit that they have an illness and seek help that ends in a favorable resolution and they continue to seek help, then absolutely. And such would be the case with anyone who has some unhealthy desire. If you're going to take on the great responsibility, of becoming a priest, you need to recognize your problems and deal with them responsibly. Just as evidence that people can change, I knew a guy who had been gay all of his life, and he was very proud of it. One day I ran into him and he told me “this is going to sound weird and I'm not sure how this happened but I'm straight and I have a girl friend.” This was sometime ago but I believe the couple is engaged to be married now. I attribute this to the power of the Rosary, and the plentiful mercy of Our Dear Mother. As for Bishop Clark, his statement was too open to the idea of homosexuality, as he expressed no concern for the illness. I believe he saw his statement as rational because the dioceses needs priests desperately. This is not the way to deal with this problem, however. The way to deal with this problem is to return to the traditions of the Church. Young men need to grow up realizing that they have a duty and responsibility to the Church, something that is not inspired by our current liturgy.
As for Bishop Burke, let's not speculate on anything. I'm sure there are far greater temptations than those of the flesh, and anyone, no matter how seemingly perfect, is capable of making a huge mistake or sinful act, especially under pressure, so let's just pray for them. These discussions can be very productive but in the time it took me to write this I could have said one or two decades of the Rosary, which would have been far better.
May God Bless all of you
A news article from Geneva, NY following up on Bishop Clark's column.
Don't knock what you've never known. A big fat one up the arese is..............
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
LOL
The mark of a true priest is a life of service - self sacrificial love - regardless of gender or orientation.
So sayeth Popess Joan.
Thanks for your input. But soon it wont be just orientation, it will be sex.. I fear that in Auburn in the last article I wrote..
Bishop Clark and his followers are subversive voices in the Church whose "kind" was responsible for the Child Abuse Scandal if the words in the John Jay report mean anything. A homosexual does not identify with the role of spouse or father and therefore will be less inclined to be dedicate themselves in a manner consistent with parishioner expectations. They relate "fraternally" not "paternally" and anyone familiar with Church life know the difference. They also are not committed to Church teaching on morals using themselves as a case in point: "God made me this way so how can it be soo wrong...". Until the Church learsn this basic lesson she has no hope of reform.
It is clear that Matthew Clark wants to create "homosexual free" zones in the Church for his like minded Episcopal friends like Howard Hubbard regardless of the risks to our children. The problem in the modern Church is post pubescent homosexuality. Keep the Matthew Clark's of the world far away from young men.
What pictures do you suppose that Matt has in his safe that allows him to persist in his office? Why would a non-believer stay aboard ship? I think a diocesan audit would answer those questions. His bum buddy Hubbard should be examined as well.
Sanctuary for Sodomites come to Albany and Rochester and Bishop Clark and Hubbard will stoke your egos and other things. Please give us access to your children cause we're human too. If you believe in Santa, Elvis and Jesus Christ please apply to another diocese. Up here we are free and loose. We will transform world after we pervert your children. Read the papers... this is no joke.
Judgemental??? Unrepentant sodomites are on the fast track to eternal torment. Not to inform them of this fact is the complete absence of charity. The activity of Sodom is indefensible except by the twisted and deformed. Who out ther thinks anal stimulation leads anywhere but to eternal loss? Wake up world! Have we lost the ability to hear and accept the truth on the obvious? To the political and moral left the drawing of lines began in the garden in Genesis. Truth is not hate. Sodomy is!
Who is asleep at the switch in the Vatican? Levada or Benedict?
Would we even be having this conversation if Bishops like Clark and Hubbard had not provided sanctuary for homosexual priest. If I remember correctly the scandal was predominantly about homosexual abuse of post pubescent boys. That is homosexuality folks. Do you want to subsidize their abuse? Then follow Clark and Hubbard who by repute are enables and abusers themselves. Both of them have turned their dioceses into a dumping ground. Read the Minker report if you have any doubts about that. These gusy are in the escavation business paving the road to hell. (apologies to those legitimately employed in that businss). Their brother bishops who are silent in these matters share some of the responsibility.
Haggai
Blackmail is the only which explains how a bishop like Clark can remain in office. He knows where the bodies are buried and Churchmen are safe as long as he is alive. Private investigators should be hired to examine the lives of "like minded" bishops for the sake of our children. Child Safety programs imposed after Dallas? Another form of Episcoploal abuse... "mind screwing" under the watchful eyes of the parents. They fell for the diabolical end game hook,line and sinker. The period of latency or innocence is now being breached as an answer to the Scandal. Is anyone paying attention here? I wouldn't delegate even a minor administrative task to Cardinal Law and certainly wouldn't let Bishop Clark teach my children. Yet remarkably the whold country has delegated to the Bishops the freedom to "fix" the problem with what? A Sex Education program that masquerades as a child safety program. How stupid are we folks? Petition Rome for the removal of such bishops. We don't need politically correct liberals who have lost their supernatural faith we need apostles who are about their the heavenly Father's business. What was that line in Broadcast News? I mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore.
People should realize that this blog is now defunct at this location. Please stop leaving these bootless comments.
Clark is to speak mildly a "horsesass"... a hireling rather than a shepherd who has turned the diocese into a cesspool or imorality.
Oh my!!! This is very disturbing and frustrating from my Catholic family! We need our priests, bishops, and even the Pope to be on fire with all these new age teachings and start filtering the vocations for the religious orders and priesthood. It is not the sinner, but the SIN! We cannot be luke warm Catholics and especially a liberal like this Bishop Matthew Clark who has the influence of so many.
May God have mercy on his soul.
Post a Comment
<< Home