The import of the Clark story is, aside from the basics, his position as a trusted spokesman for orthodox Catholicism, which includes (I should say included - it's been cut) a program on EWTN called "Relationships."
His most recent moment in the glaring spotlight came a couple of years ago when he delivered a homily at St. Patrick's in which he spoke strongly against homosexuals in seminary and said that the US was "probably the most immoral country in the Western Hemisphere."
But can we talk about such things? Monsignor Eugene Clark, the rector of St. Patrick's Cathedral, is a radiant light of eloquence, evangelical charm, and courage. In his renowned sermon of last week he elaborated on five "grim influences" that have taken their toll. He spoke of a flawed moral theology, an attack on celibacy, the fear to exclude homosexuals from the priesthood, a weakening of high standards in choosing candidates for the priesthood, and an understanding of the influence of our pagan culture.
Somebody walked out of the church after hearing the homily. Where will he go, one wonders?
Not, I would hope, into motels with their with their married church secretary who is wearing incredibly short shorts. I'm just sayin'
More quotes from Clark here.
And do you know what? There's a lot of "Oh, human nature....no one's perfect" going on in another comment thread, which is TRUE. It does NOT excuse anything - we are talking about a many who chooses to violate his own stated values while being a very public spokesman and (by extension because that's how these things work) representative of those values. If he couldn't live by them, he needed to make a choice. Either stop the behavior or have some gonads and some integrity and step down, leave, and retire to Fort Meyers with the other old men.
If Clark was liberal, would our reaction to this alleged situation be the same? That's all I'm askin'.