In 1997 Bishop Clark celebrated a special Mass for gays, lesbians, their friends and their families. During the Mass His Excellency delivered a homily (preserved here) that many orthodox Catholics believed seriously deficient in its presentation of Church teaching regarding the sinfulness of homosexual activity.

Some of these orthodox Catholics included the local Catholic Physicians Guild and the St. Thomas More Lawyers Guild. It appears that each of these organizations took a public stance that aroused the anger of Bishop Clark. According to Women For Faith and Family,

Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester (NY) has imposed severe restrictions on the Catholic Physicians Guild and the Catholic Lawyers Guild in his diocese, after both groups issued statements critical of homosexuality. Bishop Clark, who has been forthright in his support of homosexuals, participated in a recent national conference sponsored by the militant pro-homosexual New Ways Ministry.

Bishop Clark told the two professional groups that henceforth they cannot hold meetings or disseminate literature without his permission and accused them of undermining his authority.

The Catholic Physicians Guild

In the case of the Catholic Physicians Guild one of our commenters wrote,

What happened with the Catholic physician’s guild was the Holy Spirit. 6 months prior to the banning, the guild purchased 1000 tapes from A Catholic Family Conference. The tapes indicated the risk of homosexual infiltration in the diocese and parish levels.

These tapes sat gathering dust for 6 months. When the inspiration was received to send them, they went out at the same time the DOR chose to back the heritical organization: DIGNITY. The tapes were sent to every priest, deacon and nun in the DOR. So now, the diocese had egg on its face. IT comes out for a pro homosexual organization and its Catholic Physician’s guild sides with the Majesterial teachings. Boy, did they look foolish.

So then they were suppressed. I will never forget the bishop’s “reason” for supprssion.

He said, many priests hearing the tapes got angry so he needed to prevent us from angering priests. Of course, it was [a]ll BS.

(It sure would be nice to know precisely which tape aroused the ire of so many of our local priests.  If anyone is aware of the exact title and source – or anything else related to this incident – please post that info in the comment box, below.)

Update (July 21st, 2010):  I’ve recently obtained a copy of Paul Likoudis’ 2002 book, Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda.  The following is from page 76 of that book …

Bishop Matthew Clark, stung by public criticism from the local chapter of the Catholic Physicians Guild that he dissented from Church teaching on homosexuality, disciplined the association of laymen by prohibiting them from distributing “any teaching material of any sort of a theological or moral issue” without his “explicit permission.”

The crime of the Physicians’ Guild: the officers had mailed to all physicians and priests in the diocese a statement of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists [SCSS] on the advance of the homosexual agenda in society. (“Rochester Bishop Tightens Screws on Physicians’ Guild,” [The Wanderer,] June 5, 1997)

Further research has yet to produce anything that could positively be identified as a statement from the SCSS “on the advance of the homosexual agenda in society,” but similar items have come to light.  There is, for instance, an article on the SCSS website that tells us,

… A similar example would be an article making an argument about the troublesome nature of some special diocesan ministries to homosexuals which was the subject of the Society’s most noteworthy public statement, drafted by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and sent to all the U.S. bishops. This statement carefully analyzed the problematical assumptions these ministries are built upon in light of both psychological evidence and statements made by Rome.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus seems to have had this “public statement” in mind when he wrote in the May, 1995 issue of First Things,

In an open letter to the American bishops, the Society of Catholic Social Scientists warns: “A separate ‘gay spirituality’ regrettably is being encouraged, and gay ministries tell us that a person who suffers from the homosexual disorder has special ‘gay gifts’ for the Church.” Recent trends in American ministry that contradict the Church’s natural law teaching on homosexuality include the notion that being gay is a blessing from God, the idea that homosexuality is not disordered, and the pastoral practice of actively discouraging persons from attempting to change their homosexual desires. All these trends derive from an understanding of homosexuality as biologically determined-an understanding, the society claims, that is contrary to the best available scientific evidence. “We must respond with great compassion toward homosexual individuals, but it is essential that this compassion not lead to a contradiction of Church doctrine. Gay ministries have been confusing us with demands for understanding – on their terms – and approval, but we must be clear in asserting the truth.” Critics persist in disparaging as old-fashioned the adage that we should hate the sin but love the sinner. The reason it has been around so long, however, is that the only alternatives to it are hating the sinner or loving the sin, neither of which can be squared with Christian morality.

Author John Francis Harvey also seems to have been focusing in on the same letter in this excerpt from page 17 of his book, The Truth about Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful,”

It is noteworthy that the Society of Catholic Social Scientists sent a letter [“Recent Trends in Ministry to Homosexual Catholics”] to the American bishops on November 28, 1994, in which they expressed their concern “with a trend in U.S. ministries which flatly contradicts Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.” They outline ambiguities and contradictions, using scientific research in order to show the erroneous assumptions upon which these statements and activities are founded. They list five fallacies:

1. False statements are being made about homosexuality being biologically determined.
2. Catholic homosexuals are being told wrongly that sexual-orientation change is never possible.
3. The term gay is being wrongly used to describe homosexuals who do not identify with the gay socio-political position.
4. A separate “gay spirituality” is being encouraged, and gay ministries tell us that a person who suffers from the homosexual disorder has special “gay gifts” for the Church.
5. Catholics are being informed wrongly that the homosexual condition is not disordered.

I cannot say for certain that the statement mentioned by Paul Likoudis is the same as that described in the last three quotes but, even if it is not, there is good reason to believe it contained similar material.

We now would seem to have a better picture of what Likoudis called “the crime” committed by DOR’s Catholic Physicians Guild that led to their suppression by Bishop Clark:  They spoke the truth in a diocese that did not what to hear the truth.

[End of Update]

The St. Thomas More Lawyers Guild

Precisely what the St. Thomas More Lawyers Guild did to earn the Bishop’s wrath is not totally clear, but I suspect the following paid notice, published in several local Messesger-Wolfe Publications newspapers, played no small role.

The St. Thomas More Lawyers Guild
Presents a Clarification of the
Teachings of the Catholic Church on Homosexuality

On March 1, 1997, Bishop Matthew H. Clark of the Diocese of Rochester, New York presided at a “Mass for Gay and Lesbian Catholics” at Sacred Heart Cathedral. Prior to the celebration of the Mass, Bishop Clark stated that he was “going to disappoint” those Catholics who had expressed the concern that he should remind those attending the Mass that homosexual activity is sinful. According to Bishop Clark, it would have been “oppressive and manipulative” to “pound on” the sinfulness of homosexual activity. (Catholic Courier, February 27, 1997, p. 3.) The media reported that “[Bishop] Clark avoided any discussion of the official teachings of the Catholic Church” on the homosexuality issue. (Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, March 2, 1997, p. 1A.)

Because of his failure to convey the full teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue of homosexuality, his words and actions caused much confusion among the faithful, especially our youth.

Canon 212, Section 3 of the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church provides that Catholics “have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church…. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful.” With all due respect to the episcopal office of Bishop Clark, we, the undersigned, are compelled to exercise this right and to articulate for the benefit of Catholics and other interested parties the relevant teaching of the Catholic Church on the issue of homosexuality which the bishop omitted.

The Church’s Teaching

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2357, quoting Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration, Persona humana (1975), n. 8.)

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1986, n. 3.)

[Persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies] are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2358.)

“It is up to the Bishops to instruct the faithful in the moral teaching concerning sexual morality, however great may be the difficulties in carrying out this work in the face of ideas and practices generally prevailing today. . . . It is likewise the Bishops’ mission to see that a sound doctrine enlightened by faith and directed by the Magisterium of the Church is taught in faculties of theology and in seminaries. Bishops must also ensure that confessors enlighten people’s consciences and that catechetical instruction is given in perfect fidelity to Catholic doctrine.” (Persona humana, n. 13.)

“It rests with the Bishops, the priests and their collaborators to alert the faithful against the erroneous opinions often expressed in books, reviews and public meetings.” (Persona humana, n. 13.)

“No authentic pastoral program will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.” (On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, n. 15.)

“All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.” (On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, n. 17.)

In his encyclical Veritatis Splendor (1993), Pope John Paul II reminded his brother bishops that they have the duty “to be vigilant that the word of God is faithfully taught…. As bishops, we have the ‘grave obligation’ to be personally vigilant that the ‘sound doctrine’ (1 Tim. 1:10) of faith and morals is taught in our dioceses.” (n. 116; emphases in original) Similarly, the teaching of Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) is clear that an individual bishop’s authority must be exercised in union with the Pope (see nn. 22, 25).

In 1987, during his second visit to the United States, the Holy Father stated to American bishops that the pastoral care to be given to homosexual persons “includes a clear explanation of the Church’s teaching, which by its nature is unpopular. Nevertheless, your own pastoral experience confirms the fact that the truth, howsoever difficult to accept, brings grace and often leads to a deep inner conversion.” (Address, September 16, 1987, n. 18.) Indeed, there are countless documented cases where homosexuals have turned away from their disordered “lifestyle,” confirming the promise of conversion when the truth is known.

Every witness who appears before a court of law in this country, before giving testimony, is asked some variant of the question “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” Just as any attempt to testify in court as to only part of the truth and to conceal or avoid the rest violates this oath, so should any attempt to give witness to only part of the truth of Catholic doctrine be viewed with grave concern. Truth is disserved and the faith discredited — with incalculable damage to souls — where words and actions by diocesan officials, including bishops, do not clearly indicate adherence to the entire body of official teaching of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals.

Lay Catholics “have the duty and the right to acquire the knowledge of Christian teaching which is appropriate to each one’s capacity and condition, so that they may be able to live according to this teaching, to proclaim it and if necessary to defend it.” (Code of Canon Law, Canon 229, Section 1) All Rochester Catholics — and now, particularly those with a homosexual inclination in this diocese — must be allowed to exercise their right to the truth.

Before He took up His Cross, Our Lord said: “All those committed to the truth hear my voice.” (John 18:37) The voice of Jesus Christ is heard today on the issue of homosexuality — clearly and forcefully — through the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in union with Christ’s vicar on earth, John Paul II. No local bishop of a particular diocese may unilaterally deviate from this teaching. (See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), nn. 22, 25. See also, Persona humana, n. 13.)

Respectfully submitted,

The Board of Governors,
St. Thomas More Lawyers Guild,
Rochester, NY

Dated: May 15, 1997

(This manuscript was originally submitted to the Rochester Catholic Courier, the official newspaper of the Rochester Catholic diocese, for publication. The Catholic Courier declined to publish the article, even as a paid advertisement. Therefore, it was the Guild’s decision to publish the article as a paid notice in the Messenger-Wolfe Publications. [General Offices for the Messenger-Wolfe Publications — which include nine newspapers serving the suburbs of Rochester, NY — are in Victor, NY.])

John Manning Regan — President
Joseph A.F. Valenti — Vice President
Mary E. Taylor — Secretary

Posted by: John F. Wagner, Jr.
Member, Board of Governors, St. Thomas More Lawyers Guild

As far as I have been able to determine, both the Catholic Physicians Guild of Rochester, New York and the St. Thomas More Lawyers Guild remain suppressed to this day.

Tags: Bishop Clark, Homosexuality

|

This entry was posted on Saturday, July 17th, 2010 at 12:05 AM . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.