Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

The Bishop Chimes In

June 23rd, 2011, Promulgated by Dr. K

The following is commentary from Bishop Matthew Clark on homosexual marriage as presented by News 10 NBC. As is normally the case when the bishop speaks about homosexuality, he delivers a number of ambiguous and seemingly contradictory statements with little firmness when it comes to defending the teachings of the Catholic Church.

“(Marriage) is an institution so deeply ingrained in the human spirit that to redefine it in such a short time frame under the very wonderful rubric of human rights, which I thoroughly support, the two don’t equate in quite the way its proponents want to present it,” Clark said.

“We don’t approve of that practice but that’s not to say we don’t see good, loving people who go that way of life. We don’t say that there’s no love there at all, there’s no sign of God’s presence, because indeed they remain God’s children, beloved of us all. It’s more a question of how you reach that wonderful end of equality for all people and we’re just arguing in this case that you don’t effectively, long-term do it, by redefining an institution that’s served us so beautifully.”

No wonder so many people are confused in this diocese.

The channel 10 article also made note that when the topic of gay marriage was brought up to Bishop Clark, he laughed and responded “Oh, my heavens!” I would think that any person desirous of defending true marriage would relish at the opportunity to do so in front of the public, and be well-prepared ahead of time to deliver a solid defense instead of the above meandering ramblings which appear to give lip service to the Church’s teachings without offending anyone.


Tags: ,


13 Responses to “The Bishop Chimes In”

  1. Bill B. says:

    If I caught the Ch. 10 correctly, the Bishop was dedicating a new cemetery. I took “Oh, my heavens” comment as being taken a little by surprise in the circumstance he was in. We are not being fair here (opinion) since there is such rancor on the subject. I understood his statement even if he was wordy (being FOR man + woman). I percieve half his difficulty is thinking too much before speaking. The reporter should have asked about the subject at hand, the dedication rather than try to spark contoversy.

  2. Bruce says:

    I do agree with Bill B. here. It was not exactly fair, but that is the life of a bishop and today’s media. You have to expect these questions and anticipate them in advance. It is disappointing that he could not have been more clear. This type of answer has almost no substance to it, and makes it appear that the Church doesn’t have a 2000+ year history of rational, philosophical thought concerning marriage and the human being. For something as profoundly fundamental as marriage, clear and concise answers are not only needed, they are required.

  3. Nerina says:

    Given the pending vote in the state legislature, it’s naive to think he wouldn’t be asked about the issue.

  4. Raymond Rice says:

    I remember a few years ago when Martha Stewart was appearing on one of the early morning talk shows to cook a dish for which she had developed a recipe. A few days before, she had been indicted for insider trading. The reporter blind sided her by asking about her legal status. She turned to the reporter and told her she was there to cook, not comment on her legal situation, and went on to cook.
    The media I suppose has a right to ask a question. However they do not have a right to an answer.
    The media in the world is out of control and has very few if any scruples!!

    RIP: Princess Diana

  5. Dr. K says:

    If the reporter hadn’t asked the bishop about gay marriage, when would he have discussed it? After it gets passed into law? What exactly is he waiting for? The vote could happen any minute and we have crickets chirping at Buffalo Road. The best the diocese has offered is a cut and paste Courier letter from seven years ago. Does our bishop have no original thought on the situation here in New York state in 2011?

    Contrast this inactivity with the fervent defense being put forth by Archbishop Dolan. He has written columns, posted to his blog on more than one occasion, conducted radio interviews with state senators, answered questions from reporters, etc. The passion demonstrated by Abp. Dolan on this issue is sorely lacking in our own leader.

    I’m not buying the blindsided argument. He should be able to offer a coherent and faithful thought with the vote to legalize gay marriage imminent. Is the bar really so low?

  6. Raymond Rice says:

    Dr K:

    Don’t expect a lame duck to get overly ambitious near the end.!!! Perhaps no one from Buffalo Road was standing next to him and pushing the button in his back that makes his lips move so he was on his own without a prerecorded tape.

    PS I know this is irreverent but I succumbed to temptation.

  7. Thinkling says:

    Not directly related to this local story and the ongoing insanity in Albany, but here is an interesting personal anecdote.

    I was confirmed by Bishop Clark early in his DoR episcopate, certainly in his first five years. One day maybe a month ago my wife and I were discussing some random DoR thing when she stopped and looked at me hard.

    Are you sure your confirmation was valid?

    I actually had quite a pause.

    (I think it was valid BTW. But in all honesty who knows?)

  8. Ben Anderson says:

    “Oh my heavens?”
    Why would you possibly want to know what the leader of 350k local Catholics thinks about a piece of legislation that would redefine the most fundamental institution of human society. Don’t bother me with such petty stuff. DrK, the contrast between Arch. Dolan and Bishop Clark says it all.

  9. Jean says:

    Ch 13 played B.Clark’s lame reply, then following that, the reply by a black Christian minister. His reply was so clear–emphasising that marriage is the union of one man and one woman who produce children and it is natural–the way God set it up. He said just what Archbishop Dolan has been saying! Bishop Clark’s reply was embarassing compared to what the Christian minister so elequently stated.

  10. annonymouse says:

    We now have a sinless Church in a sinless culture, in which we can find God’s love even in intrinsically evil, disordered acts. Praise God almighty!

  11. Raymond Rice says:

    To Thinkling:

    the priciple you are worried about is called, I think, “ex operae operandum” meaning it is dependent on the act and not on the morality of the actor.

  12. Thinkling says:

    Thanks for the note Bruce, but that is actually not what I was referring to. We were legitimately worried that some liturgical liberty was taken which would invalidate it.

    Think butt-baptism. Or gluten-free hosts. The worry is indeed the act…the act done invalidly. (OK hosts are matter and not form but you get it…)

    We know that the authority to confer sacraments comes from the Mark of ordination, not from his personal holiness or state of grace.

  13. Choir says:

    It’s called “ex opere operato”.It signifies that the sacraments produce grace of themselves, apart and distinct from the grace dependent upon the intention of the person conferring the sacrament; the latter effect is designated “ex opere operantis”.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-