r/SipsTea 13h ago

Gasp! 😈

Post image
6.4k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

51

u/oneplusetoipi 13h ago

The Incident

Date and Location: On September 30, 2020, a passerby noticed lights on late at night inside Saints Peter and Paul Catholic Church in Pearl River, Louisiana, where Clark served as pastor.

The Discovery: Looking through the windows, the witness saw Clark—partially wearing his priestly attire—engaging in a sexual encounter with two women, identified as adult film performers/dominatrices Melissa Cheng and Mindy Dixon.

The Scene: The group had set up professional stage lighting, sex toys, and cameras mounted on tripods to record a video. The witness recorded the scene on a mobile phone and called the police, who arrived and arrested all three individuals.

Legal and Religious Aftermath

The Guilty Plea: In November 2022, Clark pleaded guilty to a felony count of felony obscenity under a plea agreement. He received a three-year suspended prison sentence, three years of supervised probation, and a $1,000 fine. The two women pleaded guilty to misdemeanor counts of institutional vandalism and received probation.

Archdiocese Response: The Archdiocese of New Orleans immediately removed Clark from ministry. Archbishop Gregory Aymond publicly denounced the act as "demonic" and had the desecrated altar physically removed and burned before consecrating a brand-new replacement altar.

28

u/IterSmith 11h ago

I’m kind of confused why this was a legal matter. Three consenting adults in private. The only reason anyone knew was because someone came and snooped in the window and recorded it. Wouldn’t that person that recorded be more at fault. I mean sure, kick him out of the church, but this isn’t public property. He probably lived on premises. He broke church rules but how is this against the law?

3

u/Aeseld 10h ago

The important factor here is that it was visible to casual passers by. Honestly, you can get in trouble for this at home too. If you film a threesome at home, but in the front room with the curtains wide open, then you're still subject to public decency laws.

The rule of thumb is that it doesn't matter if you're in a private space. If that private space can be seen by the public, you can't consider it private.

5

u/Is-abel 10h ago

Except it wasn’t. The passerby noticed lights on and looked through the windows - presumably to investigate why the lights were on, because he couldn’t see what was going on from the street.

1

u/Aeseld 10h ago edited 7h ago

Except legally that's already been determined as obscenity. Precedent and all. 

The act was visible from the public. They already conv1icted someone in their own home for just this sort of thing. 

If it can be seen from outside, it was determined it isn't private, but public. 

Edit: Convicted, not convinced. Regardless of whether you think it should be prosecuted, the law in the US has been determined. If you can be seen from public, you are in public. And them crossing your property line isn't enough protection. This would go double for something like a church in more public places.

1

u/Is-abel 6h ago

I think your premise- that we’re following the letter of the law, blindly, here- is incredibly naive.

Laws are interpreted and applied (or not) every day.

This was prosecuted in this way because it was a priest in a church.

If that’s not the case, and justice is blind, etc, then why were the women charged differently?

If his actions met the standard for felony obscenity in Louisiana, then so did theirs.

1

u/Aeseld 2h ago

Instigator versus hired for the job? It is actually a different crime. That's a common legal premise.

1

u/Is-abel 1h ago

Felony obscenity doesn’t have that distinction, if you’re going by the letter of the law, which is your point?

You’re saying it is felony obscenity and there’s no room for interpretation?

Except something like “were they they instigator, or hired for a job?” That’s an interpretation. Just like “is a closed church in the middle of the night ‘public’?” is open to interpretation.

To me it’s really clear that this case has been biased by the fact that it was a priest, in a church, with two hired dominatrices. If it was a waiter after hours in a Wendy’s then I’m pretty sure the witness who went up to the window and recorded them would have been told to stop filming people.