I'm sorry, but this is funny:
SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) - A northeastern Pennsylvania priest has been removed from his duties after church officials say he accidentally displayed inappropriate pictures from his computer before Sunday Mass.The Diocese of Scranton said the Rev. Edward Lyman was using his computer on Oct. 25 to project an informational DVD about the annual diocesan fundraiser when four photos were displayed. They featured what church officials describe as "minimally attired adult males."
Diocese spokesman William Genello said the photos were not pornographic, did not include minors and were not taken by the priest.
Lyman has been removed as administrator of St. Anthony, St. Bridget and St. John the Baptist parishes in Throop. The diocese would not say where he is.
Well, I'll tell you where he's not: in the closet any longer. OK, it's not really funny -- it's tragic that this priest has fallen so far, and I hope he conquers his gay porn habit -- but honestly, can you imagine what the parishioners sitting there for the fundraiser thought? From the perspective of the parish, this is a felix culpa, if you ask me.
This episode brings to mind something a gay friend of mine who was once a Catholic priest told me about his former bishop. The bishop called the presbyterate together after, if memory serves, a priest of the diocese had been caught with incriminating visuals on his hard drive. The bishop advised his priests that if they had anything illegal (e.g., child pornography) on their computers, to "throw the thing in the river." Don't try to have it fixed or anything. Just get rid of it. Lovely advice from one's spiritual father.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
YOu know what else is really hilarious?? When Christian activists from the National Organization for Marriage get busted for not just posessing nasty porn, but staring in it!
http://www.tmz.com/2009/11/04/carrie-prejean-sex-tape-settlement-miss-california-usa-pagneat/
Can someone please tell me why there are so many gay clergy to begin with? Even churches that allow married clergy, divorced clergy, married bishops, women bishops, married women bishops, divorced .....
still have disproportionately large percentages of gays as clergy. Is is the vestments?
Who said consent had to be part of marriage? That is as arbitrary as saying that it has to be between opposite sexes.
Besides, people do all kinds of things with and to their animals that the animals don't consent to.
It looks like some of you are inter-species-phobic.
It is often desired that a priest be an empathetic person who is full of compassion and is willing to spend a great deal of time with elderly women. Also is willing to spend Sundays in church rather than watching sports.
On the male side that's likely going to be a disproportionately gay group. I don't think gay men are necessarily or inherently more compassionate or empathetic, but if you're a heterosexual male with those qualities other men will often try to beat it out of you in time. (Although it's possible gay men are naturally better at dealing with elderly women. Even really nice straight guys don't necessarily want to spend a bunch of time comforting old ladies.)
Granted this doesn't work in all cases. On the Baptist/Evangelical side I think emotional men who like to "comfort" older women often means someone quite heterosexual. (I have Baptist relatives and I think it's not that uncommon to joke about this happening on occasion) So Baptist preachers I don't think are disproportionately gay. Some might be, becoming a minister might be seen as "saving them" from vice, but I don't think it's too common.
However, gay marriage supporters want two consenting adults to be allowed to marry, not multiple consenting adults.
If the traditional requirement that marriage partners be of opposite sexes is to be viewed as arbitrary and constitutionally unenforceable, then how can the traditional requirement that they be limited to two be viewed as any less arbitrary? Whether "gay marriage supporters" want it or not, legalized polygamy is a logical consequence of their efforts.
The government should not be involved in marriage at all--the government should only recognize civil unions, and would have no secular reason for discriminating against homosexuals. They should leave marriage up to churchs, and allow individual churchs to marry or not marry whoever they want.
I think that there are a lot of people who oppose gay marriage who would be willing to agree to what you suggest. The problem is that gay marriage advocates have set their sights on the "m" word, and have made up their minds that they won't settle for anything else.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.