by VorJack
A priest in the Diocese of Scranton has been removed as administrator of three Throop parishes after he inadvertently displayed four photos of what a diocese spokesman called “minimally attired adult males” before the 8 a.m. Mass at St. Bridget’s Church on Oct. 25.
The Rev. Edward P. Lyman was using his personal computer to project an informational DVD about the diocesan Annual Appeal fundraiser when he accidentally showed the “inappropriate personal photographs” that were stored on his computer, according to a diocesan statement read at the Throop Masses on Sunday.
Well, that’s one way to wake up your congregation. I’m picturing all the white-haired women from the last Catholic Church I attended. “Hail Mother Mary, full of grace, the Lord is … HELLO!”
On the plus side:
Diocese spokesman William Genello said the photos were not pornographic and did not display nudity or sexual activity. The photos were not of the Rev. Lyman, nor did he take the pictures, Mr. Genello said.
There were no pictures of minors and no evidence of illegal activity, he said.
So provided there were no heart attacks at the sudden display of masculine cheesecake, no one was harmed in the process of this massive screw-up. It appears that Rev. Lyman is off to receive “appropriate care for whatever has led to such behavior on his part,” which sounds a little ominous. This is one time where I don’t think the priest did anything wrong, other than pressing the wrong button.
I’m sure the Catholic Church would award a no-prize to anyone who could suggest a graceful way for a priest to recover from this situation.
nomad: You’d love it, Custador. It looks and tastes just like it sounds. Nomnom. 
Matt: I find it very interesting that there are so many people out there with such sad lives as to sit... 
Tyrrlin: Wow… I’d like to buy apostrophes for most of those commenters. Apparently belief in a... 
Mathurine: I’m not so sure that they wouldn’t have. The father in the case is... 
JonJon: I agree. 
Siberia: That’s a question I always ask myself, though in other contexts, would I still be me if I’d... 
Mark Mukasa: I love the Paine pun. xD Awesome article. 
mikespeir: Amen, and amen. 
26 Comments
Um… Move him to another diocese and never speak of it again?
“This is one time where I don’t think the priest did anything wrong, other than pressing the wrong button.”
Not wrong in any cosmic sense, but wrong according to his profession. He has proven himself a hypocrite, doing what I suspect he would frown on in others.
Agree. Looking at nudey pics of men is his own business, however part of his job is preaching hatred of gay men (sorry if any Catholics disagree on that one, but it’s true) – he’s a hypocrite as well as a mouthpiece of bigotry.
And all atheists are arrogant pricks right?
You have no idea how this man feels about gay right. There are a large number of churches willing to marry gay couples if they wish to be married. This could very well be one of them. If this was a catholic church, it could very well be they were mad at him for breaking his vow of chastity, or they could just be mad because you probably shouldn’t display pictures of that sort in a house of the lord.
While in all likelihood the priest is against gay rights, you have no basis for that statement and shouldn’t assume you know how all holy men think.
I don’t claim to know how he thinks – only how the institution for which he is a public mouthpiece behaves. Look at the stroy below this one – Catholic church spends half a million dollars repealing gay marriage laws in Maine!
It doesn’t matter if he has liberal views about gay rights, what matters is that he’s a CATHOLIC priest. The Catholic church’s position is clear – so he’s either a bigot, a hypocrite or both. If he really does have liberal views on gay men (or if he really is gay himself), the only things he could do in order to NOT be a giant hypocritical douce-bag are to either a) Leave the church or b) criticise their possition on gay rights and thereby get kicked out of the church.
Forget to end the italics after “doesn’t matter”, sorry!
You’re forgiven – as paragraphs to emphasize go, that’s certainly a good one.
Yeah, the thing he did wrong was being a priest, not being gay.
Well, if stupidity is inmoral… couldn’t he have said that those photos were from one of his female assistants?
You mean one of his young, male assistants? :)
No, I’m pretty sure I meant one old female assistant. If he would have had a young male assistant he would have been protected by the church :-p
“Masculine cheesecake”
I believe the term is “Beefcake.”
Depnds on the man, n’est pas?
I wonder if the appropriate punishment will be to give him a damn good thrashing? Maybe not, he might actually like it!
Noooow I see why the catholic church is throwing money at defeating gay marriage. They’re afraid if gay marriage is overwhelmingly legalized, they will lose half the priesthood overnight to gay marriages.
Please don’t equate child molesters with consenting gay adults. It is gravely insulting. I doubt the RCC is worried about losing priests to homo marriage any more than they’re worried about losing priests to hetero marriage.
Um, ignore that, confused about what thread I was commenting in, sorry.
I actually thought there was a grain of truth in the first reply you posted :D
Reminds me of when the really hot girl next door came over seeking computer help from me. I turned on my computer – completely forgetting that I had a really hot naked chick for my desktop. Man that sucked.
Could have been worse, you could of had a hot naked picture of her as your desktop … ;-)
Religious people constantly do what their dreamed-up god tells them not to do. They never matured as an adult. I guess we have to treat them like children. This sums up their education:
I’d say it’s hypocritical of the priest not necessarily because it was male cheesecake but because there was porn at all. Isn’t there something about chastity and “purity” of thought in catholicism? Isn’t masturbation a big no no for them?
well, i won’t be posting on this board again. they removed my link. stupid. who’s side are they on? whoever is editing, you suck. adios.
Daniel doesn’t remove things that don’t violate the T&Cs he clearly states. If you violated the T&Cs, that’s your fault not his. Off course, you could just have been hit with a spam filter.
I can see from the page source that you didn’t specify any name for your link (the text that goes between the “a” begin and end tags).
I could post the link you intended to show us, but I don’t think I’ll bother, seeing your attitude.
LOL. HTML fail.