The Parish Gets A Surprise

[+ Lucky]

What's the secret of making a good presentation? Preparation, preparation, preparation. Make sure your slides are in order!

From the Scranton Times-Tribune:

 

Diocesan priest removed for displaying 'inappropriate' photos before Mass

 

BY LAURA LEGERE (STAFF WRITER)

Published: November 3, 2009

 

Related stories

 

 

• Diocese of Scranton priest faces child pornography charges
  

 

 

 

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.

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.

Cardinal Justin Rigali, the interim leader of the diocese, has appointed the Rev. Jeffrey Walsh as the new administrator of St. Anthony, St. Bridget and St. John the Baptist parishes.

In a statement to the congregations on Sunday, the Rev. Walsh said his "abrupt" appointment was necessary because of the "unfortunate" disclosure of the photographs a week earlier.

"This event was greatly disturbing to those who were present at St. Bridget's," he said.

Diocesan leaders have made arrangements for the Rev. Lyman to "receive appropriate care for whatever has led to such behavior on his part," the Rev. Walsh said.

Mr. Genello would not say where the Rev. Lyman is living or where he is receiving treatment. His diocesan address is listed as the St. John the Baptist rectory at 520 Sanderson St. in Throop.

The Rev. Lyman was ordained in 1967. He most recently served as the administrator of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Mary of Czestochowa churches in Archbald before becoming the administrator of the Throop parishes in 2007.

The Rev. Walsh told the Throop congregations on Sunday that Cardinal Rigali is "deeply concerned" for parishioners who were "offended and disturbed by the unfortunate images which were shown last weekend."

He apologized to those who were hurt by the incident.

[rvwnsd]

Perhaps he thought their names were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

[justaguy]

"An attorney for the priest, John Petorak, said the Rev. Timchak didn't physically violate any children or personally create the pornography he is charged with possessing." And this is a defense?

[NYTomcat]

Against the more major criminal charges yes, but not against possession, and not against his parishioners.

[justaguy]

Against his parishioners was what I meant. I'm aware that priests are human etc., but still...he is a priest.

[NYTomcat]

I couldn't agree with you more justaguy. Admittedly we may not know all the facts, but he is a preist often cahrged with the protection and supervision of his flocks children. I'd rather err on the side of seperating him from the parish than risk the kids.

[+ Lucky]

For the record, the Reverend Timchak is the priest discussed in the linked story, not the guy who showed the photos of scantily-clad guys to the parish.

[Lookin]

I'll grant you, St. Bridget's Church isn't the place, and five minutes before Sunday Mass isn't the time, to accidentally show the parishioners four photos of "minimally attired adult males". But I'd like to think that the earnest congregants have more pressing issues to be "offended and disturbed" by, that the most worshipful Cardinal Rigali has other things he could be "deeply concerned" about, and that the dutiful Diocesan leaders might find other priorities than to shove the Reverend Lyman off somewhere to "receive appropriate care for whatever has led to such behavior on his part".

 

Call me simplistic, but the guy likes to look at pictures of other guys and his private predilection became public with the push of an errant button. Is there really a need to fire up the brimstone over a visual that can most likely be found in any checkout line in the market where mom bought the Sunday pot roast?

 

Right here, in my opinion, one can see the seeds of ecclesiastical hypocrisy being dropped into the ground and sprinkled with ritual drops of piety. Imagine if the guy had the hots for Levi Johnston!

 

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2009/news/090608/levi_johnston1.jpg

[Guest zipperzone]

"An attorney for the priest, John Petorak, said the Rev. Timchak didn't physically violate any children or personally create the pornography he is charged with possessing." And this is a defense?

 

Don't you think it's a stretch to describe it as pornography? How Puritan are you anyway?

[justaguy]

It's more than that. As a priest in the Catholic church, the standard he is held to is higher. He knew that as he trained to be a priest. The "ritual drops of piety" are the ones he vowed to lived by.

[Lookin]

It's more than that. As a priest in the Catholic church, the standard he is held to is higher. He knew that as he trained to be a priest. The "ritual drops of piety" are the ones he vowed to lived by.

 

I guess that's the piece I don't get. I grew up in the Lutheran Church, and we had all the "Thou Shalt's" and "Thou Shalt Not's", but it was explicit that we all were sinners. We all did our best to follow the rules, but there wasn't any priestly class that vowed never to stray. Even the pastor admitted to the occasional sin. I've always looked askance at any mortal who signs up for God-like perfection. I don't recall God expecting that any human would be able to resist all temptation, even if he tried his very best all the time.

 

I'm not sure if it's the priests themselves who volunteer never to screw up, or if it's the rest of us who require them to, but I've never asked any of my fellow humans to be perfect. I like it when they try their best, as most of us do, but I just can't get all worked up when one of them proves human.

 

Are there people who really expect priests to be free of sin? Are they the ones who expect the same of politicians? Or entertainers? How can anyone live up to those standards? I'm not saying they shouldn't try their best, as we all should, but I don't see the advantage of setting up a class of humans who are supposed to be perfect. Other than to wag our fingers or make fun of them when they inevitably fall short. But that brings me no joy, as I all too easily put myself in their place, and imagine all that wagging and laughing aimed in my direction.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, or to judge anyone's beliefs. I just haven't yet come to understand the hullabaloo when someone - anyone - is discovered to have made a fairly common human mistake that doesn't cause great harm to another. Based in part on Christian teachings, I've always wondered about folks who put themselves up on a pedestal of perfection. And lately I've started wondering about those of us who help put them up there.

 

Thanks in advance for any insights.

[+ Lucky]

For the record, I couldn't be a priest who doesn't engage in a little lustful activity now and then, although I would hope it would only be with adults.

At one church we attended as a boy, the pastor was clearly in a relationship with the housekeeper and no one really seemed to mind.

[KMEM]

Lookin-

 

I like your insights. I also agree that perhaps "we" should be mostly at fault for having unrealistic expectations of others or even ourselves. I think that means being responsible for our own actions which would include how we regard others. Live and let live is a good motto but further than that, if we elect crooks, we shouldn't be surprised; and, as you say, if we find that our pastors, priests and other leaders, whether spiritual or corporeal, have feet of clay, we should take our full share of responsibility for enabling them, permitting them to continue and for helping them to do better.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[MsGuy]

"I guess that's the piece I don't get."

 

Lookin, you & I were raised in a Protestant tradition and and have a fundamentaly different understanding of the office & function of the clergy. Near as I can tell from listening to Catholic friends gossip about their priests, they have no expection of flawless perfection but do somehow combine that realism with a sense that being a priest confers some kind of special magical holiness. No stranger, really, than a Luthern believing in salvation by grace alone or a Calvinist believing in predestination. It's all in what was drilled into your head as a kid.

[justaguy]

I'm not sure that this will make any sense to folks not raised in the Catholic tradition. Yes, priests are human beings, but they're not the average guy on the street. They are set apart, by the clerical garb, by celebacy, by their vows. That the price they have elected to pay to participate in the power of the priesthood. As such they are held to a higher standard. And when they fall, it's felt a little bit more because of that.

[Guest DuchessIvanaKizznhugg]

Just wondering....

 

As such they are held to a higher standard.

 

Please excuse my ignorance, but by whom are they held to a higher standard?

Themselves?

Catholics at large?

 

[Lookin]

Thanks for the responses, guys. They're very helpful. Yours in particular, justaguy, gave me a perspective I hadn't fully appreciated before. While it doesn't surprise me that men of the cloth can wander off the narrow path, it sounds like some (many? all?) Catholics are surprised and find it very distressing when it happens.

 

Have you, or others, noticed any shift of attitudes within the Catholic church as a result of the recent publicity involving errant preists? Is there more sympathy for those who commit minor transgressions? Or are there even stronger efforts to make sure it doesn't happen again?

 

Don't mean to ask you to assume the role of spokesman for the entire Church, but it seems you have given the issue some careful thought.

 

Thanks again for sharing your perspectives.

[justaguy]

By both the Church as a whole and by their parishoners. Goggle the powers of a priest to see why he needs to be.

[justaguy]

I am hardly the spokesman for the Church. At this point, I still enjoy the Mass, but don't take communion and quite probably don't believe in God, especially an anthropomorphic one. I don't know about the rest of the world, but things are changing in America. The biggest problem is the Church's stand on contraception. While that may have been workable when most babies died, it isn't today. What that's doing is forcing couples to abstain or lie or have rediculously large families. They're not abstaining. Many couples that I know are either nominally Catholic or are thinking of leaving the Church alltogether.

[Zapped]

The Pope is surrounded by images of nude males, but this guy gets sent for treatment

 

Don't you think it's a stretch to describe it as pornography? How Puritan are you anyway?

 

The pronouns make this all confusing. Remember there are two different priests being discussed in this thread, who in different posts each get referred to as "he."

 

Fr. Timchak is charged with possessing actual child pornography.

 

The other one, Fr. Lyman, the subject of the article Lucky pasted in, mistakenly showed the "minimally clothed" adult men to his parishoners. The paper which ran that article also had a link to the Timchak article as a "related story" (or something like that).

 

Lyman's not charged with possessing porn of any sort. He's just being treated as if he had a disease because he likes looking at male bodies.

 

Now, how is it that the Pope lives and works in a place filled with statues and paintings of hunky nude guys, including all over the Sistine Chapel, but this poor guy has to go into a treatment program? If he'd accidentally shown a slide of Michelangelo's David would be in trouble? No way. Because, I suppose, the sensual focus of the photos is undisguised, rather than sublimated.

[+ Lucky]

You zapped it. I've been to the Vatican, and the art is enough to keep a gay guy happy for days.

[Guest zipperzone]

I'm not sure that this will make any sense to folks not raised in the Catholic tradition. Yes, priests are human beings, but they're not the average guy on the street. They are set apart, by the clerical garb, by celebacy, by their vows. That the price they have elected to pay to participate in the power of the priesthood. As such they are held to a higher standard. And when they fall, it's felt a little bit more because of that.

 

The POWER of the priesthood? You've got to be kidding. Who the hell do they (and you?) think they are?

[Lookin]

Zipperzone, I'm not sure anger is justified here, as I asked for insights from others who had different experiences and perspectives from mine; but, if it is, please direct it at me rather than those who took the trouble to respond. Thanks.

[Guest zipperzone]

Zipperzone, I'm not sure anger is justified here, as I asked for insights from others who had different experiences and perspectives from mine; but, if it is, please direct it at me rather than those who took the trouble to respond. Thanks.

 

Actually it was not anger, just a touch of incredibility. The word POWER set me off and still does.