|
Published: July 28, 2009
In the rectory and in the sacristy
Retired priest of Orange diocese arrested on felony child-abuse charges in sexual molestation allegations dating back to 1992
 Police arrested a 75-year-old retired priest of the Orange diocese on July 20 as he was playing cards at Leisure World in Seal Beach, the Orange County District attorney announced in a press release. Fr. Denis Lyons was charged with repeatedly sexually abusing a boy in the rectory and the sacristy of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Costa Mesa between 1992 and 1995, the district attorney said.
Fr. Lyons had previously been charged in 2003 with the repeated sexual abuse of another boy between 1978 and 1981, but those charges were dismissed following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a California law extending the statute of limitations in such cases was unconstitutional. In addition, said the district attorney, two other alleged victims of the now retired priest provided corroboration of the molestations but charges were never filed because of the statute of limitations. The three boys, said the district attorney, attended parish school at St. John the Baptist, where Fr. Lyons served as a priest.
Following his arrest, Fr. Lyons was booked into the county jail at Harbor Justice Center in Newport Beach on $100,000 bail, charged with four felony counts of lewd acts on a child under the age of 14, said the district attorney. In addition, a charge of “substantial sexual conduct with a child” was added, which would require a mandatory sentence of 14 years if Fr. Lyons is convicted. According to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Fr. Lyons posted bail and was released from jail at 4 p.m. on Thursday, July 23.
In addition to working as a priest at St. John the Baptist in Costa Mesa, Fr. Lyons also served at St. Edwards the Confessor in Dana Point and at St. Mary’s by the Sea in Huntington Beach, the district attorney said. Investigators have asked that anyone with information pertinent to the case or anyone who believes he or she may have been a victim of sexual abuse by Fr. Lyons to contact the DA’s investigative supervisor, Tim Craig, at (714) 347-8558, or Costa Mesa detective Mike Manson at (714) 754-5360.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the Orange diocese earlier this year announced it had reached a settlement with a 24-year-old man who sued the diocese, alleging he had been abused repeatedly by Fr. Lyons while he was in the second grade at St. John the Baptist parish school. KTLA News reported, “Several people have accused Lyons of sexual abuse, prompting the Diocese of Orange to pay out $4 million to settle such sex abuse claims.”
Ryan Lilyengren, a spokesman for the diocese, told the Times that Fr. Lyons had been removed from active ministry in 2002. "Rev. Lyons has not been permitted to return to ministry or the Diocese of Orange in any public capacity since his removal," Lilyengren told the Times.
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:22 AM By C. M. Henry
From comments by Ryan Lilyengren, a spokesman for the Diocese of Orange it sounds like Denis Lyons is just another retired priest IN GOOD STANDING & SUPPORTED BY THE CHURCH.
Is this true? Why is it that he and other like him continue to be supported by the diocese which means money from ordinary peoples' pockets, even those abused or their families who have never come forward and chose to continue their church membership?
Why hasn't Ryan been laicized and defrocked? And who paid his bail when he should remain in jail as a known sexual predator?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:22 AM By Richard Flores
Who has paid for all of his legal bills? It sounds as if this man is sick and should have been admitted for psychiatric care a long time ago! However, we all know how the anti-Catholic media loves to nail a priest!
I guess that I look at this many ways...First, there is never any excuse for this type of sin...ever! Second, if he did it, I don't doubt that someone knew about his problem long before it was revealed! Third, I also know that many of the claims against priests are false. My first question would be, "Did he ever confess his sins to his confessor?" If so, his confessor is guilty, too. (He is bound to STOP any type of felony that a priest is involved with by whatever means are necessary. At the very least, he should have been immediately relieved if he is guilty.)
I just pray that anyone associated with this comes clean and this gets resolved properly. If he is guilty, he's guilty. If not, then defend him. As the bible demands, we must be above reproach!
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:02 AM By Kay Ebeling
Where do all these priests and bishops get the money for bail and high powered attorneys? They always seem to have it. . .
Kay Ebeling, Producer
City of Angels Network cityofangels5.blogspot.com
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:55 AM By Greg Bullough
Mr. Flores: How do you "know that many of the claims against priests are false?" Or is that just as you would wish it to be? The fact is that juries as well as dioceses and religious orders paying settlements out of court don't believe that these claims are false. And in many, if not most, cases when you look at the historical record you find that multiple accusers have made multiple accusations totally independently and unaware of one another. In many cases only to be lied to and told "you're the first" or "you're the only one."
How is the media "anti Catholic?" Does telling the truths which the bishops, monsignors, and superiors have as a matter of policy tried to cover up for decades make them so?
And who is more "anti Catholic" anyway. Let's not forget, shall we that the vast, vast, majority of abuse victims were Catholic kids, many more devout that most (which put them in harm's way more often and made them more vulnerable). So it was Catholics who were injured, and Catholics who were not protected by those in power. So who is "anti Catholic?" The abusive clerics who destroy faith and psyches, the clergy who protected them, rather than the victims, or the media who report these crimes as they would report a Watergate or a Manson murder?
As to confession, what if the confessor is himself an abuser? We know that these guys operated together. How can someone who has his own dirty laundry find a means, or even a desire, to air one of this brother priests' transgressions?
Before you make pronouncements, take time to learn about these issues from the inside, with your eyes and ears open.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:04 AM By Abeca Christian
This news just made my stomach want to puke. God have mercy on us. God help this innocent child heal from this.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:17 AM By Clean House
The Diocese of Orange is not interested in holiness. The Diocese of Orange needs a thorough housecleaning. There will be continued problems until we receive a holy new Bishop and Catholics refuse to pay for sin in the collection basket and finance expensive homosexual lifestyles.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:30 AM By Willi H
The Bishops of this country never cease to amaze me. They cannot admit they were wrong about letting certain types into the priesthood since V2 and are willing to bankrupt their diocese instead of driving these predators from our midst! Fr. Lyons is entitled to his day in court but if he is convicted...off to prison!
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:52 AM By lome
Another one bites the dust.
It will be an act of mercy to deny gays to enter the seminaries.
Putting a sex confused and the diehards among unsuspecting
and trusting novices will be toooooo much temptations.
Only exposes them to damnation.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:36 AM By JLS
If he goes to prison, there he'll meet some who were seriously abused as children. He does not look too healthy, so maybe this will be his time to begin penance.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:50 AM By JLS
Greg B., I'm not convinced that the victims were the most devout. Devotion brings with it the power and authority of God in defense of oneself. It is more likely that the victims were betrayed by slothful parents and communities which worshiped the clergy or ignored them. It is tantemount to selling one's child to the pimps of temple prostitution. Look at the fact that half the Catholic voters installed the arch abortionist Obama as the most powerful ruler on earth. It is the same type of naiivite' that entrusts children to perverts. Parents have the obligation to God and neihgbor to protect their children at all costs. This requires them to stay married, keep to devotion instead of drunkeness, keep up to the minute with the child's daily life, sacrifice their time goofing around to spending it wisely with and for their children. This goes for the neighbors and parish acquaintenances of people whose marriages ended or been widowed, and make sure that children are accounted for: This is why priests are called "Father" and not "Dude". Now even if victims themselves were devout, it is likely that those who were charged to protect them were negligent, and share in the sin that cries out to God for vengeance. An example of how people should protect the innocent can be found in various saints who gave their lives keeping the Sacred Hosts from sacrilege. But now look at how well the Blessed Sacrament is protected from sacrilege, what with the scumbucket politicians claiming to be Catholic yet being rabid abortionists and sodomite advocates and still being given Holy Communion: This is where the buck stops, the perpetrators of sacrilege against the most defenseless of all, the most humble of all, Jesus Christ both unborn baby and God.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:54 AM By Frank A. Lostaunau
The rape of children by clergy is about criminal behavior that harms children and that has been covered up by bishops.
Thank you courageous survivors for speaking and reporting this child molester to the police.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:33 PM By Gregory
Richard Flores, Canon 983 states, "The sacramental seal is inviolable. Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent, for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion."
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 12:49 PM By In The Choir Loft
That's where most of my abuse took place. And sometimes down on the church floor, in the Divine Presence of the Blessed Sacrament. And when the abuse was discovered, I was branded the aggressor.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:16 PM By Gregory
Also Canon 984, "A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time."
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 1:39 PM By Georgina
I had lunch with some other Catholic ladies yesterday. One lady remembered that, when this Father Lyons used to say Mass at her parish, he would insist on placing the Blessed Sacrament on the tongues of the recipients, refusing to place the Consecrated Host in the palms of their hands. I found this to be significant because a pedophile priest that was assigned to our parish was also very, "static" about conserative ritualism, and yet lived a life of sacriligous depravity. Leaves one to wonder what goes on in the scambled minds of these men who have spent years in study and training in order to serve the Lord, yet cannot tell the difference between good and evil as it pertains to them and the way they personally live their lives.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:24 PM By Mark from PA
To lome: We don't know if this man was sexually active at all with adults, male or female. He was a pedophile. It is not fair to punish one person for the sins of another. The point isn't gays in the ministry. Priests need to be faithful to their vow of celibacy. Would you kick heterosexual men out of the seminaries because some priests cheat with women? Greg, I agree with most of what you said, it is sad but true. Those priests who abused and bishops who covered for them should hang their heads in shame. Don't blame the media, they have done us a service, hopefully bringing this out in the open has saved numerous innocents from this garbage.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:16 PM By Bob
The priest will go to jail, no doubt. But what about the bishop who moved him from one church to another, who hid the pedophilia of other priest. He too belongs in jail. In jail for life is not to short.
These bishops are the ones who are trully depraved. Let's get them out of the nursing homes and put them in jail where they belong.
At this point, in this country, bishops have no moral authority. We need to clean house and bring the chruch back to the people.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:00 PM By MarkF
Mark from PA, you are willfully blind. This man preyed only on boys. As that Church documents said, there is a connection here between homosexuality and the abuse. You act as if homosexuality had nothing to do with this. Your standards would put these same people back into contact with kids. You can't get a group of homosexuals together without getting a lot of child abuse, substance abuse and. dissent. But you're right, we don't know if he was sexually active with adults. If we knew that he was, how much would you bet that he was only sexually active with men? I'd bet $1,000 or more. Thank God that Pope Benedict is in charge here. And we don't know why the bishops covered this up. They've been mostly silent. That awful ex-bishop from Milwaukee is a homosexual and he covered up other homosexuals who abused young boys. Hmmm. Perhaps there's a pattern here.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:12 PM By JLS
PA, the point is indeed "gays in ministry": the Pope says no.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:14 PM By JLS
Gregory, a confessor can prohibit a homosexualist from the Sacraments and can tell him not to apply to seminary, or have you never heard of penance?
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 8:54 PM By JLS
I still maintain that the purpose of Vatican II was to out the corruption by tearing away the veneer used by unscroupulous blasphemers to hide their sins and crimes. When the Pope was a Cdl he wrote that he preferred the Latin Mass and hoped for its return, but thought it would not happen for a long time if ever. It likely will take a long time to roust the pervs out of the hierarchy to a satisfactory degree.
|
Posted Tuesday, July 28, 2009 11:05 PM By mark4four
Willi H, would you kindly explain the connection between a 75-year-old priest’s molestation of children and “letting certain types into the priesthood since V2”? Vatican II ran from the early to mid 1960s. Unless this man entered seminary at a very late age, he most likely was let into the priesthood via admission to the seminary a good five to 10 years before the Council even started.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:46 AM By Victoria
JLS, this article is about children being raped by a priest, and you go on about "scumbucket" politicians and abortion. I thought we were not allowed to go off topic on this blog. Stick with the story at hand... Scumbucket priests who rape and sodomize little children.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:41 AM By canisius
Mark from PA is again defending the sodomite, yes it as about gays in the priesthood. No gay men should be admitted to the priesthood, it is already infested with enough of them. Allowing gays in the priesthood is like allowing alcoholics to be bartenders. Homosexuality is a disease
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:51 AM By Greg Bullough
JLS come back after having advocated for and worked with survivors of clergy abuse and exploitation, and tell me about the profiles of the abused. Come back after hearing hundreds of their heart-breaking stories.
For one thing it is absolutely absurd for you to assert that their devotion would somehow equip the to defend themselves. That is just blaming the victim.
No, these predators used the interest these children and young adults showed in their religion to "groom" them for abuse. What is worse is that the interest the priests and religious showed in their youngsters was, for devout Catholic families, a blessing and a boon.
It was wonderful that "Father" would invite Jimmy to go to a weekend retreat he was running; or that Suzy was working to help answer the phone in the rectory after school. "You make sure you do what Father says, now."
And when Jimmy or Suzy came home with a story of how Father put his hands (or worse) where they didn't belong, it was as often as not either "You must have misunderstood. Father would never do such a thing." Or, in some cases, "How dare you say such a thing about a good priest like Father Pervis! After all he's done for us!"
These are the stories that I have heard, time after time. There are plenty of places to read them and to listen to them.
Come back and tell us how it is when you've spent some time with the survivors.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:20 AM By The Truth Hurts
MarkfromPA asks, "Would you kick heterosexual men out of the seminaries because some men cheat with women?" The simple answer is "NO" because men who have an attraction to women are not disordered in their attraction. Men who are attracted to other men have disordered thoughts that may lead them to un-natural actions. Priests or seminarians or husbands or single men who sadly choose to commit mortal sin because of cheating with women are capable of repenting and stopping. Some of them do repent and some secretly continue. God is never fooled and they will be held accountable. There are homosexual priests that think like MarkfromPA and they do not accept the Church's teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and un-natural. Celibate or not this disordered thinking influences countless bad judgments and appallingly bad advice due to their very disordered thinking. They should not be ordained.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:44 AM By Mark from PA
Well, Canisius, do you consider CELIBATE gay men to be sodomites? From some of the things you have stated here, JLS, you consider men who have had sex with men to be homosexuals. So do you consider any celibate men to be "gay?" Mark F, I am saying that it is not right to punish celibate gay priests for the offenses of others. This isn't any more proper than punishing a straight priest because another straight priest had a girlfriend.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:17 AM By JLS
Victoria, it is not priests alone or bishops alone, but the community, which allows this corruption ... and the community is led by voters and their corrupt henchmen aka scumbucket politicians and abortioneers. The topic as I perceive it is corruption and its tribal chiefs.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:40 AM By Trudy
I am puzzled. This story about Father Lyons is on line on Abuse Track, but cannpt be found on calcatholic.com. Why?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:14 PM By MarkF
When the implementation of Vatican II was highjacked in the 1960's it was highjacked by a generation of dissenters who were in the Church all along. It is not that homosexuals were not already in the priesthood before Vatican II. They were in there, and probably for many reasons. And they were in there in great numbers. What happened after Vatican II is that they gained a sense of entitlement to their sexual behavior, combined with the very pre-Vatican II sense of their own entitlements as priests to be protected by the Church. No matter how you slice it, homosexuals men are not allowed to priests, and any opposition to that puts the priests needs and dedication to the cause of homosexuality above that of the kids. BTW, this policy is not new, it goes back AT LEAST to Pope John XXIII.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:15 PM By MarkF
Canisius, tone it down a bit, can you? The use of the word infested is too strong.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:05 PM By Carefully
The comments here reflect the most base, ignorant and prejudice ridden thinking patterns regarding homosexuals and same-sex orientation. Sexual orientation is certainly a core reality of a human's life. However, pedophilia is NOT a "disease of orientation". It is a distortion of sexual activity. Humans do not "choose" their sexual orientation. They do choose to act sexually. At times the choice is distorted or deformed by a sexual disorder, e.g., pedophilia. As the DSM-IV (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental and Emotional Disorders) defines it, pedophilia is a "period of at least 6 months (of) recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)." Think, prior to raving, please!
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:50 PM By Ed Garber
Mark from PA, you bring up a good point. According to the Church, homosexuality is "between MEN (or between women) who experience an exclusive of predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex". However, the second grader (a 7-year-old) in the story was not a man, and so the alleged incident was not "between men". Sexual relations between a man and a 7-year-old would suggest pedophilia, not homosexuality. We cannot tell from the story that the man has ever had sexual relations with men or women, or if he even experiences any sexual attraction whatsoever toward adults or even toward anyone age 14 or older. The only ages mentioned in the story are a second grader (7-years old) and an incident involving a young boy vaguely and legally described as "under the age of 14". Recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children ("generally age 13 years or younger") is the diagnostic hallmark of pedophilia, not homosexuality. Indeed, St. John the Baptist parish school teaches only children generally age 13 years or younger. It has no high school. MarkF asks, "if the man was sexually active with adults... how much would you bet that he was only sexually active with men." In general, studies show that most male pedophiles, including those who molest little boys, who are sexually with adults are sexually active with women not men. And it should also be noted that the "if" in MarkF's question is a big "if", because fixated pedophiles are primarily if not exclusively attracted to children only, even though, in fact, many are married (or are priests). A full 60% of the priest abuse scandal involved children aged 13 and under, and 19% of the alleged victims were girls not boys.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:11 PM By Ed Garber
Quoting from the USCCB website which publishes the article entitled "Priest Pedophiles", written by Melvin C. Blanchette, S.S., director of the Vatican II Institute at St. Patrick's Seminary, Menlo Park, Calif. and Gerald D. Coleman, S.S., president/rector of the seminary. Both have written extensively in areas of priestly formation and human sexuality. They state: "Studies in the area of sexuality and psychosexual development have demonstrated that there are five basic sexual orientations." They then list the five as: (1) Heterosexual; (2) Homosexual; (3) Bisexual; (4) Fixated pedophile: Possesses a primary sexual desire toward children between 1 and 13, with the victim being at least five years younger than the perpetrator; and (5) Fixated ephebophile: Possesses a primary sexual desire toward children between 14 and 17, with the adolescent victim being at least five years younger than the perpetrator. The authors go on to say: "The fixated pedophile's and the ephebophile's sexual desire is intense and recurrent and represents a serious psychological and developmental impairment. By way of contrast, a regressed pedophile or ephebophile is USUALLY A HETEROSEXUAL, who under extreme stress regresses to developmentally impaired behavior and engages in sex with children... These distinctions should help to clarify the definition of a pedophile and ephebophile and to show that a pedophile or ephebophile is normally not a homosexual, as he or she has no interest in adult sexual relations." And, "fixated pedophiles and ephebophiles are typically developmentally arrested, psycho sexually immature, non-assertive, HETEROSEXUALLY INHIBITED, lacking in social skills and without a basic knowledge of sexuality. They have a need for control, and a child becomes for them a pliant and manipulative object."
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:14 PM By Mark from PA
Greg B, thank you for your testimony. You are so right. Truth, some men who have an attraction to women are also disordered in their attraction. Witness the many cases of sexual abuse and violence against women by such disordered men. Some women have lost their lives at the hands of such men. Gay people don't have to repent for being homosexual or stop being gay. They may have to repent for actions they have committed.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:25 PM By Ed Garber
To "The Truth Hurts", the Church teaches that all mankind has a disordered inclination called concupiscence. Concupiscence expresses itself in many ways, sometimes homosexually and sometimes heterosexually. Attraction to fornication, adultery, masturbation and indeed lust itself a disordered attraction. The Church teaches, "Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure." And that's true whether it's homosexual or heterosexual. To quote you, "this disordered thinking influences countless bad judgments and appallingly bad advice due to their very disordered thinking." Again, that would apply whether it's homosexual or heterosexual disordered thinking.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:27 PM By Mark from PA
Mark F, you state, "No matter how you slice it, homosexual men are not allowed to be priests." Well, I say that many homosexual men are priests and this has always been true. We have even had homosexual Popes. I think I have stated before that sexually active gay men (& also hetero men) should not be ordained. So we are in agreement here. Do you truly believe that gay seminarians and priests who are celibate should be labeled "gay" and thrown out? Do they have a right to keep their orientation to themselves or should they all be "outed"?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:21 PM By Victoria
JLS, I sure wish you had been up there in that choir loft so many years ago, so's you could have explained all that to me; maybe even shared those thoughts with the pedophile priest who did those monstrous things to me. Do you suppose the Servants of the Paraclete went over all that with him? Go on, JLS, this is the point where you insult and belittle the thousands of victims, myself included, who were sexually butchered by Roman Catholic Clergy. Some of my fellow victims have returned to the Church; some have even followed their hearts, entered into late vocations and are now happily secured in, "The Life". I honor their courage and dedication because, if the Catholic Church is to survive SHE must change. Perhaps the Victims have been designated by the Almighty to lead that change.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 6:53 PM By Mark from PA
Ed Garber, you have made some interesting points here. In regard to ephebophilia, do most people grow out of this? For example, over time do they mature to the point where they no longer have intense desires towards teens? For example, a man might be interested in females 5 to 10 years younger than he is but as he ages into his 30's and 40's this is not really a problem.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:13 PM By MarkF
I am so tired of this. The one fact that cannot be disputed is that it is now and has been Church policy for quite some time not to have priests who are predominantly homosexual or who support the gay philosophy. The official policy from the time of John XXIII till now has been that chastity and celibacy are not the issue but the inclination is. Period. Now guys, get over it and move on.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:36 PM By The Truth Hurts
Ed Garber is exhibiting the classic dodge and switch the subject blame game. Homosexual acts are un-naturally disordered. Men who struggle with this disorder should simply not be priests. MarkfromPA and Ed Garber are perfect examples of the confusion and error that a disordered priest can cause. Some might refer to this tactic as the selective diversities version of "Cafeteria Catholicism". Catholics should defend Church Teaching and should always resist mixing truth with deceptive arguments. Falsehoods that primarily seek to salve or defend a disordered conscience and cause confusion are always transparent. They in essence are not "outed" by anyone but themselves.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 7:37 PM By Ed Garber
The current rule is in regard to admission to ordination, not who is "allowed to be priests" (as Mark from PA points out they are not the same). The rule says persons who "practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support so-called 'gay culture'" and persons with "homosexual tendencies... of a transitory problem" that have not been "clearly overcome at least three years prior to ordination" are not to be admitted to ordination. As such, the rule does not per se exclude all "homosexual persons" or all persons with a "homosexual orientation". The rule does not use those terms. Different people have different opinions on what those words mean, but the rule leaves it to the rector's "own judgment on whether the qualities required by the Church are present in the candidate."
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:17 PM By JLS
PA, I typically use the word "gay" to indicate involvement with an ideology or political movement. Someone with a same sex attraction would be homosexual only if they move in the direction of the impulse: I consider the concept "homosexual" to refer to the potential to sin homosexually. I favor the idea that all men are heterosexual, and that "homosexual" applies to those who associate same sex people with their sexual lusts. If there is no lust, then how can there possibly be an attraction? And if no attraction, then how can someone be homosexual? In this view, then, men are all heterosexual; some of these heterosexual men direct their lust towards men, making them homosexual as well. It's like a poison frosting on the cake of heterosexuality. This explains all situations: It explains why some homosexual men can turn from it totally. It explains why some men do not want to ... and this accords with all Scriptural accounts of this sort of thing. It especially accounts for the call of God for man to repent of homosexual attraction and this is noted in St Paul where he tells us that some Christians were (past tense) effeminate or homosexuals. Same sex attraction is not a natural state, and God has tasked man with redeeming creation, thus turning from such things as homosexual orientation and activity. This is why some accuse Jesus, the Redeemer of man, with being homosexual ... so that they can claim that God allows it and does not insist that they change their ways. In union with Jesus, the Redeemer, man is tasked to change the wicked ways of the world including himself and all others. "Gay" seminarians fly in the face of redemption as you can see from my explanation; they rebuke the call of God to redeem the world. And because of this, they do not take part in redemption, and thus do not fulfill their priesthood, but mock it.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 8:41 PM By JLS
Garber, you'd be better off with Magisterial guidelines rather than the opinionated stuff you're quoting. BTW, there is a difference between natural disorders and unnatural disorders ... an enormous difference. But the consequences of natural disorders when they are unrestrained toss such people into the state of unnatural disorders. Why? Because it is natural to try to repair what is wrong. It is unnatural to not try to repair what is wrong. It is easier to repair damaged nature than anything that is unnatural. There is a significant line between natural and unnatural things. God can work with damaged nature, but working with that which is unnatural is not so easy even for God ... to wit, He had to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because their condition of unnaturalness had become so extreme. But also there was the whole planet that God drowned, saving only eight people and various animals so as to start anew. This is Jesus now in this role, of wiping away sin and restoring nature to its intended condition. I don't imagine Garber is interested in this view, but maybe some readers are.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 9:33 PM By Victoria
For all of you who have mocked the Victims, insulted us, even spat in our faces, it was worth it. because we have been the cause for change; and because of us, for the first time in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, HER Children are safer. Yes, we have brought you such terrible news about your priests, and other clergy. Believe us, it was not our idea. WE no more asked to be sexually victimized, than an unborn fetus asks to be aborted.
One Sunday, when we leafletted a Parish in California, a woman screamed at us, "YOU HAVE RUINED OUR SUNDAY"!!!! One of our people answered quietly, "Better to have your Sunday ruined than to have your entire lives ruined". However, not all contacts with the Faithful have been harsh or cruel. Many Catholics have thanked us for warning them about the possible dangers to their children, or grandchildren. Some parishes where we expected harsh treatment, we were treated with nothing but kindness and consideration. Yet, at another parish, a lady told me, "OK, he (meaning the priest in question) did it, but other than "that" he is a good priest". When I said, "But what if the victim was your child"? She said, "I can always have more children. It is hard to find a good priest". And there you have the mentality of a people who love their priests more than their children. And we must ask ourselves, Is THIS What Our Lord Intended For Us? Must Our Children Be Sacrificed For The Pleasures Of Sinful Men, And On Occassion, Women? NO!! I Don't Believe That. A Millstone Around The Neck Reminds Us That Children Are Not Meant For The Lusts Of Adults, Men, OR Women. GOD HELP US, JUST LET THEM BE CHILDREN!!!!! Let them enjoy the innocent joys that we (the Victims) will never know. PLEASE, Let Your CHILDREN Come First!!!!!
If you post this, I will be most grateful.
GOD Bless You.
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:54 PM By JLS
PA, what are the names of the popes you claim are homosexual?
|
Posted Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:56 PM By Maniple
If this guy beats the rap don't surprised to see him pop up covering weekend masses in the diocese of Fresno
|
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:04 AM By Ed Garber
Mark from PA, in answer to your question "In regard to ephebophilia, do most people grow out of this?" Two answers: "We don't know" and "probably not" are perhaps as good as any at the present time. The available research in this area is extremely sketchy. Even the terms themselves such as ephebophilia vs hebephilia vs pedophilia are not consistently defined among researchers. For example, researchers have been using different terminology in different countries, at different universities, with different age cutoffs, some going by apparent age and some by physical age, some by feelings and some by behavior. It’s difficult to objectively identify who is or was an ephebophile in the general population, particularly when one must rely on subjective feelings and self-reports. Phallometric testing can be highly unreliable and is not something most people will agree to. In all, it's difficult to know how common it is. Often, research is done on persons who’ve been in trouble with the law or who have serious reasons to present themselves to the attention of researchers and thus might not be representative of ephebophiles in the general population. Some say it’s far more common than people think. Some suggest that the likelihood of "growing out" of ephebophilia is greater than for pedophilia but less than for homosexuality. Some even tie it to a person’s height with pedophiles on average being a bit shorter than ephebophiles being a bit shorter than the general population at large, suggesting that it’s a relatively fixed thing, either directly or indirectly. In general, pedophilia has gotten much more attention from researchers, but still we know very little about it. Available treatment options for pedophile offenders have made relatively significant progress only fairly recently. Research in all these areas is mostly fueled by law enforcement interests than any other reason.
|
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:11 AM By Ed Garber
MarkF, attraction to the same sex is not the "inclination" or "tendencies" the Church speaks of in regard to non-admission to ordination. Rather, the "inclination" or "tendencies" in that regard is the inclination to engage in homosexuality. While many people who experience attraction to the same sex may also have an inclination to engage in homosexuality, they are not the same thing. In other words, a person can experience same-sex attraction without being inclined to engage in homosexuality. Every day, I see many sexy women (and I suppose there are also men too) to whom I might experience sexual attraction, but I'm not inclined to engage in sexual acts with them any more than I’d be inclined to rob or rape the bank teller or dance down the lane of a busy highway. Likewise, I might see a catchy item in the store that attracts my attention, but that does not mean I’m inclined to buy it or steal it. The same applies to people who experience attraction to persons of the same sex. Sexual attraction and inclination to engage in sinful acts are not the same thing. Thus, a person can be "homosexual" in that he tends to experience same-sex attraction rather than opposite-sex attraction but not be "inclined" to engage in homosexuality. The rule on ordination is specific in that it addresses the inclination/tendency to engage in homosexuality. It does not address and thus does not per se restrict persons who may be homosexual (i.e. attracted to the same sex).
|
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:15 AM By Ed Garber
To "The Truth Hurts" and JLS, the Ten Commandments are a privileged expression of the natural law ordered by God. Sexual sins in violation of the Ten Commandments, whether those sins are homosexual or heterosexual, are contrary to the natural law and are disordered. For example, the Church teaches that fornication is "gravely contrary to… human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children." Fornication, lust, adultery, masturbation, etc. are all disordered and contrary to the natural law.
|
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:30 AM By MarkF
Ed Garber, you said, "Different people have different opinions on what those words mean..." Yes we know that those who are in dissent with the Church will distort these rules all the while claiming fidelity. You don't have to remind us.
|
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:12 AM By JLS
Victoria, I have never mocked victims of sex abuse. I have seen scores of them, children, and noted how obvious their "living" scars. I have no sympathy for the likes of this man, and only contempt for him in his utter mockery of God by presenting himself as an "alter Christus", the absolute dregs of blasphemy, sacrilege, abomination, etc. His ilk are the ones chasing the Woman with twelve stars and Child who are saved by the desert ... yes, it is men such as this one who embody the great dragon who terrorizes the faithful.
|
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:09 PM By The Truth Hurts
Our compassion and mercy should absolutely be shown to the victims. We must have contempt for the evil actions but not the individual. This is a Catholic priest who needs God's Mercy more than ever. Only God knows what may have happened in his childhood to have this perversion. It does not excuse the action or remove the horrendous pain but as Catholics we must realize the extra victory for the devil when we speak of having contempt for this very lost soul. The victims were innocent and have nothing to be ashamed of. Please don't let the great dragon who terrorizes the faithful cause us to forget one of the most difficult tenets of our faith. To pray for the conversion of our enemies and for all sinners. Especially our fallen priests. How joyful is the devil to receive the soul of a priest? As evil as these actions are, we the faithful must remember to pray for their conversion and God's Mercy.
|
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:18 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS you bring up good points on you post on July 28, 2009 11:50 AM By JLS. Very good points and I agree with what you posted but even if these children did not have good parents that protected them, these sick men should of never been allowed in the church as priests. The Truth Hurts also makes great points and I appreciate everything The Truth Hurts posted!!!
|
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:23 PM By Abeca Christian
Victoria you are right let the children be children, so even this homosexual indoctrination in our schools should be destroyed. These abuses are not new, they are not only happening in our churches but are also happening even more so in public schools. This all makes me sick, poor innocent children. This is a great wake up call to all parents, where ever you go or are, we must always be on guard and protect our children.
|
Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 3:51 PM By JLS
The Truth Hurts, I am glad that there are those who pray for such people as the perv in this news item. The Holy Spirit moves us to pray ... I find myself booked up well before I get to such as this man. Although sometimes I cross myself on their behalf.
|
Posted Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:46 PM By Victoria
No, JLS, you did mock me on more than one occassion when I wrote about being a victim of clergy sexual violation. You came back with words such as "BooHoo" and "Crocodile Tears", and I must say, your comments really hurt me. But it seems that you now have come to, (what they call), "Get It". And if I hurt you by my latest posting, I (in turn) Ask Your Pardon. I Pray everyday that Catholics will learn to SEE, UNDERSTAND & (Well) GET IT; and help the Victims in their Mission to Save Children From All Forms of Victimization. God Bless You.
|
Posted Monday, August 03, 2009 5:58 PM By JLS
Victoria, then I apologize for mocking you. At that time I had not understood you, and was dealing with my interpretation of what I read. You eventually clarified yourself. No, you did not hurt me in your posting. It is greatly valued to mine for the truth. Isn't that what we're doing?
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|