The Bishop’s porn

Share Button

WARNING.  There is graphic content in the following blog.

I just discovered that the blog I posted on Monday after court was posted in the worng place.  You couldn’t see it!

To avoid creating too much confusion time-wise I will post it now along with my blog of yesterday and some further info I was about to add.

Here goes, I will start with a repeat of yesterday’s which was posted not too long ago:

Judge unable to mask his revulsion

A surprise apology from our disgraced Bishop Raymond Lahey today, and also an opportunity for the judge to view some of Lahey’s child porn collection.  At times the judge was unable to mask his revulsion.

The child porn photos were viewed only by the judge, the lawyers and a detective, however a brief description of what is depicted in each photo shown was given by the Crown.  As brief as the description was it was more than suffice to unsettle most if not all those in attendance in court.  More on the pictures later.

There has been much talk about whether or not Lahey will be granted 2:1 credit for time served.  Today the judge announced that he will grant 2:1 credit.  That, along with provision for remission, virtually guarantees that Lahey will be foot-loose-and-fancy-free after his sentencing on 04 January 2012.

In court today to witness part of the proceedings was a friend of the former Mount Cashel resident who alleges he was sexually abused by Lahey in the early to mid 80s.  The former Mount Cashel resident, who first met Lahey in 1982 while Lahey served as chaplain at Mount Cashel,  launched a lawsuit in April 2010.  I don’t know the current status of the lawsuit

I will be back later to give more details on the events in court today.  I was home late today – after court wrapped up for the day around 4 pm I was off to drop of some Christmas gifts – home at 8:30 pm.  I have some baking to do now so must get things into the oven before I do another thing :)

I have posted several articles:

20 December 2011: Disgraced bishop in child-porn case ‘truly sorry’

20 December 2011: Horrific images in ex-bishop’s porn stash

20 December 2011:  Lahey surprises courtroom with request to speak

20 December 2011:  Disgraced Bishop Lahey apologizes for his Internet porn addiction

Now I will add some info on Bishop Lahey’s child porn collection.

The Bishop’s Porn

The following is list of the child porn photos and videos in Bishop Lahey’s possession which were referenced by the Crown.  The photos were shown to Justice Kirkland only. The videos were not shown in court at all.

It was obvious that the judge had a hard time looking at some of these pictures.  Try as he might he could not conceal his revulsion.  In one instance after looking at a picture he turned his head and then took great pains to avoid looking back at the screen until the Crown announced the next picture was on the screen.

We in the courtroom did not see the pictures, but the description was enough to unsettle everyone.  During a break I heard one reporter say to another: once you hear it you can never get rid of it.  So true.

I will warn all that these descriptions are graphic. Read on at your own risk.  I decided to post them so that people know the horrors of child pornography and the despicable and inhumane treatment to which these unfortunate children are subjected. Here then, is a ‘peep’ at some of Bishop Lahey’s collection of child pornography:

Pictures 

#22:  as with others in this group, young naked males with rosaries and crucifixes around their necks.  Others in the group: 38, 92. 161, 217, 218, 238, 241, 255, 263, 399, 461, 531 & 548

A series if pictures depict some form of bondage or torture:

#487: appears to be young male – he is being restrained by two people, one holding him by the wrists and whacking the boy’s buttocks, the other dressed in mink’s garb who is also whacking the boy on the buttocks

# 325:  13-14-year-old red-headed male who is hog tied – the boys legs and arms are bound.  He has duck tape covering his mouth

#27:  a young naked male down on all fours – a dog leash around his wrists and ankles.  The Crown pointed out that these pictures underscore the those depicting slavery, degradation and torture

A number of pictures depict young Asian or Filipino boys:  #37, 49, 99, 115, 144, 196, 348, 447 .  The later, # 447 shows a Filipino boy and an Asian boy ages about 6 and 11 – one is fellating the other

473, 495, 534 and 574 all depict some form of bondage or torture

As the pictures were identified one after the other Bishop Lahey sat  in the prisoner’s docket, alternately with arms folded across his chest or cupping his chin in his left hand – his index finger fingers brushing back and forth over his lips and or chin.

Videos

There were 35 videos.  They were reviewed by Dr. Bradford at his office.  These were not played in the court room.  The Judge has copies of all photos, videos and stories on a disc which he can view privately.  The following are brief descriptions which were given of the videos:

#4 shows a male age 14-15 masturbating.  The boy leans over and fellates himself, swallowing his own ejaculate

# 5 shows two male teens.  There are various sex acts performed, including fellatio and anal sex.

#7 focuses on masturbation and ejaculate.  One of the boys appears to wearing a crucifix very similar to one worn by in picture #27

#10 shows a very young boy with no pubic hair ejaculating

#12 shows a boy age 14-16 masturbating and ejaculating on the glass window of a French door.  The boy then licks the ejaculate off the glass

#16 I think it was said that this one shows a Spanish boy – the boy is directed by someone off camera to masturbate .  There is a pornographic film or video running and he is told to watch it. At some point a man dressed as a monk is seen.  There is a rosary around someone’s neck

#? 15-16-year-old boys are shown inserting various sex toys into each other

#21-“25 depict boys masturbating and ejaculating

#30 shows a young male age 12-14 fellating a black adult male with the boys head forced down onto the adult male’s penis.  There is an adult slapping the boy.  Welt marks are visible on the boy’s buttocks

#31-32 depict boys masturbating and ejaculating

#35 shows a boy in a Starbuck’s apron and hat engaged in masturbation

#26 shows two boys with sex toys.  The video is about 20 minutes in length

#27 runs for 18 minutes – it shows a 15-16-year-old male being directed to pose dressed and semi-dressed, and told to touch his genitalia.  There is filming in the bathroom and in the shower.  From time to time whoever is running the camera touches the boy.  At the end the there is quite a scared look on the boy’s face

#44 Two boys, ages 14-16,  in school uniforms  kissing and fellating each other and other sexual activity

There were also stories which constituted child porn.  One had a Father Raymond who told a boy that if he stroked his penis it would make his toes curl.  It sounds as though there is a heavy emphasis in all the stories on masturbation, bondage and forced sex.

And finally, this is the blog which posted in the wrong place.  It covered Day One of Bishop Lahey’s sentencing hearing:

Child porn, one night stands and a long term ‘relationship” 

Well, how do I begin to recap what transpired in courtroom #13 at the  Ottawa  court house today?

I must be brief.  I will head back to court tomorrow, home early evening and then have one full day before we head down to the States for Christmas in the States.  Lots to do 🙂

First, all you Roman Catholics brace yourselves.  Bishop Raymond Lahey, the man who brokered the deal with victims in the Diocese of Antignish, has been in a homosexual relationship for the past ten years.  He would like that relationship to continue.  Before the ten year relationship began, he was doing one-night stands.  He has a thing for sado masochism.

There seems to be no doubt that Lahey both considers himself to be homosexual and has been actively living the lifestyle for many years.

Lahey was installed as Bishop of Antigonish in April 2003.  That means that he was living an active homosexual lifestyle when he arrived in the diocese, and it continued throughout his time at the helm.  It also means that the relationship had started while he was still at the helm in the Diocese of St. George, now the Diocese of Corner-Brook and   Labrador.

According to his lawyer Edelson, Lahey’s ‘partner’ is a layman.

That one will be hard for a lot of Catholics to take.  Why the deception?  If he wanted to live as a homosexual why not do the honest and honourable thing and get out of the priesthood?

Anyway, the homosexual part is apparently a given.  Our  disgraced bishop was into one night stands and then on to a ten-year-homosexual relationship.  It is also a given, as we learned, that he is attracted to sado masochistic sex, and in such scenarios would be the submissive partner.

What becomes a little cloudy is exactly what else might Raymond Lahey be?   Is he a pedophile?  Is he a hebophile?  Is he an ephebophile?

Some would say yes to at least one of the above.

Not Dr. John Bradford.

Dr. Bradford took the stand this morning. Bradford  wrote a report on Lahey. My understanding last May was that the report was ‘commissioned’ by Lahey’s lawyer.

The Crown wanted to cross-examine Dr. Bradford regarding the content of that report.

Bradford  was recognized by the court as an expert witness.  The judge  said that Bradford has testified in his court many times, and it is well known that Bradford is a regular in various Ottawa courtrooms.  His credentials can be viewed via this external link  – or, google his name.

Perhaps I just don’t have the training to follow the rationale that I heard this morning.  I don’t know.  I will tell you that what I heard that disturbed me deeply.

I will recap as best as I can.  These are my impressions and my understanding of what I heard.

As I said above, according to  Bradford, Lahey is not a paedophile.  Lahey, however,  did have pornographic pictures of some very young boys – ages 7 to 9 –  masturbating each other and others of them fellating each other.  Bradford was also aware of Lahey’s trips to places such as Thailand  where it is known men travel to have sex with children.  According to  Bradford  this (Lahey’s trips)  is something he thought about, but, he said,  Lahey denied having sex with children there.  So,  according to  Bradford, Lahey is not a paedophile. (Bradford  defined a paedophile as a person attracted to children 13 or under who has engaged in such fantasies of behaviour for at least 6 months. )

It got a little confusing at one point where Bradford agreed that Lahey expressed an interest in pre-pubescent boys, but Mr. Edelson quickly stepped in with a “Let’s get this straight!”  and then it was off to discuss what was said in the Agreed Upon Statement of Facts, and what Lahey had to say about who he was attracted to when he was  arrested, and the fact that  Bradford  wrote his report before having viewed any of the pictures or videos.

Nor, according to  Bradford, is Lahey a hebophile.  Lahey did have porn pictures of adolescent boys, which variously showed acts of fellatio between boys or between men and boys, boys with very large penises self fellating,  pictures which emphasised ejaculation and pictures depicting acts of anal sex.  Still, according to  Bradford, Lahey is not a hebophile. (He defined a hebophile as someone who is attracted to adolescents age 14 to 17.

He did say that there is some debate in various circles about a cross-over age of 14 between paedohilia and hebophilia, but I got the distinct impression he is not in that camp.

At one point when the Crown raised the issue of some of the boys in these photos  not being of the age of consent,  Bradford  made clear that he does not look at in terms of the age of consent but in terms of age. He also made clear that he personally thought it would not be out of order for Lahey as a homosexual to be interested in young males, and equated it to heterosexual interest in teens.

Dr. Bradford  is not very familiar with the term ephebophile.  He did state after a break that ephebophilia and hebophilia are one and the same.  He does not therefore, of course, believe that Lahey is an ephebophile.  (Ephebophilia is the term used by most Church canon lawyers and counsellors and doctors in treatment centres).

As for sado masochism, Dr. Bradford said that Lahey acknowledged an interest in sado-masochism, and that Lahey would focus on it from the perspective of being the slave. Bradford  seemed to have no problem with Lahey’s S&M interests.  In fact, Bradford seemed pleased that Lahey admitted his S & M tendencies because “it’s hard fo people to admit, and then the doctor went on to say that some gay people engage in these activities and it’s consensual, and then added that that even happens with heterosexuals!

Bradford  also concluded in his report that Lahey is a low risk to re-offend, and that, since he is neither a paedophile nor a hebophile  he has no need of treatment of any kind. He admitted however that there are few studies and little research to make such conclusions.

And then there was a  test of some sort in which Lahey scored extremely high:  80%.  That apparently is not good. Bradford  agreed that it is problematic.  He did not agree with the Crown’s suggestion that it shows that Lahey was not fully forthcoming.   And, it may have been the same test or yet another which Lahey underwent in which the Crown questioned whether or not Lahey could have manipulated his responses to skewer the results.

Bradford  did not discuss with Lahey the bag of sex toys which he, Lahey,  had with him when he was arrested.  They did “briefly”  discuss the videos.  Bradford talked of four videos – I got the impression there were certainly more than four, and that some of them were pretty darn bad.

Things were really quite bizarre.  Apparently in various tests conducted on him, Lahey showed that he is attracted to adolescent boys.  He also showed that he is more attracted to adult males.  And in one test he even showed an attraction to adult females!  It was the latter which led the Crown to question if Lahey could have deliberately been trying to mislead with his answers.

Anyway, I got the impression that all in all, Dr. Bradford seems to have little or no problems with Bishop Raymond’s behavior.  The fact that Lahey is a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church seemed irrelevant to one and all.

For those who were wondering, we did hear from Mr. Edelson that Lahey’s sex drive drive has dropped since his arrest!!!

I can’t write any more on this, at least not right now.  I really can’t.

A few quick points in closing…

The Crown is seeking a sentence of 18 to 22 months in jail and 2 years probation.

Lahey is trying to get 2:1 credit for time served.  There may be a mini showdown on this because legislation was enacted after Lahey was charged 2:1 credit.  Edelson says sentencing must be that which was the law at the time charged were laid.  He wants him out right now!

If the 2:1 doesn’t succeed, Edelson may also push for 1½:1 which would put Lahey out on the streets early in the 2012.

We shall see.  I fear there will be no more than the proverbial ‘tut tut bad boy’ and Lahey will be foot-loose and fancy free.

A very disturbing day – on many fronts.  That’s putting it mildly!

Lahey is back in court tomorrow morning at 10 am, courtroom #13,  Ottawa  court house.  The Crown will present its sentencing submissions.

I must run.  I will post some of the media which will give you more info on the goings on in court today.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

This entry was posted in Bishops, Canada, Child porn, homosexual, Mount Cashel, Raymond Lahey, Scandal and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Bishop’s porn

  1. Michel Bertrand says:

    Totally disgusted with this and life in general .. my last post..

  2. David Benson says:

    This isn’t even a surprise by a Catholic priest or bishop anymore. Bishop Vangheluwe of Belgium has sex with his 5 year old nephew, and continued for 13 years. He also had sex with his other nephew. Don’t worry – he says he’s not a pedophile. That’s a relief.

    In the US alone, there were 4,392 “Jerry Sanduskys” that raped over 10,000 children, and bishops and priests everywhere hid it.

    Its time to compare the Catholic church to the mafia, where the crime is child rape, and the criminals are all known, all hidden, and are allowed to move around until law enforcement comes in and forcibly shuts them down.

    Bishop Lahey got caught, but you know his crimes are much worse than just what he was caught for, and you know there are thousands of others like him who haven’t been caught yet.

    More importantly, children are being abused, and most Catholics aren’t doing anything to stop it.

  3. tanya says:

    Dunn, the bishop now, in Antigonish, relays in his letter to the “faithful” that the laicisation now “concludes all criminal and canonical issues surrounding Lahey”. Does it really? For the many many victims their suffering and their own life sentence has already begun. Has Dunne addressed that issue or has he, with his neat symmetrical syllogistic statement, so beloved by Roman clerics, decided to unilaterally conclude the matters surrounding Lahey. There is a good deal more which the Candadian Bishops Conference are relieved to have concealed.

    As for Lahey; Is there an international travel ban on Lahey? What access does he have to internet? What housing and financial considerations have been given by the Canadian Roman Catholic Church to Lahey? All routes to feed this criminal sickness are still I believe in place- until I am told otherwise I am very inclined to believe the worst. Paedophila is an untreatable pathology. Eneagrams will certainly not resolve this matter for Lahey or anyone else attempting to propel episcopal epistles into the public arena declaring that all processes are concluded regarding him.

    As the furore surrounding Chabot only too well illustrates- the Roman clergy is very much a boys own club and filled with the misplaced club membership loyalty that not only led to the Lahey debacle but quite probably continues to, at least surreptitously, support him materially and morally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *