A good trip – the weather was with us today and we made good time. The lie ups at the border were just starting to build when we went through. I think heading down on Thursday allowed us to beat the Christmas rush.
I pre-taped an interview for CBC Radio Corner Brook, Newfoundland on Wednesday. This was in relation to Bishop Raymond Lahey‘s sentencing hearing on Monday and Tuesday of this week. The interview was aired yesterday morning (Thursday 22 December 2011). It can be accessed via this link:
Scroll down to Thursday December 22 2011 “Lahey hearing”
I had ample opportunity on the drive yesterday to ponder what happened in court at Lahey’s sentencing hearing this past Monday and Tuesday. Two things keep rumbling through my mind:
(1) Dr. Bradford insulted every man in this country with his notion that it is not unusual for men to be sexually attracted to children age 14 to 18; ditto his notion that it is not uncommon for men to be attracted to sad0 masochism
(2) What exactly was Bishop Lahey apologizing for? For two days his lawyer and Dr. Bradford essentially argued on his behalf that he had done no wrong, and we heard Dr. Bradford tell the court that Lahey had no need of treatment.
At no time did Bishop Lahey object to their arguments or statements.
And then the unexpected apology, and Lahey telling the court that he was happy he was caught because he had this addiction and thanks to being caught he was able to get help.
Unless I totally missed something it is my understanding that Lahey did NOT see Dr. Bradford for treatment. Dr. Bradford was retained by Lahey’s lawyer to assess the bishop. There was no talk at any time of treatment. To the contrary. The court was told that, in Dr. Bradford’s opinion, Bishop Lahey does NOT need treatment.
The other odd thing about the apology was that the it was not entered into evidence as a document. Bishop Lahey read his apology from a piece of paper. When asked if it would be entered into evidence his lawyer was quick to say no. True enough, for those who wish to pay for the transcript the apology is on the record. But would it not have made sense to make the apology public right then and there? Would it not have made sense to ensure that every word of his apology was repeated verbatim, and even in fact reproduced and published in its entirety? I think it would ahve. Isn’t an apology meant to reach it’s target audience?
So, why the apology in the court at that time?
Mr. Edelson said that he would like the judge to be able to take the apology into consideration as he ponders Lahey’s sentencing.
In truth I think apology or no our convicted bishop will be out and about as of his sentencing on 04 January 2012. If he’s in any longer than that it will probably be for only a matter of days, and that to allow him to slip out of the detention centre in the dead of night ……away from media scrutiny.
The max he can get is the 22 months requested by the Crown. With 2:1 credit for time served that’s 11 months. At sentencing he will have served 8 months. That leaves three months.
There is credit awarded for good behaviour. It’s routine. According to the judge there is a formula of some sort which works out exactly how much time is awarded. I think therefore that it’s highly likely that, if the sentence is 22 months, there will be at least 3 months trimmed for ‘good behaviour.’ On or about 04 January he will probably have paid his ‘dues,’ and we will be reminded that possession of child pornography is a horrific crime, and we will probably be told that the child porn possessed by Lahey was especially horrific, and then, after serving a mere 8 months or so behind bars, Bishop Lahey will be foot-loose-and-fancy-free. And we the unwashed public will be left to conclude that somehow – we may not quite know how – but, somehow, justice has been done, and we must have faith that it has been done.
Anyway, Lahey apologized. It made no sense, at least not to me. If he wants to apologize to those he has so sorely deceived and betrayed he should do so in a fashion which ensures his apology – in its entirety – reaches their ears.
Why then did Bishop Lahey not allow the paper bearing the text of his apology to be entered into evidence?
I’m not sure either if his apologies, as a Catholic bishop, was intended to cover his homosexual activities. I don’t think so, partly because he seemed to be apologizing for his criminal actions, and partly because we heard that he has been in a ten-year homsoexual relationship and were given the impression that he would like that relationshio to continue.
One final piece of info regarding the hearing….
What will Lahey do once he’s ‘out’?
It sounds as though the official word is that he plans to pursue studies of some sort. According to Eddelson Lahey has lost his job and because of all the media coverage is branded a societal pariah. And, according to Edelson, Lahey would like to get back to studies. There is a problem with that plan however, in that the Crown has apparently asked for sever restrictions on Lahey’s computer/internet access. Edelson would like the judge to consider the deliterious impact such limitations would have on Lahey’s ability to pursue further studies.
What sort of studying would a 72-year-old Bishop-convict want to pursue? and, for what purpose?
I was thinking this over. Then I began to wonder is it is remotely possible that perhaps, rather than study, the bishop actually plans to teach? Is it possible that Lahey might be hired to teach Liturgy or some such thing at Ottawa’s St. Paul’s University? or, if not St. Paul’s, some other Catholic university in Canada?
The more I think about it the more I think it’s highly possible. St. Paul’s, for example, has hired known and/or convicted clerical sexual predators – why then would the Oblates who administer St. Paul’s be adverse to hiring a bishop convicted for possession of child porn?
That’s just a thought. As always, time will tell. We shall see…
A final thought.
What are the chances that Leahy will be laicized/defrocked? I would hope the process is under way at this very moment.
Enough for now,