Statement Regarding Raymond Lahey
January 5, 2012
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
It was with sadness, disappointment and anger that, within the past few days, we followed the sentencing of former Bishop Raymond Lahey for possessing and importing child pornography. Pornography is an all-too-common obsession and addiction. Let us be clear that we, as Christian people, stand for the protection of all life, for human dignity and fullness of life. We stand against all that harms or degrades human beings.
Raymond Lahey has requested to be removed from the clerical state. The Church will impose this or other penalties. Let us draw whatever good we can from this event, and re-commit ourselves to building a better Church, society and world, a world in which people are valued and treated with respect, where no child suffers, and where all can live in peace and joy. This Archdiocese is committed to establishing safe and supportive communities for our young people and vulnerable adults. Through our screening process, we continue to take steps to create a secure environment for all members of the Church.
In Christ,
Archbishop of St. John’s
“Pornography is an all-too-common obsession and addiction.”
What about the child pornography? Why no reference to the crime for which Bishop Lahey entered a guilty plea? Yes, there was a whop of porn, but it was the whop of child porn which initially got Lahey into hot water with secular authorities, and which then repulsed us all when we heard a little of the sordid and perverted nature of that porn, and which eventually led to his guilty plea and ever-so-brief time behind bars.
But, according to Abp. Currie, Lahey’s sins and crimes are no more than an “obsession and addiction”?
Where do the sex toys fit into this “addiction”?
Where do the one-night-stands and long-term-ten-year relationship with another male fit into this particular bishop’s “obsession and addiction?
If indeed this is child porn ‘affliction’ is all too common, how many other Bishops are similarly obsessed and addicted?
What of clergy? How many clergy are in the same boat as our criminal bishop? – obsessed and addicted?
No matter, poor Bishop Lahey: it’s just not his fault. For all these years poor Bishop Lahey has somehow been deprived of his free will. Despite all the graces available to him as a priest, he has absolutely no self control.
My dear goodness, I wonder if every naked, scared, hog-tied, shamed, tortured, sodomized and/or brutalized little boy in those porn pictures and flicks knows that it is really the bishop and his ilk who are the victims and who properly demands our sympathy?
I am so darn tired of episcopal excuses and rationalization for behaviour which is both sinful and criminal.
And then this:
“Raymond Lahey has requested to be removed from the clerical state. The Church will impose this or other penalties.”
Note “or other penalties”!! Note how the notion of “other penalties” just sort of slides out. Bishop Lahey has presumably asked to be laicized. But,as I read it, Archbishop Currie tells that maybe that won’t be the case at all.
I know. I know that sometimes priests ask to be defrocked and their request is declined. But surely a denial of such a request is not even a consideration in this case?
Or, ……is it?
I suppose we’ll cross that bridge if and when when it comes. In the interim, my question is: What are Archbishop Currie and his fellow bishops doing to ensure that someone in the Vatican pays heed, does the right thing for the good of all, and defrocks Raymond Lahey?
Are our bishops, for example, writing letters or making phone calls to the Vatican to say enough is enough: get him out?
Is Archbishop Currie?
If not, why not?
Finally, a reminder of the Father Michael J Walsh scandal. It was Archbishop Currie who saw no harm in allowing convicted child molester Father Walsh to function as a priest at St. Brendan’s in Newfoundland. And, it was Monsignor Martin Currie who was Vicar General and Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Halifax when Walsh was quietly and, I would say, deceptively, recycled out of Newfoundland and into that Nova Scotia.
If Archbishop Currie wants to draw some good from this mess let him begin by sparing us another shock to the system and telling us what other bishops in Canada are, as he tells us Lahey is, smitten by an “obsession and addiction” to child porn.
The Catholic Church has always said, “Once a priest always a priest.” Think about it. Our fellow Anglican priests raise a host and say it is symbolically the body of Christ. During a Catholic Mass, a priest raises a host and says “This is the body of Christ.” trans-Substantiation etc…..the rules and theology run deep. The wine is now truly “the blood” of Christ. Catholics are indoctrinated to believe this. Same with women not being allowed to join the priesthood. & Priests are not allowed to marry. It is STILL accepted by Catholics, even though many complain. My point? Don’t expect a Bishop or Cardinal or Pope to see Lahey anything other than a priest even though he may be defrocked. Perhaps a priest gone wounded/addicted/mental…whatever. These 50+ age Bishops today believe Lahey can be cured and rehabilitated. Thus…send him to a monastery!!Penance for the rest of his days on earth.
Ok, I doubt if this will happen or if Lahey would accept this. But this might still be the thinking of the Church today. It’s rooted in this deep theology which like many other religions, has its roots in thoughts and rituals and Books (Bible for example) of many EONS ago. Hard to change. Hey, there are still some Catholics who don’t eat meat on Fridays and want the Mass in Latin. Imagine that!
News from Philadelphia, by the way,…..40 Catholic schools to close!!! Yes FORTY!! Have you heard this? No money. Money spent on abuse cases/legal issues/declining enrollment.
It’s just beginning!!
Another omission in the letter from Archbishop Currie: the word “sin.”
Sad but true Cheryl-Helene
In the archdiocese of St. John’s an orthodox priest was run out of the Basilica for preaching on such things as sin and generally for preaching the teachings of the Church. He was sent for counselling. The counsellor questioned why the was sent to him. Meanwhile the Raymond Laheys of this world do their thing without let or hindrance. Also in the archdiocese of St. John’s a priest who preached in favour of homosexual marriage is still a priest in good standing and was elevated to president of the priests’ council (by the predecessor of the current archbishop). Also a priest who destroyed every parish he was associated with by his heterodox ideas, now laicised by choice and married, is in receipt of a salary from the Church for teaching catechetics and a darling of certain religious who it is rumoured are paying his salary. By the way that man was a close associate of Barry Glendinning at St. Paul’s. Newfoundland Catholics wonder if the Church has written them off. Another priest who apparently had some sort of liaison with a minor who was paid off by the Church is the pastor of a major parish in the city. How long Lord.
Yes Teranovan, how long Lord?
The situation you describe in St. John’s repeats itself in one form or another in diocese after diocese across this country. Do “they” really think we the unwashed laity don’t know what’s going on? We, like they, have ears to hear and eyes to see. We, like they, have been hearing and seeing for a long long time now.
We have mouths to speak too. “They” won’t use theirs, at least not to expose and uncover the rot. We, unlike they, can and will use ours.
Bishop Currie’s statement has the vague ambivalence and cliche moral tone of a Soviet press release. Rather than admit that another member of his country’s hierarchy had gone “way off the rails” morally, he tells us the man suffered from an “all too common obsession.” Really?! First of all, only 5% of the population has any strong homosexual desire. Second, only a small percentage of that group are interested in kids. What then is so “common”? Bishop Lahey isn’t “just one of the guys” with respect to his preferences. As well, Lahey is a leaders of the Church that claims to be Christ’s voice on Earth. Can we not expect him to follow a higher standard than the “all too common” obsessions and addictions?
But everything is fine and everyone is happy in the Soviet Union, nyet?
Fr. Michael, it is because of that type of thinking (or lack of thinking), arrogance, and generally speaking down to the stupid laity (as they treat us), that we started the 2-cent protest.
We will put our 2 cents worth to the Church by placing 2 cents in an envelope, with ot without a message or signatue, signifying our non-acceptance of the type of shepherding we are getting from obtuse Bishops.
Once the coffers start running dry, they will see the need to change, or get a job in the public sector.
I see other crimes associated with “just having child porn on a laptop”.
I see other crimes associated with “sexual abuse of boys” for centuries.
I see the crime of providing alcohol, drugs and pornography to underage children.
I see confinement of boys or false reasons why they needed the boys to visit, even in the middle of the night. I see lying and deceiving the families.
I see abuse of their position as “confessors” .
I see physical abuse (violet porn) of children. Viewing porn is no less abusing, the children are abused for the perverse enjoyment of men. How many of those children have been killed or thrown out to the garbage dumps in poor countries once they have provided “essential services”. For those who are not directly involved in this heinous crime, the computer mouse becomes the abusing hands.
I see violation of the clergy’s vow of celibacy (a joke). I see desecration of what they consecrate…as if the bread and wine (body and blood) is of more value than a human soul.
I see in Matthew 18:6 a condemnation of those who cause children to sin or who wound their soul. Sexual violation is devasting to boys and girls and causes life-long confusion and emotional pain if kept locked up inside. Many do keep it inside because they were, and continue to be, paid off privately…and threatened. And the boys, now men, don’t want to hurt their parents or be chastised for even saying it.
Works like the Mafia.
I see exploitation of families where there is an absent or deceased father.
and of course, who would deny their boys access to “holy priests”, especially a mother who has too many mouths to feed and too much responsibility.
I have just read some sections of the Catechesim of the Catholic Church on the morality of human acts, written by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops….pages 373 to 380. The Bishops should read it to thier priests and say, “What part of this don’t you understand?” The Vatican should do the same. But of course, these laws are for righteous people, not the leaders who are highly educated and morally corrupt.
The positions of trust these priests/bishops hold should warrant a more serious punishment – but they play the law.
Another addition that I see as crime: Priests took money that parishioners put in the collection, which was meant for good purposes, and spent it on their idol worship of young boys. Also, in the diocese of Western Newfoundland (now renamed Diocese of Corner Brook/Labrador) in the last 4 years, we had to release all of our funds to pay for just one priest’s perversion and abuse, namely, Kevin Bennett. Now we are building again from that bankrupt state. And they want us to give to the “Shepherd’s Fund” to help retired priests! The audacity! Many of us are wiser now. We will not support this institution any longer.
I understand your frustration. To counteract this insult to the mentality of the average Catholic lay person, we have started the 2-cent club.
To give our 2 cents worth, we put just 2 pennies in an envelope, with or without a message, signed or unsigned, to show we are fed up with the betrayal by the Bishops . We do this every Sunday. We can no longer support their cover-up of abuse, and then when they are found out, their cash settlements to the poor abused victims. We hate the abuse, we love the victims, we hold the Bishops in disdain
An American case, a first of its kind anywhere, worth following with important implications is this one:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120113_In_unusual_move__Pa__high_court_is_asked_to_review_charges_against_monsignor_in_sex-abuse_case.html
A Monsignor is on trial for “enabling” priests to be abusive to altar boys. He, at the time, was responsible for knowing of sexual abusers and placing priests to other parishes. Sound familiar?
Canada next?
Key line: “”It is impossible to predict how many practicing Catholics and members of the Catholic clergy will be affected by this trial.” The lawyers are being paid by the archdiocese.”
Will someone please tell me where LAHEY is staying or hiding. Surely he,s not being rewarded with pension & room & board for being a pedophile. I think it,s ridiculous to treat these sick people with with “REWARDS”.
He probably is! Protected from the top. Time for a new Pope for sure! Good news today. But not a woman pope….in 2013? Time for Catholics to wake up! Most Catholic men and women believe women should be allowed to become a priest (pope). So, just how much imput has the laity really? Still run by the old boys club! They are still in charge. Still protecting child molestors. Still spending money on protecting the Church.
Amen to that!!