Enough for now,

Sylvia

We laity are more familiar with the terms “laicized” or  “defrocked,”  and I think it’s fair to say that most everyone understands exactly what “defrocked” means.

So, I have been going through several books on the Code of Canon Law with commentaries, and here is what I have found:

- The word “laicization” is rarely used now.  It is deemed derogatory to the laity. But, the truth is that Bishop Raymond Lahey has been laicized, in other words, he has been ‘defrocked.”

- Lahey becomes in the eyes of the Church and for legal effects a layman.

- Lahey is not permitted to wear clerical garb

- Lahey can not use the title Father or Reverend

- Lahey can no longer claim financial support from the Church (if he truly indigent his bishop would see that he is taken care of)

- Lahey can not belong to any clerical associations

- Lahey can no longer function as a priest.  (as in the cases of all ex-priests he could give absolution to a penitent who is in danger of death)

- Lahey loses all positions, offices and functions related to the clerical state

- Lahey is freed from all clerical obligations except that of celibacy (he will however be required to pray the Liturgy of the hours in reparation for the harm and scandal he has caused and for the sanctification of clergy)

- Lahey is bound by all duties incumbent upon the laity

Adam commented on the blog that Lahey will be excommunicated if he violates the imposed canonical penalties imposed.  I can find nothing to that effect and would like to see which canon in the Code such a penalty falls.  I can see it happening if he were to marry, but wonder about it in regard to his praying the Liturgy of the Hours.  Can anyone provide the applicable canon?  I will pursue this privately but will be unable to do so until later in the day.

*****

A reminder here that, there is other Lahey business which needs fixing:

(1)  Introductory letter in Believe in me

while he was Bishop of St. George’s Diocese in Newfoundland, Lahey penned the introductory letter in the Grade 7 religion book Believe in me, part of the CCCB religion program called We are Strong Together.  In March 2010, at the request of the CCCB, the Lahey text was obliterated from the texts in many – but not all – school boards.  I would hope ALL school boards, including the Ottawa Catholic School Board and the Catholic District School Board of Easter Ontario, will now ensure that the Lahey letter is obliterated.

(2) CBW III

Lahey also has a letter in the Catholic Book of Worship III.  The letter should be obliterated, as should all liturgical ditties which Lahey composed.

(3)  The plaque in Corner Brook, Newfoundland

And then there is the matter of the plaque bearing the name of the “Most Rev. Raymond J. Lahey” on the ceremonial cornerstone of the former Regina High School in Corner Brook Newfoundlandwhich is about to become a junior high school.  It really must go!

*****

Has anyone heard what happened in court yesterday re Father Rheal LeBlanc?

LeBlanc is also facing charges of possession of child porn.  I am sure his knees are knocking right now.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

 ”Bishop” Raymond Lahey has been defrocked.  He is now Mr. Raymond Lahey.

That was fast.  Let’s hope this is a sign of things to come.

__________________________

Roman Catholic bishop convicted of child pornography stripped of clerical duties

Global News

Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:43 PM

The Canadian Press,

Please pass on news of the outcome and/or links to any media coverage.

*****

Father Rene Labelle’s next court date is 05 June, 2012: 09:30 am, Kingston Ontario courthouse (279 Wellington St.) , court room #1

I will check this morning to see what this scheduled appearance is for.

*****

Keep an eye on NEW to the site for links to newly-posted articles, documents and videos (access the page manually by clicking the “NEW” tab on the horizontal menu under the picture.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

Please, as always, keep the complainants in your prayers, and please pass on any information you might have regarding the outcome.

*****

Note that according to the following article the 74+ charges against former-fugitive-Belgian-born-Oblate priest Father Eric Dejager include the following:

one of unlawful confinement;

 one of uttering threats; and

 three counts of use of violence to prevent reporting of suspicious activity

14 May 2012:  More charges brought forward against Dejaeger

I will check to see what coverage there is today which is new.

PS:  I will tack this one in here:

14 May 2012: One more charge against Dejaeger likely: Crown

It looks as though there are indeed 77 charges in Nunavut with the possibility of one more.

(Lest we forget, there is also one charge of bestiality)

Enough for now,

Sylvia

 14 May 2012: Ex-priest pleads guilty to indecent assault

14 May 2012:  Former priest pleads guilty to indecent assault

Six guilty pleas actually: one guilty plea for each of his 6 victims.

Only six guilty pleas for 50 charges!

It has taken LeBlanc 16 months to fess up to those six charges.  I suppose that’s the way “the system” works, but I will never understand it.  It seems to me that if you did it you did it, and you know full well that you did it.  Why months on end to figure it out?  Those are months on end that victims are often treated like good-for-nothing liars.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s another wave of victimization for the victims.

Without doubt, as is usually the norm, LeBlanc will be given kudos at sentencing for the guilty pleas, and a pat on the back for sparing his victims the rigours of testifying.

I just don’t understand how they can do it and get away with it.

And, what of the other 44 charges?  There must have been a deal to let those go in exchange for a plea guilty on six? If those other 44 charges weren’t dealt with at trial today then that’s it.

Anyway, I am happy for the victims.  You came forward.  It was hard.  But, thanks to you, now we all know what Father Albert LeBlanc was all about. He is a criminal.

LeBlanc’s sentencing hearing is set for 17 August 2012.

*****

And, from Iqaluit, Nunavut, word that Father Eric Dejager was in court this morning and will be back will be 16 July 2012:

14 May 2012: Nunavut priest makes brief court appearance on 77 criminal charges.

14 May 2012: Priest facing 74 charges waives preliminary hearing

I see that one report indicates he is now facing 77 charges, and another puts the numbers at the 74 we had previously heard.  I will see what comes of the numbers in the media coverage tomorrow.  If there is still confusion I will get it sorted out.

Note that it seems there is the possibility of at least one, if not not more complainants which would also mean more charges. The RCMP investigation is ongoing.

Dejaeger has waved his right to a preliminary hearing.  I see no mention that he has waived his Charter right to a speedy trial.  I would hope that he would be obliged to and would agree waive the latter right: it would be heartbreaking for all, not to mention a terrible travesty of justice,  if he managed to get off on the argument that his Charter right to a speedy trial has been violated.

The earliest we can hope to see a trial is Spring 2013.  It is anticipated the trial will take at least a month.

Meanwhile Dejaeger’s preliminary hearing on his Edmonton, Alberta charges is scheduled for 21&22 December of this year.   (I wonder why he chose not to waive that one?)

Enough for now.

Sylvia

(1)  Monday 14 May to Friday 18 May 2012

Ex-priest Albert Leblanc sex abuse TRIAL:  Yarmouth, Nova Scotia  courthouse.  The courtroom is booked for the week.

Please keep these complainants in your prayers in a special way this week.  They will be called to testify.  It will be a difficult week for both the complainants and their families.  In many if not most cases the family know little of the nature of the allegations until they hear them at trial. My thoughts and prayers are with you all.

I encourage those in the Yarmouth area who are free to do so to please attend.  As always, I ask that you send along any information which can be passed along or links to media  coverage at the end the end of each day of the trial.

(2)  Monday 14 May 2012

Father Eric Dejaeger omi:  Iqaluit courthouse, Iqaluit, Nunavut: to file formal indictment.  We should get some idea tomorrow of the nature of the 35 new charges and how much additional time the Crown and/or defence might need/request before moving forward.

Again, keep the complainants in your prayers, both those in Nunavut and those in Edmonton, Alberta.  They will all I am sure be anxiously awaiting any news at all on the outcome of tomorrow’s hearing;

(3) Tuesday 15 April 2012

Father Rene Labelle:  9 am, Kingston, Ontario Ontario courthouse (247 Wellington St.).

If there is anyone in the Kingston area who is free to pop into the courthouse to find out what happens on Tuesday please do.  These early ‘revolving’ door court dates are difficult for all.  So often it is no more than a rescheduling to another date, but, sometimes things happen which are of interest.  The only for sure is that it will be months before a trial is set.

Again, keep the complainants in your prayers, and please pass along any news of the outcome of the proceedings.

(4) Wednesday 16 April 2012

Holy Cross Father Rheal Leblanc: 9 am, Welland courthouse, Welland, Ontario (102 East Main Street) (child porn charges)

If anyone can attend please do so,  Again, this may be another adjournment so be prepared.

*****

The Cap-Pele plebiscite was scheduled to be held tomorrow.   As we all know, the “good” news here is that a plebiscite is no longer necessary:  The sign bearing the name of clerical molester Father Camille Leger was torn down from the hockey arena 12 March 2012 and the arena has been re-named:)

*****

Our abdicating Bishop James Wingle was recently sighted in the Renfrew area.  The word I have received is that he was offering Mass for the Golden anniversary of a family member.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

So here it is, The Trimmins of the Rosary, by Father Patrick Joseph Hartigan who was, apparently,  Australian of Irish descent.

Trimmins Of The Rosary

Ah, the memories that find me now my hair is turning gray,
Drifting in like painted butterflies from paddocks far away;
Dripping dainty wings in fancy-and the pictures, fading fast,
Stand again in rose and purple in the album of the past.

There’s the old slab dwelling dreaming by the wistful, watchful trees,
Where the coolabahs are listening to the stories of the breeze;
There’s a homely welcome beaming from its big, bright friendly eyes,
With the Sugarloaf behind it blackened in against the skies;

There’s the same dear happy circle round the boree’s cheery blaze
With a little Irish Mother telling tales of other days.
She had one sweet, holy custom which I never can forget,
And a gentle benediction crowns her memory for it yet;

I can see that little mother still and hear her as she pleads,
“Now it’s getting on to bed-time; all you childer get your beads.”
There were no steel-bound conventions in that old slab dwelling free;
Only this  -each night she lined us up to say the Rosary;

E’en the stranger there, who stayed the night upon his journey, knew
He must join the little circle, ay, and take his decade too.
I believe she darkly plotted, when a sinner hove in sight
Who was known to say no prayer at all, to make him stay the night.

Then we’d softly gather round her, and we’d speak in accents low,
And pray like Sainted Dominic so many years ago;
And the little Irish mother’s face was radiant, for she knew
That “where two or three are gathered” He is gathered with them too.

O’er the paters and the aves how her reverent head would bend!
How she’d kiss the cross devoutly when she counted to the end!
And the visitor would rise at once, and brush his knees-and then
He’d look very, very foolish as he took the boards again.

She had other prayers to keep him. They were long, long prayers in truth;
And we used to call them “Trimmins” in my disrespectful youth.
She would pray for kith and kin, and all the friends she’d ever known,
Yes, and everyone of us could boast a “trimmin’” all his own.

She would pray for all our little needs, and every shade of care
That might darken o’er The Sugarloaf, she’d meet it with a prayer.
She would pray for this one’s “sore complaint,’ or that one’s “hurled hand,”
Or that someone else might make a deal and get “that bit of land”;

Or that Dad might sell the cattle well, and season’s good might rule,
So that little John, the weakly one, might go away to school.
There were trimmin’s, too, that came and went but ne’er she closed without
Adding one for something special “none of you must speak about.”

Gentle was that little mother, and her wit would sparkle free,
But she’d murder him who looked around while at the Rosary:
And if perchance you lost your beads, disaster waited you,
For the only one she’d pardon was “himself”-because she knew
He was hopeless, and ’twas sinful what excuses he’d invent,
So she let him have his fingers, and he cracked them as he went,

And, bedad, he wasn’t certain if he’d counted five or ten,
Yet he’d face the crisis bravely, and would start around again;
But she tallied all the decades, and she’d block him on the spot,
With a “Glory, Daddah, Glory!” and he’d “Glory” like a shot.

She would portion out the decades to the company at large;
But when she reached the trimmin’s she would put herself in charge;
And it oft was cause for wonder how she never once forgot,
But could keep them in their order till she went right through the lot.

For that little Irish mother’s prayers embraced the country wide;
If a neighbour met with trouble, or was taken ill, or died,
We could count upon a trimmin’-till, in fact, it got that way
That the Rosary was but trimmin’s to the trimmin’s we would say.

Then “himself” would start keownrawning-for the public good, we thought-
“Sure you’ll have us here till mornin’. Yerra, cut them trimmin’s short!”
But she’d take him very gently, till he softened by degrees-
“Well, then, let us get it over. Come now, all hands to their knees.”

So the little Irish mother kept her trimmin’s to the last,
Ever growing as the shadows o’er the old selection passed;
And she lit our drab existence with her simple faith and love,
And I know the angels lingered near to bear her prayers above,

For her children trod the path she trod, nor did they later spurn
To impress her wholesome maxims on their children in their turn.
Ay, and every “sore complaint” came right, and every “hurled hand”;
And we made a deal from time to time, and got “that bit of land”;

And Dad did sell the cattle well; and little John, her pride,
Was he who said the Mass in black the morning that she died;
So her gentle spirit triumphed-for ’twas this, without a doubt,
Was the very special trimmin’ that she kept so dark about.

But the years have crowded past us, and the fledglings all have flown,
And the nest beneath The Sugarloaf no longer is their own;
For a hand has written “finis” and the book is closed for good-
There’s a stately red-tiled mansion where the old slab dwelling stood;
There the stranger has her “evenings,” and the formal supper’s spread,
But I wonder has she “trimmin’s” now, or is the Rosary said?

Ah, those little Irish mothers passing from us one by one!
Who will write the noble story of the good that they have done ?
All their children may be scattered, and their fortunes windwards hurled,
But the Trimmin’s on the Rosary will bless them round the world.

Happy Mother’s Day!

Sylvia

This is of interest in that a plea bargain was struck for Father William Hodgson Marshall whereby he was assured that, following his guilty plea,  no further charges would be laid.  That means that any victim who approaches police with sex abuse allegations against Marshall is told immediately or shortly thereafter:  ‘sorry – we can’t proceed.’

My curiosity was piqued on the Rowe case after I read the initial coverage of the new charges against Rowe and reference to a plea bargain, a plea bargain which assured that Rowe would spend no further time in jail if he were to convicted of similar offences.  I hunted down a few more articles to try to get a handle on the nature of both the case and the plea , and then I looked for court documents.

This is quite convoluted with some conflict regarding dates and so on.  Here is what I have sorted out.  I hope it makes some sense:

(1)  Rowe was once an Anglican priest and a scout master;

(2)  Row, who currently lives in Surrey, BC, is facing five new counts of sexual assault and two of indecent assault.  The allegations northwestern Ontario between 1973 and 1986 in the First Nations communities of Fort Severn, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Wunnumin Lake and Kingfisher Lake.

(3)  In 1994 Rowe pleaded guilty to 39 counts of indecent assault involving 19 boys and was sentenced to six years.

Under the terms of a plea bargain struck at that time, Rowe would serve no additional jail time if convicted of similar offences; which predated the offence

Later in ’94 Rowe pleaded guilty to further charges.  Because of the plea bargain, no time was added to his sentence;.  He was released on parole after serving 41/2 years of a six year sentence;

(4)  After his release from jail Row went to live in Surrey, BC where his brother , a retired Anglican priest, assisted at a local Anglican church, St. Michael’s;

Rowe maintained a low profile in the church until after his brother’s death in 2003.  After 2003 Rowe began to sing with the choir and say prayers at the front of the church.  The congregation did not know that he was a convicted child molester;

Authorities in the Anglican church locally knew of Rowe’s past. Parishioners were not told;

(5)  In 2006 Rowe faced a further 75 charges from 31 complainants.  The charges were whittled won to 57 from 25 complainants.  Only five of those charges went on to trial, those being offences which did not fit the plea agreement because they were ‘more serious’ than those of 1994.

A number of the allegations related to penile and/or digital penetration.  Although these offenses occurred when buggery was part of the criminal code, no charges of buggery were laid. (06 July 2007: R v Ralph Rowe 2007 (Reasons at trial))

Rowe was convicted.  On 07 July 2007 he was sentenced to 3 years in prison.  The plea bargain did not kick in on all charges.  According to the judge: “The sexual misconduct here is more egregious than fondling-like behaviour of a sexual nature.  It falls outside the plea agreement.” (06 July 2007: R v Ralph Rowe 2007 [Reasons at trial])

The gist of the plea bargain is cited in one court document:

07 July 2006: R v Rowe Reasons on Defence Motion 2006

(in a letter from defence counsel to the Crown dated April 14, 1994)

This will confirm that Mr. Rowe’s pleas are not predicated on a Crown position for sentence.  Mr. Rowe’s pleas, however, are predicated on the understanding that all outstanding complaints which occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s against Mr. Rowe would be brought before the court before sentencing.  In this regard, if further allegations in the nature of fondling which occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s are made after sentencing, that the Crown would not proceed.

(in a responding letter from the Crown to defence counsel dated April 15, 1994)

Thank you for your letter dated April 14, 1994.  As I indicated in yesterday’s telephone conversation, I have no authority to bind the Crown not to proceed on any future, similar allegations.  I do, however, make the representation that if substantially similar allegations against your client arise in the future in Kenora District that those matters will be dealt with by way of concurrent sentences.

Defence asked for a conditional sentence.  The judge declined:

08 May 2007:  R v Rowe Reasons for Sentence (May 2007)

Mr. Sinding has asked that the Court consider a conditional sentence of 2 years.  In my view such a disposition is not proportional when the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility is considered.  Nor is a conditional sentence, in my view, consistent with the case law that suggests clearly in cases like the present that the principle of general deterrence and the denunciation by the community towards the conduct find expression in the sentence that is accorded.  …..

Much of the focus of the trial has focussed on what counsel and the Court have regularly referred to as “more egregious conduct”.  It would be regrettable, in my view and wrong in principle, if because of our focus at trial on  the determination whether there was more egregious conduct, if this left the impression that the offending behaviour of Mr. Rowe that was at play in respect of the offences to which he plead guilty during the course of this hearing, were somehow on the lower spectrum of sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse is act of violence and when committed against children is violence, both physical and profoundly psychological in its impact.  And we have witnessed in the Victim Impact Statements just how profoundly damaging sexually abusive conduct can be on the psyche of a child, enduring to the point that it continues to haunt, even during adulthood.

I elect not to exercise the discretion that Justice Fraser exercised in 1994 in invoking the section of the Criminal Code that required that Mr. Rowe serve a minimum number of years before becoming eligible for parole.  There are those who are more adept at risk assessment and have greater information before them than the Court presently has and I will leave it to them.  To the extent I can comment on Mr. Rowe’s risk of re-offending, I share the view of the Crown that the risk will be ever-present.  He has shown signs that it may be manageable but I am persuaded that even upon his release there needs to be conditions intended to secure the safety of the public.

(6)  According to a media report from 2007, when word was out at St. Michael’s in Surrey that Rowe was a serial molester who had been charged again, some members of the congregation said  they had seen  Rowe more than once in the company of a young Caucasian male who seemed to be in his early to mid-teens and did not appear to be a parishioner;

(7) There was a raft of new charges in 2009 – those were whittled down  six of indecent assault and one of sexual assault.  The victims were between the ages of 5 and 15.

Rowe attempted to get a stay based on abuse of process and the plea bargain.  A stay was denied.

03 February 2009: R v Rowe February 2009 Reasons on Motion for Stay on grounds of abuse of process (re plea agreement) (Motion denied)

 Mr. Rowe says that the offences to which he entered pleas of “guilty” in earlier prosecutions (1994 and 2007) are symbolic of every offence he committed in the remote northern communities during the 1970’s and 1980’s, whether they were actually prosecuted or not.

In my opinion, these defence submissions ignore entirely the previous plea agreement that, with the benefit of counsel, Mr. Rowe entered into with the crown in 1994.  The plea agreement related to sentencing only.  It did not proscribe future prosecution.  By that agreement, Mr. Rowe remained subject to future prosecution and additional jail time in respect of after–discovered offences involving more egregious conduct.  Similarly, Mr. Rowe, by his plea agreement, faced additional prosecution even for after–discovered offences that were similar in gravity to those already known in 1994.  The most he could hope for was no additional jail time for offences similar in gravity to those for which he was convicted in 1994.

I note that the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a series of trials will not, in and of itself, constitute an abuse of process.[14]  In my opinion multiple prosecutions, based in each instance on new allegations from newly emerging complainants is neither contrary to law nor offensive unless the totality of circumstances demonstrably raises further prosecution to the level of an abuse of process;

Although the stay was denied and Rowe was convicted, he did not suffer.    The judge decided Rowe should not serve any more time in prison because the “serial prosecution” of the 69-year-old former priest amounted to a harsh punishment.

Rowe was sentenced to one year to run concurrent to the sentence he was already serving.  Rowe was convicted 02 July. (02 July 2009: R v Rowe 2009 [Reasons at trial])

Rowe was released from jail the following day;

(8)  Rowe was released on parole on 2009, one day after he was found guilty on seven new charges.

The Kenora, Ont. Superior Court judge who found him guilty decided Rowe should not serve any more time in prison because the “serial prosecution” of the elderly former priest amounted to a harsh punishment;

(9)  In November of last year 24 First Nations men went to Ontario Provincial Police  alleging sex abuse at the hands of Rowe.

Where the plea bargain fits in here remains to be seen.  There is no way of telling by the charges if these offences might be considered ‘more serious’ than those of 1994.

On 22 April 2012 Rowe was charged with five new counts of sexual assault and two if indecent assault.

This is the impact of a plea bargain which merely assures no further imprisonment for crimes of a similar nature committed before the date of the agreement.  But, note the Crown’s comment:  “I have no authority to bind the Crown not to proceed on any future, similar allegations.”

Have things changed since 1994?  How did Father Hod Marshall manage the sweetheart deal he has?

There is lots of reading there for those who wish to delve deeper into this.  My husband often tells me that we in Canada have a legal system, not a justice system.  When I read of shenanigans such as this I am inclined to agree.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

I had the good fortune to be given a lift to Renfrew and was able to sit in on the proceedings.  Those who have been to proceedings such as this know what it is like.  There is a roster of cases, a packed courtroom, and one by one the name of each accused is called out (in alphabetical order).  In some instances the accused is present in the courtroom, in many cases they are not.  In most instances the order of the day was to quickly set a new court-date agreeable to all.

The courtroom is large.  There are no microphones.  Things move along very quickly.  It is very easy to miss what is happening, and sometimes difficult to hear what is said.

Here is my understanding of events as they relate to Father Daniel Miller.

When Miller’s name was called, a lawyer identifying herself as appearing on behalf of Mr. Carew rose.  I am quite certain that that is Mr. Robert Carew, the lawyer who so ably defended  Monsignor Robert Borne and managed to ensure that that convicted clerical predator will serve no more than a paltry nine month conditional sentence.  Carew is also the lawyer who has objected to the release to me of certain exhibits which were publicly and without mention of publication ban entered into evidence at the Borne sentencing hearing.

I don’t know why Carew is now dealing with the Miller charges.  In previous court proceedings Miller was represented by either Kimberly A Pegg or Dominique Smith.  Perhaps Carew, a sole practitioner,  has been retained by Kimberley A. Pegg?  That is highly possible.  No matter, and for whatever reason, today a lawyer appeared in court on Carew’s behalf to represent Father Daniel Miller.

Father Miller was not in court.

An agreement was quickly/instantly  reached between lawyer and judge to reschedule to 13 June 2012.  According to the lawyer this was necessary to review about 1,500 pages of documents disclosed to defence.  There was also mention made of further charges.  I truly don’t know if this means that further charges are pending, or if it was reference to the new set of charges laid 13 April 2012. It could well be the latter.  I will try to find out, but no guarantees I will get answers.

So, there it is.  All over in the twinkle of an eye.

I wouldn’t say it was a wasted trip.  It is always interesting to see how the the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly along. And it is always interesting to see one case after the other set over to another day.  And, yes, of course, it was very interesting to learn that Mr. Carew is now involved.

And all of that aside, I had a beautiful lunch served up courtesy of an amazing and very dear 85-year-old lady.

Not a wasted day at all

Enough for now,

Sylvia