I am sick!

Share Button

I THOUGHT I posted this early early this morning.  I just discovered that it went into the draft bin.  That’s s first for me.  I guess I hit the wrong button.  Anyway, here it is now


I posted a page with further information on Father Hillary Mahar.  I had an inquiry about Mahar and decided to pull together the little info on him which I have on hand.

Does anyone know what happened to Hillary Mahar?  It looks as though he is no longer a priest – his name doesn’t appear in the index of the Canadian Catholic church Directories after 1997.  That could mean that he left the priesthood (voluntarily or otherwise), or that he is now incardinated somewhere out of the country, or that he is deceased.  For some reason, I don’t think he’s dead, but, I could be wrong.

Also, does anyone know where Mahar was serving int he North West Territories?  According to a news article of 1992 he was serving as a parish priest in the North West Territories when he was first charged.  I have been unable to find where in the NWT he was.  Can any of you people in the North help me out here?  Someone must remember him.

And, of course, the question is: what was he doing in the North West Territories in 1992? 

Note that Raymond Lahey was Bishop of Saint George’s during the latter part of Mahar’s years in the diocese.


There is a court date for Bishop Raymond Lahey in Ottawa tomorrow.  This is a date to set a date for the Crown to cross-examine Dr. Bradford and for sentencing.

I wold dearly love to be there but have another commitment for tomorrow morning.  I don;t know that there will be too terribly much happen, but I would like to be there to see the semantics of coming up with a court date acceptable to one and all.

Remember that every day Lahey sits behind bars right now will probably earn him 2:1 credit!


I was asked to share the link to this excellent documentary which examines the sex abuse of native children in Catholic missions in Alaska in the 60s and 70s.  Please do take the time to watch.  It is extermely well done.  Heartbreaking.


Yesterday I posted the following article regarding the Truth and Reconcilaition Commission

24 May 2011: Exposing Canada’s most shameful story

  I decided to check to see what eactly the mandate is.  Check this:  http://www.trc-cvr.ca/overview.html

This has been going on since 1998 – and only now are they getting around to the ‘hearings’? 

I truly have a lot of work to do to catch up on this 🙁

Before I go any further a reminder that this process was not restricted to the Roman Catholic Church; it involved Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presyterian and United churches in Canada which were involved in establishing and/or staffing residential schools.

Now, look at this – the powers etc of the commissioenrs of the TRC:

2. Establishment, Powers, Duties and Procedures of the Commission

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission shall be established by the appointment of “the Commissioners” by the Federal Government through an Order in Council, pursuant to special appointment regulations.

Pursuant to the Court-approved final settlement agreement and the class action judgments, the Commissioners:

(a) in fulfilling their Truth and Reconciliation Mandate, are authorized to receive statements and documents from former students, their families, community and all other interested participants, and, subject to (f), (g) and (h) below, make use of all documents and materials produced by the parties. Further, the Commissioners are authorized and required in the public interest to archive all such documents, materials, and transcripts or recordings of statements received, in a manner that will ensure their preservation and accessibility to the public and in accordance with access and privacy legislation, and any other applicable legislation;

(b) shall not hold formal hearings, nor act as a public inquiry, nor conduct a formal legal process;

(c) shall not possess subpoena powers, and do not have powers to compel attendance or participation in any of its activities or events. Participation in all Commission events and activities is entirely voluntary;

(d) may adopt any informal procedures or methods they may consider expedient for the proper conduct of the Commission events and activities, so long as they remain consistent with the goals and provisions set out in the Commission’s mandate statement;

(e) may, at its discretion, hold sessions in camera, or require that sessions be held in camera;

(f) shall perform their duties in holding events, in activities, in public meetings, in consultations, in making public statements, and in making their report and recommendations without making any findings or expressing any conclusion or recommendation, regarding the misconduct of any person, unless such findings or information has already been established through legal proceedings, by admission, or by public disclosure by the individual. Further, the Commission shall not make any reference in any of its activities or in its report or recommendations to the possible civil or criminal liability of any person or organization, unless such findings or information about the individual or institution has already been established through legal proceedings;

(g) shall not, except as required by law, use or permit access to statements made by individuals during any of the Commissions events, activities or processes, except with the express consent of the individual and only for the sole purpose and extent for which the consent is granted;

(h) shall not name names in their events, activities, public statements, report or recommendations, or make use of personal information or of statements made which identify a person, without the express consent of that individual, unless that information and/or the identity of the person so identified has already been established through legal proceedings, by admission, or by public disclosure by that individual. Other information that could be used to identify individuals shall be anonymized to the extent possible;

(i) notwithstanding (e), shall require in camera proceedings for the taking of any statement that contains names or other identifying information of persons alleged by the person making the statement of some wrong doing, unless the person named or identified has been convicted for the alleged wrong doing. The Commissioners shall not record the names of persons so identified, unless the person named or identified has been convicted for the alleged wrong doing. Other information that could be used to identify said individuals shall be anonymized to the extent possible;

(j) Shall not, except as required by law, provide to any other proceeding, or for any other use, any personal information, statement made by the individual or any information identifying any person, without that individual’s express consent;

(k) shall ensure that the conduct of the Commission and its activities do not jeopardize any legal proceeding;

(l) may refer to the NAC for determination of disputes involving document production, document disposal and archiving, contents of the Commission’s Report and Recommendations and Commission decisions regarding the scope of its research and issues to be examined. The Commission shall make best efforts to resolve the matter itself before referring it to the NAC.

I don’t understand.  What is the point here?  What’s the point? 

I’m doing this backwards I suppose, but, here’s the mandate:

There is an emerging and compelling desire to put the events of the past behind us so that we can work towards a stronger and healthier future. The truth telling and reconciliation process as part of an overall holistic and comprehensive response to the Indian Residential School legacy is a sincere indication and acknowledgement of the injustices and harms experienced by Aboriginal people and the need for continued healing. This is a profound commitment to establishing new relationships embedded in mutual recognition and respect that will forge a brighter future. The truth of our common experiences will help set our spirits free and pave the way to reconciliation.

What truth?  How can there be talk of truth if there is no concerted effort to root out the truth?  How can there be talk of truth if a group of sex abuse victims aren’t allowed to name their molester?

I just don’t understand the purpose.  I truly don’t.  Where does justice fit into this?  or, does it?   

Also, for those with an interest, the deadline for something calledthe Common Experience Payment is September 19, 2011, and deadline for appications for   the Independent Assessment Process is also September 19, 2012:  http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rqpi/index-eng.asp

Also, and IMPORTANT, note that those who chose NOT to participate or who wished to sue at a future date had to OPT OUT by 20 August 2007:  http://www.residentialschoolsettlement.ca/summary_notice.pdf 

This is unbelievable!

I am sick.  Again.

Enough for now,


This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Canada, Circling the wagons, Clerical sexual predators, Scandal, Trials. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply