You remember Bishop Raymond Lahey don’t you, the Catholic bishop who was caught in a Canadian airport security line with very naughty materials on his laptop computer?
You may recall that I wrote a post here asking a basic question about the early coverage of the bishop’s fall, which was made all the more tragic and ironic by his high-profile role guiding a settlement case with some victims of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. Thus, I asked:
What led to the secondary search of the laptop hard drive of a Catholic bishop? … Laptop computers are sent through scanners everywhere. I get that. But what was the trigger that led to his computer being switched on and then electronically searched, using a method that would detect images?
Well, the Chronicle Herald in Halifax has a story out that answers that question. And then some.
This is rough stuff and, at times, it’s hard to believe what you are reading. Suffice it to say, the bishop gave the game away early and often. Here’s the top of this crime-beat report:
Bishop Raymond Lahey avoided eye contact, changed his vocal tone and gave evasive responses when a border agent at Ottawa International Airport questioned him last month about his electronic equipment.
A Canada Border Services agent asked the bishop if he was carrying any electronic media such as cellphones, laptop computers or BlackBerrys when he arrived at the airport at 3:43 p.m. on Sept. 15, says a search warrant application. Bishop Lahey had just arrived from London, England.
The bishop told the border agent he had two cellphones.
The agent then asked the former head of the Diocese of Antigonish if he had a laptop. Bishop Lahey hesitated before saying he did. In all, the bishop was carrying a laptop, two cellphones, four memory sticks, three memory cards and a portable hand-held device.
The agent flagged Bishop Lahey for a secondary inspection because of his behaviour and the fact he was a man traveling alone who had visited countries known to be sources of child pornography, says an Ottawa police officer’s application for the warrant on Sept. 23.
So where had the bishop been in recent years? He had made multiple trips to Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Spain and Germany.
Preliminary and then advanced searches discovered multiple images, which are described in the news report. Look up the details there, if you must. There is this crucial detail about some of the images: They contain one boy who officials described as eight to 10 years old with a dark complexion and a blond boy that is believed to be nine to 12.
The bishop, however, told police that “the laptop belonged to him and that he was attracted to males aged 20 to 21.”
And so forth and so on. I do want to ask another question at this stage in the story’s development: Where are the comments from critics — right and left — of the hierarchy’s handling of this whole issue? Just asking. This is more than a basic crime story.
Meanwhile, the details are presented in a straightforward manner and it’s clear that the newspaper and the state officials know they are dealing with bad stuff. One could wish for a similar moral clarity in other high-profile cases in this day and age, but that would be asking for mass-media miracles, which can be rare.
Hat tip: That would be Diogenes, of course.
 | Posted at 8:34 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (11) |
October 12, 2009, at 9:07 pm
Hmmmm, so one’s itinerary can tip off the police? Interesting update to a truly weird story. The lack of ecclesiastical response is worrying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13, 2009, at 10:29 am
We are surrounded by Infidels and unfortunately they reside in the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
I am a Practicing Catholic, very Sad Indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13, 2009, at 12:53 pm
The search warrant mention is interesting because there would have to be sufficient indicators to convince a judge to grant the warrant. It sounds like the customs agents tipped the police, who did the secondary interview, and based on the results of that interview obtained a warrant.
The pre-search evidence reported is all circumstantial, of course, but enough indicators all at once will be sufficient to show probable cause to the judge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13, 2009, at 1:59 pm
I read this article and found it very informative. However, the reporter never mentions what kind of “bishop” he is. Since I didn’t know the background, I didn’t know if he was Anglican, Catholic, or some other kind of overseer. A little more background would have been most helpful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13, 2009, at 2:18 pm
RAY:
By THIS ARTICLE, you mean the Canadian news piece, not my post. Right? I have “Catholic” in the lede.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 13, 2009, at 3:21 pm
Sorry I wasn’t more clear, tmatt. The article was vague. You were clear.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14, 2009, at 11:20 am
It isn’t surprising that a number of clergy are rather seedy individuals; there has been a distinct decline of morality that is going hand-in-hand with the rising tide of the heresy of Modernism. When we begin to think of spiritual matters in relativistic terms, not only are deviant forms of sexuality such as homosexuality and pedophilia deemed “acceptable” (all the while being mortal sins), but the dogmas and Tradition of the Church is thought of as antiquated philosophical notions, rather than imperative absolutes. The result, of course, is spiritual decay; and it is that spiritual decay which gives rise to disordered character, repugnant immorality, and sexual perversion.
The clergy is not immune to these trends, unfortunately. While the majority of the clergy are respectable, holy men, there are always a few deviants that sneak in. It in no way maligns the office which they hold, nor the Holy Orders themselves, as many in the mainstream media would like us to believe.
Pope St. Pius X, Pray for Us!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14, 2009, at 11:56 am
I think he was immediately asked to resign and he did.
This is a bishop - bishops answer to the Holy See, not local folks. Are you assuming there’s a cover-up? Why?
In the meantime, shouldn’t the Church stay out of law enforcement’s way? Or just cooperate? Perhaps the Church is doing some inquiring of its own? Maybe it’s too soon for the Church to make a definitive statement.
There might be questions about why he was in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. Was he supposedly attending conferences there, visiting missions, etc? Or vacationing?
I’m sure law enforcement is working on that, and the diocesan folks are certainly checking that out, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14, 2009, at 2:58 pm
Anthony and Julia,
While your comments might have merit, they are off track. This is a discussion about media coverage of this ongoing story, not commentary about church/clergy/church discipline/etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 14, 2009, at 6:01 pm
Ray,
We already know the position the “media coverage” will take; and since they are consistently anti-Catholic, there needs to be equal “coverage” and information from the other side, as well.
If posts questioning a Vatican “cover up” or at least insinuating it are on track, then there shouldn’t be any problem with posts on the other side of the fence, either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 15, 2009, at 1:14 am
Ray,
We were responding to a question posed by Tmatt - concerning the lack of coverage of critics of heirarchy behavior.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0