Bizarre, Criminal law, Religion, Society

Collared: Massachusetts Priest Accused of Stealing $83,000 To Support Porn Habit

In Massachusetts, prosecutors are dealing with a bizarre case of a man who allegedly store $83,147 to pay for his pornography habit. What makes the case even more bizarre is that the victim was the St. John the Baptist Church and the alleged felon was its pastor, Rev. Keith LeBlanc.


LeBlanc is accused of using a credit card for online porn. Police found a $25,000 balance and allege that LeBlanc admitted to his addiction. They say that, the day after LeBlanc came to the parish, he racked up an adult movie bill on Comcast worth $4,021.14. It got so bad that he allegedly forged the name of the chairwoman of the parish’s Finance Committee on an audit slip.

LeBlanc has been sent to St. John Vianney Center in Pennsylvania, which treats “behavioral health issues” of clergy.

This is not the first time that we have seen clergy raiding the church coffers. Past collared defendants include clerics who used church money for male escorts, a hitman, and botox. One priest left the church funds alone and turned to shoplifting.

The greatest problem for LeBlanc is that, while a first offender, he was in a position of authority and trust for sentencing. The court could feel that some jail time is warranted for breach the trust of his flock and victimizing a church. On the other hand, this has all of the elements of a true habit. The courts have not reached a consensus on how to treat pornography and whether it can be given the same treatment as a chemical or alcohol addiction.

Source: Eagle Tribune.

Kudos: Elaine M.

Jonathan Turley

27 thoughts on “Collared: Massachusetts Priest Accused of Stealing $83,000 To Support Porn Habit”

  1. Pingback: The Briefcase » Friday Update

  3. Gingerbaker,

    Would ANY thinking person ever allow a priest who was known to have sexually abused children in the past to work closely with children ever again? Too often pedophile priests in Massachusetts were just removed from one parish and transferred to another.

    BTW, I probably should have searched for a better excerpt to prove my point.

  4. Elaine

    Thanks. I didn’t mean for my post to cast aspersions on you, or your post, but merely to point out that that particular paragraph doesn’t stand true anymore.

    There are a lot of apologists who still stick to the argument outlined in that paragraph, as if they refuse to even read further on the matter, and I can’t stand to see it out there without rebuttal.

    🙂

  5. Gingerbaker,

    I just included that excerpt as one example to substantiate what I had written about priests who had undergone treatment, weren’t cured, and were sent back to parishes where they continued to abuse children.

  6. “Excerpt:
    In truth, Benedict is hardly the mastermind of some global, Vatican-led conspiracy to shield child abusing clergy. There is one case from his tenure as archbishop of Munich (1977-1982) in his native Bavaria, that of a child-molesting priest, Father Peter Hullerman, who Cardinal Ratzinger allowed into the diocese in 1980 for psychiatric treatment and then allowed to return to parish work, where Hullerman went on to abuse more children.”

    That paragraph is complete horse**** and we have the documents to prove it.

    From the London Evening Standard, the discovery of a highly secret letter from Ratzinger to every Catholic church in the world (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do)

    Excerpt:

    Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis – Latin for The Crime of Solicitation – which laid down the Vatican’s strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

    Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

    Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: “I found out I wasn’t working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself.”

    And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church’s handling of child abuse claims, says: “What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

    “When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there’s total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world.”

  7. Swarthmore mom,

    I never saw the movie “Doubt.” One of the middle school teachers in my system sexually abused female students…for years. He’d select a different girl every year. The teacher wasn’t what most people would think of as a “usual suspect.” He was really handsome and personable. He was popular with both students and parents. He was also a fantastic math teacher. These abusers count on their victims’ silence. Eventually, one of the girls told her parents what had happened to her. I’m glad that young woman had the courage to speak up.

Comments are closed.