Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

News on Fr. Haley and it's sad indeed! (anti-homo whistleblower excommunicated) (Catholic Caucus)
BISHOP LOVERDE, WHERE IS FR. JAMES HALEY? ^ | January 16, 2012 | Mary Ann Kreitzer

Posted on 01/16/2012 4:26:10 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor

Well, the word coming down from on high is that Fr. Haley has been excommunicated and defrocked. This has been personally confirmed to me by someone who should know, but don't expect to hear about it anywhere official. There's something about this case that makes authorities skittish. After all, we can't acknowledge the elephant in the sanctuary, the homosexual priest problem. Every new homosexual scandal is met by the three monkeys with ears, eyes, and mouth covered. ("Psst...ignore the elephant until he goes away.") So Fr. Haley will continue to be the invisible man.

Strange, isn't it?

The Vatican released a notification over the excommunication of heretic priest Tissa Balasuriya, but Fr. Haley who is guilty of no more than making his bishop upset for revealing too much about the homosexual subculture in Arlington, simply disappeared without a trace. I have the feeling that if he had experienced an open trial we would have heard testimony by at least one chancery official that was perjury from start to finish. In secular court one has the right to be faced with one's accusers, but in Fr. Haley's case, I understand the accusation used to secure his conviction was summarized by the chancery and the "accuser" never appeared. Isn't that hearsay evidence which would not be allowed in a real trial grounded in justice?

But the story gets worse. Fr. Haley was cut off financially by the diocese last summer and now has no income. His situation has deteriorated from living a nomad's existence in a motor home with a small income to living with no income at all except what he can pick up from odd jobs. He needs work.

Before he entered the priesthood, Fr. Haley was an engineer. He is technologically oriented and I understand he's interested in finding a technical type job. If anybody has leads to suggest or a job to offer, please post them in the comments section. And please continue your prayers. Consider how the heretics go on and on. They write books, speak at diocesan functions, thumb their noses at the Church, with nary a cluck to upset their scandal. Fr. Gerard Sloyan, the architect of the disastrous feeling-based catechetics that destroyed the faith of a generation and a promoter of the "fundamental option" heresy, gives courses in Arlington regularly.

Fr. Haley, on the other hand, was crucified for "being a snoop" as one priest said to me. In view of the devastation the homosexual cabal is inflicting on the Church (Check out the war in in Minnesota where the homosexual/pro-homosexual priests are currently fighting their bishop over an amendment on the ballot to protect traditional marriage.), we could use more "snoops" like Fr. Haley.

Pray for Bishop Loverde. He has a lot to answer for. Our God is a God of mercy, but justice is the flip side of the coin. He used his authority to draw and quarter a good priest. A day of accounting is on the calendar.


TOPICS: Catholic; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: church; homosexualscandal; priest
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
The homosexual scandal continues under the supposedly "conservative" Bishop Loverde.
1 posted on 01/16/2012 4:26:16 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
Fr. Haley has been excommunicated
But people who pray at the altar of "choice" can still receive Communion.

And the Church wonders why the parishioners are leaving in droves.
2 posted on 01/16/2012 4:40:02 PM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

What kind of engineer? Does he have a masters’ degree?


3 posted on 01/16/2012 4:40:39 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

Yet all the pro-homo and abortion legislating Catholic politicians are untouchable.


4 posted on 01/16/2012 4:41:13 PM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor; Bill W was a conservative; verga; thesaleboat; Sick of Lefties; Chainmail; ..
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


5 posted on 01/16/2012 4:45:09 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

Any citation - or are we simply to take the author’s word for it?


6 posted on 01/16/2012 4:46:18 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
And the Church wonders why the parishioners are leaving in droves.

If they are honestly leaving for this reason, they should move to a traditionalist redoubt which does not put up with such nonsense. This is not the Church's doing, but rather it is the work of treasonous office holders.

7 posted on 01/16/2012 4:54:16 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

The blog is a citation. Here is another:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/090915

Google is thy friend.


8 posted on 01/16/2012 4:58:25 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

Fr. Haley is a lunatic. He claims that 60% of Arlington priests are homosexuals. The problem with that assertion is that for years prior to Loverde, Arlington was the only diocese in the nation to actively screen out homosexuals. “Good Bye, Good Men” actually singled out the Arlington Diocese for being a “good diocese.” (Unfortunately, Bishop Loverde has reversed this screening out, so I’m not defending him, either.)

According to BishopAccountability’s database, Arlington Diocese has been involved in NO lawsuits for any homosexual abuse by its priests. (An Oblates priest residing in the diocese was sued, but was not diocesan; three priests were accused on improper heterosexual relationships; one priest was arrested for possession of child pornography.)


9 posted on 01/16/2012 4:59:06 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

Lousy research by the author you cite.

Arlington is not a suffragan diocese to Washington, where Cardinal McCarrick was archbishop. (McCarrick definitely *is* one of the bad guys.) Despite teh Archdiocese of Washington being directly between Arlington and Baltimore, Arlington belongs to the Archdiocese of Baltimore. When the Washington Archdiocese was created, it was carved out of the Baltimroe Metropolitan, and the Virginia dioceses remained with Baltimore.


10 posted on 01/16/2012 5:05:37 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: dangus

“Fr. Haley is a lunatic.”

Back up or withdraw your detraction. You cite “Good Bye, Good Men” by Michael Rose, but this author is on record defending your “lunatic” Fr. Haley:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0305-rose

Fr. Haley was called as a witness to make a legal deposition. Here is a PDF of the legal deposition that brought the the hammer of Loverde:

http://www.rcf.org/pdfs/hdep.pdf

Unless you can find a lie in this deposition, you owe Fr. Haley an apology. Perhaps you would have prefer that Fr. Haley lie in his deposition.


12 posted on 01/16/2012 5:14:08 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Please cite where Fr. Haley was convicted of betraying the privacy of confession or withdraw your nonsense.

Making a general observation gleaned from the confessional about the prevalence of a certain sin in a way that does not expose anyone is permitted.


13 posted on 01/16/2012 5:20:49 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dangus; Religion Moderator

I am rescinding that last comment about repeating what he heard in confessionals. I may be drawing a false inference.


14 posted on 01/16/2012 5:21:01 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

Sorry, FRiend, but Abbott does not do his own research or, for that matter, much of his own writing. He merely cites and retales what others say. His article is as trustworthy or untrustworthy as the authorities he quotes.

I have no idea whether Fr. Haley is a martyr or a lunatic. But citing to RenewAmerica is a half-notch, at best, above the National Enquirer. The site exercises zero editorial control.


15 posted on 01/16/2012 5:25:01 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

As you can see, I was in the process of withdrawing it before your comments.


16 posted on 01/16/2012 5:26:38 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

In fact, I never said he was convicted of it. What he appears to have tipped off to the press and what he heard in the confessional appear to be separate scandals.


17 posted on 01/16/2012 5:28:34 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Thank you.


18 posted on 01/16/2012 5:32:51 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

I’m not sure how the New Oxford Review attaches Fr. Haley to what Michael Rose says in that article, but the (apparently reprinted) article is about James Gould, not Father Haley, and in it, Michael Rose reaffirms the excellent condition of Arlington Diocese under Bishop Keating, and the work for James Gould to prevent homosexual infiltration.

I am glad you presented the deposition; I am very curious whether the problem is that Haley made many assertions about other priests that were far beyond what he was depositioned to answer... but I have to leave for now.


19 posted on 01/16/2012 5:34:00 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

The citations in post 12 are more substantial.


20 posted on 01/16/2012 5:35:01 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

You’re welcome, but just to be clear, I’m only withdrawing what I said about him violating the confessional. He is still a lunatic who fantastically contradicts Michael Rose.


21 posted on 01/16/2012 5:38:19 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dangus

“I’m not sure how the New Oxford Review attaches Fr. Haley to what Michael Rose says in that article”

I posted the link because Michael Rose is a recognized authority but only the beginning is available for free. You have to pay to read the rest of the article.


22 posted on 01/16/2012 5:42:55 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

Hate to disappoint you, but out here they are coming in droves.

Remember that the Pope rebuked Nancy Pelosi by not allowing a private audience or something like that.


23 posted on 01/16/2012 5:48:09 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: mas cerveza por favor

Michael Rose and NOR both have been known to exaggerate and calumniate, distort and bend things a tad. Yes, indeed, to bear false witness, to make unjustified accusations of heresy, false teaching and so forth.

Fr. Haley may indeed be the victim of persecution. But on the basis of NOR, Michael Rose, and RenewAmerica I would not rush to judgment.

But somehow, from your posting history and your faith in these sources, I think your mind was made up long ago and no one is going to change it.

But for me, sorry, close but no cigar. I reserve judgment because I am obligated, as a Catholic, not to indulge in rash judgment. And that applies to traditionalist and conservative Catholics too. Just because there are a lot of malfeasant liberal Catholic bishops and leaders doesn’t give us a pass on requiring sufficient and trustworthy evidence before reaching conclusions.

Pre-judgment, pre-judice is wrong no matter who pre-judges.


25 posted on 01/16/2012 5:55:56 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

On that basis, cam you at least give us evidence of your condemnation of NOR? Are you saying all conservative Catholics are liars, and not so conservative Catholics are not to be questioned?


26 posted on 01/16/2012 6:02:37 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
But people who pray at the altar of "choice" can still receive Communion.

And the Church wonders why the parishioners are leaving in droves.
Are you talking about Laura Bush. Isn't she pro-choice?????
27 posted on 01/16/2012 6:03:34 PM PST by raybbr (People who still support Obama are either a Marxist or a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

On the basis of guilt by association, NOR accused Richard John Neuhaus of being a universalist (therefore false teacher).

This in turn was based on a tendentious and hyperbolic reading of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s views. And Neuhaus merely praised vB as a great theologian without endorsing his controversial views.

And that’s only one example.

I’m tired of traditionalist Catholics who think they can play fast and loose with truth and who exaggerate and gossip.


28 posted on 01/16/2012 6:08:46 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

Unbelievable. God Bless Fr. Haley.

How can the church continue to act in this disgusting manner? That Bishop needs to be excommunicated.


29 posted on 01/16/2012 6:12:29 PM PST by Dudoight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I’m a traditionalist Catholic. I am most certainly not saying all conservative Catholics are liars.
I
specifically
cited
NOR.

For you to suggest I attacked all conservative Catholics is precisely the kind of hyperbole I’m talking about.

Fr. Haley may be the victim of evil persecution.
I
just
don’t
know.

And this thread has offered zero credible evidence one way or another.

FR prides itself on critical evaluation of claims.

I was once a fan of NOR. I stopped reading it when it became clear that they lacked prudence and the ability to evaluate critically and fairly.

Much of Michael Rose’s books are good and solid. But some of it is hyperbole and some of those he attacked appear to have been falsely accused.

Richard John Neuhaus was an impeccably orthodox and solid Catholic. Because he said nice things about someone NOR was already (incorrectly and inaccurately) on the warpath against, they turned on someone whom only months earlier they would have praised to the skies.

Not unlike FReepers willing to turn on Jim DeMint and call him a RINO because of a single statement. Except that Jim DeMint, from time to time, has endorsed a RINO or two.
That
does
not
make
him
a
RINO.

Von Balthasar was not a CINO. His views on “dare we hope” are
in fact
orthodox. They differ from those of Barth and Origen. But NOR falsely accused him of universalism. John Paul II disagreed with him on this issue but did not turn on him. NOR did and did so in an intellectually indefensible way. One may disagree with controversial views without calling the one one disagrees with a heretic.

That was bad enough. To turn against Neuhaus SOLELY on that basis was cheap, intellectually dishonest and violates Christian charity. NOR was just plain wrong but steadfastly refused to reconsider.

So, to hyperbole and rash judgment I’ll add the charge of plain old bull-headedness.

NOR did a lot of good and probably still does a lot of good.

But NOR has done some bad. Not the first, not the last time someone or some journal does some good, does some bad.

But I do NOT trust NOR’s judgment in this Haley case.

Fr. Haley may be the innocent victim of evil persecution.

But I just don’t know and neither do you and you have an obligation under God and the Catholic faith not to indulge in rash judgment.

Would it hurt you to suspend judgment on the Haley case until you have credible evidence?

Or do you believe every accusation and conspiracy theory you encounter?


30 posted on 01/16/2012 6:23:07 PM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

Guy I knew in high school was a homo and always wanted to be a Catholic priest, because he knew that seminary and the priesthood were homo heaven. Far as I know he made it.


31 posted on 01/16/2012 6:25:55 PM PST by Some Fat Guy in L.A. (Go Steelers (what's the baseball team called again?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Some Fat Guy in L.A.

I personally know two solid Catholics who were expelled from seminary for being “to rigid” on the issues of homosexuality and orthodoxy in general.


32 posted on 01/17/2012 1:21:21 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
The dictionary could be your friend.

A "citation" is a link or other directive to a primary source, such as an actual decree of excommunication - instead of thousands of blog postings claiming that such a primary source exists somewhere.

33 posted on 01/17/2012 3:34:59 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Please read this sworn deposition by Fr. Haley:

http://www.rcf.org/pdfs/hdep.pdf

It long but very worth-while reading. If you are short of time, try doing a search for the word “homosexual” and hop through the document.


34 posted on 01/17/2012 4:39:32 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase; wideawake; dangus; oh8eleven; narses; Houghton M.; Salvation; nickcarraway; raybbr; ...

Anyone concerned about this issue, please at least skim the sworn deposition by Fr. Haley:

http://www.rcf.org/pdfs/hdep.pdf

It is a devastating indictment of Bp. Loverde as an enabler and protector of sexual predators. Bp. Keating is described as far more responsible, but as ultimately unable to stand against the power of the homosexual cabal.


35 posted on 01/17/2012 5:20:44 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
The document makes no mention of excommunication nor provides verifiable evidence that such a canonical penalty was imposed.

But it is a fascinating read.

36 posted on 01/17/2012 5:28:24 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
the Pope rebuked Nancy Pelosi by not allowing a private audience
That's Pelosi in purple kissing the Pope's ring outdoors. Some "rebuke."

Hate to disappoint you, but out here they are coming in droves.
Oh yeah, 30 million illegals can't be wrong. Nevertheless ...

37 posted on 01/17/2012 5:38:06 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

That’s pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi, kissing the Pope’s ring.


38 posted on 01/17/2012 5:41:27 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Regarding excommunication, I posted more information from the blog below. There is no official announcement, but the point of the blog is to expose information that is being covered up. This report does correlate with the facts of the deposition.


Mary Ann Kreitzer Jan 16, 2012 10:21 AM

Here’s my understanding. The chancery got Fr. Haley on an old charge that Bishop Keating had already looked into about his having a sexual relationship with a woman. He didn’t, although he would admit himself that what started as spiritual direction was beginning to get too intimate and he stopped it. She wasn’t in his parish but turned up there almost every day according to a friend of mine at the parish, so who was pursuing whom?

At any rate, Fr. Haley was accused of absolving a partner in sexual sin which carries an automatic excommunication I believe. The woman involved never testified but hearsay evidence was presented. The reality is that since the chancery couldn’t get him on the substance of the matter (He never disobeyed the bishop, but did respond to a legal subpoena to be deposed by Jim Lambert’s lawyer in the Verrecchia civil lawsuit case.) At that point the chancery dredged up the old case to use it as the gallows’ issue. And obviously it worked. Father Haley had no money to fight and his canon lawyer quit after being told he’d never work again in the Church if he continued to defend him. Bishops are powerful men. I expect if I were a religious I’d have been silenced long ago.


39 posted on 01/17/2012 6:02:55 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

I don’t know for certain that anything Fr. Haley said in the deposition is a lie, but he is plainly, knowingly entering into the public record the most salacious testimony I can imagine that has little to do with the subject at hand. Around page 140, he takes the slightest nudge from the depositioner about other signs of sexually inappropriate behavior he’s witnessed, and launches into very specific detail, naming names.


40 posted on 01/17/2012 6:40:29 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Fr. Haley’s sworn testimony of a massive, ongoing criminal cover-up by Bishop Loverde is “salacious?” It deserves thorough investigation by the Virginia state police and the FBI, since the Vatican is obviously not up to the task.


41 posted on 01/17/2012 7:12:26 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor

OK, here’s MY UNDERSTANDING of things. Mind you, I’m not a canon lawyer, or a canon anything, and I’m not accusing Fr Haley of any actions that he does not acknowledge:

I had heard about Fr Haley “violating the confessional.” I misinterpreted certain statements by some of the articles I found in that light, but realized they weren’t saying he violated the confessional, but here’s the deal:

Fr Haley had a very deep, emotional relationship, which caused scandal, although he claims, credibly, it was non-sexual in nature. The woman he was involved with CONFESSED TO HIM. That suggests she felt her role in it was sinful. He absolved her. That’s the no-no. And it’s a whopping large one.

There’s two reasons:

1. He should have directed her to another priest for absolution. By absolving her himself, he took upon himself the decision as to whether the relationship was improper, or constituted an abuse of his own faculties.

2. Now, when he explains what happens, he’s violating her confession.

So even though we can probably take at reasonable face value that the sin he committed was probably no great matter, the “cover-up,” meaning his absolution of his accomplice in sin, is sufficient to explain the diocese’s dealings with him.

So why did Loverde deal so harshly with this cover-up when Keating had presumably concluded his disciplinary actions? Because the deposition itself detonated the bomb planted by his cover-up: He violated her confession. Yes, he did so in response to a deposition. Yes, he was only explaining his own actions with regards to the woman. But partly that’s why absolving an “accomplice” (church’s term) is forbidden: because it creates these potential landmines. When he responded to the deposition, he detonated the landmine.

As far as the “ testimony of a massive, ongoing criminal cover-up by Bishop Loverde,” this goes back to what I wrote about the Virginia diocese:

* The diocese was one of only two to screen out homosexuals. The fact that Loverde reversed this is something Loverde will have to account for when he faces eternal judgment, but has little bearing on the fact that this policy had been in place during the relevant times.
* The diocese has never been sued for the homosexual impropriety of its priests. This would seem to confirm the effectivess of its no-homosexual policies.
* What then to make of Haley’s reports that most of the priests in the diocese are gay? Is there any substantiation of this claim?

As to the issue of obedience, Fr Haley was deposed, that is true. But the deposition clearly went far beyond the case at hand. Fr Haley had the opportunity to enter his allegations into the public record, and he absolutely ran with it.


42 posted on 01/17/2012 8:14:32 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Fr Haley had a very deep, emotional relationship, which caused scandal, although he claims, credibly, it was non-sexual in nature. The woman he was involved with CONFESSED TO HIM. That suggests she felt her role in it was sinful. He absolved her. That’s the no-no. And it’s a whopping large one.

There’s two reasons:

1. He should have directed her to another priest for absolution. By absolving her himself, he took upon himself the decision as to whether the relationship was improper, or constituted an abuse of his own faculties.

2. Now, when he explains what happens, he’s violating her confession.

So even though we can probably take at reasonable face value that the sin he committed was probably no great matter, the “cover-up,” meaning his absolution of his accomplice in sin, is sufficient to explain the diocese’s dealings with him.

So why did Loverde deal so harshly with this cover-up when Keating had presumably concluded his disciplinary actions? Because the deposition itself detonated the bomb planted by his cover-up: He violated her confession. Yes, he did so in response to a deposition. Yes, he was only explaining his own actions with regards to the woman. But partly that’s why absolving an “accomplice” (church’s term) is forbidden: because it creates these potential landmines. When he responded to the deposition, he detonated the landmine.

What rule of canon law demonstrates that Fr. Haley erred by giving absolution? What confessed sins or private confessional information did Fr. Haley reveal?

43 posted on 01/17/2012 8:32:27 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
Canon 977 says that "The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death." Can. 1378 §1. A priest who acts against the prescript of ⇒ can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
44 posted on 01/17/2012 12:51:09 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mas cerveza por favor
If anything, I erred in supposing that Bp Keating may have had lesser reason to excommunicate him than Bp Loverde: Canon 977 says that "The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death." Can. 1378 §1. A priest who acts against the prescript of ⇒ can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
45 posted on 01/17/2012 12:52:12 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Of course, to be fair to Keating, the sixth commandment is against adultery. The fact that we’re discussing merely “an inappropriate sexual relationship” gives some wiggle room. But make no mistake: the commandment that is broken by “an inappropriate sexual relationship” is the 6th commandment.

And I am morally obligated to note, that I am only defending the diocese’s actions, against the inference that there must be some terrible cover-up for the diocese to have treated Fr. Haley so harshly. I do not know the truth of what Fr. Haley may have done or not done; I’m only saying that according to the facts as presented by the various sources presented, the diocese actions were consistent with canon law, as I understand it to be. I am in no way meaning to presume Fr. Haley’s guilt. I have no idea what his defense against such accusations may have been.


46 posted on 01/17/2012 12:59:21 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Of course, to be fair to Keating, the sixth commandment is against adultery. The fact that we’re discussing merely “an inappropriate sexual relationship” gives some wiggle room. But make no mistake: the commandment that is broken by “an inappropriate sexual relationship” is the 6th commandment.

And I am morally obligated to note, that I am only defending the diocese’s actions, against the inference that there must be some terrible cover-up for the diocese to have treated Fr. Haley so harshly. I do not know the truth of what Fr. Haley may have done or not done; I’m only saying that according to the facts as presented by the various sources presented, the diocese actions were consistent with canon law, as I understand it to be. I am in no way meaning to presume Fr. Haley’s guilt. I have no idea what his defense against such accusations may have been.


47 posted on 01/17/2012 12:59:42 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dangus

If there’s any doubt whether Can 1378 applies to applies to someone who didn’t complete the sexual act with the penitent:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA1586&lpg=PA1586&dq=confession+absolution+accomplice+canon+law&source=bl&ots=GJ3MQEzw0i&sig=jWn_2Z_G8UvtL5FCzget7dfQgbQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=79sVT9HsFKSF0QHg69CxAw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=confession%20absolution%20accomplice%20canon%20law&f=false

I cannot copy and paste from that link because of its format. But the main gist of my reference to it is that the sin merely must be sexual of nature, and external, not necessarily intercourse. (By “external,” I believe they mean as opposed to mental.)


48 posted on 01/17/2012 1:06:12 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Canon 977 says that "The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death."

What was the sin? What evidence proves that Fr. Haley was an accomplice to the sin and then subsequently granted absolution of the sin to another accomplice? I did not see any such admission in Fr. Haley's deposition.

49 posted on 01/17/2012 1:06:52 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dangus
I am only defending the diocese’s actions, against the inference that there must be some terrible cover-up for the diocese to have treated Fr. Haley so harshly

If there is no cover-up, why does Bishop Loverde suppress the details of the excommunication and the supposed evidence against Fr. Haley? Is it standard practice to excommunicate a priest in secret? There is certainly a cover-up in this regard.

50 posted on 01/17/2012 1:19:17 PM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson