Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!
All Babies Love Their Bottles
Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If there’s any doubt whether Can 1378 applies to applies to someone who didn’t complete the sexual act with the penitent:
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.)
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.
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.
I’m not sure what the sin was that the woman confessed. The point was SHE felt she had cause for absolution for what they did together. Did she decide that letting him feel her naked, reconstructed, post-operative breast was inherently sexual? Or maybe she thought their very expressive hugs went beyond friendship? I don’t know. He acknowledges these incidents happened, that he was her confessor, and that that they were the basis for Loverde’s charges against him. If he didn’t feel that they constituted a sin, that doesn’t matter. The point was that SHE felt they did. And since he was an accomplice to the actions, whether they were sinful in his judgment doesn’t matter, the judgment cannot be his to make.
Had he said to her, “I cannot absolve you of this. You must seek another priest to absolve you,” there would be no impropriety. But these canons exist to prevent coverups and self-justification.
Now, I can speculate many defenses, and not being a canon lawyer, I don’t know how reasonable they might be.
I’m not sure what the sin was that the woman confessed. The point was SHE felt she had cause for absolution for what they did together. Did she decide that letting him feel her naked, reconstructed, post-operative breast was inherently sexual? Or maybe she thought their very expressive hugs went beyond friendship? I don’t know. He acknowledges these incidents happened, that he was her confessor, and that that they were the basis for Loverde’s charges against him. If he didn’t feel that they constituted a sin, that doesn’t matter. The point was that SHE felt they did. And since he was an accomplice to the actions, whether they were sinful in his judgment doesn’t matter, the judgment cannot be his to make.
Had he said to her, “I cannot absolve you of this. You must seek another priest to absolve you,” there would be no impropriety. But these canons exist to prevent coverups and self-justification.
Now, I can speculate many defenses, and not being a canon lawyer, I don’t know how reasonable they might be.
>> 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? <<
It’s not CERTAIN that an excommunication has taken place. If Haley appealed his excommunication to the Vatican, which he must do according to the canon law I posted, that would explain the Vatican’s involvement. But, of the very many excommunications I’ve heard of, very few were public.
“The point was SHE felt she had cause for absolution for what they did together. Did she decide that letting him feel her naked, reconstructed, post-operative breast was inherently sexual?”
You egregiously falsify Fr. Haley’s testimony. He said:
They indicated that there was
sexual misconduct. And I said what kind of
sexual misconduct are you talking about? And
he said did you fondle her breast? I said
no, I did not.
However, she had a mastectomy and she
had what is known as a translap operation
where they take part of the stomach, they
bring it up to form a new breast and she was
concerned that it wasn’t the same size and it
didn’t look the same and she asked me if I
would touch it. And I said no, to which she
placed her hand on mine and made me touch it.
And I said oh, they feel the same.
Does it sound like Fr. Haley sinned to you? Fr. Haley obviously did not believe he had sinned. Even if the woman sinned, Fr. Haley could have not been her willing accomplice according to the testimony since she “made [him] touch it.” You may choose to disbelieve Fr. Haley’s testimony, but that is another matter.
The testimony does not say the woman confessed her action as a sin in the confessional with Fr. Haley. Translap stomach-skin post-mastectomy “breasts” are not sexual organs. Forcing Fr. Haley’s to touch those “breasts” did not constitute a sexual act, so there is no canon law excommunication even if she had received absolution for the act from Fr. Haley.
Even if Fr. Haley had been accomplice to some real sexual sin and given absolution for it, that would still not justify Bishop Loverde’s massive cover-up of criminal activities documented in Fr. Haley’s deposition.
A post at the article link says Fr. Haley cannot appeal because he is deprived of all income. Fr. Haley’s canon lawyer supposedly quit because he was threatened that he would never work again if he continued to represent Fr. Haley.
Do I think it was a sin? I think if my wife found out that for any reason, another woman was topless before me, grabbing my hand to put on her breasts, she’d feel betrayed by me. But then, it doesn’t matter if I think it was a sin, if Fr Haley thinks it was a sin, or is Bp Keating thinks it was a sin. All that matters is that the woman believes HER actions were sinful.
I plainly explained that the point is that being “an accomplice” does not rely on the priest considering it to have been a sin. Being “an accomplice” refers to the *action*, not the sinful state of the action. If she confessed, it meant SHE felt it was sinful, and the canon law against an accomplice absolving someone attaches. He does not need to have sinned; he only needs to be a party to the action which she felt to have been sinful.
I can imagine that maybe Keating felt it was the sort of matter that he could give his priest the benefit of the doubt on. But then Haley has to go and enter it into the public record.
Is it understandable how a guy with largely innocent motivations can get in such a situation? Well, yes. But if she felt that there was something inappropriate about it, he cannot be her confessor. And do you really want to stick with the argument that by “she forced my hand?”
How’s this? “Well, I thought I could trust him to not sexualize it, at first... But then when I realized I was sexually enjoying being topless in front of a man, I started to question how he could not. I sinned, too, but it was his place as a priest to have stopped it from getting that far.”
Is this what was inside her head? I don’t know. But here’s the kicker: He had no way of knowing that wasn’t either.
Don’t you see the irony of your position? You’re presuming Loverde is engaged in a cover-up because he did not cover up Haley’s canonical crimes. Do I know that Haley committed canonical crimes? No, but the only way we have of knowing he was excommunicated is that he appears to have been given the opportunity to take is case all the way to the Vatican.
>> Fr. Haley’s canon lawyer supposedly quit because he was threatened that he would never work again if he continued to represent Fr. Haley. <<
It’s called “enlarging the conspiracy.” It’s what makes all conspiracies convincing to their believers. Anything which doesn’t fit the conspiracy just enlarges, rather than disproves the conspiracy: the vary fact that there is no factual support for this “evidence” merely proves the evidence in the mind of the paranoid.
Oh, and: any sign of this woman speaking out to defend Fr Haley? To hear Fr Haley’s testimony, this was someone who was such a dear, lifelong friend, it was only natural that she turn to him to feel if her breasts felt normal, as if she had no closer, less scandalizing friend to turn to. So I’m sure she’s reporting his excommunication and unfair treatment of this most dear, beloved friend to every journalist and blogger who will listen, right?
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.