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.
“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.