“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?