And the Church wonders why the parishioners are leaving in droves.
Are you talking about Laura Bush. Isn't she pro-choice?????
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Unbelievable. God Bless Fr. Haley.
How can the church continue to act in this disgusting manner? That Bishop needs to be excommunicated.
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?
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.
I personally know two solid Catholics who were expelled from seminary for being “to rigid” on the issues of homosexuality and orthodoxy in general.
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.
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.
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.
But it is a fascinating read.
That’s pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi, kissing the Pope’s ring.
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.
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.
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.