Replies

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.

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:

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.)

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.