[mas cerveza por favor]

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.

[dangus]

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.

[dangus]

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.