Suspended Gay Calif. Priest Laments: Abp. Gomez a 'Sharp Thrust to the Right' for LA Diocese

FRESNO, California, April 26, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A suspended gay activist Fresno priest has expressed dismay over the pope's appointment of Archbishop José Gomez to head the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in place of Cardinal Roger Mahony.

California Catholic Daily last week highlighted Rev. Geoffrey Farrow's April 17 blog post referring to Gomez's appointment: "What does this mean for the future of the Catholic Church in Los Angeles and California? It means a sharp thrust to the right."

Rev. Farrow was suspended from the priesthood in 2008 when he declared himself an open homosexual and urged his congregation to vote against Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Farrow pointed to the implications of Gomez's influence upon episcopal appointments in other dioceses in California, and decried the Latino archbishop's association with the orthodox Opus Dei movement.

"[Mahoney's] replacement by someone from Opus Dei clearly communicates that Mahony has lost all practical influence in Rome and was not able to name his successor," wrote Farrow.

Under Cardinal Mahony the LA archdiocese has earned a deeply liberal reputation with respect to many issues, including abortion and homosexuality, making it likely that Gomez's ascension will mark a historic shift towards orthodoxy for the Los Angeles faithful.

As but one example, the LA Archdiocese's annual Religious Education Congress, widely publicized as the largest of its kind in the U.S., regularly draws criticism from the Catholic community for featuring homosexualist speakers, including dissenting priests.

Described as exerting a "gay-friendly" influence on the diocese, Mahony has also come under fire for welcoming Rainbow Sash activists, who demand acceptance of homosexuality in the Catholic Church, to communion.

The archdiocese is currently under criminal investigation for harboring sexually abusive priests, although it is unclear whether the probe continues to include Cardinal Mahony.

In another episode that is burned in the memory of pro-life Catholics, in 2005 when Cardinal Mahony was holding an inauguration for a pro-abortion mayor in the Cathedral, pro-lifers who were peacefully protesting outside the Cathedral were removed and threatened with arrest by Cathedral security. In stark contrast, Archbishop Gomez opposed a 2008 appearance of the pro-abortion former Senator Hillary Clinton at a Catholic university in his diocese, and backed Bishop John D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend when the latter boycotted the University of Notre Dame's honoring of President Obama in May 2009.

What is the nuance of the word “suspend” in this case? I read it as he is in time out and can come back at some point in the future

It's more than a "time out". Canonical procedure punishes priests who have violated Church law in serious ways by “suspending” them from exercising their ministry. This is sometimes referred to as “defrocking.” (According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary to “defrock” is to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of an office.) Thus, Farrow has been defrocked and while this can be reversed, Farrow would likely need to recant his words, repudiate his openly pro-homosexual position and ask forgiveness. That's unlikely.

A priest who has been suspended may request that he be released from his vows of celibacy and other obligations as a priest. This is known as "laicization". Laicization (which is altogether different from defrocking and which may apply to a priest who has committed no crime but simply wishes to leave the priesthood) is not further punishment. It is something a priest who has already been punished by being suspended might well desire, as do some priests who have committed no crime and who have not been suspended.

Thus, Farrow has been defrocked

Incorrect. Farrow is suspended but is still a Priest. Defrock is a secular term not found in Canon Law, the correct term is dismissal - loss of the clerical state - and is quite different from suspension.

A priest who has been suspended may request that he be released from his vows of celibacy and other obligations as a priest. This is known as "laicization".

Laicization is also a secular term not found in Canon Law. A Priest may request dismissal. A dismissal does not include a dispensation from the vow of celibacy. One must request a dispensation which is only granted and is not automatic, by the Pontiff.

CHAPTER IV : LOSS OF THE CLERICAL STATE

Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state:

1° by a judgement of a court or an administrative decree, declaring the ordination invalid;

2° by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;

3° by a rescript of the Apostolic See; this rescript, however, is granted to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest of reasons.

Can. 291 Apart from the cases mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, the loss of the clerical state does not carry with it a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which is granted solely by the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state in accordance with the law, loses thereby the rights that are proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of order, without prejudice to can. 976. He is automatically deprived of all offices and roles and of any delegated power.

Can. 293 A cleric who has lost the clerical state cannot be enrolled as a cleric again save by rescript of the Apostolic See.

Can. 1333 §1 Suspension, which can affect only clerics, prohibits:

1° all or some of the acts of the power of order

2° all or some of the acts of the power of governance;

3° the exercise of all or some of the rights or functions attaching toan office.

§2 In a law or a precept it may be prescribed that, after a judgement which imposes or declares the penalty, a suspended person cannot validly perform acts of the power of governance.

§3 The prohibition never affects:

1° any offices or power of governance which are not within the control of the Superior who establishes the penalty;

2° a right of residence which the offender may have by virtue of office;

3° the right to administer goods which may belong to an office held by the person suspended, if the penalty is latae sententiae.

§4 A suspension prohibiting the receipt of benefits, stipends, pensions or other such things, carries with it the obligation of restitution of whatever has been unlawfully received, even though this was in good faith.

Can. 1334 §1 The extent of a suspension, within the limits laid down in the preceding canon, is defined either by the law or precept, or by the judgement or decree whereby the penalty is imposed.

§2 A law, but not a precept, can establish a latae sententiae suspension without an added determination or limitation; such a penalty has all the effects enumerated in Can. 1333 §1.

Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of the sacraments or sacramentals or the exercise of a power of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever this is necessary to provide for the faithful who are in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever one of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of the power of governance; for any just reason it is lawful to make such a request.

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.