tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post3790257437484874117..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: Update on Fr. Geoff FarrowMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-46284087663850702522008-10-13T00:57:00.000-05:002008-10-13T00:57:00.000-05:00Given that Fr. Geoff never even showed his bishop ...Given that Fr. Geoff never even showed his bishop the courtesy of speaking to him about this matter, and instead turned the situation into a media event to further his own purposes in opposition to Church teaching, I would imagine the penalty imposed by the bishop would fall under the provisions of canon 1369:<BR/><BR/>"A person who uses a public show or speech, published writings, or other media of social communication to blaspheme, seriously damage good morals, express wrongs against religion or against the Church or stir up hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty."CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-79969113184444042962008-10-12T13:40:00.000-05:002008-10-12T13:40:00.000-05:00I left a comment on Geoff's blog asking if he has ...I left a comment on Geoff's blog asking if he has a canonist working for him. I also wondered aloud if he was getting ready to leave anyway. He might have been tired of the hypocricy of the leadership and figured it was no longer possible to be authentic and work for the church. God bless him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-68525747043935553102008-10-12T00:13:00.000-05:002008-10-12T00:13:00.000-05:00Unless I am missing something, the bishop does not...Unless I am missing something, the bishop does not have canonical grounds to suspend this priest. GS cites the theological basis. I hope Father gets a good canon lawyer. He needs a pit bull. Michael, if you are in contact with him and he wants a reference to just such a canon lawyer, put him in contact with me.<BR/><BR/>The most delicious part is that according to canon law, the diocese would have to pay the canon lawyer's fees...to litigate against the diocese all the way to Rome.kevin57https://www.blogger.com/profile/01681985465980196347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-42824182695998805512008-10-11T14:35:00.000-05:002008-10-11T14:35:00.000-05:00One of the apologists for the Roman Catholic Churc...One of the apologists for the Roman Catholic Church states, "Holy Mother Church proposes, not imposes; her children assent, not obey."<BR/><BR/>He wrote this claim within the past five years. I don't believe him. I believe he wishes it were so, but clearly it is not.<BR/><BR/>What is surprising is that Fr. Geoff did not countermand an infallible doctrine of orthodoxy or orthopraxis, but merely a consensus of orthopraxis. I thought the supremacy of conscience requires the freedom to express assent as well as dissent.<BR/><BR/>According to Aquinas, and reiterated by J. H. Newman, the judgment of practic reason based on the morality of a proposed act is known as "conscience." When the will acts in conformity with this judgment, the act is morally good. According to Aquinas, <I><B> "man is obliged to act in conformity with his conscience, even when reason is mistaken and the conscience judgment is false."</B></I><BR/><BR/><I>Summa Theologica,</I> I-II, 19, 5.<BR/><BR/>Against Augustine, who rejects the primacy of conscience, Aquinas states: "if a man were to know that human reasons was dictating something contrary to God's commandment, he would not be bound to abide by reasons: but then reasons would not be entirely erroneous. But when erring reasons proposes something as being ommanded by God, then to scorn the dictate of reason is to scorn the commandment of God." (Ibid, R. Obj. 2.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com