I grieve for the Church. It was bad enough that Father Alberto Cutie was living a secret life. He seemed more apologetic about being caught than about having his scandalous doings with his lady-friend photographed on a Florida beach. But now we are told that he has joined the Episcopal Church. My heart drops at the news.
The wayward priest spent his designated “retreat” time hanging out with his girlfriend. He did not even try to reform. We have all been deceived. While he asked forgiveness and said that he did not want to be the poster-boy for married priests, he has abandoned the true Church entirely. He has done the very thing which he promised he would not do. He has brought both Church doctrine and discipline to ridicule. He has hurt the faith of simple people. Given his popularity as a pastor and as a widely-known media priest, the danger of his defection is incalculable. Who knows how many will follow him out of the Catholic fold?
The picture of a bishop here is not that of Father Cutie’s true spiritual father, but rather of a robber who comes to steal from the flock. In this case, he did not get away with sheep but with the shepherd. The Episcopal Bishop Leo Frade (pictured here) should be deeply embarassed by his disrespect to the priest’s legitimate bishop, Catholic Archbishop John Favalora. Ecumenism is dealt a serious set-back. I would not be surprised to see lightning bolts from heaven about this travesty. The good Archbishop would have us pray for his prodigal son in the hope that he might return to the fold. The Miami Archdiocese has a beautiful short video online which brings home the wrongness of what Cutie and Frade have done:
The news of his infidelity only broke recently but he was unwilling to give the matter the proper amount of time and distance for sober reflection. I have to wonder how much of this was premeditated. There is even speculation that his girlfriend may have had some prior involvement with the photographer on the beach. But I think it is reaching to suppose he was setup to force his hand. Regardless of the machinations behind the scenes, the blunt of the blame must be borne by Father Cutie.
Although supposedly orthodox in his teachings, this latest act shows quite the opposite. He broke trust with his bishop and brother priests but now refers to Episcopalian priests as his “many brothers… [who] serve God as married men and with the blessing of having their own families.” This act sickens me. Episcopalian priests may be good Christians, but he sees no difference between the authentic priesthood of Catholicism and the empty shell of Anglicanism. He is not the first. But, almost every one of them abandoned Roman Catholicism, not for deep-seated doctrinal reasons, but because of the desire to bed a woman and still retain a public or ministerial persona as a spiritual guru.
Catholicism receives many Episcopalian priests into her ranks, but they are drawn by doctrinal permanence over fluctuating instability, moral absolutes over relativism and a humility coupled with obedience to God and his Church over a selfish and earthbound liberalism. Those who become Catholic often sacrifice much in the way of salary, standing and home. While a few married Episcopalian priests have been ordained in the Catholic Church; many have sacrificed their ministries entirely to be a part of the Catholic family. They placed a higher premium on divine truth than upon a capricious religion easily swayed by the fads and fashions of the day.
How could he give advice about faith and relationships to others on television, radio and in writing when he was so personally messed up? People came to him for life-giving water; but he was really an empty well. Many of his supporters seem more “on his side” than in harmony with the mind of the Church. He made disciples, inadvertantly I suppose, less for Christ and his Church and more for himself. Sometimes I think the Church should rotate clergy in media settings. Left too long in front of the camera or on the radio– and a personality cult frequently develops. We should not hero-worship our clergy. If a popular priest should fall, he might take many souls with him. This business with Father Cutie has re-ignited the married priest debate even though most active priests prefer the status-quo in favor of compulsory celibacy. Who knows how dire this will be for the Church in Miami?
A television station showed parishioners of St. Francis de Sales Parish marching around their church in support of their former pastor. Evidently they did not care that their pastor had broken his promises and had lived a lie. When interviewed they compared Father Cutie’s transgressions favorably against the terrible crimes of pedophiles. The real comparison is with good and faithful celibate priests.
The situation was intensely precarious. Today, it became a great deal worse. The woman is identified as Ruhama Canellis. She stood by his side at Trinity Cathedral where they both entered the Episcopalian church. The Episcopal bishop and priests in attendance dressed up for the event. They pulled all the stops. Even priestesses were in attendance. He is planning to marry his lover and to become an Episcopalian priest. I suppose it is fitting. King Henry VIII stole the English people from the Catholic Church so that he might divorce and remarry. Canellis is a divorced woman. Did Father Cutie miss the class in seminary on basic Christian morality? Are not fornication and adultery still sins? This should matter to them both. In addition to these concerns, he is now a renegade Catholic priest. If he accepts Protestant teaching, and plans to expound upon it, then he will be a heretic as well. He is digging a big hole for himself. My fear is that thousands might fall into it with him.
Well, it is a sad thing, but if the Episcopalian church wants our rejects then that is their trouble. Look how quickly they grabbed this fallen priest. We would have taken more time with one of theirs. His legitimate Catholic bishop was not even notified about his reception into the Episcopal church. That shows how little respect Father Cutie had for him and the ROMAN Catholic Church. The Episcopal diocese should be ashamed of itself. But given the current fragmented status of the Episcopal communion, are they even capable of shame? This was all quite sleazy and I suspect it was in the works for some time. I have no respect for men who do such things.
Father Cutie described his new faith affiliation as “a new family” and yet we do not subscribe to any form of religious relativism. Father Cutie disowned his family today. That should be the real headline. All churches are not the same. The Holy Father was clear. The Catholic Church is the true Church; Orthodoxy is a defective church; and all Protestant groupings are ecclesial communities, but not properly CHURCH. Many Protestant communities claim no priesthood or Eucharist; Episcopalians claim both but the Catholic Church judged their orders invalid and their Eucharist as false.
SEE APOSTOLICAE CURAE (Pope Leo XIII, 1896)
They are not a branch of Catholicism but a foreign misbegotten creature that has delusions of grandeur while feigning a pedigree it does not really possess.
What clouds the issue is the presence of former Catholic priests in the Episcopal church. They are still priests, even if in mortal sin and excommunicated. Father Cutie says that he will continue to proclaim God’s Word; but what is a Catholic priest apart from the Catholic Church? Will he preach the Word of God or the word of Cutie? Father Cutie is rejecting the Pope, the authority of his lawful bishop, the seven sacraments as clearly defined by Catholicism, our view of priesthood, our moral teachings on sexuality and marriage, the prohibition against divorce and remarriage, and the basics of Catholic ecclesiology. Will he be happy? Can he close his mind and heart to the many differences we have with Episcopalianism? He will be obliged to accept women priests, gay bishops and same-sex unions, a tolerance for abortion, artificial contraception and divorce with remarriage. He is leaving the Church of commandments for the church of anything goes. He says, “I will always love the Catholic Church.” But, he did not love her enough. The Church was his bride. Now he has traded her for two paramours: the divorcee and the mistress church of Henry VIII and Cranmer the despoiler.
Reports are coming in that Father Cutie has “attempted” to marry his mistress.
Trying to change affiliations does not make him an Episcopalian in the eyes of the Catholic Church or God.
Without laicization and without an annulment on her part, no marriage would ever be valid and licit. It would just be fornication with a piece of paper, a civil contract not worth the paper it is written upon.
He belonged to the Catholic Church, body and soul.
He was ordained to proclaim the truths of the Gospel as understood by the Catholic Church.
He was no longer his own man.
He can pretend among an adopted ecclesial community of pretenders, but the only thing that has changed is his current lack of obedience.
If a priest should proclaim the Catholic Church as the true faith and then renounce her for another, can he be saved?
I know for myself, if I were to do what he has done, I would be consciously inviting eternal perdition.
The Catholic Church was instituted by Christ, directly.
The Catholic Church is the great Mystery or Sacrament of Salvation.
The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.
Outside of this body, outside of this Church, where would one find salvation?
Father Cutie cannot claim ignorance of the truth.
He was brought up in the faith and educated in our seminaries.
He knows, and so he will be held accountable.
I suspect all priests will be more harshly judged than others.
Continue to pray for Father Cutie. Maybe he will come to his senses? At least we can hope.
MIAMI (Catholic Online) – “This is truly a setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation between us,” said the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Miami, who was visibly disappointed. Archbishop John Favalora indicated that he had no communication from the Episcopal Bishop, Leo Frade of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida, who had earlier in the day received Alberto Cutié, and Ruhama Buni Canellis, the woman pictured in the photographs which catapulted this sad affair into the headlines, into the Episcopal Church.
The small, private ceremony of Cutie and Canellis’s renunciation of their full communion with the Catholic Church by their reception into the Episcopal Church occurred at 1:30 p.m. Thursday afternoon in a small private ceremony. The Episcopal Bishop not only received Cutie into the Episcopal Church but gave him preaching credentials, apparently accepting him as a deacon. He will preach at 10 a.m. Sunday at the Episcopal Church of the Resurrection in Biscayne Park. Indications are that he will be ordained as an Episcopal priest after a year of related preparation.
The receiving Episcopal Bishop told the gathered Reporters: “This is the best place for Father Cutié. We welcome him and his fiancée. We are the Catholic Church. He has not abandoned the Catholic Church. He has left the Roman church. As a deacon, he can read the sermon, perform mass, but not give holy sacrament [of communion.]”
The facts speak for themselves. This is simply a continuing scandal now made worse.
Deacon Keith Fournier
VISIT CATHOLIC ONLINE FOR FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=33678
My Mother and I read your comments tonight together. All we can both say is YES! Please, consider putting this up as an opinion piece in the news media. This is EXACTLY what most good Catholics think.
Many Catholics down here believe that all Churches are the same. My Mother has faced this down many times as a CCE teacher. They just don’t understand that we have never denied we are the TRUE faith.
The sad fact is that many of his followers are not true Catholics. Hispanics in the south often do not know their faith and a large portion only attend for major ceremonies (a huge deal down here because the Priests are refusing sacraments). Many do not speak English enough to understand what is truly going on.
They are following a man – but he is NOT Jesus Christ. This man has an ego for the hero worship. He will teach his errors throughout the parish they are “giving him” near his old church. The Church is merciful but apparently the Anglican church has no scruples.
If I were his Bishop, I’d be in that parish on Sunday and standing outside telling people that even Jesus had a Judas. Hundreds of followers walked away when Jesus Christ told them they had to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood….and Christ told Peter, and will you go now?
If parishioners really can’t accept it, then maybe they should go. Last time the viscously beat a man protesting in favor of the Catholic celibacy right. Who wants to join a church begun by a bigamously married wretch? No thank, you – Christ is my savior! Father Cutie is responsible for every soul that walks away and the Episcopal Bishops did this for terribly evil reasons as well.
I am furious but I will pray for them because I know that is what Christ would do – he prayed for his disciples in the Garden knowing full well would happen.
I predict a new “reality TV” show soon… This does all seem very premeditated, and it seems that Cutie and his cutie were staying at his producers house in California during the time that should have been spent in reflection.
Cutie said in an interview that his girlfriend was a woman of faith. I think he omitted ‘little.’
STATEMENT
REGARDING: Father Alberto Cutié’s Separation from the Roman Catholic Church
FROM: Archbishop John C. Favalora, Catholic Ordinary of Miami (May 28, 2009)
The public statement below can be found at:
http://www.miamiarchdiocese.org/ip.asp?op=H1000090528ACE
I am genuinely disappointed by the announcement made earlier this afternoon by Father Alberto Cutié that he is joining the Episcopal Church.
According to our canon law, with this very act Father Cutié is separating himself from the communion of the Roman Catholic Church (c. 1364, §1) by professing erroneous faith and morals, and refusing submission to the Holy Father (canon 751). He also is irregular for the exercise of sacred orders as a priest (canons 1041 and 1044, §1) and no longer has the faculties of the Archdiocese of Miami to celebrate the sacraments; nor may he preach or teach on Catholic faith and morals (cannon 1336, §1). His actions could lead to his dismissal from the clerical state.
This means that Father Cutié is removing himself from full communion with the Catholic Church and thereby forfeiting his rights as a cleric. Roman Catholics should not request the sacraments from Father Cuité. Any sacramental actions he attempts to perform would be illicit. Any Mass he says would be valid but illicit, meaning it does not meet a Catholic’s obligation. Father Cutié cannot validly officiate at marriages of Roman Catholics in the Archdiocese of Miami or anywhere.
Father Cutié is still bound by his promise to live a celibate life, which he freely embraced at ordination. Only the Holy Father can release him from that obligation.
To the Catholic faithful of Saint Francis de Sales Parish, Radio Paz and the entire Archdiocese of Miami, I again say that Father Cutié’s actions cannot be justified, despite his good works as a priest (statement of May 5, 2009). This is all the more true in light of today’s announcement. Father Cutié may have abandoned the Catholic Church; he may have abandoned you. But I tell you that the Catholic Church will never abandon you; the Archdiocese of Miami is here for you.
Father Cutié’s actions have caused grave scandal within the Catholic Church, harmed the Archdiocese of Miami − especially our priests – and led to division within the ecumenical community and the community at large. Today’s announcement only deepens those wounds.
When Father Cutié met with me on May 5th, he requested and I granted a leave of absence from the exercise of the priesthood. Because of this, he could no longer be the administrator of St Francis de Sales Parish or the General Director of Radio Paz. For the good of the Church and to avoid the media frenzy, I chose not to impose publicly an ecclesiastical penalty, although his admitted actions clearly warranted it. Since that meeting, I have not heard from Father Cutié nor has he requested to meet with me. He has never told me that he was considering joining the Episcopal Church.
I must also express my sincere disappointment with how Bishop Leo Frade of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida has handled this situation. Bishop Frade has never spoken to me about his position on this delicate matter or what actions he was contemplating. I have only heard from him through the local media. This truly is a serious setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation between us. The Archdiocese of Miami has never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination. In fact, to do so would violate the principles of the Catholic Church governing ecumenical relations. I regret that Bishop Frade has not afforded me or the Catholic community the same courtesy and respect.
In my nearly 50 years as a priest, I have often preached on Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son – which really should be called the parable of the Forgiving Father (Luke 15, 11-32). Perhaps the story told by the Lord so long ago is applicable to our discussions this afternoon.
A father had two sons. One of them took his inheritance early and left home, spending his money wantonly. The father waited patiently for the return of his prodigal son, who after he had seen the error of his ways, repented and returned home. Upon his return, the father lovingly embraced him and called him his son. I pray that Father Cutié will “come to his senses” (Luke 15, 17) and return home. The Catholic Church seeks the conversion and salvation of sinners, not their condemnation. The same is my attitude toward Father Cutié.
We must not forget, however, that there were two sons in the Lord’s story. The other son, who never left home, was angry that his erring brother was welcomed home by the father. To all faithful Catholics, I say what the father said to this second son: “You are with me always and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice. This brother of yours was dead and has come back to life. He was lost, and is found” (Luke 15, 31-32).
In this beautiful parable Jesus teaches us that God is a loving and forgiving Father. Each of us has experienced that love, each of us needs that forgiveness; for we are all sinners. If our brother comes home, let us celebrate with the Father.
In conclusion, I commend and salute the priests of the Archdiocese of Miami and all priests who faithfully live and fulfill their promise of celibacy. By their fidelity to their promise they reflect more clearly to the world the Christ whose total gift of himself to the Father was pure and chaste love for his brothers and sisters. In our times so pre-occupied with sex, the gift of celibacy is all the more a sign of the Kingdom of Heaven where, as scripture says, there will be “no marrying or giving in marriage” (Matthew 22, 30). I encourage all Catholics to pray for and support our dedicated priests.
Most Reverend John C. Favalora
Archbishop of Miami
The biggest tragedy is the opportunism of the Episcopal Church. Hopefully all Catholic priests will renew their promises and be on their guard about any adulation of others. All of us are called to servanthood. Anything else is a temptation we should resist.
This is so very sad, but not for the reasons you have stated.
TW: As I remember my history, Episcopal bishops are part of the Apostolic Succession and the Anglican or Episcopal church is the ‘one true Faith’ as much as is Catholicism.
FATHER JOE: No, this is the fraudulent Anglican position, but the larger Catholic community never bought the idea. The Anglican or Episcopal bishops generally do NOT share Apostolic Succession and are catalogued among Protestantism and NOT with Catholicism. Various Orthodox churches gave them the benefit of a doubt, but the ordination of women has now provoked denunciation from the Russians and Greeks as well.
TW: How many times in the Middle Ages did popes and anti-popes excommunicate one another? At one time there were 3 ‘popes’ alive at the same time, each with a faction of cardinals supporting them.
FATHER JOE: Actually, there were a few occasions when there was a Pope and various anti-popes; but, the latter were not true popes. There are even anti-popes today, although they are rather comical. However, the tension with Anglicanism is not a fight within the body of Catholicism. It is a conflict between the Catholic Church and a Protestant ecclesial community which shares many externals with Catholicism. However, the substance is quite different. Episcopal priests affirm the forgiveness of Christ from the Christ. Catholic priests directly absolve sins. Catholicism celebrates seven full sacraments, not the reduced number in the Cranmer Book of Common prayer with a list of sacramentals (but not sacraments) noted simply to appease Anglo-Catholics who want to be Roman. There was a significant breach in the denial of a priesthood empowered to offer oblations of propitiation, not just praise or nostalgic remembrance. Today, the attempted ordination of women has further degraded any possible claim to succession and holy orders. If your priests are fakes then your Mass is also a lie.
TW: Some Catholics need to get off their high horses and cease telling the rest of us what ‘God thinks’ or ‘God wants’ Fr Cutie is doing the right thing
FATHER JOE: Father Cutie is a Catholic priest, not an Episcopalian troubled in conscience about whether he is or is not a priest. But Father Cutie has had his faculties removed. His bishop has not released him and so he is not free to marry. Indeed, he disrespected his bishop by running to someone else’s religious house. The Catholic Church has every right to speak about God and our religious duties to her own. Father Cutie may have tried to disown the Catholic family but that does not mean that we have abandoned or disowned him.
Selections from Apostolicae Curae
3. For an opinion already prevalent, confirmed more than once by the action and constant practice of the Church, maintained that when in England, shortly after it was rent from the centre of Christian Unity, a new rite for conferring Holy Orders was publicly introduced under Edward VI, the true Sacrament of Order as instituted by Christ lapsed, and with it the hierarchical succession. For some time, however, and in these last years especially, a controversy has sprung up as to whether the Sacred Orders conferred according to the Edwardine Ordinal possessed the nature and effect of a Sacrament, those in favour of the absolute validity, or of a doubtful validity, being not only certain Anglican writers, but some few Catholics, chiefly non-English. The consideration of the excellency of the Christian priesthood moved Anglican writers in this matter, desirous as they were that their own people should not lack the twofold power over the Body of Christ. Catholic writers were impelled by a wish to smooth the way for the return of Anglicans to holy unity. Both, indeed, thought that in view of studies brought up to the level of recent research, and of new documents rescued from oblivion, it was not inopportune to re-examine the question by Our authority.
9. To all rightly estimating these matters it will not be difficult to understand why, in the Letters of Julius III, issued to the Apostolic Legate on 8 March 1554, there is a distinct mention, first of those who, “rightly and lawfully promoted,” might be maintained in their orders: and then of others who, “not promoted to Holy Orders” might “be promoted if they were found to be worthy and fitting subjects”. For it is clearly and definitely noted, as indeed was the case, that there were two classes of men; the first of those who had really received Holy Orders, either before the secession of Henry VIII, or, if after it, and by ministers infected by error and schism, still according to the accustomed Catholic rite; the second, those who were initiated according to the Edwardine Ordinal, who on that account could not be “promoted”, since they had received an ordination which was null.
25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord., Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “mere commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess. XXII, de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words “for the office and work of a priest,” etc; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
27. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That “form” consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.
28. The same holds good of episcopal consecration. For to the formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost”, not only were the words “for the office and work of a bishop”, etc. added at a later period, but even these, as We shall presently state, must be understood in a sense different to that which they bear in the Catholic rite. Nor is anything gained by quoting the prayer of the preface, “Almighty God”, since it, in like manner, has been stripped of the words which denote the summum sacerdotium.
Father,
If this priest had left the Church the “correct way”, as other men before him have left, remained Catholic and married a woman free to marry in the Catholic Church, could he have become a deacon? I’m assuming that if a priest leaves the “correct way” he can get married, but I’m not sure if there is a “correct way” to bow out.
The way some laymen and laywomen suffer from “Catholic Guilt” throughout their lives, I can’t believe Fr. Cutie will have a day of peace for the remainder of his life. If he was going to leave, he should have done it the right way.
This is really a sad and strange case. What also bothers me about it is the complicity of the Episcopalian church. Cutie admitted himself he’s been having an affair for two years. I guess the Episcopalians don’t care if their deacons or altar ministers are living chaste lives or not. If he’s living with his girlfriend, which I can’t say for sure but seems likely given the circumstances, how can he get up on a pulpit next Sunday and preach, as if he were living a holy life?
It points to the utter relativism of our society, that in the name of tolerance we’ve come to tolerate any kind of public sin and treat the sinner as if he were a spiritual guru.
Marianne said: “What also bothers me about it is the complicity of the Episcopalian church. Cutie admitted himself he’s been having an affair for two years. I guess the Episcopalians don’t care if their deacons or altar ministers are living chaste lives or not.”
Well, some Anglicans seem content to serve as a flag of convenience for Catholics and others who’ve gotten down wrong with their own churches. That would suggest that they don’t take their own doctrines very seriously.
I’ve read a little bit about this. The impression that I’ve gotten is that some people in the Anglican leadership do not hold any real belief in Christianity in particular, and possibly not in the supernatural or theism in general, either. I’m not sure why they stay in their church, given this apparent lack of belief; there are probably lots of reasons.
There seems to be sort of a war going on between those Anglicans who really do believe in their doctrines, and those who don’t. Who will win out remains to be seen.
(Re this subject, Austin Cline’s review of Anglican Bishop Spong’s “Why Must Christianity Change Or Die” makes a lot of the points that occur to me also: http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa081898.htm )
For helenl:
You write “this is very sad, but not for the reasons you have stated”
Can you please expand on what you mean?
Fr. Joe,
Would you explain what kind of service the Episcopal Church has?
Do they have communion?
Does transubstantiation or something similar take place?
Will Fr. Cutie still have the power to perform transubstantiation?
If yes, how can he perform a Catholic sacrament in a non-Catholic church and distribute communion knowing that those receiving it do not believe as Catholics do, that it is the real body and blood of Christ?
And if he can no longer perform transubstantiation, what is the point in his performing a service that is a farce?
Does the Episcopal Church have the same reverence for consecrated bread and wine that the Catholic Church has?
Do they have a tabernacle?
I appreciate any light you can shed on this subject. Thanks.
The Anglican Church was founded on the Theology of the Pelvis. Its no wonder Cutie was drawn to it.
Where to begin? It is so painful…
Those of us who knew (or thought we knew) Father Cutie, those of us who worked closely with him feel a sense of betrayal that no words can convey.
Fr. Cutie had been talking about “leaving the Church and becoming an Episcopalian” for the past year. He would say it flippantly, jokingly. He would tell everyone how fed up he was with the Archdiocese of Miami and with our Archbishop. He left the office one day, and the next morning the magazine photos came out. He has never called any of his colleagues. This is why, many of us have arrived at the horrible conclusion, that the rumors about the photos being “staged” by Fr. Cutie, are true.
The Episcopal bishop has been appearing on local tv shows since the scandal broke. In his disrespectful and sarcastic presentation during Thursday’s News Conference, he admitted that he and Father Cutie had been in discussion for two years.
Fr. Cutie is not in love with that silly woman. He is in love with himself, the media and the spotlight. Tomorrow he will preach his first sermon at the Episcopal Church. The “media circus” planned is an embarassement. Special police presence has been planned.
Please pray for us who worked with him. Pray for the Archdiocese of Miami, its Archbishop and its good bishops and priests.
I do believe people will go to great lengths to make their sins,especially of the flesh, seem legitimate, even good and “normal”. Why did this women persue him knowing he was a priest? Why did Father Cutie allow this woman to get so close to him? I am certainly not perfect and I am a sinner, but I’m not that stupid. I have been married for fourteen years and my husband and I have seven children. There have been times of real trial and difficulty in our relationship. Love and physical attraction did not get us through those times. Loyal committment to our marriage vows,prayer and confession did. Father Cutie needs to zip his pants back up and get back to work…..I guess it’s too late for that now.
I only have one real question for everyone……do any of you remember who Jesus was around during his ministry of earth??? the worst of the worst……he reached out to them…..loved them and prayed for them…i dont think what Cutie has done (in the relationship part) was right but all you are doing on this site is slamming him. you should be praying and reaching out to him…..EVEN IF HE PUSHES YOU AWAY!!! anyway i just think that you shouldnt be hitting a man when he is down so much but reaching down to pick him up. but you know what i dont have to stand before God and answer for what you do here. only for what i do during my time on earth!!!
Father Cutie did not do anything wrong. There is no one religion or being that can block the human emotion of love. It’s alive !!! And Father Cutie could not squash it or hide behind his vestments, he fell in love.
Let us all keep in mind the MANY Priests living a lie in their positions and living a double life secretly. Reality is, the Catholic Church must revamp the old ways to make for new more open minded living and views. It’s not fair to clergy and not fair to parishoners who need guidance in marraige and raising a family. How can they when they are forbidden to have that part of life.
Churches are emptying these days and people are going to houses of worship that allow marraige and children etc.
Father Cutie was caught, so many clergy not following vows will never be. At least he took his disgrace and turned it around.
The most important thing to remember is: Non of his loyal parishoners abandoned him ! That says a lot.
You are so right, Lisa!
I love how you put it, naughty girl: “And Father Cutie could not squash it or hide behind his vestments, he fell in love.” It makes me chuckle, I am so happy for him. Father Cutie-Pie did nothing wrong. Indeed, it would be a sin for such a hunk of handsome man to be wasted. We have to get past the old puritanical hang-ups. These prudish Catholics have no right to restrain love. We know love is always right because it feels so good. What does it matter that they were not married or that she was married before? Fornication and adultery are just nasty words used by a patriarchal church trying to scare people into submission with worries about judgment and hellfire. We were all created with freedom and we should all use it to its fullest potential. We live for today. Tomorrow will take care of itself. Maybe we should petition the Episcopal CHURCH to employ more babes to seduce lonely and naïve Catholic priests? All this yammering about ecumenical dialogue; everything could be won by corrupting their celibates and having them defect en mass into the Episcopalian CHURCH. It is a far more enlightened faith community, with none of the Roman nonsense. We support a woman’s reproductive CHOICE! We put no walls against love in any quarter, and support gays and lesbians in their rights and unions. That is what I call freedom! We allow birth control and protect the freedom of couples to control their fertility responsibly. There is nothing more laughable than the Roman notion of every sperm as sacred and pencil points as persons… pleeeeease! We allow our priests to get married. We even allow people to get divorced and remarried, as many times as it takes. Love changes, and who is to say that it does not sometimes die? Monogamy is a foolishness inflicted upon us by a version of Christianity which refuses to update and to get with the times.
The Roman church had no right to impose celibacy on Father Cutie-Pie or anyone else, for that matter! It is not natural to strip a man of his right to love and to be loved. He kept the secret, not because he liked being a HYPOCRITE and LIAR, but because the Roman church COULD NOT HANDLE THE TRUTH. We are dealing with childish men in the Roman church who do not appreciate what being a REAL MAN is about. Only a REAL MAN can counsel other people in love and who might want to get married. But I should add, even living together first is okay, because how else can we know if we are right for each other? Even that sensible truth, they would deny.
They treat their child molesters better than they did Father Cutie-Pie. (Here I am talking about little children, because older teenagers also deserve the right to be FREE!) High school kids, college students, and the infected elderly have a right to their condoms. Of course, the Roman church goes so far as to oppose condom use for the elderly no matter if there is an HIV risk or not. Fortunately, some of the Roman clerics are waking up. I read that Father John Jenkins at Notre Dame is on the board of a company that makes condoms available. Good for him! Do you think Father Cutie-Pie took precautions?
Father Cutie-Pie probably feels more alive and free now than he has ever before. He has broken the chains that kept him a slave for way too long. I hope that millions of others who were his fans will also follow him out of the oppressive Roman church. You echo so many of my own thoughts. I am also gratified that “None of his loyal parishioners abandoned him!” Yes, that does say a lot. The local church speaks more immediately to the needs of people than old men waiting to die in Rome. Those who criticize him are not speaking freely for themselves but are slaves to Rome. Father Cutie-Pie shows us that we should not fight the times but rather make a modern secular culture entirely our own. We are more enlightened today than in the past. His parishioners and audience saw this in him and now they should place their confidence more in him than in the slaves of Rome and in their worship of the sterile eunuch, imaged in their savior and reflected in their clergy. I see nothing wrong with hero-worship, and right now, my hero is Father Cutie-Pie.
Is love not worth the price of a soul or two?
Father Cutie’s bond was with the Church.
He has done what he could to break it: infidelity and now defection.
He stood at the altar as Christ the groom, married to his bride, the Church.
He made a promise.
He pledged celibate love.
Now that promise is broken, and despite what he says, he has violated that love and trust.
Gone is that love.
i cant seem to get over the fact that you continue to say he has done wrong against THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH…… but the real sin here is not against the church but to GOD and GOD alone!!!!!!! i completely agree that he has done wrong but in every real sense….he has to answer to GOD for his actions. and that brings me to the point where you said in you blog that he may forfiet his soul for defecting. i dont mean to be disrepectful to you but only he and God knows the state of his eternal soul, or i might have misunderstood what you were saying. and if i did i apologize for that.
i always know that ‘The Devil’ speaks so eloquently and wears Prada too. Those are exactly the new temptations and challenges all Catholics will face.
A simple adultery case has now become the Headliners for the Search of True Love or the Case between Religious Freedom vs Celibacy Discipline.
Yes there is Gray color, but let’s put the case in the Black-White Situation, and you’ll see clearer picture. Fr. Joe put it the best, Mr. Cutie thinks currently not with his brain, but with another anatomy part of his body.
Christ works in the mysterious way, hopefully Mr. Cutie will help transforming Episcopal Church more than Episcopal Church transforms him.
Let’s hope and pray that Mr. Cutie won’t become the vassal of the Devil to bring more souls to destruction.
St. Michael, please pray for us.
While on my journey back into the Roman Catholic Church I listened to Father Alberto Cutie’s spanish shows which helped me so much to learn my faith and mature as a christian. My immediate feelings recently have been of betrayal and sadness. I am very concerned that many of his former parishoners will follow him and even partake in communion. Things are going to become very complicated, God help us.
El diablo embroma.
Padre Alberto tiene razón de irse.
Debemos todos seguirlo.
¡El diablo toma la iglesia católica!
FATHER JOE: I have confidence that the Catholic Church will weather this storm.
RE: “janine
For helenl:
You write “this is very sad, but not for the reasons you have stated”
Can you please expand on what you mean?”
Janine, I’m not sure I can. I think incidents like this, that pit Christian against Christian, must pain the heart of Jesus. The Church must become one, but it will never do so, while one branch (denominations or whatever one wishes to call it) calls itself superior. The Catholic Church is now a denomination, whether they like it or not. The Church was once the Church, but that was before the great schism. We know in part. But God knows each of us. And God knows the whole story, beginning to end. The Protestant reformation was supposed to rid the Western church of ills, but it just divided us further.
And Father Joe can explain until Jesus comes who can and can’t offer the Communion of God, but that won’t make it so. What’s so is so, regardless of Father Joe or me and anyone else. We know in part. God’s truth is true whether we believe it or not.
This priest broke a vow. Now was that vow to God or merely to the Catholic Church? This priest had an pre-marital affair. And just what does God think of that? Did the church play a part in his doing so? Maybe, but he took the vow of chastity freely. No one should take a vow lightly, for God does not. This is more important than the rules set up by the Catholic Church; it is about a vow made to God.
Although not addressed to me, I would like to remark upon a few things Helen wrote.
Yes, such incidents as this are offenses against the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The division between Christians is a grave cause of scandal.
However, we do not subscribe to the heresy of religious relativism, sometimes called denominationalism. The Catholic Church remains, even after the Eastern and Protestant separation, in full possession of the four marks: ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. The universal catechism spells this out. The apostles were the first bishop-priests of the Catholic Church. We are one in doctrine and one in worship and one in our teaching authority. The Catholic Church is the one true Church instituted directly by Christ. The non-Catholic Christian communities have elements of the Church (like the bible, faith in Jesus and possibly baptism); but, there is much they lack and there is also gross error. Vatican II, which applauded ecumenism, also taught that everything necessary for salvation “subsists” in the Catholic Church.
While the reformers who caused the break suffer the greatest fault before God; those born in the Protestant communities are only judged according to what they know to be true. Father Cutie has made a formal rejection of the Roman Catholic Church. This is far more serious. Where we find Peter (the Pope), we find the Church. He once accepted this axiom and everything else that the Church holds to be true. I cannot speak for him, but if I were to do this, I would expect nothing from God except fire and perdition. I shudder at the thought. I am even more repulsed by the notion that I might damn along with me the person I claim to love body and soul. But I have no window into his heart and mind. I do not judge him. I am only critical of his actions and the poor witness.
When it comes to the faith, I do not speak for myself. I believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches. I am ordained to give voice to those teachings and to live them out in my life. There are objective norms. There is right and wrong. We are obliged to discern natural law, divine positive law, civil law and ecclesiastical law. But you are right, outside of the canonization process— we have no crystal ball to know the subjective status of a soul before God. However, truth statements can be made since God has revealed himself in Scripture and sacred Tradition. He has given us a living Magisterium (the Pope and those bishops in union with him) to insure that we do not stray from his truth in faith and morals. This lawful authority has the power to establish discipline and to render censures or punishment. The Catholic Church is still in full possession of the keys to the kingdom.
It was canonically not a vow (religious priests) that Father Cutie made but a sacred promise (secular priests). That promise is made before God but directly to the bishop. God expects us to obey his shepherds. Their authority comes directly from him. This priest also promised to reserve himself to celibate love. He had an affair with a divorced woman. He kept it secret. He changed churches shortly after he got caught. Except for his good looks, where in this is his quality of character which should be a source of the attraction for his supporters?
Father Joe, I guess I see you (in the words you have spoken) as more Catholic than Christian, unlike Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton, who are Christian first and then Catholic. I think that, too, is sad.
You seem happy to be against ecumenism, because you value being Catholic more than unity.
I can see why considering you truly believe that Catholic Church is superior. Anyone can say anything and call anyone a heretic, but that does not make it so.
I think we can agree that we are glad God is our judge, not a human person (not even the Pope, who, in reality, is the head of the Roman Church not the Catholic Church (The catholic church is universal. We are all catholic.)
And some of us would become Roman Catholic (and enjoy the rituals of rich worship and long church history), if it weren’t for people like you who make difference more important than what we have in common.
The truth is, cradle Catholics believe any part of the “official catechism” that they choose and ignore the rest.
And no one can do anything about it.
But those of us who were born into Protestant families have to buy the whole of it – hook line and sinker – or else lie and say we do.
If you truly believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, which you say you do, and I believe you, you will have some explaining to do when God asks you about denying it to Christians who believe, perhaps, more of the “official catechism” than many lay Catholics.
God know the heart; You do not.
Indeed this is a very sad situation. With that I offer this beautiful prayer:
“Lord, give us holy priests. You yourself maintain them in holiness. O Divine and Great High Priest, may the power of Your mercy accompany them everywhere and protect them from the devil’s traps and snares which are continually being set for the souls of priests. May the power of Your mercy O Lord, shatter and bring to naught all that might tarnish the sanctity of priests, for You can do all things. Amen.”
could you do me one favor??? what is the way to heaven?? how can on be saved???
I think this is a rippling effect from the recent action of the renegade gang with Fr. Jenkins over at Notre Dame who should take some blame for encouraging others to ignore legitimate authority and discipline within the church. Shame on you again, Jenkins and Notre Dame! Cutie with his secret affair with a divorced woman and then defecting to a apostate church? (How many commandments did Cutie break? God loves the sinner, but not sins!). Let’s not also forget King Henry with his mistress, so did Martin Luther who broke vow and married a nun who also broke her vow! Thank heaven that the “defectors” from Protestantism to Catholicism are usually for the more noble cause of search for the Truth, and not ‘cos of some sleazy and dark reasons.
Jorge,
El “padre” Alberto no está correcto irse. ¿Usted está siguiendo un hombre o Jesu? Cristo dijo que él estaría con la Iglesia Católica hasta el extremo del mundo. Cristo dijo (de la Iglesia Católica) que las puertas del INFIERNO no prevalecerán contra ella. Dios nos da la opción libre. Satan eligió infierno y el padre Cutie está una mujer sobre DIOS.
Incluso Cristo tenía un Judas y el padre es nos Judas. Él está negando la una fe VERDADERA – Catolicismo. La Iglesia Anglicana no es CATÓLICA. El padre Cutie está llevando su “novia” y a otras en pecado. Al diablo lo tentó y eligió pecado sobre su dios.
Ayer, la “novia” dijeron a reporteros empujar una estatua del Virgen María en un lugar muy inadecuado. Cómo muy es religioso de ella. Me no impresionan con su fe.
¿Usted elige seguir este tipo de persona sobre nuestro señor y salvador? Entonces tan sea, Cristo permanece con la una iglesia verdadera. Cristo no la abandonó – el padre Cutie hizo.
Father Alberto is NOT correct to leave. Are you following a man or Jesus Christ? Christ said he would be with the Catholic Church until the end of the world. He also said the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. God gives us free choice. Satan chose hell and Father Cutie is choosing a woman over God.
Even Christ had a Judas and Father is a Judas. He is denying the one TRUE faith – Catholicism. The Anglican church is NOT CATHOLIC. Father Cutie is leading his “girlfriend” and others into sin. He was tempted by the devil and chose sin over his God.
Yesterday the “girlfriend” told reporters the other day to shove a Statue of the Virgin Mary in a very inappropriate place. How very religious of her. I am not impressed with their faith.
You choose to follow this type of person over our Lord and Savior? Then so be it, Christ stays with the one true Church. Christ did not abandon it – Father Cutie did.
ANGUS: The Roman Catholic church really has only itself to blame for the poor state of ecumenical relations.
FATHER JOE: Actually, we have generally better ecumenical relations with other churches today than in ages past. The problem with have with Anglicans or Episcopalians is that they keep changing key elements of their religion. Indeed, there is little uniformity in their thinking. They are held together by the Book of Common Prayer and yet even here there are wars over differing versions of the text. It is hard to have fruitful dialogue with a religion that changes its basic stands again and again. They argue that their bishops and priests possess apostolic succession and that they are a branch of Catholicism. However, there is a Low Church that will have none of the older rituals or notions of sacrifice. They call their ministers priests and yet factions in the Anglican Communion contend that the laity can offer the Eucharistic liturgy, making any form of ordained priesthood superfluous. Some claim that the Mass is a nostalgic communion service, others that it is a sacrifice which offers satisfaction and others that it is a sacrifice of praise (not really a re-presentation of Calvary). They reintroduced Confession and yet many are quick to define it as an affirmation of Christ’s forgiveness already rendered from the Cross as opposed to the Catholic view of priests having any actual power to absolve sins directly. As for the Eucharist, Anglo-Catholics and others argue for transubstantiation. Others embrace Luther’s consubstantiation. There are even those who contend for a spiritual, moral and/or figurative presence. Will the real Jesus please stand up! Breaking from the model of ministry in the East and the Catholic Church, they allow priests to date and even bishops to marry. Today they are allowed to divorce and get married again. They even allow their priests and bishops to commit adultery with their boyfriends and for homosexual unions with them. Morality goes out the window. A blind eye is turned toward fornication, homosexuality and lesbian activity, adultery, artificial contraception, and even abortion. While the apostolic pattern is clear, they attempted to ordain women as both priests and deacons. They did this with NO CONCERN about the Orthodox churches or the Catholic Church. Ecumenism means nothing to them. Their ecclesial claims grow weaker and weaker. At a time when Catholicism shows signs of hope and rebirth; Father Cutie and others of his stripe have joined a sinking ship.
ANGUS: Recent statements emanating from the Vatican have denigrated the Episcopal and other Christian churches which it diminshes as mere “ecclesial communities”.
FATHER JOE: Those categories can be found in the Vatican II documents. Pope Benedict XVI has changed nothing about Catholic teachings. But he is not afraid to defend Church teaching against falsity. I had taught the three distinctions going back to the mid-1980’s. The Catholic Church is THE CHURCH. The Orthodox churches are CHURCHES, but defective. The Protestant and Episcopal “churches” are NOT regarded as true churches but are catalogued theologically as ecclesial communities. They have elements of the Church but are not really THE CHURCH. The true Church must have a legitimate and valid priesthood; a legitimate and valid Mass; and be governed by the primatial or Holy See.
ANGUS: It has abandonned the direction of Vatican 2 and its dominionist veiws are coming into closer focus especailly here in California in the Catholic church’s recent successful attempt to undermine the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In showing the little grasp it has of coexsisting in a pluralistic society it has bumped into the remergence of the new evangelization and realignment of the Episcopal church.
FATHER JOE: Vatican II also referred to the Catholic Church as MOTHER CHURCH and made distinctions regarding unity with her. Of course, the Anglican communities at that time have altered doctrinally a great deal since the 1960’s. The Catholic Church has reformed various accidentals and manners of expression; but, the deposit of faith has remained unchanged. This is a crucial difference. Here is a pertinent passage from LUMEN GENTIUM, the Constitution of the Church, from Vatican II (Chapter 2, Paragraph 15):
The Catholic Church is all for equality and the protection of rights in our society. However, the Church will always oppose perversity and baby-killing masquerading as rights. Any kind of reorganization of the Anglican Communion today is really an intensifying polarization between those who have rightly broken away to save some remnant of classical Christianity against a radically liberalized and secularized new entity which poses as Christian with minimal catholic trappings.
ANGUS: This arrogance is aptly demonstrated in the statements of the Archbishop of Miami and many of these comments which display a vile prejudice and incoherent understanding of history as well as the present situation.
FATHER JOE: The Archbishop was Father Cutie’s spiritual father. However, while his priestly son refused to take his advice and reflect upon his promises and ministry. Instead, he deceived both him and the rest of the family about his intentions. He turned his back on his family of faith and a robber wannabee bishop claimed him as his prize. According to reports, he did not even respect the Archbishop enough to notify him about his decision to defect. The Archbishop is a good and faithful shepherd. His words were spoken to protect the Church from this gross betrayal. As I wrote before, the Catholic Church would not have moved so quickly to steal one of the Episcopalian pastors. Time would have been measured and a dialogue conducted with the other faith community.
There was nothing mean-spirited or anti-historical about the Archbishop’s response. Indeed, it is measured and shows deep concern. He is truthful, maybe the only truthful person in this whole sordid business!
ARCHBISHOP JOHN C. FAVALORA:
“I am genuinely disappointed by the announcement made earlier this afternoon by Father Alberto Cutié that he is joining the Episcopal Church.”
The priest had separated himself from the communion of the Roman Catholic Church “by professing erroneous faith and morals” and by “refusing submission to the Holy Father.”
“His actions could lead to his dismissal from the clerical state.”
“Father Cutié is still bound by his promise to live a celibate life, which he freely embraced at ordination.”
“Only the Holy Father can release him from that obligation.”
“Catholic faithful of Saint Francis de Sales Parish, Radio Paz and the entire Archdiocese of Miami, I again say that Father Cutié’s actions cannot be justified, despite his good works as a priest. This is all the more true in light of today’s announcement. Father Cutié may have abandoned the Catholic Church; he may have abandoned you. But I tell you that the Catholic Church will never abandon you; the Archdiocese of Miami is here for you.”
“Father Cutié’s actions have caused grave scandal within the Catholic Church, harmed the Archdiocese of Miami − especially our priests – and led to division within the ecumenical community and the community at large. Today’s announcement only deepens those wounds.”
When he met with Father Cutié on May 5th, “he requested and I granted a leave of absence from the exercise of the priesthood,” a request that was granted.
Since then, “I have not heard from Father Cutié nor has he requested to meet with me. He has never told me that he was considering joining the Episcopal Church.”
“Bishop Frade has never spoken to me about his position on this delicate matter or what actions he was contemplating. I have only heard from him through the local media.”
It has caused a “serious setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation” between the Catholic and Episcopal churches.
“The Archdiocese of Miami has never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination. In fact, to do so would violate the principles of the Catholic Church governing ecumenical relations. I regret that Bishop Frade has not afforded me or the Catholic community the same courtesy and respect.”
Referencing the Parable of the Prodigal Son, “If our brother comes home, let us celebrate with the Father.”
He commended “the priests of the Archdiocese of Miami and all priests who faithfully live and fulfill their promise of celibacy. In our times so pre-occupied with sex, the gift of celibacy is all the more a sign of the Kingdom of Heaven where, as scripture says, there will be ‘no marrying or giving in marriage.’ I encourage all Catholics to pray for and support our dedicated priests.”
How sad for the Catholic Church that Fr Cutie has left for another religion. He took a sacred vow just like I did when I was married. He will be a priest forever even if he does marry this other woman and lives a regular life.
May God have mercy on his soul.
What of Catholics who do not believe in teh Real Presence? Should they abstain from receiving the Eucharist, and yet aren’t they bound by the catechism to receive at some point during the year?
I was one of many who initially felt sympathy for “Padre Alberto” and his plight – after all, to err is human. However, when a priest parades around town, with displays of “public affection”, which even many lay couples do not demonstate in public, I feel that is a slap in the face to his parishoners and the entire Catholic community. Moreover, the fact that he suddenly leaves his church and beliefs “for the woman he loves” is beyond believe…he obviously is more obssessed with himself and never practiced what he preached. A young man with so much promise to a community that loved him has dug his own grave; and what a sad little man he has become.
FATHER JOE: I know the arguments, Angus. We interpret things very differently. Wanting to post most people who come here, and since this is my Blog, I tried to quickly insert my thoughts about many of your statements. It is a rule of thumb here that I get the last word. That is, unless a person making comments is really ridiculous. Your comments were smart, even if I found some of the wording vaguely familiar in places. But I suspect you are set in your ways and, I can guarantee, there is no changing me.
ANGUS: Thank you for the time given me in your response. I regret I cannot afford it to you in kind as I have only time for a limited rebuttal however I am a little unsetteled for some of what you write seems a thinly veiled bigotry.
FATHER JOE:
Is it bigotry to be convinced that the Catholic Church is “the” TRUE CHURCH?
Is it bigotry to believe that none can be saved if utterly separated from the Catholic Church?
Is it bigotry to hold fast to doctrine and morals when so many others have made truth relative and dismissed most moral norms entirely?
It is not bigotry, but solidarity in the Christian faith established directly by Christ. I do not hate non-Catholics and see the separated brethren in Protestant communities as brothers and sisters in Christ. Catholics have an obligation to love and to pray for them. Given that reunion looks increasingly unlikely, there is the further Christian duty to work with other believers for a more just and caring society.
But, at its heart, true Christianity is not “tolerant”. It believes in objective truths. The Church sees herself as the handmaid of God. She cannot dictate to the Almighty what should or should not be allowed. Of course, liberal Christianity is also NOT really tolerant either, despite the pretense. They would prefer people believe nothing than to hold the views of the Catholic Church. It is somewhat ironic really, this peculiar intolerance to a lack of tolerance. Oppose abortion and artificial contraception and you are a misogynist who objects to women’s rights and feminism. Oppose same-sex unions and you are ridiculed as a heterosexual bigot. Oppose women priests and you are a right-wing patriarchal sexist. Oppose priests who run away with their girlfriends and you are denounced as a friend of pedophiles and abusers.
ANGUS: If you call yourself Joe and identify yourself as a priest would you not find it denigrating if I insisted on calling you Patsy and only a minister(only wearing the trappings of a man and a priest)?
FATHER JOE:
Why should I be offended by the use of my name? I suppose as one who sees Catholicism from the outside, a priest like myself might only seem like a patsy for Church authority and tradition under which I work. I have been called worse things and delight in being a fool for Christ. I have minister-friends who call me by my title or call me pastor. I give them the same respect. Some of these men and women come from denominations where there is no such categories as “priest” and “liturgical sacrifice”. We dialogue where we happen to meet, not necessarily where we diverge. I do not go out of my way to steal their people and they respect those who belong to the Catholic fold. If a minister or priest wants to change allegiances, neither delights in the other’s loss; instead, we communicate with each other so that nothing will come as a surprise. Okay, there are faith communities that seek to proselytize and swallow everyone around them. That is not what we are about. We go out to our own who have fallen away and to the unchurched. If Protestants or non-Christians come to our door, we do not turn them away; however, we do talk to them about how this is a continuation of their faith journey and not a rupture or denial of the good things given and taught them before.
Episcopalian men might be good and faithful ministers, but I have serious reservations about the validity of their priesthood. As for the ladies, they might also be virtuous and good, but I do not believe they are truly priests of any sort. If I were to say otherwise, I would be telling a lie.
ANGUS: I think your readers should know first that the Orthodox church recognizes the catholicity of the Anglican Communion and secondly what the basis was for the decision of the 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XIII, declaring that Anglican Holy Orders “Absolutely null and utterly void.”, considering that Anglican bishops could trace their succession through the same bishops that the Romans did?
FATHER JOE:
As I wrote recently, the Orthodox churches are truly CHURCH but theologically regarded as “defective” because of their rejection of the full authority of the Petrine See. Roman Catholicism tends to be much more precise in its definitions and views of the sacraments than Orthodoxy. This means there is sometimes a great deal of misunderstanding. For instance, Catholics focus upon the consecration as the moment when the sacrifice of the Mass reaches its height and the bread and wine are transformed into Christ’s body and blood. It appeared to Catholic scholars that the Orthodox stressed the epiclesis instead. The truth of the matter is that they do not want to pinpoint any moment in the liturgy, and insist that the epiclesis to the consecration must be targeted as a whole. This is how they view the mystery and they reject any further attempt to dissect it. We think very differently about things, even things we hold in common.
Being nationalist churches like Anglicanism, it is not a surprise that the Orthodox churches initially accepted Anglican claims of apostolic succession and holy orders from the English. There was no in-depth historical and linguistic study of the Book of Common Prayer. Given that Orthodoxy is severed from the Magisterium, the authenticity of the teachings and practices depends upon a stable and even somewhat stagnant view of tradition. Compromises they have made are quite problematic: accepting Anglican orders, penitential second marriages after divorce, allowance (in some churches) for artificial contraception, a Trinitarian view in variance with the West, creeping Protestantism in regard to biblical interpretation, weakening in the view of purgation after death (more of a process than place), denial of the Immaculate Conception, and rejection of papal claims of primacy and infallibility. Today, given the disintegration of Christian elements in world Anglicanism and the ordination of women, far fewer Orthodox churches are looking favorable upon Episcopalian ministries.
ANGUS: From Father Matthew I learned that the primary answer is that the Anglican ordination service introduced in the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 was defective in form and intention. For Roman Catholics, the primary role of a priest is that of a person who makes the daily sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus at the altar. The Edwardine Ordinal did not have any language referring to the sacrificial role of the priest, so in Roman eyes, the entire point was missed and rites celebrated according to it were invalid.
FATHER JOE: Yes, such is clear in the passages I quoted from APOSTOLICAE CURAE recently. I even detailed present complications that would modify the document: particularly Orthodox and Old Catholic involvement in ordinations and the ministries of defecting Catholic clergy.
ANGUS: Anglican Eucharistic theology upholds sacrificial language around the role of a priest, but it is not the only or even primary role of a pastor for most Anglican pastoral theologians. Many would point to a primacy of preaching the Gospel.
FATHER JOE: The trouble is there was an apparent break in the notion of a priest who renders the type of sacrifice recognized by the Church, an oblation of propitiation that is one with the sacrifice of the Cross. Anglicanism largely returned to a stronger position, but by then the succession was deemed ruptured.
ANGUS: The Archbishops of Canterbury and York replied in 1897 with the encyclical Saepius Officio. The strident affirmation of sacrifice on the Roman side as the center of priestly identity was largely a product of Counter-Reformation polemics against Protestants. The Archbishops pointed out that many rites used historically in the Roman church did not contain this language.
FATHER JOE: It is more than a matter of language used in the liturgy itself. The difficulty is that the English Church deliberately took out language from their understanding of the priesthood and the Mass that too closely paralleled the Roman Catholic view. A number of the English Jesuits were hopeful that the verdict would go the other way, thinking that this would make restoration to unity easier. It did not happen. The Catholic Counter-Reformation would eventually counter abuses and clarified Catholic teaching. The response of Canterbury and York was a retroactive attempt much later to counteract the Oxford movement and to appease Anglo-Catholics who were increasingly unhappy in a Protestant “church”. But the sad fact is the breech did happen and there was no real attempt to fix it until all the rebellious clergy with apostolic succession had gone to the grave. Today, they really have no place at all. They and conservative Anglicans are coming in droves to the Orthodox churches, the African Anglican bishops, and to the Catholic Church. We have even created a text called THE BOOK OF WORSHIP for Episcopalian returnees which parallels the Anglican BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, but tweaked for Catholic usage.
ANGUS: Even more significantly, none of the ordination rites of the Eastern Orthodox Churches used such language, and Rome recognized their orders as valid! By Leo’s reasoning, all Eastern Orthodox ministers and an undetermined number of Roman ministers were actually invalidly ordained.
FATHER JOE: This is not the case. It should be noted that their rites predate any breech and that it is clear from the writings promulgated in their churches (about the liturgy) that they believed as Catholics did regarding sacrifice. There was never an attempt, as in Anglicanism, to shed the trappings of popery for Puritanism.
ANGUS: Finally, they pointed out that during the brief return of Roman authority under Queen Mary, not one priest ordained under the Edwardian Ordinal had been required to be re-ordained.
FATHER JOE: Given the fragile nature of the reunion and its brevity, we really cannot say what Rome would ultimately have required. I suspect a great deal more than it got. Remember, many of these ministers were hostile to Rome and while the crown might have been Catholic, it is dubious that the many clergymen had returned in truth. We know that some were voluntarily preordained. Do you know how they fared after the fragile truce was ended? I do not think we can draw much from this hiccup in history. The strongest argument for apostolic succession in the Anglican Church has been the participation of Orthodox and Old Catholics. While schismatic, these groups would possess legitimate holy orders. Theoretically I could see this as positive for the Anglicans, but the Church has not confirmed it and I am troubled by the ordination of women. What they might have regained, they could again forfeit or further obscure. Certain Old Catholic churches have also decided to ordain women. That would place them in the same danger as Anglicans since the Catholic Church does not see any permission or allowance for it from Christ in Scripture and Tradition.
ANGUS: In the spirit of the the sort of ecumenism to which we have become accustomed by Pope Benedict, in 1988, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger he issued a doctrinal commentary that listed Apostolicae Curae as one of the teachings to which Roman Catholics must give “firm and definitive assent,” Therefore raising it to the level of dogma and making it difficult to revisit.
FATHER JOE: Actually, I think Cardinal Ratzinger’s addendum or instruction to AD TUENDAM FIDEM came out in 1998, not 1988. The assent required is of a special kind. It concerns the formula of faith and cites both the Western and Eastern Code of Canon Law:
Here is a portion of the commentary:
Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman pontiff when he speaks “ex cathedra” or by the college of bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”. Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in the position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.
The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historic relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith.
With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).
The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed … or to be held definitively … with an act which is either defining or nondefining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Roman pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a nondefining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as a truth that is divinely revealed … or as a truth of Catholic doctrine…. Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,which necessarily includes the pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.
With respect to the truths of the second paragraph, with reference to those connected with revelation by logical necessity, one can consider … the development in understanding of the doctrine connected with the definition of papal infallibility prior to the dogmatic definition of Vatican Council I…. Although its character as a divinely revealed truth was defined in Vatican Council I, the doctrine on the infallibility and primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff was already recognized as definitive in the period before the council. History clearly shows, therefore, that what was accepted into the consciousness of the Church was considered a true doctrine from the beginning and was subsequently held to be definitive…
A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
The doctrine on the illicitness of euthanasia, taught in the encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, can also be recalled. Confirming that euthanasia is “a grave violation of the law of God”, the pope declares that “this doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium”. It could seem that there is only a logical element in the doctrine on euthanasia, since Scripture does not seem to be aware of the concept. In this case, however, the interrelationship between the orders of faith and reason becomes apparent: Scripture, in fact, clearly excludes every form of the kind of self-determination of human existence that is presupposed in the theory and practice of euthanasia.
Other examples of moral doctrines which are taught as definitive by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution and of fornication.
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations….
APOSTOLICAE CURAE ruled that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and void”. Until or unless the Magisterium says otherwise, Catholics must give “firm and definitive assent” to this judgment. It is a judgment which is closely bound to the revealed truth about priesthood and Eucharist. Assent is required to insure the truths revealed by God. Failure to give assent would rupture a person from full communion with the Catholic Church.
ANGUS: You have correctly pointed out that the ordination of women to both the priesthood and episcopate in parts of the Anglican Communion make any new progress unlikely. As for women, I read somewhere that “When Mary knelt at the foot of the cross and she was the only one in the world who could really say ‘this is my body and my blood poured out for the life of the world,’ she opened the way for women’s ordination.”
FATHER JOE: I suspect this was your Father Matthew, am I right? He borrows from Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who clarified that, “The Woman who, though no priest, could yet on Calvary’s Hill breathe: ‘This is my Body; this is my Blood.’ For none save her gave Him human life.” However, such sentiment is a pretty poor argument for women priests, indeed it is no argument at all. Neither emotions nor changing social fashions can replace the weight of Scripture and Tradition. There just are not sufficient grounds for such a radical and dangerous step. The negative consequences are too terrible to risk.
ANGUS: One of the best accounts of the power of the Eucharist was given by Sara Miles in her book,”Take this bread”. In it she recounts a personal ”lay eucharist” where in the turmoil of a friend dying from cancer in the next room, she takes an ordinary piece of bread, breaks it and reciting to herself the consecration prayer-”this is my body” experiences as we the reader experiences a sacramental moment of the real prescence of “Christ with us” for which all Catholics, both Roman and Anglican call ” a mystery of faith”.
FATHER JOE: It is a very sweet story, and I would not deny the value of symbolic prayer and Christian devotion. However, a genuine Eucharist does not depend upon our feelings or piety. The laity is not configured to Christ as is the ordained bishop or priest. They have not been given the power to either absolve sins or to confect the Eucharist and make present the sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner. Regarding the passage you cite, there may be a spiritual presence, which comes with God’s Word and prayer with others; but, it is not the MYSTERY OF FAITH or THE REAL PRESENCE. Catholics are technically forbidden to do such pantomimes because they fall under the sin of sacramental simulation. That is one of the reasons, along with not offending Jews, why we must offer the Hebrew Seder according to the Jewish rubrics and not Christianize it as if it were a Mass.
ANGUS: The Episcopal Church also sees itself playing a prophetic role in its minstry and listening to gay and lesbian Christians rather then pontificating to them. It is impatient for justice and has sacrificed itself indeed losing members and ecumenical partners. What you call a sinking ship is actually a crucified place. It seems like the Episcopal church is getting the castoffs and outcasts, the adulters, fornicators, tax collectors and whores in other words those who kept company with Christ.
FATHER JOE: There are genuine prophets and there are false prophets. We might all have gay and lesbian friends. We might care a great deal about them and want them treated with compassion and human respect. But, this does not mean we can accept disorientation as normative or perverse acts condemned by both divine positive law and natural law. False ecumenism would betray truth and further damage the unity of the Church. The Catholic Church still has its share of sinners, but we urge them to repentance and deeper belief. We try to restore our adulterors to fidelity, our fornicators to chastity, and our harlots to either spiritual virginity or marriage. The Episcopalian Church invites all comers but makes no demands— other than not to judge right and wrong; except for maybe in the matter of far-off landmines or those backward souls still attached to the Decalogue. It is not enough to associate with sinners. Our Lord called them to conversion. It is a false compassion which would keep people in their sins or only tell them what they want to hear. That is not real love but a sorry kind of opportunism.
ANGUS: Lastly the Anglican Communion acknowledes its fallibility, its brokedness and its provisional aspect. It is served by this humility as it is humbled.
FATHER JOE: You think the current leadership of the Episcopal church has acted with humility? Every gain in ecumenism they have unilaterally destroyed in only a few decades. Long-standing agreements with Anglo-Catholics and conservative Episcopalians have been broken. Women priests and bishops have been forced upon them and now actively gay clergy, too. Those refusing to accept their authority have had their pastors fired and their churches confiscated. Congregations with traditional faith and a high regard for Scripture are frightened and the Anglican Communion itself has been shattered. When the Conservative Anglicans met in desperation a few years ago, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote them: “The lives of these saints show us how in the Church of Christ there is a unity in truth and a communion of grace which transcend the borders of any nation. With this in mind, I pray in particular that God’s will may be done by all those who seek that unity in the truth, the gift of Christ himself.” This “unity in truth” was an obvious rejection of the gay Bishop Griswold’s “pluriform” (pluralistic and relativistic) truths.
ANGUS: Thus its symbolism and use of language is vastly different from the triumphalism that Vatican 2 in Lumen Gentium was trying to steer the church away from.
FATHER JOE: Triumphalism may be a temptation we sometimes face because we so love the Church. We honor her with all sorts of accolades. But, as I recall, the marks of distinction in England went to the Anglican church. The Catholic Church was long seen as the faith community of the poor, the uneducated, the mongrel and traitorous Irish, and was looked down upon with disdain by those with social standing. Such was the case in the United States until the Irish escaping English genocide rushed to America as immigrants. I was a priest at a Catholic parish in Maryland that traced its history going back to colonial times and the old penal laws. I discovered that many of the white farmers attended the local Episcopal Church. They wanted their slaves to be Christian, but did not want to suffer their presence at church services. Their solution was to have all their slaves baptized at the poor neighboring Catholic parish. Eventually the Catholic parish became mostly black and in time the Josephite fathers took over its operation. I understood that as the years went by and they received their freedom, they took particular pride in being Catholics. What their masters had regarded as second best, was in fact the house that Jesus built.
ANGUS: And yes while the Episcopal Church evolved and has changed in response to Pope John’s ’signs of the times” which is nothing more then responding to the Holy Spirit sadly I see little “signs of hope and rebirth” in the Roman polity of Catholicism.
FATHER JOE:
The young people are our hope. Many of them are far more faithful and traditional than even their parents. Some of them are bringing their families home to God and his Church. However, even if the Church should seem to grow smaller for awhile, or grow in one place and decrease in another, we find strength in the efficacy of the sacraments and the security of the deposit of faith. The Church must respond to the signs of the times. But the Catholic Church has a permanence that Anglicanism lacks today.
Jesus is the same— yesterday, today and tomorrow. His truths are immutable. His promises are everlasting. The Church, his bride is adorned with a gown from her divine bridegroom woven from four priceless threads: ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC. He has placed a crown upon her head, sparkling with three sparkling jewels: FAITH, HOPE and LOVE.
ANGUS: For that it first must die to its former self and become anew.Come Holy Spirit, and fill the hearts of your faithful, and kindle in them the fire of Your Divine Love. Send forth Your Spirit and they shall be created, and You shall renew the face of the earth.
FATHER JOE: I am so very sorry, for while I respect the good people of faith in Anglicanism, and have a high regard for their command of the English language, I do not see much of God’s Spirit in these efforts at redefining herself. God cannot countenance sin and error. That is the work of an entirely different spirit.
I respect that this is your blog and you have the last word to the point that this is merely a personal message rather then in any way to post in hopes of winning an argument
I have not been entirely clear so to be misunderstood–I wasn’t calling you a “patsy”rather I meant a proper name. A poor choice of words on my part led to this. What I meant to say is that true tolerance and respect come from recognizing the self definitions of those we disagree with. I am sure the Archbishop of Canterbury first issue is that the Roman Catholic Church considers him a layman.(however I’m sure his Holiness does not address him as Mr. Williams.)
I wouldn’t say I am set in my ways though I suspect we are at polar opposites as we react to “code words” we seem to recognize in each other’s thoughts. I can say you are wholey misinformed on the plight of the Episcopal church today to the point of misrepresentation. However neither you nor I are here to be “preached at”.
As a side note I come from a Church of Ireland ancestry that was instrumental in the founding of the Irish Republic. And as far as we know they didn’t own any slaves.
To terminate our correspondance in the same charitable position where you finish with “while I respect the good people of faith in Anglicanism, and have a high regard for their command of the English language I do not see much of God’s Spirit in these efforts at redefining herself. God cannot countenance sin and error”.
I would only say that God countenances sin and error in her forgiveness wherein the words of the mystics our forgiven sins become our battle scars, and wherein even original sin becomes the necessary or happy fault that brought forth the Incarnation. And the consequence of our radical welcome of sinners and outcasts is for our own conversion more then theirs so to recognize that we are all beggars before God.
I always learn so much from you Fr. Joe. Thank you for your priestly faithfulness. God bless you!
–Laura
Wow Fr. Joe, the breadth of your response to Angus is amazing. I learned quite a bit from following that exchange. I appreciate Angus’ comments but his thrusts were well met by your parries.
Concerning Fr. Cutié, I think your summation of the situation is right on as were many of the comments by other disappointed Catholics. I feel for John and the Catholic community in Miami.
This situation is painful for many Latino Catholics who had a great admiration for this very personable priest. I am married to a Mexican-American and we even had Fr. Cutié’s attractive tome in a prominent location on our bookshelf (though I must admit I don’t think it was read beyond 50 pages). At first my wife, sister-in-law, and others I know in the Latino community were very sympathetic about his plight and bought into the media driven hype about celibacy and the Catholic priesthood. As a gringo, and more importantly, as a sometimes wise husband, I kept my mouth shut, suspecting that there must be another shoe about to hit the floor.
When Fr. Cutié left the Church, the first reaction I noticed from my wife and her friends was confusion. They weren’t sure how to take this. Their love of the Church is strong but they still did not want to hear any criticism from me of their beloved priest. But when Fr. Chuchie (unsure of spelling) another popular media priest from Columbia explained Fr. Cutié’s error during his televised Mass on Sunday, it became clear to them that Padre Alberto had wandered from the ranch.
I cite this example because I believe that Fr. Cutié is in for a rude awakening when he finds out that many of his former fans admired him more his Roman Catholic collar than for his charming personality. Fr. Ben Groeschel once referred to wayward priests as “the last romantics” because their vision of love has not yet been tried in the crucible of daily life with an imperfect partner. Kathy is on point with her comments (5/31) about the real struggles of married life. I think Fr. Cutié’s honeymoon will be over sooner rather than later. And in truth, I pray for him that he makes his way back to the Church. It would be a humbling experience as indeed it should have been all along. I agree with you Fr. Joe, his Archbishop was excellent in his remarks and remains a loving father of his prodigal son.
Angus said: ” The Episcopal Church also sees itself playing a prophetic role in its minstry and listening to gay and lesbian Christians rather then pontificating to them. It is impatient for justice and has sacrificed itself indeed losing members and ecumenical partners. What you call a sinking ship is actually a crucified place. It seems like the Episcopal church is getting the castoffs and outcasts, the adulters, fornicators, tax collectors and whores in other words those who kept company with Christ.”
Angus, do you think that there is such a thing as sexual sin, apart from (obviously) acts that violate another person’s rights? It’s not clear to me what the current Episcopalian teaching is in this regard.
In other words, are all those gays and lesbians and “adulterers, fornicators … and whores” actually doing anything ~wrong~ by engaging in homosexual sex acts, adultery, premarital sex, or prostitution? Does Anglican teaching urge people to stop doing those things or not?
Lady Godless,
You ask Angus if the Episcopal Anglican teaching urges the gay/lesbian/fornicators/adulterers/etc. to “stop doing those things or not?”
It does not appear so. Although our Lord spent time and broke bread with such sinners, he called them to repentance. He did not give them a friendly pat on the back followed by “way to go and no need to wipe your feet before entering my house!”
He told the woman caught in adultery “…neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.” Perfect example of loving the sinner but not the sin.
I look forward to hearing Angus’ response to your very direct question
Lady Godless,
The Episcopal Church does not identify gay and lesbian persons with “adulterers, fornicators, and whores.” The Episcopal Church understands gay and lesbian persons to be, like all Christians, sinners saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ; who are called to offer themselves, their souls and bodies as living sacrifices to the God in whose image they are created and have their being.
In the Episcopal Church, gay and lesbian Christians, like all Christians, are called upon to exercise their sexuality mindfully and in chastity.
Chastity may be understood as the conduct of a sexual life which reflects and embodies our Baptismal Covenant which may be found on pages 304 -305 of the Book of Common Prayer. If you don’t have a copy, here is the Baptismal Covenant from the Prayerbook:
The Baptismal Covenant
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Father?
People I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
Celebrant Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
People I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?
People I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Celebrant Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you strive for justice and peace among all
people, and respect the dignity of every human
being?
People I will, with God’s help.
______________
It is generally understood among Episcopalians that a gay or lesbian person, to live in chastity and according to the Baptismal Covenant will have sex in the context of a monogamous, permanent, faithful, and stable relationship.
Heterosexual Episcopalians are also called to seek sexual relationships characterized by a chastity made manifest in monogamy, permanence, faithfulness, and stability. The rite of Marriage is sacramental in character because it is an outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace given to a man and woman to live this chaste life in mutual service of one another, of the world, and of Jesus Christ.
There is now no consensus among Episcopalians of how the Church should recognize the inward and spiritual grace given to same-sex couples. Some dioceses permit priests to bless the union, some prohibit it.
Adultery is rejected by the Episcopal Church because it is an activity grounded in the violation of a vow made to a partner to be faithful. This violation shows disrespect for the dignity of the partner and offends the Baptismal Covenant.
Prostitution is rejected by the Episcopal Church as it embodies a lack of chastity by commodifying human sexuality and commercializing a gift from God, nor are relationships with prostitutes permanent, faithful, or stable.
I would say that Episcopal parishes generally accept that some people have “pre-marital” sex as part of the life of a mature adult seeking to discover whether or not a sacramental bond will or can exist with another person. The Episcopal Church would hope that sex outside of marriage would not be practiced inadvisedly or lightly but soberly and prayerfully, always seeking God’s will for the choices one makes. A committed Episcopalian might engage in an ongoing conversation with his/her priest about how he/she is honoring the Baptismal Covenant and Christ in the sexual choices that he/she makes.
Fornication we would understand as mindless sex practiced purely for pleasure without direction or reflection or prayer. The Episcopal Church would condemn this as lacking in chastity.
Lady Godless, I hope this long answer gives you some perspective on how Episcopalians approach matters of human sexuality. You, or other readers, will certainly find fault with our approach and, being an Episcopalian, I commend to you those approaches which work best for you.
-Stuart
To Father Joe: No sarcasm intended I find you most charitable albeit your positions problematic.
To Lady Godless:
For myself I usually find a more vibrant and robust sexual theology in Shakespeare than anywhere.
Anglican sexual theology is strongly rooted in the relational aspects of human sexual activity. Acts which are abusive and exploitive are of course sinful and as you say violate the rights of another person.
Roman Catholic theology would concur but there is a divergence on the primary purpose and ends of sexuality. Crudely, Roman Catholic theology, as embraced by the Vatican emphasizes the procreative ends of sexuality in accordance with natural law whereas in Anglican theology the primary end of sexuality is found in the beloved.
Of course there is not one monolithic theology in either tradition but these are the major emphasis and divergences.The polemic is more about which comes first, the chicken or the egg, or what’s the cart before the horse?
I do believe that both traditions in their finer moments strive for a “catholic” approach in that it is holistic and encompassing of the whole person which is why in the issue of civil same sex marriage the Roman Catholic hierarchy emphasizes the dignity of gay and lesbian persons and can accept a legal concept of domestic partners (in the sense of shared householding) while rejecting the term marriage as reserved for the sacramental union of heterosexuals.
( I do however strongly maintain that the Church made a colossal error in engaging in a game of semantics concerning Prop 8.
In giving so much material support for the passage of Prop 8 without giving pause to reflect on the Court’s recognition of the right to marry as a basic human right and subject to the close scrutiny level of protection of the equal protection clause, the Catholic leadership participated in a divisive undermining of the authority of the Court and imposed a tyranny of the majority that eviscerates the equal protection clause for all Californians including Roman Catholics.)
I believe Episcopalian theology recognizes but does not concern itself with the acts per se but in keeping with a holistic approach of the whole person we are continuously reminded of a love and peace that surpasses all understanding and called into that love, into that relationship and into the fullness of our own life and our being from which conversion springs. “Factum secundum nostrum res”- “we will act according to our being”
In other words we do not hate the sin but love the sinner rather we should love the sinner and forgive the sin.
We say this because it is more true then not that the distinction cannot be humanly achieved and in fact what we come to hate is the sinner.
When asked if homosexuality was a sin, the Presiding Episcopal Bishop answered in the negative adding quite simply,
“Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender,”.
Contrast that with what Pope Benedict wrote,
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
FATHER JOE: Thank God for the Pope! He speaks it as it is!
I’ll leave you to your own divergent opinions (I can assure you there are divergent opinions in the Episcopal Church.)
Rev. Joe,
Thank you for allowing me to visit your blog and to post an answer to another reader’s questions about the Episcopal Church.
I disagree with almost all of your interpolated comments, of course, but won’t waste your time engaging in a debate from which we would both emerge with our beliefs unchanged.
“Is there salvation outside the Episcopal Church?” the Bishop of New York was once asked, long ago. He pondered a moment and then replied, “Yes … but no gentleman would avail himself of it.”
-Stuart
P.S. I would commend to you a short book, recently published, entitled “Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality.” The author is Fr. Tobias Haller, a priest of the Brotherhood of St. Gregory in the Episcopal Diocese of New York. You won’t agree with the work, but you might find it of interest in understanding some current streams of theological reflection going on within the Anglican Communion.
Although catalogued as historical documents, the Book of Common Prayer retains a section which describes the Anglican faith that comes down to us since the break with Rome. Traditional Anglicans give great importance to them as foundational to the church. I mention this because everyone seems to think that the only reason why Father Alberto Cutie left the Roman church is because of his passion for a woman. If he studied these documents, he might also have been moved by his faith convictions and by what he did and did not believe.
Episcopalians embrace Luther and believe that we are only righteous before God because of faith in the merit of Christ our Lord and Savior. The Roman church is somewhat neo-pelagian in thinking that we can save ourselves. We are justified by faith only, not because we in any way deserve such treatment. Turning to purgatory, the Book of Common Prayer tells us: “The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.” Father Cutie has come around to the truth that there is no way station between heaven and hell. It is absurd to pray for the dead. There are no poor souls for whom to pray. Masses for the dead can in no way help the dead. It is just an effort to take money stipends from the poor.
I argued about this with a Catholic colleague. He said that if Father Cutie had long ago accepted the Anglican view of faith and worship, then the Catholic church would have to insist that he return all Mass stipends and that those Masses be offered again. It just sounded to me that the abuses denounced by Martin Luther still infect the Roman church. “Have Father Joe save your loved ones, we have a special two for one deal this week!”
The old Book of Common Prayer makes clear: “There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.” The so-called five sacramentals— “Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.” That is probably a big change for Father Cutie but I am sure he will be further instructed and tested. While some of the Anglo-Catholics like the Roman ways, I suspect their days are numbered. It would be best they leave the Episcopalian faith to avoid sowing the errors of Rome. The Book of Common Prayer discounts the popery of cookie gazing. We read, “The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them.”
Although I have heard he preached upon it in the past, Father Cutie will have to change his tune regarding the Eucharistic presence: “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.” I suspect he has doubted the Roman superstition and exaggerations for some time. I was gratified to see a woman priest standing behind him when he was received into the Episcopal faith. Many of us are proud that he has joined us and pray that many of his followers will also come to the Episcopal church. Too many people have been hurt and alienated by the Roman church. Women are deprived of their calling. Men in priesthood are stripped of their masculinity and suffer loneliness. There is something terribly sick about it all.
I suppose the notations in the Book of Common Prayer about the Cross are why still some claim a defect of intention in priesthood and Mass of the Episcopal church. However, we just do not make more of the Eucharist than it is. We serve God. We don’t make our priests into gods. We read: “The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” There you have it. It cannot be any clearer than that. I sure hope that Father Cutie knows that his ministry will be very different in the Episcopal church. We had hoped that the Romans were coming around. But this old pope of theirs is taking everything back to the Middle Ages!
Also within the historical documents of the earlier text to the prayer book, we find what the media is clamoring about, Marriage for Priests: “Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.” Father Cutie, or Deacon Cutie or Mister Cutie will fare better now that he can walk uprightly with his woman by his side. May he know the joys of both being a spouse and a father!
Angus and Stuart, thank you for responding to my question!
Stuart said: “You, or other readers, will certainly find fault with our approach and, being an Episcopalian, I commend to you those approaches which work best for you.”
Well, Stuart, I don’t really find fault with your view since it seems similar to my own. I guess I just don’t see what makes it a Christian view, exactly.
I’ve arrived at my views on these issues by asking what is humane, and what is prudent for both the individual and society. But as an atheist, I don’t ask, “what does God want?”, which is presumably the foremost question for a religious believer. And it’s hard to avoid noticing that for a couple thousand years, Christianity has held to a particular view of sexuality that would seem to be very different from what you’ve laid out.
Angus said: “In other words we do not hate the sin but love the sinner rather we should love the sinner and forgive the sin.”
Okay, but if you don’t hate the sin in the first place, then what’s there to forgive?
Here it sounds like you’re kind of saying that all those things (non-marital sex, gay sex, etc) are indeed sins — which is the traditional Christian view — even if you choose not to confront them, on humane grounds. But in other places, you seem to be saying the opposite, or that whether such acts are wrong is conditional on the circumstances of each case. Which brings me back to asking: what really distinguishes such an approach from the way that non-religious people like me determine what’s ethical or good?
As a convert from the protestant Presbyterian community, I am always very interested in the history, both theological and “political” of The Church. Father Joe, thank you for prayerfully educating your bloggers about what the Catholic Church is and in NOT about. Far to many people are looking to have their “catholic lite” opinion of the faith validated–if you don’t believe what the Church teaches, and that it is the only Church established by Christ, then by all means, take your chances and go somewhere else. I for one and thankful for my new faith.
For an orthodox Anglican take on the Cutie story, check this out:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10569
ANGUS: Excuse the sinner, Fr. Joe? No we hope to do something much more radical then that -none other than to forgive.
FATHER JOE: The offer of forgiveness is free; however, taking advantage of mercy always requires a contrite disposition and a willingness to amend one’s life. I see little of that in this situation about which this post and the comments address.
ANGUS: Anglican and Roman Catholic Ecclesial Communities (said in the spirit of playful banter) are in tension primarily in their divergent understandings of law.
FATHER JOE: Playful banter, is that really all that it is? Churchmen have opened themselves up to ridicule, but I am not sure if all we are doing is quite so light and amusing. We owe Fisher, More and a host of martyred English Jesuits a lot more than humor and teasing. I suspect many of the Irish feel the same way. Monasteries destroyed, churches stolen and people abandoned to starvation. We worry so much these days about Catholic shortcomings, but there is a lot of blame to go around. Pope John Paul II was criticized for his repeated mea culpa; it is too bad that his was a soliloquy when world religions should have sung a chorus.
ANGUS: Classical Roman Catholic theology derives its principles in natural law and applies them to individuals ,, Anglicans however subscribe to common law understandings which in the lived particularities or cases (case law) compound in precedent towards a common body of law.
FATHER JOE: I thought you were not going to debate me? I hate deleting posts, so I will steal a little more time to respond. Catholic theology derives its moral principles from many sources. The most capricious would be the civil and common laws under which men sometimes place themselves. When such laws are wrong, we must stand up to them with courage. Catholic philosophy has a significant place for natural law, this is true. We believe that God gave us reason so that we might know him and the world he created. The Creator has left fingerprints upon his created order. We can decipher the workings of nature and understand something of the purposes of the Creator. That is the whole business around the current Intelligent Designer debate. However, as I have written, while Scholastic teleology remains an element of Catholic thinking, it is not alone. It is definitely mixed with a deontological view as well. When laws have been discerned from nature, revelation and the Church, there is a duty to work in harmony with them. It is for that reason the Catholic Church defines faith in Jesus with such words as work, charity, duty and obedience. Sacred Scripture and Tradition represent the movement of the Holy Spirit in the history of salvation. God reveals himself and he gives us his laws. The Decalogue, the two-fold commandments of Christ, the Beatitudes, and the moral exhortations of Christ and his apostles have a permanent meaning and compel obedient discipleship. Disciplines and lesser traditions can come and go; but, while there is an organic growth to doctrine and our appreciation of the moral law, the deposit of faith cannot be dismissed. Our Lord has also extended a quality of his authority to the Church so that God’s people might be appropriately shepherded. Consequently, the Church has established the Code of Canon Law and the Precepts of the Church.
ANGUS:
Roman law is therefore an ideal of an objective truth to which all must give assent and aspire to though all fall short. There is a well know characterization where Christianity,founded in mediterranean Rome, is transformed by the conquering northern barbarians when they took Christian ideals and made them into the ground rules! So now we have a German in St. Pete’s chair(tongue firmly in cheek).
Thus it can be maddening for Catholics who decry the discontinuities of Anglican faith and practice as mere moral relativism . Like wise for Anglicans who find Catholics foundering in irrationalities when they employ absolutes contradicted by reality. More succinctly, I would only say vis a vis idealized law that the Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath.
FATHER JOE: We must process information very differently because I could only guess what you were trying to say. Genuine absolutes are not contradicted by reality. Our cooperation and/or our follow-through might be lacking, but things are what they are. Original sin and its consequences sometimes poison the mix, too. But something that is right or wrong is not dependent upon human consensus or the verdict of a monarch. As the kids argue, “Everybody might be doing it,” but truth or what is right might rest in that which is avoided or rejected by men. The English bishops and priests largely defected with Henry VIII. Their revolution was written into national law. But from beginning to end, their revolt was illegitimate in the eyes of God and according to the true Church. No piece of paper— no decree— could give them authority over those things which they have no authority. This was recognized when Pope John Paul II rejected the possibility of ordaining women. Even the pope, visible head of Christ’s Church on earth, does not have the authority and power to do such a thing. Episcopalians act as if they have authority over all things, even the laws of creation, itself. The Episcopal church still acts as if they can legislate away moral truth. When you do such things, it is hard in the next breath to contend for any absolutes.
ANGUS: Anglican and Roman Catholic theologies become more convergent in natural law derived from Thomas Aquinas as applied to right reason by the great Anglican divine Richard Hooker and more importantly to pastoral theology which confronts the reality of daily life.
FATHER JOE: Cardinal Newman supported and later rejected the “via media” of Richard Hooker. Anglicanism is not a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism. It is simply a version of Protestantism with certain Catholic accidentals and decoration. Hooker did the Anglican church no favor. He has probably become their most pivotal theologian. They are willing to sacrifice all manner of truth and decency under the banner of TOLERANCE and INCLUSIVENESS. Even their “open table” policy about the reception of Holy Communion flows from this.
ANGUS: This tension passes into the realm of American law which has its heritage in English common law, as I previously stated, where recently in California the Catholic Church was instrumental in the words of Cardinal Mahoney in ” enshrining” the Catholic view of marriage into the California Constitution. Fr Joe states,”The Church cannot support measures that would DIRECTLY make grievous sin normative or tolerable (What Pope Benedict asserts as disorder and Fr Joe equates with physical defect I would be confident in joining with the Presiding Bishop in saying that it has the moral neutrality of left handedness.
FATHER JOE: I trust you mean what you say, but it sounds like nonsense to me.
ANGUS: The assertions of natural or positive law simply do not stand up to proof.)
FATHER JOE: The first rests upon science and reason and the second upon the objective sources of revelation. These are proof enough. Reality is not in flux. An atheist might reject Scripture and tradition; but would have a harder time dismissing order in creation. Our conflict there would be how to interpret such order and how much men might intervene or circumvent certain elements. Is the Episcopal faith in practice really a variation of humanism and/or atheism? Even LG is perplexed about what makes your views particularly Christian? If you reject divine positive law, then I would question not only any claim of Catholicity but also of basic Christianity.
ANGUS:
Even so the Church countenances the evil of divorce in the context of a pluralistic society in honoring the principle of separation of church and state. I would argue in the context of the equal protection clause the church was not directly participatory or affected by the court’s ruling rather it was at the instigation of the Church that the majority of Catholics who voted for Prop 8 violated the principles of religious liberty to which the US Conference of Bishops subscribe and I submit that this is a greater threat to ecumenism (let alone civil rights ) than the media circus of Fr Cutie’s move.
Pope Benedict said “The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions,”
The Pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, “founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life”.
FATHER JOE:
American laws today are far more tolerant of homosexuality than in the past. Just a few decades ago gays could be arrested for acts of consensual sodomy. Suffering their perversity in private is one thing; giving legal status to sodomites is entirely another matter. The Catholic leadership feels that marriage is a basic structure that upholds a strong and good society. Equating other things with marriage, like sodomy, bestiality and pederasty would not promote the type of civilized society we want to have. Indeed, subtract basic building blocks, and civilization itself could collapse. Celibacy (temporary or permanent) and marriage are the only two states that Christianity can tolerate. Marriage is not only a religious or sacramental reality, it is a natural bond. One cannot equate the unnatural or the grossly aberrational with a healthy sexuality.
As far as freedom is concerned, even religious liberty, it is not absolute. The best society would be one where the state is in harmony with the Catholic Church. However, such a society no longer exists. Indeed, there are many secular elements which force themselves upon Christians of every stripe, sometimes masquerading as Christian. If your particular brand of religion mandated human sacrifices to Baal or Moloch or some other blood-thirsty deity, I suspect that there would be little objection to the limitation of religious liberty. Given my libertarian tendencies, encroaching upon freedom might make me cringe; but sometimes we have no choice.
Similarly, society has a right to limit personal freedom that would hurt others or society. Thus, it is tolerable that certain drugs be outlawed, prostitution be criminalized. In the case of overt homosexuality, not only should it NOT be sanctioned but it should also be restricted by punitive censures.
ANGUS: What I find so interesting in the California Supreme Court’s reasoning is its defense of the familial aspect of same sex marriages. If the Pope and the US Conference of Bishops want to conflate Catholic theology and secular law, they would be wise to read the Court’s concern for the families of same sex unions of which there were 18000 with 13000 children involved. The cradle for adopted, neglected or abandoned children,is found in all unions, including same sex and is more in keeping with sacramental theology where all, through Christ, become the adopted children of God. Ironic that a secular Court has so much to teach the Church in this regard.
FATHER JOE: The Church’s concern is that children should not be deliberately placed into sinful situations. The courts in the UK have outlawed the failure to adopt to gay couples by Catholic adoption agencies. This discrimination is the right course, but a secular society disagrees. As in Boston, this will mean that the Church will be forced out of the adoption business and our remaining orphanages will necessarily be closed. I would prefer that we stay open and fight through civil disobedience. There is no shame in going to prison when the cause is righteous. I suspect the Church is afraid that fines would be imposed and the state would confiscate our properties. In the UK, I suppose they could continue the legacy of Henry VIII and Cranmer by giving those properties to the more pliable Anglican church.
ANGUS: The truth is there is a grevious divide, not along sectarian lines as such but between two visions of the church, a description I have posted elsewhere.
FATHER JOE: It is more than that. We are dealing with entirely different perspectives upon the world and reality. I see no ultimate gain in the direction modern Anglicanism is headed.
ANGUS:
“Whether Roman Catholic, Episcopalian or Protestant, the true division of the church is along a divide between those that have the biblical vision of the church as an Ark holding within it the righteous against the onslaught and deluges of the world or the vision of Pope John the 23rd, who said this about the church.
‘ We are not on earth to guard a museum but to cultivate a flourishing garden of life.’
This vision of the church is one which the gates of hell will not prevail against. The other is will sink… encrusted with barnacles and splintering into tommyrot.”
FATHER JOE: Who are you quoting? Pope John Paul II spoke of an invisible church of believers that crossed denominational lines. What he meant was that sometimes members of other religious communities shared our deepest convictions and ideas even more than many fellow Catholics. Pope John XXIII never taught religious indifferentism; neither did Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI. The promises that Christ gave the Church remain properly to that Ark lead by the successor of St. Peter as first officer. The Church is both a ship that weathers the storms of history and a source for conversion in the world.
ANGUS: In the immediate squabbles within the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church the dynamic of Richard Hooker’s Via Media will ultimately be the glue that will hold the Church together and hopefully the Communion as well.
FATHER JOE: All but the most conservative branches of the Episcopal church may be racing toward extinction. The Roman Catholic Church will send out life rafts for those who call for help. We might even allow Father Cutie back into the boat, if only to swab the deck.
ANGUS: The Anglican’s strength lies in the appeal to right reason as I would argue that Catholic Church’s strength lies not in the Magisterium per se but in the primacy given to informed conscience. I would join Stuart in recommending Tobias Haller’s work and blog. I find Virtureonline more inciteful than insightful.
and I can only thank my worthy opponent.
FATHER JOE: Sorry, I would never accept such silly distinctions. The Catholic Church is the bastion of Christian philosophy and right reason. She also has the authoritative teaching authority and seeks to guide all men and women to the truth. The Catholic Church holds all the cards. [Stuart, Tobias Haller, what are you talking about? Are you posting a comment here that was posted somewhere else?]
I sometimes wonder if “Cutie” wasn’t so handsome if most of his supporters would be there…it does remind me of a star and blind faith.
Even Fr. Francis, who wasn’t as charismatic by far, had that “star” quality with fans of EWTN.
There has to be a healthy balance.
Gabrielle, the sad thing about the “star quality” that you speak about is that Fr. Cutie himself seems to desire being the “star.” I see no other reason for him abandoning his faith in order to remain a “priest.” He could have become laicized and pursued marriage while remaining Catholic. I think it was mainly to preserve fame, and whatever media deals may be in the works, that he converted.
Some Clarifications:
“Stuart and Tobias Haller” I was referring to a previous recommendation in the comment section of this post.
We are hardly debating other than to make assertions without given proofs or data to back up our assertions. The appeals to natural law and positive law on the issue on homosexuality are as weak as they were once advanced to preserve slavery. A willfull ignorance in holding an intolerant view of gay and lesbian people can leave one open to the charge of bigotry and inflammatory and pejorative language as in your use of peversity and sodomite does nothing to respect our gay brothers and sisters.
A little levity and lighter banter would have gone a long way in avoiding the horrors of intolerance evidenced in the Inquisition, the Hundred Years War,a Bloody Mary, a yellow star or a pink triangle . Intolerance turned to hatred has been at the heart of civilizations collapse
Not once have I declared the Anglican Church superior in this regard, however the Elizabethean compromise and the Via Media of Hooker were forces of tolerance if only honored in the breech.
Peace be with you.
http://atonementparish.blogspot.com/2009/06/vows-shmows.html
It would appear that Cutie had been planning for at least two years to abandon his Catholic priesthood and apparently the publication of the photos forced his hand. He also said on a TV interview that he his relationship with his girlfriend had been ‘serious’ for two years. On another blog I read that he used to ‘joke’ with colleagues that he would join the Episcopalians.
For the past two years, Cutié had been in the discernment process with the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Southeast Florida had planned to accept him by the end of the year, but the photos changed all of that, Frade said in a telephone interview.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10556
Although reading Fr. Joe makes me hopeful, sometimes I am sad about the state of vocations for a diocese in today’s world. Communities like Fr. Groechel’s seem to be growing and growing with vocations to the priesthood and brotherhood, EWTN is literally busting at the seams with nuns (2 branches in the last few years in AZ and TX) and others I wont mention now. But priests to do the local church’s seem to be down.
What makes me said is the apathy the remaining priests I talk to have toward vocations or others that might have one. I mentioned to 3 priests, 2 in a diocese and one in a Dominican one that my son was contemplating the priesthood and none of them (seperately) said more than a “hmm” or “Really?” When I pushed it with one older priest, whom I always admired, he said, “Well, 3 squares and a bed still exists and maybe celibacy will be dropped…not a bad deal, but not the priesthood I went into.” He went on about the 3 priests to a large parish, the community, the bowling/football parties, etc. that is non-existant now. The workload is tremendous and there isn’t a lot of support. I had 2 priests I know leave, one after a disagreement with his bishop I think over orthodoxy (he was more) and another to get married to a nun.
Even in my very devout parish, as I got to know some of the priests, I sensed an apathy, not toward themselves perse, but about others coming into their vocation. I asked about books, pamphets to put out for “the year of the priest” and got a bored look, although they preach very well and seem “on fire’ an the pulpit. Off, not so much.
What can you do but pray? Being discouraged, Iwas taught by these same fine priests, is the work of the devil to get you down and give up, but we are all human and fall into the same trap. Any advice on how to help rejevenate a parish or priest?
Shame on you. The Catholic Church make you and now you betrayed them. You are discusting
Father Cutie is a discusing person with no morals or values. You betrayed your church your family, you will do the same to this one.
To Gabrielle-
The priest (who is soon leaving our parish for another post w/in the ADW) is phenonminal when it comes to talking to our youth about vocations. My son (10 years old) says he makes the priesthood look “fun.” And with the young ones, he does He teaches about Christ’s love and God’s calling in ways that may seem goofy to some, but the kids get that his ministry is about love of Christ and love for them. With the older kids, he has a more serious approach and is ALWAYS available to talk to anyone regarding vocation. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting many priests and seminarians who are enthusiastic and hopeful, and I don’t think it’s that they’re not yet “burned out.” I believe the completely embrace their calling and are wanting to share it with others.
To Fr. Joe-
I’ve very much appreciated your comments on celebacy and the priesthood. There are many who seem to want to point a finger at that as the lack of enough new priests. We have become a sex saturated society who constantly wants to define other peoples’ “norms” regarding sexuality. The fact of the matter is that it is “normal” for people to live a celebate and full life. There are many who do it for a number of different reasons. I happen to be one of them, but I won’t go into my reasons. Fr. Cutie is a sad example of when one defers to the calling of the flesh. THAT is sad state!
Search as I may, I can’t seem to find your shock at the [expletive deleted] and [expletive deleted] of little children anywhere on this site! However, your ‘shock’ at a grown man having normal sex with a woman seems to be more than you and the nitwit followers of catholicism can bare. You have trashed this man and woman over and over yet have not posted ONE article regarding the thousands of cases of priests pedophilia (child [expletive deleted]) anywhere.
HMMMM. A man and woman= Bad!
Priests and innocent children=yummy!
The worst thing that ever happened to this planet was the catholic church, AKA Mother of [plural expletive deleted]. If there was a god, he would never have allowed such perverted sick [plural expletive deleted] to even exist. The god of the [expletive deleted] church is a child molesting demon.
Fr. Joe, pardon me if this seems like a silly question but when Fr. Cutie attempts marriage, might it actually be valid? I know that it will not be licit but the Catholic Church does recognize marriage in other Christian denominations as valid. If his girlfriend’s first marriage did not involve a religious ceremony I believe she would be free to enter into a sacramental union. While Fr. Cutie’s ordination is an impediment to a licit marriage, it is not clear to me that this would also exclude him from a valid marriage given that both are now members of the denomination in which they will celebrate this sacrament. I’d appreciate your comment.
This whole event saddens me beyond what words can express. It just seems to get worse and worse.
Posted in my kitchen, where I spend a good part of my day, is a quote I wrote down belonging to Fr. John Hardon,SJ (of happy memory). It reminds me of my responsibilities as a wife and mother and the difficult times in which we live:
“Only heroic Catholic families will survive.”
Now, dare I say, I am beginning to think that this may also be true for our Catholic priests. Only the heroic ones are going to survive. Minimalism and mediocrity are just not going to cut it for any of us anymore if we have our eyes set on a Heavenly destiny.
Fr. Cutie has turned his back on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Wow. Unbelievable. He has taken the Pearl of Great Price and thrown It in the garbage. How can anything or anyone be worth doing that?
I agree with Anna Marie, this situation is tragic. My wife and I will be attending a special Mass this evening on the Feast of the Sacred Heart to pray for the sanctification of our priests as the Church begins this special year. Father Joe, I’m glad you have really taken your ministry to the blogsphere to help clarify the teachings of the Catholic Church that is easily confused by the media promoting their own secular agenda. You will be in my prayers as well as the other good priests who continue to bring Christ’s love to us through the sacrifice of their own lives joined with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. “Ad multos anos”
I will also be praying for Fr. Cutie that this tragedy brought about by the evil one may be reversed by God’s grace.
Someone mentioned “pink triangle” here. While I did not find in my “favorites” a rather horrifying but enlightening article on the subject, here is one link from the same site: http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc16.html
The Nazi movement was a cesspool of sexual immorality. It seems the way to destroy a society is to attack family values.
The “pink” as described by the other article was to distinguish between the “femmes” and “butches”.
Draw your own conclusions.
Further search for the “pink triangle” yielded that the article itself was pulled form the leaderu site but a description of the book by Scott Lively is here:
http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/pink_swastika.htm
There is such correlation between the erosion of social values now and what went on in the Nazi era, that it is practically imperative to recognize the patterns and stop them. This is what one generally learns from history, not to repeat it.
Ad multos annos.
(Anos = something else.)
The Father (now Mister) Cutie fiasco is the ultimate soap opera that never ends.
35 year old Ruhama Canellis married David Hope Norton in 1994.
Two years later they divorce.
Nevertheless, her love life was undeterred because she reportedly has children, a 5 year old and a 15 year old.
Even while involved with Cutie, Maxi Ratunuman claimed to be her live-in boyfriend.
Ratunuman was purported arrested by a police friend of Cutie to get him out of the picture. Ratunuman faced expulsion as an illegal.
Cutie comes public with his affair, leaves the Catholic Church for the Episcopal, and marries Canellis before a judge.
Ratunuman initiated a lawsuit and charges were dropped.
Now the speculation is that Canellis is pregnant.
I look forward to the tell-all book!