Celebrity priest punished after being caught with woman

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miraluna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL!!! that is funny! good looking priests should not be pastors 🙂
A priest who is no longer in my parish said that these men are sometimes referred to (probably by women) as Fr. What-a-waste! As he gained a few pounds in the years he was at my parish, I heard him refer to himself once as Fr. What-a-Waist.

Even nominally attractive priests probably are attracted to women they meet – and maybe especially if they are also pious, so it pays to watch what we wear, and esp. not to ever make any kind of remark that might be interpreted as flirtatious.

God bless,
Mimi
 
Even nominally attractive priests probably are attracted to women they meet<<<<<
Why wouldn’t they be attracted, they are priests, that aren’t dead?..I suppose most all married people have met someone they have found attractive, besides their spouse…WE are all able to be tempted, but it doesn’t mean we have to act on it
 
Sexual attraction, gay or straight is not a sin. These are spontaneous reactions of the psyche. What one does with these reactions is the point.

Appropriate behavior is expected of everyone: gay, straight, single or married.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I even recall good Pope John saying he was guilty of looking at a pretty woman longer than he should

I had a very saintly friend that never married…She was greatly loved by her entire family and they went ot her for advice

The wife of one of her nephews wailed her husband was looking at another woman…My friend wisely said everyone looks, for goodness sake I am an old woman and I still look;)

It’s when you stop looking ,and start acting that trouble follows

I am not offended that a priest or a nun would look at someone that was pretty/handsome

For goodness sake they are still human, and if truth be told everyone looks, if they can see
 
Throw him in a Monastery.
LOL, that’s funny. But there are a few problems with that idea.
  1. Fr. Albert is a secular. He is not a religious. To enter a moanstery you have to become a religious.
  2. To enter a monastery you have to do so of your own free will. Otherwise, the vows are invalid.
  3. To enter a monastery the abbot and the monks have to approve your entrance. Bishops have no authority over monasteries or religious houses. Religious superiors of men are their Ordinaries, not the bishops (look at the Fr. Jenkins and Notre Dame situiation). Over 70 bishops protesting and none can touch him, without permission of the Holy Father, who has not given it.
  4. Even the Pope cannot force someone to enter a monastery. Secular priests promise obedience to their local bishop, not to the pope. The Pope is the highest superior of religious in solemn vows and religious in simple vows whose congregation require obedience to the Pontiff. Fr. Albert is neither in solemn vows, nor a religious. He is secular.
  5. As a secular priest he answers to the local bishop and to the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy. The Sacred Congregation for the Clergy has no authority over religious institutes or institutes of apostolic life, the includes monasteries and secular orders. These all respond to the Sacred Congregation for religious. Therefore, the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy cannot impose him on a religious community.
The diocese is stuck with Fr. Albert until he decides to leave it. I did hear a rumor that he has incurred an “A Divinis Suspension.” I’m not sure if this is true. If it is, it simply means that he remains a priest of the Archdiocese of Miami, but has no permission to celebrate any sacrament, except in cases of life and death. Of course, if he chooses to do so, they are valid, but ilicit. For those who don’t know what an A Divinis Suspension is, it is the same suspension that all of the SSPX priests and bishops have. You incur it by your actions, the authorities of the Church do not have to do anything. But as I said, this is a rumor. I don’t know if it is true. Maybe someone else does.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Marriage is a vocation, too.If you can’t be trusted in one vocation, why another?:confused:
I find that to be a very unfair analogy since the two vocations are different. Marriage is not just about sex, its about two becoming one in every way possible. A priestly vocation does not have that level of intimacy with another human person.
So to stray from no individual intimacy is not exactly the same as having it with another person and straying.
I have heard of many priests over the past 30 years who had affairs and left to marry and I can’t recall any of them cheating on their civil law wives.
 
Could you please provide a reference for that? I don’t ever remember being asked that question in my seminary entrance interview.
When I entered religious life that was never a question or an issue. I’m not sure where this idea came from. Impotence is certainly not an impediment to solemn vows, why should it be for Holy Orders?

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I find that to be a very unfair analogy since the two vocations are different. Marriage is not just about sex, its about two becoming one in every way possible. A priestly vocation does not have that level of intimacy with another human person.
So to stray from no individual intimacy is not exactly the same as having it with another person and straying.
I have heard of many priests over the past 30 years who had affairs and left to marry and I can’t recall any of them cheating on their civil law wives.
I don’t think it’s unfair. Marriage & Holy Orders are both sacraments.Both require duty, honor,trust,faith & sacrifice.If you can’t be trusted in one you shouldn’t attempt the other.
 
About that reference…
I first heard this—that impotence is an impediment to holy orders–from the priest who taught me RCIA when I entered the Church back in 1998. I asked the diocesan vocation director about it when discussing my vocation with him. He said it was true, though this didn’t mean one had to demonstrate one’s potency to him or anyone else in the Church. Rather, one took a normal physical which included an inspection of that area and the presumption would be that anyone who is intact would be functional.

This was never a serious issue for me. I never recall talking about it with anyone at seminary, even in canon law class. Nevertheless, it’s one of those things that I heard from a priest—in this case, two priests—and accepted. It made sense to me: celibacy is no virtue if one cannot perform what Ann Landers called The Act.

Nevertheless, in light of the challenges here, I have written to a priest I know who just finished his canon law studies. Unfortunately (-for me, not for him) he is vacationing through the end of the month and I won’t hear from him about this before the first of June. I’ll post his reply once it comes, unless the matter is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction before then.

I apologize for any confusion I may have created.
 
This just in----I’ve talked with a canon lawyer who assures me impotence is an impediment to matrimony but not to holy orders. I was misled by a (doubtless well-meaning) parish priest. Two, in fact. I apologize for not having checked this claim before repeating it.
 
Sexual attraction, gay or straight is not a sin. These are spontaneous reactions of the psyche. What one does with these reactions is the point.

Appropriate behavior is expected of everyone: gay, straight, single or married.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
When I first converted to Catholicism, I had lots of confusion about sex and thinking about sex and even finding someone attractive. When I spoke in confession about it to one of my priests, he expressed the same ideas. He said everyone, even priests, think about sex, but it’s when you act upon it that it is a sin.

What still confuses me is the attraction though. If you intentionally allow yourself to fantasize, then I think (maybe I’m wrong) that is a mortal sin. However, if these feelings come upon you without your trying to summon them, then it’s not a mortal sin.

Am I right on this? I was a Protestant for most of my life (baptised, confirmed and communioned on Easter, 2007).and sexual attitudes/beliefs are very different for the most part.
 
When I first converted to Catholicism, I had lots of confusion about sex and thinking about sex and even finding someone attractive. When I spoke in confession about it to one of my priests, he expressed the same ideas. He said everyone, even priests, think about sex, but it’s when you act upon it that it is a sin.

What still confuses me is the attraction though. If you intentionally allow yourself to fantasize, then I think (maybe I’m wrong) that is a mortal sin. However, if these feelings come upon you without your trying to summon them, then it’s not a mortal sin.

Am I right on this? I was a Protestant for most of my life (baptised, confirmed and communioned on Easter, 2007).and sexual attitudes/beliefs are very different for the most part.
Back in the old days when I was a student of theology we used to call these “home movies” morose delectation. In today’s language it simply means to entertain sinful thoughts.

Let us not forget that sinful thoughts are not just the sexual ones. These are probably the less grave. Hateful thoughts are probably the most grave thoughts and people entertain these for years, example: an ex-spouse, a political or financial enemy, members of another race or culture, get the idea?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I don’t think it’s unfair. Marriage & Holy Orders are both sacraments.Both require duty, honor,trust,faith & sacrifice.If you can’t be trusted in one you shouldn’t attempt the other.
As a religious brother, I agree with Father. I’m not a priest, I’m a brother and we make solemn vows of obedience, poverty and chastity.

Men who become brothers and men who become priests are called by Christ to two very different commitments. Both require fidelity, sacrifice, sincerity, and perfect charity. But the expression of these virtues is very different, because the context is different.

A secular priest lives independently. A religious brother is part of a community. The context alone makes the exercise of the virtues different, because the demands are different. A secular priest does not have to put up with a confrere who is difficult or a superior who is inflexible. A religious brother does not have to put up with loneliness, because he lives in community or worry about his retirement as does a diocesan priest. He has the experience of intimacy with those who are called to the same life and he never retires. When he gets old, the younger brothers take care of him.

Given this scenario, most secular priests will tell you that they would struggle as brothers and most brothers would say that they would struggle as priests. Besides the context being different, the call is different. Thus the lifestyle and its demands are different.

The same applies to marriage. The context and the demands are different, even if the virtues are the same.

In each context the virtues are expressed differently, these include the evangelical counsels. A religious brother is bound by vows to live the evangelical counsels. A secular diocesan priest or secular priest in a secular institute such as FSSP does not vow to live the evangelical counsels. A married person does not vow to live the evangelical counsels.

However, all of them must live by the evangelical counsels, but each according to their state in life. For the brothers, the evangelical counsels define his bond with God and man.

This is why the analogy between Holy Orders and Marriage does not work. The context and the vows are different. The relationships are different. The priesthood does not have vows, marriage does. Start there. Secular priest promise obedience to their bishop and celibacy. These are not solemn vows. Marriage has solemn vows that cannot be dispensed, even by the Church.

In fact, marriage has more in common with religious life than it does with the priesthood. Religious do live in families and are called to build intimate communities of brothers or sisters. Like married people, they are not autonomous, but become one with their brothers or sisters in community. Yet, there is a difference between the context of the religious and that of the married person.

That’s why some dispensed priests make very good husbands and fathers as do renegade priests. They are in different contexts with different expressions of fidelity, commitment and perfect charity.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Back in the old days when I was a student of theology we used to call these “home movies” morose delectation. In today’s language it simply means to entertain sinful thoughts.

Let us not forget that sinful thoughts are not just the sexual ones. These are probably the less grave. Hateful thoughts are probably the most grave thoughts and people entertain these for years, example: an ex-spouse, a political or financial enemy, members of another race or culture, get the idea?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Absolutely. It makes sense that hating would be much more serious than feeling enamored:D
 
I don’t think it’s unfair. Marriage & Holy Orders are both sacraments.Both require duty, honor,trust,faith & sacrifice.If you can’t be trusted in one you shouldn’t attempt the other.
Br. JR posted a wonderful and detailed explaination better than I could. However, my two cent response would be: your analogy is like saying that because someone failed as a plumber that they would make a lousy carpenter.
 
Br. JR posted a wonderful and detailed explaination better than I could. However, my two cent response would be: your analogy is like saying that because someone failed as a plumber that they would make a lousy carpenter.
True enough depending on why they failed. If the plumber had been caught red handed stealing copper pipe from the job sites, you might expect him as a carpenter to steal from construction sites as well.(Happens all the time in our area.)
The heart of the matter in this case is trust & character, not skills.A job is built on skills, a vocation on devotion.
 
True enough depending on why they failed. If the plumber had been caught red handed stealing copper pipe from the job sites, you might expect him as a carpenter to steal from construction sites as well.(Happens all the time in our area.)
The heart of the matter in this case is trust & character, not skills.A job is built on skills, a vocation on devotion.
But your judgement still seems harsh. No second chances?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top