Fla.'s 'Father Oprah' joins Episcopal Church

[fulbert4605]

Do you realize there is no such thing as time in God’s kingdom?
How do you know when to stop praying for a person in purgatory? They may be out before you get started.

Purgatory is not part of God’s kingdom, therefore it is constrained by measurements of time. When to stop praying for a person in Purgatory is quite a conundrum (there have been rare cases in which the soul of the deceased has been permitted to appear to those still on the earth to announce they have been released from Purgatory and are on their way to Heaven). What i usually do is have a series of 30 Gregorian Masses said for them and once they are completed you can rest assured they have made it out of Purgatory by then. If they have already left Purgatory and you are still praying for their soul, it is only my personal belief that God then applies those prayers applicably to either other souls in Purgatory or to those still living on the earth.

As far as Father Cutie is concerned i have this much to say: every mortal on the earth sins or messes up in some way. What you do is look at how that person reacts once they have sinned or messed up.

This type of relationship had been going on for 2 years and he kept it hidden. How much longer would he have kept this up if he hadn’t got caught on the beach here? It is also disturbing he jumps to the Episcopalians rather quickly and for reasons that suit his beliefs rather than the Church’s. As to whether he still believes in Transubstantiation, etc. i do not know nor may he since his mind is so clouded with sin at this time. He definitely needs our prayers at this time.

 

[bobzills]

The Episcopalian bishop himself said that Cutie would have to be trained to be an Anglican priest; he would not be allowed to be a Catholic priest in all but name, meaning he would have to be a preacher of moral relativism. If he has been pro-life all these years as a Catholic priest, how can he join a church where he will at the very least have to “agree to disagree” with fellow ordained ministers who are pro-choice?
.

I think that there is a certain amount of moral relativism in the Roman Catholic Church also. Let me give you one or two examples. Many Catholic priests generally give Holy Communion to politicians who are publicly pro-choice. And on the issue of slavery and enslaving people. At one point in time slavery was accepted as OK, whereas at another point in time it is not. For another example, take torture.

 

[nonsumd]

I think that there is a certain amount of moral relativism in the Roman Catholic Church also. Let me give you one or two examples. Many Catholic priests generally give Holy Communion to politicians who are publicly pro-choice. And on the issue of slavery and enslaving people. At one point in time slavery was accepted as OK, whereas at another point in time it is not. For another example, take torture.

True, some priests do give communion to individuals who publicly oppose key Church teachings on morality, but such priests’ weakness as individuals does not make the Catholic Church as an institution, as a teaching authority, “morally relativist.” There are other Christian “spiritual families” which as organizations do teach moral relativism – at least by default by allowing for “agreement to disagree” about central issues of morality (and other things, including theology).

If the Church had been “morally relativist” on the issue of slavery, it would have neither allowed it nor condemned it. It would have said that it was up to each individual to follow his own conscience in deciding the morality of slavery for himself. Moreover, would a “morally relativist” Church have apologized, as it has done in recent decades, for the participation of Catholics in trading in slaves and keeping slaves? A morally relativist Church would have just said, “That was then; this is now.”

Similarly, the Church has apologized for the misguided zeal that led Catholics to resort to torture in the past.

When we speak of “moral relativism,” we are talking about a philosophical position on the nature of truth (specifically that there is no such thing as “the truth,” only whatever each individual or group of individuals define as “truth”); we are not talking about mere inconsistency or hypocrisy among those who recognize that there is such a thing as “the truth.”

 

[nonsumd]

1. It is unlikely that a dispensation would have been granted. The Holy Father is not granting dispensations to priests or religious brothers. Rome would have suggested that he move to another diocese or enter a religious order and keep going.
2. A dispensation does not make a priest a lay man. He is always a priest. The proper canonical term is a dispensed priest. The dispensation releases him from his promise, not vow, of celibacy so that he may marry in the Church and from the promise, not vow, of obedience to a bishop. Only religious brothers and nuns make vows.
3. A dispensation does not reduce a cleric to the lay state. The dispensation cannot undo the sacrament of Holy Orders. Therefore a deacon, priest or bishop can never become a lay person.

Thanks, Br. JR, for your response (and thanks for all the informative posts I’ve read of yours).

I understand that Holy Orders confers an indelible mark on the recipient, that a priest remains in his being a priest for eternity. I did not mean to say that the priest should be made a layperson again, which would be impossible, only that he might have been able someday to perform service to the Church of the kind that laypeople do: teaching classes, preaching outside the context of the liturgy, social ministry of various kinds.

Personally, judging from how he conducted himself in this whole situation, I don’t think that he would have gotten over his love for Cannelis if he’d simply been moved to another diocese (in any case, what these days would have stopped her from following him?) or that he would not have sought a substitute for her in some other woman in his new posting. I think the relocation solution would have worked had he merely had a momentary (if radical) lapse, not engaged in a protracted affair.

Just a point of clarification… when you say a dispensed priest may marry within the Church, you do not mean that a dispensed priest may marry *and *continue in his priestly office (i.e. say Mass and give the sacraments) as I know married Anglican priests who enter into communion with Rome and become Catholic priests remain married?

 

[bobzills]

True, some priests do give communion to individuals who publicly oppose key Church teachings on morality, but such priests’ weakness as individuals does not make the Catholic Church as an institution, as a teaching authority, “morally relativist.” There are other Christian “spiritual families” which as organizations do teach moral relativism – at least by default by allowing for “agreement to disagree” about central issues of morality (and other things, including theology).

If the Church had been “morally relativist” on the issue of slavery, it would have neither allowed it nor condemned it. It would have said that it was up to each individual to follow his own conscience in deciding the morality of slavery for himself. Moreover, would a “morally relativist” Church have apologized, as it has done in recent decades, for the participation of Catholics in trading in slaves and keeping slaves? A morally relativist Church would have just said, “That was then; this is now.”

Similarly, the Church has apologized for the misguided zeal that led Catholics to resort to torture in the past.

When we speak of “moral relativism,” we are talking about a philosophical position on the nature of truth (specifically that there is no such thing as “the truth,” only whatever each individual or group of individuals define as “truth”); we are not talking about mere inconsistency or hypocrisy among those who recognize that there is such a thing as “the truth.”

The teaching on slavery was relative to the times and the culture in which the Church found itself. Similarly to the teaching on the burning of heretics.

 

[nonsumd]

The teaching on slavery was relative to the times and the culture in which the Church found itself. Similarly to the teaching on the burning of heretics.

I don’t disagree with you, bobzills.

When we modern people (especially Americans with our particular history) see the word “slavery” used to describe social relationships in past societies, we tend to imagine automatically the type of utterly dehumanizing slavery found in New World plantation societies. In fact, the term historically covers a great diversity of relations of dependence across and within many cultures, ones moreover in which there were other types of dependency (such as serfdom or clientelism).

Within these various forms of “slavery,” there was the possibility of a master respecting in some fashion the basic human dignity of his or her slave. In the Bible, keeping slaves was not of itself unjust (anymore than for non-Marxist modern people employing wage laborers is unjust); what was unjust was to abuse one’s slaves.

When Saint Paul at the dawn of the history of Christianity says that in Christ there is no slave and no freeman, he is asserting the equality of every human being before God, irrespective of his social status. From this idea logically comes the injunction not to abuse one’s slaves, not the idea of abolishing slavery altogether.

It was a particular form of slavery, chattel-slavery as practiced on New World plantations (plus the horrific trans-Atlantic slave trade) and a new conception of political community, democracy, that led Christian churches to condemn slavery categorically.

Sorry, everyone, for getting OT.

 

[pmoo]

Something that we haven’t really touched on here, nor has the press or even his new church addressed is that abstainance is a difficult life for all of us who are not married.

People are speaking here about the tough choice of being a priest and the vows of celibacy. Of course, it’s a difficult choice. However, for those who are single, widowed, divorced, or separated, we must also live a life of abstainance unless we want to be in mortal sin. This isn’t necessarily a life we choose for ourselves, but once in this state, we must also abstain. He knowingly chose this life. Some of us ended up ‘single’ without getting to make that choice.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I don’t disagree with you, bobzills.

When we modern people (especially Americans with our particular history) see the word “slavery” used to describe social relationships in past societies, we tend to imagine automatically the type of utterly dehumanizing slavery found in New World plantation societies. In fact, the term historically covers a great diversity of relations of dependence across and within many cultures, ones moreover in which there were other types of dependency (such as serfdom or clientelism).

Within these various forms of “slavery,” there was the possibility of a master respecting in some fashion the basic human dignity of his or her slave. In the Bible, keeping slaves was not of itself unjust (anymore than for non-Marxist modern people employing wage laborers is unjust); what was unjust was to abuse one’s slaves.

While I think I understand what you’re saying there is an essential element that you’re forgetting. In the modern Church the very idea that someone could “own” another human person is abhorant. Even if treated well, the Church today would not recognize the right of someone to own another human person.

 

[soflochristmas]

Something that we haven’t really touched on here, nor has the press or even his new church addressed is that abstainance is a difficult life for all of us who are not married.

People are speaking here about the tough choice of being a priest and the vows of celibacy. Of course, it’s a difficult choice. However, for those who are single, widowed, divorced, or separated, we must also live a life of abstainance unless we want to be in mortal sin. This isn’t necessarily a life we choose for ourselves, but once in this state, we must also abstain. He knowingly chose this life. Some of us ended up ‘single’ without getting to make that choice.

Amen…Amen…Amen.

 

[Shin]

I don’t disagree with you, bobzills.

When we modern people (especially Americans with our particular history) see the word “slavery” used to describe social relationships in past societies, we tend to imagine automatically the type of utterly dehumanizing slavery found in New World plantation societies. In fact, the term historically covers a great diversity of relations of dependence across and within many cultures, ones moreover in which there were other types of dependency (such as serfdom or clientelism).

Within these various forms of “slavery,” there was the possibility of a master respecting in some fashion the basic human dignity of his or her slave. In the Bible, keeping slaves was not of itself unjust (anymore than for non-Marxist modern people employing wage laborers is unjust); what was unjust was to abuse one’s slaves.

When Saint Paul at the dawn of the history of Christianity says that in Christ there is no slave and no freeman, he is asserting the equality of every human being before God, irrespective of his social status. From this idea logically comes the injunction not to abuse one’s slaves, not the idea of abolishing slavery altogether.

It was a particular form of slavery, chattel-slavery as practiced on New World plantations (plus the horrific trans-Atlantic slave trade) and a new conception of political community, democracy, that led Christian churches to condemn slavery categorically.

Sorry, everyone, for getting OT.

What is said above.

In these times we can provide for people in a much greater way than in the past. The idea of putting people in a small room, feeding them and entertaining them and giving them health care, all for no work. . .

Is one that is foreign to -any- past civilization that has to struggle to provide for these necessities, where people starve, scrape by, do not have great technology. Thus… prisoners who are forced to work, criminals, prisoners of war – and it follows logically enough their descendants, who might not be pleased with those in power over their parents – thus, slavery.

 

[Roy5]

A Few Quick Points

1.** I hope Fr. Cutie is happy**. One reason to have different Christian communities is to provide a comfortable home to fellow believers with varying needs or views. I have more in common with Quakers than Episcopalians, but we’re all God’s children.

1. This ‘apostate’ business. I don’t know what apostates are supposed to be. To me, the Christian Church is like a fine mansion with plenty of rooms. Fortunately, the Catholic Church has become broader over the years. I well recall when it was a major sin for a Catholic to enter a Protestant Church. When a child, the local priests would rail against graduates of the local public high school who went to the annual bacculaureate service when it was in a Protestant Church. Protestants had no such prohibition.

3. **The whole concept of 'pure'.** I often see it used in Catholic literature, and it seems to mean virgin. Frankly, I know of no persons purer than a loving husband and wife who are dedicated to one another and to their children. Certainly, my Mom was pure, yet had a large family of offspring. That term ought to go. It leaves the impression that Catholicism is anti-sex, when I know this isn't true - at least any longer. There still remains that implication that life as a virgin is somehow superior to the rest of us. Nonsense!

4. **Any effort to justify slavery is ridiculous.** The old textbooks in some southern states suggested that "Negro slaves" we happy in their condition. Outrageous racist propaganda..

 

[Michael_Saint]

It’s about truth. What that the Episcopal Church teaches has this man suddenly come to believe? He got caught having an illicit affair and shazam! He no longer believes in the papacy? Can’t buy the bit about Mary’s Immaculate Conception or Her Assumption? Transubstantiation got a bit boring? What?

If you want to believe something badly enough, you will convince yourself that it is true. He wanted this woman, but he did not want to have to sacrifice the ministry and the priesthood in the process. By believing Episcopalian doctrine, he could have both. That was a strong motivator which helped him to “re-think everything”.

Luther did the same thing. Believing sola fide and sola scriptura meant the end to the scrupulosity that tortured him. Hundreds of priests and religious left the Catholic Church at that time to get married, and I guarantee that Lutheran doctrine was much more “persuasive” knowing that they could get married and have a sex life if they were to embrace it. “I don’t know if Luther is right, but darn it, I sure want to believe it”. There you have it.

 

[Michael_Saint]

By the way, you are worried about Roy5 hijacking the post, but then you keep responding to him. Quit taking the bait. I personally have been skipping over his posts for that very reason. Do the same.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

A Few Quick Points

1.** I hope Fr. Cutie is happy**.
Then please pray for his soul. It is in such peril and in jeopardy of losing eternal happiness. That is what matters most…“happily ever after”.

1. This ‘apostate’ business. I don’t know what apostates are supposed to be. To me, the Christian Church is like a fine mansion with plenty of rooms.
   Fr.Cutie and all those who are guilty of a grave “breach” from the Church and unrepentant.
   The mansions in Our Father’s House come later…if we persevere to the end.

3. **The whole concept of 'pure'.** I often see it used in Catholic literature, and it seems to mean virgin.

Purity is a virtue that each one of us is called to live according to our state in life. Pure in mind , heart and spirit.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Oh, and regarding the Episcopal Communion, I do not really blame them. They are desperate for pretty much anyone who might be interested in joining them rather than defecting from them, and a high-profile priest is a nice bonus. They are also desperate for anything good in the midst of all their chaos and implosion.

 

[Shin]

INCONTINENCE is called by St. Basil of Seleucia a living plague, and by St. Bernardine of Sienna, the most noxious of all sins; “a terrible gnawing worm.” Because, as St. Bonaventure says, impurity destroys the germs of all virtues. Hence St. Ambrose calls it the hot-house and mother of all vices. For it brings with it hatred, thefts, sacrileges, and other similar vices. Hence St. Remigius has justly said: “With the exception of those that die in childhood, most men will be damned on account of this vice.” And Father Paul Segneri says that as pride has filled hell with angels, so impurity has filled it with men. In other vices the devil fishes with the hook, in this he fishes with the net; so that by incontinence he gains more for hell than by all other sins. On the other hand, God has inflicted the severest chastisement on the world, sending deluges of water and fire from heaven, in punishment of the sin of incontinence.

Hence the holy Church has always endeavored by so many Councils, laws, and admonitions to guard with jealousy the chastity of her priests. Innocent III made the following ordinance: “No one is to be allowed to be ordained priest unless he is a virgin or his chastity has been proved.” He also commanded that the incontinent priest should be excluded " from all ecclesiastical dignities." St. Gregory ordained: " He that has fallen into a carnal sin after ordination should be deprived so far of his office, that he be not permitted to perform any function at the altar." Besides, he ordained, that if a priest committed a sin against purity, he should do penance for ten years. For the first three months he should sleep on the ground, remain in solitude, have no intercourse with any person, and should be deprived of Communion. He should then fast every day for a year and a half on bread and water, and for the remainder of the ten years he should continue to fast on bread and water only on three days in the week. In a word, the Church regards as a monster the priest that does not lead a life of chastity.

Of this God himself complains by the mouth of his prophet: Her priests have despised My law, and have despised My sanctuaries, . . . and I was profaned in the midst of them Alas! says the Lord, by the incontinence of my priest, I, too, am defiled: by violating chastity he pollutes my sanctuary, that is, his body which I have consecrated, and in which I often come to dwell. It was this St. Jerome meant when he said: “We defile the body of Christ whenever we approach the altar unworthily.”

. . . this sin blinds the soul, and makes her lose sight of God and of the eternal truths. " Chastity," says St. Augustine, “purifies the mind, and through it men see God.” But the first effect of the vice of impurity is, according to St. Thomas, blindness of the understanding. Its effects are thus described by the saint: “The effects of this impure vice are: blindness of the mind, hatred of God, attachment to the present life, horror of the future life.” St. Augustine has said that impurity takes away the thought of eternity. . . This was felt by Calvin, who was first a parish priest, a pastor of souls, but afterwards, by this vice, became an heresiarch; by Henry VIII., first the defender and afterwards the persecutor of the Church. This was also experienced by Solomon; first a saint, and after wards an idolater. The same happens to the unchaste priest.

They will not, says the Prophet Osee, set their thoughts to return to their God; for the spirit of fornication is in the midst of them. Hence St. John Chrysostom says, that neither the admonitions of Superiors, nor the counsels of virtuous friends, nor the fear of chastisements, nor the danger of shame shall be sufficient to enlighten the unchaste priest.

No wonder: for he is so blind that he can no longer see. Fire hath fallen on them, and they have not seen the sun? “This fire is no other than the fire of concupiscence,” says St. Thomas. Hence he afterwards adds, " The sins of the flesh extinguish the light of reason, for carnal delectations cause the soul to be drawn entirely towards the pleasures of the senses." This vice, by its beastly delectation, deprives man even of reason; so that, as Eusebius says, it makes him become worse than the senseless beast. Hence the unchaste priest, blinded by his impurities, shall no longer make any account of the injuries that he does to God by his sacrileges, nor of the scandal that he gives to others. He will even go so far as to dare to say Mass in a state of sin. No wonder; for he that has lost the light, easily abandons himself to the commission of every crime.

But as that unhappy soul, for the sake of her impurities, forgets God, so shall he forget her, and permit her to remain abandoned in her darkness. “Because,” says the Lord, “thou hast forgotten Me, and hast cast Me off behind thy body, bear thou also thy wickedness and thy fornications.” St. Peter Damian says, “They throw the Lord behind their bodies that obey the voice of their passions.” Father Cataneo relates that a sinner who had contracted a habit of impurity, when admonished by a friend to abandon his evil ways, unless he wished to be damned, answered: “Friend, I may indeed go to hell for this habit.” He certainly went to that place of torment, for he was suddenly struck dead. A priest who was found in the house of a certain lady whom he went to tempt was compelled by her husband to take a poisonous draught. After returning home he took to his bed, and mentioned to a friend the misfortune that had befallen him. The friend seeing the miserable man so near his end exhorted him to go to confession. No, replied the unhappy man, I cannot go to confession; this favor only I ask of you, go to such a lady, tell her that I die for the love of her. Can greater blindness be conceived?

• St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Bishop & Doctor of the Church, ‘Dignity and Duties of the Priest’ ‘Necessity of Purity in a Priest’

 

[phes3]

responding to ronn77, the evil master were is actions, the way he behave in those 2 years before been caught living a double life, when he was ordained he knew all about, mobody force him to be a catholic priest was is solely decision. … is nothing wrong with falling in love, if you do the right thing; at the first doubt he should either stop it or talk with his superiors and left the priesthood, temporary or permanent, that was the RIGHT thing to do, NO!!! he had pre-marital sex, with a divorced woman (we do not know if she was married in a church) if that the case both are comiting adultery. Father Cutie acomodate the church (episcopalian) to his desires, not his life to the Lord, that requiere sacrifice but a sweet one for the Perfect Love of God. And the way he his acting right now using the media, and the publicity to separate the flock triying to create doubts, etc is not what he supose to do , and he ask for forgiveness? I am not worried because Jesus said to Peter the powers of the evil will not prevail against our church and we are the only ones with 2009 years and still COUNTING!!.
God bless you!!!

 

[ron77nyc]

responding to ronn77, the evil master were is actions, the way he behave in those 2 years before been caught living a double life, when he was ordained he knew all about, mobody force him to be a catholic priest was is solely decision. … is nothing wrong with falling in love, if you do the right thing; at the first doubt he should either stop it or talk with his superiors and left the priesthood, temporary or permanent, that was the RIGHT thing to do, NO!!! he had pre-marital sex, with a divorced woman (we do not know if she was married in a church) if that the case both are comiting adultery. Father Cutie acomodate the church (episcopalian) to his desires, not his life to the Lord, that requiere sacrifice but a sweet one for the Perfect Love of God. And the way he his acting right now using the media, and the publicity to separate the flock triying to create doubts, etc is not what he supose to do , and he ask for forgiveness? I am not worried because Jesus said to Peter the powers of the evil will not prevail against our church and we are the only ones with 2009 years and still COUNTING!!.
God bless you!!!

Why the double standard? There have been many cardinals, popes, bishops and priests who have done much worse. They not only were involved in perverted sex but some denied it after confrontation because there were no photos. They were protected by the Church because they kept quiet, maintained denial and avoided scandal. Maybe Father Alberto didn’t want to take that route.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

I’m so grateful for your references, Shin. These are invaluable resourses for those of us who need to grow in our devotion to praying for the Holy Priesthood, especially as we approach the Jubilee of the Priesthood, as declared by His Holiness Pope Benedict VI on the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus! It is also the 150th anniversary of the birth of St.John Mary Vianney the holy Cure of Ars!
We should all pray earnestly for his intercession for our lost priests, and for holy vocations. Our Lady, Queen and Mother of all hearts, draw your priest sons back to Your Holy Son, for a New Springtime in the Church!
PRAY FOR THE HOLY PRIESTHOOD!!
MAKE HOLY HOURS FOR OUR PRIESTS!!
LOVE YOUR PRIESTS!!!

 

[Roy5]

MICHAEL SAINT
Hijacking the post? Gosh, my opinion is outnumbered ten, maybe 100, to one! I simply feel called to present another viewpoint, which I hope is permitted, and even welcomed. One of my interests is healing the wounds and bridging the chasms that continue to exist among Christians. True, I do oppose the 'one true church' concept, but I find that my dear Catholic friends do, also. I don't think the postings here on CAF reflect the vast majority of Catholics who want reconciliation and goodwill among Christians as much as I do. It's time for the intolerance of the past to be buried. I find it sad that so many postings still promote it.