Fla.'s 'Father Oprah' joins Episcopal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusVeritas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bobzills said:
Not exactly correct. The Eastern rite petitioned the Pope for a married clergy in the USA. They were turned down by the Pope.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t mean the Pope is not holy, nor does it mean he’s conspiring. Just because certain priests want to be married, doesn’t mean it will be allowed. The Pope, after Christ of course, is head of the Catholic church, and the decisions lie with him.

The bottom line is this: it is what it is and if a man or woman cannot be obedient and follow the requirements, then priesthood/nunhood is not for him or her; it’s no different than a spouse who cannot be faithful - he or she should not be married.

The Pope is not going to change the rules simply because we ask. He will pray, reflect, and do what is best after all of this.
 
bobzills said:
Not exactly correct. The Eastern rite petitioned the Pope for a married clergy in the USA. They were turned down by the Pope.
Click to expand...
Quick question: I’ve heard this before, that married men cannot become Eastern Rite clergy in the U.S., though that is their custom elsewhere. Yet I believe I’ve read of married U.S. Eastern Rite clergy, among the Melkites for example.

Are there certain rites in which it has been allowed (such as the Melkites), but others in which it still isn’t? And those rites were petitioning the pope?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.
 
Sapphire_Dragon said:
Quick question: I’ve heard this before, that married men cannot become Eastern Rite clergy in the U.S., though that is their custom elsewhere. Yet I believe I’ve read of married U.S. Eastern Rite clergy, among the Melkites for example.

Are there certain rites in which it has been allowed (such as the Melkites), but others in which it still isn’t? And those rites were petitioning the pope?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.
Click to expand...
I’m not an Eastern Rite Catholic, so I don’t know exactly what happened in the request by the American Eastern Rites. There is a Carmelite Friar who is on CAF. His name is Br. David, O’Carm and he’s Byzantine. His screen name is BYZCATH. He can answer the question better than I can.

From what I know, there are Eastern Rite priests in the USA who are married. As I understand it, what was said was that the Eastern Rite Americans who are married could not be ordained.

It is my understanding that the rule was only for Americans. Therefore, a foreign-born Eastern Rite Catholic man who is married, can be ordained. From my understanding the logic was that the USA is not part of the East. It is part of the Latin Church. The Eastern Rite Catholics are immigrants to the USA and are the minority of Catholics.

The concern was that it would cause some confusion, because we have always had the married Episcopal and Lutheran clergy, which in the past were very similar in the externals to the Catholics.

Of course, that’s not the case any more. The American Episcopals and American Lutherans have changed a great deal. In additiona, the Latin Rite in the USA now has married priests who converted from other faiths.

Maybe, this rule will be dropped with the passage of time. In any case, this rule is only for the Eastern Rite clergy that lives and works within the Latin Rite world. In the Eastern Rite communities married men can still be ordained deacons and priests.

But do contact ByzCatholic. He can better answer this than I can. Br. David is very knowledgeable. Besides, I’m Franciscan. We have very few Franciscans who are Eastern Rite. Those who come to us from the East must become bi-ritual, because we are a Latin order. Even our brothers in the East are Latin Rite. Therefore, I have had minimal contact with the Eastern Rite in the USA.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
 
JReducation said:
I’m not an Eastern Rite Catholic, so I don’t know exactly what happened in the request by the American Eastern Rites. There is a Carmelite Friar who is on CAF. His name is Br. David, O’Carm and he’s Byzantine. His screen name is BYZCATH. He can answer the question better than I can.

From what I know, there are Eastern Rite priests in the USA who are married. As I understand it, what was said was that the Eastern Rite Americans who are married could not be ordained.

It is my understanding that the rule was only for Americans. Therefore, a foreign-born Eastern Rite Catholic man who is married, can be ordained. From my understanding the logic was that the USA is not part of the East. It is part of the Latin Church. The Eastern Rite Catholics are immigrants to the USA and are the minority of Catholics.

The concern was that it would cause some confusion, because we have always had the married Episcopal and Lutheran clergy, which in the past were very similar in the externals to the Catholics.

Of course, that’s not the case any more. The American Episcopals and American Lutherans have changed a great deal. In additiona, the Latin Rite in the USA now has married priests who converted from other faiths.

Maybe, this rule will be dropped with the passage of time. In any case, this rule is only for the Eastern Rite clergy that lives and works within the Latin Rite world. In the Eastern Rite communities married men can still be ordained deacons and priests.

But do contact ByzCatholic. He can better answer this than I can. Br. David is very knowledgeable. Besides, I’m Franciscan. We have very few Franciscans who are Eastern Rite. Those who come to us from the East must become bi-ritual, because we are a Latin order. Even our brothers in the East are Latin Rite. Therefore, I have had minimal contact with the Eastern Rite in the USA.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
Click to expand...
I heard on the news a while ago that Father Cutie and his friend have married. To some this may seem bad, but the way I look at it, it seems like it might be better to marry and take a wife, rather than to do what the Pope (Alexander VI) has done and to take and live with an unmarried mistress and have four children? After all, doesnt the Bible say it is better to marry than to burn? I Cor 7-9?
As far as the Pope blocking some Eastern rite priests from marrying, I suspect that this is one of those disciplinary issues that the Eastern Orthodox would not want to be imposed upon them by the Roman Pope and hence this would only serve to increase their reluctance to go along with any reunion.
 
bobzills said:
I heard on the news a while ago that Father Cutie and his friend have married. To some this may seem bad, but the way I look at it, it seems like it might be better to marry and take a wife, rather than to do what the Pope (Alexander VI) has done and to take and live with an unmarried mistress and have four children? After all, doesnt the Bible say it is better to marry than to burn? I Cor 7-9?
As far as the Pope blocking some Eastern rite priests from marrying, I suspect that this is one of those disciplinary issues that the Eastern Orthodox would not want to be imposed upon them by the Roman Pope and hence this would only serve to increase their reluctance to go along with any reunion.
Click to expand...
Let’s take one thing at a time. What Fr. Cutie has done is immoral and can only be forgiven by the Holy Father. This will cost him his clerical state. He will always be a priest, but not a cleric. Therefore he may not licitly celebrate the sacraments, nor may he validly absolve from sin or validly witness a marriage between Catholics.

As to the state of his soul, only God knows. Objectively, he is living in a state of grave sin. But man is not judge objectively. God judges subjectively. That will have to be left up to God.

Under no circumstances does the scripture say that one may break a promise made to God and to the Church. Fr. Cuite has done just that. Not only that, but he has entered into an invalid marriage. Deacons, priests, bishops, religoius brothers and cloistered nuns cannot enter into valid marriages without a dispensation that only the Pope can grant. Therefore, the marriage is null and void.

What the Church normally offers these persons is a dispensation so they can validly marry within the Church. But they may never again engage in clerical ministry. Given the fact that Fr. Cutie has left the Church, he would have to return to the Church first, agree never to function as a cleric in order to receive absolution and then he can enter a sacramental marriage.

At this time, his marriage is a farce and he is risking a great deal. But that is up to him and his conscience to deal with. It is not up to us to judge him. All we can do is explain the situation in which he finds himself so that others can understand. The bottom line is that it is morally grave, from an objective perspective.

As to the Eastern Rite, the rule only applies to Americans. It does not interfere with the Orthodox and Catholic reunification. The issue is that the Orthodox have to accept the dogma concern the primacy of Peter and the Immaculate Conception. Those are the two dogmas that separate us.

Please allow me to ask you a question. Are you Orthodox? I may be getting the wrong impression, but sometimes you write as if you have some disdain for the papacy. I realize that these posts do not have a face or a tone of voice. It is difficult to know what a person feels by reading what they write. That’s why I ask the question.

If you are Catholic, then I will assume that you believe in the primacy of Peter and his successors. In that case you will agree that there is no choice, but for the Orthodox to accept it, if they want reunification or they can remain as they are, Sister Churches.

The only problem with remaining Sister Churches is that they are not guarranteed the protection of infallibility. That’s why they have made a mistake in their understanding of the Immaculate Conception.

Have a great day tomorrow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Let’s take one thing at a time. What Fr. Cutie has done is immoral and can only be forgiven by the Holy Father. This will cost him his clerical state. He will always be a priest, but not a cleric. Therefore he may not licitly celebrate the sacraments, nor may he validly absolve from sin or validly witness a marriage between Catholics.

As to the state of his soul, only God knows. Objectively, he is living in a state of grave sin. But man is not judge objectively. God judges subjectively. That will have to be left up to God.

Under no circumstances does the scripture say that one may break a promise made to God and to the Church. Fr. Cuite has done just that. Not only that, but he has entered into an invalid marriage. Deacons, priests, bishops, religoius brothers and cloistered nuns cannot enter into valid marriages without a dispensation that only the Pope can grant. Therefore, the marriage is null and void.

What the Church normally offers these persons is a dispensation so they can validly marry within the Church. But they may never again engage in clerical ministry. Given the fact that Fr. Cutie has left the Church, he would have to return to the Church first, agree never to function as a cleric in order to receive absolution and then he can enter a sacramental marriage.

At this time, his marriage is a farce and he is risking a great deal. But that is up to him and his conscience to deal with. It is not up to us to judge him. All we can do is explain the situation in which he finds himself so that others can understand. The bottom line is that it is morally grave, from an objective perspective.

As to the Eastern Rite, the rule only applies to Americans. It does not interfere with the Orthodox and Catholic reunification. The issue is that the Orthodox have to accept the dogma concern the primacy of Peter and the Immaculate Conception. Those are the two dogmas that separate us.

Please allow me to ask you a question. Are you Orthodox? I may be getting the wrong impression, but sometimes you write as if you have some disdain for the papacy. I realize that these posts do not have a face or a tone of voice. It is difficult to know what a person feels by reading what they write. That’s why I ask the question.

If you are Catholic, then I will assume that you believe in the primacy of Peter and his successors. In that case you will agree that there is no choice, but for the Orthodox to accept it, if they want reunification or they can remain as they are, Sister Churches.

The only problem with remaining Sister Churches is that they are not guarranteed the protection of infallibility. That’s why they have made a mistake in their understanding of the Immaculate Conception.

Have a great day tomorrow.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
How is one to interpret Scripture which says that it is better to marry than to burn? Would that not imply that it is worse for a Pope to have a mistress that it would be for a priest to marry?
I think that this teaching of Papal binding a loosing will have to be modified somewhat if the Roman Church wants reunion with the Orthodox. i don’t see the Orthodox agreeing to having the Pope require them to throw out the Liturgy of St. Basil and impose the New Mass on them. There really is no way that the Orthodox would agree to that.
The power of binding and loosing has been interpreted differently at different times in the history of the Church. For example, there are some who have said that it touches upon the power to loose the repentant sinner from his sins and little else.
As far as personal questions go, it is my understanding that it is against the rules to go into personal details of the life of any particular poster. I thought that this was a forum for discussing the issues and details of Catholic teaching and would not get into personal discussions concerning the private life of any individual poster.
 
Br. JR, thank you for your response. 🙂 I will definitely contact Br. David to clarify this. Thanks again!
bobzills said:
How is one to interpret Scripture which says that it is better to marry than to burn? Would that not imply that it is worse for a Pope to have a mistress that it would be for a priest to marry?
Click to expand...
Well, a priest had the choice to marry, but he chose not to, so he could devote his life more fully to his work. And he made a promise to God that he would do this.
It is just like when a person marries, he or she is devoted to their one spouse, and can never go commit adultery with someone else, no matter how terrible the temptation.

Of course, some priests may have made a “mistake” and been unable to handle their committment. I think with determination and God’s help they could overcome it, just as a tempted married person can. But nevertheless, the Church does allow them to be dispensed from the priesthood and marry, though going back on a vow to God is of course frowned upon.

Instead of seeking this, it seems that Father Cutie was acting immorally behind his people’s backs. When he was caught and stripped of his position, he went to another church that allowed him to do what he wanted.
 
Sapphire_Dragon said:
Br. JR, thank you for your response. 🙂 I will definitely contact Br. David to clarify this. Thanks again!

Well, a priest had the choice to marry, but he chose not to, so he could devote his life more fully to his work. And he made a promise to God that he would do this.
It is just like when a person marries, he or she is devoted to their one spouse, and can never go commit adultery with someone else, no matter how terrible the temptation.

Of course, some priests may have made a “mistake” and been unable to handle their committment. I think with determination and God’s help they could overcome it, just as a tempted married person can. But nevertheless, the Church does allow them to be dispensed from the priesthood and marry, though going back on a vow to God is of course frowned upon.

Instead of seeking this, it seems that Father Cutie was acting immorally behind his people’s backs. When he was caught and stripped of his position, he went to another church that allowed him to do what he wanted.
Click to expand...
**The apostles were in favor of marriage. **

1 Corinthians 9
usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians9.htm

4 3 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
5 Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Footnotes **3 ** [4-12a] Apparently some believe that Paul is not equal to the other apostles and therefore does not enjoy equal privileges. His defense on this point (here and in 1 Cor 9:13-14) reinforces the assertion of his apostolic character in 1 Cor 9:2. It consists of a series of analogies from natural equity (7) and religious custom (1 Cor 9:13) designed to establish his equal right to support from the churches (1 Cor 9:4-6, 11-12a); these analogies are confirmed by the authority of the law (1 Cor 9:8-10) and of Jesus himself (1 Cor 9:14).
 
ron77nyc said:
**The apostles were in favor of marriage. **
Click to expand...
In favor of marriage?
As in they thought it was a good thing?
Of course. I agree.

As in they believed it was the right of person to be able to marry?
Of course. Paul makes that clear in the passages you quoted and elsewhere in Corinthians.

But choosing not to marry so that one could better serve God was also praised:

Jesus: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it” Matthew 19:12

Paul: “But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction” 1 Corinthians 33-35
 
ron77nyc said:
Celibacy was not imposed. (obliged, forced, required)
Click to expand...
I look at it this way:

Church authorities have determined that unmarried men are best-suited for work as priests–they can better devote their time to parish work. They don’t need to worry about neglecting family, etc.

Church authorities can decide who to ordain. They choose (with some exceptions in the Latin Rite… and of course many Eastern Rite priests are married) unmarried men. Not only that, they choose unmarried men who have made a vow to God never to be married, so that they can continue to better serve him.

The individual made the vow of his own free will.

But you’re right. In Paul’s day these rules did not exist. Today they do.
Would the apostles have opposed the Church instituting these rules? Maybe. Maybe not.

Either way, I think it is a legitimate exercise of authority, which I tried to emphasize in this post.
 
Sapphire_Dragon said:
But you’re right. In Paul’s day these rules did not exist. Today they do.
Would the apostles have opposed the Church instituting these rules? Maybe. Maybe not.

Either way, I think it is a legitimate exercise of authority, which I tried to emphasize in this post.
Click to expand...
It is a legitimate exercise of authority but a deviation from apostolic practice. The Church doesn’t want to cave in to outside pressure by employing married men but they didn’t have a problem with using gay men. What do you think Peter and Paul would have said about that decision?
 
Joab_Anias said:
I think they would have said there is no such thing as a gay gene.

Recent interesting articles from Zenit:
Click to expand...
I agree with you. There is no gay gene but the men who caused damage to the Church did not want to change and those in authority didn’t have the same standards the apostles had. They chose dishonesty. They will discipline a straight man but not a gay man.
 
ron77nyc said:
I agree with you. There is no gay gene but the men who caused damage to the Church did not want to change and those in authority didn’t have the same standards the apostles had. They chose dishonesty. They will discipline a straight man but not a gay man.
Click to expand...
They would discipline a gay priest if his behavior became public. They can’t penalize for behavior that hasn’t come to light.

I’ve heard that, since the scandals of 2002, dioceses in the USA have become far more averse to admitting gays to ordination.

In any case, one’s sexuality is not the issue; breaking a freely–made promise before God (actually two in this case; celibacy and obedience) is.
 
GEddie said:
They would discipline a gay priest if his behavior became public. They can’t penalize for behavior that hasn’t come to light.

I’ve heard that, since the scandals of 2002, dioceses in the USA have become far more averse to admitting gays to ordination.

In any case, one’s sexuality is not the issue; breaking a freely–made promise before God (actually two in this case; celibacy and obedience) is.
Click to expand...
Something’s just not kosher. For 2 years Alberto kept it hidden. It was revealed by the press just like the gay sex scandals but those victims were paid to keep quiet. Alberto left before he could be disciplined. It looks like a game of chess and both sides are not playing by the rules. The bishops should be disciplined but they were promoted instead.
 
soflochristmas said:
Was Albert Cutie forced, obliged or required to become a priest? When did that happen?
Click to expand...
No but he was forced to remain celibate. That’s why he confided in an Episcopalian bishop rather than his own Catholic bishop. He knew what the Catholic bishop’s next move would be so he countermoved to avoid being captured.
 
ron77nyc said:
No but he was forced to remain celibate. That’s why he confided in an Episcopalian bishop rather than his own Catholic bishop. He knew what the Catholic bishop’s next move would be so he countermoved to avoid being captured.
Click to expand...
No one forced Fr. Cutie to become a priest and no one forced him to promise celibacy. Celibacy comes with the call to the priesthood. It’s a package. You can’t take one without the other. This was not a surprise to him. We have to think about this situation from the other side of the coin.

While it is true that the discipline of celibacy is only within the Latin Rite Church, it is also true that it is a gift to the Church. Those of us who have been called to either the religious life or the priesthood have been given a very special gift. We have been given an opportunity to share our life and death with Jesus in an intimate relationship of love. Celibacy is not a burden.

There are times when a person can become lonely and want to have some one with whom to share. This is especially true for secular priests, because they do not belong to a religious community. Therefore, they do not have the support system of a group of brothers or the opportunity to share an intimate spiritual and social life with others.

Sometimes the option for a secular priest is not leaving the priesthood to find a wife, but finding a support system where you’re at. Many people often blame the Church because a man leaves to get married. The fact is that more priests and religious men and women remain priests, brothers and sisters, than the number of those who leave.

What the Church tries is to help the individual find this intimacy with God and with his brother priests or brother religious. She provides us with opportunities to spend time in prayer, silence, solitude, community and ministry. She supports our intellectual and psychological needs in healthy and productive ways that enhance our service to the Gospel.

In duscussing celibacy, we need to remember God’s generosity and the Church’s desire to help those of us who are celibate remain close to God and his people. It’s not an unbearable situation as some people try to paint it. It becomes unbearable if one is not called to the priesthood or the religious life or if one is called but answers with a divided heart.

Let’s look at this from a more spiritual perspective and we will see the great gift and grace that it is.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
ron77nyc said:
Something’s just not kosher. For 2 years Alberto kept it hidden. It was revealed by the press just like the gay sex scandals but those victims were paid to keep quiet. Alberto left before he could be disciplined. It looks like a game of chess and both sides are not playing by the rules. The bishops should be disciplined but they were promoted instead.
Click to expand...
Dear friend,
You forget that there are dark forces at work in the world, leading many an unsuspecting soul and many more** consenting souls astray. Sin is both personal and collective, that is the reason Jesus Christ suffered and died and rose** for us sinners.
We can’t “fix"ourselves, the Church or the world-Jesus already did that, we just need to acknowledge our sins and repent, do penance and pray without ceasing.
Most of us will fail miserably-hence the"Way of the Cross” of Jesus gives us the strength and** grace** to** overcome** “the world, the flesh and the devil”.
Redemption has been accomplished. Thank God for His unfathomable Mercy.
Now we choose.God will judge.Nothing escapes His notice.
God** has to work** through imperfection, otherwise He could not work through you or me.
But take heart, He gives us** everything we need** for the journey-just for the asking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top