Fla.'s 'Father Oprah' joins Episcopal Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusVeritas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phes3 said:
Yes indeed you cannot serve 2 masters…:tsktsk:, that what father Cutie is doing, He will regret his actions. Lord have mercy on him!!! Kirie eleison!!!
Click to expand...
The bishops in the new testament had wives? Were they serving 2 masters?
 
Did any of you already could get a seat at the episcopalian church , they are one sale or probably been auctioned to see Whom gives more money to see the circus performing that day of his preaching!!!
 
phes3 said:
Did any of you already could get a seat at the episcopalian church , they are one sale or probably been auctioned to see Whom gives more money to see the circus performing that day of his preaching!!!
Click to expand...
Yeehaw! Not yet! Fr. Oprah is speaking! Gotta get me a seat!
 
DeoSalvatoreMeo said:
I asked you for the news coverage of a scandal from the 40s. You gave me a report about things from 60 years ago that was dated May 2009. Do I need to speak more slowly?
Click to expand...
The report says that these actions had been ongoing for decades since 1940.That indicates a 60 year cover up. How is that any less evil than an old news report? That means those in the Vatican now knew about this and did nothing. Why isn’t anyone upset about that? Why focus on Alberto?
 
ron77nyc said:
No you don’t. The report says that these actions have been ongoing from 1940 to May 20, 2009. That indicates a 60 year cover up. How is that any less evil than an old news report?
Click to expand...
We seem to be getting our wires crossed a lot here. It’s rare that I have such difficulty communicating with people… So, let’s try again.

I said “Yes, that was news a few years ago. If you can show me news reports about it 60 years ago, then do. I wasn’t aware of priestly abuse scandal coverage in the media in the 1940s.”

Then you gave me a news report about something that happened 60 years ago dated 2009. That’s not a news report on a scandal from 60 years ago because almost no one knew about it then and it was certainly not covered in the media then. A scandal only becomes a “scandal” when it’s revealed. The first part of the definition of a scandal is “a widely publicized event”. So, the scandal really was from a few years ago.

But let’s be honest, which I can see you struggle with because you are blinded by your anti-Catholic hatred. You are only here to bash the Catholic Church. The sex abuse scandal is like a calling card of all anti-Catholics these days.
 
DeoSalvatoreMeo said:
We seem to be getting our wires crossed a lot here. It’s rare that I have such difficulty communicating with people… So, let’s try again.

I said “Yes, that was news a few years ago. If you can show me news reports about it 60 years ago, then do. I wasn’t aware of priestly abuse scandal coverage in the media in the 1940s.”

Then you gave me a news report about something that happened 60 years ago dated 2009. That’s not a news report on a scandal from 60 years ago because almost no one knew about it then and it was certainly not covered in the media then. A scandal only becomes a “scandal” when it’s revealed. The first part of the definition of a scandal is “a widely publicized event”. So, the scandal really was from a few years ago.

But let’s be honest, which I can see you struggle with because you are blinded by your anti-Catholic hatred. You are only here to bash the Catholic Church. The sex abuse scandal is like a calling card of all anti-Catholics these days.
Click to expand...
I think you are avoiding the issue. A 60 year cover up has been revealed on May 20, 2009. Why aren’t people upset about it?

Let’s get back to my first point. The people in the Vatican cover things up and Fr. Cutie comes out in the open. Why is there more mercy for the dishonest?
 
ron77nyc said:
I think you are avoiding the issue. A 60 year cover up has been revealed on May 20, 2009. Why aren’t people upset about it?
Click to expand...
If you recall, I said I am able to hold two thoughts at once. I am able to be upset about the Cutie Scandal and the Priest abuse scandal of a few years ago. You like to go in circles. Do you have the biblical passage that calls gambling sinful for me yet?
 
DeoSalvatoreMeo said:
If you recall, I said I am able to hold two thoughts at once. I am able to be upset about the Cutie Scandal and the Priest abuse scandal of a few years ago. You like to go in circles. Do you have the biblical passage that calls gambling sinful for me yet?
Click to expand...
No I don’t. I said it was a matter of conscience for me.

I don’t go in circles. You said the subject was Fr. Cutie and I should start another thread if I wanted to talk about gambling so I went back to Fr. Cutie. Don’t you remember?

Post #365
"OK, are you finished with your adolescent petulance? How about posting your own thread, instead of hijacking this one. Look above, the topic is not church festivals. "
 
ron77nyc said:
No I don’t. I said it was a matter of conscience for me.

I don’t go in circles. You said the subject was Fr. Cutie and I should start another thread if I wanted to talk about gambling so I went back to Fr. Cutie. Don’t you remember?

Post #365
"OK, are you finished with your adolescent petulance? How about posting your own thread, instead of hijacking this one. Look above, the topic is not church festivals. "
Click to expand...
I think you have some problems and I am enabling you. I’m not going to continue to encourage your addiction to Catholic-bashing by acknowledging you on this thread anymore, OK? Well, unless you give me the biblical passage that says gambling is a sin.
 
japhy said:
Those three were “burdens” of the Jewish law. Gentiles did not need to undergo the whole Jewish law, only those three particular burdens. The rest of the rule of faith and morals in the Church was separate: it was the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles.

If you take such a reductionist stance, then the Gentiles didn’t need to believe that Jesus was God, or that murder is wrong, or that stealing is wrong, etc. The three things mentioned were not the only three “articles of faith”. (They’re really articles of morality.)
Click to expand...
Thanks. That’s what I was looking for. It makes sense.
 
DeoSalvatoreMeo said:
St. Paul was celibate and he modeled his celibacy on Christ. Can you tell me what is un-Christian about modeling oneself on Christ? And on our future state in Heaven? For the rest please go to www.scripturecatholic.com. By the way, please stop pretending you are Catholic when you are definitely a Protestant. It doesn’t add anything to your arguments to be deceitful. I think you get your information from Jack Chick booklets.
Click to expand...
I didn’t even know who Jack Chick was until I read about him on CAF.
 
JReducation said:
Here is the problem right here. Father Cutie goes out and makes a mess of his life and the mud fight begins. This is a perfect example of the social dimension of sin, all sin, not just sins against celibacy and chastity. Sin divides and the worst part is that we often fail to see that it is impacting on our lives and on the way we deal with each other.

We probably would not be having this conversation if the priest involved were not an international television celebrity.
Click to expand...
One things for sure…we wouldn’t be having this conversation if he hadn’t scandalized the Church.
 
DeoSalvatoreMeo said:
OK, so I just finished reading ron77nyc’s later posts and it is filled with Protestant-speak. I’m curious as to why this person is listed as “Catholic” when they don’t sound fluent in Catholic-ese at all. I don’t want to accuse anyone of being dishonest, but I think you know where I’m going with this…
Click to expand...
Just a little “good ole fashioned” non-Catholic honesty.
 
stanncie said:
To get back in topic i live in Miami and today in church we had an interesting homily.

Instead of the usual homily the pastor read the archbishop’s letter , translated into Spanish because this was a Spanish mass and then proceeded to go into a discussion about it.

I enjoyed it very much because i hadn’t heard such passion in a while! He said he was terribly hurt by the whole scandal and how it hurt all of the priests who were living a celibate life and keeping their promises.
He then went into a rant about cafeteria Catholics (Fr. Cutie?) and how the church is not there to please people but only to please God. Everyone clapped at this point! 👍
He also talked about how in the parish we were in there were 7 ex episcopalian priests that had converted and that the catholic church had never made a fuss about it unlike the episcopalian bishop who announced it to the world.

To end he said that the church had gone through much worse and that this too shall pass.

I think people were pleased to hear this talked about as the controversy here has reached ridiculous heights.
Click to expand...
Yes, I live in the Miami Arch Diocese as well and the Bishop’s statement was included in our Church bulletin AND it was asked by the bishop to be read in total at every Mass.

Perhaps we can say this is one of the more positive things to come of this scandal, that the faithful in the pews are actually hearing some great homilies as a result.
 
soflochristmas said:
Yes, I live in the Miami Arch Diocese as well and the Bishop’s statement was included in our Church bulletin AND it was asked by the bishop to be read in total at every Mass.

Perhaps we can say this is one of the more positive things to come of this scandal, that the faithful in the pews are actually hearing some great homilies as a result.
Click to expand...
Let’s also consider that the laity is being exposed to canon law and sacramental theology, as well as being given proper guidance on how to respond to this situation.

The letter was very clear about receiving sacraments from Fr. Cutie. This is very important for the Hispanic community in the Archdiocese, because they dearly love Fr. Cutie. Until he came on the scene there was no Hispanic theologian on TV and radio in the USA or many Latin American countries.

This population really needs guidelines on questions such as sacraments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
 
ron77nyc said:
I
…Fr. Cutie comes out in the open.
Click to expand...
As I understand this story, Fr. Cutie did not “come out in the open” of his own accord, unless we consider his engaging in some very public PDA as tantamount to announcing his renouncing of his vows.

He seems to have been contemplating, even planning this move to the Epsicopal Church for some time – indeed doing this in consultation with the local Episcopal bishop. Perhaps he did on some level “want to get caught” so he could be “forced” to make this move for which he has been preparing.

I fully understand that celibacy demands a great sacrifice from our priests, and that many, perhaps all, priests struggle with it at least for part of their ordained lives.

I can accept that perhaps Fr. Cutie’s making a life with Ruhama Cannelis could be the highest good that God wants for him, but I wish Fr. Cutie had been content to receive a dispensation from his priestly office and continued his work for God’s people as a Catholic lay minister of some sort. It would have required a great deal of humility to accept such a “demotion” (though are we not to deem the lay vocation as not inferior to the religious one?), but would not it have been the genuine way to show his love and respect for the Church and for his fellow priests, men for whose commitment to celibacy he has publicly declared his respect?

It would not be so bad if this new “spiritual family” of his disagreed with the Church only in the matter of the discipline of celibacy, but in becoming an Episcopal minister he will have to teach tolerance of viewpoints that the Church which he has been serving all these years considers immoral, if not teach those immoral viewpoints himself. 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?

One of Episcopalian Bishop Frade’s comments in a press interview irked me in particular. With an unseemly smirk on his face, he said that Cutie would be a stupid man if he did not end up marrying his girlfriend because she was a “very attractive woman.” Of all things for a man of the cloth to say! I was expecting him to describe her as a “wonderful person” or some such, but I was scandalized to hear him appear to reduce the matter to the physical.
 
nonsumd said:
As I understand this story, Fr. Cutie did not “come out in the open” of his own accord, unless we consider his engaging in some very public PDA as tantamount to announcing his renouncing of his vows.

He seems to have been contemplating, even planning this move to the Epsicopal Church for some time – indeed doing this in consultation with the local Episcopal bishop. Perhaps he did on some level “want to get caught” so he could be “forced” to make this move for which he has been preparing.

I fully understand that celibacy demands a great sacrifice from our priests, and that many, perhaps all, priests struggle with it at least for part of their ordained lives.

I can accept that perhaps Fr. Cutie’s making a life with Ruhama Cannelis could be the highest good that God wants for him, but I wish Fr. Cutie had been content to receive a dispensation from his priestly office and continued his work for God’s people as a Catholic lay minister of some sort. It would have required a great deal of humility to accept such a “demotion” (though are we not to deem the lay vocation as not inferior to the religious one?), but would not it have been the genuine way to show his love and respect for the Church and for his fellow priests, men for whose commitment to celibacy he has publicly declared his respect?

It would not be so bad if this new “spiritual family” of his disagreed with the Church only in the matter of the discipline of celibacy, but in becoming an Episcopal minister he will have to teach tolerance of viewpoints that the Church which he has been serving all these years considers immoral, if not teach those immoral viewpoints himself. 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?

One of Episcopalian Bishop Frade’s comments in a press interview irked me in particular. With an unseemly smirk on his face, he said that Cutie would be a stupid man if he did not end up marrying his girlfriend because she was a “very attractive woman.” Of all things for a man of the cloth to say! I was expecting him to describe her as a “wonderful person” or some such, but I was scandalized to hear him appear to reduce the matter to the physical.
Click to expand...
You touched on many important points here. I’m going to respond to some in broad strokes.
  1. What Fr. Cutie did was very wrong. He compounded it with apostasy. We must keep him in prayer that he may come back, like the prodigal son.
  2. I too believe that he wanted to get caught. It’s an immature approach to a difficult problem. It’s like a kid or adolescent.
  3. There were spiritual directors and monks who tried to help him through his struggle with celibacy. Apparently, he was not listening or the counseling was not working.
  4. He kept this problem from his bishop. That should have been his first stop, once he realized that he was not making progress.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. The sin of apostasy is not only having left the Catholic Church, but also as you rightly said, having to condone erroneous moral and doctrinal teaching. This is a serious violation for all Catholics, not just priests. If he begins to teach these things, he is not only an apostate, he will also be a heretic. If he becomes a heretic, he may be dismissed from the clerical state by the Catholic Church. Currentlhy, he is part of the Catholic Church’s clerical community, even though he is excommunicated. This would compound the matter.
  9. He was the only popular Hispanic theologian that seemed to reach the Hispanic Catholic community in the USA, Latin America and Spain. Unfortunately, many people will be hurt and many others will follow him, because they really love him. The truth is that he did a great deal of good when he was in active ministry. He’s a tough act to follow. I have no idea how we’re going to save this community from pain or from dissent. That’s another damage to the largest group of Catholics in the world, the Hispanic Catholics.
There is much to moarn about here. There is much more work to be done. As Francis said, “Let us begin.” Let us begin the healing process and helping those who were hurt.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂

PS Pardon my typos. I’m old and tired.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top