Definitely, he did, in fact, do this to himself. As you stated, the Church is not the one who excommunicates. Cutie did that one all by himself when he knelt in front of the Episcopal prelate.
Having left the clerical state, he forfeited his rights as a priest, as stated by the Archbishop of Miami. Thus, any service that he presides over will not fulfill one’s Sunday obligation. The Archbishop was very clear about that.
No argument about Fr./Mr. Cutie’s status as excommunicate or apostate. However, it’s not clear to me that per canon 290 he has in fact “lost the clerical state.” I saw the following in a Canon Law website:
*The clerical state is lost in one of three ways:5
(1) A priest can personally request a dispensation from the obligations arising from his ordination. This is commonly known as a petition for “laicization,” and it is granted only by the Holy Father through a process which is conducted by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Depending on the reasons for the request, it is usually granted within six months of the presentation of the petition to the Congregation. However, in urgent cases involving issues such as criminal behavior, a dispensation can be granted within a number of weeks. This process must be initiated by the priest himself.
(2) A priest can be dismissed from the clerical state as a penalty for serious offenses. The law requires that such a dismissal be conducted by a judicial forum, that is, before a diocesan tribunal in accord with the legal procedures that govern criminal trials under canon law.6 Certain crimes, such as the sexual abuse of minors, are reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This means that once the local bishop has completed his investigation of the alleged crime, the results of this investigation must be sent to the Congregation which will then judge whether the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state can be imposed.7
Since this is done within a judicial process, the procedural laws of the Church must be observed with regards to the rights of victims, the rights of the accused priest, and the rights of the diocesan bishop. Given the nature of any judicial process, this
can be a most time consuming procedure, at times taking years to complete.
(3) The Church has also provided for the administrative dismissal of priests in the past for urgent reasons and only in grave matters; and the use of this process has always been considered an exception to the law. The most recent example of this process has been the dismissal of priests through the offices of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for proven acts of misconduct involving the sexual abuse of minors. Certain key elements have always been required in order to invoke this process:8
The priest must specifically state that he is unwilling to petition for laicization personally.
There must be a criminal conviction associated with the priest’s sexual abuse of minors or a decision in a civil lawsuit demonstrating his responsibility for this abuse.
The priest who is going to be subjected to dismissal must be afforded a true “right of defense.” This means that the priest must be given an opportunity of presenting a defense, especially if he has pleaded to a lesser charge in order to avoid criminal prosecution of a more serious charge. The same principle applies if a settlement has been reached in a civil lawsuit and the priest was never afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations and defend himself.
A Promoter of Justice must prepare an opinion. The person holding this office has the responsibility of assuring that a proper process has taken place and that there has not been a miscarriage of justice. *
Since Cutie apparently neither requested a dispensation (1), nor has there been a judicial forum (2), nor has there been a criminal conviction (3), I don’t see how these conditions have been met.
So again, clearly his attempt to celebrate the Eucharist would be illicit, but to me the question remains: were he to intend to confect the Eucharist and use the proper Words of Institution within an Episcopal Liturgy, would the Eucharist in fact be validly, but illicitly, confected? I also agree that a Sunday Obligation would clearly not be satisfied by attending one of his Episcopal liturgies, regardless of his clerical state (or not), and regardless of whether the Eucharist were valid (or not).
If only we had a few, even a very few parish priests like him today!
Mr Alberto Cutie, that’s already in the past… the more we discuss about him the more important he believe he is, fiilling is ego. just pray for him so the almighty father will have mercy on him.