Fla.'s 'Father Oprah' joins Episcopal Church

[Roy5]

Who would suspend the Pope? He is the visible head of the Church. There is no one between him and God.

This raises an interesting question. Is there any way of suspending a Pope? What if he became mentally incompetent - dementia maybe? Or, has a mistress? Or, commits some criminal offense? Or, renounces a doctrine declared infallible by a previous Pope (e. g., Immaculate Conception)?

 I hope Fr. Cutie is happy. I don't know him and certainly don't feel competent to judge him. Love and marriage have always seemed to me to be positive things. The fact that he's a priest doesn't change my attitude on that. My guess is that he is likely to get to heaven as quickly as the rest of us. In any case, our merciful God will make that decision. 

 Besides, I have some sympathy for the Episcopal Church during this time of so much debate within its ranks. I prefer democracy to a totalitarian mindset, even when democracy is messy, as it always is. Hitler, Mussolini and Franco (all baptized Catholics, by the way) may have been more efficient, but I'm glad I have lived in this open if at times chaotic society.

  God bless the whole world - no exceptions. And this includes the Episcopalians, Pentecostalists, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and especially the Catholics and Quakers.

 

[soflochristmas]

A Few Quick Points

1.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.

Unfortunately this is not what Jesus did, said or instructed. Rather he said to be ONE. We should be “comfortable” in HIS Church. We should have one “need”…to be in His Church. We should have one “view”…to be true to Him.

 

[GEddie]

Unfortunately this is not what Jesus did, said or instructed. Rather he said to be ONE. We should be “comfortable” in HIS Church. We should have one “need”…to be in His Church. We should have one “view”…to be true to Him.

EVErYBODY is going to be a Catholic one day. The question is whether alive or in Purgatory. In Purgatory and Heaven, everybody is Catholic

 

[GEddie]

Besides, I have some sympathy for the Episcopal Church during this time of so much debate within its ranks. I prefer democracy to a totalitarian mindset

It is good to support democracy, as it is the most humane of civil institutions.

But Christ did not come to establish a democracy; He came to create a Body. His collective body in our world is the church. Bodies are not democratically run; if they were they would not survive. Heaven is not a democracy either.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

**

  God bless the whole world - no exceptions. And this includes the Episcopalians, Pentecostalists, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and especially the Catholics and Quakers.**

Thank you,Roy.
I don’t know you, so I certainly can’t judge you, but I can surmise from your posts, that you have a very open mind! Even your heart seems open and overflowing! You are proud of that, aren’t you? You want to be here on these Catholic forums for a very noble purpose, don’t you? To engage in a fruitful dialogue as our beloved Pope John Paul II of blessed memory encouraged all the faithful to do.

You help those of us who love our Holy Mother Church to delve deeper into the sacred deposit of the Faith, that has been Hers exclusively-since the beginning-and that has been preserved like a spotless** Bride** by her Bridegroom Jesus Christ, through the centuries.
Our Catholic heritage is** enriched greatly** by those, like you, who present the necessary fodder for our deliberations, and like “gold tested in fire” **
She comes forth resplendent in beauty, time after time, after time!
I would like to say thank you, Roy, for providing this opportunity to give praise to the Eternal Wisdom for the awesome gift of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by** Jesus Christ.**
May God hasten to bring you, dear friend,** into full communion with us one day**…we would welcome you with open hearts, and without exception.
Peace be with you.

 

[bobzills]

I beleive that it is a bit unfair to suspend a priest who has a mistress if you do not suspend the Pope who has a mistress and four children.

 

[ron77nyc]

I beleive that it is a bit unfair to suspend a priest who has a mistress if you do not suspend the Pope who has a mistress and four children.

If they had photos of the Pope then that would be a different story.

 

[JReducation]

I beleive that it is a bit unfair to suspend a priest who has a mistress if you do not suspend the Pope who has a mistress and four children.

There is a misunderstanding here. Fr. Cutie was not suspended for having a mistress. In fact, the bishop mentions this in his letter to the diocese. Fr. Cutie asked for a leave of absence and it was granted.

Because he asked for a leave of absence, he could not be pastor of St. Francis de Sales or the head of Radio Paz. He certainly was free to celebrate all the sacraments while on leave of absence.

Fr. Cutie excommunicated himself when he left the Church.

As to the pope with the mistress, you can’t suspend a pope. He is above the law, because he is the Law Giver.

In the case that a pope becomes incompetent to rule, such as Alzheimer’s, a council of bishops must rule that he is incompetent. The Chair of Peter becomes vacant. The man is no longer pope or the Bishop of Rome. A new pope must be elected. I don’t think there has ever been such a case. But there is a provision for it in canon law.

If the pope becomes a heretic, again, a council of bishops must declare that he is a heretic. Again, the Chair of Peter is vacant and a new pope is elected.

The government of the Church during this time is the same as when a pope dies. Nothing new can happen and no changes can take place until the new pope is installed.

Hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[BobCatholic]

He will seek out his pleasures and then later figure out that it won’t satisfy as much as Christ.

Then maybe he’ll figure out the truth.

 

[bobzills]

There is a misunderstanding here. Fr. Cutie was not suspended for having a mistress.

Here is the story before he ever joined the Episcopal Church according to the following link:
“Priest suspended following photos with woman”
ncronline.org/news/people/priest-suspended-following-photos-woman
Archdiocesan spokeswoman Mary Ross Agosta said in a statement on the archdiocesan Web site that Father Cutie is no longer in charge of Pax Catholic Communications or St. Francis de Sales Parish…

 

[AdriannaJean]

Could it not be possible that he is converting to Episcopalianism in order to marry this woman, and then revert to being a Catholic priest again? Can’t an Episcopalian priest who is married convert to Catholicism and keep his wife? Wouldn’t this be a possibility for (Mr. Fr.?) Cutie?

 

[BobCatholic]

He will seek out his pleasures and then later figure out that it won’t satisfy as much as Christ.

Then maybe he’ll figure out the truth.

 

[JReducation]

Here is the story before he ever joined the Episcopal Church according to the following link:
“Priest suspended following photos with woman”
ncronline.org/news/people/priest-suspended-following-photos-woman
Archdiocesan spokeswoman Mary Ross Agosta said in a statement on the archdiocesan Web site that Father Cutie is no longer in charge of Pax Catholic Communications or St. Francis de Sales Parish…

The report has a mistake in it. Fr. Cutie was not suspended. He was granted a leave of absence. These were the words of Archbishop Favalora himself.

"When Father Cutié met with me on May 5th, he requested and I granted a leave of absence from the exercise of the priesthood. Because of this, he could no longer be the administrator of St Francis de Sales Parish or the General Director of Radio Paz. For the good of the Church and to avoid the media frenzy, I chose not to impose publicly an ecclesiastical penalty, although his admitted actions clearly warranted it."

miamiarchdiocese.org/ip.asp?op=H1000090528ACE

The Archbishop could have imposed other penalties on him, but did not do so. He explains why he did not. To suspend or not, for this kind of sin, is up to the bishop. The assumption was that Fr. Cutie was going to go away for a period of reflection and prayer. There did not seem to be a reason to suspend him. When the priest involved voluntarily asks for a leave of absence canon law does not require a suspension. It is up to the bishop or if he is a religious, up to the major superior.

Canon law requires a suspension if the sin is on-going and causes scandal. But Bishop Favalora was led to believe that Fr. Cutie was going to take some time to be alone. No one expected Fr. Cutie to go on a media tour.

Hope this clarifies the matter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

He will seek out his pleasures and then later figure out that it won’t satisfy as much as Christ.

Then maybe he’ll figure out the truth.

We’ll have to wait and see what happens. But whatever we feel, it is important to avoid demonizing this man. All men and women are sons and daughters of the Father. They all deserve our love, respect, prayer and encouragement to move toward the good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bobzills]

The assumption was that Fr. Cutie was going to go away for a period of reflection and prayer.

So when Fr. Cutie was found with a womanfriend, there was a big deal made out of it and the assumption was that he was going away for a period of prayer and reflection. Would that mean that Father Cutie was no longer to be involved with his womanfriend and had to exercise more care concerning his promise to celibacy? On the other hand, when it was known that the Pope had a mistress and four illegitimate children, there was no such reaction by the bishops at that time and there were no assumptions made that the Pope should go away for a period of reflection and prayer, due to the scandal involved?

 

[BobCatholic]

We’ll have to wait and see what happens. But whatever we feel, it is important to avoid demonizing this man. All men and women are sons and daughters of the Father. They all deserve our love, respect, prayer and encouragement to move toward the good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I’m not demonizing him. I’m glad he’s at least being honest and saying he’s really a protestant, and acting on his beliefs by joining a protestant church.

 

[JReducation]

So when Fr. Cutie was found with a womanfriend, there was a big deal made out of it and the assumption was that he was going away for a period of prayer and reflection. Would that mean that Father Cutie was no longer to be involved with his womanfriend and had to exercise more care concerning his promise to celibacy?

I was not in the room with Fr. Cutie and the Archbishop. Based on the Archbishop’s statement, it seems that the assumption was that Fr. Cutie would take time away from ministry and his relationship to pray and discern. No one expected him to show up on Good Morning America several days later and other TV stations.

On the other hand, when it was known that the Pope had a mistress and four illegitimate children, there was no such reaction by the bishops at that time and there were no assumptions made that the Pope should go away for a period of reflection and prayer, due to the scandal involved?

First, the bishops don’t have the authority to send the pope on a leave of absence.

Second, I don’t think that it was such a great scandal at that time in history. The papacy looked very different then from what it looks like today. Popes were religious leaders and monarchs with a great deal of worldly power and comforts. A saintly pope was more the exception at the time. Just look at the number popes who have been canonized and compare it to the number of nuns, sisters and lay brothers. The number of popes is very small by comparison.

Since the 19th century we have been blessed with very saintly popes.
But this was not the case from the Middle Ages through the Renaisance.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bobzills]

First, the bishops don’t have the authority to send the pope on a leave of absence.

In Roman Catholicism then, if bishops and the faithful see the Pope breaking his promise of celibacy with a mistress and illegitimate children, then there is nothing that can be done?

 

[bobzills]

Second, I don’t think that it was such a great scandal at that time in history.

So it was not such a big deal among Roman Catholics, that the Pope broke his promise of celibacy and that he was living openly with a mistress and had four illegitimate children?

 

[JReducation]

So it was not such a big deal among Roman Catholics, that the Pope broke his promise of celibacy and that he was living openly with a mistress and had four illegitimate children?

Not really. Let’s not forget the fact that the laity has no authority over the clergy or over religious. Even for those who felt that it was wrong for the pope to have a mistress and illegitimate children, there was no recourse.

The pope is the highest recourse in the Church. He can resign his title, but no one receives the resignation, because there is no higher authority than he in the Church. In effect, he presents the resignation to himself.

He can be declared incompetent by a Synod of Bishops, but this must stand the test of a tribunal and have the sufficient number of votes and proper documentation to prove that he is mentally incompetent.

He can be declared a heretic, but only if he believes something that is heresy, not because he sins.

The Holy Spirit does not pick a pope because he is a saint, but because he is good for the Church either in the present or in the future. Since God exists outside of space and time, there is no telling how an individual pope may be of good to the Church, even if it appears that in the present he is a public sinner.

No pope, no matter how sinful, has ever taught against the faith or against morals held by Tradition or the Magisterium. It has never happened in history.

There have been excommunications of apparent popes. But these were exceptionally rare cases, such as the case when we had two persons claiming the Chair of Peter. Only one had the canonical election.

Once a man is elected and he accepts the election he is automatically the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, regardless of his moral character.

In that regard, people of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were more practical than we are today. They accepted the fact that popes committed sins. They looked toward the papacy for its teaching authority, not the personal holiness of the pope.

A good example is our holy father Francis. He looked toward Innocent III for the approval of the Gospel Way of Life, but it was a well known fact that Innocent III was not such an innocent. He was an astute politician who could at times be very cruel. Some say that his contact with Francis actually softened him. I don’t know if that’s true or if it was maturity that softend him. He was a very young pope in his 30s at the time that Francis met him and he died past middle age.

In conclusion, there is not much that can be done when a pope sins as long as he does not teach contrary to truth. This has never happened. I believe that’s the reason that the papacy is the longest living succession of leadership in the world. It has been protected by the Holy Spirit for 2000 years.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF