We should really end this conversation now. He is no longer Roman Catholic. He has already joined the Episcopal Church, so he is therefore a heretic and no longer a priest, so let’s all get over it. He is never coming back!!.
It’s like straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. In today’s language: penny wise and pound foolish. Condemning Fr. Alberto is like arresting a pot smoker and letting a drug dealer go free. The guys at the top break all the rules and no one says anything. That goes for all big institutions. If I can’t pay my mortgage I lose my house. If the bank can’t pay they get all they need from the government.
1. Fr. Cutie should have kept his vow of celibacy. However, numerous other priests have violated that vow, some of them with fellow priests or other men, some even exploiting altar boys and such. So, to aim so much abuse at Fr. Cutie seems rather hypocritical, even cruel, especially since so many of those other vow violators were shielded by the hierarchy until the media finally brought the scandal to public attention.
2. Marriage is a healthy institution created by God. So, once Fr. Cutie had broken his vow, it's best that he does get married. What % of men in today's society experience sex before marriage? Probably 90% or more? I always feel good about those who follow up premarital sex with marriage. What about you?
3. The Episcopal Church (I am not Epsicopalian) has its serious problems like the Catholic Church has. One theory I have is that both groups are especially attractive to gay priests. This is partly because of the aesthetic emphasis on vestments and other rather feminine characteristics. In the case of Catholicism, I also think that a lot of young gays go into the priesthood because they hope it will overcome their same-sex attraction or at least camouflage it. Who asks a Catholic priest why he's not married? Moreover, priests are granted considerable respect and this can be a major pull toward the priesthood. I don't criticize the gay priests who do remain celibate. I'm sure that God honors them, also.4. Why don't we leave Fr. Cutie alone? His action will be judged fairly by God who understands us better than we understand ourselves. He apparently fell in love, and I find that hard to fault. The world needs a lot more love, even between husbands and wives. May he and his bride have many years of happiness together. He is human, like the rest of others, and let him who is without sin cast the first stone.It sounds like a great plan. If I can be of help, please let me know via PM or other means.
“God judges the heart, and will reward each, according to his deeds…” this applies to
It did not happen with Pope Alexander VI.
It did when he died!
However, where was the reaction during his lifetime?
spectator.org/archives/2009/06/09/floridas-kissing-priest-ignite
What a cafeteria catholic he was. Those guys are a real nuisance.
I wish I was familiar enough with the historical facts, but I have no doubt that the saints of that period had quite a reaction and offered their severe penances for his soul and the Church’s renewal.
If you look up Archbishop Favalora’s letter to his people you will see his statement of disappointment.
There is no place in Church law for suspending a pope, much less granting him a leave of absence or a dispensation, because the only person who can grant a dispensation is the Pope himself.
That’s interesting. Personally, I would find dubious any unofficial or official declaration of a Pope such as Alexander VI, giving himself the right to marital privileges with a mistress.
wcbstv.com/topstories/archbishop.timothy.dolan.2.991738.htmlI admit that while I was away from the Church, I voiced my support of this priest. I can no longer do that as a faithful Catholic. This priest has done wrong and needs to come back to the Catholic Church, go to confession, and be reconciled with the Church. I pray that he someday comes back and repents of his wrongdoing.
No no no, the question among canonists has nothing to do with a mistress. The question is whether a pope can dispense himself to marry.
But it would be something similar if a Pope can give himself the right to marry and he has the right to annul any marriage. It goes like this. He declares that he is married to his mistress. Then when he tires of her and desires a much younger woman, he declares the first marriage annulled and marries the second. And since he is Pope, there is no limit to the number of annulments that he could grant to himself???No no no, the question among canonists has nothing to do with a mistress. The question is whether a pope can dispense himself to marry.
Obviously, a mistress is out of the question. Alexander was in an objective state of sin.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Let’s speak hypothetically, because it’s not real. We’re just speculating that a pope can dispense himself from the promise of celibacy. Canonists are discussing this and even they are not very aggressive on this topic, because it’s not a hot one.
But was it not historically the case that annulments were granted to royalty if their were no male heirs. for example, with Eleanor of Acquitaine and Louis VII of France.Let’s speak hypothetically, because it’s not real. We’re just speculating that a pope can dispense himself from the promise of celibacy. Canonists are discussing this and even they are not very aggressive on this topic, because it’s not a hot one.
If the pope could dispense himself from the promise of celibacy, he would still have to find a way to around the tradition of celibate bishops. For more than 1000 years, bishops have been celibate.
Let’s assume that he can get around that. He now gets married. He can’t dissolve his marriage. An anulment is a decree that the marriage never existed. It is not a disolition of a marriage. If there is really a marriage, the Church cannot dissolve it. A decree of nulity says that it looked like a marriage, but it really was not, because something was missing before the wedding and it was not present at the time of the wedding. Therefore, the couple are not truly married.
If a pope were married, he could not dissolve his marriage. He is bound by the sacrament like any other married person.
Again, we’re are speaking hypothetically. There is not law or theology that says the pope can dispense himself from celibacy.
We also have to keep in mind that there can be another complication. What happens when the pope is a religious? If he is a religious he not only has a promise of celibacy, but he also has a vow of celibacy. Religious make vows of celibacy until death. These vows are solemn, unlike the promise of celibacy that diocesan priests make.
Our current pope is not a religious. He is a secular priest. But we had John XXIII who was a Secular Franciscan and in vows. We’ve had Pius V who was a Dominican and many other popes who were religious or members of secular institutes with vows.
It’s probably best to leave well enough alone. LOL
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF