Fr. Cutie to Become an Episcopal Priest

[Aramis]

Last night, a priest, interviewed on THE WORLD OVER, EWTN, said no priest in the history of theRoman Catholic Church has been allowed to marry. There are those who had wives and became priests but no man once a priest has been allowed to marry.

Because of the differences between the Episcopal Chruch doctrines and Roman Catholic, I don’t know how he can embrace it. I would imagine if he stayed Roman Catholic, he would not be able to receive the sacraments but could attend Mass.

My cousin Thomas proves that priest wrong. Fr. Thomas Borkowski, a Roman Catholic Priest, was laicized, and permitted by the pope to marry. Some time after 1970. (Released from his vow of celibacy.) He is still a priest, he’s just not permitted to function as one.

He’s one of several.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I think it was said with a question as to what exactly is at work here. I sense, and I am ready to be dead wrong, that some RC’s hope very much that Fr. Cutie cannot convect a valid Eucharist, presumably because they don’t want Episcopalians to have any such claim to this.
I don’t think that is the case at all. The question for a Catholic is what happens when a Catholic priest leaves the priesthood or the Church? Is he still able to ‘do’ the sacraments even though he isn’t still a Catholic and isn’t permitted to do so? The answer is yes, he is a priest forever.

Perhaps I am wrong. Otherwise I’m at a loss as to why there is all this extraordinary interest in a subject that should be of no real concern to a RC.
The interest is that he is a Catholic priest who wants to continue in his ministry and get married. This isn’t a put down of the Episcopal church which allows priests to marry. We wonder about his sincerity and we are scandalized that he left the Catholic church.

As far as I can discern from the Episcopal world, based on blogs, it seems most are taking a wait and see attitude. Fr. Cutie cannot practice as a priest in TEC for a year. He will be lay only. If at the end of that period, he is deemed appropriate for full duty as a priest, I assume that that would be proper. I cannot judge from afar that is certain.
I didn’t know that. The Episcopal church is exercising prudence about this.

I would agree that Fr. Cutie should have asked for release from his vows, or announced his intent to leave the church before being “caught.” Of course, many Catholic priests have not been faithful to their vows as we know, and most were not initially at least removed from priestly duties.
The difference is that he didn’t give in to temptation and then repent, but he plans to continue in this relationship. For a Catholic, this would be like your husband is unfaithful and, when you find out, he wants to join a group that permits him to have two wives. We feel betrayed. We suspect he doesn’t want to become Episcopal because he accepts their beliefs but because he wants what they will permit him to do.

I see no essential ipso facto conclusion that because he did not follow his vows of chastity (presumably) that he will be at greater risk to be unfaithful in marriage. That is akin to comparing apples and oranges. You may be right here.

You are quite right, it is perfectly fine for a priest in TEC to marry. Most are. Our last priest, who retired left the RCC to marry and was a priest for 30 some years before his retirement. We loved him dearly. Both of our priests at present are married. One to another Episcopal priest and the other, our new rector to is married to someone in business. Both have grown children.

If a priest is unfortunate enough to have a failed marriage, I’m sure mostly we would feel sad. I can’t tell you what steps are gone through on the diocesan level regarding that. I’m not sure if a divorced priest can continue or not frankly. Divorce under any circumstances is sad indeed. We are all failed humans to one degree or another. We recognize that and have sympathy for anyone who is suffering in this manner. Jesus teaches that divorce is not acceptable. Like other things, we do our best, fail sometimes, and are forgiven and do our best not to repeat our failings.

 

[aicirt]

My cousin Thomas proves that priest wrong. Fr. Thomas Borkowski, a Roman Catholic Priest, was laicized, and permitted by the pope to marry. Some time after 1970. (Released from his vow of celibacy.) He is still a priest, he’s just not permitted to function as one.

He’s one of several.

Yes, I’ve known two also. I think that is what the priest meant. I wasn’t clear enough. If a priest marries, he cannot function as one.

 

[kalt]

I agree, the Eucharist would be valid but illicit if he says ‘this is My body’ and ‘this is the cup of my blood’. He remains a Catholic priest so he has the power to consecrate the Eucharist. His faculties (the right to do so) comes from the Catholic bishop. So, from the Catholic point of view, he has the power but not the right to do so. He was unfaithful to his vows. He gave scandal as a Catholic priest. From the outside, it appears that he moved to the Episcopal church so he could have his priestly ministry and his girlfriend too. It seems dishonest to me. But I don’t really know anything about the case and can’t judge his motives.

I wonder why in the world anyone would marry him. He took one vow and chose to walk away from it (I doubt he ever took it seriously.). What would make anyone think he would honor any other commitment?

I feel bad for anyone who went to Confession with him. If he didn’t keep his vow of celibacy, and had no intention of keeping it, apparently, who knows what else in Catholic practice and doctrine he feels is optional.

Not only did he break his vows, but he did it in public, with behavior that was questionable for any adult.(Excessively sexual PDAs) How much more for a priest!

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, I’ve known two also. I think that is what the priest meant. I wasn’t clear enough. If a priest marries, he cannot function as one.

Yes, I figured that was probably what you meant.

Although even then, I’d be reluctant to frame it as "No priest in history … "

I can’t believe that it hasn’t happened at least once in the last 2000 years that a man was ordained a Catholic priest, then got married, then was allowed to continue his priestly duties.

 

[Peter_J]

Absolutely! From EWTN, he seems to have done all this in one month. I think the Episcopal Church would want to interview him regarding his commitment. I would be thinking this is a little too convenient and wanting to be an Episcopalian should involve more than being able to take a wife.

Uh-huh. I don’t want to judge here, but it is very strange that in such a short time he’s decided to leave the RCC. You know what I mean? It would be a little easier to respect him if he had first spent a couple years as a married, laicized Catholic before deciding to become Episcopalian to continue his ministry.

 

[Ahimsa]

Uh-huh. I don’t want to judge here, but it is very strange that in such a short time he’s decided to leave the RCC. You know what I mean? It would be a little easier to respect him if he had first spent a couple years as a married, laicized Catholic before deciding to become Episcopalian to continue his ministry.

He spent the last two years considering conversion. So it’s not as if he made a sudden jump from Rome to Canterbury.

 

[BareKnuckler]

Last night, a priest, interviewed on THE WORLD OVER, EWTN, said no priest in the history of theRoman Catholic Church has been allowed to marry. There are those who had wives and became priests but no man once a priest has been allowed to marry.

Because of the differences between the Episcopal Chruch doctrines and Roman Catholic, I don’t know how he can embrace it. I would imagine if he stayed Roman Catholic, he would not be able to receive the sacraments but could attend Mass.

I guess their is no paticular reason for the caps, I don’t watch the World Over on EWTN, I watch others, but I have seen that 2-3 times, all of them having a Lutheran Priest/Minister.

Um ok.

That was his choice.

I do not really care, if the RCC has never allowed it, he left it, so the RCC didn’t have to expell him, or whatever it is you do to a priest who breaks his vows (expulsion?).

All I am saying, the RCC might see it wrong, and he left. Maybe he left, so he could still preach the “gospel” to people, and still be with his love.

 

[emeraldcoast]

It will be very interesting to hear Father Cutie’s Sunday’s sermon at the Church of the Resurrection Episcopal Church.

God Bless!

 

[Religio71]

““This is the best place for Father Cutié,” Bishop Frade said at a news conference on Thursday at the Episcopal Church. “We welcome him and his fiancée. We are the Catholic Church. He has not abandoned the Catholic Church. He has left the Roman church. As a deacon, he can read the sermon, perform mass, but not give holy sacrament [of communion.]””



The Episcopal Church really becomes more and more…interesting as the years pass.

 

[GKC]

““This is the best place for Father Cutié,” Bishop Frade said at a news conference on Thursday at the Episcopal Church. “We welcome him and his fiancée. We are the Catholic Church. He has not abandoned the Catholic Church. He has left the Roman church. As a deacon, he can read the sermon, perform mass, but not give holy sacrament [of communion.]””



The Episcopal Church really becomes more and more…interesting as the years pass.

The Bish speaks a little fuzzily, there. As a deacon, Cutie can give, in the sense of distribute, the sacrament. But he can’t confect it. That is, he won’t be permitted to perform the consecration, celebrate the Mass, until priested. What he means by “perform” Mass is anybody’s guess.

That the Bishop speaks of Anglicanism as he does is commonplace. Esp. among the Anglo-Catholics.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[Peter_J]

He spent the last two years considering conversion. So it’s not as if he made a sudden jump from Rome to Canterbury.

Oh. Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[Peter_J]

““This is the best place for Father Cutié,” Bishop Frade said at a news conference on Thursday at the Episcopal Church. “We welcome him and his fiancée. We are the Catholic Church. He has not abandoned the Catholic Church. He has left the Roman church. As a deacon, he can read the sermon, perform mass, but not give holy sacrament [of communion.]””



The Episcopal Church really becomes more and more…interesting as the years pass.

How so? (I agree that a lot of peculiar things happen in the Episcopal Church, I’m just not sure which one(s) you’re referring to.)

 

[aicirt]

I guess their is no paticular reason for the caps, I don’t watch the World Over on EWTN, I watch others, but I have seen that 2-3 times, all of them having a Lutheran Priest/Minister.

Um ok.

That was his choice.

I do not really care, if the RCC has never allowed it, he left it, so the RCC didn’t have to expell him, or whatever it is you do to a priest who breaks his vows (expulsion?).

All I am saying, the RCC might see it wrong, and he left. Maybe he left, so he could still preach the “gospel” to people, and still be with his love.

I don’t believe Ray Arroyro, host of the above show, was anything other than Catholic. Marcus Grodi (sp?) was, I believe, a Baptist minister before his conversion. He hosts The Journey Home which is also excellent. Scott Hahn, excellent author who has a show, was a former Presbyterian minister. There are a couple of others too. All their stories have made me a stronger Catholic.

Yes, a former priest who marries and is no longer allowed to preach, is in a difficult situation. He could have remained in the Church but would not be allowed to receive the sacraments.

As a lay person, I couldn’t be anything but Catholic. I don’t know how he is going to do this as a former priest.

 

[joshua1]

Marcus Grodi was Presbyterian. You can read his conversion story on the coming home network website.

 

[juno24]

Archbishop Favalora wrote a statement which was read at all masses in the Archdiocese of Miami this morning. In it, he states that any mass celebrated by Alberto Cutie would still be valid, but illicit. He also states that the first time he heard about Fr. Cutie’s desire to leave the Church was in the news conference held by the Episcopalian Bishop. So while Fr. Cutie may have been considering it for years, he never spoke of it with the Archbishop.
According to our priest at Mass this morning, Archbishop Favalora is deeply hurt, both personally and as Fr. Cutie’s superior, that neither Father Cutie nor Bishop Fade (the Episcopalian bishop) had the common courtesy to speak with him about this before announcing it in such a public manner.

Archbishop Favalora’s statement can be read here.

 

[gamesport]

What exactly are you concerned about regarding him?

Num. 30:2:
“If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”

Deut 23:21:
When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.

Eccles 5:4
When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

 

[ChrissiM]

““This is the best place for Father Cutié,” Bishop Frade said at a news conference on Thursday at the Episcopal Church. “We welcome him and his fiancée. We are the Catholic Church. He has not abandoned the Catholic Church. He has left the Roman church. As a deacon, he can read the sermon, perform mass, but not give holy sacrament [of communion.]””



The Episcopal Church really becomes more and more…interesting as the years pass.

This so called “Bishop” obviously wants to provoke Catholics. He should apologize.

 

[Jimzz12]

I had a curiosity question after seeing the news that Fr. Cutie is going to become Fr. Cutie (Episcopal Priest). Would the sacraments he administers be valid (though illicit) since he is a validly ordained Roman Catholic Priest though will be administering them as an Episcopal Priest?

In a quick answer. No, the sacraments would not be valid (and far from licit) – even if say, he became a high church style Anglican. I have seen at least one answer here that says they are valid. Alas, unfortunately they will not be valid.

The King of England and the Church of England way back in the 16th century changed the words of consecration and then promulgated them throughout England it was at that point that the King of England and Church England ceased to be Catholic – long after they cut themselves off of the vine. Grape vines are tenacious things – I can tell you this firsthand. When you prune them and don’t cast them into a fire but rather into a compost pile you end up with scraggly grape vines growing everywhere. They become a total mess and worse yet, they do not produce any fermentable fruit. Similar to apples and other fruiting trees and bushes, grape vines may be grafted and with great hope bear useable fruit. The danger of the graft is always there. If there is a sudden frost or too hot a season or a disease it is the grafted shoots that die along with the fruit proper to the roots. The roots will then send shoots back up which are true to the original vine. This is why rites pass away over time while the core Catholic rite will always be maintained. It may undergo stress but with proper watering and sun, it always springs back true.

Sacraments require proper substance and form. The matter is a validly consecrated man and the proper words of consecration. The matter is also suitable wheat bread and suitable grape wine. In the Anglican Communion the Sacrament proper is made invalid in a number of different ways: the first being the words are incorrect, the second being that there is no episcopal lineage (i.e. no validly ordained men – sadly, except for Catholic/Orthodox apostates), and typically the employment of unsuitable breads and wine, which often have illicit adjunct matter (ingredients) incorporated into them – for instance honey, or baking soda, or artificial flavours and colourings. You notice that I draw the line at yeast bread. Let us remember that the 22 different recognized Catholic rites employ unleavened and yeast leavened breads depending upon the rite. (I think it’s 22 anyway… Here I am quoting Msgr. Sharbel Maroun from his EWTN interview available on my Youtube channel).

Alas… we should be praying and fasting and performing works of charity fervently for Fr. Cutié. It has been vexing me for some days now. It troubles my being. The hands of a priest are holy items – they are in a word, sacramentals, like holy water, or scapulars, and holy oils and holy salts. It is public knowledge what the poor man is going through. He is clearly being drawn away by the Devil. Again a priest’s hands burn like fire for they are so holy. We have nobody to blame but ourselves for the tragic circumstances – we have put a crown of thorns around the Sacred Heart of Jesus in our actions and in our rejection of Him when He makes Himself so vulnerable to insult in the Eucharist.

 

[Hesychios]

In a quick answer. No, the sacraments would not be valid (and far from licit) – even if say, he became a high church style Anglican. I have seen at least one answer here that says they are valid. Alas, unfortunately they will not be valid.

I disagree.

You are taking a Cyprianic position, which is typical for Orthodox, but not for Latin Catholics.