"I am a 21st century priest, so I want to be in a 21st century church" - Father Oprah says to Oprah

[catholic1seeks]

Did anyone watch today’s Oprah? Oprah had people who were caught by cameras, etc. Father Oprah, the Miami priest who was caught with his girl friend was on. On his turn, he described the Church as the bad guy.

It was disgusting!! He said he was SURPRISED by the reaction of the Church. “These are natural feeling that we have, God is love…he created man and woman to be in love…(paraphrase)”. He was describing how bad he had it “why is the Church reacting like this when there have been priests with prostitutes” Oprah then said “don’t forget priests with children.”

Why am I complaining? I feel like something should be done.

 

[stuart12]

He is a schismatic, and may be condemning himself for rejecting Christ in favour of his sexual urges. It was him that failed to keep his celibacy. Infact, was it God’s fault because He created him with sexual desires?

 

[catholic1seeks]

He is a schismatic, and may be condemning himself for rejecting Christ in favour of his sexual urges. It was him that failed to keep his celibacy. Infact, was it God’s fault because He created him with sexual desires?

I forgot to post in the original: He is now an Episcapol priest.

 

[stuart12]

Yes, but the ‘Episcopal’ (no bishops at all actually) ‘church’ (faith community or whatever) is not the Church Christ founded.

 

[CWBetts]

Its interesting don’t you think that those seeking Truth become Catholic, and those that leave the Church its because they got mad?

 

[stuart12]

They always trump up an ‘excuse’. They are unable to live up to high moral standards, so they declare it impossible or ‘unnatural’.

Christ said that only those who take the ‘narrow road’ will be saved. The heretical Anglican Communion is a ‘wide road’, where any view point is correct, as long as it is not ‘too traditional’. Live and let live.

 

[Corki]

As he has chosen to leave the clerical state, I think it is inappropriate for him to be addressed as “Father”.

As for the rest: (where is that puking ‘smilie’ we requested?)

 

[stuart12]

As he has chosen to leave the clerical state, I think it is inappropriate for him to be addressed as “Father”.

As for the rest: (where is that puking ‘smilie’ we requested?)

A father that has abandoned his children for the sake of sex. Sacrifice these days eh…

 

[MrS]

Oprah needs more prayer than we could imagine.

She is so lost, so tainted, so in tune with evil agendas of her “friends”

She is, in a word… sad.

.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Oprah needs more prayer than we could imagine.

She is so lost, so tainted, so in tune with evil agendas of her “friends”

She is, in a word… sad.

.

**Yes. And she has a great influnece on so many people. **

 

[Mimi]

**Yes. And she has a great influnece on so many people. **

Well, I confess I used to watch her show a few yrs ago and recall (maybe in print) that she believed in Noblesse Oblige; i.e., that those who are blessed with much are obliged to give much.

But I absolutely refuse to pause on her show or read anything much about her since she got involved in that course in miracles mumbo jumbo. May God grant her the grace (somehow) of opening her eyes to the damage this cult is doing to so many people.

Things may get worse before they get better! Pray the rosary and stick with the Church!

God bless,
Mimi

 

[JReducation]

I forgot to post in the original: He is now an Episcapol priest.

Actually, he’s not. He is in formation and in a year he will be allowed to function as a priest. They will not ordain him, because he is already ordained.

As far as the Catholic faith is concerned, he will always be a Roman Catholic priest. The mark of the preisthood cannot be taken away from him. He can be laicized, but the ordination cannot be undone. He will be a deacon and priest for the rest of his life. I say deacon and priest because he was validly ordained as both. Therefore, when he celebrates the sacraments, they are valid, but illicit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elzee]

Can’t wait till Bill Donohue gets wind of this…

 

[Corki]

Actually, he’s not. He is in formation and in a year he will be allowed to function as a priest. They will not ordain him, because he is already ordained.

As far as the Catholic faith is concerned, he will always be a Roman Catholic priest. The mark of the preisthood cannot be taken away from him. He can be laicized, but the ordination cannot be undone. He will be a deacon and priest for the rest of his life. I say deacon and priest because he was validly ordained as both. Therefore, when he celebrates the sacraments, they are valid, but illicit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am sure this is not what you meant but as a precaution…

When he celebrates the **Episcopal **Sacraments they will not be valid or licit. It is only if he were to offer a Catholic Mass as a laicized priest that it would be illicit but valid.

 

[JReducation]

As he has chosen to leave the clerical state, I think it is inappropriate for him to be addressed as “Father”.

As for the rest: (where is that puking ‘smilie’ we requested?)

Actually, the Church will continue to address him as Father until the day that he dies. He has not left the clerical state. Deacons, priests and bishops cannot leave the clerical state of their own free will. Only the Holy Father can dispense them from the promise of celibacy and dismiss them from the clerical state at the request of the bishop or the major religious superior.

Archbishop Favalora has not requested that Fr. Alberto be dismissed. Therefore the case is still pending awaiting the decision of the Archbishop, unless the Archbishop has put in the request and is waiting for the response. We don’t know that and we won’t. The Church tends to keep those things away from the public. The Archbishop has suspended him. Fr. Alberto has incurred an excommunication. But he remains a valid cleric in the Latin rite Church.

As to the title, the rule is this. When a priest is laicized, he does not lose his priesthood. He simply returns to the ranks of the faithful as a dispensed priest, but always a priest. Therefore he cannot use the title Father in public. But Father Alberto is not there yet. It takes a while to laicize a priest. Though I don’t doubt it for a moment that he will be laicized soon. Once you leave the Church, there is no reason not to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I am sure this is not what you meant but as a precaution…

When he celebrates the **Episcopal **Sacraments they will not be valid or licit. It is only if he were to offer a Catholic Mass as a laicized priest that it would be illicit but valid.

It is interesting that you mention this. Because this is a point of discussion among Canon Lawyers. The consensus seems to be that if there is the intent, the matter and the form, then the Eucharist is valid, but still illicit.

Now, the problem with the Episcopal Church is that they have so taken the liturgy and their rules and spit them up in so many ways where some are very close to the Catholic matter and form and others are much more evangelical, that’s it’s hard to tell when it is or is not valid. All this is assuming that the celebrant is validly ordained, of course.

This is the problem that an ecclesial community faces when they do not have a central government and each bishop does what he wants and each congregation dictates to the bishop what they want. It become a canonical nightmare for Catholic theologians and canonists to sort threw it. The best action is to assume that they are always invalid, until you can prove otherwise.

Let’s put it this way, the Episcopalian people may be very holy people, but their church is a mess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MrS]

Oprah is very influential when she recommends a book. Sales skyrocket, and her followers jump on her every word and suggestion.

Perhaps she would recommend the book of the Catholic Church, The Bible. And leave her un-religious views at the door, so people can start to think for themselves using the brain God gave them.

hhmmm… won’t hold my breath.

.

 

[Corki]

Actually, the Church will continue to address him as Father until the day that he dies. He has not left the clerical state. Deacons, priests and bishops cannot leave the clerical state of their own free will. Only the Holy Father can dispense them from the promise of celibacy and dismiss them from the clerical state at the request of the bishop or the major religious superior.

Archbishop Favalora has not requested that Fr. Alberto be dismissed. Therefore the case is still pending awaiting the decision of the Archbishop, unless the Archbishop has put in the request and is waiting for the response. We don’t know that and we won’t. The Church tends to keep those things away from the public. The Archbishop has suspended him. Fr. Alberto has incurred an excommunication. But he remains a valid cleric in the Latin rite Church.

As to the title, the rule is this. When a priest is laicized, he does not lose his priesthood. He simply returns to the ranks of the faithful as a dispensed priest, but always a priest. Therefore he cannot use the title Father in public. But Father Alberto is not there yet. It takes a while to laicize a priest. Though I don’t doubt it for a moment that he will be laicized soon. Once you leave the Church, there is no reason not to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I guess I jumped the gun on this. I thought his request had already been sent to Rome. I think that once a priest reaches the state where he is not supposed to use the title “Father” in public, that it would not be prudent for other to use it to refer to him.

It is interesting that you mention this. Because this is a point of discussion among Canon Lawyers. The consensus seems to be that if there is the intent, the matter and the form, then the Eucharist is valid, but still illicit.

Now, the problem with the Episcopal Church is that they have so taken the liturgy and their rules and spit them up in so many ways where some are very close to the Catholic matter and form and others are much more evangelical, that’s it’s hard to tell when it is or is not valid. All this is assuming that the celebrant is validly ordained, of course.

This is the problem that an ecclesial community faces when they do not have a central government and each bishop does what he wants and each congregation dictates to the bishop what they want. It become a canonical nightmare for Catholic theologians and canonists to sort threw it. The best action is to assume that they are always invalid, until you can prove otherwise.

Let’s put it this way, the Episcopalian people may be very holy people, but their church is a mess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Can you point me to some of the articles that debate this? In my mind, the “form” for a valid consecration would be that it has to be as part of a Catholic Mass; not just the words of consecration. Also, there is the “intent” factor. In discussion of priests who may themselves not believe, it has always been said that, as long as the priest intends what the Church intends, the intent is there for validity of the Sacrament. The Chuch does NOT intend that the Eucharist is confected at an Episopal service so “intent” would be defective as well. That just leave “matter” and that’s not enough. I would love to reach some canon lawyers take on this from both directions.

 

[KCT]

I was flipping through the channels and saw a few seconds of it. He said something like, “…when your church says something is wrong but you don’t FEEL like it’s wrong.” I knew immediately who he was.

I wonder if he said things like that to his former parishioners in confession.

 

[RiverboatRita]

I am unclear as to why waiting 10 years made them special. If they knew of their feelings for each other they could have declared them sooner and perhaps gone in one direction or the other, shall we say, fish or cut bait.