Statement by Fr. Cutie's Bishop

  • Thread starter Thread starter adowcday
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
the Bishop composed a beautiful letter. thanks for posting it.
 
I liked his letter. Especially this part:
…A father had two sons. One of them took his inheritance early and left home, spending his money wantonly. The father waited patiently for the return of his prodigal son, who after he had seen the error of his ways, repented and returned home. Upon his return, the father lovingly embraced him and called him his son. I pray that Father Cutié will “come to his senses” (Luke 15, 17) and return home. The Catholic Church seeks the conversion and salvation of sinners, not their condemnation. The same is my attitude toward Father Cutié.
We must not forget, however, that there were two sons in the Lord’s story. The other son, who never left home, was angry that his erring brother was welcomed home by the father. To all faithful Catholics, I say what the father said to this second son: “You are with me always and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice. This brother of yours was dead and has come back to life. He was lost, and is found” (Luke 15, 31-32).
In this beautiful parable Jesus teaches us that God is a loving and forgiving Father. Each of us has experienced that love, each of us needs that forgiveness; for we are all sinners. If our brother comes home, let us celebrate with the Father.
Amen!
 
The Episcopalian church in Miami really handled this badly. Can you imagine if Catholic dioceses, along with Marcus Grodi and his Coming Home Network, held press conferences every time a Protestant minister came into the Catholic Church? Very poor judgment on the part of the leadership within the Miami Episcopalian churches.

Also, it seems Mr. Cutie set this whole thing up for a great scandal to occur. Surely, he knew he would be photographed canoodling on the beach when he is such a celebrity locally.
 
I have never heard of this father Cutie before and Miami is so far away from where I live. But I’m also very sad and angry. The bishop’s letter ist excellent.

Chrissi
 
The Episcopalian church in Miami really handled this badly. Can you imagine if Catholic dioceses, along with Marcus Grodi and his Coming Home Network, held press conferences every time a Protestant minister came into the Catholic Church? Very poor judgment on the part of the leadership within the Miami Episcopalian churches.

Also, it seems Mr. Cutie set this whole thing up for a great scandal to occur. Surely, he knew he would be photographed canoodling on the beach when he is such a celebrity locally.
I agree that Fr. Cutie was very imprudent, because he is an internationally known theologian. He is not just a local boy from down the street. He is well known in over 25 Spanish speaking countries as one of the leading Hispanic theologians in the Church.

There are some things that we have to rememaber. What he taught is good theology and useful. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water.

He is still a priest, therefore he is Father, not Mr. Even the hierarchy calls him Father.

There is the possibility that he wanted to be caught. The human mind is a mysterious thing. Sometimes people get into situations and do not know how to get through them. They set themselves up to be caught. This way they can get out. I have never interviewed Father, but I have met him. He is a very typical human being.

My guess, only a guess, is that he unconsciously or consciously, set himself up to be caught. This would then give him the out that he needed. Unfortunately, things don’t work out that smoothly. He compounded his problem by the media circus that he helped create.

He should have taken the leave of absence that the Archbishop offered him and gone away silently to pray and think about his furture. He should have stayed in touch with the Archbishop. He should have not granted media interviews.

But that’s all water under the bridge now. The deed is done. There is nothing that we can do to change it.

The best that we can do is what the Archibishop told the people of Miami. Move along, the Lord and the Church are there for us. This conversation is over. Finally, let’s hope and pray that the prodigal son comes home.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
At what point then, does he become an EX-priest? I’m just curious at what point we can stop calling someone who violated their vows, “father”. I have never heard the ex-priest James Carroll called “Fr. Carroll”, so at some point, an ex-priest ceases to be referred to by that title. Perhaps I’m jumping the gun, but I think that since he has already said he has left the Church and will marry this woman, it’s an insult to all of the faithful and celibate priests to continue to honor this man with the title “father”. I hope and pray that he will have a conversion and return to the Church founded by Christ, but until then, I think I’ll go with the title I read on a blog recently, Ex-Fr. Cutie.
 
He won’t become an ex-priest as you know it. His priestly ordination is not reversible. He will always be a Father.
 
At what point then, does he become an EX-priest? I’m just curious at what point we can stop calling someone who violated their vows, “father”.
As far as the faith of the Church goes, there is no such person as an ex-priest. You are a priest forever. These are the words at ordination. He will be a priest forever. Violating ones promise does not do away with the ordination. The promises are not part of the ordination. They are something else. They are not even required for a valid ordination. That is a Church discipline, not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

It is also important to reread the bishop’s statement. Observe that he does not use the term vows. He uses the term promise. Fr. Cutie is not a religious. He is a secular. Only religious make vows. Seculars do not make vows. They can’t make vows. Secular men and women can make promises. The only vows that secular men and women can make are marital vows. Let’s keep our language clear, because it’s important. A promise does not carry the same weight as a vow.
I have never heard the ex-priest James Carroll called “Fr. Carroll”, so at some point, an ex-priest ceases to be referred to by that title.
A priest and a religious brother in solemn vows stops using the title Father or Brother when he receives a dispensation from the Holy See. At this point the person may return to his place among the faithful. He remains who he is for the rest of his life. But the agreement is that the dispensation is granted to the person if he agrees to put aside the rights of his clerical or religious state. Then he can also put aside the title. But this does not mean that he ceases to be a priest. He simply ceases to function as one and to use the title.

In the case of someone like Fr. Cutie, he has not received a dispensation. He is bound by the requirements of the priesthood and is also entitled to the use of the title, Father, even if he changes his faith. He can call himself whatever he wants. The Church will always call him Father. Until the Church says that he no longer enjoys the right to the title, it is his title. It was very clear in the Archbishop’s letter that Fr. Cutie is still bound by his priestly ordination.

If he loses his clerical state, then he also loses the title, but not the sacrament of Holy Orders. He will still be a priest.
Perhaps I’m jumping the gun, but I think that since he has already said he has left the Church and will marry this woman, it’s an insult to all of the faithful and celibate priests to continue to honor this man with the title “father”.
Ecclesial and religious titles: Deacon, Rev., Father, Brother, Sister, Bishop, etc. are not an honor. They are a right. The person has the right either by virtue of ordination or by virtue of religious profession to such a title, regardless of his sin.

The sins of the person has no effect on the sacrament of Holy Orders or on solemn religious vows. Both remain in full effect even if the person becomes an atheist. The person is outside the Church, but takes with him or her, a bond with Christ and the Church that can never be disolved. In a rather strange and mysterious way, the person is outside the Church, but still bonded with the Church.
I hope and pray that he will have a conversion and return to the Church founded by Christ, but until then, I think I’ll go with the title I read on a blog recently, Ex-Fr. Cutie.
I believe that if you go with the title “Ex-Father”, then you are making a statement that the Sacrament of Holy Orders can be lifted from a deacon, priest or bishop. This is not the case. A deacon, priest or bishop are what they are forever. This is part of our doctrine.

To call them ex is to place ourselves in conflict with our doctrine. It’s like calling a baptized person an ex-Christian. There are Christians who abandon the faith and we call them apostates, but not ex-Christians. You can’t undo baptism. You can’t undo Holy Orders.

To use the “ex” is a little risky, because someone can ask you if you believe that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is forever why you call someone an “ex”. What would you answer?

I would follow the Archbishop’s example. Archbishop Favalora refers to him as Fr. Cutie.

As far as his return, we all agree with you. We hope and pray that this will happen.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
He won’t become an ex-priest as you know it. His priestly ordination is not reversible. He will always be a Father.
I don’t think so. I don’t know any ex-priests that are still called father. I know some who have left the priesthood and have married and no one greets them at church saying, “Father, so lovely to see you. And Mrs. So and So, how are you?”
 
As far as the faith of the Church goes, there is no such person as an ex-priest…

It is also important to reread the bishop’s statement. Observe that he does not use the term vows. He uses the term promise…
Then it looks like the Catholic.com library needs some editing:

The sin of a priest doesn’t necessarily prove that he never should have taken a vow of celibacy, any more than the sin of a married man or woman proves that he or she never should have gotten married. It is possible for us to fall short of our own true calling.

catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

It’s a pretty accepted cultural term to describe the commitment a priest makes to remain celibate. Your nit-picking makes it seem like you don’t have a real argument and I’m sure that’s not what you intended.
A priest and a religious brother in solemn vows stops using the title Father or Brother when he receives a dispensation from the Holy See…
Ex–priest is a common cultural term for someone who has left the priesthood:

google.com/cse?cx=008187825485874300314%3A1bfkl0u3vji&ie=UTF-8&q=ex-priest&sa=Search
In the case of someone like Fr. Cutie, he has not received a dispensation. He is bound by the requirements of the priesthood and is also entitled to the use of the title…
He may be entitled, but that does not mean that he has earned my respect for me to use it. I just read the article on Fox News this morning about Ex-Fr. Cutie planning his first sermon in the Episcopal church. They call him Rev. Cutie. That works for me, too, as it’s non-Catholic specific and refers to his intention to be an Episcopal minister. Archbishop Favalora has sadly been a few steps behind the momentum of this story the entire way, mostly because “Cutie” didn’t afford him the respect to keep him informed.
I believe that if you go with the title “Ex-Father”, then you are making a statement that the Sacrament of Holy Orders can be lifted from a deacon, priest or bishop…
No, I am making the statement that someone who brings scandal to the Church in such a public and shameful way, is not my spiritual “father”. I refuse to refer to him with that title. A biological father doesn’t have his biological fatherhood removed when someone ceases to give them the respect of calling them by the title either. What we are talking about is a perception of whether or not that person deserves the honor of being called “father”.
To call them ex is to place ourselves in conflict with our doctrine. It’s like calling a baptized person an ex-Christian…
Again, the cultural terms ex-Christian, ex-Catholic, ex-nun, ex-priest are common parlance to describe someone who has made a religious vow or once held a religious belief and has since turned away. As I stated before, your nit-picking of my use of cultural terms makes it appear that you don’t actually have something of substance to say.
To use the “ex” is a little risky, because someone can ask you if you believe that the Sacrament of Holy Orders is forever why you call someone an “ex”. What would you answer?
For some reason, you believe that my using the common cultural parlance of “ex” reflects on the Holy Orders themselves. That’s odd to me. I think it’s pretty obvious that the use of “ex” reflects on the person, not the Sacrament. It is an efficient way of stating “this person has chosen to leave the rectory and the priestly life and go get married or become a minister in a Protestant church, etc.” That takes a long time to write. It takes much less time to type “ex” and everyone knows what “ex-priest” means.
I would follow the Archbishop’s example. Archbishop Favalora refers to him as Fr. Cutie.
Archbishop Favalora was also “the last to know”. That is not a criticism of him. I feel sad for him that he was not afforded the respect to be kept informed. He actually knew this man and was familiar with calling him “Fr. Cutie”. I have no personal acquaintance with the man in question. I’m sure that there is no doctrine within the Church requiring that I refer to a man who has left his priestly life to date a woman and become a Protestant minister as “Fr.” I have no respect for him. Will I pray for him? Yes. Do I respect him? No. I reserve the term “father” for people who deserve it.
 
I don’t think so. I don’t know any ex-priests that are still called father. I know some who have left the priesthood and have married and no one greets them at church saying, “Father, so lovely to see you. And Mrs. So and So, how are you?”
They are not ex-priests. A priest who leaves with a dispensation is a dispensed priest. A priest who leaves on his own is still bound to the priesthood, but is suspended. He is a suspended priest.

The term ex-priest is used by the laity, not by the Church. I believe it may be a cross over from divorce, such as an ex-spouse. I don’t really know.

A suspended priest, is a real priest. The ordination is not reversable. He is not a lay man. A dispensed priest is also a real priest and he is not a lay man either. The difference is that a dispensed priest, which is probably the ones that you meet at the parish, have an agreement with the Church. They return to the rank and file of the faithful and live their lives as if they were lay men. Therefore, they do not use the title Father.

A suspended priest does not have this agreement. Therefore, the title Father is continued to be used until he is granted a dispensation or is dismissed fromt he clerical state. Currrently this is Fr. Cutie’s status. This was announced again today at masses in the Archdiocese of Miami and in reliigious houses in the Southeastern region of the USA. As long as Fr. Cutie is bonded by obedience to the Holy See and the promise of celibacy, he remains Father. Only the Holy Father can give him permission not to be Father.

Neither the laity, nor the local bishop, nor Father Cutie have the legal authority to take this title away. Since there has been no dispensation, he remains an inactive Catholic priest, who is currently excommunicated.

Remember when the SSPX bishops were excommunicated. They were still called by their episcopal title. They were still Bishop. All the SSPX priests are currently suspended, but they have the title Father. Until you get a dispensation, or ar dismissed, you are Deacon, Father, Bishop or Brother.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I still don’t believe that I should be forced to refer to him as “Father” or not to refer to him as an ex-priest when I’m discussing this. If the Catholic Answers library has no problem identifying people as ex-priests, neither do I. If you can point me to a document that states Catholics are forbidden to use this expression, then please show me. Otherwise, I believe this is a matter of personal judgment. As I’ve already stated, I’ve judged his actions to be unworthy of being honored with the title “Father”. But in the larger picture, you seem really hung up on me and what I am doing or not doing. It seems the question of whether or not I personally acknowledge him as “Father” is rather insignificant compared to the great scandal caused by this man frolicking on the beach with a scantily clad mistress. I have to wonder why you are going around scolding people for calling someone an ex-priest when there is a larger story here. If you recall, this thread is about a man who violated his vow of celibacy and very publicly paraded that fact in front of the public causing great scandal to the Church and the faithful. If you would like to discuss me further, I suggest you open a new thread “Should DeoSalvatoreMeo be forced to refer to Cutie as Father?” Let’s not continue to hijack this thread with trivialities.
 
I still don’t believe that I should be forced to refer to him as “Father” or not to refer to him as an ex-priest when I’m discussing this. If the Catholic Answers library has no problem identifying people as ex-priests, neither do I. If you can point me to a document that states Catholics are forbidden to use this expression, then please show me. Otherwise, I believe this is a matter of personal judgment. As I’ve already stated, I’ve judged his actions to be unworthy of being honored with the title “Father”. But in the larger picture, you seem really hung up on me and what I am doing or not doing. It seems the question of whether or not I personally acknowledge him as “Father” is rather insignificant compared to the great scandal caused by this man frolicking on the beach with a scantily clad mistress. I have to wonder why you are going around scolding people for calling someone an ex-priest when there is a larger story here. If you recall, this thread is about a man who violated his vow of celibacy and very publicly paraded that fact in front of the public causing great scandal to the Church and the faithful. If you would like to discuss me further, I suggest you open a new thread “Should DeoSalvatoreMeo be forced to refer to Cutie as Father?” Let’s not continue to hijack this thread with trivialities.
I wonder why you feel the need to scold a priest by referring to him as an ex-priest when there is no such thing as an ex-priest in the first place? Perhaps Father Cutie needs the prayers and reminders that he is still a Father in order to aid in his repentance and return to the Catholic Church. If an American citizen commits a crime and ends up being sequestered from society in prison, is he not still an American citizen? Yes, he may have certain rights and privileges withheld from him but that does not change his status as an American. That’s how I see this situation, anyway.

I recall this thread being about the Archbishop’s response to Fr. Cutie’s actions. And if he, learning about the events just as we did-through the media, can still call him Father (despite his hurt and disappointment over Fr. Cutie’s actions), then surely you can too? Be the bigger man here.

God bless.
 
I still don’t believe that I should be forced to refer to him as “Father” or not to refer to him as an ex-priest when I’m discussing this. If the Catholic Answers library has no problem identifying people as ex-priests, neither do I. If you can point me to a document that states Catholics are forbidden to use this expression, then please show me. Otherwise, I believe this is a matter of personal judgment. As I’ve already stated, I’ve judged his actions to be unworthy of being honored with the title “Father”. But in the larger picture, you seem really hung up on me and what I am doing or not doing. It seems the question of whether or not I personally acknowledge him as “Father” is rather insignificant compared to the great scandal caused by this man frolicking on the beach with a scantily clad mistress. I have to wonder why you are going around scolding people for calling someone an ex-priest when there is a larger story here. If you recall, this thread is about a man who violated his vow of celibacy and very publicly paraded that fact in front of the public causing great scandal to the Church and the faithful. If you would like to discuss me further, I suggest you open a new thread “Should DeoSalvatoreMeo be forced to refer to Cutie as Father?” Let’s not continue to hijack this thread with trivialities.
I’m not picking on you or protecting Father Cutie’s actions whatsoever. My feeling is that Father Cutie has already made his choices and there is nothing that we can do here or at the ecclesial level to undo it. Only he can undo what he has done.

On the other hand, I do believe that we should educate Catholics on how the Church thinks regarding sacraments and law. As to the title, I’m following the lead of the Archbishop and our religious superiors.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top