Posted on 05/29/2009 8:21:39 AM PDT by NYer
As was reported yesterday, Rev. Alberto Cutié -- the popular Catholic priest caught in a longtime affair -- has joined the Episcopal Church. This morning's New York Times has a surprisingly perceptive lede:
A Roman Catholic priest who admitted this month that he was torn between two loves -- his church and his girlfriend -- announced his choice on Thursday.
The priest, the Rev. Alberto Cutié, said he was joining the Episcopal Church and planning to marry his girlfriend of two years, who was also becoming an Episcopalian....
"With God's help," [Cutié] added, "I hope to continue priestly ministry and service in my new spiritual home."
While we cannot know the man's heart, it does indeed appear that Rev. Cutié chose his girlfriend over his faith.
Priestly celibacy is a discipline and, as such, can be debated and disagreed upon by Catholics of good will. But that's not the issue here. Whatever one thinks of a married priesthood, Rev. Cutié made a vow before God to remain celibate. Once caught in his infidelity, he brushed aside the correction of the Church he'd formerly claimed to love, and abandoned her for something else.
That should be a warning to the future Mrs. Cutié.
No he did not bow out. He was caught very publicly breaking his vows, only then did he decide he could not stay Catholic. He proved himself a liar, not a good start for any one wanting to enter a Protestant Church.
Keep in mind too that fornication is a sin to Protestants as well as Catholics. If this man had met the women, fallen in love, taken the necessary steps to become laicized, then married her, I would say good for him. If he had carefully thought about the differences in Protestant and Catholic doctrine and found he no longer could believe in those things exclusive to Catholicism. Well better a good Protestant than a bad Catholic.
But that is not what happened. This was no conversion of a man who examined his conscience and realized he truly believed what the Episcopal Church teaches no this was a penile conversion. And I think it insults good faithful Protestants.
I understand that, but it doesn’t relate to the present case. Does the Pauline privilege allow Curie to convert back to being a Catholic Priest after becoming an Epi priest, and keep his wife?
Garth Brooks wrote a song called “Standing outside the Fire”. He referred to those who could not resist the flames of the fire, actually trying to live life beign crticized by those who did stay away from it.
Real men and women are often muddy, bloody, tired, and threadbare, even if just in a metaphorical sense. It’s near to pointless trying to convince those who stand on the outside without a stain on them.
Very well stated and I agree entirely. Converting because he got caught seems to me to be an inauspicious start to his ministry.
You both missed the point. He chose the celibate life. He took a vow of celibacy, of his own volition. If he couldn't handle celibacy then he should not have take the vow in the first place. No one held a gun to his head.
Now, what he ought to do is become an Episcopalian priest... THEN apply for entry to the Catholic church under the Pauline privilege.
Wonder how they'd get around that one?
Keep in mind too that fornication is a sin to Protestants as well as Catholics. If this man had met the women, fallen in love, taken the necessary steps to become laicized, then married her, I would say good for him. If he had carefully thought about the differences in Protestant and Catholic doctrine and found he no longer could believe in those things exclusive to Catholicism. Well better a good Protestant than a bad Catholic.
But that is not what happened. This was no conversion of a man who examined his conscience and realized he truly believed what the Episcopal Church teaches no this was a penile conversion. And I think it insults good faithful Protestants.
Great post - you neatly expressed my own thoughts on the matter.
Some branches of the Catholic church allow married priests as well, but the marriage has to take place before ordination. Once ordained they can not marry. Since the church does not recognize Anglican ordinations there is not an impossibility for those married men to become priests of the Catholic Church.
Eastern Orthodox have married priests also, but they are married prior to ordination, you can’t be married after receiving holy orders.
No, I didn't miss the point which --according to this silly article -- is that Cutié's inability to remain celibate is nothing less than a renunciation of his faith.
If he couldn't handle celibacy then he should not have take the vow in the first place. No one held a gun to his head.
Oh, pooh. Jesus talked about dealing with the log in your own eye before you hold forth on the speck in your brother's eye.
I'm sure your self-control has failed on things that are much less difficult than celibacy -- that extra piece of pizza, say, or that third beer that you know you shouldn't have. If you can't even do that ... what right have you to get all righteous about a man's inability to remain celibate?
I'm willing to bet real money that at the time he took his vows, Mr. Cutié thought he could remain celibate. He clearly wasn't up to the vow -- but it seems to me his failure is something to be lamented, rather than condemned.
And I would point out that, based on his picture, Mr. Cutié was most likely subjected to attention from women in his parish that is beyond anything I ever had to deal with -- and the same probably goes for you (assuming you're male). When you add celibacy into the mix, the temptation would be overpowering.
Celibacy is a discipline. He had ample time to practice it in seminary and make a decision before taking a vow before God.
Unfortunately his Church makes no provision for him to be married.
The Eastern Catholic Churches allow for married priests. However, the decision to marry must precede ordination and takes precedence over ministering to a congregation. In the Latin Church, there are married priests who have converted from the Episcopal Church. They are allowed to enter under The Pastoral Provision.
He loved this woman and joined a church that would allow him to serve God and remain a Christian.
You are suggesting that he loved the woman first but chose to disregard his "call to marriage" in order to pursue a "call to priesthood". Do you know this for a fact?
I'd like to know if you think you could remain celibate all of your life. You attack this man for not being able to reach a standard that you yourself cannot reach. A little hypocritical I think.
Although most people are at some point in their lives called to the married state, the vocation of celibacy is explicitly advocated—as well as practiced—by both Jesus and Paul.
So far from "commanding" marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).
It is only because of this "temptation to immorality" (7:2) that Paul gives the teaching about each man and woman having a spouse and giving each other their "conjugal rights" (7:3); he specifically clarifies, "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:6-7, emphasis added).
Paul even goes on to make a case for preferring celibacy to marriage: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).
Paul’s conclusion: He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).
Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
Notice that this sort of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some. Other people are called to marriage. It is true that too often individuals in both vocations fall short of the requirements of their state, but this does not diminish either vocation, nor does it mean that the individuals in question were "not really called" to that vocation. 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.
Celibacy is neither unnatural nor unbiblical. "Be fruitful and multiply" is not binding upon every individual; rather, it is a general precept for the human race. Otherwise, every unmarried man and woman of marrying age would be in a state of sin by remaining single, and Jesus and Paul would be guilty of advocating sin as well as committing it. source
Enjoy your stone-tossing.
You have also missed the point. He broke a vow of celibacy made before God. He cannot leave the Catholic Church, marry, join the Episcopal Church, then leave the Episcopal Church to return to the Catholic Church as a married priest. He has broken a vow! Get it?
No, my FRiend, you missed the point. It's called "humor," get it? :)
What the Catholic Church should do is allow for a married priesthood with celibacy as an option. Jesus Christ made no rule requiring celibacy and Paul did not require it but preferred it.Where in the scripture is it shown to be a requirement for the priesthood.For over 1,000 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus celibacy was not a requirement. It was instituted because of the “lay investiture Problem” where the married priests were leaving church lands to their offspring. Because of the loss of church property Rome started to require celibacy.It was an economic decision on the part of the church. I must say your lack of a compassionate attitude towards this man strikes me as being almost sinful and certainly not very Christian.
The flesh is always weak. What Fr. Cutie is experiencing is not unique. In fact, I would say that every priest is tested and tempted with desires of the flesh. Certainly, the writings of the saints uphold this point of view. St. Francis of Assisi actually threw himself in the snow in an attempt to overcome temptation.
And many, many of them have fallen short, too.
And many people break their vows of fidelity to their spouses, also.
What's your point?
This is one of those things that drive me nuts. Here you are, pontificating on how another person should stick to a discipline that you are unwilling to undertake for yourself.
That's a tired, vacuous argument which is a) inaccurate and b) irrelevant.
Nobody is pontificating. Vows are a promise made voluntarilybefore God, just as you and I voluntarily promised to be faithful to our spouses. Many people find marital vows too difficult, also. Increasingly so today, apparently. Do we follow your line of reasoning and cut them some slack, too? After all, monogamy is unnatural, right? Look around you.
As for being "unwilling to undertake celibacy", you have utterly no idea what I have undertaken nor undertake. If I chose the married lifestyle, it was not because I "needed to get some", to use the gross vernacular nor because I was "on fire" to use St. Paul's expression.
You don't even know the extent to which he wrestled with it, nor the strength of the temptation that drew him away. But, safe in your position of never having to deal with it yourself, you feel safe in judging him for his failure.
So you're saying that if temptation rises to a certain arbitrary level, vows may be dispensed with and we all get a mulligan?
What of those men and women who've confronted exactly the same temptations (and they are numerous), prayed and sacrificed and done themselves violence in order to persevere in their vows? What do you say to them? "Dumbasses! Why didn't you just take the easy way out and forget the vows?"
Cutie caused scandal but only God can judge him. His case is further support for the words of St.Paul.
You are pontificating. You're holding forth on some other guy's ability to keep a very difficult vow, and apparently condemning him for it.
I guess you and NYer can flip a coin for which of you gets to cast the first stone.
Not at all. Cutié's inability to remain celibate is nothing less than a renunciation of his vow to remain celibate. The Catholic Church didn't kick him out of the faith, he chose to leave.
Jesus talked about dealing with the log in your own eye before you hold forth on the speck in your brother's eye.
This wasn't a speck or a log. Rev. Cutié publicly violated his vows. This is in effect a contract violation. As a result of this violation, his faculties as to act as a priest within the Church were rightly suspended.
I'm sure your self-control has failed on things that are much less difficult than celibacy -- that extra piece of pizza, say, or that third beer that you know you shouldn't have. If you can't even do that ... what right have you to get all righteous about a man's inability to remain celibate?
You tortured logic is almost painful to follow. Public, serious, and unrepentant immorality among religious leaders has always been something to get "all righteous about " as you put it. Thankfully, Mr. Cutié is now the Episcopal Church's problem.
I'm willing to bet real money that at the time he took his vows, Mr. Cutié thought he could remain celibate. He clearly wasn't up to the vow -- but it seems to me his failure is something to be lamented, rather than condemned.
Then Mr. Cutié shouldn't be a Catholic priest. He apparently agrees.
And I would point out that, based on his picture, Mr. Cutié was most likely subjected to attention from women in his parish that is beyond anything I ever had to deal with -- and the same probably goes for you (assuming you're male). When you add celibacy into the mix, the temptation would be overpowering.
Many men far more handsome and charming that Mr. Cutié can withstand far greater attention. It's certainly a good thing that, by your own admission, you don't qualify for this sort of attention. Marriage too requires periods of celibacy in times of illness or separation. It sounds as if you weren't so unattractive you would commit adultery if given the chance if you were ever had any sustained separation from your wife. Restating your admission, your unattractiveness would save your vows from your own admitted ability to remain loyal in situations like this if you were more handsome. Ugliness might be a gift for people like this. The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.