I’m unaware of anyone allowed into the priesthood who is still married? There is one who coverted but he is a widower.
A divorce to join the church is just as bad as fornication.
Actually, quite a few catholic men are married. Some are even former priests.
No, he did not give up his faith. He did the next best thing he could do. He loved this woman and joined a church that would allow him to serve God and remain a Christian.
You don't have to be a priest to serve God, the Catholic church offers many ways. The difference between Catholics and Episcopalians has been called an inch wide (liturgy looks the same) but miles deep (serious doctrinal differences). So, he has certainly left his faith, though hopefully not his faith in God. I've known several Catholic Priests who have gone Epi. They haven't all been troubled souls. Best wishes to Mr. Curie in the future.
If you were familiar with the modern Episcopal church, you would not describe it as Christian.
The new convert's orders are usually considered invalid. In those cases where they become priests and remain married, they are not given "the cure of souls". In other words, they don't have a parish.
Hope this is helpful - my information may be out of date.
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
There is no entitlement to be both a priest and married. Cutie could have left the priesthood and married the woman, as many priests have done before without leaving the Catholic faith. Clearly, his faith is not that strong in this case since he is so willing to throw it overboard.
Said convert must agree, prior to ordination, to adopt the discipline of celibacy if his spouse precedes him in death. No agreement, no ordination. You also fail to mention that said convert has an extremely limited career path ahead of him as a Catholic Priest and that ordination for converts is not automatic and in the grand scheme of things is extremely rare. Pope John Paul II in issuing his Pastoral Provision in 1980 made the decision to allow some Anglican Priests who had come to the realization that the fullness of the deposit of faith existed in the Catholic Church and not the Anglican, to convert, seek ordination and remain married. By the way, 21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church ordain, as a norm, married men. Cutie could have changed Rites prior to entering the seminary but he didn't. Your defense of him is rooted in ignorance.
No, he did not give up his faith.
Yes, he did. Your claim that he didn't shows how little you know about the Priesthood in the Catholic Church.
He did the next best thing he could do.
Wrong. If Cutie had even a scintilla of integrity he would have requested to be dismissed from the clerical state and waited for that to occur before pictures of him and this bimbo rolling around on the beach together were published in the paper. He's a phony who got caught and had said pictures not been published he'd still be perpetrating the fraud that his "vocation" has been.
To say that he ran away from his faith his(sic) slanderous and you are completely wrong.
Your claim is further indication of your ignorance.
Cutie had six years in a seminary to discern if he had the ability to live the life of a celibate. As more information comes to light about this clown, it's apparent that he's been a fraud for a very long time.
No he didn't. He got caught in flagrante violating his sacred vows and living a venal lie. He only fled the Catholic Church because he got caught.
If his picture hadn't been made public he would still today be a cheating lying fraud of a Catholic priest.