Rev. Cutié joins Episcopal Church
Father Alberto Cutié, the media-savvy priest who just recently defended priestly celibacy after being photographed in close quarters with a woman friend, joined the Episcopal Church today so that he can eventually become a married priest, church officials announced.
The fact that it was announced drew a very negative response from Archbishop John Favalora of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, according to the Miami Herald:
”This is truly a setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation between us. The Archdiocese have never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination,” said Archbishop John Favalora. He said he had not heard from [Episcopal Bishop Leo] Frade about the transition and had not spoken to Cutié since May 5, adding that Cutié never told the archbishop he wanted to get married.
”Father Cutié is removing himself from full communion with the Catholic Church and thereby forfeiting his rights as a cleric,” Favalora said, later adding that Cutié is still “bound by the promise to live the celibate life which he freely embraced at ordination. Only the Holy Father can release him from the obligation”
Not so, Bishop Frade said Thursday afternoon. ”That promise is not recognized by our church. If you can find it in the Bible that priests should be celibate, that will be corrected,” Frade said. “The only thing we can say is that we pray for ecumenical relations. . .I am sorry they are sorry, and we love them.”
The woman photographed with Cutié, his fianceé Ruhama Buni Canellis, also is becoming an Episcopalian.
Did the Episcopal bishop go too far with the announcement, or is the Roman Catholic archbishop overly sensitive?
Here is the press release the Episcopal diocese put out today:
FATHER ALBERTO CUTIÉ JOINS THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Cutié to preach at May 31 mass at Church of the Resurrection
Press Conference Today – Thursday, May 28 at 2:30 PM
The Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida
525 NE 15 Street, Downtown Miami
(located across from the Miami Marriott Biscayne Bay on North Bayshore Drive)
Miami, May 28, 2009 – Bishop Leo Frade, Episcopal Bishop of Southeast Florida and Senior Bishop of the House of Episcopal Bishops, announced today that Father Alberto Cutié, a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, has become a member of the Episcopal Church and will pursue the priesthood.
Father Alberto was received into the church earlier today at Trinity Cathedral, the cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida. Formerly Priest-in-Charge of St. Francis de Sales Church in Miami Beach and the Director of Catholic Radio, Father Alberto, after a two year discernment process, decided to begin his ministry and the path to priesthood within the Episcopal Church.
The Episcopal Church is a reconciling community, welcoming all who seek to know and be assured of God’s accepting and transforming love. Walking midway between Roman Catholicism and Protestant traditions, the Episcopal Church is a faith community that emphasizes sacramental worship and promotes thoughtful debate about what God is calling us to do and be as followers of Christ.
“We welcome Father Alberto into the ministry of the Episcopal Church,” said Bishop Frade. “Our ministry has centered on spiritual growth, love, forgiveness, and a sense of community. Guided by a spirit of fellowship and understanding, the Episcopal Church remains a beacon of hope and faith for all.”
“I thank God for the many people in our community who have shown me their love and support,” stated Father Alberto. “Your prayers have truly sustained me at this time of transition in my life. With God’s help, I hope to continue priestly ministry and service in my new spiritual home.”
In welcoming Father Alberto, Bishop Frade notes that Father Alberto’s bilingual skills, evangelical voice, and cultural sensitivities are a natural fit to the Diocesan and community needs. “We believe Father Alberto has much to offer those in our church,” added the Bishop.
Father Alberto will assist Archdeacons Tom Bruttell, Bryan Hobbs and Fritz Bazin in their continuing work in the revitalization of the Diocese. Specifically, he will work with the Archdeacons on a special initiative by the Bishop providing emergency responses to Episcopal Churches in urgent need. This Diocesan initiative calls on Episcopalians to rally around a specific church and help fellow congregants work to restore it.
The first focus will be Church of the Resurrection at 11173 Griffing Blvd. in Biscayne Park, Florida. To launch the initiative, Father Alberto will deliver the sermon this Sunday, May 31 at Church of Resurrection beginning at 10:00 a.m.
As the slogan of the Episcopal Church aptly states, “All Are Welcome!” Keep the Faith!
###
Rather disgusting that “celibacy” is used in such a nasty and threatening way. The administration of mandatory celibacy to gullible seminarians could well be seen as an illegal abuse. Some Canon Lawyer should argue the case that the conditions of a free promise are not usually present, and moreover that such religious promises should not be used as a lever to block a person’s civil liberties later in life. Moreover, governments might well consider making such administration of mandatory lifelong celibacy illegal.
The contrast between the statement of the Episcopal bishop and the Roman Catholic bishop is striking.
Archbishop Favalora cites juridical penalties and four times gives citations from canon law. He complains about how Bishop Frade handled the situation. He calls Cutie a sinner and enumerates punishments.
On the other hand, Bishop Frade speaks of welcome and gifts.
Now I am sure the Archbishop is mightily miffed at Cutie and Frade, but one wonders if it was appropriate to react that way publicly. Would it have been totally inappropriate for him to express sadness at Cutie’s departure, wish him well and leave it at that? He could have then sent a letter to Bishop Frade expressing his disappointment.
Eric – excellent comments. NCR has a blog that raises this possible scenario – Cutie marries, later becomes an Episcopal priest; and then decides to rejoin the Catholic Church as a married Episcopal priest under the JPII permission to accept Anglican clergy who are married. Just loved the sarcasm and irony.
Quoting canon law about celibacy and only the Pope can release him from his vow – yes, the ontological state trumps everything – such as common sense, human life, human sexuality, love, etc.
Fr. O’Leary – agree with your comments but you do realize that most priests who request laicization basically have to state somewhere in the never ending forms that they were “psychologically unfit, unready, or immature” to fully make the promise of celibacy forever at the time of their ordination. Without that, you usually do not get your rescript and Rome keeps you on hold. It’s all part of the good ole boy network. Like you, not sure where that fits in terms of “conscience”; moved by the spirit; the hypocrisy of the Anglican/Methodist married priests in some cases being allowed to become catholic priests; the eastern rite practice, etc.
If the good Abp was expecting Fr. Oprah to ask permission to or a blessing on a trip across the river from Rome to Canterbury, he needs counseling! Cutie is quite the opportunist and sought out a quick and painless way to have his cake and eat it too.
If TEC is smart they will watch Cutie long and hard to be sure that they haven’t bought a pig in a poke. The fact that he was a regular on EWTN should lead Frade et co to be quite wary of the sincerity of his accepting Episcopalianism. His Fr. Oprah status will fade quickly without the ever-present smell of the greasepaint and roar of the crowds.
The following caught my eye: “I have decided to become part of a new spiritual family within the umbrella of Christianity,” said Fr Cutie in a statement.
It took him less than a month to decide to rescind his supposedly lifelong commitment. And I don’t hear much sorrow or anguish on his part, either. Humility, even less!! And he did not even inform his bishop of his decision. Neither did the Episcopalian bishop think it appropriate, apparently, to negotiate the transition with his Catholic colleague in such a way as to protect their relations. The way I read his statement, the Episcopalian bishop can barely restrain his glee. No wonder his Catholic counterpart was miffed and couldn’t bring himself to make a graceful statement!
Mind you, I am not in favor of mandatory celibacy. But here for once, my sympathy goes to the old guy with the mitre. This is all vaguely distasteful (and a distraction from urgent work…)
If this moves the mandatory celibacy issue to the table it will be to the good. 80% of the laity want a change. The only question is how laity can place the lever to effect this change.
Urban and rural parishes are closing and the closings will accelerate. Are only retiring A/Bs are willing to suggest change. Why won’t some bishop ordain his best married deacon and break the log-jam? and get the backing of his priests and laity? The Miami A/B does not even know how foolish his complaint sounds… to all except his syncophants.
Claire, the Anglican Communion is very welcome to Catholic priests. Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Monmouth would seal a Catholic priest’s entry into the ranks of the Church of England simply by embracing him in fellowship. His ordination is fully recognized, so there is no need for any sacramental tinkering. To Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Anglicans basically belong to the same church. From their point of view Fr C. has NOT rescinded a lifetime commitment but has transferred his commitment to another ministry within the church catholic.
Glee would certainly be inappropriate, as is also the case when Anglicans come over to Rome. Discourtesy, if any party here is guilty of it, is of course inexcusable. As to the idea that the Anglicans could be buying a pig in a poke, I believe that in Anglicanism there are many non-stipendiary ministers, and to acquire a position as priest in a parish requires a serious testing from one’s clerical peers and from the laity. All of this process lies before Fr. C.
very welcome SHD BE very welcoming
Note that there is one case in which priests or laity are not welcome into the Episcopalian Church: the case when they have been excommunicated by their own church. Perhaps Fr Cutie felt he had to move quickly in order to forestall some blocking action of this sort from the hierarchy?
By the way, is it clear that Fr C has refused to meet Roman Catholic canon law requirements by getting his laicization from Rome? Moreover, since in Rome’s eyes he is no longer a member of the Catholic Church, do such requirements now retain their force in Canon Law? It cannot be the case that leaving the Church annuls all commitments made — for instance, the seal of the Confessional must remain binding even if a priest has left the Church.
Late night typo: my penultimate sentence should have read “my sympathy goes to the Catholic hierarchy”.
I have a few comments for Mr. DeHass and Father O’Leary.
Mr. DeHass:
Cutie marries, later becomes an Episcopal priest; and then decides to rejoin the Catholic Church as a married Episcopal priest under the JPII permission to accept Anglican clergy who are married.
The situation you describe is not canonically possible. As I explain below to Father O’Leary, Father Cutie is still subject to canon law, which means that the diriment impediment of orders applies to him. Canon 1087. Diriment impediments render a person incapable of validly marrying in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Canon 1073. Thus, if Father Cutie were to become an Episcopal priest and marry in an Episcopal or civil ceremony (the order doesn’t matter) and then “swim back,” the Church would treat him as unmarried, his invalid attempts notwithstanding. Even if he were to formally defect (which would exempt him from having to be married in front of a cleric and two witnesses for the sake of validity (Canon 1117)), the formal defection would not save him from the impediment of orders.
Quoting canon law about celibacy and only the Pope can release him from his vow – yes, the ontological state trumps everything – such as common sense, human life, human sexuality, love, etc.
Are you arguing that canons 277 (requiring celibacy for Latin-rite clerics) and 1087 (making the reception of orders an impediment to future marriage) are unjust laws?
Father O’Leary:
Moreover, since in Rome’s eyes he is no longer a member of the Catholic Church, do such requirements now retain their force in Canon Law?
The question of whether he’s still a member of the Catholic Church is an interesting one that I cannot do justice to in this post. At the very least, however, him simply being excommunicated would not have caused him to cease being a member. Loss of membership in the Catholic Church is not one of the effects of excommunication according to Canon 1331 (the canon outlining the effects of excommunication). If he is “kicked out,” the reason would have to be because of something else, if it is anything at all.
But whether he’s a member of the church or not doesn’t matter for determining whether canon law still applies to him “in Rome’s eyes.” Once a person is baptized a Catholic or received into the Catholic Church after non-Catholic (but valid) baptism, the person remains subject to canon law. See Canon 11. Excommunication does not create an exception to this rule. Other situations create exceptions, but the exceptions only create a partial exemption from the law, and anyway they do not apply to clerical celibacy.
Moreover, governments might well consider making such administration of mandatory lifelong celibacy illegal.
Do you mean that governments in the United States can currently prohibit religious bodies from imposing restrictions as a condition of hiring and retention for their clerics? Or do you mean that governments should do so or, if they currently can’t, be made able to do so?
Mr. DeHaas: Sorry about the typos in your name (twice).
I noticed a sort of mixed response to the news in the comments at the Episcopal Cafe – Controversial Rev. Cutié joins Episcopal Church.
Many Catholic priests have left the church to marry …. are they not really considered married by the church? Can they even get a Catholic marriage? One person I’m thinking of, John Dominic Crossan, left to marry after being a priest in the Servite Order.
Too much, too fast and way too slick… I have no issue with a Roman Catholic priest who discerns a need to depart and works to do so. I further have no issue with a Roman Catholic priest who is committed to a life of ministry and is thus called to carry on in TEC or elsewhere. I have many Episcopal friends, close friends who are part of my faith life in many ways and we have many conversations about these matters, in general.
Perhaps it is unseemly for me to bring this up, but I can’t help but think of Father Geoff Farrow in California who preached in a blaze of glory and did not just “swim the Thames.” It is simply food for thought.
For the record, I am not in support of mandatory celibacy… Nor do I believe that human sexuality can only be lived out in married life. Many blogs that I have read all say it is just time to un-do the call to celibacy and all will be alright in the Catholic church. Far too simplistic in my view.
Crystal – thanks for the Episcopal Cafe link; I am associated with many who read and comment there but had not made my way over to it yet.
Isn’t this all a bit fast? Wasn’t it just about 3 or 4 weeks ago that the story broke that he had been having a relationship with a woman? Does one have to be considered horribly conservative to think that discerning your way out of the RC Church might possibly take more than a couple of weeks?
Father O’Leary: “governments might well consider making such administration of mandatory lifelong celibacy illegal” is over the top. If gov’t should stay out of bedrooms and allow people of the same sex to marry (and make life-long vows), shouldn’t it also allow people to make other life-long decisions? Call me old fashioned but I believe in the separation of church and state.
Dear Paul,
Congratulations on your law degree! Now all you need is a canon law degree to recognize your obvious great learning in that field as well!
Cathy
I feel disappointed by the lavel of rhetoric of this conversation, despite several attempts to clarify or nuance.
My own questions here have to do with commitment, depth, and fame, and particularly with the effects of celebrity on a religious leader. Such questions seem even more urgent in the real-time media of today than they did in the rise of tv–much more than when these questions had their last best treatment (to my knowledge) in J. F. Power’s novel Morte d’Urban. I would appreciate suggestions for further reading.
This from Frade strikes me as bad form: “If you can find it in the Bible that priests should be celibate, that will be corrected.” Zing, I guess.
Mr. Moses – my comments were in “general.” Sorry – I did not go online to the 1983 Revised Code of Canon Law….probably because I find most of that code to be a list of ridiculous rules reflecting an outdated ecclesiology and rarely very pastoral.
I would agrue that there are First Principles i.e. conscience, Vatican II documents, etc. and that canon laws should reflect and implement those principles. Fact – Vatican II never got around to dealing with much less defining priesthood. In many ways we have Vatican II documents and a priesthood that is still defined from Vatican I. The tension creates huge lucanae – example would be how the bishops developed the Dallas Charter overriding priests’s rights, conscience clauses, etc. all in the name of saving face, power, authority.
I would argue from principle that the two canons you named are unjust.
Sorry, my rule is to apply “epikiae” in any situation where there is tension and the “old” ecclesiology has outlived its purpose.
If you have known anyone who has gone through the process of laicization; if you have ever read a rescript to a human being from Rome – you would understand the utter degradation; humiliation, and violation of basic rights.
I am no fan of Cutie – in fact, found his career, EWTN appearances, etc. to be the height of manipulation, all about me, etc. On the other hand, it looks like he is finally growing up and taking some responsibility for his actions and decisions.
Kathy – would recommend any book by Fr. Donald Cozzens in this area. I would suggest that he hits the notes and information you are looking for.
Bill, I’ve read some things from Fr. Cozzens and am not overwhelmed with the depth of his insight.
These are serious ethical questions.
Robert DeNiro’s movie The Apostle explores the question of religious celebrity from another angle–rather extensive moral blindness coupled with truly earnest evangelical zeal. It is not as subtle as Power’s book but at least takes these questions seriously.
I’ve read somewhere (I’ve forgotten where) that Pope John Paul II said that of all the things he prayed for, he prayed most of all about the dangers surrounding adulation.
As a there-and-back-again Anglican-Catholic-Anglican, I have to say that the speed with which Cutie made a journey that took me more than 25 years is quite astounding. Charity requires me to believe that his desire to serve the Anglican Communion has been brewing far longer than news reports lead us to believe. Charity also requires me to assume that this change involves more than just the celibacy issue.
It’s also important to note that Cutie is not now a priest in the Anglican Communion; there will still be a period of examination and discernment before Cutie will be accepted as a full-fledged priest. It’s not a done deal, but the fact that he’s preaching so soon after his acceptance into the Episcopal Church suggests he’ll be fast-tracked. TEC is hard-up for priests, too.
While Joseph O’Leary is mostly correct in saying that Anglicans see a much more blurry line between themselves and Roman Catholics than Catholics do, Cutie is in for some big changes in the nature of his congregants, the operation of his parish, and his relationship with the diocese. He is also apparently leaving a Catholic flock who was very attached to him. I expect, like all of us converts, he will have one foot still in his old “home,” and that that foot will pain him many nights.
He has my heartfelt prayers.
I guess John Paul found that God doesn’t answer all prayers the way we want.
Count me a fan of Claire’s first comment, and Anthony’s and some others. Too much publicity, too quick a switch, rather than the way I like to think of conversion. I think Favalora is right, and the Episcopal guy a bit too smug. Father Cutie made lifelong solemn vows. Whether you don’t agree with them, that’s what they are. If he had dispensed so quickly with a marriage vow, would the bishop have held a press conference?
I think you mean Robert Duvall, Kathy.
Robert DeNiro was in “We’re No Angels”–probably not what you’re recommending!!
(It was cute, though!)
Ah, yes, Robert Duvall.
DeNiro also played the Satan figure in The Devil’s Advocate, which is not too far at all off the subject.
Kathy, I think you need to be more of a couch potato. Wasn’t that Al Pacino in the Devil’s Advocate?
It often takes a lot of slogging through a lot of posts to find a pearl of wisdom, but for my money David penned one right above:
“If he had dispensed so quickly with a marriage vow, would the bishop have held a press conference?
Cathy, that’s hilarious. I am a couch potato, but probably have more BBC than US actors cross indexed in my mental database. (I do tend to conflate DeNiro and Pacino anyway.)
At what point does popularity become approval? And at what point does approval become justification? And when justification is based on anything but sharing in the cross of Christ, what happens to Christianity? And if there is something wrong with the apostle’s Christianity, hasn’t the salt lost its flavor? Without love a preacher is a sounding gong, a clanging cymbal.
I don’t think I’d be too excited about this if I were Episcopalian. Frade’s statement seems to encourage the impression that the EC is the RC-lite. “Like being Catholic, but can’t take all those rules? Try being Episcopalian!” And… “Keep the Faith (unless you change your mind)!” Joking aside, the Episcopalians I know take their church and their faith commitment a little more seriously than that. I’m willing to extend every benefit of the doubt to Cutie regarding his personal seriousness of purpose, but releasing that statement does strike me as a bit too publicity-seeking and desperate on the part of the local Episcopalian Church.
For those who keep saying that it’s obvious that Cutie is glib and acting impulsively: how do you know that he hasn’t been agonizing over this for a long time? It seems fast to you — but you don’t know that. Maybe he already knew what was likely to happen when he more or less went public with his relationship, and what he would do.
First, I note Fr. Cozzens recen tappearance on CNN and his conclusive statement, “A mandated gift is no gift at all.”
While some might not be impressed by this former seminary head and now professor at John Carrol (where he states many young men tell him they would comnsider priesthood but they wan ta family), the celibacy issue is going to continue to be major as the number of priests decline -even if a change in the Western Rite rule would not solve all problems.
I leave it to God to judge Fr. Cutie. Too easy to be facile here.
The real question is his departures impacts on the Latino (especially in Florida) Catholic community.
I’m not sure quoting canon Law will make a major dent with them, but, of course, it’s almost de riguer for hierarchy to react in the JCD mode.
This news coming on top of (what I thought was great news) of the Obama nominations this week for the Latino community will again make one wonder how the leadership of the Catholic hierarchy also is perceived in the browning Church.
The most pertinent De Niro role might be from Brazil, where he plays an anarchist plumber flying in to repair broken pipes without all the paperwork and regulation of the licensed.
There are many scenarios that have been lived out there by priests. Milingo’s foray into the Unification Church. My favorite is the story of Cornelia Connelly, who founded the Sisters of the Holy Child Jesus after her husband wanted to become a RC priest rather than an Anglican one; there is far more going on behind the scenes emotionally and vocationally than most see on the surface.
Maybe there is no backstage tussles in the Fr Cutie story, but I would be surprised.
Mr. Gibson – usually agree with your comments but would suggest that Barbara has the wiser read on this situation.
By Cutie’s own admission, he has been in a physical relationship with this woman for at least two years and an on-going relationship for 10+ years.
Would suggest that the internal struggles have been going on for quite some time. Whether the “jump” to the Anglican church was hasty or not; I would lean to the fact that he has been in some mental pain, angst, and anguish for months.
Bob Nunz- thanks for reinforcing Cozzen’s works. Since Kathy did not elucidate on her “ethical” questions, I ignored it.
I am with Barbara on this one. I recall that Fr. Cutié has said that he has struggled with the issue of celibacy for some time. He has fallen in love, and has found a way to happiness by marrying and possibly remaining a priest. I am in favor of giving him a break.
Fr. Cozzens is a social scientist with an agenda for making a large change–usually a bad combination. It’s hard enough to avoid eisegesis in the soft sciences, even if you’re not trying to shift a paradigm.
But again, for me the more interesting questions here are not about celibacy but about religious celebrity. How many are willing to say for long, “He must increase, I must decrease”?
Not to be pedantic, but a diocesan priest does not take a VOW of celebacy, he makes a promise not to marry. There is a big difference. Clarity is made even more difficult as the meaning of word “celebate” is migrating from “unmarried” to “not involved in genital sex”.
It’s an interesting discussion, although I admit I’d never heard of Fr. Cutie before – my cable package doesn’t include EWTN, an omission I have no intent of rectifying.
I’d like to just comment briefly on the ecumenical aspect of the situation. Probably no situation strains ecumenical relations more than when a priest/pastor/minister leaves one denomination to join another. It’s happened enough over the years that there is a right way to do it, and I have to say I agree that a press release is bad form, but even more so is blind-siding the archbishop.
Ecumenism is extremely important. If this really does represent a setback in ecumenical relationships in south Florida, then it’s a shame, doubly so because it seems it could easily have been prevented.
Excellent observations from the Enlightened Catholicism: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2009/05/fr-cutie-in-end-woman-wins-and.html
BTW, Kathy, Cozzens is much more than a “social scientist” – he has actually experienced, lived with, and worked with the tensions, questions, and personal struggles of men such as Cutie. It is interesting that you have no opinion or remarks about the woman in this relationship – do we just dismiss her? or in the words of an older priestly generation – is she just a chalice chipper?
I read that the fiancee is 35. My guess: she finally said something like, “I understand your dilemma. Maybe even I share the pain of your loss, but I want a family and you need to come to terms with that.”
When there is no possibility of marriage, this is almost impossibly poignant.
“Chalice chipper”–I first heard this offensive remark from a seminarian a couple of years ago. But this again is a flip side of the questions I keep trying to raise. A man who becomes a priest (or minister, or rabbi) develops a very sudden cachet. Men buy him drinks, ladies bake him cakes. He’s moved up the social ladder quite a bit just by getting ordained. People “have to” listen to whatever he says for seven to 20 minutes every Sunday.
Imagine what it would be like being not only a priest but a movie star priest. “A young priest at his devotions, and a priest in a thousand, one knew at a glance” writes Willa Cather in Death Comes for the Archbishop. But, she wasn’t writing about someone with superficial celebrity charisma.
In the book (and movie) Gettysburg General Longstreet says “A little eccentricity is a help to a general. It helps with the newspapers. The women love it too. Southern women like their men religious and a little mad. That’s why they always fall in love with preachers.” This is a very serious question: how do people handle religious fame? Apollos, Paul, or Christ?
What if Paul had answered that question wrong?
“If you can find it in the Bible that priests should be celibate, that will be corrected,” Frade said.
Find it in the Bible? What self-respecting Catholic uses the Bible as his or her truth-text? We prefer the “official utterances” of Rome!
“What self-respecting Catholic uses the Bible as his or her truth-text? We prefer the “official utterances” of Rome!”
Hi, Pierre, I recognize this was tongue-in-cheek, but still, I think this is a stereotype we shouldn’t perpetuate – not only because it isn’t true, but also for ecumenical reasons!
“how do people handle religious fame? ”
Hi, Kathy, we’ve certainly seen many men put on a clinic on how to mishandle it. Perhaps Paul had the best advice:
“Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God. It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.” ” (1 Cor 1:26-31)
Where are you, Anthony Trollope, when we need you to write about a tory like this?
As an avid Trollope fan, I’ve often been tempted to believe that one of the real reasons the Vatican holds out for celibacy is the fear that another Mrs. Bishop Proudie might arise(if you don’t know her, read Barchester Towers to learn her qualities).
Posted by Bob Nunz
on May 29th, 2009 at 10:08 am:
“This news coming on top of (what I thought was great news) of the Obama nominations this week for the Latino community will again make one wonder how the leadership of the Catholic hierarchy also is perceived in the browning Church”.
By “the browning Church” may one presume that you mean the Church in the U.S.? The Church is quite brown in other parts of the world; indeed, the Church in the U.S. is said to represent a mere 6% of the total.
The Episcopal clergyman referred to his church as a median between Catholicism and Protestantism. I believe Newman definitively disposed of this fiction: “a paper church”.
Thanks, Jim. Exactly. Also I Cor 4:7
“What do you have that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you boast as if you have not received it?”
I thought my reference to the “browning Church” as the US Church was evident.
I’m glad someone in this thread focused on the issue of impact on the latino Catholic community, and it should not only be this event, but the nominations of the week as well.
I keep remembering Msgr. Bob Stern’s talk for the Museum of the city of New York on the the devlopment of the Spanish Apostolate there in New York.
When involved laity wanted a more robust role in decision making, Cardinal Cooke apparently backed away from more bottom up approaches.
That was a fundamentally Puerto Ricam group.
The latino community in Florida is much more cuban, but nationally much more lots of different groups.
But there is great pride in their Catholic heritage as well as a demand for respecto for their voice to be heard.
Let’s see how it goes and let Fr. Cutie go on his way.
How does a priest, bishop, cardinal handle celebrity? Well, look at JPII. Some have posited that he cultivated a personality cult – which is not the role or duty of a pope. The damage (whether intentional or not, whether self-imposed or imposed by others) has impacted the church.
Barbara – you continue to share words of wisdom on this issue. For some, trying to live two lives (priest, celibate? and dating, relationship with a woman) just becomes to gut wrenching and feels like you are becoming two people and living a complete lie. Eventually, you have to move forward one way or another.
I’m with Fr O’Leary’s comments, to which I’d add that in Catholic Theology, a vow made that is against the divine will is not binding.
On the eve of Pentecost, I think we can see the Holy Spirit gently at work in all this.
I wish Fr Cutie well and welcome him to the Anglican Communion.
God Bless
Speaking of BBC couch potato entertainment, there was a very interesting treatment of priestly celibacy on the very pleasant ensemble show Ballykissangel. There’s a slow burn buildup romance between a priest and a woman for the first 3 years of the show. It’s pretty interesting, the way the writers decided to handle it.
We have to distinguish, it seems, between the issue of celibacy and this person, Cutie. He did not come forth until he was caught, for openers. Second there is the issue of pastor/parishioner, therapist/patient relationship which calls in the power issue. Third this is a very “charismatic’” minister which should give pause at the Episcopal bishop’s quick acceptance.
We need to take another look. There are other issues besides celibacy here.
Bill-
You offer some very wise words. Well done
Bill, yes, one could say that Cutie did not come forward until caught.
But really, it comes back to the same place: so long as discussions of celibacy and a married priesthood are totally off the table, his choices were to be silent or to leave. And his actions were so public, in effect, he planned his own capture. It was his way of coming forward.
I suppose he can be faulted for being overly dramatic, and not calling up the bishop and saying, “by the way, I have a girlfriend,” so that the bishop could scurry around and try to make his leavetaking as quiet as possible. We would have heard that Rev. Cutie was taking a leave for personal reasons, and then before you know it, Rev. Cutie has decided to leave the priesthood, and it would be made to look like his plans for marriage were totally after that happened. And the hierarchs would be satisfied that no lasting damage had been done to their institutions.
On the other hand, I suspect that his method has produced a lot more high profile discussion of the issue. And that, I also suspect, is a good, not a bad, thing.
Barbara you posted “it comes back to the same place: so long as discussions of celibacy and a married priesthood are totally off the table, his choices were to be silent or to leave”
I take it to mean Cutie’s discussions of celibacy with the A/B were not on the table. not the issue of mandatory celibacy for us .. We the laity need to place the mandatory celibacy issue firmly on the table and nail it down so that the change is forced on the bishops.. I wish the married deacons would step up and demand full ordination, 16000 of them and all I hear is silence from them on mandatory celibacy. 800 chuches have closed .. another round of abuse revelations and another 800 will close.
I meant it in the larger sense. A priest who finds himself in this place knows that not only are things the way they are but that pleas for any changes fall on deaf ears and, dare I say, hardened hearts. So each individual, I imagine, carries forward without hope or guidance. In that context, “sudden” decisions to marry and convert have probably stirred for a long time in the heart and mind.
Barbara – you are completely correct. It is the rare bishop or even order provincial that you can approach and have this discussion. Typically, the reaction is negative; you are pressured into a leave of absence; veiled threats are made.
The priest has very few options – try to handle things quietly in order to not cause scandal (as you mentioned above; this usually has more to do with the diocese, bishop, or order than the individual); of course, the priest has concerns about future employement, income, how to make a living. Not every priest who decides to leave is in a relationship at that time.
There are very few suppport groups that help a priest through this process. Have found many of the religious sisters’ organizations to be much more human, supportive, and forgiving in this process (usually).
There used to be a wonderful organization called Weork (old english for the dignity of work and the human person). It was based in Chicago and helped hundreds make this transition with dignity, support, and forgiveness. Unfortunately, age and time has greatly impacted this group and am unaware of any that has replaced it.
LIke Ed, I see many future opportunities that would evolve around actual ministries and pastoral jobs and allowed for movement into and out of as part of your service to the church and the local community without the severe penalties, etc. that currently exist in the system.
Anglicans, you can have our Albert Cuties and Matthew Foxes. Just keep sending us your John Henry Newmans, Frederick Fabers, Ronald Knoxes, and Graham Leonards.
Love J.F. Powers. Was thrilled when his books were reissued a few years back. As a UK citizen I too remember the endless Stephen Tompkinson/ Dervla Kirwan relationship in Ballykissangel. But I’m surprised that nobody here has mentioned ‘Mad Men’ and Peggy’s relationship with Fr Gill. Where is that going? Is there a Commonweal take on this?
A couple of final thoughts and quotes as we put this incident in perspective:
- Baltimore auxiliary bishop, Francis Murphy, on his deathbed in 1999: “I write as a friend and fellow traveler along the journey that (we) have been on these past years…..A great sorrow for me over the years has been the way the process has laid all the responsibility for change on the individual priest, while the church as an institution has not been willing to review its own practices or policies. I feel such a profound loss to the church, to the believing community, from this intransigence on the part of the institution to address the issue of a married priesthood head-on, honestly and creatively. As a bishop, I remain appreciative and grateful for the many contributions many of you have made and are makin to the church and the world community. I am edified by your love for living out new models of priesthood. My great hope is that you and others take courage and stay the course even amidst setbacks. In the end a renewed Church for the New Millennium will be born, shaped to a large measure by your experience and guided by the Spirit.”
- Timeline: Paul VI personally requested that Vatican II not discuss celibacy and this was respected. He put out an encyclical on this subject in 1967 but he did not follow through on its tone or direction.
1971 – Synod of Bishops – voted 107 to 87 to retain celibacy. Note that 40 bishops were appointed by the pope. If you subtract that group, the overwhelming majority of bishops would have voted to support a married priesthooe. Those were bishops from the southern hemisphere, Asian, South American that were in pastoral situations that forced them to make choices between celibacy and eucharist. Schillebeeckx summed up the reasons to maintain the status quo: a) fear of escalation – this change would lead to more changes e.g. womens’ ordinations; b) some felt the church should not make changes when it is in crisis e.g. reaction to Humanae Vitae only 3 years earlier; c) fear that this would repeal Paul VI’s encyclical of 1967 and show the Vatican to be reversing policy and looking foolish; d) the old line that celibacy allows clerics to be totally available.
1980 – Cardinal of Jakarta threatened to ordain a married man as priest – JPII accepted his resignation;
1985 Synod of Bishops – outspoken support for changing the rule. JPII would not listen.
From this point on various worldwide organizations began with married priests. JPII began the papal provision to allow Protestant married clergy to come to the catholic church and be ordained.
Padavano: “By every standard of measure, the time has come for a married priesthood. This is not an innovation; it is a RESTORATION.”
A friend sent me (and I accidentally deleted so I lost the exact source) a Mioami poll that shows an overwhelming majority of Miamians polled found the celibacy practice “antiquated” and in need of change. A majority apparently still favor Fr.Cutie.
Despite Bil’s historical summary, I doubt much whether the leadership of UCCCB will even touch the question.
Just another cleavage…
Bob – agree with you. My post was already long and did not want to add more to it.
A number of additons:
- in 1980, Jean Jadot was replaced and JPII enforced his litmus test on all episcopal appointments i.e. requirement that loyalty to the pope comes first; that you promise to defend celibacy; required that you not question or permit questionning in areas such as married priests, womens ordination, culture of life as defined by JPII, etc.
- this litmus test violated a number of basic catholic principles and rejected some of the Vatican II Document on Religious Freedom. It required candidates to be bishop to abandon their conscience; to agree to be ruled by an institution and not the gospel; to deny the spirit unless told by the “company line”; and threatened with harsh penalty up to excommunicatin for any who deviated from this.
- see today’s column from Richard McBien in terms of the impact on the church especially the US church with 30 years of this policy in place.
Link to McBrien: http://ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/more-leadership-crisis
Finally, an interesting story about JPII’s canonization delays. Not sure how to link this to the Cutie event but it is interesting. (sounds like the 1980′s book, The Sexual Celibate)
Last week, John Allen blogged on a behind-the-scenes debates within the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, concerning the beatification process for the late Pope John Paul II. (See John Paul II: ‘Santo, ma non subito’).
Today, Catholic News Service is reporting that John Paul II’s beatification is being delayed as the Vatican seeks more documentation regarding his almost 27 years as pope.
CNS cites the Italian newspaper La Stampa, which repofted that the chief holdup regards hundreds of letters he wrote before and after his election to Wanda Poltawska, a longtime friend and adviser to the pope.
Joan Keating:
Ballaykissangel! Love it! I missed the show right after the young curate decided to leave the priesthood.
Now my local PBS stations is rerunning the series.
Help: did he really leave and take up fulltime with/marry Asumpta the pub owner?
Dissension within the receiving denomination: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10563
Bishop of Peru Rips Actions of RC Priest Albert Cutie…
Snippy bit:
The bishop said that for a Roman Catholic priest like Cutie to change churches he should have to go through a process of adaptation. “There is a whole process of adaptation before you place him before a congregation. It is not like changing shirts and then saying everything is alright., I think it is too early to let him preach (this Sunday), given the circumstances it would have been more prudent to wait till the scandal subsided.”
Forgive me, I’m new here and just found this blog while doing a search for Catholic blogs.
Just wondering – as I understand it, Cutié’s lover is a divorcée. Does the Episcopalian church permit divorcées to marry in their church? I always thought they did given that’s the very reason that church was founded in the first place and besides, they seem to be a very “anything goes” sort of denomination; but after the whole Charles/Camilla remarriage snafu from a few years ago, I wasn’t quite sure…
Jimmy Mac:
The end of the romance in Ballykissangel is both tragic and a cop out by the writers. Don’t want to give the game away here in case anyone is metaphorically shielding their eyes not wanting to know! But if you google on Assumpta Fitzgerald you’ll soon find out! In real life the actors who played the couple, were romantically involved and got much tabloid coverage but they eventually married other people.
Still hoping to hear people’s views on the Catholic angle in Mad Men.