Posted on 05/24/2009 3:26:18 AM PDT by MartinaMisc
'I would like to have a family and at the same time serve God."
By all accounts, the man who recently spoke those words is more than capable of doing both. The Rev. Alberto Cutié, a 40-year-old Roman Catholic priest, built a devoted international following through his service as pastor of the St. Francis de Sales parish in Miami Beach, his immensely popular Spanish-language radio and television ministry, and his widely distributed advice column. "Father Oprah," he was nicknamed, both for his gifts as a broadcaster and his empathy for the struggles so many face when it comes to love, sex, and relationships.
Such struggles, it turns out, were of more than just academic interest to the telegenic priest. Cutié's career imploded this month after a magazine published photos showing him kissing and embracing a brunette on the beach. In the uproar that ensued, Cutié admitted that he and the woman were in love, and that for nearly a year he had been struggling to resolve his feelings for her with his commitment to the church. The Archdiocese of Miami had little choice but to suspend him from his parish and media duties, and Cutié is now faced with an agonizing decision. Does he leave the priestly vocation that means so much to him and for which he has shown such flair? Or does he break with the woman he loves and yearns to share his life with?
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Another case of a religion deciding that its requirements are more stringent than what the Bible asks - something all religions do, else we wouldn't have thousands of sects of Christianity. I have nothing against the religions, I'm currently in a Methodist church, but I won't ascribe to a religion itself because none of them take the Bible at pure face value.
I also meant to mention that in the scriptures where it says that a bishop must only be husband to one wife, it meant it as well. If a man became a bishop because he heard the good news as an adult but was already married, he could only be the husband of one wife. If she passed, he was not to remarry, even though it is perfectly ok for a widower to remarry if he is not a priest. That would seem kind of odd, if marriage and the priesthood were meant to go together. Why would it be denied to one christian and not to the vast number of christians if they were not set apart and asked by God to remain celibate? It is because it was the norm for men to marry young in that time, and Jesus understood that. That is why he led by example of what He desired by remaining single for the kingdom, and Paul pointed it out as well.
“Husband of one wife” is also interpreted to mean that the man could not have been divorced and remarried.
And also, when Christ cured Peter's mother in law of a fever, she rose up and waited on them.
If Peter's wife had been alive at the time, it would have been her place to wait on Christ and the disciples, not his mother in law. So it seems probably that he was a widower.
correct. And I assume it did so as well. It is interesting though, that scripture never speaks of the wives of the apostles. It is not known if the wives of any of the apostles were alive at the time they were called to ministry, nor any of the bishops. It is ambiguous if it was understood that none could currently be married, or if they were permitted to have once been married but never divorced.
Another practical matter would be martyrdom. How does a priest willingly lay down his life for the Church, when he knows that means he will leave behind a wife, possibly children who will have had no means of care? This could also be a reason why remaining celibate would have been preferable. How does one lay down his life while watching his wife be tortured? raped? his children? Since God made man, He knows man is weak in the face of watching his woman or child being tortured just so he will renounce his faith instead of being martyred, I would think?
Not a particularly strong argument.
All Christians, not just priests, are called to lay down their lives willingly for God if necessary.
Thank you for this statement. As an elder in a protestant Church, I often confront anti-Catholicism which makes claim to what appear to be non-biblical practices by Roman Catholics. I caution them that their conclusion is not so simple and that the Catholic practices are well thought out and documented and to their mind strongly biblical.
In fact it is lazy of them to automatically dismiss a practice without fully understanding. Also, if they knew church history they would see that the foundation us biblical protestants are standing on was first established by the Church we call Catholic.
Based on the newest inventions of some of the protestant Church which include that Jesus is not the only way and that the sexual immorality is not a constant but relative to our culture, I have come to appreciate the authority the Roman Church has in the hierarchical structure.
Unfortunately, many Catholics are unaware of the biblical origins of their practices and seem to follow them unaware. This causes others to denigrate the traditions without doing the harder study that would have them more fully understand the issues they think are so clear when they are not.
You are correct,we are all called to be martyrs for the faith, and it is not my actual argument, it was more of a line of thinking as to a reason why, but certainly not THE reasons why. I discussed reasons in post 16.
For starters:
"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matthew 19:12
"Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first." Matthew 19:27-30 (emphasis added)
"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30 (emphasis added)
"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided." 1 Corinthians 7:32-33
We know Peter was married
We know that Peter was married at one time. We also know, from Scripture, that the Apostles gave up everything to follow Christ.
You have to look in order to find it.
But I guess Rome must know better than the Apostles, Evangelists, and Jesus Himself.
Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.
Correction: Enforcing the discipline of celibacy that was already in place was a reform effort.
(1 Tim 4:1- NKJV) “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times SOME WILL DEPART FROM THE FAITH, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”
It was imposed by Pope Gregory in the 11th. Century. I have heard it was due to two thngs:
1) So the holdings that grew through industry of priests would not be willed to sons and,
2) Royal families were irked that a smart peasant boy might get trained to be a priest, rise through the ranks, and have access to royal circles and then marry into the royal families.
Strange, Brigham Young managed quite well with several wives and dozens of children!
And isn’t it a requirement for rabbies since the beginning of time to be married and have a family?
Not sure...one of the requirements for a bishop is to be married.
Poor choice of the word "must" in your paraphrase. A more accurate choice would have been the use of "could".
"It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher," 1 Timothy 3:2
"Of one wife. The meaning is, not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once." St. Jerome commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2, circa 400 AD.
Incorrect. That statement shows a very poor knowledge of Scripture.
This article fails to mention the numerous other women that have come forward claiming he had sexual relations with them also. He denies the charges, but since he has been breaking his vows and admits this relationship only after proof comes out, I doubt his words.
must was a bad choice of wording. No scripture in front of me when writing.
Doesn’t required celibacy mean you will get more repressed homosexuals as well as other groups that are trying to repress something in their id framework applying for the priesthood?
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.