Posted on 05/28/2009 11:14:09 PM PDT by Brytani
I am genuinely disappointed by the announcement made earlier this afternoon by Father Alberto Cutié that he is joining the Episcopal Church.
According to our canon law, with this very act Father Cutié is separating himself from the communion of the Roman Catholic Church (c. 1364, §1) by professing erroneous faith and morals, and refusing submission to the Holy Father (canon 751). He also is irregular for the exercise of sacred orders as a priest (canons 1041 and 1044, §1) and no longer has the faculties of the Archdiocese of Miami to celebrate the sacraments; nor may he preach or teach on Catholic faith and morals (cannon 1336, §1). His actions could lead to his dismissal from the clerical state.
This means that Father Cutié is removing himself from full communion with the Catholic Church and thereby forfeiting his rights as a cleric. Roman Catholics should not request the sacraments from Father Cuité. Any sacramental actions he attempts to perform would be illicit. Any Mass he says would be valid but illicit, meaning it does not meet a Catholic’s obligation. Father Cutié cannot validly officiate at marriages of Roman Catholics in the Archdiocese of Miami or anywhere.
Father Cutié is still bound by his promise to live a celibate life, which he freely embraced at ordination. Only the Holy Father can release him from that obligation.
To the Catholic faithful of Saint Francis de Sales Parish, Radio Paz and the entire Archdiocese of Miami, I again say that Father Cutié’s actions cannot be justified, despite his good works as a priest (statement of May 5, 2009). This is all the more true in light of today’s announcement. Father Cutié may have abandoned the Catholic Church; he may have abandoned you. But I tell you that the Catholic Church will never abandon you; the Archdiocese of Miami is here for you.
Father Cutié’s actions have caused grave scandal within the Catholic Church, harmed the Archdiocese of Miami − especially our priests – and led to division within the ecumenical community and the community at large. Today’s announcement only deepens those wounds.
When Father Cutié met with me on May 5th, he requested and I granted a leave of absence from the exercise of the priesthood. Because of this, he could no longer be the administrator of St Francis de Sales Parish or the General Director of Radio Paz. For the good of the Church and to avoid the media frenzy, I chose not to impose publicly an ecclesiastical penalty, although his admitted actions clearly warranted it. Since that meeting, I have not heard from Father Cutié nor has he requested to meet with me. He has never told me that he was considering joining the Episcopal Church.
I must also express my sincere disappointment with how Bishop Leo Frade of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida has handled this situation. Bishop Frade has never spoken to me about his position on this delicate matter or what actions he was contemplating. I have only heard from him through the local media. This truly is a serious setback for ecumenical relations and cooperation between us. The Archdiocese of Miami has never made a public display when for doctrinal reasons Episcopal priests have joined the Catholic Church and sought ordination. In fact, to do so would violate the principles of the Catholic Church governing ecumenical relations. I regret that Bishop Frade has not afforded me or the Catholic community the same courtesy and respect.
In my nearly 50 years as a priest, I have often preached on Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son – which really should be called the parable of the Forgiving Father (Luke 15, 11-32). Perhaps the story told by the Lord so long ago is applicable to our discussions this afternoon.
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.
In conclusion, I commend and salute the priests of the Archdiocese of Miami and all priests who faithfully live and fulfill their promise of celibacy. By their fidelity to their promise they reflect more clearly to the world the Christ whose total gift of himself to the Father was pure and chaste love for his brothers and sisters. In our times so pre-occupied with sex, the gift of celibacy is all the more a sign of the Kingdom of Heaven where, as scripture says, there will be “no marrying or giving in marriage” (Matthew 22, 30). I encourage all Catholics to pray for and support our dedicated priests.
Most Reverend John C. Favalora Archbishop of Miami
My interest come from the 2nd paragraph of the statement
According to our canon law, with this very act Father Cutié is separating himself from the communion of the Roman Catholic Church (c. 1364, §1) by professing erroneous faith and morals, and refusing submission to the Holy Father (canon 751). He also is irregular for the exercise of sacred orders as a priest (canons 1041 and 1044, §1) and no longer has the faculties of the Archdiocese of Miami to celebrate the sacraments; nor may he preach or teach on Catholic faith and morals (cannon 1336, §1). His actions could lead to his dismissal from the clerical state.
This says to me that Fr. Cutie is now no longer a priest, no longer a member of the clergy and is being prohibited from have the Sacraments given to him again in a Catholic Church.
So, does this mean he is excommunicated or in the process?
I would appreciate anyone who can clarify this for me.
Brytani Mary Mother of God, Pray for Us
Don't know what's with this Priest. He should've just resigned and gone to work in the private sector.
I am a 58 year old woman. A convert to the Catholic faith,a conservative Catholic.When I first attended a Catholic sacred liturgy I was captivated by the reverence of body and presence. That is one of the reasons I decided to take lessons,year 1971-72. Now I see so many people young and old when at Mass show such disrespect in dress and talking. Many people take vows,priests,married couples and some are celibate for different reasons. I know a wonderful woman who is very sick and her husband takes such good care of her but she does not get to do all the things married couples do together. But the husband understands he took a vow before God to love till death. It is very hard on them but they seem to love each other. But I think what if the husband decided to break his vow as this priest has so he can have something of a better life,better situation.Too many of our pastors and preachers,priests have turned their back on God,they accept sin and support it. Even the life of a child can not touch the heart of those who are suppose to serve the Lord and shepherd his people. Jesus asked Peter three times,will you feed my sheep. But before that question he asked three times do you love me. Today too many love themselves more than they love Jesus. They don’t want to sacrifice,suffer,follow in the steps of Jesus. They do not feed his sheep,they feed themselves while the sheep are starving for the truth of the Gospel. So now this priest breaks his vow to God and his church to take yet another vow with this woman? Will she trust his vow to her after he has already broke his vow to God and then left his church for another? For the sake of his sorrowful passion has mercy on us and on the whole world.
The Sacrament of Holy Orders imprints an indelible mark on the recipient of that sacrament. In other words, "You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchiz'edek." (Ps 110:4)
When they are talking about removal from the Clerical State.
Perhaps it would be a little clearer if you actually saw the Canons referenced in the statement:
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Can. 1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:
1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;
2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or schism;
3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;
4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;
5/ a person who has mutilated himself or another gravely and maliciously or who has attempted suicide;
6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical penalty
Can. 1044 §1. The following are irregular for the exercise of orders received:
1/ a person who has received orders illegitimately while aVected by an irregularity to receive them;
2/ a person who has committed a delict mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, n. 2, if the delict is public;
3/ a person who has committed a delict mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, nn. 3, 4, 5, 6.
§2. The following are impeded from the exercise of orders:
1/ a person who has received orders illegitimately while prevented by an impediment from receiving them;
2/ a person who is affected by amentia or some other psychic illness mentioned in ⇒ can. 1041, n. 1 until the ordinary, after consulting an expert, permits the exercise of the order.
So, does this mean he is excommunicated or in the process?
Yes, if you look at Can. 1364 § 1, quoted above, you will see that he has already been excommunicated latae sententiae. A "latae sententiae" penalty simply means that the penalty is automatically imposed the instant that the delict occurred. So, in this case, the instant he went into Schism with the Church (by announcing that he is joining the Episcopal Church), he, in essence, excommunicated himself.
I agree fully regarding the disrespect shown before, after, and even during Mass. Seems like an increasingly small number of people actually fully comprehend the Real Presence in the tabernacle. If you have a "extraordinary form" (i.e., Tridentine Latin) Mass somewhere within driving distance, I'd suggest that you go check that out every now and again. Around here (metro DC), the atmosphere is far more reverent that what has devolved in many Novus Ordo parishes.
If an extraordinary form Mass is not available to you, you could check into an Eastern Rite parish in communion with the Holy Father. If not that, possibly a Mass celebrated at a local religious institute (particularly one by the Dominicans).
His commitment to the Catholic faith can’t have been very strong if he did this.
Rev’d Cutie swam the Thames, or, more accurately, swam the East River. Is there anything in his theology that is objectionable? In other words, is a he a closet supporter of the lesbigay agenda, abortion, or some other revisionist theology? If not then he might actually be good for ECUSA.
There’s something about that statement from the Archdiocese that bothers me...
They make that choice prior to ordination. No one has a gun held to their head in the seminary and forced to take a vow of celibacy. Incidentally, 21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church ordain, as a norm, married men. However, once ordained, a single Priest may not then marry and remain in the clerical state.
I've been a Catholic for nearly 50 years.
Too bad that that period of time has been filled with so much poor catechesis.
In one Church that I attend, there is a Priest who was Married - years ago. He is a wonderful Priest, as well as a wonderful human being. He has 7 children.
His wife passed-away years back and he entered the Priesthood. Now, personally, if I had marital problems or issues with children, I'd sure want to speak with him. He has the voice of true experience.
"Incidentally, 21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church ordain, as a norm, married men. However, once ordained, a single Priest may not then marry and remain in the clerical state."
--I haven't heard of that, but it doesn't seem to make much sense. So, no Priest is able to change their mind? Bottom line is that we need more good Priests.
"Too bad that that period of time has been filled with so much poor catechesis."
--On the contrary. Back to the bottom line. We need more good Priests. I have met, or read of Priests (former Priests) that are more than willing to return to the Priesthood if given the chance to remain married and faithfully conduct their Priestly duties. If they can contribute to the quality of the Priesthood, I see no problem with that.
Ping to read further. Lots of specifics as to the dismissal of (former) priests.
His actions could lead to his dismissal from the clerical state.
His faculties are removed, his is automatically excommunicated, but he is as of now still "in clerical state"?
I understand the indelible mark of the Holy Orders, but that "clerical state" cannot be it, because it may be removed. So what is it?
Let me add one more Canon to the ones I quoted above.
Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:
1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;
2/ privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;
3/ a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;
4/ a penal transfer to another office;
5/ dismissal from the clerical state.
§2. Only those expiatory penalties listed in §1, n. 3 can be latae sententiae.
Can. 1364 § 1 says: Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3
So an apostate, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, an excommunication that happens automatically at the point in time that the apostasy, heresy, or schism is committed.
At this point, do you know how they lift an excommunication?
The diocesan tribunal (or the tribunal of a collegial chapter of canons) can lift it, unless the excommunication is declared. If it is declared, the person who made the declaration can lift it. (Can. 508 § 1) (Naturally, if the excommunication is reserved to the Apostolic See, the Apostolic Penitentiary would have to lift it, but those excommunications are rare)
Why? Because an excommunication is a "medicinal" penalty (a censure) -- designed to bring the person back into communion.
Likewise, the penalties that can be applied to clerics, in addition to excommunication, are designed to fix the problem.
The message being sent here is that Cutie is in trouble. He is not to function as a priest or participate in the sacraments. (I can imagine that the bishop has given him some "directions" as well: i.e., stay away from that woman).
But the Archbishop is leaving the door open for him to come back into communion and, perhaps at some point, to operate as a cleric, maybe.
When the Archbishop said, His actions could lead to his dismissal from the clerical state, he is giving a direct threat out of Can 1364 §2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state. If you take a look at Can. 1336 &Sect; 2, you will see that dismissal from a clerical state cannot be done latae sententiae; i.e., it has to be as the result of an Ecclesial Trial.
So what the bishop is saying is, stop what you're doing, think about it, and come back. We'll forgive you and, if we have good reason to believe that you are truly repentent, we'll give you a chance to exercise your office someplace in the diocese. But if you persist, we will have no choice but to permanently remove you from the clerical state.
Any clearer?
Thank you. So a trial resulting in dismissal from the clerical state would make his restoration as a priest impossible, whereas at this point an avenue for him still exists to restore his faculties?
That's my understanding. But please keep in mind that, although I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night, I am still not a Canonist.
No apostolic Church has ever allowed priests to marry to my understanding. Some of the Churches allow/allowed married men to become priests, including the Catholic Church.
Freegards
Yup.
For the benefit of the casual reader: restoration to communion as a layman is always possible for Mr. Accent Grave Cutie, should he wish to undertake necessary penitential steps, as no sin is greater than God’s mercy.
Yup, and he could have easily gotten a dispensation and continued on as a lay worker in the Church and been able to keep the cutie for Cutié.
And that's the issue that they're missing on that other thread about this subject.
Oh, well.
Great points and beautifully said.
I read the pertinent Canon law last night and it simple confused me more. Thank you for the clarification.
Thank you also for explaining latae sententia, I was having the most difficult time finding the correct definition since most sites I searched on, unfortunately, were anti-Catholic.
I too am a convert to Catholicism though you have more years then I. I was received into the Church in 2006.
Prior to my conversion and to this day I struggle with two issues. First, I believe that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. My position is in direct conflict with the USCBC though the Church itself does allow for capital punishment in very specific cases and as a last report. I fully confided with my priest on this subject and add it to my confessions. I also continue to pray about it.
Secondly, I believe in birth control that prevents fertilization of an egg but will not kill a newly formed life. This position is completely contrary to the teachings and catechism of the Church. It is also a position I have confessed to my priest and continue to pray and confess upon to this day.
While I hold these two issues obviously in difference with the Church, I did not convert to Catholicism to force my positions upon her. It is my responsibility to change my views to become in accordance with Church teachings, not to work against the Church to force my personal beliefs upon her and millions of Catholics who are in accordance on these two positions.
All too often I find Catholics who seem to feel it is their right and duty to change the teaching of the Church. This happens with both clergy and the faithful. In fact, my sponsor through RCIA believes in abortion, birth control and and rejects the authority of our Archbishop.
What Alberto Cutie did is a symptom of the sickness in our Church and in society in general. Oaths, morals, vows, ethical standards are becoming going to way of the dinosaurs. To see dozens on Catholics stand outside of Cutie’s press conference carrying signs of support for him disgusted me.
Cutie slapped in the face his followers, the Church, Favalora, The Pope, Jesus and his Holy Mother and people who call themselves Catholic support him. Why? Because he’s good looking? He’s a “celebrity”? He gave good relationship advice, obviously he had experience with that topic.
Personally I believe the Church is better off without priests who either feel they have a right to change the base principles of the Catholic Church or disregard their oaths when those teaching interfere with their choosen lifestyle.
This is not to say that Alberto Cutie does not need our prayers, in fact he needs them more now then ever. That does not mean we accept what he did or the path he has chosen to take. As the saying goes, I don’t hate the sinner, I hate the sin.
In Christ...
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.