Posted on 05/28/2009 11:14:09 PM PDT by Brytani
What about it bothers you?
Why would the Archbishop say to a priest who has broken his vows to the Church, then claimed to accept those vows only to go behind the back of is Bishop and enter into the clergy of another denomination? I can understand forgiving him and wanting him to be able to take part in the sacraments, but not allow him back in a clerical role.
Why would anyone have reason to believe the next time he falls in love with a woman he won’t do the same thing again?
It has long been said that a man who would cheat on his wife will cheat on other women in his life. In this case he “cheated” on God himself.
Why his girlfriend would think he would keep any oaths or vows to her when he has broken a oath to God - either Cutie chooses man over God or never truly meant his vows to the Church.
Think about what I wrote really carefully,
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.
Before I get too harsh and judgmental on another person, I always try to consider what God has forgiven me for.
I think a lot of us would be absolutely scandalized if we were a fly on the wall in the confessional for a good number of priests. (Not all, but a large number) That's not an accusation against any priest at all or them as a class, but we have to remember that they are but humans, just as laity are human.
The key issue of what I projected above on behalf of the Archbishop is the issue of repentance, authentic repentance. With repentance, a whole host of sin and scandal could be forgiven; without it, a person is condemned.
Why would anyone have reason to believe the next time he falls in love with a woman he won’t do the same thing again?
If you're unconvinced by the above, let me share a couple of rather famous examples.
I've heard of a priest who was an apostate on multiple occasions but yet repented, came back, and went on to great things. It was a pretty famous case (you may have heard of it down there yourself).
Any guesses as to whom it was?
St. Peter.
I also know of another one who wrote some very impassioned laments about constant temptations he was under. Who was he? St. Paul. Let me provide you a portion (you could read the rest for yourself if interested):
Rom 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
Rom 7:17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
The point is that Fr. Cutié was doing great work, from what I understand, and was possibly responsible for reconciling thousands of souls with Christ and His Church. That would naturally p1ss the devil off and would make him (Fr. Cutié) subject to spiritual attack on multiple fronts (including via temptation of the flesh). His falling just proved that he was a human and was no better than St. Paul (which, according to our reckoning, is pretty good company).
Does that change your context a little bit?
What Fr. Cutié needs is not our condemnation, but our prayers. Prayers for his deliverance are the appropriate response to this scandal.
Please re-read what I wrote. I fully believe he needs and deserves our prayers and forgiveness if he was to return to the Church. My problem would be allowing him to return to the clerical state - “we’ll give you a chance to exercise your office someplace in the diocese”. This is where I have a problems.
Should a Priest who was removed from the Church for breaking the law be given forgiveness if he was to admit to his sins and ask for forgiveness? Of course. Should he be allowed to retain the rights and name of a Priest, no IMO.
And break the law is exactly what Cutie did, Canon law not civil, but it is Canon law that rules the Catholic Church.
Maybe I’m looking at this issue through a prism of disappointment of current and former Priests who have committed acts against the church, against the moral authority and civil law who’ve been allowed to retire as a priest or continue in the Church. My opinion is not based on any revenge factor, it’s based on love for my Church and not wanting to see her placed into yet another scandal by another cafeteria priest.
I am not a unforgiving person. Yet as a moral leader, a presence of Christ on earth, a teacher of Christ’s message, and a person who by their very title receives full and complete trust from practicing Catholics; a priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Pope etc should, and rightfully so, be held to a much high standard.
Basic recap, I have no problem with Alberto Cutie asking for forgiveness and returning to the Church after completing whatever penance Church authorities deem necessary. I would not like to see him allowed from the get-go to retain his position as a priest or given the privileged of giving sacraments to others.
If, over time, he decides to fully commit to the oath and laws of the Church then, IMO, he should be allowed to re-take his vows but placed in the same “probationary” status any new priest would have.
Cutie’s public statement of a week ago assured the faithful that his intention was to remain a priest within the Catholic Church. He has now humiliated the Archbishop with his very public stunt of converting to another Church. He lied in the most egregious manner to the faithful. Would he do the same if allowed to return to the Church? Should he even be given the opportunity to do this again?
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.