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.
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.
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...
Ping to read further. Lots of specifics as to the dismissal of (former) priests.