The real news behind the very public apostasy of the Rev. Alberto Cutié

Vivificat - from contemplation to action ^ | 29 May 2008 | TDJ

[Teófilo]

Who hasn't heard the news? A Spanish gossip magazine published compromising photos of Fr. Alberto Cutié, then a Catholic priest, romancing a young lady on the beach. Fr. Cutié owned up to his relationship and chose the path of least resistance: apostasy – “apostasy” in that restricted canonical sense of “desertion of a post, the giving up of a state of life; he who voluntarily embraces a definite state of life cannot leave it, therefore, without becoming an apostate,” according to the trusty old Catholic Encyclopedia .

Fr. Cutié was a media star in Miami and appreciated by a large Hispanic Catholic following, for his spiritual as well as for his telegenic presence. He was also a popular author, and a news analyst. For his actions his superior, the Archbishop of Miami, suspended Fr. Cutié from all his offices in the Archdiocese. Fr. Cutié’s response was to join the Episcopal Church (EC).

I haven’t talked about Fr. Cutié’s situation before because I considered it a non-news event, predictably hyped by a news media that’s normally hostile to Catholicism and magnified by “Father Oprah’s” own celebrity status. “Catholic priest caught with woman.” “Popular priest violates chastity vow.” “Priest leaves the Catholic Church for church X due to disagreement on priestly celibacy.” So on and so on. It has happened many times before and will happen again as long as there are sinners in the Church. There is nothing new under the sun.

What reasons made me change my mind? First, the media event that the Episcopal Diocese of Miami mounted to ostensibly “welcome” Fr. Cutié and his fiancé to their denomination with all the trappings of a “big deal.” This media event has damaged ecumenical relations between the Catholic Church and the EC in Miami and reveals a purposeful agenda by the latter, in my opinion. The second reason is that I actually got to see someone of some renown deserting the Catholic Church for the Episcopal Church. For the last decades or so the movement has been in reverse, as a substantial number of former Episcopal ministers have been received and either ordained or conditionally ordained in the Catholic Church under the conditions set by the 1980 Pastoral Provision. Approximately 100 formerly Episcopal ministers have been admitted to the Catholic priesthood, most of whom are married and who were not required to make a vow of celibacy to continue their ministries.

Why are all these connected? Because the EC, along with other “mainline” Protestant bodies, has been in decline: it has lost over 1 million members since 1966. That statistic is sobering, despite the fact that the EC is one of the most liberal, “welcoming,” and “tolerant” churches in the country. Why are Episcopalians leaving their church in droves? I am going to leave that question hanging there.

I believe that the EC’s Diocese of Miami saw an opportunity to reverse the declining trend in their jurisdiction and decided to exploit Fr. Cutié’s apostasy and the city’s hot Hispanic demographics at the expense of the Catholic Church. It was a bold, transparent move to showcase itself as a welcoming refuge for disaffected Catholics who might follow Fr. Cutié’s into the EC. “Sheep-poaching,” I think they call it. Or maybe it is “payback time” for the steady trickle of Episcopalians who have become Catholics during the last 43 years, a time marked by a steady erosion of the Episcopal Church’s traditional biblical and catholic identity. I said it is all of the above.

Fr. Cutié is an apostate because he failed to live up to a promise he undertook voluntarily. He solved the moral dissonance by becoming a schismatic and incurring an excommunication. He incited scandal by broadcasting his choice widely through all available media. The EC Miami leadership exploited the event for their purposes.

That’s where the “real news” lies. But no one is going to cover it like it is. On the contrary, the criticism against the Catholic Church’s ancient discipline of priestly celibacy, based as it is upon Scripture and Tradition, will acquire a special, urgent tone. Well, at least until the next scandal blows up.

I do venture to make a prediction: in the near future, “Father Oprah” will appear with the real Oprah on her show, along with his fiancé. Oprah will interview them, they’ll both cry, laugh, and so many in our nation, who depend on her to form their opinions, will point their fingers against the Catholic Church. You see, because it is the Catholic Church’s fault that such a nice, handsome, and spiritual man of God was unable to find a church home that would simultaneously honor his priesthood and show leniency for the betrayal of a vow he made long ago before the Lord.

God bless the Reverend Alberto Cutié and his fiancé in their new lives as Episcopalians. Let us pray for them, as well as for the Catholic Church in Miami, whose freshly open wound is Rev. Cutié’s one lasting legacy. Let there be healing, Lord, as well as conversion, repentance, reparation, and the will to sin no more.

[Teófilo]

What a shame. Getting all pushed out of shape over a non-Biblical principle like chastity of the priesthood. It may rest in tradition, but not in Scripture.

Typical Protestant confusion, based on profound misunderstandings of Scripture and Tradition.

The issue is not "chastity" - the right use of the sexual power within one's state in life - but of "celibacy," the renunciation of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. ( Matthew 19:16)

Married people are called to be chaste too and to exercise their sexual powers with their spouse. They ought to be celibate for everyone else.

Single people ought to practice chastity by being celibate, period. I believe one of the 10 Commandments addresses this matter, yes?

Cutié promised the Lord he would be chaste, single, and celibate for the sake of the Kingdom (again, Matthew 19:16) but in the end, he could be neither.

Why do you diss chastity anyway? Can't you be chaste? Ask the Lord for the grace to overcome the sin of unchastity!

Flame off.

-Theo

[LiteKeeper]

I am not dissing chastity. I am dissing the fact that you ignore 1 Tim 3 which says that a “pastor” is to be a “one woman man,” “one who rules his own household well so that he can lead the church well.” Why is that passage ignored and the Matthew passage cited as if it is the ruling principle?

[NYer]

I believe that the EC’s Diocese of Miami saw an opportunity to reverse the declining trend in their jurisdiction and decided to exploit Fr. Cutié’s apostasy and the city’s hot Hispanic demographics at the expense of the Catholic Church. It was a bold, transparent move to showcase itself as a welcoming refuge for disaffected Catholics who might follow Fr. Cutié’s into the EC.

While this may bear some truth, it fails in terms of accepting an apostate into their ranks. It projects a negative rather than positive motivation for others to follow and sends a bad message to its own members. What Church takes pride in welcoming someone who has broken a vow to God?!!

I believe the reason Fr. Cutie chose this route is far more complex. As previously discussed on another thread, we witnessed Fr. Francis (Dave Stone) leave the priesthood to be with a widower with whom he had fallen in love. He did not leave the Catholic Church. So why did Fr. Cutie choose a different path? The woman with whom he has fallen in love is divorced. Were Fr. Cutie to step down from the priesthood, he could not marry this woman in the Catholic Church without her first marriage being annuled.

It was far more expedient for both of them to leave the Catholic Church for another ... but which one? One that "resembles" the Catholic Church, of course. Fr. Cutie entered seminary at age 18; being a priest is his vocation and one he wants to pursue. But why the rapid switch? Not even the Catholic Church accepts converts in the span of one month. There is probably a reason known, for now, only to Fr. Cutie and his fiancee, that required such a swift change of Church.

This is not the face of a man who has embraced a new faith with fervor, nor does the fiancee radiate love. Rather, it is the image of two very troubled individuals. Neither looks happy at their decision. Both express guilt but no remorse. That will come later when reality sinks in.

An EWTN viewer to Raymond Arroyo's program, suggested that we Catholics offer up prayers of atonement for Fr. Cutie and his fiancee and those who have been scandalized by his actions. The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27) Let us also remember, however, that individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).

[bdeaner]

Cutie is in for a rough ride, spiritually. I would not want to be him. He is in need of much prayer for deliverance from evil.

[livius]

Actually, I don’t think that much thought went into it. He was caught by a photographer out smooching on the beach and didn’t really have time to think out a response to his bishop (Favalore, who is also rather elderly and far from dynamic).

The Episcopalians probably homed in on him right away, because mainstream Episcopalianism is failing and they probably thought they could tap into the Hispanics as Evangelicals have done. But I think they’re mistaken.

As for Cutie, he probably didn’t think it through at all. Now he’s stuck with this woman (who doesn’t look very pleasant, LOL!). But aside from that, if he had really loved the Church, been orthodox but fallen, he would have responded differently.

We knew a priest here in Florida who became involved with a woman who was well-known as a Catholic lay activist. He did the right thing: he left the priesthood, but remained Catholic and went on to have a great career as a lay evangelist.

[Unam Sanctam]

I am put in mind of Hamlet's phrase:,

O, most wicked speed, to post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets!

[Zero Sum]

I believe that the EC’s Diocese of Miami saw an opportunity to reverse the declining trend in their jurisdiction and decided to exploit Fr. Cutié’s apostasy and the city’s hot Hispanic demographics at the expense of the Catholic Church.

Pretty much. TEC is nothing but a publicity whore. I hope this stunt backfires just like their prediction that ordaining a gay bishop would cause prospective converts to start "beating down the doors" as they flooded into the church. Well, the doors were beat down alright, as many people flooded OUT.

[Teófilo]

I am not dissing chastity. I am dissing the fact that you ignore 1 Tim 3 which says that a “pastor” is to be a “one woman man,” “one who rules his own household well so that he can lead the church well.” Why is that passage ignored and the Matthew passage cited as if it is the ruling principle? I am not ignoring that at all and I could ask you the same question, why is that what the Lord saw as an ideal is to be set aside as unachievable while what St. Paul stated as a matter of reasonable discipline is to be seen as the "ruling principle"? Is not that there aren't active, recognized, ministering Catholic priests happily married with children. As I said in my post, there are about 100, most of them from the Episcopal Church, although there are a few from other denominations, including the Lutheran Church, Assemblies of God, and Methodism, and a whole bunch of priests who belong to the Eastern Rites of the Church are "married once" too. But, when the Church proposes single celibacy as the God-given ideal, not only for priests, but for men and women living consecrated lives, she's wrong? I don't think so. Neither should you. Please, reread that Bible and go back to how the early Christians understood it before you put forward your private interpretation again. In Christ, -Theo

[NYer]

I am dissing the fact that you ignore 1 Tim 3 which says that a “pastor” is to be a “one woman man,” “one who rules his own household well so that he can lead the church well.”

This verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). In both the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches, bishops are only chosen from the ranks of the celibate.

[LiteKeeper]

Let's go back to the beginning. The original, perfect man, Adam, was told to be fruitful and multiply. Celibacy is a gift of neo-platonism, not Scripture.

As to the 1 Tim 3 passage, your interpretation benefits more from eisogesis than exegesis. There is no reference to widowers, and the word for bishop, episcopos, was originally for overseers, or pastors. That passage, and the parallel in Titus 2, are more correctly interpreted to mean all pastors. The contrast, in that passage, to deacons, under your interpretation, leaves no office for a priest.

And you really have to stretch your interpretation to get the main mission statement for priests from Matthew 19, and not 1 Tim 3.

[m4629]

That guy looks absolutely miserable.

In a way, it’s like an American going to Bangladesh applying for refugee status.

[magisterium]

Your interpretation completely ignores the fact that the writer of the passage you cite, St. Paul, seemed rather dug-in regarding his own preference in this matter to remain celibate. How do you interpret 1 Corinthians 7, from verse 22 to the end of the chapter?

St. Paul is not “commanding” anyone to be married in order to fulfill the pastor’s role. He wouldn’t, and couldn’t insist on such a thing if, while exercising his own calling as an apostle, he refused to heed his own “command.” Jesus Christ Himself, the Supreme Pastor, would be ineligible according to your take on things.

The circumstances of his direction in 1 Timothy 3 should be obvious. He’s writing to first generation Christians who converted from paganism. Within paganism, it was thought nothing for a man to divorce his wife. Many early Christians, while pagans, had doubtless already done this sort of thing. Paul is both depriving them of the ministry and insisting that those exercising it shall henceforth eschew divorce. The context of 1 Cor. 7, in concert with 1 Tim. 3, makes it plain that, should the pastor’s wife die, he should not remarry, but take advantage of his now-undivided attention for the sake of his ministry.

You might also consider that, as we’re talking about the first generation and early second generation of Christians, the overwhelming majority of which were converts from paganism (outside of Palestine, anyway), it was a rare bird of a man who was not married by the time he was established in a business or trade. The Church was just getting started, and there was hardly an absolute insistence on celibacy. From whom, then, were the ranks of pastors, bishops and the like to be filled but from the ranks of married men at this early stage? 1 Timothy 3 is hardly the “proof text” you make it out to be.

Marriage, according to the analogy of the whole of the New Testament, is not a prerequisite for ministry. But, if it has been already contracted, the pastor or bishop must not remarry due to subsequent divorce or the death of his wife, nor should he be called from the ranks of those already divorced. That’s all we’re talking about in your passage.

[TaxachusettsMan]

The Episcopal Church is retroactively justifying its singular lack of courtesy - and transparently cheesy marketing ploy - with the tired mantra:

“Oh well, and lots of Episcopalian priests have become Catholics . . . the traffic between Rome and Canterbury has always been heavy.”

Indeed, I think the Episcopal Bishop (and look at him, would you, zuchetto and all! Wouldn’t Cranmer, Phillips Brooks and the others be proud, hahaha!) said almost those very words.

What the Episcopal side leaves out is a singularly inconvenient truth:

The traffic of priests from Rome to Canterbury almost always travels down the street called Broken Vows Boulevard.

There’s never a blinding flash of theological insight that the fire in Henry VIII’s loins was actually the Holy Ghost and that Thomas Cranmer’s Zwinglian eucharistic theology, well, it was that eventually, wasn’t it . . . hard to keep track . . was exactly the answer the anguished Roman priest’s deepest theological questionings had been searching for . . . PUHLEEEZE!

He meets a chick. End of story.

Most of these guys wouldn’t know an epiclesis if they tripped over it.

Which he certainly didn’t on the beach.

On the other hand, just ask a few of the men in the Roman Catholic Church’s Anglican Use, the “Pastoral Provision,” about the turmoil, heartache, family anguish, being ostracized in many cases, and - practically speaking, and when you’ve got a family, it’s a real consideration - loss of income, pension, insurance, etc. which was the price of their traveling down the road to Rome . . . not because they couldn’t keep a vow they’d voluntarily made, but because they had come to see the theological errors of Anglicanism and knew they had to “come home to Rome” no matter what the personal cost or loss.

Yes, the traffic from Rome to Canterbury and from Canterbury to Rome involves two entirely different itineraries . . . and every honest Episcopal Bishop KNOWS THIS!

So does everyone posting on this site.

We’ve lost bigger and better - and probably cutey-er - than this poor soul over the centuries . . . and half of Europe at one point. And we just keep on ticking!

It is interesting - amusing even - to read the sour grapes postings on this thread however . . . gosh but Roman Catholicism, with all our faults and failures, still manages to get people all worked up into a major whine!

Sacrilicious! As Homer Simpson would say!

[dangus]

The Via Media comment was a joke.

And my comments about Catholics not making a big deal over converts was in reference to Anglican priests. In the case of Tony Blair, the big media sensation was over the fact that the British law forbids a Prime Minister from being Catholic; his conversion so soon after leaving office confirmed notions that he was “going Catholic” while still in office, which was therefore totally “scandalous” (in an ironic use of language) to the British press.

[TaxachusettsMan]

Oh my . . . I just saw THIS interview with the Episcopal Bishop, Leo Frade:

http://cbs4.com/local/alberto.cutie.priesthood.2.1024498.html

We’re not dealing with the reincarnation of Thomas Aquinas here . . . not even of the author of the Dick, Jane and Sally Think-and-Do books.

“When he preaches . . . he preaches good!” he said of his newest “catch.”

Of the highly publicized beach incident, the Bishop said:

“Hey . . he (Father Cutiepants) was single . . . she was single . . . “

The man doesn’t even recognize that, no, Father, was NOT single . . . in the sense of free . . .

And stealing sheep is nothing new to Bishop Frade: he got his start “growing the Episcopal Church in Honduras” . . . gee . . . I wonder where the principal “growing pool” was there!

More and more, this is looking like a match.

Where it was made? Depends on your perspective, I guess.

[Cookie123]

In this day and age the problem with married priests (in any denomination) is a problem of what to do about divorced priests. The two go together. In the Episcopal Church it is basically no longer seen as a problem, but that leaves the Episcopal laity who are at least making some effort to remain faithful in marriage holding the bag for all the expenses related to child support, alimony etc. People are leaving the Episcopal Church in droves b/c of issues like this. It’s not just the gay bishop issue. In our current economy, many of the clergy have a level of pay and benefits and job security that the laity in the Episcopal Church are either losing or do not have to begin with. The Episcopal Church is therefore now becoming top-heavy with bishops and too many priests. Winning over a few South Florida divorced and liberal Hispanics is not going to resolve this. Are these new Episcopalian converts now prepared to start pledging more heavily to support Fr. Cutie and his family?

[AnalogReigns]

I attend an Anglican Church, because the great majority of bishops (and unfortunately parishes too) of TEC are simply apostate.

I’ve heard and read different understandings of the original “Via Media” (of Elizabeth I’s time)...the standard being halfway between Rome and Geneva—but some historians say it was really originally halfway between Wittenberg (Lutheranism) and Geneva... Of course in a lot of ways traditional (16th C.) Lutheranism was not that far from Rome.

The Oxford movement of the 19th C., I have also read, was a primary mover for much of the Romanizing of Episcopal & Anglican worship...

Given the horrible besmirching of the good name “Episcopal” though, by the apostate sodomists especially, I think it is a good idea for orthodox Anglicans in America to drop that name in favor of “Anglican.”

[sockmonkey]

we witnessed Fr. Francis (Dave Stone) leave the priesthood to be with a widower with whom he had fallen in love.

Er, Widow, not widower. IIRC, she was starting to show her pregnancy when DS left the Priesthood, they did not marry, but he does have a relationship with the child she bore.

[Northern Yankee]

Great article.

I remember listening to a priest awhile back, from the Opus Dei order, and he told of several occasions where he ran into former priests. He asked why they left?

Their response to a man was: "I forgot to pray."

Seems like Cutie` forgot to pray, and spend time before the Blessed Sacrament.

[VidMihi]

You are kidding. I know several priests who resigned, none said they forgot to pray, none consider themselves “former” priests. Their reasons were more like the gay culture, the hypocrisy, the teaching on birth control, restrictive Eucharistic participation, the desire to have an honest relationship with a women, and the “opus dei” mentality of so many in the hierarchy.