I am disturbed at the lack of official church discipline against father Cutie and his sordid affair with the divorcee whom he recently married. I realize that he disregarded his vows, left the Church and chose to marry but these are all violations of his contract with God and the Church and it seems to me that an official punishment must be pronounced on him. I read of no official laicization of Cutie. What does it take before the Church will officially excommunicate an errant cleric? There are other current dissident priests and nuns who openly preach against the Holy Father, Church teaching and lead less than moral lives themselves and yet we hear of very very few reprimands for their continued behavior. It is time to clear the Church of clerics who work against God and the Church and make it known to the world.
I’m appalled by the lack of condemnation for this man. Check this out: laesquina.peopleenespanol.com/ they’re actually inviting people to congratulate him!
He isn’t a member of the Church anymore. The Church dosen’t excommunicate non-Catholics.
And Mother Church dosen’t just excommunicate people. She is merciful before she is just.
Yeah, “People” magazine is not helping, but if you read the comments left there, you’ll see plenty of people are certainly not offering their congratulations to “father” Cutie.
No le sigan llamando Padre ya que esta posición la llevan con orgullo los que son los ungidos del Señor y se comportan como tal. El señor Cutié decidio por si solo apartarse del camino del Señor, así que no le llamen más Padre que le queda muy, pero que muy grande señalarlo de esta manera al igual que la sotana pues el no es digno de llevarla. No todos los que dicen “Señor, Señor…” entraran en el Reino de los Cielos; son muchos los llamados y pocos los elegidos.
Ooof! That’s gotta leave a mark… Can’t say it isn’t spot on, though.
(Synopsis: Don’t keep calling this man “Father” when he has decided to leave the path of the Lord; he does not have the dignity to maintain this title.)
I am not familiar with this story. Is there a Catholic link that gives more information about this?
laicization and formal excommunication are two different things. the former is reserved to the Pope and is a long process with many steps, and there is no reason the general public should be informed of the status of that process. It may be done on the request of the priest for instance by a priest who wishes to leave and get married. According to published reports of which there are dozens of existing threads here, this priest did NOT choose to go that route but simply left without even, according to his bishop, asking or telling his superior of his decision. OR it may be instigated by the bishop who refers the case to Rome, in which case, again, the process follows the steps in canon law, not the wishes of the general public.
Excommunication happens in several ways, as something that is automatic when anyone, priest or lay person, voluntarily separates himself from communion with the Church, as this person has done by defection, or as I might do, for instance, by getting an abortion. There is also a formal process of excommunication which is not primarily punitive but curative, a penalty imposed in order to inform the person of the serverity of his offense and spur his return to the good graces of the Church. While the actions may be public, the actual excommunication is private and would be announced only if the good of the church required it. Since his bishop has already removed his faculties to perform the duties of the priesthood, steps have already been taken to protect the faithful.
Bishops and popes do not take their actions lightly, nor do they act according to the wishes, direction and instigation of the laity. They follow canon law and they act first and foremost for the good of the soul of the person addressed. That is a pastoral function. We are not the pastors, it is not for us to dictate how bishops and the pope deal with others who transgress.
I’m appalled by the lack of condemnation for this man
I sincerely hope when it comes time for me to be disciplined and condemned for my sins it is not a public affair conducted in the media, but a matter for confession and the seal of the sacrament, and that the only public steps taken be those to protect anyone under my care, if my sin demands that protection.
since none of us is God there should be no condemnation here on earth since that is reserved to the Deity
Also, what Father Cutie did isn’t grounds for excommunication. He could have confessed his sins and then would have been sent off for quiet discernment and reflection. Even now, he could come back.
The sacraments would have still be available to him.
He doesn’t need condemnation. He needs prayers.
I think Father Cutie is comfortable with his decision.to leave the Church & marry. I think he still loves God & wants to serve him still. Just like many of us who changed our vocations in mid stream, he did the same. He didn`t want to create a great scandal , so he left quietly & married & will serve the Lord in another realm. This is a huge world filled with millions of people, maybe this is what God wanted of him.Remenber God works in strange ways.
Most of us sin in private or with very little public attention or interest. Father Cutie sinned in as public a venue as one could describe and the ensuing embarrassing notoriety to him, his church and his congregation was worldwide. Such a public sin demands public condemnation in any way that the Church can as a lesson to those who contemplate such acts of disobedience. God’s judgment is a separate thing.
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.
By joining the Episcopal community he is in schism, and probably in heresy; so excommuication would appear to be automatic [latae sententiae].
I think Pope Benedict just issued a revised, streamlined, procedure for dismissal from the clerical state in such situations. I think he was cleaning up some red tape; not addressing this specific case. ]
Since both are fairly obvious results of Father Cutie’s actions; I doubt that they will be considered newsworthy.
Ok, call me crazy or whatever, but I found no mention of the man at any site given. I’d like the full story if possible. Especially from a reliable resource.
I remember reading an excommunication announcement of a different priest several years ago. The excommunication process appeared to be a very long process and the announcement came *years *after that priest had left the Catholic church. That diocese published the excommunication announcement because the man had apparently started up a different denomination with services that might be mistaken for a Catholic Mass. The Church wanted to make it clear to that those were not valid Catholic services.
In the case of Fr. Cutie, his leaving the Church is both rather recent and well publicized. He announced that he left the Catholic church and that he’s currently affiliated with the Episcopal church. If there is any formal excommunication process underway, we may not learn about it for years. Before that process is done, he may repent. Who knows? Maybe he’ll find marriage to the type of woman who would have an affair with a priest gives him reasons to better appreciate the gift of celibacy.
Excommunication means that someone is cut off from union with the Church and the Sacraments. Seems in this case where the man himself has removed himself from both, that such a pronouncement would be rather redundant. I don’t know what people expec “the Church” to do. Maybe detain him and drain him of his blood or something. Maybe the old tar and feather treatment.
Are you also disturbed when you read the history of the Popes of the Catholic Church and read that Pope Alexander VI lived openly with a mistress and four illegitimate children. And further, the reports of his attendance at drunken orgies?
I don’t know too much about this priest, except that he was know as “Father Oprah.” I guess he must have been a dynamic speaker.
I think that it is too bad he had to leave the Church. The Catholic does allow married priests if they come from another denomination. This makes me scratch my head. I’m sure there are many men who would make good priests, but they have a problem with celibacy.
I think it is great to have celibate priests, but other branches of the Church that are not Roman Catholic have married priests.
Then there are all of the priests who left to get married years ago. Maybe there wouldn’t be a shortage of priests if the priests who got married were allowed back in.
I’m not sure why people are so outraged that they want to excommunicate him. At least it was a woman instead of a teenage boy!
Have any priests who molested teenage boys been excommunicated?
what public disobedience requires on the part of a CAtholic, particularly a priest who is also a public figure is a public declaration from his bishop,instructing the faithful on what they need to know and be aware of. This has been done. Search the media for the bishop’s statement to his diocese on the topic, including his comment that this particular priest did not seek his bishop’s advice before making his public move. That is all the lay faithful need to know. The reaction on the part of the bishop in carrying out canon law on behalf of that priest does not need to be public unless and until the faithful are endangered. Nor does the situation require a wholesale condemnation by Catholics in general of the person. It does call for sound teaching on the issues involved, particularly witness to proper church teaching on celibacy, but that can be done without attacking the priest or calling on the bishop to do what we demand.
why is the question in thread title even being asked? do we have positive knowledge of the actions of the bishop or the Vatican in this case one way or the other? can we positively state the Church has not taken appropriate action in the case? very strange if we do have such knowledge, since we are not entitled to have it. What the faithful of that diocese need from their bishop they already have, a statement on what his status is and whether or not he can confer sacraments validly.
Yes. However, he is currently dead. Not much anyone can do about it.
Pardon me but this is not a matter of someone just wanting to change his vocation mid stream. Do you know what vows are, either priestly or in marriage? He took a number of vows FOR LIFE after 8 years of pre-seminary and seminary education. He didn’t want to create a great scandal so he left quietly and married? Are you delusional or just blind and deaf ? His scandal was the talk of the town and now the country. There are remedies for priests who feel they have to leave the priesthood for any reason. They can petition the Pope and leave honorably with their priestly privileges and duties mostly in place. He took the sleazy, cheap, irresponsible way and did not take the laicization way out. He is not serving God, he is serving himself with no regard for the scandal he has created.
This whole scandal keeps getting worse.
Now Alberto Cutie and his wife are being sued, I saw it on Telemundo a few days ago and here is a link
It’s very suspicious what is going on. If I’m not mistaken, Cutie had said that this woman was very Catholic and that she had been attending his Church for many years. So would a good Catholic woman have had a boyfriend she was living with just a few years ago?
And now Telemundo is reporting of news from a gossip magazine, I think, that Alberto Cutie is gay.
We’ll see how this all pans out.