CBS’ Rodriguez Continues Push Against Celibacy For Catholic Priests

Photo of Kyle Drennen.
  • Bookmark and Share

Maggie Rodriguez and Alberto Cutie, CBS While introducing an interview with disgraced Miami Priest Alberto Cutie, who was recently found to be in a romantic relationship with a woman, co-host Maggie Rodriguez again used the scandal to argue that the Catholic Church should overturn its celibacy requirement for priests: "We go right to a story that has single-handedly revived the debate over whether Catholic priests should be allowed to marry." On Thursday, Rodriguez began reporting on the story by wondering if the vow was "outdated," "rigid," and "a nearly impossible standard" for priests.

Following Rodriguez’s introduction, correspondent Kelly Cobiella reported: "What started as a local scandal has turned into an emotional debate over the Catholic Church's 900-year-old celibacy rule. In an Associated Press poll taken in 2005, 69% of Catholics said the Church should allow priests to marry. Many of Father Cutie's parishioners agree."

Near the end of interview with Cutie, Rodriguez asked: "You don't believe that the celibacy promise should be lifted?...If they don't change this policy, do you think that they will continue to lose people, or fail to recruit people who feel the Church is too rigid?" Earlier in the interview, Cutie explained: "I don't want to be the anti-celibacy priest. I think that's unfortunate. I think it's a debate that's going on in our society, and now I've become kind of a poster boy for it. But I don't want to be that. I believe that celibacy is good, and that it's a good commitment to God."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In response to Rodriguez’s later questions, Cutie suggested the celibacy vow be "optional": "I think celibacy is good. But I also believe that what many say is that maybe it should be option. And that I do believe, I do believe that people should be given the option to marry or not to marry in order to serve God."

During Thursday’s reporting on the story, Rodriguez acknowledged that Cutie was a "family friend" who she had known for "many, many years." That personal connection raised the question of her ability to be objective in her reporting. While Rodriguez continued to go after the Catholic Church from the left on the issue of celibacy, she did not appear to show Cutie any personal favoritism in the interview and many of her questions were tough:

You were ordained as a priest 15 years ago. You promised to be celibate. You devoted your life to God. How do you explain these racy photos of you with this woman?...If you are sorry, why did you do it? Why were you out there in public with this woman on the beach?...Even people who support your breaking the celibacy promise think that what you did is completely inappropriate. What if a family who goes to your church would have been there and would have seen you?...Do you feel that you owe an apology to your parishioners to whom you preached sacrifice and discipline?

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

JULIE CHEN: Exclusive. A conversation with the celebrity priest dubbed 'Father Oprah,' who is at the center of a steamy scandal and caught in the middle of the hot debate over celibacy.

7:01AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And, Julie, speaking of controversial photographs, we have an exclusive interview this morning with the Catholic priest who is caught up in a controversy ever since these photos of him with a woman on a beach surfaced. This morning Father Alberto Cutie will sit down with me for his first live television interview.

7:30AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: We go right to a story that has single-handedly revived the debate over whether Catholic priests should be allowed to marry. Before we speak with the man at the center of it all, here's CBS News correspondent Kelly Cobiella.

KELLY COBIELLA: Father Alberto Cutie is a modern media priest, with movie-star looks and a comfort in front of the camera that earned him the nickname 'Father Oprah.'

ALBERTO CUTIE: If you don't have a solid foundation, it's impossible to have a lasting marriage.

COBIELLA: Last week, parishioners saw the private side of their celebrity priest, in swim shorts, on the beach, kissing a woman. The pictures, 25 in all, were plastered all over a Spanish language celebrity magazine. The archdiocese couldn't ignore it. Removing Father Cutie from his post, and explaining that he made a promise of celibacy. What started as a local scandal has turned into an emotional debate over the Catholic Church's 900-year-old celibacy rule. In an Associated Press poll taken in 2005, 69% of Catholics said the Church should allow priests to marry. Many of Father Cutie's parishioners agree. Kelly Cobiella, CBS News, Miami Beach.

RODRIGUEZ: And Father Alberto Cutie joins us now for an exclusive interview. Good morning to you.

ALBERTO CUTIE: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: You were ordained as a priest 15 years ago. You promised to be celibate. You devoted your life to God. How do you explain these racy photos of you with this woman?

CUTIE: They're very hard to explain. But I would say that the first thing is that I deeply apologize to the Catholic community. And especially to my bishop and to my brother priests, who are faithful and are committed to celibacy. And I take full responsibility for what I did. And I know it's wrong. This is not easy for anyone to have to deal with. But certainly it's affected me, affected my family, affected the entire church community. I mean, we are a spiritual family. And I know that it's affected many friends at all levels of the Church and I'm deeply sorry for what's happened.

RODRIGUEZ: If you are sorry, why did you do it? Why were you out there in public with this woman on the beach?

CUTIE: First of all, hindsight is always 20/20, and I guess the first reason that I'm here is to explain to people this is a struggle that I've been through. I don't want to be the anti-celibacy priest. I think that's unfortunate. I think it's a debate that's going on in our society, and now I've become kind of a poster boy for it. But I don't want to be that. I believe that celibacy is good, and that it's a good commitment to God. In my case, it was something I struggled with for a long time in confession, in spiritual direction, retreats, very good mentors and priests that have helped me to deal with this issue. On several occasions I dedicated time in a monastery talking to good, experienced men about this. So, this is something I've struggled with. And something that I never expected to become a public debate.

RODRIGUEZ: Why did you finally cave? What is the nature of your relationship with this particular woman?

CUTIE: Well, this is someone that I love. I mean I've got to tell you Maggie, I entered the seminary 22 years ago. And in 22 years I've never had a sexual relationship with anyone. I committed myself fully to my vows. I've never been sexually inappropriate with anyone. I've never had any type of scandal. This is the only person that I've had sexual contact with.

RODRIGUEZ: And it's because you fell in love with her?

CUTIE: I believe I've fallen in love. And I believe that I've struggled with that. You know, between my love for God, and my love for the Church, and my love for service. Of course, it's something that a man should never have to deal with in the sense of his commitments, you know. if I was clear in my commitment, I should have stuck to it 100%. And I didn't.

RODRIGUEZ: How long have you been together with her?

CUTIE: Well, we've been friends for a long time. And there was an attraction from the first moment we saw each other. But for a long time it was just a friendship. And I would say in the last couple of years is that it became something more than a friendship. It became a romantic relationship. And we both struggled with it. You know, she's also a woman of faith, she's also somebody who cares about the priesthood, who cares about these things. So it hasn't been easy. And those who have helped me through this process know it hasn't been easy. Obviously, you know, through the photos, it looks like a frivolous thing on the beach, you know, like -- and that's not what it is. It's something deeper than that.

RODRIGUEZ: But the fact remains that you were on a public beach engaging in this behavior with this woman. Even people who support your breaking the celibacy promise think that what you did is completely inappropriate. What if a family who goes to your church would have been there and would have seen you?

CUTIE: Well, the truth of the matter is, Maggie, that I don't support the breaking the celibacy promise. I mean, I understand fully that this is wrong. The second thing is, that being out there, now, in hindsight is 20/20. But the truth is there was no one on the beach. It was a very isolated beach.

RODRIGUEZ: But you know you're a public figure. You could have easily been recognized.

CUTIE: I know that. I don't know if easily on that day it was cold, there was no one there. We weren't there very long, it was just a matter of minutes. But the truth is that, you know, a lifeguard got his cell phone out and -- who worked for the paparazzis and they called. And I thought that it was, you know, far away enough from my radius of activity, that it was isolated enough, that there was no one there. So it was an imprudence, it was stupid. I'm responsible for it. If I went back, would I have done it differently? Yes. Should I have come out a year ago and said, 'you know, I'm struggling with this issue, I need to leave now'? There's just a lot of pressure in making those decisions.

RODRIGUEZ: Do you feel that you owe an apology to your parishioners to whom you preached sacrifice and discipline?

CUTIE: I do. I do. I think my parishioners understand the nature of human weakness. Because we've talked about it before at every level. And I think that I should be a role model to them. And I have been in other areas of their life, I believe. I've tried to live my life authentically. But certainly this struggle of the last couple of years I've dealt with in an internal form in the Church with very good men who have tried to encourage me to keep going and to do things right. It hasn't gone well for me, as you can see.

RODRIGUEZ: You don't believe that the celibacy promise should be lifted?

CUTIE: I don't think so. I think celibacy is good. But I also believe that what many say is that maybe it should be option. And that I do believe, I do believe that people should be given the option to marry or not to marry in order to serve God. But the Church, see, has traditions and practices that are part of wanting to do what is right. I think we all have ideals, and we have ways of living, and we want to do things right. But the truth is, sometimes we fall short. And I fell short.

RODRIGUEZ: If they don't change this policy, do you think that they will continue to lose people, or fail to recruit people who feel the Church is too rigid?

CUTIE: I believe that the young men that are starting to be priests have their heart in the right place. And they have the desire to do what is right. I believe this is also a difficult society. But I don't think that we always have to respond to everything happening in a society immediately. I think the Church is wise, you know, the Church is a mother, she's wise, and she teaches us, you know, what to do. Now at the same time, there's a struggle involved for many priests, I mean this is not something that just happened to me, unfortunately. You know, I'm the recognizable guy. I'm the one that they would call paparazzi for, which makes it all the more stupid, you know, for me to be in that situation. But I believe that I was motivated by love for someone. By a good thing, a healthy and a good desire in my heart. And at the same time, I just need to make decisions. And I shouldn't be making them in public. But that's exactly what happened.

RODRIGUEZ: You say you love her. Will you continue this relationship? Are you thinking marriage? Children?

CUTIE: I'm now in the process of thinking about all those things, of making decisions. And my bishop has given me the time to think about it. So this is a difficult time. It's a time of transition. A time of thinking about the future.

RODRIGUEZ: But you have not broken up with this woman?

CUTIE: Well, what you mean by breaking up as, you know, saying, 'this is it, it's over'?

RODRIGUEZ: Cutting off the relationship.

CUTIE: I'm in the process of thinking about the future. I think that when you love someone, you just don't kind of say good-bye. You know. The pictures came out, this is it? No. I think you have to assume your responsibilities in many ways.

RODRIGUEZ: Has she said what she would like for you to do?

CUTIE: Do you know any woman that doesn't want to get married to the person they love? I mean-

RODRIGUEZ: But you're not ready to give her that yet?

CUTIE: I think I need to pray. And I need to think about things. And I need to make a commitment. I am ready to assume my responsibilities, and I am ready to begin, you know, on the road to that, if that's what God wants. And I feel in my heart that maybe that is what God wants. So I have to go through a process of decision-making that is both a Church process and a personal process.

RODRIGUEZ: But that would require you to leave the Catholic Church. And you haven't said yet whether you will or not. Have you made that decision? Will you leave the Catholic Church?

CUTIE: That's what I'm in the process of thinking about right now. I'm not ready to answer that publicly. I first I have to talk to my bishop, who's the person that I first have to respect and honor because I made that commitment.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Father Albert Cutie, thank you for your time this morning.

CUTIE: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ: Appreciate it.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Okay before Acts presents

Okay before Acts presents the arguement against the Catholic church again...I want to hear what he or she thinks the true church is?

 

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary."  -Sister Lucia

Religion

What a great way to attract illegals and Hispanics! 

JDW

DAILY WAVE

When people fear their government there is tyranny.

When government fears the people there is liberty.

You know...

The priesthood is not a profession, it is a calling and one of the vows that priest take is of celibacy. The Church will not bend to the will of a priest who chose to act promiscously. He should have left the priesthood if he couldn't keep it in his pants.

Sadly, leaving the Catholic Church is what a lot of people do when they choose their own will over God's.

The big print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.
Fulton J. Sheen

Cutie needs to join a

Cutie needs to join a different church.  If the Catholic church changes its policy because of mob rule...because its too hard, well then it should throw out all the hard rules.  Either the rules are God's, or the religion is meaningless.

Its news to me that its only a 900 year old rule, learn something new.

 Btw, I am not Catholic.  But asking Cutie about this, is like asking Bristol Palin about abstinence...at first she claimed it isn't realistic....because it would put responsibility on her.  Now, she sees the light, eventually Cutie will take responsibility for his own weaknesses instead of blaming it on his church.  ( And for the record I happen to agree that Bishops should be allowed to marry...but duh, I also happen to be in a religion that holds that belief. )

Conservative Voice

If Cutie wants to continue in the ministry and is called to it, I would suggest the Lutheran church, it's the closest denomination to the Catholic church that I know of. "Signed former Lutheran"

The point is, if Cutie

The point is, if Cutie believes the Catholic Church represents the Church of God, and the Pope is the man to be inspired to hear God's inspiration in regards to how to lead his people...then he should repent.

If he doesn't believe it, then he shouldn't be a priest.  This is a non-story, other than its a door to again attack religion.  And it isn't an attack on the Catholic Church...its an attack on all religions.  Listen to her argument...the "policy" ( ie not what God wants, but its just policy...to be voted on ) is too hard...too rigid.  Don't make the mistake that because its the Catholic Church it doesn't effect non-Catholics.  The left is vigilent to attack Religion and Marriage, because they are institutions that can voice a differing opinion. ( In marriage, the voice is to your kids )

Here, here.

 I agree Conservative Voice. A lot of people no longer grasp the concept that we have an obligation to respect the human dignity of all individuals. Clearly this man was carrying on the kind of selfish relationship that the Catholic Church is against. How was he able to respect the dignity of this woman when he had no intentions of leaving the priesthood to be with her? Our society is okay with using people to fulfill our carnal needs. The Catholic Church is not and will never be!

All I can say to Catholics and all Christians is to remember what Jesus said in John 15:18-19

"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you."

The big print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.
Fulton J. Sheen

I have to question her motivation.

Is she hot for Preacher?

No, its a typical liberal

No, its a typical liberal who wants to undermine religion...because when you take God out of the equation, then socialism is easier to swallow.

Blame the policy, not the behavior is the mantra of the left.

Liberals not only try to

Liberals not only try to undermine Chrsitianity they also want God and His will to conform to their image of Him so they don't have to change their lives.

what is her obsession with priests

Hold on ‘cause the world will turn if you're ready or not ~ KT Tunstall

Roman Catholic vs. Other branches of the Church

The Roman Catholic Church is not the be-all and end-all of Catholicism; there are a number of other branches of the Catholic faith whose rules on priestly celibacy are not the same as the Romans.

 I am a member of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, one of the many Uniate churches of the Byzantine Rite.  (Think Greek Orthodox, but recognizing the authority of the Pope.)  In our tradition, a married man may be ordained to the priesthood; once his wife dies, however, he is forbidden to remarry.  Bishops are elected only from the celibate.

 If an unmarried man is ordained, he may not marry; in this, we are just as the Romans are.

I find it interesting that Ms. Rodriguez continues to take the Catholic Church to task over priestly celibacy.  Buddhist monks are celibate, as are priests in any number of non-Christian religions.  Why doesn't she speak as stridently against them?

Ultimately, the Catholic Church is neither a democracy nor a prison.  If you don't believe in what the Church teaches, go somewhere else.  You may worship God in your way, and we will worship Him in His way.

Who Cares if

69% of Catholics think the celibacy rule should be lifted?  When are these dolts going to learn that the Catholic Church is not a democracy?  Did Jesus offer any of His teachings to the apostles for a vote?  Clueless, totally clueless.

 

Funny you mention that

...because, by liberal logic, when a majority supports the liberal point of view - then the will of the majority must be respected.  This morning I heard the same thing about a sick-leave referendum that passed in my home city: the majority voted, the objections of the minority don't matter!

But it never applies when, say, a majority actually votes in favor of tradtional marriage - like they did in California, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.

Isn't the logic dizzying?

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

I don't buy Father Cutie's line....

..... I am ready to begin, you
know, on the road to that,
[marriage] if that's what God wants. And I feel in my
heart that maybe that is what God wants...

I don't buy that God is leading  Fr. Cutie away from the priesthood.   He's rationalizing.

Father Cutie says:  I just need to make decisions. And I shouldn't be making them in public....

And yet, here he is on CBS News....

They might say "Wow, that sucks!"  But at least they'll say "Wow!"  -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

...

Only the devil leads those away from those who would bring souls to Christ.  The devil HATES priests because priests are the only ones who can consecrate the host and make God present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist.  If Cutie leaves the priesthood, chalk this one up as a victory for satan.  

Speaking from experience

I was once a Jesuit. Now I'm married with four kids. I know what this guy is going through.

But let me be clear about something. This guy's head is spinning. He's the worst possible person to interview right now, because this guy's whole identity is up in the air. The priesthood isn't just a job; it's an identity. When you leave the priesthood, you don't just leave a job. You leave a whole identity. You change the way you deal with the world. You change your brain. You change your heart.

This guy's whole identity just exploded. And they're interviewing him about celibacy? Where is this guy's bishop? Get him the hell away from a microphone! Putting this guy in front of a camera right now is criminal.

Rodriguez is exploiting this guy's vulnerability to make her own point. She calls this guy a family friend, but she's raking him while his wounds are exposed and raw. She's a media bull in his psychological china shop. She actually asked him, on national television, "you're not ready to give her that yet?" Can you imagine how much damage she's doing to the other woman, seeing her lover publicly challenged to leave the priesthood for her, and seeing him hesitate? How sadistic is Rodriguez trying to be?

Get that guy away from a camera. Pastoral care means you give a crap about this guy's soul. The guy is reeling, and you want to interview him? Get his ass out of there!

KC, he himself says he

KC, he himself says he shouldn't be making these decisions in public....then why is he here????

He also says this is a debate being carried on in society right now...well it shouldn't be a debate in society...it belongs in the Church!

Of course, maybe he trusted his very good friend Maggie.  And he's getting a lesson: friendship doesn't matter to a "journalist" (quotation marks deliberate) who smells a juicy story.

They might say "Wow, that sucks!"  But at least they'll say "Wow!"  -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

Agreed

And one more thing. If he "leaves," he isn't leaving the Catholic church. He's leaving the priesthood. If the bishop agrees to laicize him, he's free and welcome to remain in the church.

I feel bad for the guy. I was lucky. When I left the Jesuits, my superiors conducted the process perfectly. They made me keep my mouth shut. They told me what kind of things to expect, and it was as much a spiritual counseling session as it was anything else. Jesuits live by a code that comes from St. Ignatius, and it's all about "spiritual discernment." My guys took care of me.

The fact that this guy is on TV makes me wonder who is taking care of him? You can't leave it up to him  ... he's an emotional, psychological, and spiritual wreck. You gotta help the guy.

Who is to say Cutie hasn't

Who is to say Cutie hasn't received such council, and he is chosing not to follow...because he sees a different opportunity?  I don't know who this guy is...or his agenda.

Maybe. Who knows?

But when Rodriguez asked him on national television whether he was ready to leave the priesthood for the other woman, what a horrible position to put him in! The reporter asked him if he was going to cut off the relationship! 

Talk about a Dear John letter ...

Now any adult with an ounce of sensitivity would not have asked those questions. But Rodriguez, no doubt fancying herself as a hard-hitting journalist, plowed through her supposed friend.

And, as MB was saying earlier, that's the media for you. Real people are just fodder so the well-coiffed media hacks can have something salacious to report on. Never mind the damage they do, hey they're the media. We're all just "material" to them.

KC

Liberals do not have an ounce of sense or sensitivity KC!

I know that some priests, such as yourself, leave the priesthood to enter the vocation of marriage without leaving the church. I can't imagine how unbelievably hard it would be to find yourself in such a situation, but I know that sometimes God calls us to serve him in many ways. That being said, I can't help but feel that this man is purposely acting out against the Catholic Church because he got caught and reprimanded! Granted he is definitely confused, but he has to be mental to play out his dilema on TV. This is self righteosness at it's ugliest.

The big print giveth, and the fine print taketh away.
Fulton J. Sheen

Well, a slight distinction ...

I was a Jesuit, studying for the priesthood, but I left before being ordained. Leaving would have been immeasurably harder had I actually been ordained, so my transition was relatively easy.

For those who don't know, Jesuits are a religious order, and it takes many years to be fully trained before they ordain you, and years after that before you take final vows to the order. Jesuits aren't like regular diocesan priests. Jesuit training takes twice as long as regular priests.

Still, even though my situation was different in some ways, I can assure you that this guy isn't thinking clearly. My situation was nowhere near as complicated as this guy (I wasn't being discussed on national television), but even so, leaving religious life is a huge conflict. I can only imagine the stress involved in what this guy's going through.

I think that simple human charity demands that we give this guy a little room. I seriously doubt he's lashing out against the church deliberately. And if he is, I'd be quick to forgive him for that, since it would only be natural for him to rationalize and deny some glaring realities.

Frankly, for us Catholics, this is where all our high-sounding, pious words ought to find their way to action. I don't want to judge the guy. I'd rather pray for him, and ask that he finds mercy. Out of concern for him, somebody ought to get him out of the public eye. We should show the love that we proclaim.

a little more to it

Staying in the Church isn't easy in that case.  First, the bishop isn't obligated to laicize a priest who requests it (he may just remove the priest's faculties for sacramental ministry), and even a priest who is laicized has no guarantee that he'll be released from his promise of celibacy.

A priest who leaves is also canonically banned from having an official role in the Church -- that means never again may he be a lector, a minister of the Eucharist, a teacher, a deacon, a member of the parish council or finance council, etc...

Both marriage and ordination leave an indelible mark on the recipients' very being; and complete laicization (with release from celibacy) is similar to annullment:  Neither undoes something that was validly done; both are official acknowledgments that the ordination/marriage lacked validity to begin with.

It's at the discretion of the bishop

I just hope they have enough sense to conduct that conversation in private!

→ Can of worms

To annul an ordination would call into question any Sacraments the Priest had performed other than baptism, wouldn't it?

That's not a particularly clean way of doing things.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

No

OK, before we come across the inevitable "this isn't a religion blog," I deny that laicization is the same as annulment. Ordination is different than marriage. In marriage, the entire sacrament is about consent. Consent is what makes the marriage, so any mental reservation affects the sacrament. I don't think the same is true of ordination.

Theoretically, a bishop can ordain anyone, anytime, anywhere. The apostles, after all, simply imposed hands on their successors, said a quick prayer, dabbed a little oil, and they were out of there. I'm not even sure that the recipient had to agree to it. They always did, naturally, but I'm not sure they really had to.

OK, now, before we go any further, let me be VERY CLEAR. I am NOT an official theologian of the Roman Catholic church. If you have questions about church doctrine, and the stupidest priest on earth says something different than me, go with the stupidest priest. I studied canon law, but I never studied this issue specifically.

However, I do know that once sacraments are performed by a priest who - at the time - had the proper permission to perform them by the bishop, you're safe. You don't have to re-confess anything. You don't have to dunk your teenager in the baptismal font, for fear that the original priest didn't do it right. You don't have to sleep on the couch tonight, especially since the sacrament of marriage is performed by the spouses, not the priest anyway.

RELAX. The Catholic Church has been doing this for two thousand years. We've been around the block. We got you covered.

a question settled long ago

The theological explanation is too long for this setting, and the canon-law analysis is beyond my training.  But in short, KC's point is right:  Deciding after-the-fact that a priest's ordination was improper (for example, if he lied about believing all of what the Church teaches) does not retroactively invalidate the sacraments he might have given in the intervening time.  In response to the 'lapsi' controversy of the early centuries, the Church was forced to confront the question.  Sacraments operate by their own power (ex opere operato) and can be limited in effectiveness by the disposition / receptivity of the recipient (ex opere operantis), but are not rendered invalid by the limited holiness of the priest.  (There is a scriptural basis for this teaching, btw...)

In other words, you may be strengthened in faith and get better preaching from a holier priest; but you can't get 'better' Eucharist that way.

And true: the analogy between laicization and annulment is limited.  A married man who lies about being married may be able to dishonestly receive ordination.  But an ordained man who lies about being a priest may only attempt marriage.  In such cases, the ordination would probably be seen as valid (good luck getting a bishop's permission to minister in his diocese, though!); the attempted marriage would not.

Still confused?  I don't blame ya. That's one reason I'm overjoyed that I'm not called to be called to be a canon lawyer...

Thanks for the

Thanks for the insight.

It is very helpful, and I agree with everything you say.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

EXTREMELY simple solution here

Hey Maggie, if you don't like what the Catholic Church is doing...well, who is forcing you to attend mass?

Alberto, you DO have the option of NOT being a priest! 

The solutions in life are so simple sometimes... 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

agenda-driven media exploitation

Most priests either cherish the gift of celibacy, or at least believe it's a worthwhile sacrifice.  But no Liberal press outlet -- champions of multicultural tolerance (so they say) -- will even begrudgingly respect the Church's right to establish chaste celibacy as a part of consecrated / ordained life.

My response to Maggie:  Mind your own f'ing business.  (literally and  metaphorically)  And stop exploiting this priest's identity crisis for your own unholy agenda.

...

"I do believe that people should be given the option to marry or not to marry in order to serve God."

 

Yeah, you have that option.  It's called layperson. 

It's called layperson.

or reformed

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts 

I saw a big gleeful story

I saw a big gleeful story about this guy early this morning on NBC....the msm loves him....any wonder why?

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

celebacy is a 1,000 year old discipline, not a dogma

It isn't doctrine. Only in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church does it exist. And it isn't doctrine or dogma, just a discipline due to corruption scandals towards the end of the first millenium, with fathers passing parishes down to their sons. Not really an issue these days. The other 20 plus Roman Catholic rites have married priests, as do all of the other ancient, apostolically-founded churches.

Well,

Well, it is true that celibacy is more accurately described as a discipline.  However, it is not unique to the Roman Catholic Church, nor is it only 1000 years old.  (The Spanish Council of Elvira, between 295 and 302 AD, is perhaps the earliest point at which we have actual evidence of it.)

married, with limits

Yes, the discipline is not present in the first Apostolic ("Orthodox") churches.  And yes, married Catholic men can be ordained to the "permanent diaconate", which allows a broad share of ministry.  But the deacons' sacramental ministry is limited (no consecrating, no absolving, no anointing, no confirming -- and only bishops may ordain).  Married clergy in East or West must marry before being ordained, and if a wife dies her widower may not remarry (in short, ordained clergy may not go dating).  And only unmarried Orthodox priests may be candidates for Metropolitan (sort of like Archbishop in the RC tradition).

Celibacy was imported from monastic life (where it was always the tradition), along with a few other monastic disciplines (such as the 5-times-a-day prayer) in the effort to reform the priesthood and rein-in clerical abuses.  The abuses were terrible, the reforms were extensive, and the overall effect was good.  People with good intent but no knowledge try to convince us that celibacy is the cause of today's abuse scandals.  That's just plain ignorant. Celibacy helped to correct generations of far greater abuses; and today's scandals were caused by infidelity, not by celibacy.

wow, liberals are never

wow, liberals are never satisfied, a perfect example; Maggie Rodriguez- using this one good looking "father" as an example why the catholic church needs to change it's way/

Logic and Morality should dictate - Priests should marry

I won't comment on the words of this priest but Rodriguez seems to form her basis for priests being married on her dislike for the Church.  My guess is that she would also wants the Pope to reverse the Church's stance on woman in the priesthood, abortion, the death penalty, prosecutions of perverted priests etc.

But... let me comment to educate Rodriguez and Fr. Cutie:

Being a practicing Roman Catholic for the last 45 years I've spoken to literally hundreds of 'dyed in the wool' Catholics including their priests arguing for what was before and what should be for priests in the Sacramant of Marriage.  Priests should be married.  Bishops should be married.  Ignorance as to why this is NOT policy should not be a basis for any reason justifying the current norm.

Anyone commenting on this subject must be educated about the Church's history.  There have been more cannonized Saints who were priests, bishops, cardinals and even popes who were married.

Eleven of the twelve apostles who were the first Bishops of Christianity were married.

The cannon, liturgy and the very foundation of tradition of the Roman Catholic religion comes from the 33 cannonized Saints out of the more than 10,000.  These 33 are the Doctors of the Church and they set in place all that there is that is CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.  Not the Bible.  The majority of them were married.

Centuries ago the policy changed when the Church found itself losing all its vast property and treasures.  Remember, property and wealth was power.  Then, when a man became a priest he brought his wife, family and yes...all that he owned that then became the property of the Holy See.  Most families had to pay in the form of valuables and/or property for their sons to be priests.  When a priest, bishop, cardinal died the Church would lose all that he once brought... back to the family.  We only hear of the poor who became men of the cloth but there were kings, aristocrats and wealthy landowners who gave unselfishly of themselves to become priests.  They gave all they owned but...their family would reposses all they had when the priest died.  The church could not support these losses and soon politics became morals as it became a moral issue for a man to be celebate and they likened it to Our Lord's own existence of earth.  Control of these men also benefitted the Church.

Marriage should be a non-mandatory requirement for any man wanting to become a priest in my opinion.  This requirement would virtually eliminate the perversion which has caused these men to become child molestors and homosexuals and establish a foundation for the proper guidance of a married couple who come to seek advice from a spiritual advisor for their marriage.

I personally would support Fr. Cutie leading a cause for men to become married priests in the Roman Catholic Church just as it is in other Catholic denominations and this would in itself help to reestablish the Roman Catholic Church as the higher moral ONE TRUE religion.

Hm.

Well, your opinion is noted.  My suggestion is that you check your facts. 

where's the logic or morality in that?

Not sure what you mean by "a non-mandatory requirement", but that's not the only non-sequitur in your argument.

You say, almost ominously, that the Doctors of the Church "set in place all that there is that is CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.  Not the Bible."  ---- Um, have you read any of their writings?  Where did they get their stuff?  Yep, the Bible.

While your take on history isn't novel (several modern authors have used that same apocryphal explanation), it isn't accurate, either.  What the Church was losing a thousand years ago that motivated the changes in clergy discipline wasn't property, but credibility among the faithful.  The scandals that tore through the whole Church hierarchy were more sinful than most average people could manage in their own lives, and elements common to monastic rules of life were instituted for the secular priesthood in order to reform the clergy as a whole and to restore some sense of holiness to the most visible part of Church authority. And the discipline of celibacy worked fine for centuries, until the 'cultural revolution' in the mid-20th century presumed to overthrow the notion of sexual self-restraint and objective morality (it's also when a poor understanding of the primacy of conscience led many a priest, nun, and monk to customize their personal morality and make up their own personal rules). Too many ordained men forgot their promise to conform their lives to Christ, and instead worked on conforming their lifestyles to the world.

Your remarks seem out of whack with your claimed identity.  If you're a practicing Catholic, then I'm a practicing Liberal -- both the opinion you offer and your effort to justify it sound like they're straight from mainstream Protestant teachings.  (Or perhaps Episcopal / Anglican, which have become virtually indistinguishable from that in the past 20 years.)  All that's missing is a denigrating aside about Catholics being 'Papists'.  [If you aren't masquerading, though, then you're just mistaken or misled, and I hope the Holy Spirit can help set you straight.]

It is easy to understand and logical

What I wrote is very easy to understand and well within the facts.  I do not doubt that there was a moral outcome to the ending of priests being married but it was in addition to the loss of Church status, wealth and power with the loss of it's assets.  What you state 'kono' is NOT the orininating basis for what occured.  This has been written about throughout european history yet you quote something faintly along the lines of what the official Church teaching is but ignoring what others have written about in recorded history.  Let's not be ignorant here.  The Church also said that Our Lady WAS NOT the Immaculate Conception yet it proved to be true and they changed their stance.  This too is NOT printed in the Bible yet is part of Catholic doctrine, teaching and now tradition.

What good Catholics and all others should know is that the Catholic religion, it's canon, it's doctrine, it's liturgy DID NOT come from the Bible.  That is the faith for the Protestant religions.

Catholics believe that their faith is a gift from God and not just coming from words in the Bible.  We don't haul our bibles to Church like other religions.  They cling to the only faith they have yet we have a rich tradition beyond what 4 apostles wrote.  What 'kono' said is actually quite ridiculous and well within the ignorance part of what I wrote about in justifying his position.  C'mon, do you think that in the year 305 a.d. St. Athanasius ran down to the corner bookstore and asked for a Bible to expand upon?

The Doctors of the Holy Church were gifted unlike others, unlike you and me.  They were True Mystics.  They were groomed by, taught by, inspired by Heaven and walked in a state of God's ecstasy.  They spoke and wrote about what HEAVEN asked them to.  God has expanded the knowledge of his True Church all throughout time using the Saints most particularly the Doctors of the Church.  It would be ignorant to even suggest that He painted Himself in a box without any further knowledge of who He is.  There is very little reference in ANY of the teachings of ANY of the 33 Doctors where they reference the Bible.  No, they have defined the Bible teachings.

Catholics are so blind today thinking that their poor priest will do what's right by raising their hands up and taking the protestant view of forgiveness by praying to the Holy Spirit and asking for God's forgiveness but this has not kept them out of jail or stopped the deluge of multi-millions of dollars being paid out by the Catholic Church.  Molestations continue, homosexual indoctrination in the seminaries continue.  I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT IF PRIESTS WERE MARRIED THESE OCCURRENCES WOULD BE MINUTE.  Yet too, I do believe that the Holy Spirit will fix all but the Church has been corrupted beyond it's own repair and it is now up to God to bring the faithful back.

Catholics have been gifted with Miracles throughout time that included the existence of these 33 Saints I speak of here.  What occurred to them was Revelation.  God revealed his teachings and it was a Miracle in itself.  In fact, Our Lady came once again in the early 1900's in a Miracle at Fatima, Portugal to teach yet to warn. One of the startling revelations in which She said..."Satan will sit among the hierachy of my Son's Church and he will pit cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop... and the priests will lead the flock to perdition."
I prefer NOT to be ignorant.

get a grip

Your argument bounces all over the place, between championing Church Tradition and slamming it.  And your selective overemphasis on a subset of the official writings is a classic trait of schismatic heresy.  (Your passionate exaltation of the 33 Church Doctors and their superior mystical authority smacks a little of Marcionism, actually.) Since you can't seem to make up your mind whether the Church's teaching is true and authoritative or degenerate and corrupted, trying to argue points with you will be like going 'round in circles.

All this nonsense is a distraction from the original point of contention, anyway.  The question is about your assertion that the discipline of priestly celibacy is a key causal factor in the moral decay and sexual scandals plaguing the priesthood for the past 40 years.

The problem is infidelity, not celibacy.  How could celibacy be the cause, when celibacy has been the norm for around a thousand years without this happening?  How could celibacy be the causal factor, when the incidence of
sexual abuse among married men is virtually the same as it is among
celibate priests?  Celibacy didn't cause this problem -- unfaithfulness did.  And marriage won't fix the problem -- fidelity will.

May God the Father bless you; may God the Son heal you; and may God the Spirit enlighten you.

 

here to help you

I'll quote a definition from a Saint who said it so right nearly 200 years ago...

"Ignorance is also the INABILITY to understand."

And it appears also, that your self righetous stance kono doesn't help you to see what the issue is.  You are not unlike the priests and lay people (who have taken over the priests responsibilities on the altar) that I speak to.  Their retort, like yours is accusatory rethoric immersed in doublespeak in an effort to sound authoritative and close the argument... but your stories why these stances have been in the church are merely just fashioned for your own edification.  Of course nothing you or they mention speaks of the one thing that is so important...the Soul.

If the hierarchy was concerned with priestly morality then they would be concerned with the Souls that are being damaged at this time and before.  Sexual abuse has been rampant throughout the Church's history with priests, bishops, cardinals and even popes delving into homosexuality but it is only the modern day affairs that you want to defend or even know about (it seems).

Don't dismiss what I have taught you here.  Be a man not a lamb. Don't get caught up in an effort to appear superior and justify what a human being (in the form of a priest) does.  He is weaker than you want to believe and nowadays not able to lead a life that is more perfect or even of a higher moral value than a married man.

 

backwards

You say the abuse has been rampant throughout history but I only want to defend the 'modern day affairs'?  Re-read, please.  I'm saying the incidence of abuse skyrocketed since the modern "sexual revolution", and that is where the presumption of blame should be.  If you're one of those frustrated because you had to choose between priesthood and marriage, it would make sense for you to be angry about the discipline of celibacy.

As for "inability to understand" and ignorance goes, clarify for me (since I'm too ignorant to follow your alternating praise/condemnation of Sacred Tradition as authoritative revelation) -- are you trying to say the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is valid or invalid?  If the latter, how can you be so gung-ho about the message of Fatima but not the message of Lourdes?  (And please, I'm still trying to figure out what the Immaculate Conception and Fatima have to do with priestly celibacy in the first place.)

I'd wager that half our argument here are misunderstandings or ambiguities that arise from the limited bandwidth of this way of communicating.  But only about half...

Dominus vobiscum.