What Do You Think About Father Cutie Joining the Episcopalian Church?

[umsami]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/28/flo...est/index.html

So...do you think it was wrong of the Episcopalian Church to accept him, as the Archdiocese of Miami does?

Do you think it's a positive thing?

For me, I think it sends a very powerful message to the Archdiocese. I think it's a good thing, for him personally. If he couldn't keep his vows of chastity, then he did the right thing. However, I imagine it must be heartbreaking for his parishioners. I wonder if they'll follow?

[ChampagneBlossom]

Originally Posted by umsami

I wonder if they'll follow?

I wondered the same thing myself.

I also don't think he should just "get" to go over. He made a vow before God to live according to a certain lifestyle, knew what he was getting into, and then broke those vows.

Kinda like if you get married and you meet someone you fall in love with... you don't just get to have an affair. If you're decent, you'll leave your wife FIRST, and then when it's all over, THEN start a relationship with the newbie.

If the man didn't want to be celibate anymore, wasn't there some way for him to leave the church first?

I know the man is an inspiration to many people, but I personally wouldn't consider him a personal spiritual role model after he publicly broke a sacred vow to God. I know he's only human, and as a person I don't judge him. But as a public figure I don't like the idea of him preaching still.

I don't know what I think, though, of what realistically he should do. He obviously still has a calling from God to provide spiritual counseling and all. And he is obviously gifted at it. And maybe his scandal is bringing fresh air into the celibacy debate. So it could be God's will that this is all happening. But I'm still wary about him just defaulting to the another religion and bam, it's all supposed to be fine and dandy now.

I just don't know, and I don't even have a dog in the fight.

[umsami]

I understand what you're saying. I guess I find it just such a contrast to so many pedophiles who remained in the Catholic Church. This guy knew he couldn't keep that one vow, so he left (granted after the fact). He may not have known that when he first took his vows. For all we know, this woman could be the first woman he's ever had a relationship with. Granted, I'm sure they wanted to keep him... but I guess I just wonder, what did they expect him to do if he couldn't keep a celibacy vow? Would they have granted him an exception like they do to married Episcopal priests who join the Catholic Church? Just look the other way?

I mean... there were married Popes. There were plenty of Popes who had illegitimate kids as well. The celibacy thing is rather a recent thing (after the 12th century say some)... but many date it to the Council of Trent (16th century).

[afishwithabike]

This is a great question. I am of the mindset that priests should be allowed to marry. The bible says that preachers are to be the husband of one wife.. This means that marriage is okay.... In my opinion that is. It's a lot to ask of somebody to deny those innate desires. Do I think the Episcopal's should allow him to teach? I guess it would depend on if he can believe and support the other doctrines of the Episcopal church. If he sees nothing wrong with their belief structure and can support it with NO clash of conscience than there's no reason he couldn't join the church and support it in a teaching/leading role.

There's always the opportunity to open a non-denominational church with the attendees that would follow him. Church splits aren't fun (I've been through a few) but if this is God's leading then he should follow.

[Bluegoat]

I think there are two sides to this - the Roman Catholic side, and the Episcopal side.

On the Roman Catholic side, the RC church does recognize that it is possible to have married priests, that is not in dispute. They have decided, however, to have a celibate clergy, as they feel that is a better model. There is debate over this of course, but I think there is some good reasons for this point of view; it allows the priest to commit himself totally to his priestly work, it means that salaries do not need to support whole families, and being the family of a priest is not always a nice situation either.

There are ways he could have left the RC priesthood if he realized that he could not keep the vow, and wanted to marry. Of course it is not only priests that are to remain celibate, it is all unmarried persons. So he was not only breaking his vow to remain celibate and unmarried, he was committing the sin of fornication. I think it is one thing to do something like this - many others certainly have fallen prey to that kind of sin - another to try and justify it the way he seemed to. He went about it in an ass-backwards kind of way that is not to his credit.

I also am a bit skeptical of the statement that he "couldn't" keep his vow - I wouldn't totally dismiss it, but just because a person struggles with a vow, willingly taken, doesn't mean that one gives up on it. But if he continually found himself losing the battle and intensely unhappy, why did he not go to his spiritual adviser or Bishop and make a plan to leave the priesthood?

On the Episcopal side, I wish I were more shocked that they have just taken this guy in, and that they don't see all these issues as speaking to his ability to be a priest/leader in their community. It seems to me there are any number of spiritual issues he needs to take time to work out.

All that ignores too whether he really thinks Episcopal orders are valid, which RCs normally don't. It seems a bit convenient that this question has suddenly been resolved for him in favour of the Episcopal position, just when he needed a job.

[ChampagneBlossom]

BlueGoat, you got my points across better than I did.

[anniegirl]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I also am a bit skeptical of the statement that he "couldn't" keep his vow - I wouldn't totally dismiss it, but just because a person struggles with a vow, willingly taken, doesn't mean that one gives up on it. But if he continually found himself losing the battle and intensely unhappy, why did he not go to his spiritual adviser or Bishop and make a plan to leave the priesthood?

Good point! And it does seem too convenient that he could just switch churches. I can't imagine that would be a seamless transition. He seems to have a superstar personality though, I think he'll be happy to make changes in theology as long as he can still be a star. And perhaps the Episcopal church is taking him in as a way to the thumb their noses at the RC church?

On the other hand, as a non-religious person, it's hard for me to get worked up over what two consenting adults are doing. My first thought when I read this story was the stark contrast between it and the sex abuse stuff. This is so public and some people are so outraged/upset. But it seemed like the main goal of the RC church with the sex abuse stuff was for it NOT to be public. It seems like it should be the opposite. Keep horrible, evil abuse of children secret, but promote public outrage over what two consenting adults did together? That's what bugs me about this story.

[Tracy]

Well, I have been watching The Tudors (on Showtime) and of course the shift from RC to Angelican all happened under Henry VIII so I am watching a lot of battles over it....but the funny thing about it is I keep saying to my husband.."So many battles so many people dead because of it and seriously 500 years later, is it really such a big deal that England has its own church?"

kind of lost on me.

anyway, it seems like a natural spot for him.

[chfriend]

The Roman Catholic Church accepts married Episcopalian priests who wish to convert.

This feels like an equal exchange.

[lilyka]

i think it is fine for him to reconsider his ability to keep his vow of chastity, but like a PP said its about more than switching denominations. he broke a vow. Did so while pretending to be something he wasn't. The article didn't mention how involved they are but I am guessing this very well may be a sexual relationship which I am not sure how the episcopal church feels about that but there is a whole 'nother bunch of issues. leave the catholic church or at least the priesthood? by all means. he clearly isn't up to the challenge of life long celibacy. no judgment there. i certainly am not . but you get your affairs in order, court the girl and marry the girl and sleep with the girl in that order . . . . and I don't know if he is just going to slide into the position of preist or not but i certainly think that is a bad idea. We do accept convert clergy but if someone was loosing their position because of clear sin then I doubt they would make it in (they would of course still be free to begin the conversion process as a lay person). Also the usual course is not directly to the preisthood.

[anjelika]

I think it's a good thing. I really don't agree with mandatory celibacy for the priesthood, for this reason. A person shouldn't have to choose between marriage and service to God...

That said, he should have "resigned" before beginning this relationship.

Hopefully the Episcopal Church will be a better fit...

[holyhelianthus]

Obviously the RC believes in mandatory celibacy for their Priests so I'm not going to say what they should and should not believe in that respect. I know *I* don't agree with that but hey I'm not RC.

I agree with the PPs. To me it doesn't matter whether or not I feel he should be able to be in a relationship- he made vows. I don't hold those lightly even when made outside of my own religion. To me it brings up questions of his real priorities . Now if he slipped up and said so that'd be something different- we are all human- but to go and break one's vows and then after the fact switch over to something more lenient isn't really winning him points in my book. I like the marriage anaolgy a PP used.

[Peppermint]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

I think there are two sides to this - the Roman Catholic side, and the Episcopal side.

On the Roman Catholic side, the RC church does recognize that it is possible to have married priests, that is not in dispute. They have decided, however, to have a celibate clergy, as they feel that is a better model. There is debate over this of course, but I think there is some good reasons for this point of view; it allows the priest to commit himself totally to his priestly work, it means that salaries do not need to support whole families, and being the family of a priest is not always a nice situation either.

There are ways he could have left the RC priesthood if he realized that he could not keep the vow, and wanted to marry. Of course it is not only priests that are to remain celibate, it is all unmarried persons. So he was not only breaking his vow to remain celibate and unmarried, he was committing the sin of fornication. I think it is one thing to do something like this - many others certainly have fallen prey to that kind of sin - another to try and justify it the way he seemed to. He went about it in an ass-backwards kind of way that is not to his credit.

I also am a bit skeptical of the statement that he "couldn't" keep his vow - I wouldn't totally dismiss it, but just because a person struggles with a vow, willingly taken, doesn't mean that one gives up on it. But if he continually found himself losing the battle and intensely unhappy, why did he not go to his spiritual adviser or Bishop and make a plan to leave the priesthood?

On the Episcopal side, I wish I were more shocked that they have just taken this guy in, and that they don't see all these issues as speaking to his ability to be a priest/leader in their community. It seems to me there are any number of spiritual issues he needs to take time to work out.

All that ignores too whether he really thinks Episcopal orders are valid, which RCs normally don't. It seems a bit convenient that this question has suddenly been resolved for him in favour of the Episcopal position, just when he needed a job.

:

On a personal, "what did I think when I saw this?" level- honestly- my first thought was "buh-bye Cutie! Have fun Episcopalians!"

Upon further thought- I have to concern myself with the state of his soul, so- he has my prayers, and I pray he repents.

I am not totally opposed to married priesthood (though, I do prefer things the way they are now, for the reasons stated above), but- this isn't about married priesthood, it is about a priest who broke his vows, seems to feel no remorse for doing so, and basically went where he thought his life would be "easier".

I am not surprised that the Episcopalians just took him in, but I don't suppose I know a lot about how they do things....

[mammal_mama]

This is one of many reasons that I believe in moving away from hierarchy. The RC church is saying all these people are "hurt" by what's happened -- and I can't help thinking, yeah, no one acts in a vaccum and everything we do affects people around us -- but why the big deal about a Priest falling in love and breaking vows? How is that any different from your neighbor doing it?

This reminds me of how my old youth pastor got caught in an extramarital affair a few years after I finished high school. When I heard how some of the kids who were currently in the youth group had decided to become sexually-active over this, I just thought Well, that's their choice ...

To me, seeing my youth pastor lose his career and totally turn things upside-down for his wife and their young son, made more, not less, of a case for using wisdom in my own life. It was so sad how she was trying to sell Tupperware to bring in some money, and the only people she knew were church people so that's of course who she had to call on.

I don't know where some of the kids saw that as "He 'got away with it,' so why can't I?" I think that just goes to show that if people are bent on doing something, they'll literally see horrible consequences as "getting away with it."

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by chfriend

The Roman Catholic Church accepts married Episcopalian priests who wish to convert.

This feels like an equal exchange.

Occasionally, but not always (as priests.) But certainly not ones who are removed from their positions for reasons like this; having broken their vows over a period of time, tried to keep it secret, and only having come clean when discovered.

[ledzepplon]

Honestly, as a RC, I was surprised. It's ambiguous to me whether the Episcopalian church accepted him as just a member or as a priest, but if they are welcoming him as a priest, I don't quite get it. He broke his vow of celibacy and was involved in a scandalous relationship with a woman . . . it seems like there might be better candidates.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by ledzepplon

Honestly, as a RC, I was surprised. It's ambiguous to me whether the Episcopalian church accepted him as just a member or as a priest, but if they are welcoming him as a priest, I don't quite get it. He broke his vow of celibacy and was involved in a scandalous relationship with a woman . . . it seems like there might be better candidates.

The article says he will "pursue the priesthood". So I guess he will likely have to go through most of the regular hoops, other than I would assume his educational requirements would already have been filled. But the Bishop could always say no after he's done all the tests and so on.

[Tradd]

Originally Posted by ledzepplon

Honestly, as a RC, I was surprised. It's ambiguous to me whether the Episcopalian church accepted him as just a member or as a priest, but if they are welcoming him as a priest, I don't quite get it. He broke his vow of celibacy and was involved in a scandalous relationship with a woman . . . it seems like there might be better candidates.

I'm going to be rather blunt here - but something to remember is that I was an Episcopalian, one who was asked to leave a congregation by the rector because I expressed some conservative opinions in a small group.

They do appear to take just about anyone. The ECUSA ministry has long been a refuge for those who got in trouble with the Roman hierarchy - Matthew Fox is one (I believe that's his name, heard him speak years ago). ECUSA standards are definitely NOT that of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

Given some of what goes on in ECUSA, I'd suspect that a prospective clergyman having a non-marital relationship is hardly an issue.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Tradd

I'm going to be rather blunt here - but something to remember is that I was an Episcopalian, one who was asked to leave a congregation by the rector because I expressed some conservative opinions in a small group.

They do appear to take just about anyone. The ECUSA ministry has long been a refuge for those who got in trouble with the Roman hierarchy - Matthew Fox is one (I believe that's his name, heard him speak years ago). ECUSA standards are definitely NOT that of the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.

Given some of what goes on in ECUSA, I'd suspect that a prospective clergyman having a non-marital relationship is hardly an issue.

Sad but true.

[lilyka]

i was afraid that might be the case.