Fake celibacy, part 3: Father What-a-waste?
Monday, May 11, 2009
By Bryan Cones
Comments (22)
I was away from the office when news of the racy photos of Father Alberto Cutie (CU-ti-ay) broke; the Miami priest who runs (or used to run) a Catholic media outlet along with a parish in the Miami archdiocese, is now appearing on CBS' The Early Show. What's most surprising to me about the news coverage: the lack of outrage among the faithful. In fact, they're rallying to his side, while acknowledging that the archdiocese did the right thing in suspending him.
According to a poll of 400 people in the area, a huge majority, nearly 80 percent, thinks the church's celibacy rule is outdated and so don't seem too upset that Father Cutie has apparently had a romantic relationship for the past 10 years. Most, it seems, would be happy to have him go on ministering as a priest, despite the girlfriend. (Maybe they would prefer he go ahead and get married.)
The researcher makes the mistake of saying these Catholics are rejecting a "dogma" of the church, which, of course they are not. They're just saying that they'd rather have a popular priest who is married than no priest at all.
Me too.
Posted in: In preview mode
Fr. Cutie, caught dating widow, decides to join Episcopal Church
By T. O'Rourke (not verified) on Friday, May 29, 2009What is Dogma? Rejoinder
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Tuesday, May 12, 2009Hello,
Nice reply, David.
Excluding the deliberation of the laity laboring to assign infallibility or not to the various divisions of the magisterium (extraordinary ex cathedra, extraordinary by means of council, ordinary papal, and ordinary through a particular bishopric) and how that deliberation may or may not conclusively determine if a particular teaching is infallible or not as it regards the magisterium of ordinary papal teaching, all laymen are required to submit their wills and intellects to that of the mind and will of the Holy Father regarding the judgments he has made nevertheless.
To do so otherwise publicly is to dissent from the doctrine being repeatedly expounded and maintained by the Church and to then draw the Church into scandal, as U.S. Catholic unfortunately often does, i.e., I am still waiting for Bryan to acknowledge papal infallibility, ex cathedra, over that of a council. Nevertheless, I am confident that he has been soundly refuted by his own criteria for judging. As for the rest, bit by bit.
Even if a particular doctrine does not require full assent of faith all doctrines maintained by the Church require our wills to be in conformity with them, anyway. That is all of them. We cannot pick and choose what doctrines we will follow nor can we publicly lobby the hierarchy and others to change what doctrines we do not like. That is for the hierarchy to do and it is for them alone to decide to what doctrines we must submit our wills.
We must regain our place—there is a hierarchy. Where there is a hierarchy some people give according to the gifts bestowed on them and some people revive according to the gifts bestowed on them—complementary not reciprocity—or else Christ was wrong.
The laity is called to receive not to undermine Christ’s Church from the inside for the whole world to see. If you don’t believe me, believe the doctrine that the Church maintained in VII.
“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents...
Timothy+
Response to Timothy on dogma & discipline
By David Phillips (not verified) on Tuesday, May 12, 2009A definition I found for dogma is: "the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from."
The term dogma implies a teaching of faith or morals that cannot be disputed- i.e. is infallible.
Disciplines of the Church- such as the wearing of certain colored vestments for certain feasts and seasons, rules regarding clerical dress, titles, parish boundaries, days of fast and abstinence, celibacy required for secular Roman rite priests...the list could go on and on and on- all of these are not a matter of irreformable dogma. That was the point of what I wrote- in answer to your question "What is dogma?"
We should be obedient to the laws and disciplines of the Church. But how can you expect the laity to do this though, when most of the priests/clergy of today, unfortunately, completely disregard these laws and disciplines?
In any event, I disagree with your vision of a Church wherein the laity simply quietly "listen" for the hierarchy to speak. We must not forget that Vatican II especially called the laity to take an active role in the Church and that their pastors should listen to them.
Also, the "sense of the faithful" has always been a vital part of Church history and has in many cases saved the Church from disaster.
We would still have Popes in France- not in Rome- if some of the "non-hierarchy" members of the Church had not taken a stand.
The Ambrosian Rite would have been lost had the faithful of Milan had not risen up and stopped the Roman Rite from being imposed upon them.
The bishop who called for Joan of Arc to be burned at the stake for heresy was wrong.
And there are so many more examples.
Yes, the hierarchy are anointed by Christ in a special way. But remember, we are ALL anointed "priest, prophet, and king" at our baptism.
Hello again
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Tuesday, May 12, 2009Greetings,
Yes, David. We both know how dogma is defined, and I suspect that you know what it is but that is not my infallible sense of the faithful telling me that:-)
However, we are even to submit our wills to the ordinary magisterium (not ex cathedra or any of the two “extraordinariness” or the other ordinary).
That submission of will obviously includes canon law, which encapsulates Church disciplines that must be followed and not merely begrudgingly listen to when we wished we had a voice otherwise.
And I would disagree that VII had in mind that the laity should use their new freedom to undermine the Church from within by dissenting from the ordinary magisterium when it expressly stated that the laity’s mission was particularly suited to bring the Church to the world.
Best,
Timothy+
Hello Tim
By David Phillips (not verified) on Wednesday, May 13, 2009I agree that we should as a norm submit to the ordinary magisterium of the Church. (Please, let me clarify, I am not saying that we need only submit to the extraordinary magisterium. I am even open to the possibility the universal ordinary magisterium might even be infallible/protected from error.)
But when I speak of ordinary magisterium (teaching authority), I am speaking of encyclicals, conciliar documents, and documents of the Curia that are TEACHING something regarding the Faith or morals.
Laws, rules, and disciplines of the Church are also binding, sometimes even under penalty of sin. (These laws, including the discipline/rule of celibacy required of the Roman rite clergy, are indeed binding, and for all I know, may be protected from error by the Holy Spirit as well.) But I take issue with the implication that these laws somehow cannot be questioned or discussed. These laws, rules, and disciplines are certainly within the scope of the hierarchy's *authority* over the Church...but are they really considered part of the *magisterium* ??? When a bishop orders that a certain parish be closed, is that magisterium? I guess I never thought of that as "teaching authority" or "magisterium"... simply the hierarchy exercising its ruling authority (not teaching authority) over the Church.
But, again, the hierarchy is not the sole source of life or direction in the Church. There is prophecy and there are prophets, there are theologians, there are saints, there are mystics, and there are the lay faithful and the sense of the faithful.
Again, had we simply followed every whim of every pope without question- we'd still have popes in Avignon.
Heck, it's only because of years of firm resistance to the hierarchy from traditionalists (whether we agree with it or not) that the Holy See has now finally liberalized the 1962 Missal.
Magisterium of the Church
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Wednesday, May 13, 2009Greetings David,
That was another fine response.
Yes, all authority implemented by any Bishop in any form whatsoever is to be considered part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. What is more, when the Bishop of Rome implements authority in any form it is to be considered universal unless it just pertains to the See of Rome. A Bishop is to teach, sanctify, and govern, all of which directly concern the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly states regarding the authority of the Magisterium (in any form) and the necessary submission to it required by the laity, even concerning "disciplines", “They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity” (CCC 2037,links to follow). That is docility in charity regarding the observance of all constitutions and decrees that are conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church.
And as Lumen Gentium states, “This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (Lumen Gentium, Article 25)
To do otherwise is to dissent by definition, David. I do agree with you, however, that both right and left can dissent. I maintain that the left does so far more often than the right but the right is never right for so doing.
These doctrines, which the Pope disseminates from the universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, are not whimsical personal fancies. However, I am glad that the Church has learned its lesson regarding the anti-popes.
"Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church. (CCC 2039)
Best,
Timothy+
http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3art3.shtml
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents...
http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3art3.shtml
Thanks Timothy
By David Phillips (not verified) on Wednesday, May 13, 2009Hi Timothy... Thank you for this response and the links. I'll ponder this.
Sincerely,
Dave
And I forgot to say that
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Tuesday, May 12, 2009And I forgot to say that disciplines, and the entire law book from which they are maintained, are obviously directly germane to our faith or else there would be no need to codify the rules of the faith in a book.
T+
What is dogma? reply
By David Phillips (not verified) on Tuesday, May 12, 2009Admittedly, there are unanswered questions in the realm of what is dogma and what is not, what is infallible and what is not. For example, some [conservative/traditional] theologians do actually hold that the "universal ordinary magisterium" (non-ex cathedra but universal teaching) is infallible. Some hold that Humanae Vitae would fall under this category and therefore is infallible. Many do not share this view, of course. Perhaps the Church will solve some of these problems/questions in future teachings/councils.
We know that the articles of faith contained in the Creeds fall under the category of dogma. Certainly the infallible teachings about the Virgin Mary, defined ex cathedra by Popes Pius IX and Pius XII, are dogmas... hence they are called Marian dogmas. Infallible teachings taught by councils like Trent (e.g. transubstantiation) are also dogmas.
I am not sure that I agree with Bryan that the ecumenical council is THE highest teaching authority in the Church- it certainly is among the highest (infallible teachings of the Pope himself being equal [or superior to, in the case of council teaching that is not infallible]).
Not everything taught by an ecumenical council is infallible. Councils can and do touch on matters of discipline and Church law which are not infallible and are subject to change.
In addition, Vatican II was specifically a "pastoral council" and explicitly did not set out to teach any new dogmas. The only infallible teachings in Vatican II are definitely only those that are repetitions of previous teachings. There are new teachings in Vatican II. These may be authoritative, but they are not dogmas and are not infallible.
There is no possible way that one could say that the requirement of celibacy of Latin clergy is a dogma or an infallible teaching. It is a matter of discipline and of Church law. We can dialogue over whether we believe requiring this discipline for all of the Latin clergy is best for today's Church or not, without being disloyal to the Faith.
We already have married priests in the Catholic Church (in the Eastern rites). In addition, we know that John Paul II allowed exceptions in the Latin Rite for some former Episcopal/Protestant ministers who converted to Catholicism and were ordained Catholic priests.
There is a strong argument on both sides regarding the law that requires Roman rite clergy to be celibate. Let's continue the discussion.
Also, I'll close with a couple of clarifications: We know that the discipline of celibacy was blessed by Our Lord Himself in Scripture (as well as in Church teachings including those of Vatican II). We know for sure that celibacy/chastity is a precious gift to the Church. The question at hand is, should celibacy required of *all* Roman clergy, including the secular (diocesan) clergy? In addition, we know that even if married men could someday be ordained to the secular priesthood of the Roman rite, that the religious orders - religious priests, brothers, and sisters- will always have vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. (So as far as religious go, the discipline of chastity is an integral part of their way of life, and is not in question.)
Further, if married men were allowed to be ordained to the diocesan Roman rite priesthood (which I am not convinced is a good idea at this time, but I think could be in the right circumstances), it would be much like the permanent diaconate in the Roman rite today: Already-married men could be ordained. If their wives passed away, they could not remarry. And single men could not be ordained and then marry later...single men who were ordained would have to remain celibate. The rule, as known in the Eastern churches, would be "no matrimony after ordination."
-Dave Phillips
What is dogma?
By TIMOTHY G. B. O'ROURKE (not verified) on Tuesday, May 12, 2009Hello,
What is dogma?
Bryan has stated before that the most authoritative teaching from the Church comes from a council convened by a pope.
That must be dogma, then, right?
Is dogma merely the articles of the faith? Is dogma also the ex cathedra rulings?
Yesterday, Bryan claimed that dogma must come from the deposit of faith. Well, yeah, as all the Church’s councils did, which organically (grew) systematized the Creed, refuted heresies, defined the Trinity, and proposed the entire faith to be believed from the germ of the depositum fidei from the apostles, which has been entrusted to the Church’s interpenetration by Jesus. Ex cathedra came from a council too so that must be dogma along with all the Marian dogmas, right?
I mean, gee, even the Catechism has been explicitly defined by the Church to be the sure norm for teaching the Faith and Apostolic Authority verified its Doctrinal value.
Are doctrines not to be considered dogmas?
Or can we all believe what we want to as long as it does not deviate from the Creed? Well, if that be the case, then Bryan can’t not really claim that all Catholics must believe the teachings that he only selectively chooses from VII if he does not also believe the rest of the teachings from VII.
I mean VII did introduce some teaching that bound the Faithful that was different from what was previously taught.
Why then, Bryan, are you claiming that certain groups must assent to certain new teachings when you yourself want to go back to certain old teachings?
I assent to what is placed before me by the Church. I recommend that we all assent to the entire depositum fidei. Otherwise we have no right to claim that another person or group is wrong for doing exactly what we are doing.
“This holy synod asks not only priests but all the faithful that they might receive this precious gift of priestly celibacy in their hearts and ask of God that he will always bestow this gift upon his Church.”
Presbyterorum ordinis, Vatican II Council (the most authoritative teaching from the Church or not)
Timothy+
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.
